Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

1151618202151

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Extreme heatwave 'almost certainly' linked to climate change, expert warns (irishexaminer.com)

    "“Ireland will see more of this kind of hot weather for long periods in the future,” he said.

    “We will see more hot weather and more extreme, heavy rainfall events.

    "We will have drier summers and wetter winters.” 

    He said it is difficult to link any one event to climate change, but extreme weather is now more likely".

    How many times have we seen that (bolded) line being pushed on us by 'experts'? No certainty, but always the implication.. thus sowing the seeds of doubt and fear that their media mouthpieces will gladly push.

    This is how real disinformation is propagandised.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    It's like Whack-a-Mole at this stage; all these media outlets lining up to immediately pounce on every piece of normal weather that occurs and be first in there with the article. I wonder if your man has any idea how CO2 caused that Azores high to do its normal northward shift, something it's been doing forever. Of course he doesn't, but he has the safety net of Mr. P for Probability to fall back on. It's the perfect gig; make these claims, no need for any evidence whatsoever, it's all in the probability...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    'Daisy cow farting' isn't responsible for fundamentally altering the composition of the planets atmosphere by increasing the CO2 concentration from 280ppm to 412ppm

    You act as though this of kind change won't have consequences

    The equivalent of 5 Hiroshima nuclear bombs worth of energy every second being added to the worlds oceans as a direct result of the increased radiative forcing from AGW




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    You shouldn't use AOC or Al Gore as a source for anything scientific, and you shouldn't use the opinion of a political scientist as a source for anything scientific either.

    You shouldn't even use the opinion of a climate scientist, unless it is backed up directly by published peer reviewed research

    Interestingly I just had a chance to read the only scientific paper Pa El Grande posted in that message where he quoted the findings as

    "Although the trend variability depended on the chosen exceedance threshold, a general long-term trend for the whole of Germany was consistently not evident."

    If he had read the rest of the paper he would have seen this little nugged

    "Although not occurring more frequently, heavy rainfall events became more intense, and the average yearly erosivity was significantly higher during the last 20 years. Our results from NE Germany supported previous findings in other regions."

    Which is exactly the point I have been making on this thread

    If the consequence of climate change was that there were slightly more wet days in a year, or moderate rainfall events increased in frequency, then It would be grand, nothing to really worry about. But the problem is that the consequences are increased intensity at the extremes, and these are the events that cause the most damage to infrastructure, the eco system and human lives.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    But I thought agriculture, and in particular dairy and beef, is a big contributor to the climate emergency, no? Aren't she and the udder cows [/pun] all emitting that nasty methane, the dirty feckers, raising it from 0.00017% to 0.00019% in the atmosphere over the past few decades? Isn't that why the farming industry is being partly scapegoated, because of these 0.00002%? Don't forget, it's not all about CO2.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    But sorry, aren't Al Gore and AOC two of the main flag-carriers for the climate alarmist brigade? Aren't they the ones facing the public and making all sorts of mad claims based on the scientific consensus? Pielke is a political scientist but he seems to be also scientifically adapt too, or did you miss that bit?

    Should we just instead listen to the Guardian and Channel 4 climate experts then...or Banana Republic?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    If 'the science' was anyway scientific, it would constantly slap down the likes of AOC or the Guardian continually, but as has been noted, they never do. Why? because they are the useful idiots on the ground.

    I see Akarsia is dictating who and who we should not be listening to again, but since science and climate science has thrown itself into the political arena, then it must reap the consequences by being placed under the same scrutiny as any other lobby/ideological group. It can't have it both ways.

    This is an interesting discussion about science in general, and how it has been used to deceive people during the ongoing pandemic. Nothing to do with climate change, which makes it all the more interesting that 'scientific consensus' in this context of Covid has been proven to be a complete dud. As Rogin observes, 'beware of anyone who comes to you armed with the 'scientific consensus'... because no such thing can ever exist in actual science.

    Strawberry fields forever...

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them “tripe” as you say. 90% of what you post is spoof from my perspective, let’s not forget graph gate. Also I’ve only said that, “full of shite” once you yourself then went to call me a nazi and accuse Akrasia of being “full of shite”, “ like Banana Republic” you said

    That brings me on to another point, I’ve noticed I got a warning for the shite comment, no doubt because you went squealing to Danno but yet your accusations that don’t conform to the rules here just get deleted you never get publicly called out or get carded, for the nazi post for example, I wonder why that is? Well actually I already know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    'Graph Gate'.

