|
Post by davycrockett on Nov 3, 2021 11:23:55 GMT 1
They may be right. Then again, there are other predictions that show less growth. And, who knows, 10.9 billion could be sustainable in 2100 if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then. The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. But we’ve got the geological data you brushed away www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-earth-millions-of-years-ago.html
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 3, 2021 12:36:06 GMT 1
The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. And exactly how much a bunch of feeble humans can do about it. Apart from just doing our best with innovation. Within the industrial Revolution we have gone from plumes of smoke over Ironbridge and, in Bilston ,"air you could cut wth a knife".
We should do our best, politicians should enable green innovators to make money, but we shouldn't go all sackcloth and ashes.
For example. a good thing to try to bring South Africa out of a coal mining economy, but not so good to limit oil and gas exploration when we need oil for so many other things than just travel and heating. Let the scientists come up with levels of oil we need to produce all the other things it does, like plastics and road surfaces and how much petrol, diesel, etc. rhat would produce, almost as a "by-product". We must be careful not to waste the world's resources and to innovate for cleaner use.
Completely agree.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 3, 2021 12:37:56 GMT 1
The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. But we’ve got the geological data you brushed away www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/how-do-we-know-the-temperature-on-earth-millions-of-years-ago.htmlThe geological data can pin historical temperatures over the millennia down to the nearest 1C can it? Even your own link states that the data only gives us an idea. Perhaps you would like to talk us through the history of Wenlock Edge.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Nov 3, 2021 14:30:00 GMT 1
The geological data can pin historical temperatures over the millennia down to the nearest 1C can it? Even your own link states that the data only gives us an idea. Perhaps you would like to talk us through the history of Wenlock Edge. Not sure what your trying to prove. Global warming isn’t a danger? Wenlock Edge has been formed by the erosion of alternating hard and soft layers of sedimentary rocks which are gently inclined to the southeast. The softer rocks (shales and mudstones) form the valleys or dales, and the harder rocks (limestones), give rise to the Edge. Millions of years ago, the world's continents were in a very different position to those of today. The modern concept of plate tectonics shows how continents are moved about by widening oceans which push the outermost layers of the earth’s crust and upper mantle in all directions, a process called sea-floor spreading. During the Silurian period southern Britain and the Shropshire area found itself about 25 degrees south of the equator in shallow waters on the edge of a landmass called Avalonia. Coral reefs grew in the warm subtropical seas, and limestones later formed. This sea bed was then buried under further sediments. Over time these became layers of rock. The rocks of the Wenlock Edge area, still buried under later sediments, were folded and the layers tipped to an angle similar to today. Fractures, called faults, were also produced during periods of earth movements. About 65 million years ago, an event occurred which was to start the shaping of the present day British landscape. The north and west of Britain was raised up and tilted to the southeast, and the buried rocks of Wenlock Edge were further tilted with them. Erosion got to work on the new land surface around 50 million years ago. Many thousands of metres of younger rocks were stripped away by the elements. By around 20 million years ago, the shapes of the Shropshire Hills had started to appear and the Silurian rocks of Wenlock Edge were now exposed for the first time since their formation over 400 million years ago. Over the next following 400 million years rain, rivers, wind and ice have eroded these rocks to create the landscape we see today.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 3, 2021 14:34:28 GMT 1
They may be right. Then again, there are other predictions that show less growth. And, who knows, 10.9 billion could be sustainable in 2100 if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then. The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. That misses the point. The question is not whether the planet has undergone major climate changes during its existence. We have geological evidence that it has. However, those extremes you're referring to occurred during pre-history, ie in the 99.9%+ of the planet's life so far in which human life didn't exist. The more pertinent question is not how hot has it ever been, but in what temperature range can humanity survive? In isolation, of course a human can survive a small change in temperature. But when that small change triggers melting ice sheets, release of trapped greenhouse gases, rising sea levels, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, drought, floods, frequent extreme weather events etc, it's evident that humanity as a whole is massively affected. Whole populations have to move to escape starvation & flooding etc. We know ourselves how the migration of a relatively