|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2023 17:05:47 GMT
Surely the reality is that even if human or animal activity didn't or doesn't cause climate change, the high level of human produced greenhouse gas is exacerbating the problem. IMO humans have a responsibility to the planet to clean up their act. Success in this area should prove to be beneficial for the planet and for human life. No. First of all carbon dioxide is a heavier than air gas that ought to be removed by dissolving in the oceans nit being boosted up tonthe stratosphere. Second analysis of gases trapped in various places suggest the ancient history of the planet featured higher Co2 and we didn’t have s runaway armageddon like Venus did we…. There are a number of such questions. But in a world where any who question are modern day hitlers ….. _"Road vehicles are the single biggest cause of London's air pollution. They produce nearly half of all nitrogen oxides and emit tiny particles of rubber and metal - too small to see with the naked eye - into the air we breathe. Air pollution affects the health of Londoners."_ The same problem will affect all major cities to a greater or lesser degree. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 17:07:15 GMT
Have you any credible evidence that net zero will cause mass starvation? Seems more likely that changing weather and crop failure would lead to that. Newt zero wont stop global warming. Newt zero applied globally (or in a way that might make any odds at all) would cause a disaster of such colossal proportions it would probably end civilisation. My broader point is that we are comparing two disasters - one is more or less certain if it becomes policy and the other is a matter of speculation. That's not much to go on. "Seems more likely" is just your hunch btw. I don't think you even understand what net zero is, let alone who is trying to achieve it or its effects on atmospheric carbon growth. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2023 17:09:29 GMT
IMO, no government will insist on following green energy to the detriment of the country, nor would any government be allowed to. And green energy is in the market place. They already have - Net Zero is written into Law irrespective of its effect on the country. I'm sure I've already heard of changes made to the government's approach, wasn't there something about extending the time which within one move should be met? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 17:09:39 GMT
Surely the reality is that even if human or animal activity didn't or doesn't cause climate change, the high level of human produced greenhouse gas is exacerbating the problem. IMO humans have a responsibility to the planet to clean up their act. Success in this area should prove to be beneficial for the planet and for human life. No. First of all carbon dioxide is a heavier than air gas that ought to be removed by dissolving in the oceans nit being boosted up tonthe stratosphere. Second analysis of gases trapped in various places suggest the ancient history of the planet featured higher Co2 and we didn’t have s runaway armageddon like Venus did we…. There are a number of such questions. But in a world where any who question are modern day hitlers ….. Are you alluding to some form of carbon capture John? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 17:27:41 GMT
Newt zero wont stop global warming. Newt zero applied globally (or in a way that might make any odds at all) would cause a disaster of such colossal proportions it would probably end civilisation. My broader point is that we are comparing two disasters - one is more or less certain if it becomes policy and the other is a matter of speculation. That's not much to go on. "Seems more likely" is just your hunch btw. I don't think you even understand what net zero is, let alone who is trying to achieve it or its effects on atmospheric carbon growth. It can have two loose meanings - the UK policy and more broadly. I never mentioned net zero, so it's up to you to specify what you mean. Btw - if you mean global net human emissions of zero, then i dealt with that in my post - so you are engaging in avoidance |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 17:58:03 GMT
I don't think you even understand what net zero is, let alone who is trying to achieve it or its effects on atmospheric carbon growth. It can have two loose meanings - the UK policy and more broadly. I never mentioned net zero, so it's up to you to specify what you mean. Btw - if you mean global net human emissions of zero, then i dealt with that in my post - so you are engaging in avoidance no, you called it Newt zero. Sigh. Still as you say Newt zero. How would the extermination on Newts would cause a disaster of such colossal proportions it would probably end civilisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 18:16:16 GMT
