"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense · 19-09-2018 06:43PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Who gives a sh1t. You brought him up as a standard dense distraction tactic when I pointed out that the paper you linked to was written by someone with absolutely no climate science training and written in a way using sources of such awful quality that they would get a university undergraduate student a failing grade.

Funny how you resort to trying to pick at a peer reviewed author's credentials when their peer reviewed research doesn't coincide with your urgent, lefty demands for a "global solution".

Your dismissal of a peer reviewed author coincides with the opinion of the editor of The Lancet who has suggested that as much as half of the published scientific "literature" may simply be "untrue".

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext

As much as 97% of the climate science literature is false if that's the case I'd guess.

P.S. The head of the UNIPCC had no "climate science training" either.

Akrasia · 19-09-2018 10:04PM

dense wrote: »

Funny how you resort to trying to pick at a peer reviewed author's credentials when their peer reviewed research doesn't coincide with your urgent, lefty demands for a "global solution".

Your dismissal of a peer reviewed author coincides with the opinion of the editor of The Lancet who has suggested that as much as half of the published scientific "literature" may simply be "untrue".

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext

As much as 97% of the climate science literature is false if that's the case I'd guess.

P.S. The head of the UNIPCC had no "climate science training" either.

Literally the definition of science denialism right there. Blogs are trustworthy. Scientific journals can't be trusted unless they're open access online journals that publish bloggers propaganda as fact.

And you still don't know the difference between a researcher and an administrator.

Dohnjoe · 20-09-2018 12:13AM

dense wrote: »

Funny how you resort

Funny how you have to resort to using every trick and tactic possible to continually push your subjective dogmatic view despite it being countered by simple logic, reason and evidence, doesn't that raise personal alarm bells? if not, that's even more worrying

If this was a proper debate with an arbiter your argument would have long been struck off as faulty, circular and pedantic. But there isn't, so here we are. You vs the world in a game of stamina, who can get the last word in

dense · 20-09-2018 07:40AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Funny how you have to resort to using every trick and tactic possible to continually push your subjective dogmatic view despite it being countered by simple logic, reason and evidence, doesn't that raise personal alarm bells? if not, that's even more worrying

If this was a proper debate with an arbiter your argument would have long been struck off as faulty, circular and pedantic. But there isn't, so here we are. You vs the world in a game of stamina, who can get the last word in

Are you for real?

You have no opinion on Akrasia pretending that the UNIPCC Chairman with a background in railways who resigned in 2015 is still busily working away diligently "overseeing the organisation of this extremely complex publication"?

No, instead your whinging because the facts about UN climate "science" don't tally with what you've been fed over the years and you can't come to terms with it and react by getting upset with the person who is enlightening you.

I don't know if you read books Dohnjoe, but do you fire them across the room if the endings aren't to your liking?

Because that's what your doing now.

Akrasia wrote: »

Who gives a sh1t.

Not Dohnjoe, that's for sure. Couldn't care less about facts.

-Likes you to mislead them with your UN propoganda.

dense · 20-09-2018 01:13PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Individual action is not the solution to a global ecological problem. It requires global political action.

What a load of cobblers, you can't even explain where we're going to reliably get 95% of our local energy needs from and you're incessantly waffling about wanting to be globally remotely governed by lefty rabble rousers like Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger all with the hands out looking for the free stuff or Professor Sweeney's special star, the well known climate rider, hypocrite and socialist dictator, Evo Morales.

Any chance you'd tell us who told you Ireland's emissions since 1998 were the equivalent of 2m Hiroshima bombs?

A concerned mate at the pub or did you hear it at a Friends of the Earth hoedown?

Or you just made it up, like the suspected half of the "science" found in todays junk science peer reviewed journals.

dubstepper · 20-09-2018 04:43PM

dense wrote: »

No, instead your whinging because the facts about UN climate "science" don't tally with what you've been fed over the years and you can't come to terms with it and react by getting upset with the person who is enlightening you.

