Climate Crisis!!!!

[Dushan]

Oh, oh, someone hitting the bottle again…

[John Hill]

John.
With respect, we are the tenants here. Not the Landlord.
We have survived here for millennia, through a wide variety of natural calamities. My own Country was under a mile of ice last time.

We DO NOT own this place, neither do we control it.

Accept that it changes- to try and stop it doing so is lunacy, especially these days when we have real power to cope with change.

Far canal! You sound like one of those piss-haggard tenants who will not keep the lawns mowed 'because it just grows anyway'.

[AtomKraft]

John.
I know you are a gentle soul, but lie down for a while- whatever's going to happen will do so sloooooowly. You'll have time to run like a small kitten.

[John Hill]

Why don't you pay attention to what is happening around you?

Any change in the climate will not be a slow event. The climate is, as you should know, driven by heat and a slight increase in temperature will not mean just more sunny days and near naked strumpets on the beach. It will mean all atmospheric events being intensified, more and stronger winds, more and heavier rains, colder cold spells, droughts, floods.

So, like the main said, sit on your hands and enjoy your future.

[prospector]

John,

If you watch this video from one who is very well educated in this subject, perhaps you will give us your opinion after??

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mi ... &FORM=VIRE

[John Hill]

He calls his video "Why renewables can’t save the planet " but he does not really address that instead he tells us what he thinks is wrong with wind and solar power systems and how good nuclear power is.

I think he is either uneducated on the subject and/or somewhat dishonest.

[prospector]

Well, thanks for your opinion. but I would rather accept the findings of a well educated renown climate scientist than someone who has been forming bits individually with a morse key any day.

[John Hill]

Well, thanks for your opinion. but I would rather accept the findings of a well educated renown climate scientist than someone who has been forming bits individually with a morse key any day.

He hardly mentioned climate and I doubt he is worthy of being called a scientist in fact he appears more accurately to be called a '***** artiste'.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020 ... pse-never/

[prospector]

You mean an article written by this fellow

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... ate-files/

" Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files
BY ANDREW C. REVKIN FEBRUARY 20, 2012 8:06 PM February 20, 2012 8:06 pm 396
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.

Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins* and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself. You can read his short statement below with a couple of thoughts from me:"

" Given the potential impact, however, I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication.

I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected."

Peter Gleick

[Pontius Navigator]

The hole in the ozone layer was discovered by British Meteorologists but the data was initially discounted by US scientists as anomalous. There are many scientists trying to create theories from data but also others trying fit data to theories.

I think that while we have a very few scientists who can explore inside an atom we probably have fewer who can explore the planet as precisely.

We undoubtedly think we have many more that think they can. Then we have the influencers who are pursuaded and in turn try an pursuade us. They may be activists and reactivist. For those yet to be convinced simply confusion.

lying yourself to a motorway is hardly rational. .

[John Hill]

You really are a pure piece of work, do you expect me to defend this Peter Gleick? I know nothing about him.

What is that second post about? Have you been swigging paint thinners again?

[prospector]

"You really are a pure piece of work, do you expect me to defend this Peter Gleick? I know nothing about him.'

Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in ‘Apocalypse Never’ by Michael Shellenberger
A new book that critiques environmentalism is 'deeply and fatally flawed.'


by PETER GLEICK

You know nothing about him, yet,you use his article to try and shoot down the facts presented by the video I posted. Is not the discussion supposed to be about the effect that burning fossil fuels is having on the climate? Was not the video in question showing the stupidity of trying to rely on Wind Farms and Solar Power not only not sustainable but also uses a lot of fossil fuels to produce, and in the case of multitudes of solar panels no way to dispose of them when passed their use by date? The arguments of the effect these monstrosities are having on wildlife I would have thought been very difficult to contradict. The cost of such means of producing electricity if not heavily subsidised by tax payer funds would not be economical.
The use of nuclear power, surely France has shown the feasibility of this form of producing electric power? and the problems created in Germany when they have shut down most of their nuclear plants producing electricity?

The results of these experiments will surely come up with more factual information than a lot of gum bashing scientists trying to get funding to continue with their not provable theories.

https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/million-y ... te-history

[John Hill]

If you really want an argument you should decide just what it is you are arguing about then you should find someone to argue with or maybe argue with yourself as I will not be taking any further part in this.

[AtomKraft]

Well Gob- after your hangover, instead of apologising, look up the answers to the following questions.

1. What percentage of Global warming gasses are anthropogenic, and what percentage are natural?
2. What is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere today, in ppm?
2a. And what was the maximum natural concentration recorded, pre industrial times?
3. What concentration of CO2 is the minimum required for plants to grow?
4. What is the concentration of CO2 in the exhaled breath of a human?
5. What is the temp change in degrees C over the last hundred years according to those who claim we are heating the planet?

Did you know that those who farm in greenhouses burn fossil fuels in them to promote plant growth? I didn't until recently- well, I knew they burned paraffin, but I thought they did so to keep the plants warm, not to increase CO2 levels.
About 1200 ppm yields the best growth with minimum fuel cost, although higher values make the plants grow even better.

[TheGreenGoblin]

Atom, your comments on climate read like a belief system, which implies a certain irrationality in my book. I have better things to do than trade random facts with the scientifically illiterate, even if they do deserve more politeness than I proferred the other night. I suggest that you read about the role of CO2 in planetary climate. Start with Venus and then look at what the NOAA say about the role of CO2 here on earth and then ponder a little more. Look at the history of CO2 over the earth's millenia, found in tree rings and core samples taken from the ocean. Look at the big historical, deep time, picture. Take some time to understand photosynthesis and the role of CO2 in cellular respiration and then try to understand that there are bounds and limits beyond which excess CO2 becomes a negative factor, even for biological systems, not least because of the climatic heating associated with an over-abundancy of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also understand that CO2 is also required to prevent excessive cooling, and then look for details on where the sweet spots are for where CO2 levels should be here on this good earth. Good luck and I wish you the best in your endeavours.

[AtomKraft]

Gob.
To reduce such a complex system as our climate to "CO2 up, temp up" is docile.

In the actual IPCC reports, even if it increased by another 5 degrees C, their estimate of the reduction in GDP would be about 2%. In other words we'd be behind by roughly the amount we grow every year.
And that would be a temp rise of 6C from preindustrial times.

We are predicted to grow about 400% by the end of the century, with an extra 6 degrees C, we'd only grow by c.384%.

It's a rounding error. The science in the reports is pretty good, but nobody reads them.
By the time the IPCC data has been filtered through reports to the press, and mixed with a good dose of politics, the signal has long disappeared into the noise.

It's a complete load of bollocks.

Temp is likely to rise by a good deal less than 6 C, and there's no emergency or crisis.

I'm not in denial, but my BS detector is fully operational.

[AtomKraft]

Indians are practical people, as most folk know- I'm married to one.

I thought it interesting the number of times Dishy Rishi mentioned Global Warming today, in his long speech, was precisely zero.

There are idiots everywhere, but I don't think Sunak's ever been accused of being one of them.

Listen, and learn.

[OFSO]

Why does nobody ever mention that Germany is one of the most polluting countries in the EU?

[Wodrick]

Why does nobody ever mention that Germany is one of the most polluting countries in the EU?

Germany is not one of the most polluting it is THE most polluting.

[Boac]

Why does nobody ever mention that Germany is one of the most polluting countries in the EU?

I guess it is a bit like 'the war'?