CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

Utter bull-ology. Any savings made on using less energy to heat homes were quickly wiped out with carbon tax increases. This is a very ingenious statement to make and reminds me of a saying "piddle down their backs and tell them they're sweating"

I've no problem and think it's a good idea to burn less fossil fuels, but don't say this is to save money.

Don't you know that the bourgeoisie priests know what is best and what isn't for the working classes? So be quiet and get back to the grunt work that is required to keep society functioning, these self-appointed new priests have important work to do!

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

The same right-wing media that also spouts climate apocalypse every other day?

No, the actual right wing meda.
The likes of the daily mail, the sun, the telegraph that focus on immigrants and the EU as the cause if everyone's problems also try to convince working class people that environmntal protection is a scam and the scientists are all part of a a conspiracy to increase taxes.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Utter bull-ology. Any savings made on using less energy to heat homes were quickly wiped out with carbon tax increases. This is a very ingenious statement to make and reminds me of a saying "piddle down their backs and tell them they're sweating"

I've no problem and think it's a good idea to burn less fossil fuels, but don't say this is to save money.

You absolutely can save money by increasing the energy efficiency of your home, especially if the work done is paid for by the state or heavily subsidised.

But whatever, your mind is already made up.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The germ theory of disease is accepted science. Does this mean all medical scientists have loads of free time to sit around all day arguing with homeopaths on the internet?

But the 'climate crisis' is, and I quote: 'the most urgent issue of our day'.
If scientists continue to turn a blind eye to false and inaccurate reporting of their research, then they do not deserve the credibility that they so demand by the public. It's up to them.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Don't you know that the bourgeoisie priests know what is best and what isn't for the working classes? So be quiet and get back to the grunt work that is required to keep society functioning, these self-appointed new priests have important work to do!

scientists know the most about the science.
The consequences of not listening to their warnings about climate change will be borne most heavily by the poor.

The wealthy can afford to move or buiild defences against extreme weather. The poor will be screwed as their property becomes worthless due to flooding or extreme weather, or if they happen to live in a desirable area that is relatively unscathed by climate change, they will be pushed out by rising rents and property prices.

Anyone who pretends that they don't believe in climate change because of concern for the poor is either a liar or a fool.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

But the 'climate crisis' is, and I quote: 'the most urgent issue of our day'.
If scientists continue to turn a blind eye to false and inaccurate reporting of their research, then they do not deserve the credibility that they so demand by the public. It's up to them.

Give me a break.

Lots of scientists speak out. If you bothered to look for their opinion instead of accepting conspiracy theories and the lies of unqualified bloggers and shills, you could easily find them

Realclimate is run by Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist with lots of contributions from other publishing climate scientists
Skeptical Science is run by climate scientists and has lots of Climatologists contributing to this site


Climate scientists are not responsible for the lies and distortions of the media, and even if they spent all of their time on the internet, challenging the lies and distortions of bloggers and conspiracy theorists, it would
do nothing to change the minds of people who think they're all part of the conspiracy to fake climate change

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

No, the actual right wing meda.
The likes of the daily mail, the sun, the telegraph that focus on immigrants and the EU as the cause if everyone's problems also try to convince working class people that environmntal protection is a scam and the scientists are all part of a a conspiracy to increase taxes.

The 'Guardian' also focuses on the same, but in the respect that 'Brexit' is cause of all their problems and that everyone who voted for it is an uneducated bigot who do not know their place.

'Right-wing' and so-called 'liberal' media are just two sides of the same coin.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Give me a break.

Climate scientists are not responsible for the lies and distortions of the media,

They are responsible if they are complicit, and this complicity is, and will continue to be, detrimental to their credibility. How you cannot see this is in itself incredible.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Changing the road tax system to be based on CO2 emissions radically changed the national fleet to be more fuel efficient.

No it didn't, it took ages owing to a recession for 2008-2014 registered cars to appear in the second-hand market at a level that most folk could afford to either buy or go into a small debt for if possible - (the banks were practically a closed shop).

Also, the effects of this intervention was to push people to purchase diesel fuelled cars in this period - now the greens are jumping up and down over NOx emissions and are savaging people with import taxes for daring to grab a deal of a used car in NI/UK.

Just like in Australia, where ever greens stick their oar in with batsh!t crazy policies, they wreak a trail of destruction in their wake.

Akrasia wrote: »

Giving incentives to get people to become early adopters to EVs is not Champaign socialism.

I asked you for an answer to this before, but you ignored it: How does someone working 12kms away in a small town without ANY public transport on minimum wage afford an EV?

