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

ohnonotgmail · 04-12-2018 09:19AM

dense wrote: »

Let's keep this as simple as possible, although it's fun looking at you digging yourself into another hole.

I've just said there's zero doubt/its unequivocal that some people have linked global warming to human activities, or, if you like, linked human activities to global warming.

You seem to believe that "linked to" has the same meaning as "caused by", otherwise you wouldn't be hanging on to it like a dog with a bone.
It doesn't, and the words, as you can see, are not interchangeable.

Any other big words causing you trouble, just PM me.

It is quite clear what they are saying. Your pathetic attempt at sarcasm shows up your lack of any credible response.

ollkiller · 04-12-2018 12:12PM

I applaud all of you who are still engaging with Dense after 70 pages. How you have the patience is beyond me.

Akrasia · 04-12-2018 03:37PM

Dense' inability to accept reality is unequivocally linked to dense' batsh1t crazy conspiratorial world view

xckjoo · 04-12-2018 04:08PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense' inability to accept reality is unequivocally linked to dense' batsh1t crazy conspiratorial world view

I think the problem is you're trying to discuss the science while others are focused on performing the mental gymnastics necessary to fit the science to their belief in an overarching new world order type conspiracy. If you work backwards from the belief that a group of people are out to control us then everything is going to look like it's part of the conspiracy. Then you just have to "fit the facts" to the narrative.

dense · 07-12-2018 09:40PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's common in science to use language like "linked" rather than "caused" - science tends to avoid absolute statements when possible. You'd know that if you had an understanding of the topic beyond Junior Cert level. This is up there with the "only a theory" arguments against evolution.

Digging a hole indeed.

I love the way I have gotten you folks to really start thinking outside the box.
Takes a while, but when the ball gets rolling you will have a far more balanced approach that you may apply to many topics.

Because now, the group consensus among you here is that it is scientifically accurate to say that global warming has been linked to C02 from fossil fuels, not caused by it.

And you are also now in agreement that it is not scientifically accurate to say that CO2 emitted from fossil fuels has caused climate change.

Your new position is that its just been linked to it.

You will forgive me if I take some credit for this complete turnaround in your attitudes towards climate scientists and others, politicians and activists who relentlessly claim that our carbon emissions are causing climate change and global warming and that rapidly cutting those emission will cause global warming to stop/insert own word and cause the climate to stop changing etc.

I hope, Dr. JimBob, that you can see as clearly as I can that what you've done here is something quite brave, and will be a useful means of bucking the unscientific alarmist trend of pretending to seek rapid emissions cuts.

We both know the people calling for this irresponsible measure can't (or won't) discuss the impacts that this unprecedented and ill thought out policy will have on every aspect of society, including our economy, communities, health, prosperity and general well being.

dense · 08-12-2018 12:47AM

xckjoo wrote: »

If you work backwards from the belief that a group of people are out to control us then everything is going to look like it's part of the conspiracy. Then you just have to "fit the facts" to the narrative.

You're referring to the eco freaks.

The modern noble hearted ones who want to control what YOU eat, how it was fed, where you live, what sort of house it is, how you can heat it, what sort of bulbs you light it with, what sort of vacuum you can clean it with, how many children you can have, what you can buy, what you can drive, how far you can drive in it etc., all whilst pushing you into accepting their need for a global solution to solve a crushing problem they perceive which is only validated by data being altered to fit a theory.

The above list is not exhaustive, but needs to be seen in the context of your own silent and ongoing endorsement of George Lee's fake news agenda already discussed here and your similar silent endorsement of the EPA's policy of reducing our individual carbon footprint whilst simultaneously agreeing that individual action is conveniently futile, thereby conveniently rendering your own carbon footprint irrelevant, just like the carbon footprints of the eco control freaks.

So you see, fakes endorse fakery.

You and your friends here are arguing for the complete implementation of the control measures mentioned above and endorse all of them in the fight against global warming, unless I'm mistaken.

So less of the pretending that there's not a group of people out to control us.