tiny number of people to the UK causes extreme social and political disquiet for some. Imagine the consequences if millions have to move to survive. We may only have a small amount of data but, crucially, the data we have reflect climate changes during mass industrialisation powered by the burning of carbon. We know the planet is warmer than it was, even if it isn't as hot as it was before human life existed. We know that human activity is making the planet warmer still. We know there's a tipping point at which heating becomes irreversible, because of the release of methane and CO2 as ice melts. We know that even small rises in global climate temperature causes immense and increasing problems (and costs) for humanity. You might take comfort in thinking the planet was once much hotter, even though humans didn't then exist. I don't. And I don't want to have to tell my granddaughter we didn't bother doing anything to contain and limit the damage we know we've already caused.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 3, 2021 14:50:19 GMT 1
The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. And exactly how much a bunch of feeble humans can do about it. Apart from just doing our best with innovation. Within the industrial Revolution we have gone from plumes of smoke over Ironbridge and, in Bilston ,"air you could cut wth a knife".
We should do our best, politicians should enable green innovators to make money, but we shouldn't go all sackcloth and ashes.
For example. a good thing to try to bring South Africa out of a coal mining economy, but not so good to limit oil and gas exploration when we need oil for so many other things than just travel and heating. Let the scientists come up with levels of oil we need to produce all the other things it does, like plastics and road surfaces and how much petrol, diesel, etc. rhat would produce, almost as a "by-product". We must be careful not to waste the world's resources and to innovate for cleaner use.
Strikes me that's a rather selfish first world response - South Africa should move away from coal but we need our oil and gas. We need to massively reduce our production of virgin plastic. Recycling and plant based alternatives are available. The green economy isn't 'sackcloth and ashes'. It's about changing established ways of thinking. It's not so long ago that the idea of an electric car was dismissed as impractical. Soon that's all we'll be driving, or a development of them. We cling to fossil fuel technologies like addicts, because that's all we've really known. They're becoming obsolete (as well as dangerous) and that's why green economic investment is sensible. 'Green' is a simple catch-all term but some still associate it with going backwards technologically, when the opposite is true. Perhaps we should just refer to it as 'clean' technology instead.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 3, 2021 14:51:54 GMT 1
They may be right. Then again, there are other predictions that show less growth. And, who knows, 10.9 billion could be sustainable in 2100 if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then. The thing about the 'science' is ...... It's science, not 'science'.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 3, 2021 14:59:56 GMT 1
And exactly how much a bunch of feeble humans can do about it. Apart from just doing our best with innovation. Within the industrial Revolution we have gone from plumes of smoke over Ironbridge and, in Bilston ,"air you could cut wth a knife".
We should do our best, politicians should enable green innovators to make money, but we shouldn't go all sackcloth and ashes.
For example. a good thing to try to bring South Africa out of a coal mining economy, but not so good to limit oil and gas exploration when we need oil for so many other things than just travel and heating. Let the scientists come up with levels of oil we need to produce all the other things it does, like plastics and road surfaces and how much petrol, diesel, etc. rhat would produce, almost as a "by-product". We must be careful not to waste the world's resources and to innovate for cleaner use.
Strikes me that's a rather selfish first world response - South Africa should move away from coal but we need our oil and gas. We need to massively reduce our production of virgin plastic. Recycling and plant based alternatives are available. The green economy isn't 'sackcloth and ashes'. It's about changing established ways of thinking. It's not so long ago that the idea of an electric car was dismissed as impractical. Soon that's all we'll be driving, or a development of them. We cling to fossil fuel technologies like addicts, because that's all we've really known. They're becoming obsolete (as well as dangerous) and that's why green economic investment is sensible. 'Green' is a simple catch-all term but some still associate it with going backwards technologically, when the opposite is true. Perhaps we should just refer to it as 'clean' technology instead. i find it strange that we dont grow more hemp in this country, it is versatile and the crop is great at moping up carbon, hemp bricks are excellent and some canadian companys are now using htem, they have used hemp in houses in france for a very long time. also many plastic products can be replaced with hemp using a 100% bio-based resin which are biodegradable, as you say it needs a change in mindset. it would also give farmers an aditional revenue stream and create jobs with companys who make hemp based products .
