# Climate Change.



## samuelsmiles

*Christmas Day 2016 sets new UK record for renewable energy use *

*Two charts show how UK coal use is collapsing*

I found some recent optimistic news about the UK and its energy use - 25% green energy last Christmas day to 40% this year.


----------



## Colliebarmy

samuelsmiles said:


> *Christmas Day 2016 sets new UK record for renewable energy use *
> 
> *Two charts show how UK coal use is collapsing*
> 
> I found some recent optimistic news about the UK and its energy use - 25% green energy last Christmas day to 40% this year.


Please send this to the "we have 50 years coal reserves under the UK" brigade


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Half Of The UK's Electricity Now Comes From Wind, Solar And Nuclear *

*Very encouraging, I think, but why isn't it mandatory that every new house built has **solar panels on the roof. Surely the technology now is good enough to make this viable?*


----------



## Goblin

Great news. Still have a long way to go however especially when it comes to the idea that everything is "disposable". Everyone can contribute to a "greener" society and I'm just as guilty as everyone else in not doing so.


----------



## kimthecat

I planted four baby cob nut trees in two local parks last autumn . I have a cob nut tree that I planted in my garden in 2000 to mark the new century. it came form the kennels where I worked. the squirrel buries the nuts and they grow , so rather than mow them down , I' ve started to replant them and hope to do some each year in different places.

Heres one I planted earlier ! I hope they all survive.


----------



## rona

kimthecat said:


> I planted four baby cob nut trees in two local parks last autumn . I have a cob nut tree that I planted in my garden in 2000 to mark the new century. it came form the kennels where I worked. the squirrel buries the nuts and they grow , so rather than mow them down , I' ve started to replant them and hope to do some each year in different places.
> 
> Heres one I planted earlier ! I hope they all survive.


You could put tree guards around them while they grow a bit


----------



## rona

I think this is a great move forward
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38571240
"Charles Hendry will publish his independent report into the viability of the renewable energy technology later, recommending the UK builds the lagoon to capture energy from the sea.
The Swansea Bay project would involve 16 turbines along a breakwater but is seen as only the start - a prototype for much larger lagoons".

*By Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst*
"There are two big questions over lagoons: Will they harm wildlife and can they be built cheaply enough? There's no evidence yet on wildlife but most environment groups seem willing to see one trial lagoon built, then make an assessment."

Worth a small experiment I think. Also, once trialed and costed, there are many natural lagoons around the coast


----------



## samuelsmiles

rona said:


> I think this is a great move forward
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38571240
> "Charles Hendry will publish his independent report into the viability of the renewable energy technology later, recommending the UK builds the lagoon to capture energy from the sea.
> The Swansea Bay project would involve 16 turbines along a breakwater but is seen as only the start - a prototype for much larger lagoons".
> 
> *By Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst*
> "There are two big questions over lagoons: Will they harm wildlife and can they be built cheaply enough? There's no evidence yet on wildlife but most environment groups seem willing to see one trial lagoon built, then make an assessment."
> 
> Worth a small experiment I think. Also, once trialed and costed, there are many natural lagoons around the coast


It's very interesting when looking at these new schemes to establish whether they really are viable methods of power generation taking into account the cost, the impact on the environment to build and the impact on the environment once completed.

This one would be a massive construction project which in itself would leave an equally massive carbon footprint. Hopefully, if it will produce electricity for a hundred years or more and the turbines don't kill too much (if any) sealife it will be a really positive addition to our power generation.


----------



## noushka05

.................
Fantastic news about green renewables powering so much of our energy - this is in spite of the government, not because of it. Switching over to green renewables is the only chance we have of mitigating catastrophic runaway climate change, Good news about the lagoon, but if this government was serious about climate change they would never have opened the countryside up to the filthy fracking industry. They would never have trashed the renewables industry & they would not be intent on selling of our Green Investment Bank to an asset stripper. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ent-bank-theresa-may-macquarie-caroline-lucas


----------



## Happy Paws2

So we have another women trying at destroy our country


----------



## MollySmith

Meanwhile... sales of plastic laws rise up (and seem to be very popular with dog owners according to PF). One company has registered a 220% year-on-year increase in trade of the lawns.

Mathew Frith, director of conservation at the London Wildlife Trust, said: "You are using fossil fuels to make it, so there is a carbon impact there, you have to remove a significant amount of soil to lay it so you are reducing the direct and indirect porosity of the soil, you are removing habitat which a wide range of species are dependent on and at the end of its life this is a non-biodegradable product which ultimately goes back into landfill. So yes we are concerned at its proliferation."

Research in 2011 by the London Wildlife Trust revealed that 3,000 hectares (12 sq miles) of garden vegetation had been lost over eight years in the UK - which amounts to more than two Hyde Parks a year. Much, if not all, of this loss was down to decking, concreting over gardens, and the use of artificial grass.


----------



## MollySmith

And how you can help more - this app tells you about green services in your area - there is always more we can do
https://iywto.com


----------



## noushka05

REVEALED by DeSmog: A New Special Relationship Between America and Britain's Climate Science Deniers Linked to Trump and Brexit https://www.desmog.uk/2017/01/16/ma...ween-climate-science-deniers-trump-and-brexit God help us.


----------



## samuelsmiles

I wonder if it is possible to sit around a table with Trump and convince him that climate change is actually happening. Is his ego too big to countenance this?

*Trump urged to make America great again by embracing green tech*


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I wonder if it is possible to sit around a table with Trump and convince him that climate change is actually happening. Is his ego too big to countenance this?
> 
> *Trump urged to make America great again by embracing green tech*


I'll let Bill Mckibben answer that -

*Bill McKibben* ‏@*billmckibben* 17h17 hours ago

_Trump today: 'environmentalism is out of control.'

Scientists: 'climate system is out of control.'

One or the other is right, I wonder which._

Trump is about to restart the Keystone XL & the Dakota access pipelines Samuel


----------



## noushka05

And our own corrupt government tried to bury this -
*
Government 'tried to bury' its own alarming report on climate change which warns of 'significant risk' to food supplies.*

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-risk-assessment-global-warming-government-accused-burying-report-a7540726.html…


----------



## samuelsmiles

I'll be moving house within the next couple of weeks and am thinking of putting solar panels on the roof to the side/rear of my new place.

Has anyone had them fitted to their roof, and how have you found them?


----------



## noushka05

DT on here has them  My roof isn't facing an ideal direction, but I still want them. When we can afford to buy our own panels, we intend to do it. My energy supplier is ecotricity though, its a green energy company which doesn't cost us much more than our old provider. And I've recently found out our old provider like all our major energy companies I believe, has vested interests in the fracking industry.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

Our weather is definitely getting more weird than I ever remember! Snow seems more likely March-April these days than xmas like it used to.....and when have we ever had 15 days of darkness in UK?

http://medusafacts.org/breaking-new...erience-15-days-of-darkness-in-february-2017/

Not sure whether it will affect everywhere at once or how dark it will stay? I know some countries do experience months of darkness,but they don't tend to be inhabited by millions of people! .knowing Britain, everything will grind to an halt like it does if it snows heavy! ...while us dedicated dog walkers will still be trying to get our dogs out for exercise over the pitch black fields.lol!


----------



## Jonescat

I reckon it is going to get a whole lot hotter:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...nforests-quickly-gone-100-years-deforestation

Sea levels will rise:
http://www.ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-inevitable-2195929828.html

Reason why Trump and co can get away with denying it - they will be the last affected. Fig 11 shows the effect on individual countries. 
https://www.sei-international.org/p...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

9 things that a person can do
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...you-can-do-about-climate-change/#75797fd06672

Doesn't seem enough really


----------



## MilleD

Until they make solar panels look a bit better I wouldn't even consider them. Wouldn't mind a wind turbine mind if I had the space.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

Jonescat said:


> I reckon it is going to get a whole lot hotter:
> https://www.theguardian.com/global-...nforests-quickly-gone-100-years-deforestation
> 
> Sea levels will rise:
> http://www.ecowatch.com/sea-level-rise-inevitable-2195929828.html
> 
> Reason why Trump and co can get away with denying it - they will be the last affected. Fig 11 shows the effect on individual countries.
> https://www.sei-international.org/p...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> 
> 9 things that a person can do
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...you-can-do-about-climate-change/#75797fd06672
> 
> Doesn't seem enough really


How does dairy affect climate control??? ..just cos it comes from animals like meat?


----------



## Jonescat

Cows need fields, not trees therefore people clear forests for cows to get dairy

Also just seen this :

No competition


----------



## noushka05

Phoenix Rising said:


> How does dairy affect climate control??? ..just cos it comes from animals like meat?


Also cattle produce a huge amount of methane. The lifestock industry is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. http://www.greenplanetawards.org/livestock.html


----------



## noushka05

This is possibly the most dangerous graph on the planet.

C02 concentrations just keep going up & up.


----------



## noushka05

Trump will definitely pull out of Paris climate change deal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...dent-america-pull-out-agreement-a7553676.html

Wonder if Theresa will respond............








*Caroline Lucas* ‏@*CarolineLucas* 14h14 hours ago

.@*theresa_may* did you bring up #*climate* change with @*realDonaldTrump*? Failing to do so would be appalling.


----------



## samuelsmiles

I hope there is truth in this report. 

Stay positive.

*'Never mind Trump, the global clean energy transition is racing forward'*

_"What damage can a Trump administration do to this analysis? According to a __PWC report this month, the impact they can have on global greenhouse emissions will be "pretty small", if others hold course. With the trends I have chronicled in 2016, and the declaration by all governments in Marrakech in November that the Paris process is "irreversible", a holding of course seems a more than a reasonable assumption."_

_"My conclusion, as the new year begins, is that the global energy transition is progressing faster than many people think, and is probably irreversible. Trump's prospects of resurrecting coal, and giving the oil and gas industry the expansionist dream ticket most of it wants, are very low."_


----------



## samuelsmiles

*UK Offshore Wind Power Falls Below £100/MWh 4 Years Ahead Of Schedule*

The above seems like great news, but then you go on and read this. 

*Marginal greenhouse gas emissions displacement of wind power in Great Britain*

"The uncertainty over the true emissions displacement of wind power has led to claims that* it may increase GHG* emissions, or at least be ineffective at reducing them" (le Pair, 2011 and Lea, 2012)

Caution: You have to be a scientist to understand the second link. Confused.


----------



## kimthecat

Just saw this today .

http://www.paneuropeannetworks.com/energy/report-wood-energy-a-disaster-for-climate-change/
*According to a new study, the use of wood pellets to generate low-carbon electricity is a flawed policy that is speeding up, not slowing down, climate warming.*

The study, conducted by the international affairs think tank Chatham House, suggests that wood is not carbon neutral and the emissions from pellets are higher than those of coal.

The reported added that subsidies for biomass should be immediately reviewed.

Energy from trees has become a critical part of the renewable supply in many countries.

While much discussion has focused on wind and solar power, across Europe the biggest source of green energy is biomass.

EU governments, under pressure to meet carbon-cutting targets, have been encouraging electricity producers to use more of this form of energy by providing substantial subsidies for biomass burning.

However this new assessment suggests that this policy is deeply flawed when it comes to cutting CO2.

Duncan Brack, the independent environmental policy analyst who wrote the report, said: "The fact that forests have grown over the previous 20 or 100 years means they are storing large amounts of carbon, you can't pretend it doesn't make an impact on the atmosphere if you cut them down and burn them.

"You could fix them in wood products or in furniture or you could burn them, but the impact on the climate is very different."

David Carr, general counsel of the Southern Environmental Law Centre (SELC) in the US, added: "This report confirms once again that cutting down trees and burning them as wood pellets in power plants is a disaster for climate policy, not a solution."


----------



## samuelsmiles

This 'energy from waste' (efw) facility called Greatmoor has recently been built a few miles from me. Having just moved in to the area and been to the recycling centre a few times taking old things for disposal - they take things like old mattresses, sofas and old carpets and burn them to make energy.

They do a good job of seperating metals, wood, cardboard etc. for recycling too. Things are definitely getting better. I remember up until maybe the mid 90's it would all have just gone to landfill.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I hope there is truth in this report.
> 
> Stay positive.
> 
> *'Never mind Trump, the global clean energy transition is racing forward'*
> 
> _"What damage can a Trump administration do to this analysis? According to a __PWC report this month, the impact they can have on global greenhouse emissions will be "pretty small", if others hold course. With the trends I have chronicled in 2016, and the declaration by all governments in Marrakech in November that the Paris process is "irreversible", a holding of course seems a more than a reasonable assumption."_
> 
> _"My conclusion, as the new year begins, is that the global energy transition is progressing faster than many people think, and is probably irreversible. Trump's prospects of resurrecting coal, and giving the oil and gas industry the expansionist dream ticket most of it wants, are very low."_


Its important not to lose hope, but its hard to be positive when two of the key players are going backwards at a time we must urgently move forwards. We know we must stay below 2C pre-industrial temperatures if we have any hope of mitigating the worst affects of climate change, we're already over half way there. To keep below the 2C tipping point means leaving 80% of all *known* fossil fuel reserves in the ground - our government is going all out for fracked gas, the official policy of the Trump administration is climate denial. We no longer have strong leadership needed & we have only a short window of opportunity before it is too late.



kimthecat said:


> Just saw this today .
> 
> http://www.paneuropeannetworks.com/energy/report-wood-energy-a-disaster-for-climate-change/
> *According to a new study, the use of wood pellets to generate low-carbon electricity is a flawed policy that is speeding up, not slowing down, climate warming.*
> 
> The study, conducted by the international affairs think tank Chatham House, suggests that wood is not carbon neutral and the emissions from pellets are higher than those of coal.
> 
> The reported added that subsidies for biomass should be immediately reviewed.
> 
> Energy from trees has become a critical part of the renewable supply in many countries.
> 
> While much discussion has focused on wind and solar power, across Europe the biggest source of green energy is biomass.
> 
> EU governments, under pressure to meet carbon-cutting targets, have been encouraging electricity producers to use more of this form of energy by providing substantial subsidies for biomass burning.
> 
> However this new assessment suggests that this policy is deeply flawed when it comes to cutting CO2.
> 
> Duncan Brack, the independent environmental policy analyst who wrote the report, said: "The fact that forests have grown over the previous 20 or 100 years means they are storing large amounts of carbon, you can't pretend it doesn't make an impact on the atmosphere if you cut them down and burn them.
> 
> "You could fix them in wood products or in furniture or you could burn them, but the impact on the climate is very different."
> 
> David Carr, general counsel of the Southern Environmental Law Centre (SELC) in the US, added: "This report confirms once again that cutting down trees and burning them as wood pellets in power plants is a disaster for climate policy, not a solution."


One of the most prominent critical thinkers of our time, George Monbiot, has been highlighting the madness of biofuels for years - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...10/bristol-biofuels-plant-planning-permission

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/biofuels-green-dream-or-climate-change-nightmare-20070509



samuelsmiles said:


> This 'energy from waste' (efw) facility called Greatmoor has recently been built a few miles from me. Having just moved in to the area and been to the recycling centre a few times taking old things for disposal - they take things like old mattresses, sofas and old carpets and burn them to make energy.
> 
> They do a good job of seperating metals, wood, cardboard etc. for recycling too.* Things are definitely getting better*. I remember up until maybe the mid 90's it would all have just gone to landfill.


Things are actually getting worse. Its largely thanks to the EU we have recycling. We're already starting to go backwards in this country, just last week this story broke about the government cutting recycling targets after lobbying by the plastics industry - http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/20...ng-targets-quietly-reduced-industry-pressure/

The article concludes -

*Brexit fears*

The move to leave the EU may leave the door open to a further watering down of targets.

Before the Brexit referendum, the UK would have been party to the EU's Circular Economy Package which has yet to be implemented. The directive will implement a common EU target for recycling 75% of packaging waste by 2030.

But with the UK leaving the EU, there will be little to stop the UK government slashing its own recycling targets further.

These findings come just a few weeks after Energydesk revealed that Coca Cola and other plastic producers have been blocking a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles in Scotland.

Samantha Harding from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: "The plastic lobbyists are frantically trying to shore up a sinking ship. People have woken up to the ridiculousness of using an indestructible product for single-use packaging. They see through the traditional status quo that allows producers to make what they like and to hell with the consequences


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles said:


> They do a good job of seperating metals, wood, cardboard etc. for recycling too. Things are definitely getting better. I remember up until maybe the mid 90's it would all have just gone to landfill.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/20/environment.china

@samuelsmiles : I've read and heard a few times that they really don't do much with the items to be recycled and that much was sent to India and stored as there is no room to store it here. They don't buy it from us, I believe we pay them to take it...here's an article which suggests China also gets a load. I realise this article is a few years old, but when you think how strict some councils are about what you can and can't put in which colour bag or box, then it transpires it's all bunged into a huge warehouse at the other side of the world (using God alone knows how much fuel to get it there as there's tons of the stuff) you wonder if there is any point.


----------



## Happy Paws2

I never knew that, I always thought we did our own recycling. I'll carry on recycling but it does make me think why!


----------



## Calvine

Happy Paws said:


> I never knew that, I always thought we did our own recycling. I'll carry on recycling but it does make me think why!


@Happy Paws: Yep; apparently it would cost so much to store it here that it is cheaper to lug it all to India/China and pay them to worry about it. So I guess we are just shifting the problem from one place to another and causing a fair bit of pollution in the process. As you say, it makes you wonder why you waste your time. I would be happy with far less packaging on the stuff I buy to be honest. Sometimes you buy, say, a packet of tea bags and it takes you all day to get into them... cellophane, then cardboard then some thin tinfoil. Toothbrushes are difficult too, you rip out half your nails getting the cardboard backing from the plastic front.


----------



## Happy Paws2

Calvine said:


> @Happy Paws: Yep; apparently it would cost so much to store it here that it is cheaper to lug it all to India/China and pay them to worry about it. So I guess we are just shifting the problem from one place to another and causing a fair bit of pollution in the process. As you say, it makes you wonder why you waste your time. *I would be happy with far less packaging on the stuff I buy to be honest. Sometimes you buy, say, a packet of tea bags and it takes you all day to get into them... cellophane, then cardboard then some thin tinfoil. Toothbrushes are difficult too, you rip out half your nails getting the cardboard backing from the plastic front.*


I must say I agree, to much packing on things that just don't need it.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Some really innovative British companies are realising how lucrative recycling can be. For example, maybe just 10 years ago, 100% of our old carpets would just be buried in landfill to rot for thousands of years, but now _35% is used to produce energy from waste_.

_"Entrepreneurial investment and innovation in recycling carpets continues with several firms developing processes to recover valuable fibres, such as polypropylene and wool. These fibres can be recycled into various new products, including equestrian surfaces, textile felts and plastics."_

There are dozens of these energy from waste facilities around the country now.

This is all despite a hugely difficult period in time when everything is seen as disposable and not viable to repair. You know - they are _even_ _recycling road sweepings now_. 

Hey, I even reckon that we can do this without the EU.

*EU waste diktat could cost Britain £2 billion.*
https://waste-management-world.com/...-waste-for-road-sweepings-in-west-midlands-uk


----------



## noushka05

Thats a good point about China @Calvine, but landfills cant cope with our rubbish so we must recycle. What the government should be doing is investing in recycling facilities so we can recycle our own rubbish, The government should be doing & so much we as individuals could do. Heres a couple of relevant links 

https://www.foe.co.uk/faqs/whats-wrong-with-sending-our-waste-recycling-china

*What's wrong with sending our waste for recycling to China?*

Shipping our waste thousands of miles away adds to the effects of climate change. It's also unethical.

China wants our recycling because it creates jobs. But it makes more environmental sense to recycle locally - and that's where the jobs should be.

Recycling locally:


*Keeps the resources in this country* - increasing the choice of recycled goods.
*Creates jobs* - around 500 jobs per million tonnes of waste. Landfill creates just 40-60 jobs for the equivalent amount.
*Stimulates better markets for recycling* - a ready supply of recycling services is a huge factor in getting new businesses going.

*Let's stop hiding behind recycling and be honest about consumption*
We have offshored the problem of escalating consumption, and our perceptions of it, by considering only territorial emissions. George Monbiot.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/apr/12/escalating-consumption


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Hey, I even reckon that we can do this without the EU.
> 
> *EU waste diktat could cost Britain £2 billion.*


We'd require a progressive government first. The tories record on the the environment was dire under Cameron - evidence already shows this hard right government is going to be far worse.

(by the way the Policy Exchange is a dodgy right wing think tank  )


----------



## noushka05

,,
*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]
Reckless move from Gov to hike fees for legal challenges to protect environment.

Glad to support @Natures_Voice @ClientEarth in opposing.


----------



## Creativecat

I agree the climate is changing
Nearly every other day it's been the warmest on 60 yrs or the wettest month in 25 yrs something is happening when chunks of ice the size of Cardiff break off and melt away when islands near the North Pole u couldn't navigate around them 60 yrs ago u can canoo round them is astonishing it's great out coal consumption is falling but wht about china and India not towing the line by building coal powered plants every other day of the yr while our gas prices are going thru the roof . It's a shame solar panels aren't rolled out on a much greater scale without having to lay out thousands to join this untapped energy . Still we do have thoes wind farms blighting our landscapes with very little benefits I guess


----------



## samuelsmiles

I did mention in a previous post that the new secretary of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark seemed sympathetic to the climate change problem, so this is a really pleasing development. 

_"I am delighted that the Secretary of State has granted the DCO for a new energy recovery facility. This puts the Authority in the best possible position to consider the scheme in the round and secures the best way of managing north London's non-recyclable waste long term." *Cllr Clyde Loakes*_

*Giant Edmonton ERF gets government go-ahead*
http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/giant-edmonton-erf-gets-government-go-ahead/
*This is how Energy Recovery Facilities work - it's very interesting.*


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I did mention in a previous post that the new secretary of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark seemed sympathetic to the climate change problem, so this is a really pleasing development.
> 
> _"I am delighted that the Secretary of State has granted the DCO for a new energy recovery facility. This puts the Authority in the best possible position to consider the scheme in the round and secures the best way of managing north London's non-recyclable waste long term." *Cllr Clyde Loakes*_
> 
> *Giant Edmonton ERF gets government go-ahead*
> *This is how Energy Recovery Facilities work - it's very interesting.*


Greg Clarke is one minister in a government of anti-environmentalists, a government who aren't even taking the greatest danger we face seriously. If you sincerely care about our living planet you really need to look at the bigger picture instead of cherry picking to fit your confirmation bias. Any positive initiatives made by this government are by far outweighed by the negatives. This is a very hard right regressive government we have now - much worse than Camerons and his governments record on the eenvironment is dire.

Are you still following our GIB sell off farce? This government is rotten to the core. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/01/green-investment-bank-sale-sdcl-macquarie Lets pray the legal challenge derails the dodgy deal.


----------



## samuelsmiles

I remember a few months back reading about renewable energy - solar, wind, biomass etc. I knew what solar, wave, tidal and wind was but not familiar with the term 'biomass.' It was a little while before I found out that it was, basically, burning wood (destroying forests.) So I was very surprised to learn that the EU's energy policy was positively encouraging this. I'm not sure how they could make such a remarkable cock-up - I mean, even I know trees take dozens of years to grow, so how can that be sustainable. 

Plus - did you know, Noushka, about the massive Greek Coal Stations that the EU is subsidising?

*The EU's renewable energy policy is making global warming worse*

Noushka, unlike you, I have confidence in private enterprise and the initiative of some brilliant individuals and companies in this country to come up with solutions to the climate change problem. Look around and you will find them.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I remember a few months back reading about renewable energy - solar, wind, biomass etc. I knew what solar, wave, tidal and wind was but not familiar with the term 'biomass.' It was a little while before I found out that it was, basically, burning wood (destroying forests.) So I was very surprised to learn that the EU's energy policy was positively encouraging this. I'm not sure how they could make such a remarkable cock-up - I mean, even I know trees take dozens of years to grow, so how can that be sustainable.
> 
> Plus - did you know, Noushka, about the massive Greek Coal Stations that the EU is subsidising?
> 
> *The EU's renewable energy policy is making global warming worse*
> 
> Noushka, unlike you, I have confidence in private enterprise and the initiative of some brilliant individuals and companies in this country to come up with solutions to the climate change problem. Look around and you will find them.


I am well aware the EU is far from perfect - but why do you think renowned environmentalists & Green NGOs all supported remain? Because they know for all its faults we have a better chance of mitigating the worst affects of climate change with our European neighbours & protecting the environment. Climate change & pollution know no borders.

We need strong leadership on environmental matters, & whether you choose to accept it or not, the fact remains we have an extremely regressive government. The EU cares more about us than our own government does.

EU issues 'final warning' to UK over air pollution - http://www.energylivenews.com/2017/02/15/eu-issues-final-warning-to-uk-over-air-pollution/

EU will remain top investor against climate change, in defiance of Donald Trump's policies - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ronment-epa-global-warming-data-a7546676.html

Renewable energy makes up nearly 90% of new *EU* power capacity as wind overtakes coal http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...oal-fossil-fuels-climate-change-a7571026.html


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Noushka, unlike you, I have confidence in private enterprise and the initiative of some brilliant individuals and companies in this country to come up with solutions to the climate change problem. Look around and you will find them.


We don't have much time, we're seeing the consequences of climate change on a daily basis- we need strong leadership right NOW or we will be faced with the reality of unstoppable runaway climate change. And it will be catastrophic & terrifying.

New study: Arctic ocean not just melting, it's acidifying rapidly--to a level 'dangerous for some marine organisms' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ked-to-climate-change/?utm_term=.0e8be41e1219

The climate-driven collapse of Canada's Arctic permafrost is much more widespread than previously thought. - https://news.vice.com/story/canadas-permafrost-is-collapsing-thanks-to-climate-change

Ocean temperatures off the charts--note especially the Gulf of Mexico, setting new records for this time of year


----------



## Guest

Thanks Noushka, again you show the big picture and the facts, as it is so easy to get derailed into debate about small details and lies.


----------



## samuelsmiles

MrsZee said:


> Thanks Noushka, again you show the big picture and the facts, as it is so easy to get derailed into debate about small details and lies.


Thanks MrsZee. So encouraging deforestation of the planet and subsidising huge new Coal Stations are small details. I apologise for derailing this thread.


----------



## Guest

samuelsmiles said:


> Thanks MrsZee. So encouraging deforestation of the planet and subsidising huge new Coal Stations are small details. I apologise for derailing this thread.


How come you think that? I just thanked Noushka for her efforts, and often the focus is derailed, (like now.) I am sure no one thinks deforestation is a small detail.


----------



## samuelsmiles

MrsZee said:


> Thanks Noushka, again you show the big picture and the facts, as* it is so easy to get derailed into debate about small details* and lies.


???????????????????????


----------



## noushka05

MrsZee said:


> Thanks Noushka, again you show the big picture and the facts, as it is so easy to get derailed into debate about small details and lies.


That's really kind of you Mrs Zee, thank you x. All I'm doing though is just relaying what experts say in my own clumsy way. I don't dispute that the EU has some dreadful policies as it is often influenced by big business. The point I'm trying to make to @samuelsmiles on here, however, is that the tory government is even worse at being influenced by vested interests. This is why the hard right extremists want us to leave the EU, because they know vested interests will have much more influence over a tory government then they do influencing the EU. UK had a powerful voice within the EU, a more progressive government (& MEPs) could have reformed the EU for the better, stopped the deforestation & other destructive policies - nothing we can do outside the EU. So the environment on our doorstep & the climate will pay the price for this decision to leave.



samuelsmiles said:


> Thanks MrsZee. So encouraging deforestation of the planet and subsidising huge new Coal Stations are small details. I apologise for derailing this thread.


?????


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Jeremy Leggett: We are winning the carbon war*

Much to be positive about here. As I said previously, I trust private enterprise and the will of the people over the government to eventually bring about change.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *Jeremy Leggett: We are winning the carbon war*
> 
> Much to be positive about here. As I said previously, I trust private enterprise and the will of the people over the government to eventually bring about change.


In case you hadn't noticed a hell of a lot has changed since the Climate summit in Paris.

Jeremy Legget is the chair of Climate Tracker.

Here is a recent Climate Tracker tweet. Kevin Anderson is a leading climate expert. As I keep saying we need strong leadership if we have any hope of mitigating the worst effects of climate change.


----------



## samuelsmiles

*UK carbon emissions drop to lowest level since 19th century, study finds *


----------



## samuelsmiles

This is an exciting new project, partly funded by the government. Solar powered trains.

*Solar-powered trains are closer to reality than we might think*

*Imperial researchers collaborate on project to supply solar power to UK trains*

I wasn't aware of the government's 'Innovate UK' scheme before now, which is available to bright and forward thinking technology companies and institutions. Some interesting stuff going on out there that we really should hear more about.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *UK carbon emissions drop to lowest level since 19th century, study finds *


The collapse of the coal industry is fantastic news. But as one filthy industry dies it should not be replaced by another filthy industry. We *know *we need to make the transition to renewable energy not getting ourselves locked into a new filthy fossil fuel economy. However, the crooks in government are in bed with filthy fracking industry - so they will continue to use slash the renewables industry while out taxes subsidise the frackers & the oil industry.








samuelsmiles said:


> This is an exciting new project, partly funded by the government. Solar powered trains.
> 
> *Solar-powered trains are closer to reality than we might think*
> 
> *Imperial researchers collaborate on project to supply solar power to UK trains*
> 
> I wasn't aware of the government's 'Innovate UK' scheme before now, which is available to bright and forward thinking technology companies and institutions. Some interesting stuff going on out there that we really should hear more about.


Unfortunately the government are crippling the solar industry.


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> Unfortunately the government are crippling the solar industry.


Breath-o-meters. That's what the unscrupulous little 845t4rd5 will come up with next Noush'

Breath-o-meters that we'll be forced to wear 24/7 so that these criminals can tax us for the air we breathe.