    Posters have been banned for less on this forum. You should consider yourself quite lucky, because if I was a mod, I'd have banned you long ago.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Excuse me I think you’ll find that the agencies of state never reacted to the warnings until after the damage had been done.

    That river you spoke off may well have a history of flooding but the effects of climate change are happening now so this data collected from the past is not going to apply to the future and these days of future past arguments you keep pushing are null and void.

    Nobody “invented electricity” coal or oil. CO2 was never “wonderful” in the context of the anthropogenic age. I dove on the barrier reef back in 2010, 70% of that is now gone.

    You seem to think that I don’t understand the impact fossil fuels have had on humanity and that is totally wrong. We now know, in fact big energy has known all along, that we cannot keep sourcing the energy humanity needs from fossil fuels without significant consequences for the planet. If the human population was at a 1950s level we may not now be facing these consequences, if there wasn’t rampant capitalism we may not be facing these consequences. Things have to change, the Stone Age didn’t end for the lack of stone.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    What are you talking about now? Calling you a Nazi? Jesus, you completely missed the point. I corrected your incorrect use of "Your" and then posted the image for a Grammar Nazi...as a joke...on myself. If you didn't get that then that's your problem. So that's why it got deleted.

    You've used the shite insult - and others - on more than one occasion, with impunity, so I'd count yourself lucky, to be fair. And I didn't say full of shite "like Banana Republic", I was quoting you. At least read what someone has to say before doing what you accused me of doing and "acting like a kid who's dropped his ice cream".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    we should back up our beliefs with reference to proper peer reviewed science, or at least use sources that are reputable and have a track record of honestly and accurately reporting the science.

    I have never once used either AOC or Al Gore as a source for anything, I refer to the latest research published in reputable journals as much as possible

    And you can't get much more latest, than this study published yesterday in Nature

    Now before you accuse these scientists of trying to jump on the band wagon following the record shattering heatwave from a few weeks ago, this paper was first submitted in 2020 but just passed peer review and published yesterday

    "Recent climate extremes have broken long-standing records by large margins. Such extremes unprecedented in the observational period often have substantial impacts due to a tendency to adapt to the highest intensities, and no higher, experienced during a lifetime. Here, we show models project not only more intense extremes but also events that break previous records by much larger margins. These record-shattering extremes, nearly impossible in the absence of warming, are likely to occur in the coming decades. We demonstrate that their probability of occurrence depends on warming rate, rather than global warming level, and is thus pathway-dependent. In high-emission scenarios, week-long heat extremes that break records by three or more standard deviations are two to seven times more probable in 2021–2050 and three to 21 times more probable in 2051–2080, compared to the last three decades. In 2051–2080, such events are estimated to occur about every 6–37 years somewhere in the northern midlatitudes."

    You can complain about the media going on and on about climate change, but you'd better get used to it, because as the weather gets more extreme, then the reporting will get more dramatic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    That river you spoke off may well have a history of flooding but the effects of climate change are happening now so this data collected from the past is not going to apply to the future and these days of future past arguments you keep pushing are null and void.

    Eh, it does apply insofar as what is being widely communicated as new is anything but. People won't know that the river has a history of similar flooding in the past because that fact is deliberately omitted from media reports. And where do the public get their information? Like it or lump it, from the media. You know, the Guardians and the Channel 4s, who some here class as reputable.

    Ireland's max recorded temperature of 33.3 °C in 1887 has not come close to being beaten. In recent years everybody's been itching to get that record quashed for bad behaviour because the narrative now is purely to get records broken. The fact that many old records still stand to this day really vexes the hell out of some, so that's why those desperate enough now resort to the "why wait for the attribution report, everyone knows it's climate change?" scientific method.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    "if there wasn’t rampant capitalism we may not be facing these consequences"

    Capitalism is founded on science and science is to blame for climate change. And keep in mind.. 4 million people have died of Covid so far in the space of just one year...

    In olden days, this would have been classed as genocide..

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Every river has a history of flooding. Its how rivers work. On average every 2 years they burst their banks, if they flood more often than this, they tend to carve out deeper or wider channels which allows them to carry that extra water without bursting

    The fact that it flooded before, like pretty much every other river in the world, doesn't change the fact that the recent flooding was on a different magnitude o what is considered routine flooding.

    Its interesting that you are so quick to call the floods from a hundred years ago 'similar' to the ones from last week. Do you have a study to back this up?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    We've already gone over that in a previous thread. They are demonstrating outlining the agenda and methods used by the alarmists and their sponsors in question. Now that you mention it how about this non authoritative source from a government sponsored enterprise that I stopped directly supporting long ago.