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 3, 2021 19:09:36 GMT 1
The thing about the 'science' is ...... It's science, not 'science'. Ah ! but the great thing about 'science' is that you can get ten different answers from ten different scientists. We recently witnessed this with the modelling around the Covid pandemic wherein the forecasts of the viral spread and death rates varied hugely - all these forecasts were made by scientists. Science is very good at stating what has happened and why, but once it lurches into modelling and estimates, then it becomes further removed from scientific fact and is open to a wide variety of interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 3, 2021 19:14:32 GMT 1
The geological data can pin historical temperatures over the millennia down to the nearest 1C can it? Even your own link states that the data only gives us an idea. Perhaps you would like to talk us through the history of Wenlock Edge. Not sure what your trying to prove. Global warming isn’t a danger? Wenlock Edge has been formed by the erosion of alternating hard and soft layers of sedimentary rocks which are gently inclined to the southeast. The softer rocks (shales and mudstones) form the valleys or dales, and the harder rocks (limestones), give rise to the Edge. Millions of years ago, the world's continents were in a very different position to those of today. The modern concept of plate tectonics shows how continents are moved about by widening oceans which push the outermost layers of the earth’s crust and upper mantle in all directions, a process called sea-floor spreading. During the Silurian period southern Britain and the Shropshire area found itself about 25 degrees south of the equator in shallow waters on the edge of a landmass called Avalonia. Coral reefs grew in the warm subtropical seas, and limestones later formed. This sea bed was then buried under further sediments. Over time these became layers of rock. The rocks of the Wenlock Edge area, still buried under later sediments, were folded and the layers tipped to an angle similar to today. Fractures, called faults, were also produced during periods of earth movements. About 65 million years ago, an event occurred which was to start the shaping of the present day British landscape. The north and west of Britain was raised up and tilted to the southeast, and the buried rocks of Wenlock Edge were further tilted with them. Erosion got to work on the new land surface around 50 million years ago. Many thousands of metres of younger rocks were stripped away by the elements. By around 20 million years ago, the shapes of the Shropshire Hills had started to appear and the Silurian rocks of Wenlock Edge were now exposed for the first time since their formation over 400 million years ago. Over the next following 400 million years rain, rivers, wind and ice have eroded these rocks to create the landscape we see today. Thank you for confirming my point with your geology lesson. What we do know, as you have clearly stated, is that nothing in Earth's history has ever remained constant.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 3, 2021 20:33:16 GMT 1
And exactly how much a bunch of feeble humans can do about it. Apart from just doing our best with innovation. Within the industrial Revolution we have gone from plumes of smoke over Ironbridge and, in Bilston ,"air you could cut wth a knife". We should do our best, politicians should enable green innovators to make money, but we shouldn't go all sackcloth and ashes. For example. a good thing to try to bring South Africa out of a coal mining economy, but not so good to limit oil and gas exploration when we need oil for so many other things than just travel and heating. Let the scientists come up with levels of oil we need to produce all the other things it does, like plastics and road surfaces and how much petrol, diesel, etc. rhat would produce, almost as a "by-product". We must be careful not to waste the world's resources and to innovate for cleaner use.