To anyone who reads this thread you have nearly described yourself. Ranting away trying to legitimize conspiracy theories you are reading on various blogs.

dense wrote: »

What a load of cobblers, you can't even explain where we're going to reliably get 95% of our local energy needs from and you're incessantly waffling about wanting to be globally remotely governed by lefty rabble rousers like Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger all with the hands out looking for the free stuff or Professor Sweeney's special star, the well known climate rider, hypocrite and socialist dictator, Evo Morales.
.

This paragraph is largely incoherent but the point about where to source our energy, while interesting, is nothing to do with whether climate change is man made. it is entirely consistent to agree with anthropogenic climate change, without needing to offer a solution. It is beyond most people to offer solutions. We need scientists and engineers to do that.

dense · 20-09-2018 04:51PM

A smell of the the worker being urged to engage in an uprising against the establishment to finally implement the socialists' plans comes off of this explanation of how the planet is to be saved.

Think of the occupy thing here, its from the same stable that urges the takeover of things and always wants stuff for nothing.

I say that because the utopian "economic transformation" global takeover being promoted by the socialists and Christiana Figueres certainly doesnt look like its going to happen voluntarily, but by force:

This means nationalising the main industries that dominate the economy.

This will need to be done throughout the world, encompassing the 147 multinational corporations that recent research has shown dominate the globe.

The task is urgent. It must involve the political re-armament of the workers’ movement in Britain and internationally with a socialist programme.

As a first step, this will require the creation of new mass workers’ parties to replace the discredited former workers’ organisations. These parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, have totally failed over decades to implement programmes to reverse the degradation of the planet.

http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv2016-05/08-climate.html

Of course if the means justify the ends, the alarmists can be counted on to endorse violence against those rejecting their faked climate science.

dense · 20-09-2018 05:17PM

dubstepper wrote: »

This paragraph is largely incoherent but the point about where to source our energy, while interesting, is nothing to do with whether climate change is man made. it is entirely consistent to agree with anthropogenic climate change, without needing to offer a solution. It is beyond most people to offer solutions. We need scientists and engineers to do that.

No, it is utterly stupid and dangerous to be calling for an economy to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels without any consideration to solving what is going to reliably replace the 95% of national energy that fossil fuels provide.

It is infantile to say "I dont know, but lets do it anyway".

Maybe a rapid mass destruction of civilisation is worth it of course, in order to save the planet:

Instead, says Hillman, the world’s population must globally move to zero emissions across agriculture, air travel, shipping, heating homes – every aspect of our economy – and reduce our human population too.

Can it be done without a collapse of civilisation?

“I don’t think so,” says Hillman. “Can you see everyone in a democracy volunteering to give up flying? Can you see the majority of the population becoming vegan? Can you see the majority agreeing to restrict the size of their families?”

I think the answer is no, don't you?
Even the alarmists couldn't be bothered monitoring their own carbon footprints here.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

Akrasia · 21-09-2018 08:20PM

dense wrote: »

No, it is utterly stupid and dangerous to be calling for an economy to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels without any consideration to solving what is going to reliably replace the 95% of national energy that fossil fuels provide.

It is infantile to say "I dont know, but lets do it anyway".

Maybe a rapid mass destruction of civilisation is worth it of course, in order to save the planet:

I think the answer is no, don't you?
Even the alarmists couldn't be bothered monitoring their own carbon footprints here.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/26/were-doomed-mayer-hillman-on-the-climate-reality-no-one-else-will-dare-mention

the actual figure is that Ireland produces 10% of it's total energy from renewable sources as of 2017, and 30% of our electricity from renewable sources

Provisional data from the SEAI indicates that 30.1% of electricity, 6.9% of heat and 7.1% of transport energy requirements were met from renewable sources at end 2017. Overall, SEAI analysis shows that 10.6% of Ireland’s energy requirements in 2017 were met from renewable sources, with an expectation that Ireland will achieve at least 80% of its 16% renewable energy target by 2020.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-05-31/31/

The solution to transitioning from fossil fuels, is to increase investment and for the government to provide both positive and negative incentives to funnel market forces towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.