    Here is a fake news screenshot from the organisation that employees him, This is intended to mislead the public depicting and event that has never happened, and abusing the RCP 8.5 computer model scenario as their "sciencey" facade.


    RTE as an news organisation has partnered with Covering Climate Now an advocacy organization operating out of the Columbia Journalism Review, in association with The Nation and The Guardian. Their purpose is to spread fear and alarm about or in new speak terms to "raise public awareness of" of what they claim is a "Climate Emergency" or "Climate Crisis". Funding for this organisation is provided in part by a US non-profit organisation called The Fund for Constitutional Government and others that have not been disclosed because they don't have to i.e. it is not transparent. The upshot of this is that news organisation have become an echo chamber amplifying the narrative of climate fearology.


    Now that Covid is wearing off, RTE's response should not be unexpected and should be seen in light of it's poor financial standing and forth coming political events (COP26) and future taxation plans in the quest for net zero.


    Irish initiative to lead global climate effort ahead of COP26 (April 2021)

    Details have been announced of Irish initiative to lead an international effort “to move beyond ambition” among the world’s largest carbon polluters – and to “enact meaningful and binding commitments” at the critical UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November.

    Dublin Climate Dialogues will bring together senior representatives from the United States, China, Europe, United Kingdom and the United Nations – it is being supported by the Government. It will be chaired by former president of the European Parliament Pat Cox.

    From experience, the fix is in when you see Pat Cox involved.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    "Record-shattering". The language is becoming so much more dramatic, don't you think? I'm going to need a while to read that pdf on the phone as it's jumping all over the place on me when I zoom in. I did note, though, in the first page that they say there has been no trend in US heat events in the past few decades. Not sure if they meant to put that in or if all will become clear when I manage to read it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    The maximum 72-hr rainfall totals for that region in Germany ranged from 140-182 mm (source DWD). I wouldn't call that phenomenal. As Oneiric has already illustrated umpteen times now this was not formed by the massive gorging hot and humid convective complexes that you were talking about before but a simple trailing occlusion from a stationary cold-core low over central Europe. Yes, lows and highs do stall, and always have. Rossby didn't become famous for nothing all those years ago.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    If it's printed there it was intended to be there.

    It's 'donated license' to read the article for free so they've put some copy protection or something on the page to prevent people from printing it

    They chose the words 'Record shattering' because they were looking at events that broke the previous record temperature extreme by at least 2 standard deviations

    Here's another extract

    "A comprehensive gridbox-based analysis across five initial condi-tion large ensembles and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phases CMIP5 and CMIP6 multimodel ensembles (Methods) reveals that record-shattering extremes are very rare in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries but their expected probability increases rapidly in the coming three decades. In the CESM1.2 ensemble for any given year between 1991 and 2020 there is about a 4.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) of mean: 3.8%; 5.3%) probability for a 2σ-record event somewhere on land in the north-ern midlatitudes; that is, an event that breaks the previous record by >2σ, as for the 2003 and 2010 heatwaves. In RCP 8.5, the probability increases to 22.4% (21.0; 23.7%) per year in 2021–2050 and 50.5% (48.6%; 52.5%) per year between 2051–2080 (Fig. 3a). Even for 3σ-record and 4σ-record events the probability reaches 17.2% (16.0%; 18.5%; Supplementary Table 1) and 5.5% (4.8%; 6.3%) in any given year, respectively, between 2051 and 2080. These prob-abilities imply that an event nearly as intense as illustrated in Fig. 1a is expected to occur about once every two decades somewhere in the northern midlatitudes"

    According to this study, these record shattering events are already about 5 times more likely to occur on land in northern midlatitudes compared to 20-30 years ago

    The projections are based on RCP 8.5, which I know you object to, but the current CO2 equivalent concentration is already slightly higher than we were projected to be based on RCP 8.5, so we can accept that this scenario will likely still apply for the next decade or two unless global action is taken to rapidly decarbonise (especially given that we are seeing larger increases in natural greenhouse emissions as we begin to set off these tipping points)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    @Pa ElGrande I wonder who had a go at them for not copying Channel 4's circus. Could it be Professor Sweeney, maybe, as I haven't heard him on in a while. That article really is a joke.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    You posted a swastika, an edited version of a swastika is still a swastika no matter what spin you put on it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    It's not a Swastika, it's the letter G.

    Where's the Ignore button on this new site?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Capitalism is not founded on science.

    Who exactly perpetrated this genocide you speak off ?

