Erm… people need to start actually READING what he writes and answer the actual questions he asks (if they can without repeating lies) or repeating things outside off THEIR area of expertise.
But it's pointless, as he isn't arguing in good faith
When someone points him to scientific evidence, he says it's all flawed because that's it's from the climate mafia, vested interests etc etc
When someone presents data to him directly, he pretends to be engaging in the science sceptically by picking holes in it. When it's pointed out that he's wrong, he reverts back to the conspiracy line
Look at the response to klunk on the last page
It also looks like he posted a big chunk of text from chatgpt -- it reads nothing like any of his other posts
Better land use will save the world 'cos it's a science fact by some randomer on the internet!!
So if land use isn't relevant, we can deforest the entire Amazon rainforest for cattle grazing then can we? 😉
Likewise, Team Armageddon zealots (randomers on the internet one and all) use that exact statement about Grouse Moors etc all the time in relation to carbon storage and flooding in the uplands.
Land Use is the biggest climate related lever at our disposal. To preside over its neglect to the extent of a 25,000,000 acre wildfire should be enough to put Trudeau in Jail.
"Faith" (Good or otherwise) is an appropriate word for some of the ludicrous statements made in this thread. Someone deciding (for example) to make a decision as vast as that of not having children off the back of "The Science Inc." is putting an awful lot of sway into the hands of a scientist whose motives you may not like were you to question them or one whose study may be retracted at a later date (like the '000's of others each year quietly removed without the fanfare that accompanied their original 'findings').
Matt Ridley hit the nail on the head several times today in relation to this thread
As this example shows, the real scandal in science is not the criminal frauds, of which there are always a small number, nor the data dredging and fire-hose publishing, but the gate-keeping, groupthink and bias that politicises some fields of science, turning it into the dogma known as ‘the science’. The pandemic provided a glimpse of just how far senior scientists will go to bend conclusions to a preferred narrative and suppress debate.
Last month 47 scientists wrote a letter to the editor of Nature Medicine requesting retraction of the Proximal Origin paper, and arguing that ‘the authors’ statements show that the paper was, and is, a product of scientific misconduct’. So far the editor, Joao Monteiro, has refused to consider retraction, arguing that it was just an opinion piece, despite the fact that it was peer-reviewed and hailed as a case-closing study.
The pandemic showed how science could be reformed. Many results were posted online as ‘pre-prints’ before being peer-reviewed. This allowed all of us, expert or otherwise, to analyse the evidence and if necessary tear the conclusions to shreds – without hiding behind anonymity. Some of the best ‘peer reviewers’ in this public sense were people outside the conflicted priesthood of virology or epidemiology. Such radical transparency will be vital to the reform of science, just as it was to the Church in Martin Luther’s day. ‘If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along,’ said Carl Sagan.
Some of you are not just up for grabs, you've been caught hook line and sinker.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/science-fiction-the-crisis-in-research/
Kudos to SteveXTC, Crosshair and Edukator for speaking from experience and with intelligence. Interesting reading from all of you. Whether you agree with their words is not here nor there, we would all learn more if we opened our ears to different opinions. The media is pushing bullshit fear mongering, it’s what they do! Having grown up in the countryside much of what Crosshair speaks of rings true.
If you were even a remotely serious bot you wouldn't quote The Spectator.
Also why does a bot have such a boner for Trudeau?
The media is pushing bullshit fear mongering, it’s what they do! Having grown up in the countryside much of what Crosshair speaks of rings true.
Extra point for mentioning media pushing bullshit and backing up Crosshair just one hour after they put in a link from the Spectator, the ****ing Spectator for gods sake.
😂
Extra point for mentioning media pushing bullshit and backing up Crosshair just one hour after they put in a link from the Spectator, the **** Spectator for gods sake.
Yep, we can all trust Matt Ridley, who broke the ministerial code by not disclosing financial interests in fracking, to highlight the untrustworthiness of climate science
Can I call "HOUSE!" please as I've just got a full card on my 'Conspiracy Theory (Climate Change edition 3.4)' card?
BTW the Land Use argument is valid in a way as it is part of the solution but Crosshair is doing a LOT of heavy lifting with it and dismissing every other argument because of this.
BTW the Land Use argument is valid in a way as it is part of the solution but Crosshair is doing a LOT of heavy lifting with it and dismissing every other argument because of this.
Spot on
Also why does a bot have such a boner for Trudeau?
i’m interested in the firebreaks that are said to have divided up canada’s forests. i’ve flown over canada a few times, but i’ve never noticed them, or signs that they existed
i also want to know what the objective of his climate agenda is, assuming it’s not to curb global warming
We are in this mess BECAUSE of the lying organisations like Greenpeace and FOTE. They are STILL prioritising their anti-nuclear stance over millions to tens of millions dying.