----------



## samuelsmiles

"despite the slowdown, *the UK still led Europe for solar growth (2016)* with 29% of new capacity"

It seems there's still a real appetite for solar power in the UK despite a distinct lack of sunshine. 

You have to wonder why other European countries with vastly more sunshine than us aren't leading the way.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/solar-power-growth-worldwide-us-china-uk-europe


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> "despite the slowdown, *the UK still led Europe for solar growth (2016)* with 29% of new capacity"
> 
> It seems there's still a real appetite for solar power in the UK despite a distinct lack of sunshine.
> 
> You have to wonder why other European countries with vastly more sunshine than us aren't leading the way.


Great news indeed.

So how angry do you feel about the tories trying kill off the solar industry with their 'solar tax'?? Now why would they want to cripple the solar industry? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-off-climate-change-theresa-may-a7570161.html

*Government accused of trying to kill off UK solar industry before it can become cheapest form of electricity*
Official figures project solar will be less expensive than gas in the next few years, but a massive new tax hike could put that at risk

More info on renewable energy in the EU - http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...oal-fossil-fuels-climate-change-a7571026.html



Zaros said:


> Breath-o-meters. That's what the unscrupulous little 845t4rd5 will come up with next Noush'
> 
> Breath-o-meters that we'll be forced to wear 24/7 so that these criminals can tax us for the air we breathe.


This may only be a joke, but I wouldn't put anything past the tories lol - they'd flog off their own grannies if there was a market for them

This saying must have been said with the Conservatives in mind: "they know the price of everything & the value of nothing". Why are they called 'Conservatives' anyway? What do they actually conserve? They seem intent on destroying everything good 

And as for the air we breathe - 'the GREENEST GOVERNMENT EVER' are quite literally killing thousands of us every year because they refuse to address air pollution. And they haven't even built the new runway yet

*London breaches annual air pollution limit for 2017 in just five days *

*Brixton Road in Lambeth has already broken legal limits for toxic air for the entire year, with many other sites across the capital set to follow
*
In November, data from the European Environment Agency revealed the UK is second only to Italy in Europe for the highest number of annual deaths from NO2. It also ranked London's Marylebone High Street as the most polluted site in Europe.


----------



## noushka05

Record low ice levels in the Arctic--in fact, about as much ice in midwinter now as in midsummer 35 years ago.

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03...ume-hits-record-lows-during-february-of-2017/


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, MilleD:
*
Until they make solar panels look a bit better,* I wouldn't even consider them.

Wouldn't mind a wind turbine ... if I had the space.

/QUOTE
.
.
rooftop wind-turbines are quite affordable, it's the needed BATTERY system that costs $$, plus paying a licensed electrician to hook it into the utility box / power panel, and the *meter*, safely.
.
this is a DIY household wind-turbine:








.
so is this -








.
and this...









.
.
and this...
.








.
.
and this...








.
.
There are plenty of other models - go to Google Images, enter "DIY household wind turbines", & see what U get. I'm sure the UK has other designs. 
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, noushka05

... Energydesk revealed that *Coca Cola and other plastic producers* *have been blocking a deposit return scheme* *for plastic bottles in Scotland*.

*Samantha Harding* (from the Campaign to Protect Rural England) *said:* 
_"The plastic lobbyists are frantically trying to shore up a sinking ship. People have woken up to the ridiculousness of using an indestructible product for single-use packaging. They see through the traditional status quo that allows producers to make what they like, & to hell with the consequences."_

[/QUOTE
.
.
Coke, the many bottled-water producers, Pepsi, Dr Pepper, Mt Dew, etc, all of the big players want to PREVENT bottle deposits, bottle returns, & recycling schemes. 
Every time a bottle bill was INTRODUCED in the Penna state-legislature, the beverage industry heavyweights would throw huge amounts of cash at the problem - paying lobbyists, contributing to campaigns in exchange for legislative 'help', plastering TV & billboards & newsprint & magazines with negative ads, etc.
.
.
Profit-making industries have bigger war-chests than the general public, or any NGO working for environmental issues. 
.
.
.


----------



## Jonescat

I think Coke are trialling changing their mind about bottle deposits
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39055909

Carefully worded to give them loads of room to back out and clearly only joining a bus that was already moving but still a step forward.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
the recent Feb 'heat wave' across 2/3 of the U-S, & the implications thereof:
http://www.livescience.com/58175-february-warm-weather-climate-change.html
.
.
.
New England is warming faster than any other region of the 48 states; January 2017 was the warmest in history for eastern Massachusetts, especially Boston-metro, & the entire MONTH of January was an average *6' Fahrenheit warmer *in Boston & Eastern MA. At this rate, the Boston waterfront - with all that lovely new construction - will be underwater before half of Florida is submerged under the Atlantic, as sea levels rise.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
2016's top of the charts "hit parade" of climate change:
.
http://www.livescience.com/57308-depressing-global-warming-stories-of-2016.html
.
QUOTE,
_"2016 burned through heat records, &_ the year is poised to be the hottest year _since record-keeping began 122 years ago, by a significant margin._
_At only the halfway point of 2016, NASA had announced that each of the first six months (from January to June) set new temperature records. _
_Also, *July and August were tied as the hottest month the world has seen in the last 136 years*. By November, global temperatures had averaged 2.2 degrees F (1.2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, according to the World Meteorological Organization. _

_The Copenhagen Accord in 2009 stated that warming should not increase by more than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) this century, to hopefully avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The_ staggering heat felt this year_ follows what was *the hottest five-year period on record, 2011 - 2015."*_
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
more, QUOTE,
.
*"400 PPM Milestone*
_Scientists predicted that this year the *global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration* *would pass the 400 parts per million mark, permanently.* _
_*In September*, a month when carbon dioxide is typically at its lowest, *the monthly value failed to drop below 400 ppm for the first time.*_ The 400-ppm milestone _is largely symbolic, a sign of modern civilization's devastating impact on the planet, climate scientists have said. _

_Since the industrial revolution, humans have been adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants can take up. This process has driven carbon dioxide levels higher, adding to the greenhouse gas effect & increasing temperatures, along with many other climate change impacts."_
_._
_._
So, Donnie - "climate change" is just some Chinese myth, hunh? -- Yeah, right. :Meh Ignorant dimwit.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
.
above is a PDF doc, courtesy of the Royal Society [science professionals in the UK] & the Nat'l Academy of Sciences [US science-pro organization], that outlines the *evidence* for global climate change, & the *causes* so far found for GCC, plus suspected causes still under investigation.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
this website is made for scientists, & content is posted by scientists - but it's enlightening reading.
.
http://www.realclimate.org/
.
Don't be discouraged if some of it seems heavy going - if U hit a totally unknown term, copy / paste it to a search engine [Bing, Google, what-have-U] & get a definition.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
more quality info:
http://whatweknow.aaas.org
.
this site is written for the laynik, & hosted by the American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
QUOTE,
_________________________________________________________________________
.
Scott Westerfeld

✔@ScottWesterfeld
Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

8:27 PM - 20 Mar 2014 

 24,61324,613 Retweets

 20,84820,848 likes
___________________________________________________________
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
for the geeks in the room -
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml
.
The complete AR5 WG1 report. At 2,000 pages, this *summary* of science re climate change cites 1,000s of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Warning: highly technical; an advanced degree in either physics or climatology is a good pre-requisite.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.








.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
GCC deniers - many paid shills - constantly derail any actual discussion of evidence or causes by dragging irrelevancies in, & debating the irrelevancies.
.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/comms_slide1.png

http://www.realclimate.org/images/comms_slide2.png
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
from one of our many Boston-area institutions of higher learning -
.
http://oceans.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/arctic-warms-faster-antarctic
.
_'why the Arctic is warming faster than the Antarctic'_ - thanks, MIT folks. 
.
Basically, it's 'cuz ocean currents move more heat north - but they give more detail. Ocean circulation is unbelievably complex, & one of my constant prayers these days is, '*Please, Gaia, keep the Atlantic Conveyor going...' *
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Greenland is the big, BIG worry in the Arctic - unfortunately, due to the serious problems of trying to get data close to rapidly-melting glaciers that calve randomly into the sea below, it's also a massive uncertainty. Science needs data - & Greenland is more Qs than As. 
.
http://oceans.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/modeler-observationalist-divide-eyes-greenland
.
warm water brought up by the northbound Gulf Stream goes right under the ice edges, & often laps around the protruding nose of the glaciers, rapidly eroding the ice. This is key because the saline DIFFERENCE between fresh & salt water is what drives the N Atlantic Conveyor, which helps stabilize mainland temps, moderate the cold, & keeps western Europe from being a mirror image of Quebec in the winter.
Too much fresh water pouring off Greenland?... no Atlantic conveyor, the whole northeast gets colder, ditto UK, Eire, Spain, Portugal, France, etc.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
the annual Arctic ice report-card, 2016 - grim reading:
.
http://www.livescience.com/57206-arctic-report-card-grim-evaluation.html
.
.
the Arctic is still warming 2X as fast as the globe as a whole.
.
Multi-year sea ice is down to a mere 22%, from 45% in 1985 - from nearly half to a fifth, in 30-years' time.
The thinner, younger ice is fragile, breaks readily, & can be pushed by the wind - bringing warm water to the surface, preventing refreezing.
.
We had the latest autumn-freeze-up in history, & a virtually *unprecedented *ice-retreat in November - sea ice area hit a new historic low, again.
.
Average temp for the year (Oct-2015 to Sept-2016) was *3.5° F* (2°Celsius) above the 1981 - 2010 average, the highest [ever] in 216 years of data.
*Since 1900, the Arctic has warmed 6.3° F (3.5° Celsius)* -- so far - with no sign of slowing.
.
In January 2016, some areas had temps that went a stunning *14° F (8° Celsius) above average.*
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
for a brisk wake-up call, like a cold shower, watch this 60-second time lapse of old vs new Arctic ice:
.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/watch-old-arctic-ice-disappear-18563
.
.
QUOTE,
_"In 1987, sea-ice that was *4-years-old or older* constituted *26% of all sea ice*. Fast-forward to *2014*, & it's down to *about 10%*."_
_.
._
By the time the video ends, the WHITE ice - the oldest, at 9-yrs or older - is virtually all gone; there's a little pale yellow [7-YO], & that's it.
The youngest ice is marine blue, & that's the vast majority. 
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
http://www.livescience.com/58128-carbon-dioxide-could-reach-410-ppm-this-month.html
.
QUOTE,
_"In the coming weeks, carbon dioxide will start to breach the 410 parts per million threshold on a daily basis at_ the Mauna Loa Observatory _in Hawaii. The monthly average for May could come close to topping 410 ppm, too, according to the U.K. Met Office's inaugural_ carbon dioxide forecast, _released last week._

Richard Betts, _a climate scientist who helped create the forecast, said *we should pass last year's record-setting monthly peak by April or even as soon as this month*. *It's not a question of if but rather when,* depending on wind patterns & other factors that influence daily measurements._

_This year's new high-water mark comes a year after the planet passed the 400 ppm threshold permanently on the back of the greatest yearly rise in carbon dioxide on record._
_... while 2017 is unlikely to see a rise as dramatic as 2016... the Met Office forecast said this year is still expected to see an above-average increase. Carbon dioxide is forecast to *rise another 2.5 ppm this year*."_
_._
_._
_._


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
this morning, the *head of the EPA *announced that "CO2 is not the primary source of global warming". ... :Meh Good to know. What is, then?
Hot air from the Tweet-in-Chief? --- Methane, from his overconsumption of indigestible glop? -- Unburned hydrocarbons, from his SUVs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
.
meanwhile,
*The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn't Exist*
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
note to Mr Pruitt - & please read with attention, there's a quiz next Monday:
.
http://www.livescience.com/58203-how-carbon-dioxide-is-warming-earth.html
.
*'Carbon Dioxide Is Warming the Planet (Here's How)'*
QUOTE,
_"In 2006... using spectrometers... to identify particular wavelengths, researchers analyzed the wavelengths of infrared radiation reaching the ground. Based on the varying wavelengths, the scientists determined that more radiation was occurring due to the contribution of specific greenhouse gases._

_Overall, they found that greenhouse gas radiation had increased by 3.5 watts per square meter compared with preindustrial times, a rise of just over 2 percent. Other researchers have noted "missing" infrared wavelengths in radiation into space, a phenomenon that happens because these missing wavelengths get stuck in the atmosphere._

_Scientists also know that the extra carbon in the atmosphere is *the very same carbon that comes from burning fossil fuels.* By analyzing molecular variations called *isotopes*, researchers can trace the *origin* of atmospheric carbon."_
.
.
also, The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

leashedForLife said:


> .
> .
> View attachment 302737
> 
> .
> .


Deniers do like their 'hockey sticks' don't they

The Mail & other right wing media outlets are one of the main reasons so many people are ignorant about Climate change. The media barons who own so much of our media have much to answer for. They are one of the greatest scourges on this planet.

The Guardian, the Independent, Huffpost are really reliable for covering important issues such as climate change & covering them very well too. Yet I've seen quite a few people on here deriding the likes of the Guardian because they think its 'left wing'. And herein lies the reason why many people are so poorly informed on the most serious threat we face.


----------



## noushka05

After the budget you'd have to be in complete denial to believe this government care anything about the future of this planet.

The tories are going to go ahead with their solar tax - the solar industry is now facing a devastating 800% tax increase! I don't suppose we'll be able to afford to get our energy from ecotricity soon  http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...increase-green-renewable-energy-a7618191.html


----------



## noushka05

My email from Caroline Lucas on the budget -

Dear Jo,

*Budget utterly fails to address the challenges of our time?*

You might have thought that there was no one left on a trolley in a hospital corridor. That our social care system wasn't on its knees. That climate change wasn't a crisis that threatens our very future or that there was no air pollution epidemic linked to the deaths of tens of thousands.

This budget should have been an emergency intervention to end the chaos in health and social care and address the air pollution emergency, but instead it's another resounding failure from a Government that's got no ideas beyond an obsession with scaling back the state. With our NHS in peril and social care in crisis, this Budget was a chance for the Government to take a stand for the public services upon which we all rely. Instead they continue to push ahead with planned corporation tax cuts, and their handout to high earners, while unveiling woefully inadequate funding changes for the NHS and social care.

This budget is another climate failure - with the Chancellor failing to mention climate change even once in his speech. Rather than reversing the solar tax hike or ploughing money into renewables, the Government seems hell bent on drilling for more gas and oil in the North Sea, and handing further cash to the motor lobby with the fuel duty freeze. *Britain should be leading the world in climate change technology and green jobs, but instead we're lagging behind and laying the foundations for another dash for gas.*

Yours in solidarity,









Caroline Lucas, MP
Co-leader of Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavilion.


----------



## noushka05

Barry Gardiner (Shadow minister for International climate change) tweeted this yesterday -

*
Shocked &appalled to be told by Cabinet Office's Commercial Lead for Energy, John Nangle that:"a 2 degree world is just La La Land"
*
What the hell??!! 
*
*


----------



## samuelsmiles

Wow. The Romans were the first to use glass for solar energy. They really should have started putting solar panels on new house builds as a matter of course by now.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
how climate change will affect the health of U-S citizens - released today. 
.
http://www.livescience.com/58270-climate-change-health-effects-united-states.html
.
It's a nationwide graph with icons for the various "increased threat" in each region. Good communication - disturbing content.
.








.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
BTW, they missed at least a few specific "increased threats" that i know of, personally - in Alaska.
.
- yellow jackets / stinging insects are arriving there, for the 1st time in human history.
- Mosquito-borne & / or tick-borne infections will also, inevitably, increase - as temps rise, so does the insect popn of all kinds.
- EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS will also affect mainland Alaska - not "just" low-popn inhabited islands, some of which need to be relocated NOW - to new villages, mainland or larger islands at less risk.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
one of those underrated, overlooked, unimportant "environmental services" the living planet provides -
.
http://www.livescience.com/58271-spiders-eat-880-tons-of-insects-yearly.html
.
.
Spiders - all species - consume an estimated *880 tons of insects*, each year. 880 tons x 2,000# / ton = 1,760,000# of insects.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
another small thing, seemingly insignificant - pretty, even. But it could mean bad, bad change.
.
http://www.livescience.com/58296-bioluminescent-algae-glows-blue-in-tasmania.html
.
.
_Noctiluca scintillans_ is a microscopic plankton, often called 'sea sparkle', the BBC reported. They emit light when disturbed; they're not toxic to humans, altho they can cause skin irritation to some swimmers. The bad news? -- they can harm the greater ecosystem, by standing in for the lowest link in the food web.

_N. scintillans _thrive in low oxygen - a 2014 study published in the journal Nature reported O2-deficiency in the Arabian Sea led to three massive outbreaks which displaced microscopic algae, known as diatoms, Live Science previously reported. This change at the food web base can alter the entire food web, including larger fish humans eat.


"We contend that _N. scintillans_ blooms could disrupt the traditional diatom-sustained food chain to the detriment of regional fisheries and long-term health of an ecosystem supporting a coastal population of nearly 120 million people," the researchers wrote in the 2014 study.
.
.
.


----------



## Colliebarmy

Are all these studies not just promoting the research and justifying funding?


----------



## noushka05

Colliebarmy said:


> Are all these studies not just promoting the research and justifying funding?


Scientific research is how we find things out. Its vitally important science is funded.


----------



## noushka05

Things are getting more & more urgent - yet still we sleepwalk into disaster.

*Bill McKibben*‏Verified [email protected]*billmckibben* Mar 14

_Today's News That Gives One Slight Pause: 
"Amazon faces death spiral of drought, deforestation, warn scientists_." http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-death-spiral-potsdam-institute-a7627931.html










*Earth's oceans are warming 13% faster than thought, and accelerating *

*Our new study improves estimates of the rate of ocean warming - a critical component of climate change*

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating
_

*Bill McKibben*‏Verified [email protected]*billmckibben* Mar 17

This chart is global sea ice. The red line is this year.
It is scary










_

_

_


----------



## noushka05

Stopping global warming is the only way to save the Great Barrier Reef, scientists warn (but what do they know, hey? )

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-reef-scientists-warn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
glad to hear there's no such thing as global warming, climate change, or climate instability - pick one or all three. 
.
Of course, U'll have a hard time convincing *Peru*vians something essential has not radically changed - they've had massive rains, in some regions up to TEN TIMES their 'normal' historical averages, which is pretty goddam significant change. 
.
Record flooding has devastated large sections of the country; the capital - Lima, which normally gets little rain [instead depending upon glacial rivers for their city's water] has also gotten heavy rain, & huge floods. // Railroads, bridges, & roads have been SWEPT AWAY, not simply "inundated", & along with infrastructure, hospitals, schools, police, & other public buildings have been damaged or inundated / isolated.
Citizens have lost their homes, livelihoods, personal property, & even their SAVINGS - as *banks are refusing to replace the funds they've lost* when banks were destroyed by flooding. 
.
Just to add to the general joy, METEOROLOGISTS * ANTICIPATE * ANOTHER * MONTH * OF * RAIN is possible, with* a minimum of another fortnight.*
.
.
.


----------



## Happy Paws2

noushka05 said:


> Things are getting more & more urgent - yet still we sleepwalk into disaster.
> 
> *Bill McKibben*‏Verified [email protected]*billmckibben* Mar 14
> 
> _Today's News That Gives One Slight Pause:
> "Amazon faces death spiral of drought, deforestation, warn scientists_." http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-death-spiral-potsdam-institute-a7627931.html
> 
> View attachment 303721
> 
> 
> *Earth's oceans are warming 13% faster than thought, and accelerating *
> 
> *Our new study improves estimates of the rate of ocean warming - a critical component of climate change*
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating
> _
> 
> *Bill McKibben*‏Verified [email protected]*billmckibben* Mar 17
> 
> This chart is global sea ice. The red line is this year.
> It is scary
> 
> View attachment 303720
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _
> _





noushka05 said:


> Stopping global warming is the only way to save the Great Barrier Reef, scientists warn (but what do they know, hey? )
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-reef-scientists-warn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> 
> View attachment 303722


Some people are so blind to this fact that when that come to their senses it will be to later.:Rage


----------



## rona

The whole article with graph
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2118093-global-sea-ice-is-at-lowest-level-ever-recorded/

"In the Arctic, the low in sea ice coverage is a result of both global warming and unusual weather events *probably* influenced by global warming.

But in the Antarctic, the current low in seasonal sea ice could just be a result of natural variability."

" In fact, the average area of Antarctic winter sea ice has grown somewhat since observations began in 1979.

Both this growth and the current unusual low could just be the result of natural variability, says climatologist John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. "The Antarctic climate is extremely variable," he says.

The immediate cause of the current dip could be a weakening of the winds around Antarctica in November 2016. "It was a very exceptional month," says Turner. "Relatively small changes in winds can have a huge effect on sea ice."

In the Arctic, by contrast, there is a long-term decline in sea ice due to global warming. This warming *seems* to be weakening the winds that circle the pole, allowing warm air to intrude into the Arctic."

Even the scientists (experts) aren't sure what's going on.


----------



## noushka05

Happy Paws said:


> Some people are so blind to this fact that when that come to their senses it will be to later.:Rage


Ain't that the truth!


----------



## noushka05

Scientists have new proof that the Great Barrier Reef has been "*permanently*" changed by climate change.

https://psmag.com/climate-change-ha...he-great-barrier-reef-64227c9d4eec#.nrbf50mgy


----------



## noushka05

(Naomi Klein) > Important: "The fossil fuel industry's invisible colonization of academia"

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-colonization-of-academia?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## rona

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

About time we started doing something about the species responsible. Fiddling around the edges while not controlling the route cause is pointless


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> About time we started doing something about the species responsible. Fiddling around the edges while not controlling the route cause is pointless


The root cause is human activity - ie burning fossil fuels. hyper consumerism, intensification of livestock...


----------



## noushka05

If we switched to a green economy we could mitigate the worst effects of climate change Rona. We need strong leadership asap.


----------



## noushka05

Please watch Leonardo DiCaprio's - Before the flood.

Trailer -





Full documentary -


----------



## Happy Paws2

rona said:


> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> About time we started doing something about the species responsible. Fiddling around the edges while not controlling the route cause is pointless


It's very worrying



noushka05 said:


> Please watch Leonardo DiCaprio's - Before the flood.
> 
> Trailer -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full documentary -


Watched the first one, but the second I'll watch later


----------



## noushka05

Happy Paws said:


> It's very worrying
> 
> Watched the first one, but the second I'll watch later


[

Thank you for taking the time HP


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...ade-nearly-erases-california-drought/70001155
.
.
QUOTE,
_"Even with intense winter storms, the United States felt the *6th warmest winter in the 123 years on record*, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The *average winter temperature across the country was* 35.9 F, which is *3.7'F above average.*

Across the South, Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Northeast, *16 states *[of the 48 mainland states] *experienced record warmth.* *Louisiana & Texas each had their warmest winter on record, with temperatures 6.8 & 5.7'F, respectively, above average.*

Warm, springlike air began confusing flora such as the famous cherry blossom trees *in Washington, D.C. A mild late-February had cherry blossoms on the verge of blooming around mid-March.* *The initial 'predicted bloom date' of March 14 would have been the earliest on record.* The peak blooming date has since been pushed back multiple times. *Late March or early April is usually the peak blooming period.*

March's bitter cold killed [over 70% of] all blossoms that had reached the penultimate bloom stage, according to the National Park Service. About half of the blossoms in earlier stages of blooming survived the cold, & will bloom during late March.

Cherry blossoms in D.C. weren't the only plants that were fooled by early high temperatures. In California's* Anza-Borrego Desert State Park,* wildflowers bloomed early. The early bloom was *also due to the abundant rainfall that California received this winter. From October to February, the park got 5.65 inches of rain, an inch above normal.*

Alaska experienced its *coldest December through February since 2012,* *but the state's winter average-temp was 2.1'F above average*.

Not only was it a warm winter, but a wet one as well. The U.S. recorded the *8th wettest winter on record*. The average precipitation total for the winter was 8.22 inches, 1.43 inches above average.

*A blizzard slammed the Northeast in mid-March,* with snowfall measuring 42 inches in some areas. *During that storm,* *Burlington, Vt, received its 2nd highest snowfall total in recorded history for the city.* *Binghamton, N.Y., broke a 24-hour snowfall record with 31 inches of snow. *The storm caused major disruptions in the Northeast with thousands of flights canceled and dangerous road conditions.

... *Nevada & Wyoming each had their wettest winter on record, while California experienced its 2nd wettest winter.* 
As of March 14, 1.06% of California is experiencing severe drought conditions, the 3rd harshest drought level.
*No areas* of California are currently experiencing *extreme or exceptional drought*. *Over 76% of the state is currently experiencing 'no drought', vs at this time one year ago, only 0.43% of the state was drought-free.*

Western ski resorts reaped the benefits of more winter precipitation. *Mammoth Mountain ski resort in Mammoth Lakes, Calif, got 247 inches of snow in January. With over 20 feet of snow, January 2017 broke the record for most snow at the resort in a single month.

...much of the West was also affected by widespread flooding & mudslides.

Increased precipitation was not seen in all parts of the U.S. this winter. For only the 3rd time since 1885, Chicago had no measurable snowfall during the month of February.

The Hawaiian Islands were also drier than average in February, causing drought conditions to expand on the Big Island."
*

_


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Anybody noticed the change in "first leaf"? -- * Parts of the mid-Atlantic, Central, & upper Southeast states are A MONTH ahead of schedule.*
 Basically, the entire Mississippi drainage, the Ohio drainage, all of Appalachia -- draw a line west from halfway up New Jersey across to the southern boundary of Iowa, then south along the edges of states, & exit to the Gulf of Mexico between Texas on the left, & Arkansas on the right. It extends 2/3 the way down Miss, Ala, & GA, in a line across thos three states. That entire area is between 30-days [deep purple] & 20-days [dark lavender] ahead of its THIRTY YEAR AVERAGE for "first leaf".
.
This plays havoc with farmers' planting schedules, rain / dry patterns & plowing, migrating birds & their movement, insect hatches, flowering times, pollination & pollinators, insectivores & their prey hatches, seasonal patterns & herbivore calving, & more.
.
As just one example, *domestic livestock & deer, etc,* normally pair their calves', kids', or foals birth with green-up -- so that by the time the babies are weaning, there's a flush of protein-rich new grasses, browse, & foliage. "Early leafing" puts the babies behind the most-productive stage of forage, & affects their growth - it can stunt them for life, so that they are smaller as adults than they 'should' have been.
For cold region dwellers like moose or whitetail, that can spell the difference between survival & death: the 1st winter kills many young animals, as they have more body surface area than volume, & die of hypothermia / malnutrition: they can't find or consume enough calories to stay warm & maintain their core temp; they slowly chill, slow down, stop foraging, & die.
Everything from onset of estrus to length of pregnancy is a schedule that's hung on the expected green-up date of next Spring.
.
.
Here's an interactive map, showing the change of "first leaf" across the USA over time. // Watch the change in color - intensity tells U which areas are the farthest out of historic norms.
.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/08/climate/early-spring.html
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Coal in 'freefall' as new power plants dive by two-thirds

This is, in part, very much thanks to China's policies (and recognition) of climate change. It's also pleasing that we are cooperating with China's Far East Smarter Energy Group to build electric cars in our country. 

Also - 

*UK electric vehicle boom drives new car sales to 12-year high*


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
_*meanwhile, back at the ranch... *_ His Orange Majesty wants to INCREASE not only coal-mining, but the # of coal-fired power plants, _*and*_ DECREASE all forms of regulation on coal as an industry or fuel. // Coal mines are now *specifically permitted by a POTUS executive order, to just "let waste go" into surface streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, wells, or other waterways.*
His Orangeness doesn't seem to grasp the essential fact that local residents in coal-mining country DON'T HAVE municipal tap-water, piped from hundreds of miles away; they have streams, wells, & local springs, & that's what they drink, cook with, bathe in, etc.  I can't believe he's so feckin' ignorant - & so bl**dy careless of the decades it will take to CLEAN UP the pollution he's allowing them to spew over the landscape!
This after he cut the EPA budget by 1/3, & shut-off the fund for states to claim emergency help for environmental or weather disasters [Flint's lead-in-the-water, Calif floods, Arizona wildfires, Superfund sites...].
.
Some coal-powered electric plants are simply senile, & going off-line; Trumpster doesn't like it, but wants to BUILD NEW ONES to "replace" them, rather than choose less wasteful, cleaner, more-efficient options. :Muted Jacka$$ery of the highest caliber.
.
*The West's largest coal-fired power plant is closing. Not even Trump ...*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../the-wests-largest-coal-fired-power-plant-is-closing-n...
Feb 14, 2017 - As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to help revive the struggling coal industry. It's looking like a tough promise to keep.


*Trump Will Have To Work Overtime To Stop Coal Plant Closures | The ...*
dailycaller.com/.../another-wave-of-coal-plant-closures-is-on-the-way-but-can-trump-...

Feb 8, 2017 - President Trump has a lot of work ahead of him if he's going to turn the ... another wave of coal-fired power plant retirements are on the way.
.
.
*Top stories*



  





Two Ohio coal plants to close
The Hill · 1 day ago




  





Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama's Climate Change Legacy
New York Times · 16 hours ago




  





Trump preparing new executive actions for coal mining
Toledo Blade · 1 day ago
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
today, violent wind- & hail-storms are moving thru GA / Tenn / S Carolina, & hurricane-force rainfall is again flooding parts of Calif, Oregon, Colo, etc.
Hail up to baseball-size has been reported, battering roofs, cars, & any spring foliage or flowers so foolish as to open or sprout. 
.
*Climate change* means both ends of the spectrum of 'extreme weather' are over-represented - century floods are happening every 5 to 10 years, multi-year droughts like Calif's 6-year extreme dry, flooding rains, increased number & speed / severity of *wind-shear* events, *downbursts* during ordinary rainstorms [instead of *only* during violent hail or intense thunder storms], thunder SNOW - which used to be a _very_ rare event --- etc, etc.
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

The Guardian does seem to bury optimistic news like this making it difficult to find. Nevertheless, it is a good read.

