Off Topic Greta Thunberg

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Nev said:
You've hit the nail on the head for the biggest obstacle to tackling climate change and mitigating the effects of it. One of the biggest arguments used against the developed world making changes is people saying 'we need to stop China and the rest of Asia creating so much greenhouse gas first or any changes the west makes is pointless.' It is unrealistic and unreasonable to demand that we just draw a line under development and put a stop to it now, and is something that could only be put forward by people who already occupy a privileged position in terms of development. It will take a seismic change in international cooperation to make effective changes that allow countries to develop their way out of poverty in ways that limit the production of worldwide greenhouse gas production in a fair and balanced way. Anything else would be unsustainable. To put it in local terms, to accept that the rest of the world stops development would also mean that we would have to accept forgetting about redressing the North/South divide in development in this country and accepting that it's just tough that we have less facilities than down south. We wouldn't accept that, and we are already in a relatively privileged position, so why should anybody else?

I liken it in some ways to the financial fair play rules in football. We know we need them or the world of football will be unsustainable. However, we also know that in practice it means we have drawn a line under development of clubs and it just means that the current rich clubs are protected from anyone else ever catching up. We need to find fairer ways to implement it.
Click to expand...
On a side note it would also put me out of a job as well!
 
JakartaToon said:
On a side note it would also put me out of a job as well!
Click to expand...

I feel your pain. I work in the events industry and our contracts are renewed on the 1st April each year. If they bring in any sort of ban on large gatherings to tackle covid-19 then our company will have zero work to do as we work at football stadiums, racecourses, festivals, concerts and showgrounds!
 
Nev said:
I feel your pain. I work in the events industry and our contracts are renewed on the 1st April each year. If they bring in any sort of ban on large gatherings to tackle covid-19 then our company will have zero work to do as we work at football stadiums, racecourses, festivals, concerts and showgrounds!
Click to expand...
Start producing face masks and hand sanitiser. You will make a fortune.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joelinton's Right Foot
JakartaToon said:
The argument works great up to points 4) and 5) and then it gets a bit less easy to back up with science. We know that we have had far higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than 405ppm and it didn't seem to have caused a global average temperature increase of 4degC.
We also know that the planet isn't going to be destroyed by increased carbon dioxide levels - at least it certainly hasn't in the past. Plants thrive on increased CO2 levels - currently its on the low side for them.
Effect on people - certainly there will be cities that will be underwater as global warming increases and that could lead to a clamour for dry ground.
The potential economic effects are also much harder to define and its where the developed and the developing world diverge which makes a global solution difficult. What the developed world does to reduce fossil fuel use of course has an impact but the projected growth in fossil fuel use through to 2050 is mostly in Asia and the developing nations and the forecast change from fossil fuels to renewables in the energy mix is not that significant.
In order to achieve any global decrease in CO2 levels in the atmosphere you are going to have provide those countries with a reliable and economic alternative to fossil fuel use, subsidise them to stop using fossil fuels or provide them with the technology to trap the CO2 and put it back in the ground. You can’t expect them to forego their economic growth to help developed nations out.
Of course you could just let things continue as now, suffer the climate effects, which would probably lead to a decrease in fossil fuel demand which causes lower prices and stops exploitation of new resources.
Click to expand...

Sure, climate is complex and hard to model precisely. Nonetheless the best guess puts us in a range around 4.5C, and recent warming has been at the upper end of the predicted range.

Stern review estimated the adaptation costs at 5x the prevention cost. So it also makes economic sense to go down the prevention route, although of course you’re right in saying that need for growth has to be taken into account in developing countries. Nonetheless they’ll suffer most from projected climate effects, so we’re not asking them to act agains their interests. Just waiting for the market to correct itself will come too late: fundamentally, this is a question of market failure, and suitable investment/correction at the right time can potentially save a lot of money from a global perspective. The difficulty is co-ordination, but US (and Russia) aside, most countries seem on board. China and India in particular which is the main thing. Would be interested to know which way the winds are blowing in Indonesia - it’s a major country that so often gets overlooked from here.
 
GeordieHalfbreed said:
Sure, climate is complex and hard to model precisely. Nonetheless the best guess puts us in a range around 4.5C, and recent warming has been at the upper end of the predicted range.

Stern review estimated the adaptation costs at 5x the prevention cost. So it also makes economic sense to go down the prevention route, although of course you’re right in saying that need for growth has to be taken into account in developing countries. Nonetheless they’ll suffer most from projected climate effects, so we’re not asking them to act agains their interests. Just waiting for the market to correct itself will come too late: fundamentally, this is a question of market failure, and suitable investment/correction at the right time can potentially save a lot of money from a global perspective. The difficulty is co-ordination, but US (and Russia) aside, most countries seem on board. China and India in particular which is the main thing. Would be interested to know which way the winds are blowing in Indonesia - it’s a major country that so often gets overlooked from here.
Click to expand...
While the projections I have seen also have China and India increasing the relative contribution from non-fossil fuel energy sources their predicted energy demand increase far outweighs those gains meaning they will be using more rather than less fossil fuels by 2050. Indonesia is in the same boat, desperate to find more gas and oil to meet increasing domestic demand and honour their long term export contracts to Japan and China. They are providing new incentives to try and get more production and have a number of new gas projects coming onstream over the next 10years. There is even talk of bringing the Natuna gas field to the market. That is a 160TCF gas field of which 120TCF is CO2. The CO2 will be pumped back into the ground and stored there. If Greta hears about that she will go apoplectic.
They have so much sunk cost, in terms of producing facilities, refineries and LNG plants, that they would need some serious subsidies from the West to just switch over to other energy sources.
 
