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!
She DID get the train! www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/greta-thunberg-travel-car-train-3896889
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.
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 ?
"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 ?
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????
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 ?
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.
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?
Considering most people don't use zebra crossings that are ten yards away from them, I'd say you're wasting your breath
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.