There is, and, you're one of them.
Well, sort of, because you've expressed no interest in adressing your own carbon footprint issues here, have you?

dense · 08-12-2018 01:10AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It hasn't been refuted. This thread is evidence how a solitary individual can keep a faulty argument going purely based on stamina and "getting the last word in"

Which has already been pointed out several times

You made up a global consensus of 97% of scientists agreeing with you.

Yet you wont share what peer reviewed research you are quoting.

Do the decent thing and link to where you're getting your figure about 97% of the world's scientists agreeing that CO2 emissions are causing climate change.

The lads are saying now that global warming has only been loosely/strongly it doesn't really matter, "linked" to emissions, and it's really unscientific to say it's been caused by them.

Time to regroup and rethink your failed strategy, guys and girls.

Pa ElGrande · 08-12-2018 09:43AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q

Our future on green energy, price prises and load shedding

Akrasia · 08-12-2018 10:00AM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It hasn't been refuted. This thread is evidence how a solitary individual can keep a faulty argument going purely based on stamina and "getting the last word in"

Which has already been pointed out several times

Dense has really demonstrated in the last few posts that he/she/whatever is nothing but a troll who takes single isolated words completely out of context and is prepared to take a phrase like unequivocally linked which is clearly intended to be a strong endorsement of the scientific consensus on climate change, and 'interpret' it to mean that these scientists don't agree that climate change is caused by human activity.

It's word games, unsophisticated sophistry of the worst kind. Dense could easily clarify the meaning of this statement if he/she/whatever was genuinely confused and uncertain by looking at the rest of the content on the UCD Earth page, but instead of seeking clarity, dense takes an individual word and uses it as a hook to hang all the rest of his/her/whatever's political baggage off of.

A skeptic is someone who asks questions to try to understand something better. A troll and a science denier takes any hint of uncertainty and amplifies in order to destroy understanding and breed confusion and waste time arguing about petty minor details. The Merchants of Doubt, the science deniers who, for whatever reason, choose to stifle debate, prevent action on the basis of the best available evidence have never proven anything to support their own half baked ideas, they only snipe from the sidelines, undermining the work of real scientists, not with genuine criticism to find the correct answers to a question, but to delay, obfuscate, deny and undermine the scientific process.

dense · 08-12-2018 10:45AM

Akrasia wrote: »

It's word games, unsophisticated sophistry of the worst kind. Dense could easily clarify the meaning of this statement if he/she/whatever was genuinely confused and uncertain by looking at the rest of the content on the UCD Earth page, but instead of seeking clarity, dense takes an individual word and uses it as a hook to hang all the rest of his/her/whatever's political baggage off of.

While they're all sorting out their conflicting positions on what's causing climate change, maybe you can tell everyone about the unprecedented effects that rapidly implementing your far reaching global solution will have on all aspects of society.

Or is that just "more word games" from the UNIPCC?

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

Quit obfuscating.

Akrasia · 08-12-2018 12:49PM

dense wrote: »

While they're all sorting out their conflicting positions on what's causing climate change, maybe you can tell everyone about the unprecedented effects that rapidly implementing your far reaching global solution will have on all aspects of society.

Or is that just "more word games" from the UNIPCC?

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

Quit obfuscating.

We need to transform our energy system. That's not a hidden agenda, its what we've been screaming from the rooftops.

But anyway, denying that there is a problem because you don't want to have to solve it is not a long term strategy.

The longer we wait, the higher the cost of action will be for lower returns.

Pa ElGrande · 08-12-2018 01:28PM

Akrasia wrote: »

We need to transform our energy system. That's not a hidden agenda, its what we've been screaming from the rooftops.

But anyway, denying that there is a problem because you don't want to have to solve it is not a long term strategy.

The longer we wait, the higher the cost of action will be for lower returns.

This is lunacy you want to make restrict energy supply, make it expensive, unreliable and scarce. Have you factored in how many people will die if you ever get to implement that agenda? All that activity is just subsidy farming using a massive wealth transfer scheme that enriches some at the expense of the majority i.e. market failure.

If solar panels and windmills were economically viable, we wouldn’t have to subsidize them. They are hideously expensive, and you still need to build and maintain regular power plants for the times when the wind does not blow (see June this year) and sun does not shine. Here is the line from the green party "Introduce smart grids, to better distribute variable energy supplies." In practical terms smart grids means load shedding and companies and households that can afford it having to buy and install backup diesel generators to compensate for the grid failure.