*Why I think there's still hope for the climate in 2017*

The Chinese really have grasped that there is a definite issue with climate change and, with that, understand that by becoming world leaders in this technology (solar energy) there is a massive business opportunity. Hopefully soon we'll be flooded with reasonably priced solar panels to bolt to our roofs that will give us clean cheap energy. (which could also charge our electric cars.)

The government has partly funded the production of new electric London taxis, due to roll off the production line in the Autumn.

There's also a load of other stuff going on that doesn't seem to get much attention. Very exciting.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> The Guardian does seem to bury optimistic news like this making it difficult to find. Nevertheless, it is a good read.
> 
> *Why I think there's still hope for the climate in 2017*
> 
> The Chinese really have grasped that there is a definite issue with climate change and, with that, understand that by becoming world leaders in this technology (solar energy) there is a massive business opportunity. Hopefully soon we'll be flooded with reasonably priced solar panels to bolt to our roofs that will give us clean cheap energy. (which could also charge our electric cars.)
> 
> The government has partly funded the production of new electric London taxis, due to roll off the production line in the Autumn.
> 
> There's also a load of other stuff going on that doesn't seem to get much attention. Very exciting.


In what way does the Guardian bury optimistic news? Your article is taken from the guardian isn't it? 

The guardian is probably the best at covering important issues such as climate change. Its environmental reporting is second to non.

The government response to climate change is pathetic, however much you try to dress it up Samuel. I mean how many more headlines like this will it take before they take climate change seriously?

*Record-breaking climate change pushes world into 'uncharted territory'*

Earth is a planet in upheaval, say scientists, as the World Meteorological Organisation publishes analysis of recent heat highs and ice lows

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...king-climate-change-world-uncharted-territory


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
can't help but wonder, seeing the comment re China / solar / energy-saving tech / new advances... What would have happened, if POTUS Ronnie Ray-gun hadn't killed the solar industry in the USA?...
.
When he came into office, it wasn't just the solar panels on the White House that he tore down. The USA at the time manufactured over 70% of all the solar cells sold, globally, & was a hotbed of solar research & other sustainable energies - like high-efficiency, small-blade wind turbines for *individual *_*homes*_, not industrial-scale wind farms with trees a hundred feet tall.
Ray-gun shut off all Federal funds for sustainable energy of all kinds; he was pro fossil-fuel, & specifically he was pro-oil. // Halfway thru his 2nd term, guess who had 70% of the world's solar-cell manufacturing?... _*Japan. *_& they were also heavily investing in solar research - improving cell-tech, finding less costly materials, cutting costs of manufacturing, etc, etc.
.
I am taking nothing from Japan when i say that it's possible, maybe even likely, that the pot-on-the-boil state of U-S research in the early-80s could have given the world a new & revolutionary solar tech --- something like a solar cell in a paint, that we could layer on the west or south exterior wall & harvest sunshine for electricity, by the 1990s. It's entirely possible - & Ray-gun killed the research, killed the momentum, disassembled the research teams, & sold the lab equipment for scrap metal.
.
Research is a team effort - even Edison had dozens of men at his Menlo Park lab. It takes money to do it, & since WW-2, the driving force in the U-S has been *Federal funds. *Individual companies or innovative geniuses can't afford the cost anymore; it's too dam*ed expensive, & often demands too much equipment - they're not drawing on the backs of envelopes in diners, they're using CAD software on state-of-the-art computers.
.
Without investment, we can't invent, develop, & create the new energy systems the world desperately needs - & we needed it, the world needed it, 30-years ago.
With His Orange Idiocy at the helm, the U-S is moving retrograde. I can only pray fervently that other nations pick up the discarded torch, & run with it. Our need is urgent.
.
.
.


----------



## Calvine

noushka05 said:


> Please watch Leonardo DiCaprio's - Before the flood.
> 
> Trailer -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full documentary -


@noushka05: I agree with this, and with what you are saying, totally; and I believe that _you yourself_ would, wherever possible, practise what you preach so I am not trying to dismiss what you say. However, as far as Leonardo de C is concerned, I would take him far more seriously if he did not travel by private plane quite so often. OK, he is a ''celeb'' and people may well take notice of what he says, but I would have more respect for him if he tried to lead by example. ''Don't do as I do, but do as I say'' comes to mind.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
during the incredible wind-gusts that roared thru Tennessee on March 21st, a man stuck in traffic while waiting for the winds to abate began to video the slashing lines of rain & heavy wind-gusts.
2 lanes to his left, there's a semi tractor-trailer - the wind LIFTS the trailer, shoves a 4-door car sideways UNDER the lifted trailer, & drops the trailer onto the car. 
.
.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/video...m-in-traffic/vtczhnyte6wbcfs21_viogtz7bq8ba0g
.
These sort of bizarre events are becoming more frequent - if not 'more normal', they are more common, as weather becomes more violent.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> @noushka05: I agree with this, and with what you are saying, totally; and I believe that _you yourself_ would, wherever possible, practise what you preach so I am not trying to dismiss what you say. However, as far as Leonardo de C is concerned, I would take him far more seriously if he did not travel by private plane quite so often. OK, he is a ''celeb'' and people may well take notice of what he says, but I would have more respect for him if he tried to lead by example. ''Don't do as I do, but do as I say'' comes to mind.


That's a very fair point you make Calvine. I suspect Leonardo has a HUGE carbon footprint, as a passionate environmentalist I would imagine he'll be doing his best to try to offset it but that's really not good enough, is it. Not only that it gives ammunition to those who deny climate change or couldn't care less about it. George Monbiot did a great article on celebrity environmentalists & their hypocrisy, i'll find it & add it to the thread later. Somewhere on this thread I've posted a quote by world renowned climate scientist Kevin Anderson. Unlike Leo, Kevin refuses to fly, he believes its important to demonstrate we can live good lives without having very high carbon footprints. He travelled to the UN Climate Summit in Paris buy boat & train for example. As he says although the emissions of one individual aren't very important its a symbolic message he's sending by not flying.

OMG @leashedForLife !

Climate change is happening before our eyes yet masses of people are still denying it :/


----------



## samuelsmiles

Coal Collapse Sparks Climate Hope.


UK businesses call on Government to embrace low-carbon future and enact climate change legislation.

Some remarkable advances in technology are happening regarding solar energy and battery storage all across the world right now. It seems even big businesses in the UK are getting excited too. The government will be taking notice, I'm sure.


----------



## noushka05

Devastating news across the pond.
*
BREAKING: President Donald Trump signs executive order rolling back Obama's efforts to combat climate change.

*
Response from Bernie Sanders -

Mr. Trump, you cannot run a government by rejecting science. Listen to the scientific community, not the CEOs of the fossil fuel industry.

Our job is to save the planet not make more profits for the oil, gas and coal industries. We must act boldly to transform our energy system.

Mr. Trump: You are threatening the lives of our children and grandchildren. We will fight you every step of the way.


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Devastating news across the pond.
> *
> BREAKING: President Donald Trump signs executive order rolling back Obama's efforts to combat climate change.
> 
> *
> Response from Bernie Sanders -
> 
> Mr. Trump, you cannot run a government by rejecting science. Listen to the scientific community, not the CEOs of the fossil fuel industry.
> 
> Our job is to save the planet not make more profits for the oil, gas and coal industries. We must act boldly to transform our energy system.
> 
> Mr. Trump: You are threatening the lives of our children and grandchildren. We will fight you every step of the way.


He's trying to resuscitate a dinosaur though - coal is dying. Electric/solar is winning.

There's too much research and development going on now, from individuals like the brilliant Mate Rimac (see below) and big companies seeing a buck to be made, to stop alternative energy. 

*U.S. solar produced $154 billion in economic activity for 2016
*
*New York City now generates more than 100 MW of solar*

*Mate Rimac Revolutionising Electric Cars*


----------



## leashedForLife

.
that solar, wind power, & other renewable energy sources are clean & effective is not the point, Sammy - 
Trumpster has deep connections to fossil-fuel industry powers, & they DON'T WANT renewable energy, they want to sell oil, pump oil, find gas, pipe gas, frack for fossil fuels, mine coal, sell coal to the power stations, & make oodles & oodles of money.
They HAVE oodles & oodles of money; Exxon-Mobil has had many years running of record profits, they're rolling in cash. // And they are funding conservative think-tanks & media generators to churn out "controversy" over renewable energy, climate-change-as-a-myth, science-isn't-really-scientific, & so on.
.
If the fossil-fuels industry BURNS all the fossil-fuels that are as yet still in the ground, the result for the planet will be inconceivable; 3-degrees Fahrenheit of average increased temp globally is only the center of the bell-curve, the EXTREMES of the bell-curve are where the massive change occurs. // All the hopeful plans to prevent catastrophic change depend upon a good chunk of the fossil fuels in the ground now, STAYING THERE.
The industry is fighting this prospect tooth & claw.
.
Solar can make billions every year; they don't give a rat's a$$. They want to mine, pump, ship, burn, & make money for their shareholders; they don't give a good goddam what science says about CO2 levels, methane clathrates, permafrost melting, polar ice evaporating, glaciers vanishing. THEY CARE ABOUT PROFITS - & nothing else whatsoever.
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

leashedForLife said:


> .
> that solar, wind power, & other renewable energy sources are clean & effective is not the point, Sammy -
> Trumpster has deep connections to fossil-fuel industry powers, & they DON'T WANT renewable energy, they want to sell oil, pump oil, find gas, pipe gas, frack for fossil fuels, mine coal, sell coal to the power stations, & make oodles & oodles of money.
> They HAVE oodles & oodles of money; Exxon-Mobil has had many years running of record profits, they're rolling in cash. // And they are funding conservative think-tanks & media generators to churn out "controversy" over renewable energy, climate-change-as-a-myth, science-isn't-really-scientific, & so on.
> .
> If the fossil-fuels industry BURNS all the fossil-fuels that are as yet still in the ground, the result for the planet will be inconceivable; 3-degrees Fahrenheit of average increased temp globally is only the center of the bell-curve, the EXTREMES of the bell-curve are where the massive change occurs. // All the hopeful plans to prevent catastrophic change depend upon a good chunk of the fossil fuels in the ground now, STAYING THERE.
> The industry is fighting this prospect tooth & claw.
> .
> Solar can make billions every year; they don't give a rat's a$$. They want to mine, pump, ship, burn, & make money for their shareholders; they don't give a good goddam what science says about CO2 levels, methane clathrates, permafrost melting, polar ice evaporating, glaciers vanishing. THEY CARE ABOUT PROFITS - & nothing else whatsoever.
> .
> .
> .


Well, the US is going to be left behind for a maximum of 8 years whilst others surge ahead. There is too much development going on with alternative energy that will change things for the better very soon, I believe.

*Policy Shift Helps Coal, but Other Forces May Limit Effect*
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
_"their cheers are muted, because market forces and state initiatives continue to elevate coal's rivals, especially natural gas and renewable energy."
_
_"If the Clean Power Plan is reneged upon, I don't think you will see utilities going back to investing in coal because they have already reduced their infrastructure and they already have commitments geared toward natural gas," said Tamar Essner, an energy analyst at Nasdaq Advisory Services.

Wind and _solar power_ are also taking market share, as the costs of utility-scale generation have become competitive with those of hydrocarbons in many parts of the country."_


----------



## samuelsmiles

So much to feel positive about in this article. I really don't think the actions of Trump will be halting the progress already being made. 

*Trump's Pro-Coal Orders Are Doomed to Fail. *

_"Its second mistake is ignoring market forces. On price alone, fossil fuels are facing inevitable decline. Solar energy system prices fell by 25 percent in 2016.Half a million solar panelswere installed every day of the year before, and solar is growing at an annual rate of about 30 percent. Overall, renewable sources provided 63 percent of new electricity generation this past year. China recently signaled a shift to renewable energy by canceling plans for 103 new coal-fired power plants, some of which were already under construction.

The Trump Administration cannot halt the revolution that is underway in energy, which is the world's largest marketplace."

Globally, there are now more jobs in renewable energy than in oil, gas and coal combined. If annual installations continue to grow at rates declining from today's, there will still be enough clean power for each of the 9 billion people who will populate the Earth in 2050."_


----------



## DogLover1981

samuelsmiles said:


> So much to feel positive about in this article. I really don't think the actions of Trump will be halting the progress already being made.
> 
> *Trump's Pro-Coal Orders Are Doomed to Fail. *
> 
> _"Its second mistake is ignoring market forces. On price alone, fossil fuels are facing inevitable decline. Solar energy system prices fell by 25 percent in 2016.Half a million solar panelswere installed every day of the year before, and solar is growing at an annual rate of about 30 percent. Overall, renewable sources provided 63 percent of new electricity generation this past year. China recently signaled a shift to renewable energy by canceling plans for 103 new coal-fired power plants, some of which were already under construction.
> 
> The Trump Administration cannot halt the revolution that is underway in energy, which is the world's largest marketplace."
> 
> Globally, there are now more jobs in renewable energy than in oil, gas and coal combined. If annual installations continue to grow at rates declining from today's, there will still be enough clean power for each of the 9 billion people who will populate the Earth in 2050."_


If you read the history of US's crazy politics, you'll find that the next president will likely reverse much of Trump's climate policies and that could happen as soon as 2021 at the rate Trump is going.


----------



## FeelTheBern

DogLover1981 said:


> that could happen as soon as 2021 at the rate Trump is going.


Heck, it could be even sooner...


----------



## samuelsmiles

*South Australia to get $1bn solar farm and world's biggest battery

Crikey - even Australia seems to have come to its senses. Making Trump look like the dinosaur he is. *


----------



## leashedForLife

.
I *wish* the dimwit was a dinosaur - we'd be admiring his skeleton in the Natural History Museum, instead of watching His Corpulent Orangeness scribble his signature on various proclamations to disassemble every progressive piece of legislation he can get his itty-bitty paws on. 
.
remember *Dodd-Frank*? - It was meant to prevent any future repeats of the financial deals that caused the *2008 Global Recession*, starting with the meltdown of the housing / mortgage industry & extending into mutual funds, financial instruments, the stock exchange, etc.
.
*Trump ignites political fight over U.S. banking law reforms | Reuters*
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wealth-fiduciary-idUSKBN15I199
Feb 3, 2017 - 
Trump and other critics of the Dodd-Frank law say its regulations have ... Despite such criticisms, recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank of ...
.
*Trump signs legislation to scrap Dodd-Frank rule on oil extraction*
www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/02/14/trump-scraps-dodd.../97912600/
Feb 14, 2017 - 
President Trump signed legislation to scrap a rule that requires oil companies to ... After a court battle, the SEC introduced it last year in June.
.
.
mental health & gun purchase checks? -
*Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With ...*
www.nbcnews.com/news/...news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-pe...
Feb 28, 2017 - 
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun. ... Both the House and Senate last week passed the new bill, H.J. Res 40, revoking the Obama-era regulation.
.
.
Preschool thru elementary education?...
*Trump Nixes Obama-era Rules for New Federal K-12 Law | Education ...*
https://www.usnews.com/news/...news/.../trump-nixes-obama-era-rules-for-new-federa...
3 days ago - 
The move is aimed at fulfilling pledges to rein in federal influence over education policy.
.
.
here's the mother-lode - Enjoy a sampling of the many devastating changes. 
.
*Signed Legislation | whitehouse.gov*
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
the WHITE HOUSE
President Donald J. Trump ... the Department of the Interior relating to *Bureau of Land Management* regulations that establish the procedures ...
.
.
The BLM regulates Federal land - aside from the military bases; they oversee national parks, wilderness areas, reserves, & also regulated landscape within private property, such as prairie potholes, water-filled low-lying ponds that are critical habitat for migrating waterfowl.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
today's Severe Weather threat map, courtesy of WeatherUnderground -








.








.
As U can see, we have:
- severe *thunderstorm* warnings
- FIRE warnings [dry soil / drought, often windy]
- FLOOD warnings
- high winds advisories
- TORNADO watches
- Winter storm warnings [snow / ice, freezing rain]
.
.
a "*severe thunderstorm*" includes:
* hail an inch or more in diameter
* rainfall over an inch per hour; possible flash-floods.
* intense lightning
_______________________________
.
.
Yesterday & Tues night, winds of 95-mph & up caused tornado-type damage in Texas; roofs smashed or torn off, vehicle rollovers on highways - especially tractor-trailers - trees down, power outages.
.








.
This is the annual peak season for tornadoes, & predictably there have been many. // A big chunk of Indiana is under Tornado Watches.
.
.
The Gulf Coast delta up the Miss Valley to the Ohio & east are all under possible flash-flood watch, due to heavy rains. Houston is flooded; Nashville, Tenn., soon may be.
Large parts of Alabama, Georgia, Tenn., Ohio, & sections of N & S Carolina are under flash-flood watches.
.
a WATCH is before the fact; a WARNING is after it's begun.
.
of course, none of this has anything to do with climate change, added thermal energy, changes in rainfall patterns, drought patterns, snowfall / snow-pack, etc.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
here's a satellite photo of Indiana at 3-PM Eastern Daylight Time, today -
.








.
.
to watch the interactive radar, go to the page & click on WATCH -
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/indiana/satellite
.
.
2 brothers died in Ft Worth, TX, fatally shocked by electricity from a downed live-wire in a public park, after a storm had departed their area. 
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/03/29/two-children-dead-after-downed-power-lines-electrocute-them/
.
the boys were 11 & 12-YO; the power-line was *arcing - *meaning "jumping the air-gap to the nearest surface", so it electrified THE GROUND for 20 to 40-ft around it; the electricity also started a grass-fire, which was put out.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
tornado stats for the US, annual -
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/online/monthly/newm.html
.
May 2015 was a recent high - 381 actual tornados, not 'suspected' but confirmed, in 31 days.
.
20 ppl died in Jan-2017 in tornados, most of them [17] in Georgia.
.
.
.


----------



## rona

Interesting little snippet
http://www.efe.com/efe/english/tech...uctuations-in-global-warming/50000267-3219994


----------



## samuelsmiles

Haha. Look at them moves.

I've just found out that this song was an early environmental protest song. "What a show, there they go smokin' up the sky, yeah."

When I grow up I want to be in a band like this!


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Maryland Set to Ban Fracking in Huge Win for People Power. *

*Sunlight Striking Earth's Surface in Just One Hour Delivers Enough Energy to Power the World Economy for an Entire Year. *
*http://www.alternet.org/environment...t-one-hour-delivers-enough-energy-power-world*


----------



## Phoenix Rising

Seems to having an affect on animals migration etc too. Polar bear has been sighted on a Scottish Island! Appears to have swam all the way from Svalbard!

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/polar-bear-sighted-scottish-island


----------



## Colliebarmy

I cant keep up

is it climate change or global warming?

what happened to that ozone layer thatwas gonna kill us all?


----------



## Colliebarmy

*Sunlight Striking Earth's Surface in Just One Hour Delivers Enough Energy to Power the World Economy for an Entire Year*

So all we need is to cover the earth in solar panels?

wouldnt that refelect massive amounts of light and heat away from the planet?


----------



## rona

Colliebarmy said:


> I cant keep up
> 
> is it climate change or global warming?
> 
> what happened to that ozone layer thatwas gonna kill us all?


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/Goddard/2016/antarctic-ozone-hole-attains-moderate-size


----------



## samuelsmiles

Colliebarmy said:


> *Sunlight Striking Earth's Surface in Just One Hour Delivers Enough Energy to Power the World Economy for an Entire Year*
> 
> So all we need is to cover the earth in solar panels?
> 
> wouldnt that refelect massive amounts of light and heat away from the planet?


The earth won't be covered in solar panels. They will be placed in sensible places like in the links below.

*Over 4,000 Nottingham council homes have been fitted with solar panels*.

*Belectric UK completes 'virtually subsidy-free' rooftop solar install for Rolls-Royce*

The sort of technology in the link below is racing ahead nowadays, and the costs to manufacture and install has fallen rapidly over the last 15. 

 
*Could this be the world's most efficient solar electricity system? *


----------



## noushka05

Colliebarmy said:


> I cant keep up
> 
> is it climate change or global warming?
> 
> what happened to that ozone layer thatwas gonna kill us all?


I've answered this before. Hopefully you'll listen this time.

Its both CB.










World leaders listened to the scientists & banned CFCs to save the ozone layer. Unfortunately for us & the planet, the fossil fuel industry has a lot more clout. Trump & the tories are in bed with the industry.



Colliebarmy said:


> *Sunlight Striking Earth's Surface in Just One Hour Delivers Enough Energy to Power the World Economy for an Entire Year*
> 
> So all we need is to cover the earth in solar panels?
> 
> wouldnt that refelect massive amounts of light and heat away from the planet?


Solar energy is one of the best sources of green energy. We wouldn't need to cover the earth in solar panels to save our planet.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *Maryland Set to Ban Fracking in Huge Win for People Power. *
> 
> *Sunlight Striking Earth's Surface in Just One Hour Delivers Enough Energy to Power the World Economy for an Entire Year. *


Yep, people power is our only hope of stopping fracking here too now & I've no doubt with the 'great repeal bill' protestors are going to be it big trouble.


----------



## noushka05

Tories give fresh £100m exemption to heavy industry from clean energy costs. Frackers INEOS lobbied for this:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...vy-industry-exemption-from-clean-energy-costs


----------



## Colliebarmy

Global warming morphed into climate change when it became clear the temperatures were not rising and there were more grants to be had in the latter

This planet has frozen and warmed up many times, look up ICE AGE (not the movie with sid in it)


----------



## Colliebarmy

noushka05 said:


> solar energy is one of the best sources of green energy. We wouldn't need to cover the earth in solar panels to save our planet.


Request planning permnission for a solar farm, wait for the NIMBY's to start screaming

same with wind farms "it will ruin the landscape" ok, lets run out of leccy then


----------



## Phoenix Rising

If the planet is getting hotter and ice caps melting why are they predicting another mini ice age though? That doesn't make sense???


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, Phoenix Rising:

If the planet is getting hotter and ice caps melting, *why are they predicting another mini ice-age*...? ...

/QUOTE]
.
.
who or what is THEY, Phoenix? 
.
I also wasn't aware ice-ages came in varied sizes - perhaps they meant LENGTH of time, but a "mini" in geologic time is still enormous re a human lifetime.
.
Do U have a link for this prediction?
Did it come from NOAA, NASA, the world Climatology organization, or any other reputable scientific source?
.
Also, just to add:
the Little Ice-Age that killed *every apple tree in North America [because the GROUND froze as deep as their roots] *was / is believed to have been due to A COLLAPSE OF THE *ATLANTIC CONVEYOR *which on the surface is the Gulf Stream, warm water northbound, & way-below is southbound cold water from the Arctic.
.
We may well have a failure of the Atlantic Conveyor, as Greenland is pouring fresh water by millions of gallons into the Arctic Ocean & messing up the salinity isocline that causes the cold water to FALL to the bottom, & move south. // Which, yes, will catastrophically alter temperatures - on land, above the ocean, in the water - affecting northeastern US, eastern Canada, & worst hit, *western Europe.*
.
Try to imagine western Europe - Paris, London, Spain... being as cold as eastern Canada.  Yes - possible, on the same latitude, if the Gulf Stream stops flowing DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING - which yes, is a cold effect from warming climate / melting ice / salinity changes in the Arctic.
Does that clarify?
.
.
.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, Phoenix Rising:
> 
> If the planet is getting hotter and ice caps melting, *why are they predicting another mini ice-age*...? ...
> 
> /QUOTE]
> .
> .
> who or what is THEY, Phoenix?
> .
> I also wasn't aware ice-ages came in varied sizes - perhaps they meant LENGTH of time, but a "mini" in geologic time is still enormous re a human lifetime.
> .
> Do U have a link for this prediction?
> Did it come from NOAA, NASA, the world Climatology organization, or any other reputable scientific source?
> .
> Also, just to add:
> the Little Ice-Age that killed *every apple tree in North America [because the GROUND froze as deep as their roots] *was / is believed to have been due to A COLLAPSE OF THE *ATLANTIC CONVEYOR *which on the surface is the Gulf Stream, warm water northbound, & way-below is southbound cold water from the Arctic.
> .
> We may well have a failure of the Atlantic Conveyor, as Greenland is pouring fresh water by millions of gallons into the Arctic Ocean & messing up the salinity isocline that causes the cold water to FALL to the bottom, & move south. // Which, yes, will catastrophically alter temperatures - on land, above the ocean, in the water - affecting northeastern US, eastern Canada, & worst hit, *western Europe.*
> .
> Try to imagine western Europe - Paris, London, Spain... being as cold as eastern Canada.  Yes - possible, on the same latitude, if the Gulf Stream stops flowing DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING - which yes, is a cold effect from warming climate / melting ice / salinity changes in the Arctic.
> Does that clarify?
> .
> .
> .


I don't think this article is the one I originally saw but it's saying the same thing

http://www.collective-evolution.com...ofessors-solar-cycle-model-thats-97-accurate/

I'm sure I saw mention of the last 'ice age' in UK where the Thames was so frozen over that stalls and things were set up on it. This was many years ago but I can't remember without finding the same article. It maybe that I saw that in a newspaper but I know also read about ice age predicted by NASA and other scientists across the world. I'll see if I can find the one I originally saw.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
excuse me, Phoenix -
the very title means U do not need to look further, it's a crock. // The SOLAR CYCLE model holds that human activities have zip to do with "*so-called global warming*" in THEIR - the authors' - opinion.
& that's precisely what it is: Opinion.
.
They insist that SOLAR CYCLES are heating the planet.
.
.
.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

leashedForLife said:


> .
> excuse me, Phoenix -
> the very title means U do not need to look further, it's a crock. // The SOLAR CYCLE model holds that human activities have zip to do with "*so-called global warming*" in THEIR - the authors' - opinion.
> & that's precisely what it is: Opinion.
> .
> They insist that SOLAR CYCLES are heating the planet.
> .
> .
> .


Did you read it? Just a few highlights from another article

"According to Professor Zharkova:

We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.

The Maunder Minimum occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age, a period of feeble summers and bitingly cold winters, war, pestilence and famine. It wasn't all bad: rivers like the Thames in London froze so thickly they could accommodate Ice Fairs; and it's said that the slow tree growth induced by the cold gave the wood in Stradivarius violins their special timbre.

Zharkova's ice age predictions have been backed by a number of scientists, among them Australia's Dr David Evans with his Notch-Delay solar theory and, more surprisingly, by scientists at Germany's ideologically warmist Potsdam Institute.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian of Vencore Weather has also predicted an imminent solar minimum as the world finds itself in the weakest solar cycle for more than a century"

Full article
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...lar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

There's plenty of other articles if you google 'mini ice age'.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles said:


> Haha. Look at them moves


Forget the moves @samuelsmiles; take a look at those flares!


----------



## leashedForLife

.
no, Phoenix, i didn't read it. And won't. // No apologies, i've seen this stuff too many times to waste more personal time on it.
.
the rise in CO2, methane, Freon, & other greenhouse gases ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is not disputed.
Claiming they've got sod-all to do with planetary warming & climate instability is self-serving rationalization, not science.
.
It's the sort of hooey that the various "think tanks" funded by Exxon-Mobil have been spouting to the public for decades, lobbying with as their justification for "business as usual, no need to regulate us", & have promoted heavily in the media as 'alternative facts'.
.
The scientific data is quite clear; over 90% of all the scientists IN CLIMATE RESEARCH agree that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels & clear-cutting / burning the global rain forest, is the largest single factor driving global warming / climate instability.
.
.
.


----------



## Goblin

Phoenix Rising said:


> Did you read it? Just a few highlights from another article


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...toward-a-mini-ice-age/?utm_term=.d020e50e7818 interesting covering the same thing.



> However, this belief is in direct contrast with much literature on the topic. Georg Feulner, deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, co-authored a paper in 2011 specifically examining the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth's climate. His paper, and subsequent related research has concluded that any solar-related temperature drops would be far outweighed by human-caused global warming. In the case of a solar minimum, such as the one predicted by Zharkova and colleagues, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1°C at most, compared to about 1.3°C warming since pre-industrial times by the year 2030,"


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, Phoenix Rising:

...

Full article
http://www.*breitbart*.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

...

/QUOTE
.
.
This is a send-up, right?... U don't genuinely expect me to wander on over to a right-of-extreme-Right neo-Nazi / Skinhead / KKK / racist, sexist, homophobic 'Net site to *read an article that supposed to be about actual SCIENCE?...*
Because if U do expect me to click that link, U are possibly delusional, are definitely guaranteed disappointment, & either A) ignorant of Breitbart, or B) know full well what a fulminating chancre of cesspool waste it is, & U promote it anyway. 
.
I can find real science, thanks - no need for 'alternative facts' or narrow-minded bigotry websites. :Sour Bleccchhh. Stomach-turning.
NOAA is an excellent resource, as is NASA, & here's a website for climate scientists by climate scientists -
http://www.realclimate.org/
.
Don't expect RealClimate to be written for _*Sun*_ readers - they're specialists writing for fellow specialists. But it's interesting & lively.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
BTW, for those in search of actual science with a social conscience, the *Union of Concerned Scientists *is an excellent resource.
.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
.
.
.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, Phoenix Rising:
> 
> ...
> 
> Full article
> http://www.*breitbart*.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/
> 
> ...
> 
> /QUOTE
> .
> .
> This is a send-up, right?... U don't genuinely expect me to wander on over to a right-of-extreme-Right neo-Nazi / Skinhead / KKK / racist, sexist, homophobic 'Net site to *read an article that supposed to be about actual SCIENCE?...*
> Because if U do expect me to click that link, U are possibly delusional, are definitely guaranteed disappointment, & either A) ignorant of Breitbart, or B) know full well what a fulminating chancre of cesspool waste it is, & U promote it anyway.
> .
> I can find real science, thanks - no need for 'alternative facts' or narrow-minded bigotry websites. :Sour Bleccchhh. Stomach-turning.
> NOAA is an excellent resource, as is NASA, & here's a website for climate scientists by climate scientists -
> http://www.realclimate.org/
> .
> Don't expect RealClimate to be written for _*Sun*_ readers - they're specialists writing for fellow specialists. But it's interesting & lively.
> .
> .
> .


