As I read it, you are about the only one that's brought politics into it, by ascribing a political leaning to people based on their comments on science, but without you having any real basis for those assumptions.
Imagine having to live your life as directed by those who have no intention of doing the same. Being frightened by the same people who then propose the solutions. It’s not for me but each to their own.
Your government will shame you into bending over backwards to reduce your carbon foot print. They will charge you astronomical amounts for gas and electricity because they have gotten themselves into an atrociously bad situation in terms of supply. They will continue to throw good money after bad at “green” projects that are just not commercially viable without huge grants. Most of which aren’t green anyway due to the manufacturing process of these projects. All the while they will give massive corporations who pollute the planet tax breaks and ignore other countries who have no intention of being “green”. The way I see it is pretty much like Covid. It’s not a good situation, but to get people to comply the narrative that needs to be wheeled out is that it’s a dire situation that is out of control. The best way to do that is to get people to shame other people into doing what they want. Climate change is obviously real. I harbour serious doubts over the supposed severity.
I don’t ask the sage what they do with my taxes I just assume they give them to poor people as a good wise old sage would do.
Cleaner air could be contributing to the current warmer temperatures. The European climate agency Copernicus reported that July was one-third of a degree Celsius (six-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit) hotter than the old record. That’s a bump in heat that is so recent and so big, especially in the oceans and even more so in the North Atlantic, that scientists are split on whether something else could be at work. One surprising source of added warmth could be cleaner air resulting from new shipping rules. Another possible cause is 165 million tons (150 million metric tons) of water spewed into the atmosphere by a volcano. Both ideas are under investigation. Florida State University climate scientist Michael Diamond says shipping is "probably the prime suspect.” Maritime shipping has for decades used dirty fuel that gives off particles that reflect sunlight in a process that actually cools the climate and masks some of global warming. In 2020, international shipping rules took effect that cut as much as 80% of those cooling particles, which was a “kind of shock to the system,” said atmospheric scientist Tianle Yuan of NASA and the University of Maryland Baltimore County. The sulfur pollution used to interact with low clouds, making them brighter and more reflective, but that’s not happening as much now, Yuan said. He tracked changes in clouds that were associated with shipping routes in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, both hot spots this summer. “There was a cooling effect that was persistent year after year, and suddenly you remove that," Yuan said. Diamond calculates a warming of about 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.18 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century from shipping regulations. The level of warming could be five to 10 times stronger in high shipping areas such as the North Atlantic. In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai undersea volcano in the South Pacific blew, sending more than 165 million tons of water, which is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas as vapor, according to University of Colorado climate researcher Margot Clyne, who coordinates international computer simulations for climate impacts of the eruption. The volcano also blasted 550,000 tons (500,000 metric tons) of sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. The amount of water "is so absolutely crazy, absolutely ginormous,” said Holger Vomel, a stratospheric water vapor scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who published a study on the potential climate effects of the eruption. Volmer said the water vapor went too high in the atmosphere to have a noticeable effect yet, but that effects could emerge later. A couple of studies use computer models to show a warming effect from all that water vapor. One study, which has not yet undergone the scientific gold standard of peer review, reported this week that the warming could range from as much as 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of added warming in some places to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of cooling elsewhere. Scientists look beyond climate change and El Nino for other factors that heat up Earth (msn.com)
Antarctica warming much faster than models predicted in ‘deeply concerning’ sign for sea levels Study finds ‘direct evidence’ of polar amplification on continent as scientists warn of implications of ice loss Antarctica is likely warming at almost twice the rate of the rest of the world and faster than climate change models are predicting, with potentially far-reaching implications for global sea level rise, according to a scientific study. Scientists analysed 78 Antarctic ice cores to recreate temperatures going back 1,000 years and found the warming across the continent was outside what could be expected from natural swings. In West Antarctica, a region considered particularly vulnerable to warming with an ice sheet that could push up global sea levels by several metres if it collapsed, the study found warming at twice the rate suggested by climate models. Climate scientists have long expected that polar regions would warm faster than the rest of the planet – a phenomenon known as polar amplification – and this has been seen in the Arctic. Emperor penguins: thousands of chicks in Antarctica die due to record-low sea ice levels Dr Mathieu Casado, of the Laboratoire des Science du Climat et de l’Environment in France and lead author of the study, said they had found “direct evidence” that Antarctica was also now undergoing polar amplification.
Carbon credits or off setting not saving the planet, Shock, Surprise. Report: majority of carbon offset projects globally are “likely junk” (power-technology.com)
But, but, if China aren't doing anything then why should we? Oh, are we talking about the same China that has installed enough solar panels to power the entirety of the USA? Yes, yes we are. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-p...ificantly-overachieve-its-2030-climate-goals/
It’s reads as a well balanced article, and of course anyone who thinks we shouldn’t do anything because others might not is pathetic. However it does point out they still need to do more to avoid increases over 1.5 degrees (whether people believe that can be achieved with ‘man made’ solutions is another debate, but if nothing else it’s a consistent way of comparing solutions) Impressive infrastructure work though, and something we should be doing more about. I really like, for example, the idea of no car parks without solar panel roofs. You want to build a shopping centre/retail park? Presumably you want to do that to make money? Good. Well make a little less money and cover your car park with a roof with solar panels on then. It will help generate energy, and will also keep Den dry while he’s walking back to his electric car (when they work and are cheap enough obviously )
There is a big debate ongoing nearby me, a company wants to build a huge solar farm in an area around several popular beauty spots which will, to be honest, be a massive blot on the landscape visible from several of the places. People are saying planning should insist all new builds have solar panels on instead and a scheme to get existing houses fitted with them, rather than losing green spaces to them. It’s a solid idea IMO, but unfortunately someone needs to pay for it.
