"Green" policies are destroying this country

Lol, let me predict how this will go. You'll ask for a 'snippet of data' and I'll post a quote from the report, you'll then say that it doesn't prove anything and I'll say 'It's only a snippit, to see the evidence, you need to read the report' and you'll ignore me and pretend that you know the report is wrong because some guy on youtube said it was wrong.

But on the very very very tiny chance you actually want to have an informed conversation about this, the IPCC AR6 working Group 1 refers to the Physical evidence for climate change

you can read it here

The SPM or summary for policy makers gives enough high level detail to be able to consider yourself informed on the topic, but if that's not enough, you can read the full report, and if that's not enough, you can verify the report by also reading the thousands of papers that are the foundation for this report, all of which are referenced fully in the relevant section of each report.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. {2.2, 2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 5.2, 5.3, 6.4, 7.3, 8.3, 9.2, 9.3, 9.5, 9.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1} (Figure SPM.1, Figure SPM.2)

A.1.1 Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. Since 2011 (measurements reported in AR5), concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 parts per million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1866 parts per billion (ppb) for methane (CH4), and 332 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O) in 2019.6 Land and ocean have taken up a near-constant proportion (globally about 56% per year) of CO2 emissions from human activities over the past six decades, with regional differences (high confidence).7 {2.2, 5.2, 7.3, TS.2.2, Box TS.5}

A.1.2 Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850. Global surface temperature8 in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001–2020) was 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10] °C higher than 1850–1900.9 Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C). The estimated increase in global surface temperature since AR5 is principally due to further warming since 2003–2012 (+0.19 [0.16 to 0.22] °C). Additionally, methodological advances and new datasets contributed approximately 0.1°C to the updated estimate of warming in AR6.10 {2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 2.3} (Figure SPM.1)

A.1.3 The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C. It is very likely that well-mixed GHGs were the main driver12 of tropospheric warming since 1979 and extremely likely that human-caused stratospheric ozone depletion was the main driver of cooling of the lower stratosphere between 1979 and the mid-1990s. {3.3, 6.4, 7.3, TS.2.3, Cross-Section Box TS.1} (Figure SPM.2)

A.1.4 Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence). It is likely that human influence contributed to the pattern of observed precipitation changes since the mid-20th century and extremely likely that human influence contributed to the pattern of observed changes in near-surface ocean salinity. Mid-latitude storm tracks have likely shifted poleward in both hemispheres since the 1980s, with marked seasonality in trends (medium confidence). For the Southern Hemisphere, human influence very likely contributed to the poleward shift of the closely related extratropical jet in austral summer. {2.3, 3.3, 8.3, 9.2, TS.2.3, TS.2.4, Box TS.6}

A.1.5 Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (decreases of about 40% in September and about 10% in March). There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability. Human influence very likely contributed to the decrease in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1950. It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades, but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss. {2.3, 3.4, 8.3, 9.3, 9.5, TS.2.5}

A.1.6 It is virtually certain that the global upper ocean (0–700 m) has warmed since the 1970s and extremely likely that human influence is the main driver. It is virtually certain that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main driver of current global acidification of the surface open ocean. There is high confidence that oxygen levels have dropped in many upper ocean regions since the mid-20th century and medium confidence that human influence contributed to this drop. {2.3, 3.5, 3.6, 5.3, 9.2, TS.2.4}

A.1.7 Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971. {2.3, 3.5, 9.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9.1, Box TS.4}

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone said the IPCC wasn't peer reviewed, Couldn't be further from the truth

They use almost exclusively peer reviewed studies to compile a report on the best available evidence in the scientific literature, the report is compiled by dozens of expert reviewers who all review each other's work, and then the report goes through multiple drafts where more experts review the data before it is signed off. Its a process that takes years and thousands of people.

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. The people whom I know live in the village I live slightly outside of, do their main weekly shop in Lidl, Aldi and Tesco in the larger nearby town, just as I do - but don't tell you know who. 😉

Now Aldi have a store in the village, so more local shopping gets done, but the profits still head for Germany.

"Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week.  This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007." https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

It would seem unanimity of support for the IPCC hasn't been as great as some like to claim. Given the cancel culture which has lead to several notable academics losing their jobs for holding views sceptical of AGW, I'd imagine most just keep their heads down these days out of fear. Galileo is probably nodding sagely from his grave

Your village has an Aldi?

Maybe you need to define what constitutes a village and what is a town?

I live in a village myself, it's an urban seaside village. Thankfully the butchers, bakers, greengrocers etc... are thriving due to local support.

Who told you city people mostly shop in supermarkets? I certainly didn't except for the odd time when I lived in a city centre, neither did my neighbours. Cities have the highest number of local outlets, if you ever visit Dublin City you'll see multiple successful and busy butchers, bakeries etc.. within a few hundred metres of each other.