I've never heard the name, just knew it wasn't a daily newspaper, figured it must be some science site. Just googled 'mini ice age' and picked a few links that weren't from the daily mail or The Sun etc. Was trying to pick one that wasn't too technical for others like me who also don't have a degree in science but was interested to know whether it would have an impact on their lives! I don't have any qualifications in science at all (never understood it at school) but am interested to know if stuff like having extreme weather is going to have a drastic effect on our lives in the future.

I mean just imagine if other countries stopped trading with UK cos of Brexit so we had a shortage of food items being imported and then on top of that we had unprecedented amounts of snow and found ourselves living in snow conditions like Canada gets! ..or just longer colder winters meaning food wouldn't grow as well here either so we (as a country) couldn't even grow our own food well enough to compensate for reduced trade. Would we have to be rationed like in the war or would this govt just leave everyone to fend for themselves? (more likely considering what they're doing with the NHS etc right now!) while they use their millions to escape the poverty they created for the rest of us! How many old and disabled folk are going to survive longer, colder winters than we have already, if govt have already reduced their incomes to the point they can't afford heating and there's little food to go round?? I'm thinking of my parents in the short term but if it wasn't going to happen for many years I may well be that older person myself struggling to keep warm and find food to eat, too old or ill to work anymore.

There were reports before about fuel shortages because Britain relied on imports, combine fuel and food shortages. economic problems due to Brexit with Mother Nature freezing and flooding (due to higher volumes of snow melting) the country and it could be a disaster! Personally I'd rather know cos maybe we (my family) could move somewhere safer (less likely to flood if heavier snow was going to be a bigger problem in the future), stock up more on emergency rations on food, other fuel sources eg If I sold my flat maybe my priority would now be a house with a chimney so a wood fire to keep warm/cook food was a future option, rather than how many rooms it had or the size of the garden.

I think we have a right to know if the effects of the climate and situations caused by people (govt cutbacks/ pollution etc) is going to have a major impact on our future lives so we can plan for it if possible.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Phoenix Rising said:


> I've never heard the name, just knew it wasn't a daily newspaper, figured it must be some science site. Just googled 'mini ice age' and picked a few links that weren't from the daily mail or The Sun etc. Was trying to pick one that wasn't too technical for others like me who also don't have a degree in science but was interested to know whether it would have an impact on their lives! I don't have any qualifications in science at all (never understood it at school) but am interested to know if stuff like having extreme weather is going to have a drastic effect on our lives in the future.
> 
> I mean just imagine if other countries stopped trading with UK cos of Brexit so we had a shortage of food items being imported and then on top of that we had unprecedented amounts of snow and found ourselves living in snow conditions like Canada gets! ..or just longer colder winters meaning food wouldn't grow as well here either so we (as a country) couldn't even grow our own food well enough to compensate for reduced trade. Would we have to be rationed like in the war or would this govt just leave everyone to fend for themselves? (more likely considering what they're doing with the NHS etc right now!) while they use their millions to escape the poverty they created for the rest of us! How many old and disabled folk are going to survive longer, colder winters than we have already, if govt have already reduced their incomes to the point they can't afford heating and there's little food to go round?? I'm thinking of my parents in the short term but if it wasn't going to happen for many years I may well be that older person myself struggling to keep warm and find food to eat, too old or ill to work anymore.
> 
> There were reports before about fuel shortages because Britain relied on imports, combine fuel and food shortages. economic problems due to Brexit with Mother Nature freezing and flooding (due to higher volumes of snow melting) the country and it could be a disaster! Personally I'd rather know cos maybe we (my family) could move somewhere safer (less likely to flood if heavier snow was going to be a bigger problem in the future), stock up more on emergency rations on food, other fuel sources eg If I sold my flat maybe my priority would now be a house with a chimney so a wood fire to keep warm/cook food was a future option, rather than how many rooms it had or the size of the garden.
> 
> I think we have a right to know if the effects of the climate and situations caused by people (govt cutbacks/ pollution etc) is going to have a major impact on our future lives so we can plan for it if possible.


I'm like you, Phoenix, I don't understand the science, either from the climate change sceptics or the science that supports it. I don't abide by all the right wing (and left wing) conspiracy theories that seem to go hand in hand with climate change, however, you just know that we have to start caring for our planet a whole heap more.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
Extreme weather is* already* affecting many, & *has been* for 20-years - individuals, regions, entire nations; it will continue to do so, for the immediately foreseeable future.
.
If the Atlantic Conveyor quits, there will *definitely *be a long-lasting & severe impact on all of western Europe. Year-round temps will be colder, growing season shorter, more fuel will be used to keep houses warm... BUILDING CODES will have to change, to include more insulation than previously, among other things. // Wind speeds & shear forces, especially around coastlines, will change - but as narrow as the UK is, the entirety of the UK will be affected by altered wind-speeds & lots more shear, vs mainland Europe would mostly be affected along the coasts & 25 to 50-kms inland, plus in upper elevations.
.
Extreme weather has already caused "century floods" to become every-5-yr events, & a "thousand year flood" has already occurred in 3 instances, in the U-S.
Insurance companies are raising rates; they are also *refusing* to cover certain areas [coastal properties, riverine properties, cliffside properties in Calif & Oregon, etc] that they *previously insured* in toto, *for replacement value.*
.
the 6-year drought in Calif was one such 'extreme' event that affected everything & everyone - 
bears drank from swimming pools, or lay in them to cool off; wildfires swept over Ks of acres & square miles; CITRUS TREES & other agriculture plantings died of thirst, because there wasn't enuf water for everyone, & urban areas got 1st dibs. A lot of wildlings simply died - the very young were especially vulnerable, among mammals, but for water-dependent species such as amphibians & fish, the drought was devastating. Wild birds had fewer nestlings survive; it will be 5-years or more before we have data on how that affected migratory species.
For urban humans, U couldn't wash Ur car, water any lawn, water anything but vegetable gardens & then only weekly inside town limits, etc, etc, etc.
Many municipalities didn't let homeowners FILL their swimming pools - rural pool-owners with well water were the folks providing spas for bears.
.
Extreme weather has killed hundreds in Peru, already, & is killing more, *right now* - flooding, mudslides, walls collapsing, vehicles & bridges swept away.
.
.
.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

leashedForLife said:


> .
> Extreme weather is* already* affecting many, & *has been* for 20-years - individuals, regions, entire nations; it will continue to do so, for the immediately foreseeable future.
> .
> If the Atlantic Conveyor quits, there will *definitely *be a long-lasting & severe impact on all of western Europe. Year-round temps will be colder, growing season shorter, more fuel will be used to keep houses warm... BUILDING CODES will have to change, to include more insulation than previously, among other things. // Wind speeds & shear forces, especially around coastlines, will change - but as narrow as the UK is, the entirety of the UK will be affected by altered wind-speeds & lots more shear, vs mainland Europe would mostly be affected along the coasts & 25 to 50-kms inland, plus in upper elevations.
> .
> Extreme weather has already caused "century floods" to become every-5-yr events, & a "thousand year flood" has already occurred in 3 instances, in the U-S.
> Insurance companies are raising rates; they are also *refusing* to cover certain areas [coastal properties, riverine properties, cliffside properties in Calif & Oregon, etc] that they *previously insured* in toto, *for replacement value.*
> .
> the 6-year drought in Calif was one such 'extreme' event that affected everything & everyone -
> bears drank from swimming pools, or lay in them to cool off; wildfires swept over Ks of acres & square miles; CITRUS TREES & other agriculture plantings died of thirst, because there wasn't enuf water for everyone, & urban areas got 1st dibs. A lot of wildlings simply died - the very young were especially vulnerable, among mammals, but for water-dependent species such as amphibians & fish, the drought was devastating. Wild birds had fewer nestlings survive; it will be 5-years or more before we have data on how that affected migratory species.
> For urban humans, U couldn't wash Ur car, water any lawn, water anything but vegetable gardens & then only weekly inside town limits, etc, etc, etc.
> Many municipalities didn't let homeowners FILL their swimming pools - rural pool-owners with well water were the folks providing spas for bears.
> .
> Extreme weather has killed hundreds in Peru, already, & is killing more, *right now* - flooding, mudslides, walls collapsing, vehicles & bridges swept away.
> .
> .
> .


you must be in the US? Keep forgetting the forum is International.. I was talking specifically about the UK and where I am we are not used to extremes of weather. or having to worry about enough food or fuel.


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, Phoenix Rising:

... I was talking specifically about the UK ... we are *not used to extremes of weather,* or having to *worry about enough food or fuel.*

/QUOTE
.
.
extreme weather in the UK - a few samples:
.
*Great Storm of 1987 - Wikipedia*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1987
.
Jan-2017
*Britain battered by hurricane-force winds and THUNDERSNOW as UK ...*
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2584905/britain-hurricane-thundersnow-arctic-storm/
.
*Storm Barbara strikes UK with 120mph winds flipping over LORRIES ...*
https://www.thesun.co.uk/.../storm-barbara-strikes-uk-with-120mph-winds-flipping-over...
Dec 24, 2016
.
*Aberystwyth hit by 94mph hurricane-force winds as 'tornado' flattens ...*
www.telegraph.co.uk › 
Nov 17, 2016
.
*Travel chaos grips Britain as snow, rain and hurricane-force winds hit*
www.independent.co.uk › News › UK › Home News
Jan 12, 2017
.
*FIVE days of storm hell: Hurricane-force 90mph winds to batter UK ...*
www.dailystar.co.uk › News › Latest News
Feb 3, 2017
.
*Storm Doris live updates: First death as 100mph hurricane-force winds ...*
www.dailystar.co.uk › News › Latest News
Feb 23, 2017
.
*UK weather sees winter storm chaos before thundersnow has even hit ...*
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../M62-closed-lorry-BLOWN-Forth-Road-Bridge-severe-weather-...
Jan 11, 2017
.
*UK storms: Hurricane-force winds batter England and Wales - BBC ...*
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-26157937/inside-cobra-crisis-meeting
_"Winds of more than 100-mph have been battering west Wales and north-west England..."_
.
.
I'd suggest the UK "get used to extreme weather" - planning for it, plotting contingencies, educating citizens, etc - ASAP. What about Storm Angus? Or the 2016 UK hurricane? - the UK is not exempt, & will need to adapt her plans before being clobbered again. // The UK is not a special little snowflake - we all live on the same planet.
.
.
.
As for food & fuel shortages - 
How old are U, Phoenix? // Do U recall the history of 2 World Wars? - both devastated Britain without actually 'invading' mainland Britain.
Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Jersey & all the lesser islands, too - travel restrictions, FUEL rations, FOOD rations, turning lawns into veg-gardens, sending urban children & young urban adults to rural areas to help plow, plant, milk cows, reap grain, pick fruit...
.
the UK now *imports even more of their food than in 1914 - '18, or 1939 - 45.* That makes the nation, all parts of it, *that much-more vulnerable* to weather disasters, or simply a change in rainfall patterns, or a rise in temps.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Food from abroad:
.
*More than half of UK's food sourced from abroad, study finds ...*
https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Food
Jan 5, 2016 - 
_"The UK is currently importing over 50% of its food and feed..."_
.
.
*The British import a quarter of their food from the EU, and that's a ...*
https://qz.com/.../the-british-import-a-quarter-of-their-food-from-the-eu-and-thats-a-p...
Jun 25, 2016 - 
_"In the immediate aftermath, the collapse in the value of the British pound against the dollar and euro is going to make UK imports of food more ..."_
.
.
*UK facts and figures - Global Food Security*
www.foodsecurity.ac.uk › Your food
_"The food security problem: the challenge is to produce and supply enough safe ... UK food trade gap: £18.5Bn, based on imports of £32.5 billion and exports of ..."
._
.
*Britain least self-sufficient in food since 1968 - Telegraph*
www.telegraph.co.uk › Food and Drink › Food and Drink News
Sep 25, 2010 - 
_"Britain is more reliant on food imports than at any stage over the last 40 years ... that Britain's self-sufficiency - the measure of how much of the food ..."
.
.
._


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
UK food production re climate change -
.
*How will climate change affect food production? | Environment | The ...*
https://www.theguardian.com › Environment › Food
Sep 19, 2012 - 
_"Global warming is already affecting farmers worldwide; future impacts will ... Drought and food price : Dried sunflowers near the village of Kondofri, Bulgaria ... "
._
.
*UK food supply at risk from climate change - Defra - Farmers Weekly*
www.fwi.co.uk/news/uk-food-supply-at-risk-from-climate-change-defra.htm
Jan 23, 2017 - 
_"Climate change poses 'significant risks' to the UK food-supply chain, says a government report. Published by Defra, the UK Climate Change ..."_
.
.
Offshore protein & international conflict -
.
*Global 'fish wars' could break out as climate change and rising ...*
www.independent.co.uk/.../fish-wars-cod-war-iceland-uk-climate-change-global-war...
Feb 19, 2017 - 
_"The twin threats of climate change and growing nationalism could lead to an outbreak of conflicts over fish stocks - like the infamous Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland - that could threaten the global supply of food and ..."_
.
.
.
I was telling my fellow college students in the 1980s to buy stock in potable water, before the water-wars begin.  'Fish wars' are the same problem in a different form - water & protein are essentials for life. Climate change & global warming are shrinking the supply of both.
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

Colliebarmy said:


> Global warming morphed into climate change when it became clear the temperatures were not rising and there were more grants to be had in the latter
> 
> This planet has frozen and warmed up many times, look up ICE AGE (not the movie with sid in it)


Its like having our own resident Donald Trump with you.. Its pointless debating someone with cognitive dissonance.



Colliebarmy said:


> Request planning permnission for a solar farm, wait for the NIMBY's to start screaming
> 
> same with wind farms "it will ruin the landscape" ok, lets run out of leccy then


NIMBY's like you, not me 

No doubt you'd prefer frackers in your back yard.












Phoenix Rising said:


> If the planet is getting hotter and ice caps melting why are they predicting another mini ice age though? That doesn't make sense???


Because they're lying. Please have a read at this PH - http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...g-climate-change-frozen-methane-a7648006.html

And here is the full video of Bernie Sanders & Bill Nye








Phoenix Rising said:


> I've never heard the name, just knew it wasn't a daily newspaper, figured it must be some science site. Just googled 'mini ice age' and picked a few links that weren't from the daily mail or The Sun etc. Was trying to pick one that wasn't too technical for others like me who also don't have a degree in science but was interested to know whether it would have an impact on their lives! I don't have any qualifications in science at all (never understood it at school) but am interested to know if stuff like having extreme weather is going to have a drastic effect on our lives in the future.
> 
> I mean just imagine if other countries stopped trading with UK cos of Brexit so we had a shortage of food items being imported and then on top of that we had unprecedented amounts of snow and found ourselves living in snow conditions like Canada gets! ..or just longer colder winters meaning food wouldn't grow as well here either so we (as a country) couldn't even grow our own food well enough to compensate for reduced trade. Would we have to be rationed like in the war or would this govt just leave everyone to fend for themselves? (more likely considering what they're doing with the NHS etc right now!) while they use their millions to escape the poverty they created for the rest of us! How many old and disabled folk are going to survive longer, colder winters than we have already, if govt have already reduced their incomes to the point they can't afford heating and there's little food to go round?? I'm thinking of my parents in the short term but if it wasn't going to happen for many years I may well be that older person myself struggling to keep warm and find food to eat, too old or ill to work anymore.
> 
> There were reports before about fuel shortages because Britain relied on imports, combine fuel and food shortages. economic problems due to Brexit with Mother Nature freezing and flooding (due to higher volumes of snow melting) the country and it could be a disaster! Personally I'd rather know cos maybe we (my family) could move somewhere safer (less likely to flood if heavier snow was going to be a bigger problem in the future), stock up more on emergency rations on food, other fuel sources eg If I sold my flat maybe my priority would now be a house with a chimney so a wood fire to keep warm/cook food was a future option, rather than how many rooms it had or the size of the garden.
> 
> I think we have a right to know if the effects of the climate and situations caused by people (govt cutbacks/ pollution etc) is going to have a major impact on our future lives so we can plan for it if possible.





samuelsmiles said:


> I'm like you, Phoenix, I don't understand the science, either from the climate change sceptics or the science that supports it. I don't abide by all the right wing (and left wing) conspiracy theories that seem to go hand in hand with climate change, however, you just know that we have to start caring for our planet a whole heap more.


Just adding to what @leashedForLife has been saying.

The link you posted is a far right fake news site @Phoenix Rising . Breitbart's is deliberately muddying the waters on climate change but the science is crystal clear - humans are driving climate change & we only have a small window of opportunity to act if we are to mitigate catastrophic runaway climate change. .

Exxons own scientists proved 4 decades ago that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change. So instead of coming clean Exxon set about misleading & lying to the public & financing climate change denial. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is now Trumps Secretary of State - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...y-for-misleading-the-public-on-climate-change

The misrepresentation of scientific and factual information about climate change, to mislead the public, should be recognized for what it is - a crime against humanity. These evil self centred people are trying to manipulate humanity into destroying what it relies on to sustain itself, for their own short term selfish greed & power. The consequences are potentially worse than any other previous event in terms of the human suffering it will cause. They are knowingly using propaganda techniques to deceive people by spending vast amounts of money on this underhanded campaign. Its called astroturfing - the opposite of a grassroots movement.










I posted about this desmog investigation at the beginning of this thread. The Trump administration is a festering putrid swamp & the tory government isn't much better. Desmog exposes the Tory climate deniers & their connections.

https://www.desmog.uk/2016/07/15/updated-brexit-climate-deniers-network-expands-cabinet-reshuffle



Phoenix Rising said:


> you must be in the US? Keep forgetting the forum is International.. I was talking specifically about the UK and where I am we are not used to extremes of weather. or having to worry about enough food or fuel.


We've had increased flooding here PR. If we don't take immediate action climate change will affect all of us. There will be food shortages, fish stocks will collapse as the seas acidify. Melting ice caps are causing the seas to rise, much of this island will disappear. Already climate change is fuelling the refugee crisis. We will all pay dearly for our governments inaction.


----------



## Goblin

Ok had to google on something I remembered seeing about the middle east. Showing areas which used to be lakes but are now dry land. Not only to do with climate change but it plays a large part. Couldn't find what I really wanted but:

http://aytzim.org/resources/educational-materials/45-climate-change

Whilst the physical impact is bad enough, it's the political and social impact which is even more concerning. In a region wracked by wars, adding another trigger, water, is hardly something to look forward to. Not the only region it would occur.

At the moment we have refugee crisis due to things like war, revolution, religious violence, economic collapse etc. How long before climate refugees are also added to that list?


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
it's too bad that the UK is already abed. :Meh This would give y'all proper nightmares, & possibly awaken a few to the dangers we face - not humans only, but every plant, animal, & even microbe species on the entire planet, tho only humans can comprehend the threat:
http://www.livescience.com/58539-carbon-dioxide-levels-unprecedented-in-human-history.html
.
.
QUOTE,
_"...Current carbon dioxide levels are unprecedented in human history , & are on track to climb to even more-ominous heights in just a few decades._

_If carbon emissions continue on their current trajectory,... by mid-century _[EDIT: 2050]_, the atmosphere could reach a state_ *unseen in 50 million years*_. Back then, *temperatures were up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) warmer*, ice was almost nowhere to be seen, & *oceans were dramatically higher* than they are now._
_The implications of this research, published on Tuesday in Nature Communications, are some of the starkest reminders yet that humanity [must] curtail carbon pollution or risk pushing the climate outside the bounds that have allowed civilization to thrive._
_... The closest analog to the *mid-century atmosphere* we're creating would be a period *roughly 50 million years ago known as the Eocene*, ...when the world was completely different than the present, due to extreme heat, & oceans covered a wide swath of currently dry land._

_...It's possible that warming already in the pipeline has ensured parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet face unstoppable melt. That would raise sea levels up to 13 feet and threaten coastal communities around the world._
_...climate change impacts the world is already seeing [include] heat waves becoming more common and intense, oceans regularly flooding cities, & wildfires burning more intensely. The rising tide of impacts today will only swell further in the future, unless carbon pollution is cut.

If humans ignore the warning in Royer's study, however, they could put the planet into a state unheard of in *nearly half a billion years.* Stretching current carbon dioxide emissions trends into the more distant future means *the planet could hit 2,000 ppm [of atmospheric CO2] by 2250*."_
.








.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

Goblin said:


> Ok had to google on something I remembered seeing about the middle east. Showing areas which used to be lakes but are now dry land. Not only to do with climate change but it plays a large part. Couldn't find what I really wanted but:
> 
> http://aytzim.org/resources/educational-materials/45-climate-change
> 
> Whilst the physical impact is bad enough, it's the political and social impact which is even more concerning. In a region wracked by wars, adding another trigger, water, is hardly something to look forward to. Not the only region it would occur.
> 
> At the moment we have refugee crisis due to things like war, revolution, religious violence, economic collapse etc. How long before climate refugees are also added to that list?


We're already seeing climate refugees Goblin. Climate change has played a major part in the Syrian refugee crisis - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/

Millions more people will be displaced if we fail to act.


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Transition to renewables feasible and realistic according to new report*

"a similar number expected the cost of renewables will continue to decline - becoming cheaper than fossil fuels within ten years."

Thankfully it's not all doom and gloom. http://www.climateactionprogramme.o...easible_and_realistic_according_to_new_report


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *Transition to renewables feasible and realistic according to new report*
> 
> "a similar number expected the cost of renewables will continue to decline - becoming cheaper than fossil fuels within ten years."
> 
> Thankfully it's not all doom and gloom.


How are we going to make the transition with world leaders like Trump & May? The window of opportunity is closing fast.


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> How are we going to make the transition with world leaders like Trump & May? The window of opportunity is closing fast.


People power. You admitted yourself a few posts back when I included the link about fracking being abolished in one state in the US. It was people power that succeeded.

It is people power that is driving the new advances being made in renewable energy - particularly solar and battery storage. Brilliant individual people and companies.

It is unstoppable and I trust that governments will be forced to change. It's happening (to use a green term) at an alarming rate.


----------



## rona

Did you see this?
http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...s/news-story/f49d6adaa99034482fb09b0cc57b4efb
"His social media challenge to Musk on Friday came after Tesla's vice president for energy products Lydon Rive told ABC the company could fix South Australia's energy crisis in 100 days by delivering a 100-300 megawatt battery farm.

"How serious are you about this bet," he wrote on Twitter.

"If I can make the (money) happen (and) politics, can you guarantee the 100MW in 100 days?"

Musk responded: "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free. That serious enough for you?"

It certainly seems to have given the industry and the Australian government a kick up the backside


----------



## samuelsmiles

rona said:


> Did you see this?
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...s/news-story/f49d6adaa99034482fb09b0cc57b4efb
> "His social media challenge to Musk on Friday came after Tesla's vice president for energy products Lydon Rive told ABC the company could fix South Australia's energy crisis in 100 days by delivering a 100-300 megawatt battery farm.
> 
> "How serious are you about this bet," he wrote on Twitter.
> 
> "If I can make the (money) happen (and) politics, can you guarantee the 100MW in 100 days?"
> 
> Musk responded: "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free. That serious enough for you?"
> 
> It certainly seems to have given the industry and the Australian government a kick up the backside


No, I hadn't seen this article. How exciting is that? People power.


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles said:


> No, I hadn't seen this article. How exciting is that? People power.


I was impressed by the way he said I'll do it and if I don't do as I say you can have it for free 

That's some commitment


----------



## samuelsmiles

rona said:


> I was impressed by the way he said I'll do it and if I don't do as I say you can have it for free
> 
> That's some commitment


Yep. Brilliant people as innovotive, optimistic, forward thinking and damned clever as this give me belief. As well as all of the crowd fund donators.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
QUOTE,
_"...Current carbon dioxide levels are unprecedented in human history , & are on track to climb to even more-ominous heights in just a few decades._

_If carbon emissions continue on their current trajectory,... by mid-century _[EDIT: 2050]_, the atmosphere could reach a state_ *unseen in 50 million years*_. Back then, *temperatures were up to 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) warmer*, ice was almost nowhere to be seen, & *oceans were dramatically higher* than they are now._
_The implications of this research, published on Tuesday in Nature Communications, are some of the starkest reminders yet that humanity [must] curtail carbon pollution or risk pushing the climate outside the bounds that have allowed civilization to thrive._
_... The closest analog to the *mid-century atmosphere* we're creating would be a period *roughly 50 million years ago known as the Eocene*, ...when the world was completely different than the present, due to extreme heat, &* oceans covered a wide swath of currently dry land.*_

/QUOTE
.
.
here's a look at parts of the Earth during the Eocene period - take note of the extent of *ocean, *vs areas of *land.*
.








.
upper left view: 
western hemisphere; what exists of the Canadian Arctic has a little white cap & a land-bridge to the mainland. Remember, there is no permanent ice or snow in this epoch; it's seasonal only.
.
upper right view: 
eastern hemisphere; Africa is the long large blob on the left - most of North Africa is under water; the irregular blob left of center is what's left of India, & Japan is the rightmost blob in the upper portion. // Australia is below.
.
center bottom globe: 
equatorial view of Africa - most of the Mediterranean countries are submarine, along with central Europe.
.
.
Q:
Where will the current human-popn of *7.5 billion *find space to live, tillable soil to plant sufficient crops to feed them all, & *drinkable* water? -- Lots of salt & brackish water; not much fresh.
.
.
source
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/rcb7/050_Eocene_sm.jpg


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Popn pressure worldwide -
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html
.
.
QUOTE,
_'By 2050, six countries are expected to exceed 300 million: China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, & the USA._
_..._
_With the highest rate of population growth, *Africa is expected to account for over 50% of world population-growth between 2015 & 2050*._
_During this period, *the populations of 28 African countries are projected to more than double*, & *by 2100*, *ten African countries are projected to have increased by at least a factor of 5*: Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania, & Zambia.'_

EDIT:
"increase by a factor of 5" = 6X current popn; respectively, *83 years from now*, that's 
Angola ......................... 26.5M --> ...........159M
Burundi ....................... 11M, 844,426 --> 71M, 066K, 556
DRC ............................... 4M, 836,287 --> 29M, 017K, 722
Malawi ......................... 18M, 167,193 --> 109M, 103K, 008
Mali ............................. 18M, 556,994 --> 111M, 341K, 964
Niger ............................ 21M, 359, 639 --> 128M, 157K, 834
Somalia ........................ 11M, 317,068 --> .. 67M, 902K, 408
Uganda ........................ 41M, 334,056 --> .248M, 004K, 336
Tanzania ..................... 56M, 464,974 --> 338M, 789K, 844
Zambia ........................ 17M,113,217 --> 102M, 679K, 302
ALL DATA from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ -- live data, which changes continuously

QUOTE, continued:
_"The *concentration* of population growth *in the poorest countries* presents its own set of challenges, making it *more difficult to eradicate poverty & inequality*, to *combat hunger & malnutrition*, and to *expand educational enrollment & health systems*, all of which are crucial to the success of the new sustainable development agenda", said John Wilmoth, Director of the Population Division, in the UN's Department of Economic & Social Affairs."_
_._
_._
_._


----------



## leashedForLife

.
for some here-&-now threats, here's today's Severe Weather alerts from Wunderground -
https://www.wunderground.com/severe.asp
.
.








.
legend:








.
Everything outlined in bright red is tornado watches - ranging from 7 of 10 to 8 of 10, on the 'risk' scale.
Yellow patches are severe thunderstorm, which includes hail up to 2" diameter.
green patches = flood warnings.
.
Tomorrow,* possible flood warnings* run from the entire Boston-metro area north to Beverly & Salem, Mass; they begin at 8-AM Thurs & run till 8-*p*m Friday, in some areas - meaning 36-hours to be aware of possible flooding. // That doesn't include salt-water intrusions along coasts; it's freshwater flooding, due to heavy rains on already-saturated soil, starting tomorrow morning.
.
.
.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

If flooding and weather, oceans rising etc is going to get more extreme as you say won't some of these countries end up under water, or experiencing severe typhoons/earthquakes, tsnumai's and the people consequently killed BEFORE they get chance to reach the populations that are being predicted for those countries?


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, Phoenix Rising:

... won't some of these countries end up under water, or experiencing severe typhoons/ earthquakes, (EDIT: tsunamis, etc) & the people consequently (EDIT: be) killed BEFORE they get chance to reach the populations that are being predicted for those countries?