08-12-2018 02:08PM

Cutting back consumerism and replacing planned obsolescence with durable products will be far more beneficial than any carbon tax.

dense · 08-12-2018 06:12PM

Akrasia wrote: »

We need to transform our energy system.

And, our economic system:

Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Xckjoo was right earlier about you folks wanting to take control of everything.

Anything else you want to take control of?

I listed as many as I could think of earlier but keep adding to it and we'll recap later.

Pa ElGrande · 08-12-2018 09:19PM

A demographer gave a most interesting explanation for the strength of the movement, laying the blame on INSEE, the government office of statistics, which apparently decrees that 95% of the population lives in urban, and only 5% in rural areas. A child, or a climate sceptic, could spot immediately the flaw in this statement, but not a President, his government, or the highly educated élite which advises them: It all depends what you mean by urban and rural. So, successive governments have ignored the sparsely populated three quarters of the country, where half the population lives, closing railways, hospitals and post offices, and leaving the mayors of small towns with no industry or commerce worth speaking of to finance their infrastructure from local taxes, with ever diminishing help from central government.

It’s all about Europe of course, and its golden rule of reducing the budget deficit. The pressure on wages exercised by twenty years of austerity dictated by Brussels has forced low paid workers further and further out of the cities into what has suddenly been identified as the périphérie – not the despised banlieu (suburbs) where the lumpenproletariat (often Arabs) vegetate in permanent unemployment – but the small towns and villages inhabited by the working class (or classe moyenne in French) – those whom Macron has described as “the people who are nothing.” And where a decent life is possible only as long as one can afford to drive to work, to school, to the hospital, or to the out-of-town shopping centre.

But what about the environment? That was the reason for raising prices of petrol, diesel and heating fuel, a policy that had the lukewarm support of the entire political class, but only Macron and the far left made it central to their campaigns. Trump’s rejection of the Paris climate accord was experienced as a slap in the face to French pride, and hence Macron’s call to “make the planet great again.” Macron’s ardent espousal of the climate cause confirms everything people like me and Ben Pile have been saying for years – that the environmental movement, far from being a grassroots affair, is a cult of the chattering classes, the cool city-dwelling, left-leaning hipsters centred round the opinionating professions; the media, advertising, marketing, and information technology: Macron’s “start-uppeurs,” the social class known in French as “les bo-bos” – the bourgeois bohemians.

source

The irony of the Paris agreement imploding from Paris, and all while COP24 runs . . . .

Akrasia · 08-12-2018 11:02PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

This is lunacy you want to make restrict energy supply, make it expensive, unreliable and scarce. Have you factored in how many people will die if you ever get to implement that agenda? All that activity is just subsidy farming using a massive wealth transfer scheme that enriches some at the expense of the majority i.e. market failure.

If solar panels and windmills were economically viable, we wouldn’t have to subsidize them. They are hideously expensive, and you still need to build and maintain regular power plants for the times when the wind does not blow (see June this year) and sun does not shine. Here is the line from the green party "Introduce smart grids, to better distribute variable energy supplies." In practical terms smart grids means load shedding and companies and households that can afford it having to buy and install backup diesel generators to compensate for the grid failure.

Oil and gas are subsidized by more than wind and solar ever have been. 400 billion usd a year
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/maybe-cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-wouldnt-do-much-good/552668/

And it's not about wanting to change our energy infrastructure. It's about needing to. It's not a luxury, it's a necessity if you want your grandkids to have any kind of decent quality of life. Even people alive today face severe consequences if we don't act and see temperatures rise by more than 3c above preindustrial levels. 2/3 more warming than we have already caused

Pa ElGrande · 08-12-2018 11:59PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Oil and gas are subsidized by more than wind and solar ever have been. 400 billion usd a year
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/maybe-cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-wouldnt-do-much-good/552668/

And it's not about wanting to change our energy infrastructure. It's about needing to. It's not a luxury, it's a necessity if you want your grandkids to have any kind of decent quality of life. Even people alive today face severe consequences if we don't act and see temperatures rise by more than 3c above preindustrial levels. 2/3 more warming than we have already caused

Tax breaks are not wealth transfers and oil is a profit center tax revenue generator for governments worldwide, most of the top sovereign wealth funds are derived from oil, unlikely that will happen on this island any day soon.