Mature technology exists to have energy storage that can provide better continuity of supply. When we have extra generation capacity, that energy is stored in the form of compressed gas, or gravity potential energy, or battery technology with the ability to release this energy when demand is higher or production is lower.

Add to this an interconnected EU power grid and we can have a secure reliable network with plenty of redundancy

dense · 22-09-2018 12:36AM

Akrasia wrote: »

the actual figure is that Ireland produces 10% of it's total energy from renewable sources as of 2017, and 30% of our electricity from renewable sources

I presume you realise that is not an actual figure, it is a politician giving a figure he hopes no one will check and which has not yet been published by the SEAI.

To get you back to reality, the CSO 2018 Energy Report paints a different story.

Renewable energy accounted for 3% of Ireland’s total final energy consumption in 2015.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii18/energy/

Maybe the greenies really trust their much maligned climate Minister not to lean towards rounding up figures, and maybe there really has been a 300% increase in the role that renewable energy plays in less than 3 years.

Sorry to disappoint, this time from the SEAI:

Renewable energy in Ireland reached the highest level ever with a new peak in 2016 of 4,246 ktoe, up from the
previous peak in 1995 at 4,105 ktoe.

A peak of 4246ktoe, from 4105 in 1995.

From the most recent SEAI report.

Total renewable energy increased slightly by 0.3% during 2016 to 1,158 ktoe out of their total of 13250ktoe.

Someone seems to be telling lies, the CSO or SEAI?

THE SEAI does admit that wind energy is not all its cracked up to be.

Hydro and wind decreased by 15.6% and
6.5% respectively as there was lower rainfall and less wind blowing in 2016 compared to 2015

In 2016, lower hydro and wind resources and increased electricity
exports saw electricity generated from gas increase by 23%.

Not sure if it mentioned that Ireland has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, but I doubt it.

There's lots of stuff in there too about how much reliance we have on biomass as energy but of course that is now being acknowledged as being more detrimental than coal.

The investigations were carried out in a laboratory chamber furnace at five different temperatures (from 700 to 1100 °C) and at three different air flow rates providing an excess of oxygen. In many cases the determined emission indicators for biomass combustion were higher than for hard coal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743967115304025

Akrasia wrote: »

The solution to transitioning from fossil fuels, is to increase investment and for the government to provide both positive and negative incentives to funnel market forces towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.

Mature technology exists to have energy storage that can provide better continuity of supply. When we have extra generation capacity, that energy is stored in the form of compressed gas, or gravity potential energy, or battery technology with the ability to release this energy when demand is higher or production is lower.

Add to this an interconnected EU power grid and we can have a secure reliable network with plenty of redundancy

Sounds great. So good in fact that most of it isn't in use here and is being rejected around the world.

dense · 22-09-2018 01:34PM

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.

-From the ever-sceptical UNIPCC, wisely cautioning it's more highly strung alarmist readers to cool the jets.

The alarmist position is that the science is settled, that we do know all there is to know about equilibrium climate sensitivity and that not only can we predict, but also control future climates and climate change, simply by adjusting our CO2 emissions.

Water John · 23-09-2018 03:35PM

Just putting a link here that shows those climate deniers that your fossil fuel friends were well aware of the effects in the 1980s.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

This has remarkable similarity to the tabacco companies.

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 12:47PM

The IPCC released a special report on Monday outlining the consequences should we allow warming to increase beyond 1.5c and they're not good at all.

Based on current emissions pathways we are on track to breach 3c warming by 2100 and reach 1.5c by 2040

This is a report that has been in progress for 2.5 years involving dozens of the foremost experts in the fields most relevant to climate change

They start by saying that Human activities are likely to have cause 1c of warming above pre-industrial levels and that global warming is 'likely' to reach 1.5c by between 2030 and 2052 if emissions continue to increase at their current rate.