/QUOTE
.
.
well, PR, praps we'll solve the age-old problem of mortality, & U'll be around to count them all in 83 years.  // I won't.
.
*Earthquakes* - so far as i know - are no part of global warming; mudslides, yes, cliffside collapses, yes, earthquakes, no.
.
*Tsunamis* may well *become* part of global warming - altho i sure as H*** hope not! - if the methane clathrates off the mid-Atlantic states catastrophically collapse & are released.
.
I won't check the map of Africa to see which of the 28 nations expected to double might be submerged by a rising ocean, nor which of the 10 that are expected to hit SIX TIMES their current popn - because sea-level rise doesn't happen overnight. // *Ppl forced to move by sea-level rise* will be among the many, many millions of *climate refugees* - not dead, just "displaced".
One more problem for a crowded Earth to deal with.
.
Displacement doesn't stop pregnancy. Refugees have their babies wherever they are - the difference between climate refugees & those displaced by civil war, floods, quakes, etc, is that wars & other temporary crises *end*. *Most climate refugees are permanent exiles*; the ocean won't be going back down in their lifetimes, even if they are newborns.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
QUOTE,
_"The main point here is that, although there may be defects in any specific detailed model, the general conclusion is far-more robust than any specific model. At the same time, one has to make a certain disclaimer, and that is that neither analysis nor computer models are adequate to the task of predicting *exactly* what disaster will follow from a continuation of present trends, & *exactly* when such a disaster will take place._

_Now, this problem puts those of us who tend to view it with alarm in a somewhat curious position. We're calling upon society to make major changes, but we cannot prove exactly what will happen & exactly when, in the absence of those kinds of changes. This particular point is often used against us by people who are optimistic, & believe that, one way or another, technology will let us muddle through.

I think a useful way to think about this particular dilemma is in terms of the *burden of proof*; that is, we should ask: Are we worse off if we believe the pessimists & they are wrong, or are we worse off if we believe the optimists & they are wrong?"_
.
.............................................. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Holdren, 
speaking at the USA Senate Committee on Commerce and Committee on Government Operations, in 1974 .
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
just as an FYI, the change in rainfall patterns has stressed & in most cases, overwhelmed water-treatment facilities in developed countries - as they were never designed to cope with the *short-term, fast-falling rains* we often now see, & they _*OVERFLOW*_, sending gallons & gallons, cubic yards & cubic yards, of raw sewage downstream.
.
here's last month's UK news on just one operator's fines -
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39352755
.
Biggest water-fouling incident in UK history - but the fines levied don't even dent the company's profits, as they MAKE that much in a 24-hour period.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Viruses & other contagious or insect-borne diseases are also spreading to new areas, due to climate change / global warming.
Malaria, hemorrhagic fevers, SARS / MERS, Ebola, etc, are expanding their usual haunts or springing up in entirely new locations - as West Nile did, years ago, when it arrived in the U-S & devastated native birds, among other serious impacts.
.
from the NYX -

_...some of the alarm re mosquito-borne Zika virus is receding, over a year since it was declared a global health emergency. 
But for families of Zika babies, like several we followed in Brazil's impoverished northeast, the disastrous effects are only deepening. If you want to help those coping with Zika, here's how. 
.
.
._


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
we're 4-mos into 2017 - & in the USA, we've already HAD *five* *Billion-dollar weather disasters*... so far.
.
We have 8-mos to go in this year, & i'm not feeling especially optimistic. // Currently, it's the most-expensive year for weather damage since 1980.
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> People power. You admitted yourself a few posts back when I included the link about fracking being abolished in one state in the US. It was people power that succeeded.
> 
> It is people power that is driving the new advances being made in renewable energy - particularly solar and battery storage. Brilliant individual people and companies.
> 
> It is unstoppable and I trust that governments will be forced to change. It's happening (to use a green term) at an alarming rate.


The tories have turned me into a seasoned protestor. I've been on stop the badger cull protests - save our NHS & Frack off protests & a don't bomb Syria protest. All to no avail. To stop the tories we need the masses to get off their backsides. Better still just don't vote for them in the first place. Right wing leaders across the globe are a catastrophe for our living world. Australia's Malcolm Turnbull is a prime example - as was his predecessor Tony Abbott.

This is the resignation letter of John Quiggin from Australia's Climate Change Authority which confirms Turnbulls capture by denialists. http://johnquiggin.com/2017/03/23/my-resignation-from-the-climate-change-authority/


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
West Nile Virus arrived in the USA in 1999; sadly, there was a brief moment when the spread of WNV could have been *halted*, & the medicos at Maryland's Fort Detrick dropped the ball - the Army hotshots assured an NYC veterinarian who phoned them about the bizarre epidemic of corvids dying with neurological symptoms in NYC that it *couldn't possibly* be related to the encephalitis outbreak in humans, at that same time.
 They were wrong. The crows, blue jays, grackles, & others were indeed dying of WNV, & in numbers thousands times that of humans.
.
WNV is endemic in N Africa & is spread by Anopheles mozzies; it is now a newly-acquired endemic across the mainland U-S, & has traveled beyond our borders, clear to Argentina down S America, affecting every country on the way.
.
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/201...s-deadliest-year-for-west-nile-in-us-cdc-says
.
in 2012, WNV killed 286 people & sickened 5,674 in the USA - the worst-ever year for fatalities, & only the sickest ppl are reported to the CDC; most of those who get it have no symptoms, or such mild ones it's mistaken for a cold.
.
I'll make a personal prediction: Dengue fever will become endemic in Texas, S Calif, Florida, & Miss, within the next 10 to 20-years. It will begin as outbreaks, but will naturalize.
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Something about the North and South Poles magnetic fields reversing has kind of been blamed for climate warming on another thread - perhaps it's more suitable to discuss here.

*Climate Change Is Moving the North Pole*

*"If ice disappears from one part of the spinning Earth and resettles elsewhere as water, the planet shifts on its axis toward the place where it lost mass.*

But *the physics are so complex that scientists could only guess at how this actually works in the real world*"

Maybe climate warming is causing this 'switch'? Probably we don't know enough yet.

Definitely a good idea to look for solutions that are less damaging to the plant, though.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...r-disasters-strikes-us-in-early-2017/70001379
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Why Having Solar Power In The Home Is Easier Than You Think *

"According to [URL='https://www.carbonbrief.org']Carbon Brief, from April to September last year more energy was produced by solar panels on fields and homes than fossil fuels in the UK.

It was an historic first, but it won't be the last we hear of solar marking milestones. With experts predicting 10 million homes across the UK will have solar panels by 2020, now is a better time than any to make the switch."
*
*[/URL]


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Something about the North and South Poles magnetic fields reversing has kind of been blamed for climate warming on another thread - perhaps it's more suitable to discuss here.
> 
> *Climate Change Is Moving the North Pole*
> 
> *"If ice disappears from one part of the spinning Earth and resettles elsewhere as water, the planet shifts on its axis toward the place where it lost mass.*
> 
> But *the physics are so complex that scientists could only guess at how this actually works in the real world*"
> 
> Maybe climate warming is causing this 'switch'? Probably we don't know enough yet.
> 
> Definitely a good idea to look for solutions that are less damaging to the plant, though.


Yes scientists are saying climate change is responsible for the shift. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24755-earths-poles-are-shifting-because-of-climate-change/


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
http://www.livescience.com/58712-iceberg-cracking-ice-shelf-satellite-photo.html
.
a massive iceberg will be calving from the Larsen-C sheet, sometime in the near future; approx the size of Rhode Island, its loss will most-likely cause the entire ice sheet to collapse. :Jawdrop
While the berg will cause a very small global effect, the destruction of the ice-sheet & then the *glaciers behind it - **held in check b/c the ice-sheet slows their flow to the ocean, where the glacier face calves-off bergs - **can raise ocean levels by meters, world-wide.  *Very un-good.
.
FYI:
Rhode Island = 1,212 square-miles of area; the crack is currently 112 miles (180 kilometers) long, & just 10-miles (16 km) of ice separates it from open sea.
Larsen C is the fourth largest ice shelf in Antarctica, with an area of about 50,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi).
.
.









.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
for more on changes in the Antarctic ice, es'ply sea ice, glaciers, ice shelves, etc, see
.
*World of Change: Collapse of the Larsen-B Ice Shelf : Feature Articles*
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php
by R Lindsey - ‎2010 - ‎Related articles
_In the Southern Hemisphere summer of 2002, scientists monitoring daily satellite images of the Antarctic Peninsula watched in amazement as almost the entire Larsen B Ice Shelf splintered & collapsed in just over one month. ... The collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf was captured in ..._
.
.
The page below has an incredible video of the fast-moving collapse of Larsen-B.
.
*NASA Study Shows Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf Nearing Its Final Act*
https://www.nasa.gov/.../nasa-study-shows-antarctica-s-larsen-b-ice-shelf-nearing-its-fi...
_A new NASA study finds the last remaining section of Antarctica's Larsen B Ice Shelf, which partially collapsed in 2002, is quickly weakening and likely to ..._
.
.
*Larsen Ice Shelf - Wikipedia*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf
Jump to *Larsen B* - 
_During 31 January 2002 to March 2002 the Larsen B sector partially collapsed and parts broke up, 3,250 km2 (1,250 sq mi) of ice 220 ..._
‎Ice shelf · ‎Gallery · ‎See also · ‎Notes and references.
.
.
41-seconds of video, 1,250 square-miles of ice... GONE.




.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles/
.
"Sea ice extent drops to record lows, @ both poles"
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
southeastern Greenland is perennially snow-covered & has almost zero bare ice - so the lakes of meltwater often seen on northern Greenland's glaciers in summer are unknown here; instead, the snow melts at the surface & the meltwater percolates down thru it, where we cannot see.
.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/new-pathway-for-greenland-meltwater-to-reach-ocean
.
recent research finds these frost-free reservoirs of subsurface water, insulated by the snowpack above them, do indeed drain to the ocean - & will raise sea levels, over time.
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

*Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage': scientists despair at latest coral bleaching data*
*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...cientists-despair-latest-coral-bleaching-data*



*Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *
*
*
https://www.theguardian.com/science...n-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change


----------



## noushka05

Very true.
*
Guy Verhofstadt*‏Verified [email protected]*GuyVerhofstadt* 23h23 hours ago

Climate change & pollution don't respect borders.
Without EU, there would not have been an
international agreement to fight climate change.


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, noushka05:


*Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days *
https://www.theguardian.com/science...n-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change

/QUOTE
.
.
Quote from the article,
_"...the Slims was reduced to a mere trickle, [but] the reverse had happened to the south-flowing Alsek river, a popular whitewater rafting river & Unesco world heritage site. *The previous year, the two rivers were comparable in size, but the Alsek was now 60 to 70 times larger than the Slims*, flow measurements revealed.
The data also showed how abrupt the change had been, with the *Slims' flow dropping precipitously from the 26 to 29 May 2016*.

Geologists previously found evidence of river piracy... in the distant past. "But *nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes*," said Shugar. "People looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it's happening under our noses."
Prof Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist at Ohio State University who was not involved in the work, said the observations highlight how incremental temperature increases can produce sudden and drastic environmental impacts. "*There are definitely thresholds which, once passed in nature, everything abruptly changes*," he said.

Between 1956 & 2007, the Kaskawulsh glacier retreated by 600 - 700m. In 2016, there was a sudden acceleration in retreat, & the pulse of meltwater carved *a new channel through a large ice field*. The new channel delivered water to the Alsek's tributary, whose steeper gradient stole the Slims' headwaters, suddenly rerouted to a new southward trajectory.
_
*In a geological instant, the local landscape was redrawn.









Where the Slims River once flowed, Dall sheep from Kluane National Park now eat fresh vegetation, entering territory where they can be legally hunted. The formerly-clear air is now often a dusty haze, as powerful winds whip up exposed riverbed sediment. Fish populations were redistributed & lake chemistry was altered. Waterfront land, including the small communities of Burwash Landing & Destruction Bay, is now further from shore."
*
_Thompson, who has documented glacial retreat on Mount Kilimanjaro, predicts that there will be an acceleration in the observations of river piracy events as glaciers retreat globally.
"I think we could see similar divergence... in the Himalayas, ... throughout the Third Pole region, the Andes of Peru, ... northern Canada, & Alaska," he said. "*Often these events occur in remote & poor parts of our planet & thus go largely unnoticed by the larger *[*world*]*, but greatly impact the lives of many families downstream.*"
*.*_
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
the photo below was taken on the 8th of August, 2016 - a mere 2 months & 10 days after the Slims' headwaters were re-routed to another river, going not north then west on a course thousands of miles long, but headlong into the ocean.
.








.
Everything on the right side of the photo - to the dog's left - is *former shoreline *- wrapping entirely around the lake. This is Kluane Lake & Shepherd's Knoll, in Kluane National Park -- Yukon Territory, Canada.
.
What will Kluane Lake look like, in 5 years - or ten? What will happen to local ppl, who depend in part on fish - & local wildlife, who depend on the water? Where will the wildlife go to drink?
Wherever that is, that's where ppl must follow - game is the larder of the Far North, grocery stores are few & far between, & often only seasonal - relying on tourists for 3 to 4 months a year, then shuttered.
.
.








.
Take a good look at the dust-veil, hundreds of feet high & a half-mile or more long, in the Slims River former bed - in the right background.
The bright blue line is the distant new edge of Kluane Lake.
.
One river - in a sparsely-populated area, across a vast distance. These are massive changes. Tipping points are unpredictable.
Inevitably, there will be tipping points that affect densely-populated regions, & modern megacities of many millions of ppl.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
Feb-2017 in northern Calif:
.
*Northern California dam forced to use emergency spillway for first time*
www.cnbc.com/.../northern-california-tracking-to-have*-wettest-year-on-record*.html
Feb 11, 2017 - 
_A California dam on Saturday was forced to use its emergency spillway for the first time. Costs to repair the damaged one could run up to $200 ..._
_._
_._
*Oroville Dam evacuations: Spillway could release 'wall of water' - CNN ...*
www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/us/california-oroville-dam-spillway-failure/
_Feb 14, 2017 - 
A race against the weather to avoid disaster at California's Oroville Dam. ... Shelters opened. Police manned ... The dam has two spillways to release water out of the lake to prevent overflow. Both have ...
._
.
*Oroville Dam: What made the spillway collapse? - The Mercury News*
www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/17/oroville-dam-what-made-the-spillway-collapse/
Feb 17, 2017 - 
_Why didn't California officials guard against it? ... Crews continue to work at Oroville Dam spillway as lake water levels lower .... two years before the 770-foot Oroville Dam went into operation - opened its two spillways for the ..._
.
.
*Oroville Dam Update: Water Levels Lower Despite Additional Rainfall ...*
https://weather.com/news/news/oroville-dam-spillway-california-hole-emergency
Feb 19, 2017 - 
_Evacuation orders were lifted in Oroville, California where an auxiliary spillway at Oroville Dam threatened to *flood more than 200,000 homes.*_
.
.
Another spillway opened -
.
*Don Pedro Dam gates open for first time since 1997 - KCRA.com*
www.kcra.com/article/don-pedro-reservoirs-controlled-spillway...open.../8956930
Feb 20, 2017 - 
Toulumne Co., Calif. (KCRA) - _For the first time in 20 years, the controlled spillway gates at the Don Pedro Reservoir opened Monday ..._
.
.
.
And now...
.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oroville-spillway-20170416-story.html
.
_*'More rainstorms prompt reopening of damaged Oroville Dam spillway'*_
.









.
VIDEO: youtu.be/SlkLSysyyO0
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
that was footage from the Calif Dept of WaterResources - 
mostly pretty shots of water & dramatic plumes, no comment on the rough channel to the right, slanting thru rock & soil.
.
Here's footage from a local resident, wondering if they should not merely evacuate - but move away. :-(
.




.
.
She shows the stunning *scale* of the damage from the original spillway break, the ginormous debris site, property damage, huge repairs using monster equipment for months, & now... all for naught, the wrecked spillway must be used, the threat of flooding is all too real & immediate.
.
This is another effect of extreme weather - BOTH ends, flood & drought, heavy rain or none at all, dust storms, hail, high wind & shear, thunderstorms & thunder snow, blizzards vs 'open winters' without a single snowflake.
.
the Great Lakes area has had one of the warmest winters on record, anything from 10'F to 25'F warmer than normal - followed by an incredibly warm April.
.
A good part of the eastern USA is a full MONTH ahead of the average 'first leaf' date, as a historical 30-year average. // Don't tell me that's just normal variance. Weather variance is day to day; months, years on end, are not 'variance' ... they are changing patterns.
.
*Madame Gaza predicts:*
*Humanity is in for one helluva rough period, & this is only the start.* // Technology - & more fossil fuels burned - won't get us out of this mess.
It will be decades, even centuries, of slow global recovery to a relatively stable climate - if ever, & assuming humanity is here to witness any recovery. The planet will persist - how many of the species who share it with us now, will still be here in a century or two, is an open question.
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

So sad.

Climate change is turning dehydration into a deadly disease

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...hydration-into-a-deadly-disease-a7680856.html


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
wow - incredible, to read this. So sad. 
.
QUOTE,
_"Until that point, nephrologists had thought that dehydration could only cause acute kidney *injury*, but Johnson's findings put a new spin on the role of insufficient water intake. Could dehydration day in, day out be causing continuous fructose overproduction that, in turn, could be leading to long-term kidney damage? _

_Johnson took his theory to the lab, where his team put mice in chambers and exposed them to hours of heat at a stretch. One group of mice was allowed to drink unlimited water throughout the experience, while a second group had water only in the evenings._
_Within five weeks, the *mice with a restricted water intake developed chronic kidney disease.* During the day, loss of salt & water caused the mice to produce high levels of fructose, & crystals of uric acid would sometimes form as water levels dropped in their urine. *When the scientists disabled the gene that metabolises fructose & repeated the experiment, neither group developed chronic kidney disease. *_

_Johnson took these results to a meeting of the Programme on Health & Work in Central America [held] in Costa Rica in 2012, where they caught the attention of Garcia-Trabanino: "I was astonished. His animal models were absolutely in line with our findings." _

_The two collaborated to investigate the biochemical effects of dehydration on workers in the fields of El Salvador. Levels of uric acid started high in the morning & increased throughout the day. "Some patients just had sheets of uric acid crystals in their urine," Johnson says. _

_From these studies, Johnson believes that *heat stress and dehydration drive the production of fructose and vasopressin, which also damages the kidney. However, he believes that another mechanism may also play a part in the epidemic:** rehydration with sugary drinks.* *Frequently, not trusting the quality of local drinking water, workers drink sodas & soft drinks, and experimental evidence suggests that doing so can lead to even more kidney damage.* _

_"At this stage, that heat stress & dehydration might be causing this problem is still a hypothesis," Johnson admits. "Although it is a strong one."_
_._
_._
_._


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> So sad.
> 
> Climate change is turning dehydration into a deadly disease
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...hydration-into-a-deadly-disease-a7680856.html


Worrying, yes, but there is optimism coming out of the University of Manchester. 

Desalination Breakthrough Turns Seawater Into Drinking Water


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, samuelsmiles:

Worrying, yes, but there is optimism coming out of the University of Manchester. 

Desalination Breakthrough Turns Seawater Into Drinking Water

/QUOTE
.
.
umm - S-S,
desalination will not help agricultural workers - FIELD workers - who are not allowed time to drink water, while working in godawful heat & humidity, & sweating heavily --- like a frosty mug in a warm room. 
.
to say nothing of the fear of dirty water, which makes those field workers tend to prefer BOTTLED DRINKS when they finally do get a chance to take a drink... & the sugary pop or fruit bevs only *worsen the kidney damage*, due to fructose metabolization & dehydration / insufficient intake of fluids.
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, samuelsmiles:
> 
> Worrying, yes, but there is optimism coming out of the University of Manchester.
> 
> Desalination Breakthrough Turns Seawater Into Drinking Water
> 
> /QUOTE
> .
> .
> umm - S-S,
> desalination will not help agricultural workers - FIELD workers - who are not allowed time to drink water, while working in godawful heat & humidity, & sweating heavily --- like a frosty mug in a warm room.
> .
> to say nothing of the fear of dirty water, which makes those field workers tend to prefer BOTTLED DRINKS when they finally do get a chance to take a drink... & the sugary pop or fruit bevs only *worsen the kidney damage*, due to fructose metabolization & dehydration / insufficient intake of fluids.
> .
> .
> .


You capitalised BOTTLED DRINKS for some reason. Could these not be bottles filled with desalinated sea water? Times are changing - solutions are needed, and this new development seems interesting.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Texas flooding brought a huge gator into a residential street -
https://weather.com/news/weather/news/flooding-texas-rains-pushing-gators-into-streets

The gator finally took shelter - on a front porch.  
QUOTE,
_"Update: Waiting for @TexasGameWarden," Mayor Norvell said. _
_We don't blame you, Major Norvell. 
By 9:30-AM, a Texas game warden arrived, the Chronicle reports -- Norvell & two other men held the 'gator down as the warden taped up his mouth before taking him away, back to one of the many ponds in the area."
.
.
._


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, samuelsmiles:

You capitalised BOTTLED DRINKS for some reason. Could these not be bottles filled with desalinated sea water? 
Times are changing - solutions are needed, and this new development seems interesting.

/QUOTE
.
.
S-S,
U didn't read the article.  Bottles of water HANG IN THE TREES OR SHRUBS around the fields, in shade, to help keep them cool - yes, capitalized for emphasis. No one, repeat, no worker, is allowed to "waste time" getting a drink - they work without a break, in intense heat & high humidity, until the working day is ended.
Then & only then, they can get a drink - by which time, they are both dehydrated & their kidneys are metabolizing fructose to try to balance high uric acid levels.
.
It's *access* - not "lack of water", *lack of basic workers' rights & safety*, plus *climate change* pushing the heat & airborne moisture ever higher. 
.
Medically, these young men are already dying when they arrive at clinics - as they are symptom-free until the kidney damage is severe. 
Dialysis is expensive, & rarely available - they are forced to use old-fashioned, dangerous abdominal dialysis, sticking a rigid tube thru the abdominal wall, & hope an infection doesn't kill them in weeks or days, or that toxins in their blood don't cause multiple organ failure - liver, heart, etc.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
at 600-square-miles, Houston, TX, is the largest city in area of the entire U-S.
It has a serious flooding problem due in part to lack of planning, plus heedless sprawl, & ongoing loss of natural surfaces - paving by the mile, concrete & macadam everywhere.
.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/581/...residents-in-the-houston-galveston-watershed/
.
.
.
note that the issue is MAN-MADE flooding - not "prevent every flooding event, forever".
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Sorry, LFL. I missed the reason for the highlighted BOTTLED WATER in amongst a purple haze of random words, quotes and links.


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, samuelsmiles:

Sorry, LFL. I missed the reason for the highlighted BOTTLED WATER in amongst a purple haze of random words, quotes and links.

/QUOTE
.
.
no, U didn't.  
U just didn't read the original article - which clearly states that *many bottles of water* hang around the fields.
.
my EMPHASIZED "bottled drinks" refers to folks who, afraid to drink possibly contaminated water, damage their kidneys even faster & far-worse - by drinking soda, fruit-flavored drinks, etc, sold in bottles, & they think they are being pro-active by avoiding dirty water.
That's a separate issue - but employers refusing to let workers take time to hydrate is the major problem, in the worsening heat.
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, samuelsmiles:
> 
> Sorry, LFL. I missed the reason for the highlighted BOTTLED WATER in amongst a purple haze of random words, quotes and links.
> 
> /QUOTE
> .
> .
> *no, U didn't.*
> U just didn't read the original article - which clearly states that *many bottles of water* hang around the fields.
> .
> my EMPHASIZED "bottled drinks" refers to folks who, afraid to drink possibly contaminated water, damage their kidneys even faster & far-worse - by drinking soda, fruit-flavored drinks, etc, sold in bottles, & they think they are being pro-active by avoiding dirty water.
> That's a separate issue - but employers refusing to let workers take time to hydrate is the major problem, in the worsening heat.
> .
> .
> .


Yes, you are correct. As soon as I see yours or Noushka05's posts now, I generally (or always in your case) scroll past them without reading. It's a very difficult read, plus I'm tired of your grief train.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
Charleston, S.C. -
by 2100, the sea-level is expected to climb 8-ft here.
.
there's an interactive map to show the loss of land -
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...-level-rise-on-charleston/Content?oid=4972978
.
Once it loads, click on the >> beside "water level" in the lower left corner, & look at the difference between 2-ft rise & 8-ft rise.
.
.
QUOTE,
_"South Carolina is the 14th coastal state that Climate Central has mapped, & while some cities like Charleston are planning for a rise in the ocean level, state government has resisted some efforts to slow the rising tide. _
_SC recently joined a lawsuit against the EPA to stop the enforcement of new limits on carbon dioxide emissions at power plants. *Opponents of the new rule have said that it will drive up the costs of utilities."*_
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
a rare April *tropical storm* has been named, in the central Atlantic - Arlene.
The entire Atlantic basin has warmer-than-normal surface temps. 
.
.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...over-the-central-atlantic-at-midweek/70001434
.
993 millibars barometric pressure, 50-mph winds. Expected to stay at sea / not threaten land, but will churn high waves & winds at sea.
.








.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

I love lil Costa Rica sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much! 

Costa Rica ran entirely on renewable energy for more than 250 days last year http://wef.ch/2oObfiV


----------



## leashedForLife

QUOTE, noushka05:

I love lil Costa Rica sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much! 
Costa Rica ran entirely on renewable energy for more than 250 days last year

/QUOTE
.
.
a friend & fellow trainer [USA-apdt] retired there 2 years ago - it was her dream of many years. 
She lived in Texas, & was accustomed to heat & humidity.  The cost of living is much lower, & her retirement dollars go further.
.
.
.


----------



## rona

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39668889

*UK set for first full day without coal power*


----------



## leashedForLife

.
http://www.livescience.com/58783-huge-icebergs-drift-by-canadian-village.html
.
Monster icebergs in the North Atlantic are keeping fisherfolk in harbor - several are multiple-stories high above the water, with 90% of their mass below the surface. Colossal bergs, in huge numbers. The photos are incredible.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
best **SIGNS** from today's March for Science, on Earth Day 2017 - a photo gallery:
http://www.livescience.com/58791-2017-march-for-science-photos.html
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
U-S grasslands are more affected by a major drop in humidity than by a drop in rainfall -
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170307100448.htm
.
.
Quote,
_ "...the study... looked at 33 years of climate & vegetation satellite data to determine how plants regulate water and carbon dioxide under dry conditions. The team concluded that U.S. grasslands are more than three times more sensitive to vapor pressure deficit (VPD), or atmospheric dryness, than they are to precipitation. The study's large-scale methods to understand plant behavior could be used to improve predictive models of how environments will respond to droughts, which are expected to intensify in the 21st century."_
_._
_._
_._


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030220519.htm
.
Quote,
_"...the Center for Environmental Science at the University of Md ... calculated 26 extreme-climate indices defined by the Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices. 
"A traditional view of historic climate change is to determine mean annual changes," Kari Pohl explained. "However, organisms do not feel means; they feel the day-to-day variability & extreme events, such as the frequency of warmer-than-normal days."

The goals of the project include reconstructing extreme climate changes from the recent past (1894-2014), using historically referenced data to assess near-future global climate model projections, and to ultimately use this analysis to investigate ecological problems in Chesapeake Bay, such as eelgrass diebacks.

The study saw changes that included an overall decrease in cold events, a higher probability to have a year without a cold spell, and an increase in the annual number of wet days. These extreme climate indices were strongly correlated to the shallow water environment, including streamflow and water temperature. These linkages will allow insights on how extreme changes could affect environmental boundaries and critical threshold events of vulnerable organisms."
.
.
._


----------



## leashedForLife

.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150728162408.htm
.
Sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay is faster than anywhere else on the Atlantic coast - & it's *double *the global average.
The very-shallow Bay is very productive still, but is being badly affected by terrestrial pollution as well as climate change; the Dead Zone gets bigger every year, & "crab jubilees" - crabs exiting the water en masse when O2 goes to low to survive - are becoming annual events.
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

leashedForLife said:


> QUOTE, noushka05:
> 
> I love lil Costa Rica sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!
> Costa Rica ran entirely on renewable energy for more than 250 days last year
> 
> /QUOTE
> .
> .
> a friend & fellow trainer [USA-apdt] retired there 2 years ago - it was her dream of many years.
> She lived in Texas, & was accustomed to heat & humidity.  The cost of living is much lower, & her retirement dollars go further.
> .
> .
> .


I would move there in a heartbeat if I could. Such an environmentally progressive nation.

Escape to Costa Rica begins this Sunday on C4 for those of us in the UK  - http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/gaia-vince-interview-for-escape-to-costa-rica



leashedForLife said:


> .
> .
> best **SIGNS** from today's March for Science, on Earth Day 2017 - a photo gallery:
> http://www.livescience.com/58791-2017-march-for-science-photos.html
> .
> .
> .


This was my favourite protest sign of the day lol


----------



## noushka05

And our Toxic government did flog off our Green Investment Bank to Macquarie. What a surprise http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/04/22/green-investment-bank-sale-privatisation-macquarie-gib/

*Q&A: What's the deal with the UK selling its Green Investment Bank?*


----------



## leashedForLife

.
historic 600-YO white oak taken down, using a tall crane -
https://patch.com/massachusetts/cambridge/video-showcase?__channel_id=ACNLYAr8&__video_id=h056OFxT
.
.
the oak stood in a New Jersey churchyard; despite arborists' efforts, it could not be saved. Several years of drought, open winters, higher summer temps, & new insect-aliens were among the recent stressors that contributed to its decline. 
.
.
.


----------



## noushka05

Same destructive ideology as our **** government!

NYT: Trump is robbing us of the time we have left to fight climate change--time we will never get back https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/opinion/the-planet-cant-stand-this-presidency.html?_r=1


The Planet Can't Stand This Presidency

Trump is in charge at a critical moment for keeping climate change in check.
We may never recover.

President Trump's environmental onslaught will have immediate, dangerous effects. He has vowed to reopen coal mines and moved to keep the dirtiest power plants open for many years into the future. Dirty air, the kind you get around coal-fired power plants, kills people.

It's much the same as his policies on health care or refugees: Real people (the poorest and most vulnerable people) will be hurt in real time. That's why the resistance has been so fierce.

But there's an extra dimension to the environmental damage. What Mr. Trump is trying to do to the planet's climate will play out over geologic time as well. In fact, it's time itself that he's stealing from us.

