Climate change/oblivion: breaking point or slow death spiral?

I’m just a simple farm folk

Who according to you isn’t a farmer.

What do you do down on the farm? I’ve forgotten.

Authoritarianism and net zero? Interesting discussion.

For instance, building infrastructure for people to ride bikes and to mitigate the impact of cars on our health (mental and physical) and the environment. I would say that’s government balancing the needs of people against the car industry rather than the implementation of a Stasi style regime (which I actually have experience of).

Capitalism kind of works in limited ways but where resources are constrained, there has to be some kind of division of resources so that the system as a whole works. Road space is one interesting case in point.

Making decisions on who gets what can be done in many ways – for instance in the Netherlands the current cycle infrastructure was built because of mass protests about road deaths (particularly of children). The cycle infrastructure was a solution and it’s one that works both to reduce road deaths and people are generally better off because of it. Authoritarian?

Or the Mods could ban them for vexatious shit-stirring?

Authoritarianism and net zero? Interesting discussion.

it like the 15 min city conspiracy. take the urban planning concept that everything someone needs should be within 15 min walk/ride of their home, and extrapolate wildly to locking people into districts.

grifters gotta grift.

Woke up 7 years ago today to a frost covered car. It had been minus 3C overnight.

Today it’s 23C outside.

Tell me that’s not global warming!!

its not global warming. it’s poor land management. shoot more grouse.

.

That’s not frost, it’s grouse poo

Yuck

that’s not grouse poo its frozen socialist globalist tears.

Molgrips

There’s a big difference between an echo chamber and and scientific consensus. You need some.pretry big evidence and deep knowledge to overturn the weight of evidence for one of the most well studied topics currently.

I think Crosshair summed that up .. there is a difference between scientific consensus and political bollox by people who either don’t believe or maybe do believe but don’t care what happens to humans.

There is also a lot of perhaps well meaning non scientific consensus by people who don’t know any better..
Just the last example …

Woke up 7 years ago today to a frost covered car. It had been minus 3C overnight.
Today it’s 23C outside.

Tell me that’s not global warming!!

Mostly they are just repeating the lies of the environmental groups who I struggle to see accept anthropomorphic climate change as real or the effects to be as devastating for humanity as real scientists predict or just don’t care.

or by people who do know better deliberately spreading mis information…. e.g.

I guess those massive forest fires in Canada didn’t happen in your world, nor the cancellation of the Scout Jamboree in South Korea, or parts of China having more than a year’s average rainfall in a single day just recently.

Just to mention a few things off the top of my head that happened recently.

There is NO SCIENTIFIC consensus that these specific recent items are a direct result and solely due to anthropomorphic climate change … there is a scientific consensus that this is the sort of thing we expect to happen but not THESE SPECIFIC events.

I don’t know about the canadian foresty specifically but I do know our local green party were saying the same about a fire on the heath.. and of course heath fires have been going on since heaths were artificially created so everyone remembers them so almost everyone KNOWS they are LIARS (including those who still vote for them they just like to pretend and lie to themselves) … just as the archaeological and geological record has boreal/tiaga forests burning down before and after man.

Serotinous cone species and some species of eucalyptus REQUIRE forest fires to reproduce, they have evolved specifically because fires in the Tiaga and Australian temperate forests are part and parcel of the forest.
THIS IS SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

seem to be drawing the conclusion that implementing huge societal change in the form of authoritarianism is far more urgent than taking the ‘easy’ wins of Nuclear power, managing their natural resources PROPERLY to minimise natural disasters

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.

This leaves 3 main non exclusive options ??
1) They don’t believe in anthropomorphic climate change or how serious this is to mankind?
2) They don’t care about humans
3) They don’t want to take responsibility for the lies and mis-information they have been spreading that got us into this mess. FFS the German Green Party is now reopening coal mines and coal fired power generation

Makes you think…

crosshair doesn’t understand physics well enough to know that if you leave a freezer door open the air will reach room temperature before the ice melts

People really need to stop arguing with him

legometeorology

crosshair doesn’t understand physics well enough to know that if you leave a freezer door open the air will reach room temperature before the ice melts

crosshair isn’t abnormal in not understanding physics… quite the opposite.
According to the IOP “There were 3,675 graduates from undergraduate physics courses in UK universities in the 2015–16 academic year” (I realise that’s nearly a decade ago)

According to HESA for the same academic year there were 2,317,880 students in HE or another way to look at it is 3,675 per year of 66.06 million people. Whichever way you look at that its a very very small fraction of people.

You could expand.. say people who build models using FEM, FDM and FVM but that’s still a vanishingly small number of people. Just choosing that as one example as the ability to solve Navier Stokes PDE is somewhat dependent on that and something you should be included on.

People really need to stop arguing with him

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.

Take this example … https://youtu.be/-fkCo_trbT8
Despite having a doctorate in theoretical physics Hossenfelder doesn’t pretend to understand climate modelling, she asks an actual expert.

Makes you think…

Not everyone.

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 **** 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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ffo2.158#:~:text=Lack%20of%20clarity%20on%20the,easily%20categorized%20in%20the%20framework.

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!