There is no second-hand market for these EVs and there won't be for a long time.

In the mean time you campaign for carbon taxes to be increased.

That person working is being butchered by your policies.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

scientists know the most about the science.
The consequences of not listening to their warnings about climate change will be borne most heavily by the poor.
.

How many of their warnings have come to pass vs the number of their warnings that have not over the last 50 years or so?

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

How many of their warnings have come to pass vs the number of their warnings that have not over the last 50 years or so?

Like?

posidonia

thecretinhop wrote: »

do you have a stutter?

No. You?

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

Like?

I don't know, which is why I asked the question?

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

You absolutely can save money by increasing the energy efficiency of your home, especially if the work done is paid for by the state or heavily subsidised.

But whatever, your mind is already made up.

A house burning 1040kg of coal during a typical winter costed €312 before carbon taxes were ramped up. (26X40kg@€12)

Insulation of house cuts this consumption to say 600kg of coal (I'm being generous here) but carbon taxes have since caused coal to reach €22 a bag. House now costs €330 to heat. (15X40kg@€22)

So, no - it is designed to make sure the government don't lose money and long after the costs of retrofitting have been recouped by carbon taxes, the profit for governments continue.

The ordinary Joe NEVER wins. Your policies make sure of that.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

The 'Guardian' also focuses on the same, but in the respect that 'Brexit' is cause of all their problems and that everyone who voted for it is an uneducated bigot who do not know their place.

'Right-wing' and so-called 'liberal' media are just two sides of the same coin.

No they aren't

There are some media outlets that at least try to focus on evidence and data and honest an accurate reporting, and there are other media outlets that focus more on sensationalism and gossip and pushing a poitical agenda. Not all media is the same, and not all media outlets have the same reputation for truth and accuracy.

but this is largly off topic for this thread

posidonia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I don't know, which is why I asked the question?

Well, I can't think of one. Smoking? Ozone layer? Over fishing? Asbestos? Aids? Eboloa? Plastic?



All scares? I think not.

Oneiric 3

Some things never change:


Different actors, same principle.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

No they aren't

There are some media outlets that at least try to focus on evidence and data and honest an accurate reporting, and there are other media outlets that focus more on sensationalism and gossip and pushing a poitical agenda. Not all media is the same, and not all media outlets have the same reputation for truth and accuracy.

but this is largly off topic for this thread

Yes they are.
You are saying that the likes of 'the Guardian' does not push their own political/cultural agenda? Very naive thinking.

But yes, this is off topic, but my point still stands, which was regarding the sensationalist reporting of climate research, and why it is going unchallenged.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

scientists know the most about the science..

Anyone who pretends that they don't believe in climate change because of concern for the poor is either a liar or a fool.

This entire thread has been showing how the science is based on bad data.

Believe in climate change? Is it a religion?

I'd rather base my actions and policy's on good science. With Actual data. Not belief.

You choose what you want to believe. That is your choice.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

How many of their warnings have come to pass vs the number of their warnings that have not over the last 50 years or so?

Climate change attribution is a relatively new field and there have been about 250 studies in recent years looking at whether climate change can be linked to extreme events around he world

As more studies are done, we will have more data, and you need to understand that we are at about 1c above climate preindustrial levels now, as we continue to warm we will see more and more of these events and their severity are likely to increase as the global average temperature anomaly increases.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

No it didn't, it took ages owing to a recession for 2008-2014 registered cars to appear in the second-hand market at a level that most folk could afford to either buy or go into a small debt for if possible - (the banks were practically a closed shop).

Also, the effects of this intervention was to push people to purchase diesel fuelled cars in this period - now the greens are jumping up and down over NOx emissions and are savaging people with import taxes for daring to grab a deal of a used car in NI/UK.

Just like in Australia, where ever greens stick their oar in with batsh!t crazy policies, they wreak a trail of destruction in their wake.



I asked you for an answer to this before, but you ignored it: How does someone working 12kms away in a small town without ANY public transport on minimum wage afford an EV?

There is no second-hand market for these EVs and there won't be for a long time.

In the mean time you campaign for carbon taxes to be increased.

That person working is being butchered by your policies.

The only way to get a 2nd hand market is to have richer people purchasing new EVs instead of ICE cars
Ordinary working people can't afford an EV, so they need to find another way to get to work which is likely to be an ICE car or a hybrid

Will they be able to afford an EV in 5 years time when the first generation Nissan Leaf is 14 years old?
they probably will and as long as the battery can do 50 miles then it would probably work for them to commute back and forth to work.