What I mean is, we have only a short window to deal with the climate crisis or else we forever lose the chance to thwart truly catastrophic heating.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## samuelsmiles

Kentucky coal museum goes solar (and miners made it happen)
_
"This isn't the first time that we've seen coal mining unions become powerful and unexpected advocates for a renewables revolution. And if the environmental movement can continue building earnest, respectful alliances with communities in coal country, then we can begin to use the labor abuses and local environmental and economic malpractice of the coal industry against it."_

Why Trump's coal promises are doomed

_"Politicians should be honest about the "unlikeliness of (coal's) resurgence," the Columbia authors wrote, "rather than offer false hope that the glory days can be revived."_

__


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
N Carolina - still recovering financially & doing repairs from the enormous floods of Hurricane Matthew, last October - is again flooded as we 'speak', by drenching rains.
.
A woman died last night - she drove around a barrier to enter standing water on a roadway, was swept away in her car, & drowned.
.
No matter how shallow U *think *it is, U should never drive into water; there can be hidden obstacles beneath the surface, the roadway itself may have been swept away or eroded, FALLEN POWER-LINES can electrify the water & be deadly - a mere 12-inches of water can carry Ur car along helplessly, as it sinks, & if it strikes any solid object under the surface, the car can *flip *or *roll*. Now, U're head-down in the water - 
how many minutes can U hold Ur breath, upside-down & disoriented, underwater?
How likely is it that the car will *roll upright* *before* U inhale water, & drown?
.
Betting Ur life is a dangerous game. She lost. 
.
http://www.wral.com/woman-dies-in-greene-county-after-car-swept-away-in-high-water/16667865/
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

*UK launches first research programme on greenhouse gas removal*

This is a great initiative, funded partly by the government, involving universities in the UK studying the causes of climate change. I'm glad they have given the bright folk at Oxford University the project below because I don't even understand the words. 

_3. __Releasing divalent cations to sequester carbon on land and sea - led by the University of Oxford_


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *UK launches first research programme on greenhouse gas removal*
> 
> This is a great initiative, funded partly by the government, involving universities in the UK studying the causes of climate change. I'm glad they have given the bright folk at Oxford University the project below because I don't even understand the words.
> 
> _3. __Releasing divalent cations to sequester carbon on land and sea - led by the University of Oxford_


The big problem with this is - time. We have to act now, the window of opportunity is closing fast & the government have all but abandoned the renewables sector while aiding the fracking & acidisation. We could be making the transition to green energy now, instead the government are fiddling while Rome burns.


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Atlanta becomes the 27th US city to commit to 100% renewables*
http://www.climateactionprogramme.o...-the-27th-us-city-to-commit-to-100-renewables
No one's listening, Donald.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *Atlanta becomes the 27th US city to commit to 100% renewables*
> No one's listening, Donald.


He's still doing terrible things where he can.

And unfortunately for us in the UK, we wont be able to what the city of Atlanta has just done. The government will (& have ) override councils to force toxic fracking onto communities. We are going to be well & truly screwed if the tories get back in.


Brexit Climate Deniers Launch Coordinated Attack Against Green Regulations Ahead of Election

https://www.desmog.uk/2017/05/01/br...tack-against-green-regulations-ahead-election


----------



## leashedForLife

samuelsmiles said,
...
No one's listening, Donald. 
___________________________________
.
.
His Orangeness "isn't listening" right back. 
.
plenty of folks have warned him & his mahogany Cabinet that climate change is real & urgent; he stays in his newsfeed bubble, & ignores all evidence.
.
He's also been told we desperately need immigrants, as labor - especially in Ag, but also service jobs such as hospitality & nursing; & we need *young adult migrants* as workers, to grow the economy, support the retirement of Baby-boomers, & have a few kids of their own... as the U-S, like every developed nation, has an aging demographic.
He ignores all that, too.
.
The folks he listens to are the loud minority who insist immigrants are current or future terrorists, that abortion is a sin & a crime, that Planned Parenthood does nothing *but* abortions [when in fact, over 90% of their services are not abortions, but STD screening, well-baby, pre-natal, fertility, etc - AND they serve men, too, who don't get pregnant], & all the rest of his own chosen alternative-facts, reflected back to him.
Those are the ppl who have his ear; facts are ignored, money gets his attention every time.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
rare "dragon skin" ice forms in Antarctica -
http://www.livescience.com/59044-rare-dragon-skin-ice-spotted-in-antarctica.html
.
.
researchers are excited to be able to study the effects of this rare form, not seen since 2007, which creates far-more ice as katabatic winds break the polynya ice-sheet & then freeze the exposed water -under- the ice. This generates a lot of brine - concentrated sea-water with higher saline - beneath the dragon-skin cover, & down to as far as 100-meters.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
this sounds fantastic - in a good way:
http://www.livescience.com/59064-new-york-2140-kim-stanley-robinson.html
.
Robinson is one of my favorite Sci-Fi authors, & he's taken the idea of a drowned coast / sea-level rise, to NYC - using real locations, topo maps, & current political and economic events & beliefs, then extrapolating into the future.
He points out that climate-change is not a failure of tech - it is primarily a failure of our politics, & our economy, which both work to make it worse, not better.
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
2014, '15, & '16 were each in turn "the hottest ever" years of average temps in the USA.
2017 looks poised to take that title, in its turn. 
.
New England will be around 80'F today, well-over historical average, & can expect 90' by the end of the week.
Today, *190 million Americans *will live with temps higher than normal, from Michigan east & south, clear down the Mississippi valley.
.








.
.
.


----------



## Goblin

Just came across this.. https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/solarroof

Looks far better than normal solar panels. Wonder how effective they are in comparison.


----------



## noushka05

*The New York Times*‏Verified [email protected]*nytimes* May 20

The risk is clear: Antarctica's collapse could threaten coastal cities around the world. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nge-flood.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
well, it turns out there's nothing to worry about - 
an anoxic global ocean will recover, given time! :Happy ---- It only takes about a million years. *shrug*
.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170512081327.htm
.
- ocean loses oxygen
- virtually all marine life dies
- wildfires increase with O2 concentration
- fires deplete terrestrial plants & send nutrient pulse to oceans
- increased atmospheric O2 slowly raises dissolved marine O2
.
see?... No worries. 
.
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Donald Trump tweet - _ "I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!" _

Interested to see what Trump will decide this week - but it seems very likely that he will withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Although some rather sensationalist headlines predict  'The Earth will get dangerously warm even sooner if the U.S pulls out of pledge to cut carbon dioxide pollution,'  I just don't see it.

From what I can find, coal is unviable now - Trump's promises to revive the industry are pretty much dead in the water as more and more coal mines close and renewables become more affordable.

Climate Action, 25th May - The largest coal-fired plant in New England and the last remaining coal power station in Massachusetts is scheduled to close permanently on 1 June this year.

Utility Dive, 25th May - Nevada Assembly clear bill boosting renewables mandate to 80% by 2040

US industry appears to be moving forward independently of any of Trump's wishes as solar energy, wind power and electric vehicles are all on a steep upward trend.


----------



## Mirandashell

Goblin said:


> Just came across this.. https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/solarroof
> 
> Looks far better than normal solar panels. Wonder how effective they are in comparison.


Those look fantastic in the photos. Just like a normal roof. Hopefully they are just as effective cos I think a lot more people would go for them rather than the ugly black blocks presently available.


----------



## Happy Paws2

samuelsmiles said:


> From what I can find, coal is unviable now - Trump's promises to revive the industry are pretty much dead in the water as more and more coal mines close and renewables become more affordable.


There has been a big increase in coal trains running in America since Trump moved into the white house.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Happy Paws said:


> There has been a big increase in coal trains running in America since Trump moved into the white house.


A big increase? That's not true. Fox news has reported an increase in movement (of course they would), but factors are against a revival. This link is a fascinating read coming from an area deeply affected by it's decline.

Trump said "We're going to bring the coal industry back 100 percent. If I win, *we're going to go clean coal, and that technology is working. I hear it works*." How ironic then that Obama gave more funding to research into clean coal (carbon capture) with Trump proposing budget cuts for energy research which could surely help the (clean) coal industry.


----------



## noushka05

Shocking behaviour by tories: trying to undermine EU energy efficiency laws that won't affect UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rope-to-dilute-flagship-energy-efficiency-law

God almighty. Dangerous extremists running the USA. Dangerous extremists running the UK. What has become of our nations? Why do people vote for these dangerous people


----------



## Happy Paws2

samuelsmiles said:


> A big increase? That's not true. Fox news has reported an increase in movement (*of course they would)*, but factors are against a revival. This link is a fascinating read coming from an area deeply affected by it's decline.
> 
> .


Well where there was only a few coal train a few months ago, they are running a hell of a lot more now, they must be getting the coal from somewhere.


----------



## samuelsmiles




----------



## samuelsmiles

I wonder if Trumps' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will ironically be a force for good. It seems that anyone and everyone who is concerned about climate change are just sticking two fingers up at him and upping their ambitions. 

*246 mayors adopt Paris climate accord after U.S. pulls out*
_"The world cannot wait-and neither will we"_

*France pledges to increase climate action commitments*


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
"malignant politics" cripples Australia's ability to move from speeches to concrete actions -
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/19/australia-new-climate-policy-old-politics/
.
sounds all-too familiar -
http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...-gas-plant-fight-takes-national-significance/
.
things aren't much better in Brazil -
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/20/brazils-temer-vetoes-rollback-amazon-forest-protections/
.
... where a new bill seeks to open Amazon rainforests to further cutting, burning, conversion to pasture [which is short-term & dies, as the soils cannot support grass, they are too shallow & too nutrient-poor], & *mining - *which devastates the land, native fauna & flora, & causes extremely long-lasting pollution.
.
QUOTE,
_"_
_"environment minister ... Filho said a new bill was being being developed to lower protections across 1.1 million acres of forest in the state of Pará._
_
WWF's Jaime Gesisky told the Associated Press that President Temer's announcement was a charade designed to *preserve his image while on a trip to Norway*. The Scandinavian country is the largest financial contributor to Brazil's Amazon Fund, which was set up to help the country stop deforestation of the basin.

'He is exempting himself from the responsibility', Gesisky said, 'while at the same time allowing his minister to make an agreement with legislators who have interests in the region.'_
UN-quote
.
.
meanwhile, illegal claims in the Amazon forests are about to be legitimized retroactively -
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/16/pedro-cordeiro-one-biggest-crooks-amazon-even-exist/
.
QUOTE,
_"In April 2017, environmental agents fined *Pedro Cordeiro* $9.2 million for converting *7,586 acres of Jamanxim National Forest*, in Brazil's Amazon, into pasture. 
That didn't stop the destruction. Next month, [May-2017] Cordeiro got another fine -- $4.6 million, for chopping down *3,618 acres of pristine forest* next to the first area.

*Cordeiro, however, has never been found*. He supposedly lives in Curitiba, a regional capital, 2,800km south of Jamanxim. *His name appears only in the Environmental Rural Registry *(CAR, in Portuguese)* alongside plots of land in the forest he claims to own.* That federal database requires all rural properties to register, but does not run background checks.
Setting up straw men or fall guys is the modus operandi of land-grabbers in the Amazon. They allow fines for stripping forests to accrue against other names, while avoiding punishment for their environmental crimes.

Last week, this reporter tried to interview one of Cordeiro's neighbours, *Nelci Rodrigues*. She *is head of the Vale do Garça Association, which represents 186 squatters *who claim land inside Jamanxim National Park. Rodrigues, her husband, & their two sons claim *17,050 acres of the park*, according to the CAR database. They admitted that they took over federal land without paying for it, saying they were *lured to the region by Federal policies during the 1964-1985 military dictatorship*. However, *they seized the land, where they raise cattle, in 1998, 13 years after the regime's end."*
Last May, the Congress *approved a bill* that opens 1.5m acres (almost 6,000 sq km) in the Amazon to private property, pasture, agriculture and mining activities, in a move heavily supported by the powerful 'beef caucus'. Now, president Temer has *until 22 June to sanction or veto it**.*_

_Most of the land set for resignation, 1.2 million acres, is in *Jamanxim National Forest*, which *would lose 37% of its area*. The rest is in neighboring *Jamanxim National Park*, which *would lose 12% of its total*. These areas, which include land claimed by Cordiera & Rodrigues, would be downgraded to Environmental Protection Area, the lowest protection category in the conservation system.
Inside APAs, private land ownership is legal; this would legitimate the farming practices of squatters, real & fake. Deforestation is again rapidly increasing in Brazil after it had declined for almost a decade, with pastoralists the main driver."_
.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife

.
.
the heat wave means no plane service in Phoenix, AZ -
https://www.livescience.com/59549-phoenix-heat-wave-planes-takeoff.html
.
QUOTE,
_"The latest [heat wave] will cook an area *from northern California to western Texas, a region that's home to 7 of the 10* *fastest-warming cities* *in the U-S.*_

_Temperature records have already fallen across California, & heat will build throughout the week. *Sacramento, San Jose, Palm Springs, Fresno, & Death Valley* *all set daily highs on Monday.*_
_But *the hottest temperatures are expected on Tuesday ... through Thursday, & forecast highs mean the region could set all-time records.*_

_...the grounded flights ...are what one group of scientists have dubbed a 'hidden cost of climate change'... higher temperatures generally translate to thinner air, making it harder for airplanes to take off. The solution: either ground all flights, or bump people & packages to [lighten the load]._

_If carbon pollution continues at its current rate, Phoenix could see *20 more days per year by 2100* with flights are restricted to a maximum weight of 10,000 pounds. That's currently rare. ... LaGuardia in NYC, & Reagan National in Wash., D.C., could see even-more days with weight restrictions.,_

_But canceled flights are a climate change inconvenience. There are far more serious impacts that will put more lives at risk, if carbon pollution continues unchecked. Research published on Monday showed that *half the world's population will face* life-threatening heat waves *by 2100,* *unless carbon pollution is curbed.*_

_*The summer average temperatures in Phoenix could be* *more like Kuwait City* *by the end of the century*, making this currently-rare heat into the new normal."_
_._
.
new research, released Monday:
*http://www.climatecentral.org/news/half-world-deadly-heat-waves-2100-21554*
_*'Half of the World Could See Deadly Heat-waves By 2100'*_
.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

*UK leads the world in new agreement to tackle global warming *

Banning the use of ozone layer damaging CFCs was one of the most successful initiatives back in the 1990's, but one of its replacements (HFCs) gives us a different problem - climate change*.* Today the government has announced some very encouraging news - 

_"The UK has today become one of the first nations to commit to a landmark agreement to reduce emissions from appliances that play a major role in preventing global warming."_


----------



## Colliebarmy

_*The summer average temperatures in Phoenix could be* *more like Kuwait City* *by the end of the century*, making this currently-rare heat into the new normal."

Where are the storms in the USA?

And its raining here

Kuwait? yeah....right_


----------



## Colliebarmy

40 years ago, 1976 we had the longest dry spell on record and 30 degree heat for weeks

been wet since then


----------



## rona

Colliebarmy said:


> been wet since then


Well not quite. We'v had rather dry times down here in the south for a few years now and this year we had the hottest temperature ever recorded, though we've only had two mini heat waves this year, and the rest of the time has been quite pleasantly hovering around the low 20c


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified account

Caroline Lucas Retweeted Damian Carrington

_"Hurricanes. Flooding. Hottest year on record.
And this is how the Government responds.
Utterly disgraceful". __#_*Climate*

Number of diplomats working on climate change in UK foreign ministry has fallen 60% since 2011, FOI reveals https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foi-release-staff-working-on-climate-change-and-energy--2…

1:31 PM - 6 Sep 2017

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas*
PM right to refer to terrible hurricane nearing 
Caribbean -but Govt doing nothing on 
#*climate* crisis - funds for renewables fallen 95% #*PMQs*

.......................................................


----------



## kimthecat

@rona What was the highest temperature recorded this year ?

2003 heatwave . the temp at Heathrow reached 100 F and Northolt 99 F
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/UK/highest-temperature-in-uk.php

I remember my only fan broke and I went to B and Q and asked for a fan and the assistant was incredulous that I actually thought they would have a fan left.


----------



## rona

kimthecat said:


> @rona What was the highest temperature recorded this year ?
> 
> 2003 heatwave . the temp at Heathrow reached 100 F and Northolt 99 F
> https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/UK/highest-temperature-in-uk.php
> 
> I remember my only fan broke and I went to B and Q and asked for a fan and the assistant was incredulous that I actually thought they would have a fan left.


No you are right, it was paper talk and I didn't check the facts. Seems we aren't in the grip of Global Warming after all


----------



## kimthecat

Awful devastation in the Carribean due to Irma , heartbreaking to be left with nothing .
How will they get help to the islands ? 
Makes me appreciate our weather , must stop moaning about it !


----------



## noushka05

kimthecat said:


> Awful devastation in the Carribean due to Irma , heartbreaking to be left with nothing .
> How will they get help to the islands ?
> Makes me appreciate our weather , must stop moaning about it !


Climate change will affect us all eventually. Extreme weather events like Irma & Harvey, flooding & droughts are getting more & more frequent as the climate continues to break down. Severe flooding is now the norm in the UK. This is why we urgently need progressive leaders who will take bold action if we are to avert catastrophic climate breakdown.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> No you are right, it was paper talk and I didn't check the facts. Seems we aren't in the grip of Global Warming after all


----------



## noushka05

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 2h 2 hours ago

_What else does nature have to do to wake us up to the horror of __#_*climate*_ breakdown? __#_*Irma*

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 3h3 hours ago

_
What else does nature need to do to get attention of policy makers on __#_*climate*_ breakdown? __#_*Irma*

,


----------



## noushka05

Shameful.

*Henry Mance*‏Verified [email protected]*henrymance* 32m32 minutes ago

Foreign office minister Alan Duncan tells off @*CarolineLucas* for linking Caribbean hurricane to climate change. Which is funny because...










*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 22m22 minutes ago

Unbelievable! Minister accuses me of "lacking humanity" by raising climate in #*Irma* debate - Carib leaders are raising - why does he ignore?


----------



## Elles

If what's happening this year doesn't convince the deniers, governments and big business to pull their finger out and get active on cc nothing will.  It's horrific.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> If what's happening this year doesn't convince the deniers, governments and big business to pull their finger out and get active on cc nothing will.  It's horrific.


It wont happen with politicians & political parties with vested interests in the fossil fuels industry - its down to the masses to vote in progressive politicians - & to protest enmass! .


----------



## noushka05

Climate change feels like Trump. All the warning signs were there, some said it would never happen, now it's f****** disasters everywhere. (Jay Kuo)


.


----------



## Elles

Scotland are starting the plastic bottle deposit system, like Germany. I thought it was a great idea, that England should also do. Then I thought again. Currently I put my plastic in the green bin for roadside collection, easy peasy. I'd rather have a glass deposit scheme. To encourage people to use and recycle more glass and less plastic and use the bottle banks. Isn't having a plastic bottle scheme making it too easy to make excuses for unnecessary use of plastic and encouraging it? What do you think?


----------



## FeelTheBern

noushka05 said:


> It wont happen with politicians & political parties with vested interests in the fossil fuels industry - its down to the masses to vote in progressive politicians - & to protest enmass! .


I agree-the government definitely need to show more of an interest in renewable energy. It's clean and it's never going to run out!


----------



## noushka05

FeelTheBern said:


> I agree-the government definitely need to show more of an interest in renewable energy. It's clean and it's never going to run out!


Absolutely! Thats we need to vote progressives into power who will take climate change seriously - like ole Bernie


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> Scotland are starting the plastic bottle deposit system, like Germany. I thought it was a great idea, that England should also do. Then I thought again. Currently I put my plastic in the green bin for roadside collection, easy peasy. I'd rather have a glass deposit scheme. To encourage people to use and recycle more glass and less plastic and use the bottle banks. Isn't having a plastic bottle scheme making it too easy to make excuses for unnecessary use of plastic and encouraging it? What do you think?


Sorry I've only just seen this. I'm like you, I think we should go back to using glass, I think there needs to be a ban on plastic bottles. They're even finding particles of plastic in our drinking water. I read something the other day about the Pacific having so much plastic in it it could fill an area the size of France I havent fact check this though.


----------



## samuelsmiles

This is an interesting read - I do think nuclear should be considered as a part of our energy for the future. I'm absolutely _for _offshore wind farms too, but how much energy will it seriously be able to give us, and is a thousand year old big windmill really how far we have developed. 

*Why the Safest Form of Power Is Also the Most Feared*


----------



## stockwellcat.

This is an interesting thread.

I am for using offshore windfarms, not these on land windfarms that have been turning up in Lancashire that have been ruining the countryside and are an eyesore and the noise annoying people living in villages near them who hate them. Lancashire Council have opened an enquiry into this.

Regarding fracking I am against this.

I thought I heard they was building something in Wales on the coast to use tidal water to generate power: https://theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/08/tidal-power-swansea-bay-lagoon. I know there is an existing hydro power station in North Wales: http://www.fhc.co.uk/ffestiniog.htm

I also know they have been building solar power farms and have seen a few admittedly on my way to Lancaster.

So I think the Government are doing alot to use alternative greener energy.

What else can they do they are using wind, water and even solar power in certain parts of the country (and ruining countryside sticking up windfarm windmills). Yes franking is wrong I know.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> This is an interesting read - I* do think nuclear should be considered as a part of our energy for the future*. I'm absolutely _for _offshore wind farms too, but how much energy will it seriously be able to give us, and is a thousand year old big windmill really how far we have developed.
> 
> *Why the Safest Form of Power Is Also the Most Feared*


But what about us leaving Euratom?














stockwellcat. said:


> This is an interesting thread.
> 
> I am for using offshore windfarms, not these on land windfarms that have been turning up in Lancashire that have been ruining the countryside and are an eyesore and the noise annoying people living in villages near them who hate them. Lancashire Council have opened an enquiry into this.
> 
> Regarding fracking I am against this.
> 
> I thought I heard they was building something in Wales on the coast to use tidal water to generate power: https://theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/08/tidal-power-swansea-bay-lagoon. I know there is an existing hydro power station in North Wales: http://www.fhc.co.uk/ffestiniog.htm
> 
> I also know they have been building solar power farms and have seen a few admittedly on my way to Lancaster.
> 
> So I think the Government are doing alot to use alternative greener energy.
> 
> What else can they do they are using wind, water and even solar power in certain parts of the country (and ruining countryside sticking up windfarm windmills). Yes franking is wrong I know.


Now is not the time for nimbyism SWC, we must listen to the experts if we are to have any chance of averting irreversible, catastrophic climate breakdown- we_ must have a _mix of green renewable energy. Which means the government_ mus_t invest in onshore & solar.

_What else can they do_? Jeezus, how long have you got? I could write a list as long as my arm lol

The window of opportunity to save our living planet. - _to save ourselve_s, is closing fast. Our climate is breaking down SWC, if we don't take urgent action _right now _it will be too late.

The tories have killed off onshore wind & sectors of the solar industry, while subsidising the filthy fossil fuel industry. They are 'going all out' for fracking - locking us into a new source of filthy climate destroying energy.

The government tries to sabotage EU climate targets even as we brexit!
*Brexit: UK lobbies to weaken EU climate and energy efficiency targets*

- http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/05/28/brexit-uk-eu-climate-change-energy-efficiency/

Fracking is far more unpopular than onshore wind - ask yourself why the tories wont ban it? 

Don't you think saving the planet is more important than brexit?


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> *But what about us leaving Euratom?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now is not the time for nimbyism SWC, we must listen to the experts if we are to have any chance of averting irreversible, catastrophic climate breakdown- we_ must have a _mix of green renewable energy. Which means the government_ mus_t invest in onshore & solar.
> 
> _What else can they do_? Jeezus, how long have you got? I could write a list as long as my arm lol
> 
> The window of opportunity to save our living planet. - _to save ourselve_s, is closing fast. Our climate is breaking down SWC, if we don't take urgent action _right now _it will be too late.
> 
> The tories have killed off onshore wind & sectors of the solar industry, while subsidising the filthy fossil fuel industry. They are 'going all out' for fracking - locking us into a new source of filthy climate destroying energy.
> 
> The government tries to sabotage EU climate targets even as we brexit!
> *Brexit: UK lobbies to weaken EU climate and energy efficiency targets*
> 
> - http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/05/28/brexit-uk-eu-climate-change-energy-efficiency/
> 
> Fracking is far more unpopular than onshore wind - ask yourself why the tories wont ban it?
> 
> Don't you think saving the planet is more important than brexit?


My post wasn't relating to politics or Brexit. It was about energy.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> My post wasn't relating to politics or Brexit. It was about energy.


All connected I'm afraid. Nuclear is under threat in this country because May says we're leaving euratom. The tories are killing onshore wind & sectors of the solar industry - meaning the tories are deliberately limiting our options to effectively tackle climate change. Shameful.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> My post wasn't relating to politics or Brexit. It was about energy.





samuelsmiles said:


> This is an interesting read -* I do think nuclear should be considered as a part of our energy for the future*. I'm absolutely _for _offshore wind farms too, but how much energy will it seriously be able to give us, and is a thousand year old big windmill really how far we have developed.
> 
> *Why the Safest Form of Power Is Also the Most Feared*


.............................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## FeelTheBern

I think one way to reduce environmental damage is to slow population growth.


----------



## Happy Paws2

FeelTheBern said:


> I think one way to reduce environmental damage is to slow population growth.


I agree the days of people having large families should be stopped, my be they should only give child allowance and family credit to families with two children any more than that look after them yourself or don't have them.


----------



## FeelTheBern

Happy Paws said:


> I agree the days of people having large families should be stopped, my be they should only give child allowance and family credit to families with two children any more than that look after them yourself or don't have them.


I would stop child benefit after the second child. If you want more than two you need to fund them completely. There is already an overpopulation issue-the population is rising at an alarming rate, nationally and globally. This increase needs to slow down and this could be the first step.


----------



## Elles

We don't have that kind of government. If government brought in a policy of sterilisation, or abortion after 2 children, we'd be in some kind of feared dystopian future. It's up the individual. When it comes to welfare, we have to feed who's here, we can't say child number 3 you starve, and have siblings lynching the 3rd one, because it's all their fault they can only afford one tin of beans between them. Well we could if we wanted to live in the kind of society where people are vilified and hated, because they had more than 2 children, or they are the 3rd or 4th born. 

Reducing the world population would be great, but the uk isn't communist China.


----------



## FeelTheBern

Elles said:


> We don't have that kind of government. If government brought in a policy of sterilisation, or abortion after 2 children, we'd be in some kind of feared dystopian future. It's up the individual. When it comes to welfare, we have to feed who's here, we can't say child number 3 you starve, and have siblings lynching the 3rd one, because it's all their fault they can only afford one tin of beans between them. Well we could if we wanted to live in the kind of society where people are vilified and hated, because they had more than 2 children, or they are the 3rd or 4th born.
> 
> Reducing the world population would be great, but the uk isn't communist China.


I suppose not, no, but the government should definitely stop child benefit after the second child.


----------



## noushka05

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified account

_Congratulations @*PlanB_earth* - hugely important to get #*climate* crisis to top of political agenda_

*PlanB*: _We've just served UK Government with formal pre-action letter, challenging its failure to address climate breakdown
_
http://www.planb.earth/news.html










*Former Chief Scientist backs Plan B Legal Action, describing government inaction as 'crazy':*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41401656


----------



## $hAzZa

FeelTheBern said:


> I think one way to reduce environmental damage is to slow population growth.


Is that a polite way of saying kill all the poor? XD

But seriously, the idea is we breed like rabbits until the planet dies and all the rich people get to escape and observe it from a trillion dollar space habitat. Don't want to put a downer on things but the government will continue to destroy any chance of renewable energy through smear campaigns and underfunding, it's what they do best to oppress common filth like us from being self sufficient...there's no money to be made from that!


----------



## samuelsmiles

It's good that the solar industry is starting to stand on its own two feet now and, hopefully, with the development of battery storage this will continue to grow. We have a couple of solar farms only visible from the top of Ivinghoe Beacon near where I live so they can be pleasantly disguised with trees.

*UK Climate Change Minister Unveils UK's First Subsidy-free Solar Farm*

And a nugget of good news. *

UK energy has 'greenest' summer to date, National Grid says
*
http://news.sys-con.com/node/4166233


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> The window of opportunity to save our living planet. - *to save ourselves*, is closing fast. .


Perhaps the planet would be better off without us.



noushka05 said:


>


Naughty, making people walk in the road


----------



## Elles

Scotland are banning fracking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41484153


----------



## Mirandashell

Good.


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> Perhaps the planet would be better off without us.
> 
> Naughty, making people walk in the road


I'm certain of it, unfortunately we're intent on taking everything down with us, the sixth mass extinction is happening now.

They're really cracking down on peaceful fracking protestors. As the tories roll fracking out across the country & into my area, I'll be on the protest line. I do hope I wont get arrested, I don't particularly want a criminal record lol



Elles said:


> Scotland are banning fracking.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41484153


Fantastic news indeed. Its never going to happen here though, the tories will never put the best interests of our living planet & the people before their lobbyists.

Conservative Party Conference.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Elles said:


> Scotland are banning fracking.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41484153


From the knowledge I have, I am against fracking - it seems too dangerous and unpredictable, wasting billions of gallons of water in the process. However, lots of people are jumping up and down praising Scotland's ban without realising they will still be using fracked gas. Even worse, they will be using gas fracked in the USA which has been transported across the Atlantic in massive polluting tankers. 

