@dazh, probably best that we just ignore the member that joined yesterday just to spam this thread with generic cherry picked nonesense. It'll risk derailling what has been a fascinating thread
Well now that I know who Ian Plimer is and he's told me everything is going to be totally fine I feel much better.
Now I'm off to see Jordan Peterson for some careers advice, then ask Andrew Tate how I can pick up some chicks. Then I'll order some of Alex Jones' brain-enhancement pills and head over to Pistonheads for some advice on a mid-engined supercar for making progress in the countryside.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
It won't change your mind but, to put it in your words-
One man thinking that they can show that human induced climate change doesn't exist relying on peer reviewed science that proves their case (peer reviewed science that makes up just 1% of our published literature) is a bit like King Canute thinking he can turn back the tide. Very much a case of ‘God complex’.
You're wrong, and I'm sure you know this, but I suspect it will be a waste of everyone's time engaging with you.
How do these people find threads on a bike forum to come and do wind ups in? How does a troll even Google us?
@dazh, probably best that we just ignore the member that joined yesterday just to spam this thread with generic cherry picked nonesense. It’ll risk derailling what has been a fascinating thread
Don't you mean it will risk ruining your Guardian fuelled echo chamber?
Oh and can you believe that the Just Stop Oil campaigner who threw orange confetti over George Osbourne at this wedding has been caught jetting off to Thailand for her holidays. Like most climate campaigners, full of hot air, double standards and hypocrisy. Do as I say but not as I do.
COP24 by private jet anyone?
COP24 by private jet anyone?
He does have a point there though.
troll, troll, troll, troll
Don’t you mean it will risk ruining your Guardian fuelled echo chamber?
F*** off. (I can keep this up all day but I won't as it'll stop others posting more interesting stuff)
@thisisnotaspoon – No combined cycle seawater reactors, not gas turbines (though CC at source using waste heat is a better idea than DACC as the waster turbine heat is a substantial energy source for destablisiing the symmetry in CO2 bond. CO2 is more easily freed from seawater with electricity than it is extracted from the air, so the research shows that it’s actually easier to extract CO2 from seawater and then just leave the seawater ionised to allow it to naturally absorb more CO2.
I dunno, my gut response on reading about it was that filtering the sea is going to take a f***ing long time even if it is more energy efficient than trying to filter the atmosphere, it's a relative 'more'.
Someone still has to fund and build these humongous industrial complexes, and build the power sources to run them.
Maybe in another millennium when all else has failed but we have some unlimited green power source. In the meantime I'm worried that this stuff is at best a distraction to con people into believing that they can keep on as they are because somewhere down the road there's a technological solution.
Another "idiot"with an open mind here...
"Nope, and why would I when all the reliable evidence from history (not modelling) points to climate change being driven by natural phenomena. Man thinking that they can change the climate by reducing CO2 production (CO2 that makes up just 0.04% of our atmosphere) is a bit like King Canute thinking he can turn back the tide. Very much a case of ‘God complex’."
The 20th century was a cold century. Growth rings on trees show this. It stopped short of matching the 17th century, when the Thames regularly froze over and cloggies skated around Amsterdam for fun, but was, apparently pretty damn parky. It was also when reliable meteorological records were begun.
It is interesting to note the formation of "group think" on this forum , as elsewhere, where any dissenting voices are swiftly shouted down, as during COVID. Dissent can not be tolerated. We may decide to party into oblivion...
However, the belief that "nothing can be done" , is no reason not to try and do something.
F*** off. (I can keep this up all day but I won’t as it’ll stop others posting more interesting stuff)
Hit a nerve have we?
I see that this proves the old adage, the truth does not mind being questioned, but a lie does not like to be challenged.
Nope, and why would I when all the reliable evidence from history (not modelling) points to climate change being driven by natural phenomena.
Oh and can you believe that the Just Stop Oil campaigner who threw orange confetti over George Osbourne at this wedding has been caught jetting off to Thailand for her holidays.
Nowt to do with JSO.
You are aware are you not that the last mini ice age occurred between 1645 and 1715 and caused temperatures in northern Europe to fall dramatically, with London’s River Thames freezing over during winter and sea ice extending for miles around the UK.
So what do you think will happen to the earths temperature after an ice age? Will it rise or will it fall?
What do you believe caused the mini ice age? Was it a reduction in manmade CO2 in the atmosphere?