With new technology, someone has to be the early adopter and costs are always higher for these early adopters
Government had to incentivise these purchases to make it attractive
As the infrastructure has improved and the technology is more mature, then these incentives are not as necessary anymore.

I can envisage a scrappage scheme in 6 or 7 years time to get old ICE cars off the road for much more than their retail value if the owner exchanges it for an EV or other type f net zero emmission car.

It will make economic sense for them to upgrade because ICE cars will be much more expensive to run compared with EVs

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

This entire thread has been showing how the science is based on bad data.

Believe in climate change? Is it a religion?

I'd rather base my actions and policy's on good science. With Actual data. Not belief.

You choose what you want to believe. That is your choice.

You are still ignoring the Graph that shows your boy Connolly is a liar

This entire thread is an indication that some people do not trust science, and think that there is a conspiracy to prevent the real data from being published

How do they know this? Because dodgy people writing blogs and making youtube videos and publishing papers in their own fake journals tell them this

oriel36

Akrasia wrote: »

All flat earthers know that they have no chance of getting published. It’s that damned conspiracy against them

Before any objection surfaces that astronomy has no place along with climate sciences, many of the presentations have shown where the weak points were with astronomical principles and how no real thorough review happened since the time of Copernicus. The people who insist my contributions belong in an astronomy forum or are off-topic will equally allow the ridiculous 'Milankovitch cycles' in respect to climate pass through without objection.

The idea of 'flat earthers' makes me laugh as no serious researcher in history ever believed the Earth was flat, they may not have found the arguments for a round and rotating Earth although some did come close as mentioned by Plutarch -

"... just as Cleanthes thought it right that the Greeks collectively should impeach Aristagoras the Stoic, of impiety, for overthrowing the altar of earth, because the fellow attempted to account for visible phenomena by supposing that the sky remains fixed, and that the earth rolls round down an oblique circle, turning at the same time upon its own axis." Plutarch

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Moon.html


In truth, for all our technological advancement, there are no people of stature who can affirm the facts of a round and rotating Earth as these theorists or meteorologists dither around with an exceptionally stupid late 17th century conclusion.

Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100s
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1040.4 mph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth


The Lat/Long system along with the 24 hour system determines an Equatorial Rotational Velocity of 1037.5 mph so the planet turns its 24,901 mile circumference in 24 hours, after all, 15 degrees of geographical separation at the Equator is both 1037.5 miles and 1 hour time difference.

There is no conspiracy, just inept people unable to spot a mistake or more importantly, know what needs to be done in order to recover Earth sciences and astronomy to being positive areas of research.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

The only way to get a 2nd hand market is to have richer people purchasing new EVs instead of ICE cars
Ordinary working people can't afford an EV, so they need to find another way to get to work which is likely to be an ICE car or a hybrid

Ordinary Joe must suck it up with higher diesel/petrol prices then? Those increased taxes will really help him/her save for that dream EV.

Akrasia wrote: »

Will they be able to afford an EV in 5 years time when the first generation Nissan Leaf is 14 years old?
they probably will and as long as the battery can do 50 miles then it would probably work for them to commute back and forth to work.

God forbid they ever go out of the hamster wheel and want to actually take a trip to the beach. They best not have kids either in case they outgrow the ample room within a Leaf :rolleyes:
But then again, the hard left are against having too many kids: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Akrasia wrote: »

With new technology, someone has to be the early adopter and costs are always higher for these early adopters
Government had to incentivise these purchases to make it attractive
As the infrastructure has improved and the technology is more mature, then these incentives are not as necessary anymore.

Ah yes, as long as the rich have got their freebie the rest can go to hell in a handcart

Akrasia wrote: »

I can envisage a scrappage scheme in 6 or 7 years time to get old ICE cars off the road for much more than their retail value if the owner exchanges it for an EV or other type f net zero emmission car.

That won't work with second-hand models, again your policy will only benefit the wealthy, surprise surprise.

Akrasia wrote: »

It will make economic sense for them to upgrade because ICE cars will be much more expensive to run compared with EVs

Your green policies will make damn sure of that. €2.20 per litre of diesel anyone? don't dare give out about that, it's for your own good. Plus, a €2.20 litre of diesel is much more cleverer than the €1.20 per litre as it emits less emissions. Smart fuel.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Ordinary Joe must suck it up with higher diesel/petrol prices then? Those increased taxes will really help him/her save for that dream EV.

God forbid they ever go out of the hamster wheel and want to actually take a trip to the beach. They best not have kids either in case they outgrow the ample room within a Leaf :rolleyes:
But then again, the hard left are against having too many kids: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children


Ah yes, as long as the rich have got their freebie the rest can go to hell in a handcart


That won't work with second-hand models, again your policy will only benefit the wealthy, surprise surprise.