*How Ineos' giant Dragon ships will carry US shale gas to Scottish shores*


----------



## MilleD

samuelsmiles said:


> From the knowledge I have, I am against fracking - it seems too dangerous and unpredictable. However, lots of people are jumping up and down praising Scotland's ban without realising they will still be using fracked gas. Even worse, they will be using gas fracked in the USA which has been transported across the Atlantic in massive polluting tankers.
> 
> *How Ineos' giant Dragon ships will carry US shale gas to Scottish shores*


So they don't want fracking on Scottish soil but are happy for some other country to do it? Talk about proper NIMBY.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> From the knowledge I have, I am against fracking - it seems too dangerous and unpredictable, wasting billions of gallons of water in the process. However, lots of people are jumping up and down praising Scotland's ban without realising they will still be using fracked gas. Even worse, they will be using gas fracked in the USA which has been transported across the Atlantic in massive polluting tankers.
> 
> *How Ineos' giant Dragon ships will carry US shale gas to Scottish shores*





MilleD said:


> So they don't want fracking on Scottish soil but are happy for some other country to do it? Talk about proper NIMBY.


It isn't the Scottish government importing the fracked gas, its Ineo's the shale gas company, Millie, & not for domestic use. As it states in your own article @samuelsmiles .


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> It isn't the Scottish government importing the fracked gas, its Ineo's the shale gas company, Millie, & not for domestic use. As it states in your own article @samuelsmiles .


If the Scottish government has the power to ban fracking on its shores, surely it has the power to turn away the 'Dragon ships' hauling fracked gas across the ocean. You have to admit, there is a conflict of morals somewhere, isn't there?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> If the Scottish government has the power to ban fracking on its shores, surely it has the power to turn away the 'Dragon ships' hauling fracked gas across the ocean. You have to admit, there is a conflict of morals somewhere, isn't there?


Well do you have any evidence to show the Scottish government have the authority to block companies importing fracked gas for their own use?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> You have to admit, there is a conflict of morals somewhere, isn't there?


There sure is.
.


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> There sure is.
> .


Good Lord - all I can see is arrows, faces and random logos.

I absolutely disagree with fracking as does, apparently, the Scottish government. Does it also have the power to stop imports at its ports?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Good Lord - all I can see is arrows, faces and random logos.
> 
> I absolutely disagree with fracking as does, apparently, the Scottish government. Does it also have the power to stop imports at its ports?


Convenient lol

You seem to think it has the power to stop companies importing their own gas, I have no idea though. All I do know is the Scottish Government aren't importing it as you implied. Banning fracking in Scotland is a HUGE move forward for the SNP.


----------



## noushka05

FoE Scotland's statement on the news. https://foe.scot/scotland-ban-fracking/

*Scotland to ban fracking!*
3rd October 2017, by Mary Church

The Scottish Government has today announced that it will ban fracking for good, after nearly three years of a moratorium on the controversial industry!










Today's decision is a truly momentous win for the anti-fracking movement, as Scotland joins the ever-growing list of states and regions to outlaw the industry.

It will be met with celebration and relief across the country, particularly by those on the frontline of fracking here in Scotland who have been working for a ban these last 6 years. It will also be met with cheers around the world, in the many countries and communities who have supported our struggle, many of whom are still fighting their own.

In his statement to Parliament this afternoon Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse said that the existing moratorium would be extended indefinitely using planning and environmental regulation powers to effectively ban the fracking industry.

It fell short of committing to passing a law like recent bans in Ireland, Victoria and Maryland, when powers over onshore oil and gas licensing are finally handed over by Westminster. The measures announced today are the right interim approach, however we will be pushing them to go further and pass a law as soon as licensing powers are technically transferred to Holyrood.

Over 60,000 people responded to the Scottish Government's consultation on fracking, the second largest number to engage in a consultation in the history of the devolved Parliament, with 99% calling for a ban. This is the largest number of people ever to express a single opinion to a Scottish Government official consultation.

The Scottish Government has promised it will let Parliament debate and vote on its decision. This will likely take place in the weeks after Autumn recess. The Labour Party, Greens and Liberal Democrats are all opposed to fracking and therefore highly likely to support the Scottish Government's decision.

We are urging everyone to contact their MSPs to now to ask them to push the Government to go further and take the final step by passing a law banning fracking


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Convenient lol
> 
> You seem to think it has the power to stop companies importing their own gas, I have no idea though. All I do know is the Scottish Government aren't importing it as you implied. *Banning fracking in Scotland is a HUGE move forward for the SNP*.


Only if Scotland's energy requirements are met by better (more green) alternatives. A constant shipping of fracked gas in vast tankers across the ocean is counter intuitive.


----------



## hutch6

What does Scotland need gas for anyway, I thought deep fat friers run on electricity?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Only if Scotland's energy requirements are met by better (more green) alternatives. A constant shipping of fracked gas in vast tankers across the ocean is counter intuitive.


OK, I'll try again lol

The fracked gas _isn't _being shipped by the Scottish Government to meet the country's domestic needs - its being shipped by INEOS for their own purposes.

Shame on Trump and Conservative governments.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> What does Scotland need gas for anyway, I thought deep fat friers run on electricity?


OMG a blast from the past:Jawdrop

(Good to see you back Hutch)


----------



## hutch6

Ha ha ha ha!!

Thought I'd pop in and see what was happening. Sorry I didn't do a big "I'm leaving" thread


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> Ha ha ha ha!!
> 
> Thought I'd pop in and see what was happening. Sorry I didn't do a big "I'm leaving" thread


No you just snuck off & left us! lol


----------



## hutch6

What has happened to this place? It's all gone posh and fancy pants?


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> OK, I'll try again lol
> 
> The fracked gas _isn't _being shipped by the Scottish Government to meet the country's domestic needs - its being shipped by INEOS for their own purposes.
> 
> Shame on Trump and Conservative governments.


The fracked gas, having been fracked in the US, is imported to Scotland to be used by Scottish people. It is a source of energy replacing dwindling supplies of North Sea gas.

Actually, you could say the Scottish government is being negligent and duplicituous. If they allowed Ineos to do some test fracking on Scottish soil they would, at the very least, be able to demand their own regulations.

Ps. You keep saying it's for Ineos's own purpose. What, as a matter of interest, would that be?


----------



## MilleD

samuelsmiles said:


> The fracked gas, having been fracked in the US, is imported to Scotland to be used by Scottish people. It is a source of energy replacing dwindling supplies of North Sea gas.
> 
> Actually, you could say the Scottish government is being negligent and duplicituous. If they allowed Ineos to do some test fracking on Scottish soil they would, at the very least, be able to demand their own regulations.
> 
> Ps. You keep saying it's for Ineos's own purpose. What, as a matter of interest, would that be?


Do they sell to domestic customers somewhere down their food chain?


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> There sure is.
> .


 Climate deniers? Surely everyone agrees that there is an actual climate??


----------



## MilleD

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ment-of-fracked-shale-gas-set-to-arrive-in-uk

This doesn't make it sound like it's for Ineos' own use.


----------



## noushka05

hutch6 said:


> What has happened to this place? It's all gone posh and fancy pants?


Gone to the dogs more like:Hilarious



samuelsmiles said:


> The fracked gas, having been fracked in the US, is imported to Scotland to be used by Scottish people. It is a source of energy replacing dwindling supplies of North Sea gas.
> 
> Actually, you could say the Scottish government is being negligent and duplicituous. If they allowed Ineos to do some test fracking on Scottish soil they would, at the very least, be able to demand their own regulations.
> 
> Ps. You keep saying it's for Ineos's own purpose. What, as a matter of interest, would that be?


Well, that's your spin on it anyway

The Scottish Government are doing the_ only _ethical thing to do - & that is banning it. Only a duplicitous government in bed with fossil fuel industry would ever allow fracking. We know we must leave most fossil fuels in the ground if we're to have any hope of mitigating the worst effects of climate change & then there's all highly toxic substances the shale industry uses.

For the purpose of use in Grangemouth the Ineos owned refinery.



MilleD said:


> Climate deniers? Surely everyone agrees that there is an actual climate??


Who knows with these flat earthers



MilleD said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ment-of-fracked-shale-gas-set-to-arrive-in-uk
> 
> This doesn't make it sound like it's for Ineos' own use.


Hope this clarifies 

https://www.ineos.com/sites/grangem...shale-gas-revolution-moves-closer-to-reality/

The US ethane will be used as a supplementary feed for the KG ethylene plant at a time when North Sea supplies are dwindling and will allow the plant to run at increased rates.


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> Hope this clarifies
> 
> https://www.ineos.com/sites/grangem...shale-gas-revolution-moves-closer-to-reality/
> 
> The US ethane will be used as a supplementary feed for the KG ethylene plant at a time when North Sea supplies are dwindling and will allow the plant to run at increased rates.


To manufacture fuel for the rest of Scotland to use?

This woman doesn't sound too happy about it:

"Mary Church, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "It is completely unacceptable to attempt to prop up Ineos's petrochemicals plants on the back of human suffering and environmental destruction across the Atlantic.

"The fact that Scottish public money is tied up in this project is disgraceful."

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37474396


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> To manufacture fuel for the rest of Scotland to use?
> 
> This woman doesn't sound too happy about it:
> 
> "Mary Church, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "It is completely unacceptable to attempt to prop up Ineos's petrochemicals plants on the back of human suffering and environmental destruction across the Atlantic.
> 
> "The fact that Scottish public money is tied up in this project is disgraceful."
> 
> From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37474396


Then if I've misunderstood about it not being used for domestic use, I apologise. Likewise if the Scottish Government are complicit in aiding INEOS import the shale. I'm not an apologist for the SNP lol, fracking is not acceptable anywhere. But this is surely a huge step forward by the Scottish government?, they have actually listened to public opinion & stood up to INEOS, who are now, I believe, threatening to sue them. The Scottish Govt must be pressured into doing all in their powers to stop the shale being imported to Grangemouth now.

You quote Mary Church, here is her reaction to the news (I think its a different FoE article from the one I previously posted). https://foe.scot/press-release/scottish-gov-bans-fracking/

Responding to Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse's announcement today of the Scottish Government's proposal to ban fracking, Friends of the Earth Scotland Head of Campaigns Mary Church said:

"This is a victory for the environment and for local communities fighting fracking. The Scottish Government's decision today to ban fracking will be warmly welcomed across the country and around the world. This is a huge win for the anti-fracking movement, particularly for those on the frontline of this dirty industry here in Scotland, who have been working for a ban these last six years.

"Having put a moratorium in place more than two years ago, evaluated the evidence and consulted the people of Scotland, the Scottish Government has reached the right and sensible conclusion that the fracking industry must be banned to avoid potentially devastating impacts to people's health, the climate and our natural environment.

"Over 60,000 people responded to the Scottish Government's consultation on fracking, the second largest number to engage in a consultation in the history of the devolved Parliament, with 99% calling for a ban. This shows the real strength of feeling against this dirty industry in Scotland."

The Minister announced that the existing moratorium would be extended indefinitely using planning and environmental regulation powers to effectively ban the fracking industry. It fell short of committing to passing a law like recent bans in Ireland, Victoria and Maryland, when powers over onshore oil and gas licensing are finally handed over by Westminster.

Church continued:

"We urge the Scottish Government to go further than relying on planning powers to give effect to this ban, and instead commit to passing a law to ban the fracking industry for good. There's no doubt that when onshore oil and gas licensing powers are finally handed over it will be within the legislative competence of the Parliament to ban fracking, and that there is a powerful mandate to do so. The measures announced today are the right interim approach until licensing powers are technically transferred to Holyrood.

On the threat that Brexit negotiations might jeopardise the Scottish Parliament's powers to ban fracking, Church added:

"Given that the UK Government has only just devolved fracking licensing powers to Holyrood, it is quite unlikely that it plans to take them back. However, the Scottish Government and Parliament should act as soon as the powers are handed over to ban fracking in case this most obvious and powerful route to stop the industry is jeopardised by Brexit negotiations."

The Scottish Government's proposal will go to a vote in Parliament, likely soon after recess.
Church said:

"Holyrood has already voted once to ban fracking and we fully expect it to do so again, with Labour, Greens and Liberal Democrats all outspoken in their opposition to this industry. We call on parties to push beyond the Scottish Government's present proposal and work for a legislative ban. Legislating to ban fracking provides the strongest protection for communities and the environment, and sends a clear message about the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground in the fight against climate change."


----------



## samuelsmiles

I think the Conservative party has been a late developer when concerned with the environment but, hopefully, they are catching up. 
*https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/ne...y-boost-ahead-of-clean-growth-strategy-launch*
*Government delivers £557m green energy boost ahead of Clean Growth Strategy launch*

Also, the Clean Growth Strategy, which has been delayed for months is due to be released tomorrow, and is mooted to contain some exciting measures to cut emissions from transport, housing and businesses 
*https://www.edie.net/news/11/Claire...carbonisation-pathway--across-the-UK-economy/*
*Claire Perry: Clean Growth Strategy will set 'decarbonisation pathway' across UK economy*


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> I think this is a great move forward
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38571240
> "Charles Hendry will publish his independent report into the viability of the renewable energy technology later, recommending the UK builds the lagoon to capture energy from the sea.
> The Swansea Bay project would involve 16 turbines along a breakwater but is seen as only the start - a prototype for much larger lagoons".
> 
> *By Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst*
> "There are two big questions over lagoons: Will they harm wildlife and can they be built cheaply enough? There's no evidence yet on wildlife but most environment groups seem willing to see one trial lagoon built, then make an assessment."
> 
> Worth a small experiment I think. Also, once trialed and costed, there are many natural lagoons around the coast





samuelsmiles said:


> It's very interesting when looking at these new schemes to establish whether they really are viable methods of power generation taking into account the cost, the impact on the environment to build and the impact on the environment once completed.
> 
> This one would be a massive construction project which in itself would leave an equally massive carbon footprint. Hopefully, if it will produce electricity for a hundred years or more and the turbines don't kill too much (if any) sealife it will be a really positive addition to our power generation.


What a surprise!

*Geraint Davies MP*‏Verified [email protected]*GeraintDaviesMP*

Hear how Swansea Tidal Lagoon, rail electrification & EU
Wales funding sacrificed by Tory Brexit.
Listen from 05.45

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b093hw35


----------



## samuelsmiles

*Drop in carbon pollution makes UK power system one of world's cleanest*

This was good news to wake up to this morning.


----------



## noushka05

Wow. Well if this doesn't wake tory supporters up to the reality that tories don't really give a to$$ about the future of our living planet, nothing will. Just when you thought the tories couldn't stoop any lower. This is in the Torygraph of all papers.



*
Britain threatens to scupper EU climate law over 'Brexit no deal' clause*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...scupper-eu-climate-law-brexit-no-deal-clause/


----------



## Zaros

samuelsmiles said:


> I think the Conservative party has been a late developer


Really?

I think they missed the evolution bus.


----------



## noushka05

Zaros said:


> Really?
> 
> I think they missed the evolution bus.


LOL


----------



## noushka05

_
*GeorgeMonbiot*‏@*GeorgeMonbiot* 17h
British minister requests planet-trashing policies on behalf of #*Shell* and #*BP*. 
Every day the question we should ask the government is
* "who are you working for?"*_

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nister-lobbied-brazil-on-behalf-of-oil-giants
*UK trade minister lobbied Brazil on behalf of oil giants*
A telegram obtained by Greenpeace shows that Greg Hands met a Brazilian minister to discuss relaxation of tax and environmental regulation


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *I think the Conservative party has been a late developer when concerned with the environment but, hopefully, they are catching up. *
> *Government delivers £557m green energy boost ahead of Clean Growth Strategy launch*
> 
> Also, the Clean Growth Strategy, which has been delayed for months is due to be released tomorrow, and is mooted to contain some exciting measures to cut emissions from transport, housing and businesses
> *Claire Perry: Clean Growth Strategy will set 'decarbonisation pathway' across UK economy*


Still think it SamuelSmiles? 

_Terrible decision in #*Budget17*. Hidden in the document - no new money for renewables until 2025 - 
this will particularly hit emerging tech like tidal._
_












*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 16h16 hours ago

How on earth can Govt be 'forward looking' when they give tax breaks to oil & gas and fail to support new renewables? An absolute outrage


















Big tax break for new oil & gas developers in #*budget17* as #*fossilfuel* get tax treatment they want. Meanwhile #*solar* power desperate for even small changes to kick off subsidy-free devts


















Summary of environmental measures in #*Budget2017*

*Good (hopefully):* Action on plastics

*Bad:* No new support for solar

*Very Bad: *Incredibly weak measures on air pollution

*Ugly:* Continued fuel duty freeze

*Very ugly:* Tax breaks to oil and gas exploration_


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> *Still think it SamuelSmiles?*
> 
> _Terrible decision in #*Budget17*. Hidden in the document - no new money for renewables until 2025 -
> this will particularly hit emerging tech like tidal._
> _
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> *Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 16h16 hours ago
> 
> How on earth can Govt be 'forward looking' when they give tax breaks to oil & gas and fail to support new renewables? An absolute outrage
> 
> 
> Big tax break for new oil & gas developers in #*budget17* as #*fossilfuel* get tax treatment they want. Meanwhile #*solar* power desperate for even small changes to kick off subsidy-free devts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _
> 
> Summary of environmental measures in #*Budget2017*
> 
> *Good (hopefully):* Action on plastics
> 
> *Bad:* No new support for solar
> 
> *Very Bad: *Incredibly weak measures on air pollution
> 
> *Ugly:* Continued fuel duty freeze
> 
> *Very ugly:* Tax breaks to oil and gas exploration_


Well, I think this government has to make some hugely difficult decisions right now concerning energy, and whatever they do will be derided by the hard left. I'm all for a mix of energy sources, including renewables, but solar, wind, tidal and bio fuels etc are a million miles away from being enough to satisfy our needs at the moment.

It's pitch black outside right now so there is zero solar energy being produced. Have a look at this - a fascinating source showing our energy usage right now. So you can cover the entire country in solar panels but, right now and for the next 16 hours, it will give us nothing. We also have to be very clear on how we are going to deal with the highly toxic waste solar panels. This is a sobering read.
The government keeps on getting a kicking from the greens because subsidies for renewables have been severely cut back over the past few years. One very good reason for doing this was because of unscrupulous solar companies popping up everywhere seeing an opportunity to make a quick buck on gullible householders. Within my area there are at least three houses with the solar panels on roofs that will barely see sunlight for half of the day.

Wind turbines can supply plenty of energy, but only when the wind is blowing - it's another source that can only be a small part of our energy needs. I say the wind turbines can supply plenty of energy but in truth we will need vast swathes of the countryside and surrounding seas to give us that energy.

Where will our energy come from when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing? It's dead calm outside right now, and the sun has long disappeared so no energy from either of those.

The tidal lagoon at Swansea will be able to power, from memory, about 150,000 homes. The Conservatives, just on Wednesday, said they want to build 300,000 homes per year. Then you have all the heavy industries - steel, cars, haulage. Hospitals also - we need energy that is absolutely 100% guaranteed 24 hours a day 356 days a year.. Renewables cannot satisfy this energy requirement alone so nuclear has to be a really viable source. Big windmills, or a stunningly advanced technology? This is another brilliant video about the safety of nuclear. It's the first of three if you are interested. 

This guy is interesting. Michael Shellenberger - an environmentalist with, what seems to me, real common sense. Have a look at this Ted talk with Shellenberger.




The Green Party's manifesto states that they do not want nuclear, despite being just about the cleanest energy source there is. More people have died fitting solar panels on roofs than those directly or indirectly killed by nuclear. If we don't use nuclear and want to power the country we will have to continue to use coal for a very long time.

The government isn't subsidizing renewables because it has to stand on its own two feet. It will succeed alone if it is viable - and I hope it does. This is the first solar farm in the UK built totally unsubsidised. I don't know how much power it is producing, but what I do know is it is producing precisely nothing at this moment.

_"If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km)."
_
eta. I think funding new innovative energy research like this is far better than subsidising existing businesses.
_
"Enabling a smarter, more efficient energy system is a priority for government and in the Upgrading our energy system: smart systems and flexibility plan published in July 2017, the government committed up to £70 million to smart energy system innovation.

Across Government, Innovate UK, Research Councils, and BEIS expect to invest around £265 million in smart systems research, development, and demonstration.

As part of this commitment, within the BEIS Energy Innovation Programme, BEIS expects to invest up to £70 million in the smart energy systems innovation theme."

_


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Well, I think this government has to make some hugely difficult decisions right now concerning energy, and whatever they do will be derided by the hard left. I'm all for a mix of energy sources, including renewables, but solar, wind, tidal and bio fuels etc are a million miles away from being enough to satisfy our needs at the moment.
> 
> It's pitch black outside right now so there is zero solar energy being produced. Have a look at this - a fascinating source showing our energy usage right now. So you can cover the entire country in solar panels but, right now and for the next 16 hours, it will give us nothing. We also have to be very clear on how we are going to deal with the highly toxic waste solar panels. This is a sobering read.
> The government keeps on getting a kicking from the greens because subsidies for renewables have been severely cut back over the past few years. One very good reason for doing this was because of unscrupulous solar companies popping up everywhere seeing an opportunity to make a quick buck on gullible householders. Within my area there are at least three houses with the solar panels on roofs that will barely see sunlight for half of the day.
> 
> Wind turbines can supply plenty of energy, but only when the wind is blowing - it's another source that can only be a small part of our energy needs. I say the wind turbines can supply plenty of energy but in truth we will need vast swathes of the countryside and surrounding seas to give us that energy.
> 
> Where will our energy come from when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing? It's dead calm outside right now, and the sun has long disappeared so no energy from either of those.
> 
> The tidal lagoon at Swansea will be able to power, from memory, about 150,000 homes. The Conservatives, just on Wednesday, said they want to build 300,000 homes per year. Then you have all the heavy industries - steel, cars, haulage. Hospitals also - we need energy that is absolutely 100% guaranteed 24 hours a day 356 days a year.. Renewables cannot satisfy this energy requirement alone so nuclear has to be a really viable source. Big windmills, or a stunningly advanced technology? This is another brilliant video about the safety of nuclear. It's the first of three if you are interested.
> 
> This guy is interesting. Michael Shellenberg - an environmentalist with, what seems to me, real common sense. Have a look at this Ted talk with Shellenberg.
> 
> The Green Party's manifesto states that they do not want nuclear, despite being just about the cleanest energy source there is. More people have died fitting solar panels on roofs than those directly or indirectly killed by nuclear. If we don't use nuclear and want to power the country we will have to continue to use coal for a very long time.
> 
> The government isn't subsidizing renewables because it has to stand on its own two feet. It will succeed alone if it is viable - and I hope it does. This is the first solar farm in the UK built totally unsubsidised. I don't know how much power it is producing, but what I do know is it is producing precisely nothing at this moment.
> 
> _"If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km)."
> _
> eta. I think funding new innovative energy research like this is far better than subsidising existing businesses.
> _
> "Enabling a smarter, more efficient energy system is a priority for government and in the Upgrading our energy system: smart systems and flexibility plan published in July 2017, the government committed up to £70 million to smart energy system innovation.
> 
> Across Government, Innovate UK, Research Councils, and BEIS expect to invest around £265 million in smart systems research, development, and demonstration.
> 
> As part of this commitment, within the BEIS Energy Innovation Programme, BEIS expects to invest up to £70 million in the smart energy systems innovation theme."
> 
> _


The difficult decision the government has is either to get out of bed with the filthy fossil fuel industry OR take the bold action needed to tackle climate change. It cant do both.

This is great by desmog.
.https://www.desmog.uk/2017/11/12/uk...te-action-and-fossil-fuel-industry-bonn-talks

*UK Government Accused of 'Inconsistencies' over Support for Climate Action and Fossil Fuel Industry at Bonn Talks*

_BONN, GERMANY - The UK government has been accused of "double standards" as it poses as a global leader while maintaining a cosy relationship with the fossil fuel industry at the international climate talks in Bonn this week.

Although of modest size compared to its German counterpart, the UK pavilion aims to showcase the UK as a climate "leader in the low carbon transition both nationally and internationally". _

_The free brochure boasts the UK's "commercial strengths" and claims it is "ideally placed" to help other countries "take forward action on climate commitments" and meet their emission reduction targets, also known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)._

_The programme of events also emphasises the UK's global agenda by promoting the role of the private sector in partnerships with Brazil and China on green finance and support for initiatives launched in Africa._

_But while the UK is keen to tell others how to reduce emissions and increase ambition for climate action, its domestic record suggests it's not ready to break its cosy relationship with the fossil fuel industry just yet._

_Barclays bank, which has been targeted by campaigners for backing fracking companies and investing in fossil fuel projects such as the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, is the official partner of the UK pavilion at COP23 and is co-hosting a drinks reception on green finance._

_The bank currently owns about 78 per cent of the fracking company Third Energy which has a licence to frack at the Kirby Misperton site in North Yorkshire. In May, Barclays announced that it would sell its stake in Third Energy without changing its overall stance on fracking. So far it has not acted on its decision._

_Pascoe Sabido, from Corporate European Observatory told DeSmog UK that Barclays sponsorship of the pavilion showed the UK government "is more concerned with protecting and promoting British economic interests than fighting climate change". He added that giving the bank such a prominent position was "pure greenwashing" and allowed Barclays "to masquerade as part of the solution" to climate change._

_Christian Aid's head of policy, Dr Alison Doig, agreed that Barclays was keen to present "its green credentials to the world" but pointed out it was also one of five banks that provided $590m (£447m) to fund a coal burning power plant in southern Zambia._

_A spokeswoman for the UK pavilion said the partnership with Barclays was part of an event on green finance, "an area in which Barclays is very active"._

_While the UK government is using its pavilion at COP to bolster the role of businesses in providing solutions to climate change, it continues to spend hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money on financing private carbon intensive projects abroad to boost UK exports._

_The latest such project is a $2bn (£1.52bn) loan to Saudi Arabia's national oil company Aramco. The UK also 
hopes Aramco will list on the London Stock Exchange although the Treasury has denied the loan is linked to a potential listing._

_At home, the UK continues to champion fossil fuels. In the Spring budget, Chancellor Philip Hammond announced more financial help for the oil and gas industry in the North Sea on top of £2.3bn the industry received in subsidies over the past three years._

_And the UK government is reportedly on the verge of giving the final sign-off for fracking to take place in the UK for the first time in six years, continuing its commitment to the burgeoning fossil fuel industry._

_Speaking in a side event at COP23, Becky Daniels, a mother of three and an anti-fracking activist, described her 
community's battle against fracking company Cuadrilla at the Preston New Road site between Blackpool and Preston in Lancashire._

_Daniels said her activism started because she was "worried about her children's future". _

_Speaking to DeSmog UK, Daniels said she was "disappointed" and "upset" about what she found at the UK pavilion. "I wanted to speak to someone there about issues around fracking in the UK, but nobody was there to give me an answer," she said._

_Lise Masson, an anti-fracking activist and a member of the UK Youth Climate Coalition described the "inconsistency" between the UK "celebrating its 'climate leadership' at COP23 while paving the way for fracking companies at home" as "appalling"._

_''If the UK is real about tackling the climate crisis, they need to listen to those [community] voices and step up their ambition, at COP, and in their domestic policies," she said. _

_Camilla Born, from think tank E3G, told DeSmog UK that while the UK had come a long way in reducing its emissions, it now needed to step up again to respond to the urgency of the climate crisis._

_The UK "invested in the long-term and made wise decisions years ago which see us getting off coal today," she said. "But as climate action gets more urgent and the quest to net zero emissions becomes more possible, the UK won't be able to maintain its double standards."_

_"Technology that harness the wind and the sun are a much safer bet than fracking fool's gold_

So scientists are not just 'lefty's now they are 'hard' left They are the ones warning governments to urgently make the transition to renewable energy, unstoppable catastrophic climate breakdown is staring us in the face. Its funny but throughout this thread you have lauded solar & off shore wind initiatives in the UK when you thought it made the government look good - now you are making excuses for the tories for not investing in renewables.

I thought you were concerned about climate change? How can we avert catastrophic breakdown when the tories are going 'all out for fracking' ? Its inexcusable.

On shore wind is actually the cleanest, cheapest form of energy - the tories should be investing heavily in it not doing their utmost to kill it off whilst subsidising & giving tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry.

The tories throw subsidies & tax breaks to the richest industry on the planet for some reason they don't make it 'stand on its own two feet' 

The planning system is rigged in favour of fracking and against onshore wind.

Under the government's new rules, *it's impossible for communities who want onshore wind to build it*. At the same time, communities who don't want fracking simply can't refuse

And here are the facts about wind power - https://1010uk.org/talk-about-wind/not-windy

here - https://1010uk.org/talk-about-wind/carbon-intensity

I'm actually aware of the green argument for nuclear - George Monbiot is one of the environmentalist who is very much pro nuclear. But isn't nuclear energy in jeopardy now thanks to brexit?

I thought the tories were dragging us out of Euratom? Or have they u-turned?
_
Be it Prospect, the trade union representing civil nuclear experts, EDF Energy, or the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), the sector is united in its message to the government: *leaving Euratom* is *complicated*, *and the potential consequences could be disastrous for our country*. Rupert Cowen, a nuclear expert at Prospect Law, claims the UK is "*sleepwalking" to disaster*: "If we do not get this right, business stops ... no nuclear trade.

*This is not scaremongering*. Analysis of the facts shows just how much is at risk by leaving Euratom, and how complex this process is, given the government's unnecessary, self-imposed deadline. This government must start listening
_

_Should the UK fail to have its safeguarding regime in place by March 2019, nuclear trade would halt, as well as cross-nation technology sharing that some of our nuclear power stations rely on to function. *Again, this is not an exaggeration of the problem, or political point-scoring. Put simply, if we don't have our safeguarding regime in place, our nuclear industry will face major, potentially dangerous, disruptions.*_

_
Releasing the impact assessment that the government has carried out on our nuclear industry would be a step in the right direction, rather than rushing through policy with little scrutiny and *condemning* *Brexit opponents as* *unpatriotic mutineers*._

_It is time for t*his government* to release itself from unnecessary self-imposed straightjackets, *stop focussing on narrow party disputes* and *start listening* and *put the interests and the safety of the nation first*
_
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-clear-there-is-no-upside-to-a-nuclear-brexit

And the tidal lagoon....