There is substantial difference in impacts to human welfare and biodiversity when comparing a world 2c and 1.5c above pre-industrial

The solution to this problem is outlined in chapter 2. Basically, we need to get to zero net emissions by about 2050 with various scenarios overshooting the 1.5c before reducing back to this level with large scale BECCS programs to reduce atmospheric CO2 content. The longer it takes for us to cut our carbon emissions, the greater the risk that we will overshoot the 1.5c target and have to spend an awful lot more money and resources in removing carbon from the atmosphere to control climate change.

By mid-century, the majority of primary energy comes from non-fossil-fuels (i.e., renewables and nuclear energy) in most 1.5°C pathways (Table 2.6). Figure 2.15 shows the evolution of primary energy supply over this century across 1.5°C pathways, and in detail for the four illustrative pathway archetypes highlighted in this chapter. Note that this section reports primary energy using the direct equivalent method on a lower heating values basis (Bruckner et al., 2014).

Renewable energy (including biomass, hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal) increases across all 1.5°C pathways with the renewable energy share of primary energy reaching 28–88% in 2050 (Table 2.6) with an interquartile range of 49–67%. The magnitude and split between bioenergy, wind, solar, and hydro differ between pathways, as can be seen in the illustrative pathway archetypes in Figure 2.15. Bioenergy is a major supplier of primary energy, contributing to both electricity and other forms of final energy such as liquid fuels for transportation (Bauer et al., 2018). In 1.5°C pathways, there is a significant growth in bioenergy used in combination with CCS for pathways where it is included (Figure 2.15).

Nuclear power increases its share in most 1.5°C pathways by 2050, but in some pathways both the absolute capacity and share of power from nuclear generators declines (Table 2.15). There are large differences in nuclear power between models and across pathways (Kim et al., 2014; Rogelj et al., 2018). One of the reasons for this variation is that the future deployment of nuclear can be constrained by societal preferences assumed in narratives underlying the pathways (O’Neill et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b). Some 1.5°C pathways no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century, while others project over 200 EJ yr–1 of nuclear power in 2100 (Figure 2.15).

The share of primary energy provided by total fossil fuels decreases from 2020 to 2050 in all 1.5°C pathways, however, trends for oil, gas and coal differ (Table 2.6). By 2050, the share of primary energy from coal decreases to 0–13% across 1.5°C pathways with an interquartile range of 1–7%. From 2020 to 2050 the primary energy supplied by oil changes by –93 to +6% (interquartile range –75 to –32%); natural gas changes by –88 to +99% (interquartile range –60 to –13%), with varying levels of CCS. Pathways with higher use of coal and gas tend to deploy CCS to control their carbon emissions (see Section 2.4.2.3). As the energy transition is accelerated by several decades in 1.5°C pathways compared to 2°C pathways, residual fossil-fuel use (i.e., fossil fuels not used for electricity generation) without CCS is generally lower in 2050 than in 2°C pathways, while combined hydro, solar, and wind power deployment is generally higher than in 2°C pathways (Figure 2.15).

In addition to the 1.5°C pathways included in the scenario database (Annex 2.A.3), there are other analyses in the literature including, for example, sector-based analyses of energy demand and supply options. Even though not necessarily developed in the context of the 1.5°C target, they explore in greater detail some options for deep reductions in GHG emissions. For example, there are analyses of transition to up to 100% renewable energy by 2050 (Creutzig et al., 2017; Jacobson et al., 2017), which describe what is entailed for a renewable energy share largely from solar and wind (and electrification) that is above the range of 1.5°C pathways available in the database, although there have been challenges to the assumptions used in high renewable analyses (e.g., Clack et al., 2017). There are also analyses that result in a large role for nuclear energy in mitigation of GHGs (Hong et al., 2015; Berger et al., 2017a, 2017b; Xiao and Jiang, 2017).

BECCS could also contribute a larger share, but faces challenges related to its land use and impact on food supply (Burns and Nicholson, 2017) (assessed in greater detail in Sections 2.3.4.2, 4.3.7 and 5.4). These analyses could, provided their assumptions prove plausible, expand the range of 1.5°C pathways.