Strikes me that's a rather selfish first world response - South Africa should move away from coal but we need our oil and gas. We need to massively reduce our production of virgin plastic. Recycling and plant based alternatives are available. The green economy isn't 'sackcloth and ashes'. It's about changing established ways of thinking. It's not so long ago that the idea of an electric car was dismissed as impractical. Soon that's all we'll be driving, or a development of them. We cling to fossil fuel technologies like addicts, because that's all we've really known. They're becoming obsolete (as well as dangerous) and that's why green economic investment is sensible. 'Green' is a simple catch-all term but some still associate it with going backwards technologically, when the opposite is true. Perhaps we should just refer to it as 'clean' technology instead. There's some merit in what you say about reccyling plastics, but we are going to need virgin plastics for a long time yet. I would class South Africa as a first world country, but, like Australia and China they need to move away from dirty old coal and should be supported to do so. Coal, for most uses, really is the past. The sackloth and ashes remark is based on the sort of talk we get from Greta, we would be crazy to abandon fossil fuels until we know the alternatives are better, less polluting. sustainable and ready to take over from fossil fuels n the quantities needed. Not developing sufficient oil fields to keep us away from relying on imports from dubious countries is to sleepwalk into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 3, 2021 21:42:38 GMT 1
Isn't there a limit to recycling plstics? I don't mean in terms of capacity - although that probably is a problem - but in terms of the number of times it can be recycled before it needs to have new plastic added to it.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 3, 2021 21:44:26 GMT 1
What action does Johnson want on cash? What is he talking about?
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 3, 2021 22:30:49 GMT 1
What action does Johnson want on cash? What is he talking about?
Some say we should compensate the countries that have suffered because rich nations have prospered on fossil fuels. I very much doubt Boris had that in mind. It will, no doubt, involve our cash, extra taxes to pay for carbon capture or some such.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 4, 2021 10:41:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 4, 2021 14:36:09 GMT 1
Not sure what your trying to prove. Global warming isn’t a danger? Wenlock Edge has been formed by the erosion of alternating hard and soft layers of sedimentary rocks which are gently inclined to the southeast. The softer rocks (shales and mudstones) form the valleys or dales, and the harder rocks (limestones), give rise to the Edge. Millions of years ago, the world's continents were in a very different position to those of today. The modern concept of plate tectonics shows how continents are moved about by widening oceans which push the outermost layers of the earth’s crust and upper mantle in all directions, a process called sea-floor spreading. During the Silurian period southern Britain and the Shropshire area found itself about 25 degrees south of the equator in shallow waters on the edge of a landmass called Avalonia. Coral reefs grew in the warm subtropical seas, and limestones later formed. This sea bed was then buried under further sediments. Over time these became layers of rock. The rocks of the Wenlock Edge area, still buried under later sediments, were folded and the layers tipped to an angle similar to today. Fractures, called faults, were also produced during periods of earth movements. About 65 million years ago, an event occurred which was to start the shaping of the present day British landscape. The north and west of Britain was raised up and tilted to the southeast, and the buried rocks of Wenlock Edge were further tilted with them. Erosion got to work on the new land surface around 50 million years ago. Many thousands of metres of younger rocks were stripped away by the elements. By around 20 million years ago, the shapes of the Shropshire Hills had started to appear and the Silurian rocks of Wenlock Edge were now exposed for the first time since their formation over 400 million years ago. Over the next following 400 million years rain, rivers, wind and ice have eroded these rocks to create the landscape we see today. Thank you for confirming my point with your geology lesson. What we do know, as you have clearly stated, is that nothing in Earth's history has ever remained constant. What we do know, as you choose to ignore, is that humankind has affected climate change during the most recent moments, geologically speaking, of the planet's life. And this change, if left unchecked, will cause misery, destruction and loss of life on an unprecedented scale - a process that has already begun.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 4, 2021 15:02:22 GMT 1