    It strikes me that you won’t be happy until humanity reverts to troglodyte-ism



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    Siberia is experiencing its warmest summer in 150 years



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    The Siberians deserve a break from the cold every now and then, may as well enjoy the fine weather while they have it, if you want to play the attribution game try South Africa.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    There is a reason why alarmists are not to be taken seriously and this is just one of many examples. They can't even tell black from white.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Capitalism is founded on science and science created climate change.

    4 million and counting... tick.. tock.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    'Record Shattering' is terminology that has no place in scientific or academia literature (and science is not an academic pursuit and scientists are not academics, just to be clear) The study may have been written well before that awful US heatwave, but the terminology is designed to capitalise fully on it.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Skip the ads 2 minutes 30 seconds in. McWilliams and his mate John Davis echo all the climate clichés you've heard in the news in recent weeks. McWilliams as an economist should have looked at the sources of how electricity has been generated since the start of the year before he started waffling about how North-West Europe is going to be a renewable energy superpower. The interview with Steve Keen mainly consisted of trashing a fellow economist called Nordhaus and then promoting income redistribution via carbon rationing.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Given that it takes more energy to heat more humid air and less to heat drier air (hence why the equatorial climates generally hang around the low 30s) why is temperature the main hangup? Ireland has hit 33c in the past. Whatever the humidity was then could be used to calculate a range of temperatures, higher and lower that it would reach with the same amount of energy input dependent on humidity.

    A 3 month stint of high pressures pulling hot increasingly drier air (as Europe and Ireland etc dries themselves) from the Sahara via Europe to Ireland could easily increase temperatures a few degrees above that record max. So what.

    An extreme example - The high temperatures in places like Australia (45c+) in summer are caused by dry winds blowing across an already dry hot interior continent. Places like Adelaide, due to geographic positioning, can get 5% and less humidity. For the interior this is far more of a common occurrence. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-19/catastrophic-fire-conditions-forecast-in-sa-as-temperatures-soar/11815346

    Fun fact - at such low humidity you get static shocks frequently outside but you dont stay out long at all.

    5% humidity may be an impossibility somewhere like Ireland but the natural humidity ranges should also be modelled for the seasons in combination with temperatures. Modelling entire climatic systems almost 100 years into the future using 2d data for a 3d system is bad enough.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 83,413 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    I noticed online excess flooding in Swords and Malahide in Dublin today, where rainfall destroys your property can you request from the local authority an audit of when they last checked the drainage shores were not blocked up with debris or would that be too much of a sensible question? A blind eye is being shown go basic maintenance that was done regularly 30 years ago or so but abandoned now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    podcasts are popular every one of them has advertisements it’s the business model so that put down is spurious. Again your going into the past and deflecting with the only for fossil fuels, big oil agenda, which is redundant, technology changes.

    You constantly bash the Potsdam institute because big oil have been unsuccessful in buying them off. This guy Nordhaus seems to be dancing to the same tune as big oil, no wonder your out defending him.

    What exactly is wrong with changing the current capitalist paradigm so the super rich pay the most for their energy intensive lifestyles.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Given that the super rich are the ones most attached to the concept of climate change (how does it feel to be on the same team with them?) then I think you may need to reconsider you last line because that is never going to happen.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    You have not answered the question, who has committed this genocide you speak off.

    The four basic rights that form the foundation of capitalism are: 

    1. The right to private property.

    2. The right to keep all profits made after taxes,

    3. The right of choice and

    4. The right to compete with other business.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Q&A: What role does climate change play in recent extreme weather events?

    From blistering heatwaves to unprecedented flooding – it’s already proving to be a summer of extremes

    Q&A: What role does climate change play in recent extreme weather events? (irishtimes.com)

    "Nearer home, we have experienced a heatwave with temperatures breaching 30 degrees on successive days in the UK and Ireland; prompting unprecedented extreme heat warnings from Met Éireann and the UK Met Office."

    A very recent invention = "unprecedented".

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    You have not answered the question, who has committed this genocide you speak off.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Yep, pretty clear who you are now .. Posidonia.

    Did you really do your studies in Harvard, or is that just, as I suspect, a big, fat lie?

    And if this Covid crap has been revealed to have come from a lab.. then scientists will be have the deaths of 4 million needless deaths on their hands. Just as they already have for far more countless others by the weaponry they provide (for huge profits) for war lusting governments with.