Your green policies will make damn sure of that. €2.20 per litre of diesel anyone? don't dare give out about that, it's for your own good. Plus, a €2.20 litre of diesel is much more cleverer than the €1.20 per litre as it emits less emissions. Smart fuel.

Whats your solution then? Should the government buy everyone an EV and give it to them for free?
Or should the government just pretend climate change isn't a problem and ignore it hoping it will go away.

Akrasia

Here's a good video that talks about what the evidence and science says about the link between the Australian wildfires and Climate change

It's by Peter Hadfield, a science reporter for decades who has been making videos promoting science on Youtube under the username Potholer54

Nabber

Arkasia you being on boards is creating unnecessary carbon. Hypocrisy or you have accepted that carbon is the sole forcing factor and you just don’t care?


Also EVs are not in a place to replace combustion engines. There is also the negative impacts of the cobalt and lithium mining.
That said EVs should be the way forward, hopefully the carbon foot print in manufacturing can be brought down with expanding scale and technology.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Whats your solution then? Should the government buy everyone an EV and give it to them for free?

Ireland does not make cars. It makes no sense to be offering the rich incentives to be buying what they can already afford without a second thought. It helps nobody in Ireland.

When there are ample amounts of EVs in the second-hand market, then start looking at discouraging petrol/diesel cars, not until then.

Your policies show contempt for the working class, sticking them with higher running costs is just mere collateral damage in the pursuit of a pipe dream where all the country is driving an EV powered by wind mills.

Akrasia wrote: »

Or should the government just pretend climate change isn't a problem and ignore it hoping it will go away.

Climate change is not having the effects that the prophets of alarm said it would. I'd hedge my bets that the less than 0.1% of global emissions that Ireland is responsible for wouldn't make one iota of a difference if we went carbon neutral in the morning.

To put this in perspective: What Ireland produces in one year is already put into the air by a single company - China coal - by every January 3rd at midday.

We're pi$$ing in the wind and putting our citizens through fruitless hardship by pursuing your policies on their current trajectory.

Akrasia

Nabber wrote: »

Arkasia you being on boards is creating unnecessary carbon. Hypocrisy or you have accepted that carbon is the sole forcing factor and you just don’t care?


Also EVs are not in a place to replace combustion engines. There is also the negative impacts of the cobalt and lithium mining.
That said EVs should be the way forward, hopefully the carbon foot print in manufacturing can be brought down with expanding scale and technology.

I'm actually powering my laptop using an exercise wheel and offsetting the carbon from the Board.ie datacentre by letting my grass grow a bit longer before cutting it

Regarding the environmental cost of EVs, it's not ideal but it's better than the alternative, and I'm really hopeful that the promising glass solid state battery technology will make a lot of these heavy elements less necssary in the future (and by driving down battery costs, it will make buying a 2nd hand EV much more attractive if you can buy an old EV with a knackered battery and replace it with a new one that also has better range and charging properties.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/no-more-heavy-metals-new-ibm-battery-chemistry-research-could-address-mineral-sourcing

There are far fewer moving parts in an EV compared with an ICE car so any new EV built today could easily have a lifespan of over 20 years if we can sort out the battery replacement problem.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Ireland does not make cars. It makes no sense to be offering the rich incentives to be buying what they can already afford without a second thought. It helps nobody in Ireland.

When there are ample amounts of EVs in the second-hand market, then start looking at discouraging petrol/diesel cars, not until then.

Your policies show contempt for the working class, sticking them with higher running costs is just mere collateral damage in the pursuit of a pipe dream where all the country is driving an EV powered by wind mills.



Climate change is not having the effects that the prophets of alarm said it would. I'd hedge my bets that the less than 0.1% of global emissions that Ireland is responsible for wouldn't make one iota of a difference if we went carbon neutral in the morning.

To put this in perspective: What Ireland produces in one year is already put into the air by a single company - China coal - by every January 3rd at midday.

We're pi$$ing in the wind and putting our citizens through fruitless hardship by pursuing your policies on their current trajectory.

Ok, to add to your ignorance on climate science, I can also see that you know nothing about economics or politics either

Ireland is part of the EU, and the UN, and as such, we have committed to reducing our CO2 emissions as part of a global effort to combat climate change

In order to solve this problem, every country needs to decarbonise. And if the EU meets our targets that we set for ourselves, than we will be in a position to enforce those standards on any country looking to trade with us.