With the yearly mean temperate of ~9-10C I'll take those 2 or 3 degrees. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation will have more of an effect on regulating this islands temperatures than C02 ever will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

Akrasia · 09-12-2018 12:06AM

of course tax breaks are subsidies.

On what planet are they not?

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2018 10:07AM

Akrasia wrote: »

of course tax breaks are subsidies.

On what planet are they not?

I'm not disagreeing, the difference in the subsidies being the wind and solar require actual wealth transfers from consumers to remain operational and ironically we are having to pay operators to maintain traditional power plants to remain idle so they can step up in the regular event the renewables fail to generate power. The United States has been doing renewable subsidies in the form of tax breaks since the 1970s so much so that an entire state is dependent on them, it has distorted the agricultural market, reduced crop diversity and consumer choice and the energy returned on energy invested (EROI) ratio is dubious. Here in Ireland the long established midlands jobs for the boys subsidy is coming to an end and no doubt will be replaced with a biomass subsidy (i.e. CO2 producing thermal plants), ironically the country is now moving to a cushy jobs for upper middle income class girls out of university schemes (i.e. steering well clear of hard physical work), however that's a debate for another day.

Special Report: Wind power in Ireland

Colm McCarthy: Case for wind must be proven on costs

The more wind power you put on the grid the harder it becomes to maintain the speed and frequency of the transmission network. As the thermal plants are phased out and there is no investment in thermal the risk of grid collapse or load shedding increases.

d8491prj5boyvg · 09-12-2018 10:27AM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

If solar panels and windmills were economically viable, we wouldn’t have to subsidize them. They are hideously expensive, and you still need to build and maintain regular power plants for the times when the wind does not blow (see June this year) and sun does not shine.

Zero subsidy renewables are being built.
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm-without-subsidies-to-be-built-in-the-netherlands/

Storage technology and demand response is advancing to provide this back up. In fact, existing storage can work for huge degrees of renewables penetration

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.diw.de/documents/vortragsdokumente/220/diw_01.c.600398.de/v_2018_zerrahn_storage_inrec.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjxxv25xJLfAhXQIlAKHeDzDEEQFjADegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw301rjKNE4MlIeLLyLUEXyB

Load shedding is Good for the consumer. 6c to do my washing now or -2c (ie getting paid to consume) to do it overnight? I for one welcome my load shedding overlords.

You, my friend, haven't a clue what you're taking about.

d8491prj5boyvg · 09-12-2018 10:30AM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q

Our future on green energy, price prises and load shedding

This discusses the private marginal cost. The social cost, the metric we are concerned with, is growing during this time.

d8491prj5boyvg · 09-12-2018 10:41AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cutting back consumerism and replacing planned obsolescence with durable products will be far more beneficial than any carbon tax.

I like money. Many countries are thinking about a carbon dividend for all houses. Money in the paw, every year, forever. If you want to burn coal, you'll be no worse off. If you want to save you'll be quids in. I like money. Hopefully varadker will give me free money too

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2018 10:48AM

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

This discusses the private marginal cost. The social cost, the metric we are concerned with, is growing during this time.

I don't think you were expecting the social cost to show up in revolt?.

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2018 11:38AM

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Zero subsidy renewables are being built.
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm-without-subsidies-to-be-built-in-the-netherlands/

About time. Not surprising though the political will to keep subsidising renewables is diminishing.

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Storage technology and demand response is advancing to provide this back up. In fact, existing storage can work for huge degrees of renewables penetration

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.diw.de/documents/vortragsdokumente/220/diw_01.c.600398.de/v_2018_zerrahn_storage_inrec.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjxxv25xJLfAhXQIlAKHeDzDEEQFjADegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw301rjKNE4MlIeLLyLUEXyB

Load shedding is Good for the consumer. 6c to do my washing now or -2c (ie getting paid to consume) to do it overnight? I for one welcome my load shedding overlords.

You, my friend, haven't a clue what you're taking about.