    But then this will probably all go over your head, given that you mistook the letter 'G' for a swastika. You utterly humourless idiot.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Its amazing how you can lump everyone you don't like into one big category marked 'evil' justified by some bad stuff some people did or might have done in the past

    It is utterly ludicrous to blame 'scientists' for Covid given that the vast majority of 'scientists' have absolutely nothing to do with viruses including almost 100% of the scientists who have anything to do with researching climate change

    Do you know who is responsible for more deaths than 'scientists' who may or may not have accidentally, or on purpose, released a virus from a lab?

    The Fossil fuel industry is directly responsible almost 9 million deaths every year through exposure to their products

    And these deaths are caused by an industry who knew for decades that their products were killing people directly through the pollution they caused, but rather than do something to reduce the harm, they hire PR companies to lie to the public and Lobby governments to reduce regulations to allow them to pollute more

    And they use the same lobbying strategies as the tobacco industry, even the same exact lobbiests

    If you want to know about the risks from climate change, forget AOC or Al Gore or any celebrity, business person, or sports star. Listen to the scientsts who know the most about the science, who are publishing research and actively engaged in the science. These people know what they're talking about, the vast majority of them agree that this is getting very serious


    Professor Will Steffen is the author of the HotHouse earth paper from 2018. In this talk he presents some of the causes for concern raised in that paper and presents an argument for why this is an emergency that requires us to do absolutely everything we can to stay well below 2c as per the Paris Agreement.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Akrasia, I would also add "any media outlet whatsoever" to your list of stay-well-clear-ofs. I think we've seen enough evidence of their bandwagon propaganda at this stage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Isn't it a scream that the biggest agent of disinformation on this thread, the one who more than once has indulged in known conspiracy theories - even when evidence was presented to him - and who regularly labels and demonises those who disagree with him as being those very things he is himself, is now lecturing me about who and who I should not be listening too.

    In the words of the great one herself: 'How Dare You'.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,633 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Akrasia is getting his sources confused that 9 million figure comes from a study published by the lancet in 2017, not the study he references in his link which concerns particulate matter (2.5μm) mainly in China and India. You can lookup the PM2.5 data for Ireland here. Neither does the Lancet study single out the use by humanity of fossil fuels in that total.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Yeah, well, kinda, science reporting in general is pretty terrible. Some, eg, the Daily Mail, are so consistently bad that they're worthless as a source, while more 'serious' papers with a reputation to uphold, will make some attempt to cover it accurately. I often find links to newly released research in news reports that are referring to a 'latest study'. But before sharing it, I find the study they're referring to (in the tabloids they never post the link, in better papers they usually post it towards the middle or end of the report), and then try and read at least the abstract (papers are often firewalled, but there's a great chrome addon called unblockme that looks for legit links to free sources of the paper) to that study to make sure it's consistent with what the media reported, and then If I share it, I link to the journal article rather than the media report because there is always some spin in a news report, even if it is unintentional.

    If there is a properly trained 'Science reporter' on staff there is some chance that it will be reported well, but in the general news media, science reporters are few and far between, and most papers just print whatever is in the press release accompanying the paper, (at best) or if the paper says something the editors want to discredit, they'll butcher the findings and spin it to say what they want it to say.

    In the social media sphere, My favourite youtube channel is Potholer54 because he is a professional science reporter and he makes a point of always chasing down the sources for and checking them to make sure they say what they're reported to say. If you consider yourself a skeptic, you should be doing this as standard.

    I may have posted this video before, but here is his video about how check how science is reported in the media

    Its short and well worth watching




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The paper I linked to stated excess deaths from Fossil fuel sourced PM 2.5 actually stated the deaths to be over 10 million, but I adjusted it downwards in my message because I saw other research that was closer to other papers I remember seeing before and didn't want to be accused of exaggerating the figures.

    From that study...

    "We estimate a global total of 10.2 (95% CI: −47.1 to 17.0) million premature deaths annually attributable to the fossil-fuel component of PM2.5."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Now, I'm obviously a bit tick, like, but I'm pretty sure that the ability of industry to pollute and kill all those millions in the first place would not have been remotely possible without the intervention of science...

    New Moon



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Yeah there are downsides to science this is true. I wouldn’t have had to read this message if someone hadn’t invented the internet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    why should the council check? It’s not the blocked drains that are the issue, it’s global warming. Forest management no longer required, build on flood plains, build on eroding coast lines…. Sure it’s not their fault it’s global warming.


    Newest case study shows water is getting wetter.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Do you have a link to that study showing water is wetter now?

    that would be interesting to read….

    I am curious about your opinion on how building on flood plains changes the rainfall patterns

    Do you have a source for this?



Advertisement