In summary, the share of primary energy from renewables increases while that from coal decreases across 1.5°C pathways (high confidence). This statement is true for all 1.5°C pathways in the scenario database and associated literature (Annex 2.A.3), and is consistent with the additional studies mentioned above, an increase in energy supply from lower-carbon-intensity energy supply, and a decrease in energy supply from higher-carbon-intensity energy supply

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

And even though this report is scathing and urgent, it still does not fully take into account some of the 'known unknowns' and the risks that we could slip into a positive feedbacks that could cause runaway climate change beyond our ability to mitigate them.

As it stands, humans are the architects of the future global climate. We can change our energy systems. It will be expensive and disruptive, and challenging, but it is an economic and political problem, not a scientific or technical one. But if we pass a tipping point where the earth drives warming on it's own, then we become passengers on a train ride to hell.

The ball is firmly in the court of our politicians and global political institutions to transform our energy systems, building standards, transport infrastructures etc, and to change land use and promote afforestation and carbon capture by industry. As individuals, we can reduce our own personal consumption, but the most important action we can take is political action. We need to put pressure on our politicians and governments at every level to prioritise climate change and energy policy. We have only got a few years to make unprecedented changes to avoid runaway climate change and the severe impacts that this will have on future generations and non human species.

The most dangerous ideology this planet has ever seen is not Nazis, or communists, or feminists. it's Science denialism. Pseudo 'skeptics' and corporate shills who are happily promoting lies and distorting the facts so that they can continue to pollute the planet despite the overwhelming evidence that they are causing long term irreversible harm.

The Rape of Lucretia · 09-10-2018 01:11PM

I have not seen that Danny Healy Rae was involved or consulted in the writing of that report, so it cannot make much claim to being independent or authoritative.

dense · 09-10-2018 01:49PM

Akrasia wrote: »

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

The most dangerous ideology this planet has ever seen is not Nazis, or communists, or feminists. it's Science denialism. Pseudo 'skeptics' and corporate shills who are happily promoting lies and distorting the facts so that they can continue to pollute the planet despite the overwhelming evidence that they are causing long term irreversible harm.

Best get out on the streets and start calling into houses and get any sceptics rounded up and executed then so everyone left will be in agreement with you about the need to implement the UN socialist policies.

You're going to have to resort to some undemocratic measures because the government doesn't care and neither does the public.

Did the IPCC this time define what the preindustrial global temperature was and what period it refers to when it mentions preindustrial?

Last time round it didn't and neither does the Paris agreement that this report is pushing for the urgent implementation of.

That agreement was one you described as vague and meaningless.

Mary Robinson was on with Sean O Rourke yesterday giving it her all about climate justice.

Coinciding nicely with the launch her new book and thoughts about going vegan.

xckjoo · 09-10-2018 02:29PM

Is it just me or is there a lot more extreme winds and storms in the last few years? It seems to have coincided with me starting back cycling to work

Niles Crane · 09-10-2018 03:23PM

Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave.

If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done.

I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.

joe40 · 09-10-2018 03:34PM

A bit like a smoker saying he will stop when there is a tumour.

When the full affects of climate change are realised it will be too late to do anything to prevent it, just work to mitigate against the affects.

Maybe we are already at that stage

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 03:36PM

dense wrote: »

Best get out on the streets and start calling into houses and get any sceptics rounded up and executed then so everyone left will be in agreement with you about the need to implement the UN socialist policies.

You're going to have to resort to some undemocratic measures because the government doesn't care and neither does the public.

Hold on, i thought it was a government conspiracy to buy off scientists to fake climate change something something one world government.

Some of the public mightn't care as you say, but they didn't care about seatbelts either and had to be forced to wear them by laws, they didn't care about drink driving, and had to be forced by law stop drinking and driving. They didn't care about air quality and had to be forced by law to stop burning their rubbish in their back garden... But despite the public apathy, governments driven by the public interest implemented regulations and laws to clean the air and save people from their own short sighted stupidity by dramatically decreasing road deaths and forcing car manufacturers to improve the safety of their vehicles.