Not sure it's as simple as you suggest.
France nuclear power generation 68%
UK nuclear power generation 14%
France CO2 emissions per capita per annum - 4.46t
UK CO2 emissions per capital per annum - 5.2t
France CO2 per kWh in 2022 - 75g
UK CO2 per kWh in 2022 - 18g..???
We are in this mess because of massive over-consumption all across society, nuclear vs gas/renewable is a not a major factor.
Nuttidave 🤔 name checks out.
Whether for grouse shooting or not, can someone please tell me, definitively, if we're doomed or not?
We iz proppa feccin fecc'd
legometeorology
But it’s pointless, as he isn’t arguing in good faith
When someone points him to scientific evidence, he says it’s all flawed because that’s it’s from the climate mafia, vested interests etc etc
When someone presents data to him directly, he pretends to be engaging in the science sceptically by picking holes in it. When it’s pointed out that he’s wrong, he reverts back to the conspiracy line
Look at the response to klunk on the last page
It also looks like he posted a big chunk of text from chatgpt — it reads nothing like any of his other posts
They are just being human... (whether it was chat GPT or not)
Noone is presenting primary data to him they are presenting interpretations... unless you happen to have access to scientific periodicals you don't get data. [This is perhaps a seperate issue not specific to this but that's the way it is and it doesn't carry well into t'interweb and "information age"]
climate mafia, vested interests etc etc
Sure, but there is plenty of "evidence" of vested interests. Indeed for a non scientist there is far more publicly available evidence for "vested interests" than there is for the EFFECTS of climate change.
The thing is just because some people have vested interests doesn't make it "fake"... but you can see why it might look that way?
I'd encourage you to read some of the criticisms and predictions for post normal science... because crosshairs response is entirely expected and predicted.
Essentially from my POV post normal science isn't science, its about policy. The issue is the way it is presented as "following the science" (to coin a term) and how that undermines the general public's faith/belief in science.
It doesn't help that there are all sorts of interests conflating climate change (something with an overwhelming scientific consensus) with special interests be that anti-hunting or anti-nuclear etc.
Look at the response to klunk on the last page
That doesn't answer the question though...
Firstly someone (can't be bothered to go back and look because it doesn't change anything) said we had already hit 1.5C above - secondly the graph doesn't say what +1.5 is relative to and thirdly it's not actual data or referenced to the data.
So crosshair now has two people telling him
a) we already hit 1.5C above pre-industrial
b) we didn't
Being human and not a scientist they are going to take the one fits what they believe.
Again I'd refer to the video of Hossenfelder in a role of "science communicator" (not as a theoretical physicist) with a real climate scientist.
So, what, 20 years later people are still not able to understand that science isn't able to prove anything much and certainly nothing as complex as climate change. Luckily it provides such rich ground for argumentiers.
molgrips
Not sure it’s as simple as you suggest.
Of course it isn't simple but it hasn't stopped greenpeace and fote continuing to spread lies and FUD
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?contextual=region&end=2020&locations=FR-JP-DE-SE-GB&start=2010&view=chart
Percentage nuclear is less important than base load if there are significant renewables so its not "simple" but removing the option altogether (as germany has done in law) and replacing it with coal can't get much worse.
Compare Germany and Sweden... 7.3 and 3.2 metric tons per capita (or Ukraine though I'm not suggesting we copy soviet tech)
Sorry this is just to 2020 .. Japan has now reversed to new gen nuclear with a 3yr lead... Germany just reopened mines and coal powered generation.
Mind you blaming Greenpeace for climate change is a fairly awesome but of argumenitering
anagallis_arvensis
Mind you blaming Greenpeace for climate change is a fairly awesome but of argumenitering
Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn't be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.
Even today....
Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, hazardous and slow to build. It is often referred to as ‘clean’ energy because it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases when electricity is generated but the reality is that it isn’t a plausible alternative to renewable energy sources.
Noone (barely) is suggesting it's an alternative... ideally you need baseload and renewables
Building nuclear reactors is costly, running into billions of pounds. The UK’s new Hinkley Point C reactor could cost over £25 billion by the time it’s finished, leading it to be called “the most expensive object on Earth”. Such huge sums of money would be better invested in truly clean energy, such as wind power which produces energy more cheaply.
Noone (barely) is suggesting it's an alternative... ideally you need baseload and renewables but they won't accept anything nuclear.
Reactors are also complicated things to build. A new reactor in Finland was delivered 14 years behind schedule, thanks to problems with the reactor design. Hinkley C was supposed to be producing energy by 2017, but it now isn’t due until 2027. The nuclear industry’s track record suggests it will be delayed even further. Climate change is already happening and we simply can’t wait that long when wind and solar power are so much quicker to install.
More misleading... look at Japan and South Korea. Trying to use Hinkley C as an example when they were the ones campaigning against it being built and responsible for many of the delays is total hypocrisy.
Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn’t be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.
Can you prove that?
For baseload we need tidal flow. If all the money wasted on nuclear over the last 50years had been spent on tidal flow instead we would have plentiful clean power
anagallis_arvensis
Without the environmental groups being rabidly anti-nuclear for the last 1/2 century we wouldn’t be using so much CO2 emitting power generation.
Can you prove that?
In what way ... can I prove they were partially funded by the fossil fuel industry? Of course its a matter of record. (you can find this yourself very easily)
Have they campaigned against any and all nuclear? its a matter of record
Has their stated intent to be to prevent nuclear energy ?
Would the fossil fuel industry be paying them if it was ineffective? Hard to prove that, but they aren't exactly known for their purely generous and selfless nature.
Are they continuing to do so today ? It's on THEIR WEBSITE - along with disinformation.
Even faced with climate change they simply change their narrative...
You can put nuclear in a plan but it's really expenisve over the lifespan of a power station, disproportionately so. Away from that the history of waste storage and accidents isn't pretty.
Arguing with Crosshair is pretty hard work on a forum as he's got such a background of misinformation and opinion to battle. It's not just tweaking a few numbers up or down.
If all the money wasted on nuclear over the last 50years had been spent on tidal flow instead we would have plentiful clean power
Maybe but we would of most likely created huge damage to the marine environment and destroyed internationally important tidal habitats
In what way … can I prove they were partially funded by the fossil fuel industry? Of course its a matter of record. (you can find this yourself very easily)
Have they campaigned against any and all nuclear? its a matter of record
Has their stated intent to be to prevent nuclear energy ?Would the fossil fuel industry be paying them if it was ineffective? Hard to prove that, but they aren’t exactly known for their purely generous and selfless nature.
Are they continuing to do so today ? It’s on THEIR WEBSITE – along with disinformation.
Even faced with climate change they simply change their narrative…
So that's a no then eh? Makes you think doesn't it!
Didn’t greenpeace publicly say that they were directly responsible for a massive amount of CO2 pollution due to their anti nuclear stance ??
i’m sure I remember seeing a tv program which said exactly that.
and it was greenpeace that were saying it, not someone else claiming ‘greenpeace did this that or whatever’
Didn’t greenpeace publicly say that they were directly responsible for a massive amount of CO2 pollution due to their anti nuclear stance ??
I don't know, did they? Unless they set fire to a load of coal oil or gas it doesn't make it true.
Greentricky. tidal FLOW is much less damaging than barrages
anagallis_arvensis
So that’s a no then eh? Makes you think doesn’t it!
Either way they are LIARS... either they have been lying about their stated aims to prevent nuclear energy or they are lying about the disinformation.
Which one do YOU believe..?
martymac
Didn’t greenpeace publicly say that they were directly responsible for a massive amount of CO2 pollution due to their anti nuclear stance ??
i’m sure I remember seeing a tv program which said exactly that.
and it was greenpeace that were saying it, not someone else claiming ‘greenpeace did this that or whatever’
I've not seen that TBH but I suspect it's an ex-greenpeace person, as per the video crossfire posted earlier of the ex founder.
anagallis_arvensis
I don’t know, did they? Unless they set fire to a load of coal oil or gas it doesn’t make it true.
of course it's true they are one of the main organisations that have prevented adoption of nucelar and instead encouraged burning of coal, oil and gas
UK reopening deep coal mines and extnding coal powered generation, germany getting rid of nuclear and switching back to coal...
its all on them but they are too gutless to admit they are the cause and misguided pricks keep funding them
I've had a look at the Greenpeace website. It seems clear to me. You're acusing them of lying, stevextc, the burden of proof is on you. Pick something on the website and prove it a lie with links not rumour, heresay and libel. seems to me that they are aware of contradicting issues and have decided to take a non ambiguous stand point. I'm not a donor but admirative of what they do.
I'm more of a fan of Friends of the Earth. As with any political movement I don't agree with everything they say but enough to make me a supporter.
I totally agree that a lot of environmentalists have dropped the ball by opposing nuclear, but that does not take away from the fact that fossil fuel interests have and are the main issue here
Not only have they been spreading misinformation about climate science for decades, but they have also been central to the anti-nuclear movement since the 1950s and an oil baron even seed funded Friends of the Earth in the hope that they killed off nuclear
Friends of the Earth accepted oil funding in 1969 at a time when many were still convinced planet earth was heading for the next ice age but nuclear war and nuclear accidents were of major concern to ecologists.
In my geology training the prospect of an imminent ice age was given as much time as the atmospheres of the planets and the changes in Earth's atmosphere through geological time. Man's role in changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere wasn't covered. It was only in the mid 80s that my work with Welsh Water led me to reading papers on CO2 in relation to global warming.