Strikes me that's a rather selfish first world response - South Africa should move away from coal but we need our oil and gas. We need to massively reduce our production of virgin plastic. Recycling and plant based alternatives are available. The green economy isn't 'sackcloth and ashes'. It's about changing established ways of thinking. It's not so long ago that the idea of an electric car was dismissed as impractical. Soon that's all we'll be driving, or a development of them. We cling to fossil fuel technologies like addicts, because that's all we've really known. They're becoming obsolete (as well as dangerous) and that's why green economic investment is sensible. 'Green' is a simple catch-all term but some still associate it with going backwards technologically, when the opposite is true. Perhaps we should just refer to it as 'clean' technology instead. There's some merit in what you say about reccyling plastics, but we are going to need virgin plastics for a long time yet. I would class South Africa as a first world country, but, like Australia and China they need to move away from dirty old coal and should be supported to do so. Coal, for most uses, really is the past. The sackloth and ashes remark is based on the sort of talk we get from Greta, we would be crazy to abandon fossil fuels until we know the alternatives are better, less polluting. sustainable and ready to take over from fossil fuels n the quantities needed. Not developing sufficient oil fields to keep us away from relying on imports from dubious countries is to sleepwalk into trouble. I did say "massively reduce", not halt all production. As for South Africa being a first world country, if you look at comparative global poverty rates it's clear that it isn't for the black majority. You seem to envisage an idealised scenario wherein someone else, somewhere else, somehow emerges with a new, clean superfuel and we can then switch off the fossil fuel burners and go with that. It's impossible. Change is incremental and it's happening now. The question is whether it's happening quickly enough and the answer to that seems to be no. We've done well in the UK to move away from coal so quickly. Now we have to do the same with oil. Many were sceptical that renewable energy could ever be viable. They've been proved wrong. As I said, we can't switch everything overnight but we have to keep encouraging clean energy innovation, perhaps subsidised by fossil fuel users, and reducing energy consumption.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 4, 2021 18:54:46 GMT 1
There's some merit in what you say about reccyling plastics, but we are going to need virgin plastics for a long time yet. I would class South Africa as a first world country, but, like Australia and China they need to move away from dirty old coal and should be supported to do so. Coal, for most uses, really is the past. The sackloth and ashes remark is based on the sort of talk we get from Greta, we would be crazy to abandon fossil fuels until we know the alternatives are better, less polluting. sustainable and ready to take over from fossil fuels n the quantities needed. Not developing sufficient oil fields to keep us away from relying on imports from dubious countries is to sleepwalk into trouble. I did say "massively reduce", not halt all production. As for South Africa being a first world country, if you look at comparative global poverty rates it's clear that it isn't for the black majority. You seem to envisage an idealised scenario wherein someone else, somewhere else, somehow emerges with a new, clean superfuel and we can then switch off the fossil fuel burners and go with that. It's impossible. Change is incremental and it's happening now. The question is whether it's happening quickly enough and the answer to that seems to be no. We've done well in the UK to move away from coal so quickly. Now we have to do the same with oil. Many were sceptical that renewable energy could ever be viable. They've been proved wrong. As I said, we can't switch everything overnight but we have to keep encouraging clean energy innovation, perhaps subsidised by fossil fuel users, and reducing energy consumption. the 16 billion uk privatley funded scheme in morroco will produce electricity that is renweable and will provide elecetricity for 7 million homes, the uk scrapping the feed in tarfis from sloar power for home owners is very short sighted ,they are the kind of initiatives we need to encourage people to move to generating there own electricity. and grants for energy storage systems a fully installed tesla power wall on google prices range from £8,600 to £10,000 it will store 13.5 kwh ,this a lot of money to expect housholds to stump up plus the solar panels, even with hte price of solar panels coming down in price.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 4, 2021 18:56:31 GMT 1
Boris the clown is at it again he tells us we are one minute from midnight and flys home to london in a jet to have a meal with a climate sceptic friend (acording to itv)
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Nov 4, 2021 19:42:21 GMT 1