It can have two loose meanings - the UK policy and more broadly. I never mentioned net zero, so it's up to you to specify what you mean. Btw - if you mean global net human emissions of zero, then i dealt with that in my post - so you are engaging in avoidance no, you called it Newt zero. Sigh. It's very difficult to have a proper discussion with you because you expend so much effort avoiding a discussion. The world's large population presently depends on use of fossil fuels. Take fossil fuels away and there will be massive (catastrophic) drops (largely through starvation). This has been pointed out to you several times by several poster over a long period. It just skits off you - you just deny reality and replace it with nonsense. When i first saw this, it was one of the factors that made me feel that your motivations were likely not entirely straight-forward. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2023 18:56:24 GMT
no, you called it Newt zero. Sigh. It's very difficult to have a proper discussion with you because you expend so much effort avoiding a discussion. The world's large population presently depends on use of fossil fuels. Take fossil fuels away and there will be massive (catastrophic) drops (largely through starvation). This has been pointed out to you several times by several poster over a long period. It just skits off you - you just deny reality and replace it with nonsense. When i first saw this, it was one of the factors that made me feel that your motivations were likely not entirely straight-forward. Virtue is more important as a climate activist than virtue in terms of the effect one is having on the poorest in the world in that search for netzero. Climate Change Hurts The Poor: But Not The Way You Think It Does www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/10/26/climate-change-hurts-the-poor-but-not-the-way-you-think-it-does/"Climate impacts hit the world's poor the hardest”. By sheer dint of repetition in countless “expert” reports and mass media articles, this line in the climate change narrative has become a truism. According to the International Monetary Fund, “by hitting the poorest hardest, climate change risks both increasing existing economic inequalities and causing people to fall into poverty.” The World Economic Forum states that “the lowest income countries produce one-tenth of emissions, but are the most heavily impacted by climate change.” Read on... There is a lot there but these are real world effects. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 19:42:51 GMT
no, you called it Newt zero. Sigh. It's very difficult to have a proper discussion with you because you expend so much effort avoiding a discussion. The world's large population presently depends on use of fossil fuels. Take fossil fuels away and there will be massive (catastrophic) drops (largely through starvation). This has been pointed out to you several times by several poster over a long period. It just skits off you - you just deny reality and replace it with nonsense. When i first saw this, it was one of the factors that made me feel that your motivations were likely not entirely straight-forward. I avoid discussion? Says the person who claimed Newt Zero would cause starvation and then denied they had even mentioned Net Zero Sigh. I don't know why I'm bothering as your opinions appear to be genetic and unchangeable, but anyway. 1, Net zero. Where you amount of Co2 you produce is matched by the amount your environment absorbs. So you can burn some fuel, just not as much. Indeed you can as a poor country burn even more if a richer country cuts back more. 2, Not every country has signed up to Net Zero, we cultists recognise that's not possible with poorer ones. Luckily the richer ones that can afford to do more are also the biggest polluters per head. Your deafness is deafening. So many times I have pointed out the path. We the West develop the renewable energy and get the costs down to one where its viable, then the poorer countries adopt it without breaking their economies. You could argue it wont happen, but instead you pretend its never been said. TBH. I barely address you anymore as you so often bring out Mr Strawman that I don't need to be there. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 19:45:21 GMT
.It's very difficult to have a proper discussion with you because you expend so much effort avoiding a discussion. The world's large population presently depends on use of fossil fuels. Take fossil fuels away and there will be massive (catastrophic) drops (largely through starvation). This has been pointed out to you several times by several poster over a long period. It just skits off you - you just deny reality and replace it with nonsense. When i first saw this, it was one of the factors that made me feel that your motivations were likely not entirely straight-forward. Virtue is more important as a climate activist than virtue in terms of the effect one is having on the poorest in the world in that search for netzero. Climate Change Hurts The Poor: But Not The Way You Think It Does www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/10/26/climate-change-hurts-the-poor-but-not-the-way-you-think-it-does/"Climate impacts hit the world's poor the hardest”. By sheer dint of repetition in countless “expert” reports and mass media articles, this line in the climate change narrative has become a truism. According to the International Monetary Fund, “by hitting the poorest hardest, climate change risks both increasing existing economic inequalities and causing people to fall into poverty.” The World Economic Forum states that “the lowest income countries produce one-tenth of emissions, but are the most heavily impacted by climate change.” Read on... There is a lot there but these are real world effects. Virtue, snowflake, Virtue, snowflake, Virtue, snowflake, Virtue, snowflake. Always good for the troops. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 20:51:49 GMT