The kid seems to have delusions of importance. Next she'll be saying she's seen visions....oh she has already ?
 
PhilK said:
The kid seems to have delusions of importance. Next she'll be saying she's seen visions....oh she has already ?
Click to expand...

"Delusions" of importance ? She is one of the primary public faces of a worldwide political movement, is regularly invited to attend high level international events and has a fairly rare ability to embarrass governments, supra-governmental assemblies and multi national corporations.

What box of "important" doesn't she tick ?
 
GeordieHalfbreed said:
Watched it years ago. It’s brilliant - as an example of how to twist facts and present soundbites to suit an agenda. There are some very clever people working to discredit the mainstream science on the topic.

Rather out of date these days alas.

I base my opinion on two things:

My understanding of the scientific literature on the subject, which is limited but not zero. (I work in a related field).

The opinions of the scientists I’ve spoken to, who are all extremely concerned about it.

That was enough for me to take a big pay cut and decide to spend my career trying to help fix the problem. I tend to laugh hollowly when people claim that scientists are only in it for the money. I wish that were true.

I don’t think anyone is stupid for being sceptical or trying to think for themselves - and I get pissed off at the people who treat environmentalism like a religion. But I do insist they apply that scepticism equally to both sides.

One thing I like to ask is the following: which bit(s) of the science don’t you believe and why?

1) Do you think CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere at approx 5.35ln(C/Co)W/m2?

2) Do you think the CO2 levels have changed from ~200ppm pre-industrial to ~405ppm today?

3) Do you think that human beings release approximately 33x10^9 tonnes per year of CO2?

4) Do you think that maintaining this rate of increase in CO2 concentration will lead to ~4C of warming?

5) Do you think an overall temperature increase of 4C would be bad for the planet? For people? For the economy?

These numbers more or less add up by the way (ie if 1-3 are true then they would logically lead to 4 etc).

Interested in your opinion.
Click to expand...



As an example of a weasel worded and fallacious argument, and twisting something to fit an agenda... then I must say that you've provided a damn good example here sir.

The very clever people working to discredit mainstream science? Would that be that lot at The University of East Anglia (UEA) then????
 
Last edited:
JohnHumbles said:
As an example of a weasel worded and Falashas argument, and twisting something to fit an agenda... then I must say that you've provided a damn good example here sir.

The very clever people working to discredit mainstream science? Would that be that lot at The University of East Anglia (UEA) then????
Click to expand...

Is this the 2009 hacked emails you're referring to or something else ?

As far as the hacked emails go, every investigation into them (there have been several) found that, when not cut and pasted out of context, they showed nothing at variance with the scientific consensus with respect to climate change. While I can't say that I keep abreast of their research, I am not aware of UEA differing significantly from that consensus, either in 2009 or since.

What is it you're referring to, specifically ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeordieHalfbreed
Freddd said:
Is this the 2009 hacked emails you're referring to or something else ?

As far as the hacked emails go, every investigation into them (there have been several) found that, when not cut and pasted out of context, they showed nothing at variance with the scientific consensus with respect to climate change. While I can't say that I keep abreast of their research, I am not aware of UEA differing significantly from that consensus, either in 2009 or since.

What is it you're referring to, specifically ?
Click to expand...


Alright there Freddd, aye, that's the crew I'm talking about.
I know about the whitewash that took place as well... but that's just IMHO though.
Here, I'm know expert far from it.

Btw, there was an audit of global warming data in 2018 and found it riddled with errors.
 
Last edited:
JohnHumbles said:
As an example of a weasel worded and fallacious argument, and twisting something to fit an agenda... then I must say that you've provided a damn good example here sir.

The very clever people working to discredit mainstream science? Would that be that lot at The University of East Anglia (UEA) then????
Click to expand...

I notice you didn’t address my point about how all the professionals I’ve met (and I work in the field) have a very clear consensus that the science is broadly right and climate change is an urgent problem.

So, do you trust the professionals, or not?
 
GeordieHalfbreed said:
I notice you didn’t address my point about how all the professionals I’ve met (and I work in the field) have a very clear consensus that the science is broadly right and climate change is an urgent problem.

So, do you trust the professionals, or not?
Click to expand...
Considering most people don't use zebra crossings that are ten yards away from them, I'd say you're wasting your breath
 
DPP says Mike Ashley=C*NT said:
Considering most people don't use zebra crossings that are ten yards away from them, I'd say you're wasting your breath
Click to expand...

It's the trouble with conspiracy theorists: the results of an independent investigations undertaken by leading professionals can be dismissed out of hand. Some **** floating around social media, though, that's gospel. It's why there are still anti vaxxers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeordieHalfbreed and Flash
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back