Boris the clown is at it again he tells us we are one minute from midnight and flys home to london in a jet to have a meal with a climate sceptic friend (acording to itv) I think they had the CEO of the main sponsor (can't recall who) jetting in and out too. Criticism leveled at Ursula von der Leyen for flying short distances. And did you see the size of Biden's cavalcade... This gets back to that question on how you get the wider public on board. This hardly helps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 19:49:33 GMT 1
The thing about the 'science' is that historical data on global warming is based upon very recent statistics on temperature. It is estimated that our planet is around 4.5 billion years old. We have been collecting temperature date for a mere 150 years. Other than geological data, we don't really have a clue how the planet may have alternately cooled and warmed over the previous 4.499 billion years, only theories. When you next drive along the A 458 to Much Wenlock and wind your way up Wedlock Edge, consider for a moment that this was at one time a coral reef in a tropical sea. Then let me know if you think that Earth's temperature has mysteriously stayed constant throughout the existence of our planet and has only recently warmed. That misses the point. The question is not whether the planet has undergone major climate changes during its existence. We have geological evidence that it has. However, those extremes you're referring to occurred during pre-history, ie in the 99.9%+ of the planet's life so far in which human life didn't exist. The more pertinent question is not how hot has it ever been, but in what temperature range can humanity survive? In isolation, of course a human can survive a small change in temperature. But when that small change triggers melting ice sheets, release of trapped greenhouse gases, rising sea levels, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, drought, floods, frequent extreme weather events etc, it's evident that humanity as a whole is massively affected. Whole populations have to move to escape starvation & flooding etc. We know ourselves how the migration of a relatively tiny number of people to the UK causes extreme social and political disquiet for some. Imagine the consequences if millions have to move to survive. We may only have a small amount of data but, crucially, the data we have reflect climate changes during mass industrialisation powered by the burning of carbon. We know the planet is warmer than it was, even if it isn't as hot as it was before human life existed. We know that human activity is making the planet warmer still. We know there's a tipping point at which heating becomes irreversible, because of the release of methane and CO2 as ice melts. We know that even small rises in global climate temperature causes immense and increasing problems (and costs) for humanity. You might take comfort in thinking the planet was once much hotter, even though humans didn't then exist. I don't. And I don't want to have to tell my granddaughter we didn't bother doing anything to contain and limit the damage we know we've already caused. Excellent post. Owning this thread, mon 👍
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Nov 4, 2021 20:47:17 GMT 1
There's some merit in what you say about reccyling plastics, but we are going to need virgin plastics for a long time yet. I would class South Africa as a first world country, but, like Australia and China they need to move away from dirty old coal and should be supported to do so. Coal, for most uses, really is the past. The sackloth and ashes remark is based on the sort of talk we get from Greta, we would be crazy to abandon fossil fuels until we know the alternatives are better, less polluting. sustainable and ready to take over from fossil fuels n the quantities needed. Not developing sufficient oil fields to keep us away from relying on imports from dubious countries is to sleepwalk into trouble. I did say "massively reduce", not halt all production. As for South Africa being a first world country, if you look at comparative global poverty rates it's clear that it isn't for the black majority. You seem to envisage an idealised scenario wherein someone else, somewhere else, somehow emerges with a new, clean superfuel and we can then switch off the fossil fuel burners and go with that. It's impossible. Change is incremental and it's happening now. The question is whether it's happening quickly enough and the answer to that seems to be no. We've done well in the UK to move away from coal so quickly. Now we have to do the same with oil. Many were sceptical that renewable energy could ever be viable. They've been proved wrong. As I said, we can't switch everything overnight but we have to keep encouraging clean energy innovation, perhaps subsidised by fossil fuel users, and reducing energy consumption. Deary me! Looks like you are one of the many who have become infected with climate hysteria.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Nov 4, 2021 21:19:48 GMT 1