I was aware. The most likely cause was either a reduction in solar radiation or an asteroid impact, but we'll never know as in the 17th century, we didn't have the ability to monitor such things. We now do. Solar activity (the biggest warming effect on the planet) is and has been largely constant (trend wise) over the last 80 years. Distance to the sun is (as far as we know) also stable and so intensity is also relatively constant and cyclical. But Co2 levels, atmospheric particulates, atmospheric disruption, air and sea temperature and acidity has seen continual rise inline with population size increase and human activity. How can you explain this?
maxcorkill
Man made climate change is proven. simple as that. If you don't believe in science its your call but the actual data is clear.
It is interesting to note the formation of “group think” on this forum , as elsewhere, where any dissenting voices are swiftly shouted down, as during COVID. Dissent can not be tolerated. We may decide to party into oblivion…
I think dissent can be tolerated, and is even welcomed, as illustrated by the UCI transgender thread until an onslaught of close-minded nonsense. But it needs to be informed - "climate change does not exist because my experience of the weather has been the same for 50 years/I've seen a YouTube vid/I think a JSO supporter has gone on a plane"" is just unengagable nonsense.
It is interesting to note the formation of “group think” on this forum , as elsewhere, where any dissenting voices are swiftly shouted down
It is not group think, it is very well acknowledged worldwide think. Those who try and put together an 'argument' such as the one above are pretty much like conspiracy theorists as their arguments are baseless and just putting a lot of things together to really miss the point.
Also, the fact that the person joined yesterday and links to pistonheads is a red flag is it not.
However, the belief that “nothing can be done” , is no reason not to try and do something.
Except when you are barking up the wrong tree of course that man made CO2 (rather than natural processes which we do not fully understand) is the driver of climate change, and that the solutions (e.g. electric cars as one example) often cause far more environmental damage than just improving current technologies and a slower paced introduction of alternatives based on merit rather than being driven by fear.
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
Have you got your tinfoil hat? Weird anti science rant
The fact that They joined yesterday is neither here nor there. I doubt they are a Troll trawling the internet for stuff to invade; more likely a regular contributor who knows their opinion will be derided by the brainwashed...
Temperature monitoring shows that the Twentieth Century was not a cold century. Generally 1c below the 1971-2000 average, but on average above temperatures observed in the Nineteenth Century.
Oh and can you believe that the Just Stop Oil campaigner who threw orange confetti over George Osbourne at this wedding has been caught jetting off to Thailand for her holidays. Like most climate campaigners, full of hot air, double standards and hypocrisy. Do as I say but not as I do.
I can believe it. They're young and human. Older folks like most of us should look at how many times we've taken a plane somewhere and perhaps stop because 1) it fks the planet 2) if we were to regulate or minimise flying perhaps young people should take the majority of what's left as they have a right to see the world if they can. Better from a climate pov that we grounded flights entirely perhaps, but that won't happen will it.
Anyway - attacking them for hypocrisy doesn't change the fact the message is right. I mean, standards and ethics should count for more than that but the message remains valid.
Perhaps the trip was balanced up with a lack of impact elsewhere and her overall CO2 footprint is still low, perhaps not - I don't know or particularly care tbh. The message is clear. Attacking the messenger personally is just a way for the deniers to deflect or let themselves off the hook that we're all on.
My personal 2p, we're in for a fked up decade partly due to climate change and partly by how the scumbags in power and business will use every trick they know to shield themselves at the expense of the rest of us, and nothing will be done to minimise the impact of what's likely to happen while we have the ****s we currently have in power. Just wait till water shortages become a problem.
It is interesting to note the formation of “group think” on this forum
Scientific consensus is not group think. If you want to argue that black is white that's up to you, but don't expect people to treat you seriously. Probably better if you f***** off as well TBH.
Perhaps its a forum regular who doesn't want to be vilified by the group for having an opinion, as you/we so often do?
I've been called a racist repeatedly by ernielynch due to my take on the "terrorists". A fantasist by TJ for proposing solutions which are actually modelled out using, y'know, real maths and everything. A greenwasher by Edukator, for actually knowing my field, what it actually contributes and how best to tackle it in the short, medium and long term without cementing the world in one place with a shrinking economy.
The big hitters are the most polarised.
I'm more than happy to debate with anyone.
Oooh, Daz is getting shirty!
"munrobikerFree Member
Temperature monitoring shows that the Twentieth Century was not a cold century. Generally 1c below the 1971-2000 average, but on average above temperatures observed in the Nineteenth Century."
So global warming started over 100 years ago?
Scientific consensus is not group think. If you want to argue that black is white that’s up to you, but don’t expect people to treat you seriously. Probably better if you f***** off as well TBH.
Thanks once again for your kind words.