You are benefiting from the current system. There are no storage options here in Ireland and none due to be implemented for the foreseeable future. Now if only we has a disused salt mine.
Solar and wind only add to electricity costs, because reliable generation must remain as backup.

Here is a hypothetical but not unrealistic scenario. It's Winter 2028 the thermal plants are mostly gone in Ireland and wind/solar power dominates power generation, a high pressure system sits over the British Isles and lasts a few weeks meaning cold, dry days with light winds and severe night time frosts. Throw in stratocumulus cloud meaning no sun, which furthermore suppresses daytime temperatures. Are you prepared for that eventuality?

Dark Days For German Solar Power, Country Saw Only 10 Hours Of Sun In All Of December!

Virtually every major German solar producer has gone under

Has the Cost of Germany’s Energiewende entered a Critical Phase?

Electricity system management costs in Germany are spiralling, in large part due to the sharply increasing costs of compensating renewable generators when their output is curtailed in order to preserve system stability. This, and other prominently criticized failures of the Federal government to control the cost of the Energiewende, have all the makings of a major political issue.

source

Akrasia · 09-12-2018 12:18PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing, the difference in the subsidies being the wind and solar require actual wealth transfers from consumers to remain operational and ironically we are having to pay operators to maintain traditional power plants to remain idle so they can step up in the regular event the renewables fail to generate power. The United States has been doing renewable subsidies in the form of tax breaks since the 1970s so much so that an entire state is dependent on them, it has distorted the agricultural market, reduced crop diversity and consumer choice and the energy returned on energy invested (EROI) ratio is dubious. Here in Ireland the long established midlands jobs for the boys subsidy is coming to an end and no doubt will be replaced with a biomass subsidy (i.e. CO2 producing thermal plants), ironically the country is now moving to a cushy jobs for upper middle income class girls out of university schemes (i.e. steering well clear of hard physical work), however that's a debate for another day.

Special Report: Wind power in Ireland

Colm McCarthy: Case for wind must be proven on costs

The more wind power you put on the grid the harder it becomes to maintain the speed and frequency of the transmission network. As the thermal plants are phased out and there is no investment in thermal the risk of grid collapse or load shedding increases.

We're in a transition period that requires investment. It takes time to make these systems economically competitive with a fossil fuel sector that has a century of massive state subsidies and investment in infrastructure to allow them to trade profitably (while still avoiding tax). What you call 'wealth transfer' I call investment in infrastructure.

When state funds pay billions towards the cost of oil and gas pipelines, how is that not a transfer of wealth?

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2018 12:54PM

Akrasia wrote: »

What you call 'wealth transfer' I call investment in infrastructure.

It's building a road to nowhere. When the eventual outcome will be to make energy expensive, unreliable and scarce this is a gross mis-allocation of resources. Eventually the market does realise the mistake, and intervenes to correct it (i.e. crashes) and the sector either collapses or the uncompetitive operators are eliminated from the market place.

Akrasia wrote: »

When state funds pay billions towards the cost of oil and gas pipelines, how is that not a transfer of wealth?

It is and very often that transfer is from the periphery to the centre. In Ireland that means economic and political power remains concentrated in Dublin.

d8491prj5boyvg · 09-12-2018 01:09PM

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

There are no storage options here in Ireland and none due to be implemented for the foreseeable future.

We have Turlough hill, interconnection (and more planned including the Celtic interconnector to France, DSM, EVs and battery technology coming onstream.

I was about to refute your argument but I see that you are a misinformed troll.

Dear thread, please ignore misinformation on this topic. Thanks!

Akrasia · 09-12-2018 01:26PM

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

We have Turlough hill, interconnection (and more planned including the Celtic interconnector to France, DSM, EVs and battery technology coming onstream.

I was about to refute your argument but I see that you are a misinformed troll.

Dear thread, please ignore misinformation on this topic. Thanks!

There's also a new pumped storage facility being constructed in the Silvermines.

Storage of wind energy is an engineering problem. It can be fixed with investment

dense · 09-12-2018 01:57PM

Akrasia wrote: »

What you call 'wealth transfer' I call investment in infrastructure.

When state funds pay billions towards the cost of oil and gas pipelines, how is that not a transfer of wealth?