What government regulation closed down a bakery with good custom that doesn't close others down?

Hey Concbui. 2008 called, they want their bullsh1t debunked climate denial talking points back. If you want to defend your climate change denialism by attacking the consensus, you're barking up the wrong tree

You could probably find a few thousand scientists who would sign a document saying the moon is a hologram and the earth is hollow given that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world and some percentage of any group of people will be cranks

The actual consensus on climate change is between 97% and 100% of actual climate scientists. Multiple studies have shown this using different methodologies

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

The consensus percentage starts to fall as you expand the circle of scientists to include non experts and people who are less well informed on the latest science, but then their opinion on the matter becomes less relevant the less they know about climate science.

and almost 100% of published studies

he can't respond to anything I say without mentioning the fact that I use a bicycle (I cycle to work it's the quickest and cheapest option and least amount of hassle) and commenting on my dietary choices, it's bizarre (I'm not even a f*cking vegan)

Is that the same Patrick Moore who told everyone that Roundup is so safe that people could drink it and then refused to drink it when he was offered it

It's funny how only the people who turn into massive shills for industry seem to support your world view

I wish the green party were not supporting this plan to build new gas turbine plants and instead prioritised interconnectors with Europe, but you're plan to basically end democracy to build a nuclear plant is not particularly well thought out

I actually feel sorry for climate change denialists at this stage.

Nobody is denying that climate change is occurring. They can't because it's been happening forever by various degrees in both directions.

Then along comes a group of blokes, with diplomas, letters after their names, calling themselves "experts" and work out a theory that puts these heretofore nobodys out into the public limelight.

The result? Mass hysteria and the emergence of gangs of lunatic disciples that brazenly defy the laws of lands, the courts, disrupt normal people going about their business, try to indoctrinate the young, handcuff themselves to buildings, railings, their fellow loonies and glue themselves to all kinds of surfaces and objects.

Any 'skeptic' who pretends that there hasn't been any evidence provided that humans have been causing climate change is an utter clown

Insults always follow when a fanatical believer in a cult fails to convince non-believers.

The mass hysterians overlook two irrefutable facts that have existed since Mankind began.

Nobody, not even the self styled "experts" can foretell the future even a year down the road let alone 10/20/30 years ahead.

Nature doesn't follow the grand notions of nobodys or cults, it can change its mind anytime it likes, go in different directions anytime it likes and is unstoppable by Mankind.

Interconnectors with Europe. Spit it out, say what you really mean - giant extension cords to plug into the reliable nuclear generated electricity in France and the UK. The same old intellectualy hypocritical desire to suck on someone else's nuclear teat.

So you think we can just keep consuming at the rates we do and the Earth will be ok or what? Do you not think plastic pollution is a bad thing or something?

Yes, and you will probably point to Galileo and Copernicus as others who defied consensus. However, all of them had evidence and facts to back them up. You don't, and neither do any other climate-deniers. They belong with flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers as being anti-science.

Even in the case of ulcers, when it was found that stomach acid did not cause ulcers, it remained a fact that it made them worse. That latter fact hid the real cause.

So even in the best case scenario, if the climate-change deniers find some other unknown cause for the climate change that we are experiencing, the evidence for that is being hidden by the fact that human activity is making climate change worse. What we are experiencing isn't natural variability on its own, it is being made worse. That actually increases the argument for climate change mitigation measures because if some of the change is happening due to other causes as well as human activity, we will have to work twice as hard to reverse and stabilise it.

We'd be through a dozen ice ages before an Irish nuclear plant was finished, it would cost multiples of any other plant built anywhere ever and if ever finished would be miles from the nearest power line,

Its funny how climate change deniers so often say 'Nobody is denying that climate change is occurring' immediately before denying climate change

It's the equivalent of 'I'm not racist' as a method of identifying people who are stuck in the early 1990s and refuse to see mountains of evidence supporting the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) which is causing most of the climate change we are seeing today.

Apart from a few protests here and there, there has been very little real attention paid to climate change, lots of lip service, very little actual action

And rather than the science leading to 'Mass Hysteria' the only way this could be accurate if you are including the millions of people who have been sucked into the world of online conspiracy theories as the Fossil Fuel industry tried to overwhelm the science with propaganda and falsified

If you think there is no evidence for AGW, then you are a clown, a parody of a free thinking person. You have demonstrated a complete inability to assess the state of the world around you.

You feeling this way is a sure sign you are on the the fringes of the spectrum.

Most of the science that happens now is driven by whatever the funding wants it to say. It's the very business I work in myself - finding the science that allows us to make claims about the products we sell. Climate change science is no different apart from the fact that challenging it is a means to an end for your business and reputation in a way the mafia themselves would admire.