I did say "massively reduce", not halt all production. As for South Africa being a first world country, if you look at comparative global poverty rates it's clear that it isn't for the black majority. You seem to envisage an idealised scenario wherein someone else, somewhere else, somehow emerges with a new, clean superfuel and we can then switch off the fossil fuel burners and go with that. It's impossible. Change is incremental and it's happening now. The question is whether it's happening quickly enough and the answer to that seems to be no. We've done well in the UK to move away from coal so quickly. Now we have to do the same with oil. Many were sceptical that renewable energy could ever be viable. They've been proved wrong. As I said, we can't switch everything overnight but we have to keep encouraging clean energy innovation, perhaps subsidised by fossil fuel users, and reducing energy consumption. Deary me! Looks like you are one of the many who have become infected with climate hysteria. What do you find hysterical about what I've posted? I was largely reporting what most people now acknowledge; the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to global heating. I think your denial is more akin to hysteria, albeit rather bizarrely mixed with a double shot of complacency. Or perhaps it's just selfishness. Who knows and, frankly, who cares? We still have flat earthers and evolution deniers so we can't expect everyone to be on the right side of scientific history.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 5, 2021 9:01:36 GMT 1
Boris the clown is at it again he tells us we are one minute from midnight and flys home to london in a jet to have a meal with a climate sceptic friend (acording to itv) I think they had the CEO of the main sponsor (can't recall who) jetting in and out too. Criticism leveled at Ursula von der Leyen for flying short distances. And did you see the size of Biden's cavalcade... This gets back to that question on how you get the wider public on board. This hardly helps. no it wont because they dont lead by example , they tell us how to live and just stick there noses in the trough
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 5, 2021 9:02:28 GMT 1
Deary me! Looks like you are one of the many who have become infected with climate hysteria. What do you find hysterical about what I've posted? I was largely reporting what most people now acknowledge; the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to global heating. I think your denial is more akin to hysteria, albeit rather bizarrely mixed with a double shot of complacency. Or perhaps it's just selfishness. Who knows and, frankly, who cares? We still have flat earthers and evolution deniers so we can't expect everyone to be on the right side of scientific history.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 5, 2021 14:27:33 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Nov 5, 2021 16:10:51 GMT 1
Kevin Anderson is worth a listen here.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 5, 2021 18:37:59 GMT 1
If there is one learning point from this I hope it is that we must ignore Greta and rely on human innovation and collaboration to do what we can. It will be enough.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 9, 2021 14:53:09 GMT 1
A Green council leader flew from Gatwick to Glasgow to protest against climate change at Cop26, it has emerged.
Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty, leader of Brighton and Hove City Council's (BHCC) Green group, took the 80-minute flight from Gatwick on the same day he criticised the Government for a lack of action over climate change.
After completing the 460-mile journey, Cllr Mac Cafferty made a speech on cutting carbon emissions and appeared at a protest march, led by Greta Thunberg, calling for world leaders to stop temperatures rising.
The leader of the Green Party which controls the Sussex council, who co-chairs BHCC carbon neutral working group, has now unreservedly apologised, saying he had been worried his train might be cancelled.
Daily Telegraph.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Nov 10, 2021 17:22:49 GMT 1
www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/7-of-obamas-biggest-climate-change-victories/He Championed the First Global Climate Agreement The Paris climate agreement, otherwise known as COP21, was the first global agreement for tackling climate change ever enacted. All previous attempts were stifled in some way, oftentimes by the US. While the plan is ultimately modest in scope, it’s the first time countries ever collectively agreed to reducing carbon emissions. He Forced Power Plants to Be Cleaner He Stopped Cars From Polluting So Much He Made Sure That Energy Use Is Efficient He Protected the Planet Obama has protected more acres of land and water than any president in US history. In total, 19 newly designated national monuments comprising 260 million acres will be protected from exploitation. He Funded a Renewable Energy Revolution He Made Farming and Fishing More Sustainable in comparison what have UK Prime Minsters done to help the planet and our country .
|
|