If global and national transfers of wealth in order to supply energy is normal practice and already exists, why is the UN also calling for a transformation of the global economic model that has existed for 150 years?

There is no need to additionally transform the global economic system.

All that is required is to rapidly stop using fossil fuels whilst ramping up investments in renewable energy.

And if laggard nations do not meet their targets of fossil fuel reductions, fine them billions to help them break their addiction. Beatings/morale...

It must be remembered that those are billions that are no longer available to invest in either fossil or renewable energy, or housing or health care.

This money goes out of the economy. Gone.

This is solved by introducing new taxes on those who work in order to raise the additional billions required to pay the fines whilst simultaneously attempting to reduce CO2 emissions and pay the new billions in fines for over shoots.

In Ireland we'll need unknown funding from the general public to firstly pay the fines and then pay for the investment in renewables infrastructure to replace 95% of our energy needs supplied by fossil fuels and this will have to be achieved during a time of energy rationing.

There is a twelve year window to do it, but the clock is ticking all the time.

During those years there will be many scientists publishing studies claiming that it's actually worse than what we've thought, if the last 12 are anything to go by.

Talk from the IPCC about the unprecedented impacts on all aspects of society from doing something so basic is alarmist and only serves to raise questions about what they mean.

It is counterproductive to sow such seeds of doubt and fear amongst the public so it best not to discuss what it means.

These additional tax measures have already been widely welcomed in France with national days of celebration by those proud to be saving the planet, although it is early days and the initial taxes currently being welcomed are just a flavour of what's to come.

Implementing the full transition to renewables via taxation will be costly.

The French have a penchant for public demonstration and they could yet end up on the streets when the full carbon tax strategy is unveiled.

And it may not be democratically acceptable.
Achieving what is necessary to save the planet may require a global solution that ignores national democratic mandates and ignores traditional sovereignty in place of a new world standard, a new way of ordering our priorities, and a global entity to ensure its all done fairly and efficiently.

But that's wacky territory that only Akrasia entertains.

Akrasia · 09-12-2018 02:05PM

dense wrote: »

If global and national transfers of wealth in order to supply energy is normal practice and already exists, why is the UN also calling for a transformation of the global economic model that has existed for 150 years?

There is no need to additionally transform the global economic system.

All that is required is to rapidly stop using fossil fuels whilst ramping up investments in renewable energy.

And if laggard nations do not meet their targets of fossil fuel reductions, fine them billions to help them break their addiction. Beatings/morale...

It must be remembered that those are billions that are no longer available to invest in either fossil or renewable energy, or housing or health care.

This money goes out of the economy. Gone.

This is solved by introducing new taxes on those who work in order to raise the additional billions required to pay the fines whilst simultaneously attempting to reduce CO2 emissions and pay the new billions in fines for over shoots.

In Ireland we'll need unknown funding from the general public to firstly pay the fines and then pay for the investment in renewables infrastructure to replace 95% of our energy needs supplied by fossil fuels and this will have to be achieved during a time of energy rationing.

There is a twelve year window to do it, but the clock is ticking all the time.

During those years there will be many scientists publishing studies claiming that it's actually worse than what we've thought, if the last 12 are anything to go by.

Talk from the IPCC about the unprecedented impacts on all aspects of society from doing something so basic is alarmist and only serves to raise questions about what they mean.

It is counterproductive to sow such seeds of doubt and fear amongst the public so it best not to discuss what it means.

These additional tax measures have already been widely welcomed in France with national days of celebration by those proud to be saving the planet, although it is early days and the initial taxes currently being welcomed are just a flavour of what's to come.

Implementing the full transition to renewables via taxation will be costly.

The French have a penchant for public demonstration and they could yet end up on the streets when the full carbon tax strategy is unveiled.

And it may not be democratically acceptable.
Achieving what is necessary to save the planet may require a global solution that ignores national democratic mandates and ignores traditional sovereignty in place of a new world standard, a new way of ordering our priorities, and a global entity to ensure its all done fairly and efficiently.

But that's wacky territory that only Akrasia entertains.

Tbh, i'm not even reading these rants anymore. They're completely off topic anyway

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

Comments