Governments are there to govern. To build the infrastructure, to create the laws, the regulations, the mechanisms for the security and prosperity of the state and it's citizens, and to protect the broader security of the global population.

Did the IPCC this time define what the preindustrial global temperature was and what period it refers to when it mentions preindustrial?

Yes. It's the average temperature between 1850 and 1900

Pre-industrial: The multi-century period prior to the onset of large-scale industrial activity around
1750. The reference period 1850–1900 is used to approximate pre-industrial GMST.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

dense · 09-10-2018 03:48PM

xckjoo wrote: »

Is it just me or is there a lot more extreme winds and storms in the last few years? It seems to have coincided with me starting back cycling to work

Its so hard to know isn't it?

Studies based on proxy and measurement data or model studies over the North Atlantic for the past which cover more than 100 years show large decadal variations and either no trend or a decrease in storm numbers.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qj.2364

If a trend was to be identified, identifying a cause presents its own problems.

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 03:53PM

Niles Crane wrote: »

Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave.

If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done.

I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.

Yeah, we need collective action, but there are ways of encouraging pro-social behaviour in way that is not coercive and still allows individuals plenty of autonomy in how they operate.

For example, if we need to get to a carbon tax of at least 100 euros a tonne. Ireland has a per capita emissions of 7.3 tonnes of CO2 per year. So the government could give a environmental efficiency grant of 730 euros per person and then apply the full carbon tax to fuel, heating, transport etc.

This means even if a family made zero changes they wouldn't be any worse off. But every time they fill up their heating, or petrol for their car, they'll notice the cost and know that if they spent the money from their grant to replace their boiler or install solar panels, or change their car, or even walk and take public transport more they would be better off.

People who are the most polluting would pay a lot more in tax, people who are concientious could actually make a profit from changing their lifestyle.

There would be a pent up demand for low emissions power generation, nobody would want to pay for electricity that came with a 15% surcharge carbon tax if there was an 'airtricity' style provider that got all electric power from renewable sources

xckjoo · 09-10-2018 04:32PM

Niles Crane wrote: »

Individual action is a waste of time.Unless people are foced into changing by the world changing the way it operates then people won't do anything to change the way they behave.

If the politicians do nothing (and I supect they won't as most won't be around to feel the full affect of climate change) then nothing will be done.

I suspect there will be some seriously dark days ahead for humanity and we won't cop on and react appropriately until it's far too late.

An answer to the "why should individuals bother" question just occurred to me. If people care politicians will care. If politicians care, governments will care and so on. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Obviously it isn't a clear cut in the real world, but it does work to some degree. There's a reason politicians listen to the elderly and it's not kindness; it's because they show up to vote.

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 04:51PM

xckjoo wrote: »

An answer to the "why should individuals bother" question just occurred to me. If people care politicians will care. If politicians care, governments will care and so on. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Obviously it isn't a clear cut in the real world, but it does work to some degree. There's a reason politicians listen to the elderly and it's not kindness; it's because they show up to vote.

People need to care at the ballot box and in correspondence to their TDs and local councillors and MEPs, and in letters to the editor in media, and in social media, and in calls to radio stations, and in protests and demonstrations. Every time Danny Healey Rae says something stupid about climate change, he needs to get hundreds of letters and emails from his constituents telling him that they won't vote for his science denialism at the next election.

Politicians need to think that if they support measures to update the energy infrastructure and reduce emissions, that they will get support from the public and not just a backlash that makes it more trouble than its worth to them.

dense · 09-10-2018 06:46PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes. It's the average temperature between 1850 and 1900

Which is obviously not the pre industrial period.

An accurate average global temperature for the pre industrial temperature cannot be established due to a lack of observations.

And as you often say yourself, historical data has to be approached with scepticism.