You remember when the scientific consensus told us that Covid-19 very definitely came from a bat/pangolin or other animal from the wet market in Wuhan. And not from the Wuhan Institute of Virology undertaking gain of function research into Coronaviruses just up the road. And when scientists saying that it was a lab leak were labeled as outsiders, conspiracy loons etc? You remember this - right?
That graph is interesting - it does show the usual cycles of cooling and warming on earth that are entirely natural.
Perhaps a more useful (or, if I were being unkind, less misleading) one is this one, which is from a paper in Nature but has been produced independently in lots of papers dating back at least to when I was at uni in the late 2000s. It shows the sharpest rise in global temperature in history in the last 100 years. There are graphs that overlay atmospheric CO2 onto this and they correlate nicely.
0" alt="" />
I'm not posting this to argue with the troll by the way, just to clarify to everyone else what his graph shows.
A fantasist by TJ for proposing solutions which are actually modelled out using, y’know, real maths and everything.
Because that is what it is - greenwashing fantasy. You have proposed some fiddling around the edges using unproven tech. Its not a solution. Nothing you have suggested is within orders of magnitude of solving the issue.
So global warming started over 100 years ago?
Yep, pretty soon after the industrial revolution kicked off and we started pumping out CO2.
Okay - even assuming that man made climate change isn't actually a thing. Do you at least agree with the science that rising temperatures, sea levels, etc are going to cause massive human casualties, migration, etc? The science also shows that radiative forcing through atmospheric composition is also a significant contributor to warming effects. Whether those emissions are made made is another thing, but the science clearly shows that effects of composition.
Is it not then in our interests to be able to enact some form of engineered climate change to prevent/mitigate the effects of us entering a period of massive disruption?
In essence - natural or not, the change is coming. Do you want to sit idly by and do nothing or try to effect its outcome? Equate it to an asteroid impact. Previously as a species, we wouldn't have been able to do a damned thing, but now, with the right effort, we might just be able to alter a natural event to the benefit of mankind.
Except when you are barking up the wrong tree of course that man made CO2 (rather than natural processes which we do not fully understand) is the driver of climate change,
The point is about man-made Co2 emissions and the current rate of climate change. And how the warming accelerates via permafrost thaw and methane release, sea life reduction and/or other accelerators. Perhaps / likely we're in a warming cycle anyway but there is too much evidence RE CO2 output and warming to say it's just a natural thing and we're innocent bystanders. Take all those changes, the rate they'll happen and apply them to an over-populated, under-resourced and wealth-divided world ..? One solution is to stick one's head in the sand, I guess.
I think climate change denial (like COVID19) comes entirely from Establishment Fear. Replace an unknown (climate change, or a new disease) with a known (denial) then you can just ignore it, go on with your life without having to give it a second thought, must be nice.
What is weird is the fact that folks like our new troll will willingly operate as the propaganda voice for the folks who don't want oil sales to stop or slow down or don't want [for instance] lock-down because folks aren't going to the office block they own or the shops that they have shares in. I find it really wild that folks would willing side with the aims of massive corporate and financial interests that otherwise only care about their shareholders. They must laugh their tits off
Odd
You remember when the scientific consensus told us that Covid-19 very definitely came from a bat/pangolin or other animal from the wet market in Wuhan.
Climate change idiocy and covid conspiracies. You'll be banging on about 15 minute cities and digital currencies next. Just f*** off.
Replace an unknown (climate change, or a new disease) with a known (denial) then you can just ignore it, go on with your life without having to give it a second thought, must be nice.
I think so. It's ok to say "I just don't understand all this so I'll trust the consensus of those who have recognised expertise" but it seems that some prefer to have a strong opinion no matter what the topic or what it's based on, cynicism replaces knowledge of a subject. I accept the consensus can be wrong, may be in this case even, but it's less likely to be wrong than I am by 'doing my own research'.. And in this case if it's wrong then we're cleaning up the world a little by changing some habits and choices in life. Hardly a bad thing.
Well, at least the thread made it to page 6 before descending into this bulls**t
It's so fascinating that fossil fuel industry propaganda has been so successful as to paint climate scientists as the established, vested interests that are not to be trusted
The inversion of reality is so spectacular I can't help but be impressed
Because that is what it is – greenwashing fantasy. You have proposed some fiddling around the edges using unproven tech. Its not a solution. Nothing you have suggested is within orders of magnitude of solving the issue.
Aircraft operations and fuel reduction? Fantasy? No.
Aircraft space maximisation and weight minimisation to reduce fuel use? Fantasy? No.
Carbon capture and expansion of green energy provision to reduce emissions whilst investing in RnD to support innovation. Fantasy? No.