We are leaving two legacies for future generations, climatic change and a pile of nuclear waste to deal with, and probably a nuclear wasteland too given that man generally ends up using the weapons he builds.
Slagging off Greta, FOE and Greenpeace usually comes from petrolhead, gas central heating using, flying, intensive consuming hypocrits. Well? Because it's a bit embarrassing going on about EVs, solar, nuclear and ecoaviation when you have oil-fired central heating.
Get your own house in order before slagging off those trying to do something. And when your own house is in order and you've proved you can do it you'll realise a renewable future is possible with or without nuclear.
Are there any climate sceptics with whom one could have a sensible discussion? By which I mean people who don’t use playground insults to describe their opponents, claim elected politicians should be in prison or randomly type words in capitals. I’m open to hearing the arguments against man-made climate change, but as soon as I encounter any of those I switch off I’m afraid.
Stevextc doesn't know the difference between lying and being incorrect.
I’m open to hearing the arguments against man-made climate change, but as soon as I encounter any of those I switch off I’m afraid.
You will probably have hard time finding any. As I said a few pages back, it is good to question everything but there comes a time where such a vast majority of experts and scientists who have researched the subject all of their lives means you don't need to question the high level aspects of it, i.e. is it man made
a pile of nuclear waste to deal with
Not as much as you'd think. The vast majority of nuclear waste is only really dangerous in the short-to-medium term. This makes sense if you think it through - something with a long half-life is decaying slowly, which means a relatively low risk. We've been conditioned as society to hear "long half-life" and assume that it's dangerous.
The most severely radioactive byproducts from a nuclear reactor have half-lives measured between hours (where do you think nuclear medicine gets short-lived isotopes from?) and about 30 years. Pu-249 has a half-life of ~24,000 years but is broadly harmless provided that you don't eat it or sleep on top of it.
Wrap it in concrete and stainless steel, lob it in a deep hole somewhere and the problem is largely* dealt with.
* the biggest risk is water-source contamination, but you can mitigate that by burying deep below the water table / under the sea bed / or just putting it somewhere that you don't care about like Aylesbury.
of course it’s true they are one of the main organisations that have prevented adoption of nucelar and instead encouraged burning of coal, oil and gas
I thought these things were controlled by governments? How about you take the time foil hat off and open the other eye!!
LOL (edit: at flaperon's naivity)
There are piles of nuclear waste waiting to be buried and every final storage site I can think of is dogged with problems.
Go on , what is your propositon for the 4% of highly radioactive waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm a geologist remember and finding sites and materials to contain stuff over that time period isn't a problem I'd like to be asked to solve.
At present it's just in borosilicate glass in stainless steel containers piled up in various places because nobody knows what to do with it. Attempts at burying have so far been plagued with problems to the point that some should really be dug out again because it's leaking like a sieve - thankfully most of that is lower level waste that will only be polluting for thousands of years.
60 odd years and it's still piling up with no answers - that's the legacy were leaving to future generations.
That's waste, then we have operational leaks, about half the US reactors are leaking, leaks from French plants often make it onto the local news.
Then the "disasters".
There have been debates on STW before, I'm in the "no safe level" camp. The idea that any level of radiation is safe is nonsense, it's just that the level of background radiation means no causal link can be proven, even if it exists.
Go on , what is your propositon for the 4% of highly radioactive waste that is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m a geologist remember and finding sites and materials to contain stuff over that time period isn’t a problem I’d like to be asked to solve.
You accuse me of being naive? The irony. You literally can't have "highly radioactive" and "dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years" at the same time.
thankfully most of that is lower level waste that will only be polluting for thousands of years.
As flaperon explained, the longer the stuff is radioactive, the lower the intensity. As I understand it, a lot of the low-level waste doesn't actually have a lot of radioactive material, it's just diluted among other stuff and expensive to separate. So, there's a small volume of stuff that will be very dangerous for a relatively short time, and a large volume of stuff that isn't highly dangerous, but will take a long time to decay.
I think you need to do some reasearch, thols2, it's exactly the opposite of what you say.
There's the mass of low level stuff, clothes, gloves, material s with low levels of contamination. Then there's the 4% of spent fuel that can't be recycled and armaments waste:
https://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html
Edukator
Friends of the Earth accepted oil funding in 1969 at a time when many were still convinced planet earth was heading for the next ice age but nuclear war and nuclear accidents were of major concern to ecologists.
But it's no longer 1969 and they continue with the same anti-nuclear rhetoric
There is a VERY BASIC question ... do we do everything we can or just the stuff FOTH/Greenpeace say is acceptable?
Despite what you might think I'm not pro-nuclear or anti renewables ... I'm pro doing EVERYTHING to mitigate climate change at this point not just what Greenpeace or FOTH approve of without taking options off the table.