.It's very difficult to have a proper discussion with you because you expend so much effort avoiding a discussion. The world's large population presently depends on use of fossil fuels. Take fossil fuels away and there will be massive (catastrophic) drops (largely through starvation). This has been pointed out to you several times by several poster over a long period. It just skits off you - you just deny reality and replace it with nonsense. When i first saw this, it was one of the factors that made me feel that your motivations were likely not entirely straight-forward. I avoid discussion? Says the person who claimed Newt Zero would cause starvation and then denied they had even mentioned Net Zero You brought up net zero and i responded in kind. Since then you have waffled and lectured pointlessly about the meaning of net zero and avoided my point The theory that indicates reduction of carbon emissions, also indicates an anthropologically caused change that starts in the industrial revolution - ie when our carbon emissions were tiny in comparison and we also had a tiny (in comparison) population. The current huge population is supported by fossil fuels - it is how they are fed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 20:56:33 GMT
I avoid discussion? Says the person who claimed Newt Zero would cause starvation and then denied they had even mentioned Net Zero You brought up net zero and i responded in kind. Since then you have waffled and lectured pointlessly about the meaning of net zero and avoided my point The theory that indicates reduction of carbon emissions, also indicates an anthropologically caused change that starts in the industrial revolution - ie when our carbon emissions were tiny in comparison and we also had a tiny (in comparison) population. The current huge population is supported by fossil fuels - it is how they are fed. You had no point. As I say you never read my words nor respond to them. We have nothing to say to each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 22:57:35 GMT
You brought up net zero and i responded in kind. Since then you have waffled and lectured pointlessly about the meaning of net zero and avoided my point The theory that indicates reduction of carbon emissions, also indicates an anthropologically caused change that starts in the industrial revolution - ie when our carbon emissions were tiny in comparison and we also had a tiny (in comparison) population. The current huge population is supported by fossil fuels - it is how they are fed. We have nothing to say to each other. Then do the honest thing and stop replying to my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 28, 2023 6:50:33 GMT
We have nothing to say to each other. Then do the honest thing and stop replying to my posts. Ditto. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 28, 2023 7:29:29 GMT
The fact is that, as I've said before, no one has ever been able to demonstrate CO2 warming in the Earth's system - only in a box in a laboratory. As soon as you try it on Earth the many "stabilisers" that the Earth has step in and counteract any warming effects it might have had in an empty box. That's why the Earth is a relatively stable system. If it didn't have stabilisers it would have burnt up (by an irreversible feed back loop) many millennia ago. So the situation we have is that the Earth has (according to slightly dubious data) warmed by 1.1C since 1850. Considering that the Earth's human population has gone from about 1 billion in 1850 to nearly 8 billion now, and that 75% of the Earth's land area has been "repurposed" in that time (to grow crops and house the huge population), I'd say that was a remarkably small change in temperature. It's evidence of how stable the Earth actually is. Yet political organisations like the IPCC would have us believe that almost all of this temperature increase is caused by CO2, despite having no evidence of the warming effects of CO2 on Earth. And despite the fact that we have very definite evidence that the concreting over the planet and the removal of trees to house people and grow food crops DOES cause significant warming. Yet we're told that this is "insignificant". It's utter nonsense of course. And I'll point again that it's highly suspicious to me that the drive to net zero (i.e. the elimination of CO2 emissions) will lead to the destruction of the capitalist system and the virtual bankrupting of the West's richest economies. Now I wonder who might benefit from that. ??  |
|