The first two would have a dramatic effect on aircraft emissions. The latter would start with a small effect, but would grow, globally and would invigorate green energy investment. As TINAS and I stated. Investment and knowledge around CC is still limited, but it has been shown to work, inefficiently, but work. Hydrogen? It's like CC but with the added excitement of explosion risk, it also leaks...everywhere.
The most important part is that both can be enacted NOW. Neither will change the game on their own, but they are/can be government driven, top down and do not require population approval.
Home insulation and renewables - could work well, but it's not a level global playing field. The government of the UK would have to sponsor it heavily, to make it work and it would cost far more here than elsewhere, placing the UK economy at risk.
I've said from the start that CC is a poor choice, but it's one of few things that're available right now, globally on an almost level playing field
What have YOU proposed?
Anyway, I need to get back to my "greenwashing fantasy" modelling of future energy scenarios and aviation ecosystems. 🙂
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system
But the money is ALL on the side of the fossil fuel industry. Their profits were 4 trillion in 2022.
Almost all publishing scientists think man made climate change is happening. If it was all about money why don't they all go and work in the fossil fuel industry rather than perpetuate a "global conspiracy". (Sorry I forget, it's all Bill Gates, WEF etc. "dark forces", globalists etc? )
For those saying it is wrong not to want to debate with certain people, do you still think that after this paragraph?
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
Good grief.
I'll be honest. I have kids, climate change scares me, but I still eat meat, still drive places, and still plan to fly on holiday occasionally when the kids get older.
My feeling is that either we come together on a global scale and everyone makes really tough sacrifices, or we are screwed. Individuals making really tough sacrifices, even loads of individuals, does not change the outcome, perhaps it just pushes the apocalypse back by a month.
So in many people's eyes, I am enormously hypocritical. I vote green, and would fully support "extreme" measures like global bans on flights, and rapid reduction on fossil fuel usage even at great expense to today's quality of living. But I am not willing to do this unless everyone else does it too. Only then does it make a difference. I only have one life and do not want to reduce the quality of it for no reason.
I would make an analogy to food supplies being handed out to unruly crowds of desperate people. There is loads of pushing and shoving and a queue would be both fairer and more efficient. I could try to start a queue, but nobody would join and I would starve. So instead I will join in the pushing and shoving, because I want to get food for my family. But I will also be shouting at the people handing out the food to say that there should be a queueing system.
Likewise, I am carrying on living the only life I have and trying to make it as enjoyable as possible (within reason). I wish there were better ways of showing that I would support much harsher climate change measures. I hate it when people villify just stop oil protestors for ever taking a flight to go on holiday.
I feel like many people have a similar mindset but have no means to share it.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is pretty overwhelming. The earth has natural structures in place for absorbing CO2, such as trees and the oceans. We’re producing more GHG’s than these natural sinks can handle. Therefore they are hanging around in the atmosphere like a particularly bad fart, making things unpleasant for everyone.
You aren’t spouting an alternative opinion, you aren’t special because you know something the rest of us, with our group think, are not aware of. You are ignorant and ill informed. Neither are a good thing but both are easily remedied.
I have a very basic level of education but I’m capable of reading and absorbing information. Please do yourself a favour. Stop listening to the 1% and broaden your approach. Linking to data from known outliers looking for an audience doesn’t help your cause.
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
Huge amounts, as opposed to the multi trillion* dollar turnover of oil and fossil energy companies.
*I got to 1.5trillion just adding up the first 5 big ones that came to mind,
@Fueled - perfectly put. I reckon most folk are willing to make some changes but not to be the only/few doing so. Personally, I've cut my travelling significantly - two short flights in the past 10 years and I don't drive anywhere near as much as I once did - but I'm aware of most folk I know (even those who claim to be environmentally aware) jumping on aircraft without a second thought. This thread has been great at helping me see where the most significant changes need to me made though. For instance, perhaps thinking less about air travel and more about diet.
In a similar vein I could argue about inheritance tax being insufficient but that won't stop me trying to maximising what I can pass on to my daughter 😁
Of course the real driver behind all of this is money and control. Huge amounts to be made from replacing existing infrastructure with a whole new system. And as ever, a fearful population are far easier to manipulate and control. Just like most of the people on here who appear to not be able to think for themselves any more.
If there's so much money to be made from changing our entire infrastructure, why don't the fossil fuel industry do it, instead of spending decades funding propaganda campaigns? They are primarilly profit driven, after all, and they certainly have the capital.
If you've ever argued with a flat earther, you know how people on this thread feel since you arrived.
Also
@MaxCorkhill that graph does not say what i think you think it says
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Some interpretation from those arch communists in NASA