The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.

dense · 09-10-2018 07:10PM

Akrasia wrote: »

People need to care at the ballot box and in correspondence to their TDs and local councillors and MEPs, and in letters to the editor in media, and in social media, and in calls to radio stations, and in protests and demonstrations. Every time Danny Healey Rae says something stupid about climate change, he needs to get hundreds of letters and emails from his constituents telling him that they won't vote for his science denialism at the next election.

Politicians need to think that if they support measures to update the energy infrastructure and reduce emissions, that they will get support from the public and not just a backlash that makes it more trouble than its worth to them.

Every time some green numpty demands that we radidly transition off of fossil fuels, demand that they explain exactly what they think is going to replace the 95% of our energy requirements that fossil fuels supply.

Then tell them to stand for office.

The greenies are already crying that another budget based on economic growth that "ignores climate change" has been presented.

https://www.greenparty.ie/fine-gael-ignore-climate-change-in-a-pre-election-budget-which-has-no-long-term-vision-for-our-future/

“As Professor John Fitzgerald of the Climate Advisory Committee has said: “We are completely off course and heading rapidly in the wrong direction“. This budget was a chance to set us on the right course but the Taoiseach and Minister Donohoe have given up on that opportunity.

dense · 09-10-2018 07:12PM

Niles Crane wrote: »

Individual action is a waste of time.

It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 07:42PM

dense wrote: »

Which is obviously not the pre industrial period.

An accurate average global temperature for the pre industrial temperature cannot be established due to a lack of observations.

And as you often say yourself, historical data has to be approached with scepticism.

The lefty political scientists who are on the United Nation's climate panel don't really mind so long as they can drum up a bit of hysteria amongst the easily led.

We have a good enough understanding for the purposes of using this as a reference point.

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 07:51PM

dense wrote: »

Every time some green numpty demands that we radidly transition off of fossil fuels, demand that they explain exactly what they think is going to replace the 95% of our energy requirements that fossil fuels supply.

Then tell them to stand for office.

The greenies are already crying that another budget based on economic growth that "ignores climate change" has been presented.

https://www.greenparty.ie/fine-gael-ignore-climate-change-in-a-pre-election-budget-which-has-no-long-term-vision-for-our-future/

And every time some know nothing science denier tells you that there are no credible proposals to rapidly decarbonise our economy. Simply point out the fact that we already have the technology to make big strides into replacing fossil fuels, we just need to make the capital investments. And we have known for more than a decade that the costs of adaptation and mitigation to climate change are many times higher than the costs of infrastructure developments to reduce the worse impacts of climate change.

Digging up dinosaurs and burning them has outlived it's usefulness. It's now causing much more harm than good, so we need to produce sustainable energy if we hope to have any kind of a decent planet to live on in future.

Akrasia · 09-10-2018 07:53PM

dense wrote: »

It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.

Thats true. If you were the only one producing CO2, there wouldn't be a problem. It's because there are billions of us producing these emissions (some more wastefully than others) that we have a problem.

Individual action can not be the solution to this problem. It requires global collective action.

Some people are too thick headed to see this, they are triggered by the idea of imaginary reds under their bed

Niles Crane · 09-10-2018 09:25PM

dense wrote: »

It's not your carbon footprint thats the problem, it's everyone elses.

You fail to understand the point I was making.

If during the second world war when they had brought in rationing in the UK in order to help the war effort but essentially it was up to you whether you consumed less meat,sugar, fruit ,electricity and all the other stuff that was restricted and there was no regulations over what you did and no enforcement of anything do you think

A) people would have done the right thing and consumed less or

people would have carried on as they were because they saw their neighbours weren't making the effort so why the hell should they suffer if no-one else was.

I suspect that option B is what would have happened and it's what happens in all cases when it's left up to individuals by themselves without enforcement to do "the right thing" (whatever that my be).

If governments don't bring in regulations or change the way the world works and accept it has to change and regulations have to be brought in to change it then people will not be making any changes regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

People are inherently selfish always have been and always will be.

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Comments