Nice try Samuel, but its clear to anyone with an objective eye that the tories don't give a toss about climate change, they are bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry, and certain tory MPs have vested interests in the industry. And now thanks to people who voted brexit nuclear energy and tidal energy are now in jeopardy too. How will the UK keep its climate targets? or doesn't that matter to you?



















And while we're on the subject Euratom lets not forget what else leaving it could have a devastating impact on....


----------



## samuelsmiles

Thing is, I am keen for solar, wind and other clean forms of energy to be introduced if it helps the decline of coal, and feel obliged to mention the good stuff the government does once in a while.

The facts are we need a good balance of energy if we are to rid the world of polluting fuels like coal. The intermittency of wind and solar will not solve this. Germany has one of the most lauded renewables plans (_Energiewende)_ in the world and pumped vast sums of money into wind and solar yet, take a look at this.

To me, nuclear is looking like the most obvious solution now, with small power plants around the country.

_"Nuclear... has highest energy density... with bioenergy plants having the lowest.... Renewables clearly produce 'dilute electricity' in the sense of having an energy density that is orders-of magnitude less than conventional sources" _Michael Shellenberger.

Plus, to get the equivalent power from renewables compared to nuclear, the land take up is massive. I've tweeted Caroline Lucas and Mike Shellenberger asking them some questions. Hopefully I'll get more information.

To finish - some positive news about the UK from DeSmog. 
_"*The UK has been a pioneer in the transition away from coal, reducing its coal use in energy production from 40 per cent in July 2012 to just two per cent this year." *_


----------



## rona

rona said:


> Did you see this?
> http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...s/news-story/f49d6adaa99034482fb09b0cc57b4efb
> "His social media challenge to Musk on Friday came after Tesla's vice president for energy products Lydon Rive told ABC the company could fix South Australia's energy crisis in 100 days by delivering a 100-300 megawatt battery farm.
> 
> "How serious are you about this bet," he wrote on Twitter.
> 
> "If I can make the (money) happen (and) politics, can you guarantee the 100MW in 100 days?"
> 
> Musk responded: "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free. That serious enough for you?"
> 
> It certainly seems to have given the industry and the Australian government a kick up the backside


He did it 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/23/16693848/elon-musk-worlds-biggest-battery-100-days


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Thing is, I am keen for solar, wind and other clean forms of energy to be introduced if it helps the decline of coal, and feel obliged to mention the good stuff the government does once in a while.
> 
> The facts are we need a good balance of energy if we are to rid the world of polluting fuels like coal. The intermittency of wind and solar will not solve this. Germany has one of the most lauded renewables plans (_Energiewende)_ in the world and pumped vast sums of money into wind and solar yet, take a look at this.
> 
> To me, nuclear is looking like the most obvious solution now, with small power plants around the country.
> 
> _"Nuclear... has highest energy density... with bioenergy plants having the lowest.... Renewables clearly produce 'dilute electricity' in the sense of having an energy density that is orders-of magnitude less than conventional sources" _Michael Shellenberger.
> 
> Plus, to get the equivalent power from renewables compared to nuclear, the land take up is massive. I've tweeted Caroline Lucas and Mike Shellenberger asking them some questions. Hopefully I'll get more information.
> 
> To finish - some positive news about the UK from DeSmog.
> _"*The UK has been a pioneer in the transition away from coal, reducing its coal use in energy production from 40 per cent in July 2012 to just two per cent this year." *_


But we're leaving euratom? Did you missed that crucial point in my previous post? The tories & people who voted brexit (like yourself) have now put our nuclear industry in jeopardy.

How do you feel about Swansea Tidal lagoon being kicked into the long grass ? 

I know we need a mix of renewables, but the tories are deliberately limiting our options in favour of locking us into a new filthy industry. We know we *must* leave most fossil fuels we know about in the ground as it is. So how do you justify the tories opening up the country to fracking & investing in & promoting the fossil fuel industry? All fossil fuels must be phased out asap

I'm aware of Merkels dire environmental record - you might be interested in George Monbiots take on her- https://www.theguardian.com/comment...eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental

Rather than cherry picking bits, why don't you read everything desmog say so you are better informed to evaluate? Or maybe you don't want to face the grim reality about just how toxic the tories really are?

(Anyway good luck getting responses. I found Shelleberger on twitter - he shared this guardian article: _UK nuclear power stations 'could be_ forced _to close' after Brexit_. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...forced-to-close-after-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw . I hope you mentioned you're a brexiter & this is down to you? )


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> But we're leaving euratom? Did you missed that crucial point in my previous post? The tories & people who voted brexit (like yourself) have now put our nuclear industry in jeopardy.
> 
> How do you feel about Swansea Tidal lagoon being kicked into the long grass ?
> 
> I know we need a mix of renewables, but the tories are deliberately limiting our options in favour of locking us into a new filthy industry. We know we *must* leave most fossil fuels we know about in the ground as it is. So how do you justify the tories opening up the country to fracking & investing in & promoting the fossil fuel industry? All fossil fuels must be phased out asap
> 
> I'm aware of Merkels dire environmental record - you might be interested in George Monbiots take on her- https://www.theguardian.com/comment...eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental
> 
> Rather than cherry picking bits, why don't you read everything desmog say* so you are better informed to evaluate?* Or maybe you don't want to face the grim reality about just how toxic the tories really are?
> 
> (Anyway good luck getting responses. I found Shelleberger on twitter - he shared this guardian article: _UK nuclear power stations 'could be_ forced _to close' after Brexit_. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...forced-to-close-after-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw . I hope you mentioned you're a brexiter & this is down to you? )


*"why don't you read everything desmog say so you are better informed to evaluate?"  
*
mmmm - well, I could (will) say the same about you. I'm sure, without this discussion, you would still be clinging to the coat tails of Caroline Lucas who thinks it is possible to power the country on renewables alone and without nuclear power. Without which we will be starting to dig coal again like Germany has. (She didn't respond to my question regarding this, sadly)

I would like to see the Swansea Tidal Lagoon go ahead from an experimental/technological point of view, but it also has big environmental issues which have to be taken into consideration. Damage to sea life and silting problems etc. From what I've read it doesn't appear to supply much energy in a growing country. But disappointed if it doesn't go ahead, yes.

I'm glad you looked at the Michael Shellenberger videos - they are really eye opening aren't they?

I have to admit, I really wanted to avoid Brexit talk again but seeing as you brought it up. No, I didn't even know what Euratom was until all this started up but, knowing what we have to offer, knowing how important we are to Europe, knowing how much Europe has to offer us, I think things will work out just fine. And, as each day passes, I am more and more pleased that I voted to leave. 

ps Can you link me to Shellenberger's retweeting of the Guardian article, please? I'd really like to see that conversation on Twitter.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> *"why don't you read everything desmog say so you are better informed to evaluate?"
> *
> mmmm - well, I could (will) say the same about you. I'm sure, without this discussion, you would still be clinging to the coat tails of Caroline Lucas who thinks it is possible to power the country on renewables alone and without nuclear power. Without which we will be starting to dig coal again like Germany has. (She didn't respond to my question regarding this, sadly)
> 
> I would like to see the Swansea Tidal Lagoon go ahead from an experimental/technological point of view, but it also has big environmental issues which have to be taken into consideration. Damage to sea life and silting problems etc. From what I've read it doesn't appear to supply much energy in a growing country. But disappointed if it doesn't go ahead, yes.
> 
> I'm glad you looked at the Michael Shellenberger videos - they are really eye opening aren't they?
> 
> I have to admit, I really wanted to avoid Brexit talk again but seeing as you brought it up. No, I didn't even know what Euratom was until all this started up but, knowing what we have to offer, knowing how important we are to Europe, knowing how much Europe has to offer us, I think things will work out just fine. And, as each day passes, I am more and more pleased that I voted to leave.
> 
> ps Can you link me to Shellenberger's retweeting of the Guardian article, please? I'd really like to see that conversation on Twitter.


I doubt desmog have much negative to say about Caroline Lucas lol I'd be interested if you can find something though? Hang on her coat tails? Well if I do its because her commitment to our environment and our democracy have, like her principles, never wavered. (Shes the polar opposite of the tories ). Her integrity is admirable, as is George Monboits, they care passionately about the environment ,and, in different ways, have dedicated their lives to fighting to save it. They have opposing views on nuclear, but still I respect them both & I know they have mutual respect for each other because they are both on the same side when it comes to environmental justice (& social justice). I have no idea what you mean by 'we'll be starting to dig coal again'? Coal is the most damaging of all fossil fuels, our coal industry has collapsed, why on earth do you think Caroline Lucas would want to dig for it again?.

Maybe you should actually take a look at the Greens policy on energy. Its very indepth - https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ey.html . You can power a country on renewables alone without nuclear. Costa Rica, for example, ran on 100% renewable energy for 76 consecutive days. If Norway didn't sell its green energy to neighbouring countries it would generate around 98% for its own domestic consumption. We are one of the windiest countries, surrounded by the sea - renewable energy in abundance! With political will & radical policies we could make the 'transition' to renewables & a green economy . No hope of that with the fracking tories!

How did I know you'd play down the shelving of the tidal lagoon:Hilarious I bet you'd be raging if it was the greens or labour lol

TBH I haven't watched any of the videos. I looked at some of his tweets & from what I've seen he seems more like a shill for the nuclear industry than an environmentalist lol In that he seems oddly anti- renewables. I will have a look at those videos though, I'm sure he can't be as vehemently opposed to renewables as he appears to be on twitter it he believes action on climate change is urgent.

Of course I brought brexit up lol - we're leaving euratom & you are pro nuclear. You don't seem to understand WE are _leaving_ euratom, we cant be in it if we're leaving it. I'm afraid experts don't share your optimism. I find it really fascinating how deluded you hard brexiters are in spite of the fact brexit is already a complete and utter shambles even before we've left. lol

This is the link, are you able to open it?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/839475524103700480
Can't disagree with the guy who responded to the tweet with this lol

Replying to @*ShellenbergerMD*

_Wow. #*Brexit* keeps on giving. What a monumentally horrible monster of an idea it could grow into_


----------



## samuelsmiles

I didn't think you had looked at the videos. You really should so you are better informed to evaluate. 

Caroline Lucas is quite clearly disillusioned if she thinks it is possible for the UK to run on 100% renewable energy unless she includes nuclear in that. And she doesn't. Your example of Costa Rica just doesn't stack up either.

_"As a country, Costa Rica has a geographic advantage over others in that its high concentration per capita of rivers, dams, and volcanoes allow for a high renewable energy output. In addition, Costa Rica is the fourth highest nation in terms of rainfall per capita: it receives an average of 2,926 mm of precipitation per year.[5] As a smaller nation with a population of nearly five million and no major industry, the need for strong energy infrastructure is less than for larger countries of higher population density."
_
There appears to be a strong correlation between the phasing out of nuclear leading to a need for more coal to satisfy energy needs. Despite the enormous sums put into the renewables industry, Germany has also phased out much of its nuclear and carbon emissions are rising fast again

The UK? - well, we're not doing too bad. "_This is the fastest reduction in its carbon pollution from electricity generation of any country in that time and is partly thanks to an 80 per cent drop in coal generation over the period."
_
Actually, to be honest, if this is going to be just another vehicle for you to attack the Tories I'd rather the thread be closed.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I didn't think you had looked at the videos. You really should so you are better informed to evaluate.
> 
> Caroline Lucas is quite clearly disillusioned if she thinks it is possible for the UK to run on 100% renewable energy unless she includes nuclear in that. And she doesn't. Your example of Costa Rica just doesn't stack up either.
> 
> _"As a country, Costa Rica has a geographic advantage over others in that its high concentration per capita of rivers, dams, and volcanoes allow for a high renewable energy output. In addition, Costa Rica is the fourth highest nation in terms of rainfall per capita: it receives an average of 2,926 mm of precipitation per year.[5] As a smaller nation with a population of nearly five million and no major industry, the need for strong energy infrastructure is less than for larger countries of higher population density."
> _
> There appears to be a strong correlation between the phasing out of nuclear leading to a need for more coal to satisfy energy needs. Despite the enormous sums put into the renewables industry, Germany has also phased out much of its nuclear and carbon emissions are rising fast again
> 
> The UK? - well, we're not doing too bad. "_This is the fastest reduction in its carbon pollution from electricity generation of any country in that time and is partly thanks to an 80 per cent drop in coal generation over the period."
> _
> Actually, to be honest, if this is going to be just another vehicle for you to attack the Tories I'd rather the thread be closed.


Yet it is the tories & you brexiters who have put our nuclear industry in jeopardy - not Caroline Lucas & us remoaners. The Irony

Funny how you completely ignored Norway lol

You want to close the thread because you don't want the government holding to account of their regressive policies how sad. Without urgent radical action we have no hope of even meeting our climate targets.

Plan B Earth are taking the tories to court. I think I can guess who you'll be rooting for.

https://www.facebook.com/ThereIsAPlanB/

Dear friends,
We are taking the British Government to court over its refusal to align our domestic climate law with the best available science and the Paris Agreement that is signed and ratified! It is the primary duty of any legitimate government to protect its citizens from threats too large and complex for individuals to deal with on their own. Climate change represents the most significant threat of our time.

We believe the time for strategic legal action has come. We cannot however, do this alone. If you are passionate about the protection of life/ conservation of biodiversity, protection of the environment that sustains our existence at the most basic level and the protection of international human rights then please offer your support. We launch our crowd-funding campaign on the 8th of December 2017.

You could provide very real support to this movement in three ways:
• Firstly, by liking and sharing this Facebook page, @ThereIsAPlanB to raise awareness before our crowd-funding launch on the 8th.
• Secondly, by donating to and sharing our crowd-funding link on the 8th with friends and family.

• And finally, by keeping up to date with developments in the case/ movement and attending our court dates. Invite your friends and family to come along and support in person in mid-late 2018.

See our website for more information www.planb.earth.
Thank you for your support,
Plan B Earth

http://www.planb.earth/


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Yet it is the tories & you brexiters who have put our nuclear industry in jeopardy - not Caroline Lucas & us remoaners. The Irony
> 
> Funny how you completely ignored Norway lol
> 
> You want to close the thread because you don't want the government holding to account of their regressive policies how sad. Without urgent radical action we have no hope.


Norway?

Population 5,000,000.
Hydropower 98%.

Mods - please can I ask for my thread to be closed now. Pleeease.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

ONR and the NIA have made clear that new arrangements will not be in place by the time we are due to leave Euratom in March 2019 The consensus is clear: there is no upside to a nuclear Brexit | Clare Moody


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


>


Thank you. This chart illustrates my point perfectly. 

Mods - pleeeease.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Thank you. This chart illustrates my point perfectly.
> 
> Mods - pleeeease.


And yet you are desperate to shut the debate down:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05




----------



## rona

samuelsmiles said:


> Thank you. This chart illustrates my point perfectly.
> 
> Mods - pleeeease.


The ignore function is a wonderful thing


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

Tut, tut, tut

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/11/29/brazil-oil-shell-oil-lobbying-for-uk-government/

*UK oil lobbying revelations spark political row in Brazil*

News that UK trade minister Greg Hands spoke to Brazilian officials on behalf of Shell and BP has caused controversy


----------



## noushka05

_Many countries now have very cheap energy driven by renewables - in UK, *Tories *secured high prices for a generation - Hinkley Point C. They scrapped green subsidies, sold off green investment bank & introduced Fracking! #SaveOurPlanet http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...nergy-consumers-weekend-surplus-a8031141.html_


----------



## noushka05

We have to take action asap.

*Ice Apocalypse*
Rapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities by the end of this century
https://grist.org/article/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities/
_

There's a recurring theme throughout these scientists' findings in Antarctica: What we do now will determine how quickly Pine Island and Thwaites collapse. A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries. That's a decision worth countless trillions of dollars and millions of lives._


----------



## noushka05

Seems its already affecting the nuclear industry Samuel.

Citizen of Nowhere Retweeted Chris Cathrine

_I lost my Nuclear Industry job over brexit and leaving the EURATOM treaty, because of the massive impact it is already having
in the UK nuclear industry. I now 5 months later have one,
at least in part because of my constant & vocal opposition to brexit. _


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

Theres a really interesting series of tweets between Shellenberger & someone who has evaluated the video & is (unlike us) is clearly qualified to know what hes talking about. As he is an - 'Ecotoxicologist, Environmental Scientist, Academic, Professor, Photographer. Who better to evaluate than an expert? 

This is his response to TED talk video 'why I changed my mind'.

*Thomas Backhaus*‏@*ThoBaSwe* Nov 22

Thomas Backhaus Retweeted Mike Shellenberger

I'm still not convinced (far from it, actually). Honestly, I think @*ShellenbergerMD* makes some serious logical mistakes in his talk. Maybe due to the available time.... But it's definitely something to think about, and have a serious conversation about.

Shellenberger - Thanks, Thomas. I'm always happy to hear your criticisms including of logic.

Thomas - You're pitting nuclear against solar/wind, which I think is a mistake. We all agree that we need to get rid of coal yesterday. So, why not a clever combination of nuclear, solar, wind, water? Adapted to local conditions...

Shellenberger - I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that solar/wind are not a substitute for nuclear. We need nuclear to decarbonize. Solar and wind can't cut it

Thomas - You are. In your talk at least. There your logic was: solar and wind are (currently, and for certain nations) insufficient, so let's ignore them and focus exclusively on nuclear. Or what am I missing?

.

Shellenberger - I didn't say ignore them, I said they aren't enough, can't produce sufficient energy to mitigate climate, and have huge environmental impacts.

Thomas - Again, I'm just referring to your talk. There you present things as an either-or situation. You're either for nuclear _or_ for renewables.

Shellenberger - That's the conclusion you're drawing from the evidence. I presented a large number of data points.

Thomas - Maybe I missed something. But where did you actually argue for an optimized mix of energy sources, adapted to the needs of a given country and society?

Ends

hmmm


----------



## Bisbow

Why not just change the name to "Nouscha's Thread" and let her get on with it


----------



## Zaros

Bisbow said:


> Why not just change the name to "Nouscha's Thread" and let her get on with it


I understand you don't like Noushka, but why do you go out of your way to be so deliberate about it?


----------



## noushka05

I thought you'd put me on ignore Bisbow - yet you're still trolling me?


----------



## Bisbow

It amuses me to see just what else to say about us leavers, you have to take over every thread and turn it into anti brexit and accuse us leavers of ruining the country and you are so blatant about it

You say you can post what you like but I must not

If you think all your posturing and putting all the grafts etc on here will change peoples minds you are sadly mistaken

You are flogging s dead donkey


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> It amuses me to see just what else to say about us leavers, you have to take over every thread and turn it into anti brexit and accuse us leavers of ruining the country and you are so blatant about it
> 
> You say you can post what you like but I must not
> 
> If you think all your posturing and putting all the grafts etc on here will change peoples minds you are sadly mistaken
> 
> You are flogging s dead donkey


You can post what ever you like Bisbow - I love debating. Its the personal attacks I don't like.


----------



## Mirandashell

Hmm..... it's not Noushka who is coming over badly to everyone else. As you've been reminded already, you have an ignore button, Bisbow. Maybe you should use it and then you wouldn't look like you are stalking Noush.


----------



## Bisbow

Zaros said:


> I understand you don't like Noushka, but why do you go out of your way to be so deliberate about it?


AS deliberate as she is saying we leavers are stupid and as for likeing her I don't know her to make judgement, I don't like the way she treats leavers and takes over every thread possible


----------



## noushka05

T


Mirandashell said:


> Hmm..... it's not Noushka who is coming over badly to everyone else. As you've been reminded already, you have an ignore button, Bisbow. Maybe you should use it and then you wouldn't look like you are stalking Noush.


Thank you  & Zaros x


----------



## Mirandashell

Yeah..... classic stalker reasoning. 'It's all your fault I'm stalking you. You're making me do it.'


----------



## Mirandashell

noushka05 said:


> T
> 
> Thank you  & Zaros x


You're welcome. I hate bullies.


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> AS deliberate as she is saying we leavers are stupid and as for likeing her I don't know her to make judgement, I don't like the way she treats leavers and takes over every thread possible


The thing is you don't want to hear anything negative about brexit (or the tories) so you make it personal to shut down debate.


----------



## Bisbow

noushka05 said:


> You can post what ever you like Bisbow - I love debating. Its the personal attacks I don't like.


Is it not personal to call leavers deluded, stupid and brainless then

I am only standing up for myself, is that not allowed either


----------



## Zaros

Bisbow said:


> AS deliberate as she is saying we leavers are stupid and as for likeing her I don't know her to make judgement, I don't like the way she treats leavers and takes over every thread possible


I don't like a lot of things some members post or how they post it. Having the ability to ignore them, makes forum life so much more comfortable.


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> Is it not personal to call leavers deluded, stupid and brainless then
> 
> I am only standing up for myself, is that not allowed either


You're making things up again. It is delusional to believe brexit is going well - because it clealy isnt. But I have never called anyone stupid or brainless.


----------



## Bisbow

Okay.okay

I am a bully because I post what I be true but no one else is

I believe in brexit and will not change my mind , for saying that and standing up for my beliefs makes me deluded

Is that not personal

Call me what you like, ignore me if you want

I am no more a bully than anyone else on here, not that the remainers will believe of course


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> Okay.okay
> 
> I am a bully because I post what I be true but no one else is
> 
> I believe in brexit and will not change my mind , for saying that and standing up for my beliefs makes me deluded
> 
> Is that not personal
> 
> Call me what you like, ignore me if you want
> 
> I am no more a bully than anyone else on here, not that the remainers will believe of course


I don't want to ignore you Bisbow. You can believe what you like, you can believe brexit is going well - but all the evidence tells a completely different story. If you could just look objectively & rationally at all that evidence then you would see its disasterous - but you choose to stick to your beliefs.


----------



## Mirandashell

Bisbow, it's making the debate personal by attacking Noushka that we are objecting to. You are as entiteld to your opinion as Noush is. What you are not entitled to is to stalk her around the board insulting her. 

You are responsible for your behaviour, not her.


----------



## noushka05

Again thank you Miranda x


----------



## Bisbow

If she stopped attacking leavers I would not bother but every time she says something derogatory about leavers she is attacking me
Not in name maybe but the attack is there, can no one see that
Am I not allowed to retaliate because I voted out


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> If she stopped attacking leavers I would not bother but every time she says something derogatory about leavers she is attacking me
> Not in name maybe but the attack is there, can no one see that
> Am I not allowed to retaliate because I voted out


I am going to carry on posting about brexit Bisbow, exposing this shambles which threatens everything I hold dear. I wont be shut down, if the mods want to ban me for that. So be it. If you choose to take everything I say personally I cant help that.


----------



## Mirandashell

Bisbow said:


> If she stopped *attacking* leavers I would not bother but every time she says something derogatory about leavers she is *attacking me*
> Not in name maybe but the *attack* is there, can no one see that
> Am I not allowed to* retaliate* because I voted out


Can you see how violent your language is, Bisbow? How personally you are taking this? You are responsible for how you feel about it, not Noushka.


----------



## kimthecat

Bisbow said:


> I am no more a bully than anyone else on here, not that the remainers will believe of course


No you 're not a bully . 
i think the protesting posts from others are a bit pot and kettle.
I would agree with using the ignore button . It looks like people are talking to themselves but you can guess who the ignored person is simply by the response of the poster .


----------



## Bisbow

[QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1065044725, member: 2189" I wont be shut down, if the mods want to ban me for that. So be it. .[/QUOTE]

You and me both I fear


----------



## Bisbow

kimthecat said:


> No you 're not a bully .
> i think the protesting posts from others are a bit pot and kettle.
> I would agree with using the ignore button . It looks like people are talking to themselves but you can guess who the ignored person is simply by the response of the poster .


Thank you
You are talking a lot of sense


----------



## noushka05

Bisbow said:


> [QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1065044725, member: 2189" I wont be shut down, if the mods want to ban me for that. So be it. .


You and me both I fear[/QUOTE]

Sorry to disappoint


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles said:


> Mods - pleeeease.


You need to pm a mod and tell them the thread is going off the rails; that you started the thread and this isn't what you hoped for. Good luck!


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> You need to pm a mod and tell them the thread is going off the rails; that you started the thread and this isn't what you hoped for. Good luck!


Its only off the rails because it seems the OP doesn't want debate (surprise surprise). We're not supposed to criticize the tories on dire environmental policies - its another positive post only thread.

I personally think its a great shame to close a thread on this most serious of issues.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05




----------



## kimthecat

Calvine said:


> You need to pm a mod and tell them the thread is going off the rails; that you started the thread and this isn't what you hoped for. Good luck!


 That makes sense .


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> That makes sense .


And there's little enough of that around!


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> *Its only off the rails because it seems the OP doesn't want debate (surprise surprise).* We're not supposed to criticize the tories on dire environmental policies - its another positive post only thread.
> 
> I personally think its a great shame to close a thread on this most serious of issues.


Ha ha. You're priceless - you really are.

I'm sorry but there is no debate to be had with you. You are so entrenched in your political ideals that you are unable to even contemplate different opinions. Perfectly illustrated by the fact you wouldn't even look at the videos I posted giving alternative views to yours.

You don't want debate. If you wanted debate, you could have watched the videos, considered them and then discussed them. I would have like that. It's kind of how you learn stuff.

Mods? Please.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Calvine said:


> You need to pm a mod and tell them the thread is going off the rails; that you started the thread and this isn't what you hoped for. Good luck!


Can you tell me how I do that please?

eta - done that now.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Ha ha. You're priceless - you really are.
> 
> I'm sorry but there is no debate to be had with you. You are so entrenched in your political ideals that you are unable to even contemplate different opinions. Perfectly illustrated by the fact you wouldn't even look at the videos I posted giving alternative views to yours.
> 
> You don't want debate. If you wanted debate, you could have watched the videos, considered them and then discussed them. I would have like that. It's kind of how you learn stuff.
> 
> Mods? Please.


I clearly said I was going to watch the videos - but you asked for the thread to be closed because you know your decision has quite possibly put the nail in the coffin of the energy source you are championing lol. The posts are there for all to see.



noushka05 said:


> I doubt desmog have much negative to say about Caroline Lucas lol I'd be interested if you can find something though? Hang on her coat tails? Well if I do its because her commitment to our environment and our democracy have, like her principles, never wavered. (Shes the polar opposite of the tories ). Her integrity is admirable, as is George Monboits, they care passionately about the environment ,and, in different ways, have dedicated their lives to fighting to save it. They have opposing views on nuclear, but still I respect them both & I know they have mutual respect for each other because they are both on the same side when it comes to environmental justice (& social justice). I have no idea what you mean by 'we'll be starting to dig coal again'? Coal is the most damaging of all fossil fuels, our coal industry has collapsed, why on earth do you think Caroline Lucas would want to dig for it again?.
> 
> Maybe you should actually take a look at the Greens policy on energy. Its very indepth - https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ey.html . You can power a country on renewables alone without nuclear. Costa Rica, for example, ran on 100% renewable energy for 76 consecutive days. If Norway didn't sell its green energy to neighbouring countries it would generate around 98% for its own domestic consumption. We are one of the windiest countries, surrounded by the sea - renewable energy in abundance! With political will & radical policies we could make the 'transition' to renewables & a green economy . No hope of that with the fracking tories!
> 
> How did I know you'd play down the shelving of the tidal lagoon:Hilarious I bet you'd be raging if it was the greens or labour lol
> 
> TBH I haven't watched any of the videos. I looked at some of his tweets & from what I've seen he seems more like a shill for the nuclear industry than an environmentalist lol In that he seems oddly anti- renewables. * I will have a look at those videos though*, I'm sure he can't be as vehemently opposed to renewables as he appears to be on twitter it he believes action on climate change is urgent.
> 
> Of course I brought brexit up lol - we're leaving euratom & you are pro nuclear. You don't seem to understand WE are _leaving_ euratom, we cant be in it if we're leaving it. I'm afraid experts don't share your optimism. I find it really fascinating how deluded you hard brexiters are in spite of the fact brexit is already a complete and utter shambles even before we've left. lol
> 
> This is the link, are you able to open it?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/839475524103700480
> Can't disagree with the guy who responded to the tweet with this lol
> 
> Replying to @*ShellenbergerMD*
> 
> _Wow. #*Brexit* keeps on giving. What a monumentally horrible monster of an idea it could grow into_


----------



## Zaros

_So much negativity!_


----------



## noushka05

That is one of the weirdest gifs I've ever seen:Hilarious


----------



## Zaros

noushka05 said:


> That is one of the weirdest gifs I've ever seen:Hilarious


Michael Lewis, Noush' When he appeared on X Factor as Jacko, he single-handedly managed to disturb and upset an entire nation with his antics and attitude

Anyways, I don't care how green a person might want to be, I'll wager there are many who would agree that the pumping of massive quantities of carbon-monoxide into the bedrooms of corrupt politicians and their accomplices as they slept, might prove to be very beneficial to the children of tomorrow.


----------



## samuelsmiles

I think it is simply not possible for the UK to satisfy its need for power with 100% renewable energy. The five main sources are solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydropower, and will just not be enough.

Some countries are blessed with their own natural resources to do this to great advantage. Norway with a natural abundance of mountains, lakes and heavy rainfall. Costa Rica with its volcanoes, rivers and, again, mountains. Costa Rica relies almost totally on hydroelectricity to supply energy to the homes of the population, however they rely, still, very much on petrol for their cars, buses and trains. In actual fact renewables make up less than 25% of the country's total energy use.

The populations of Norway and Costa Rica are both around 5 million people. Population density for Norway? 4 people per square mile. And Costa Rica? 250 per square mile.

What industry does Costa Rica have? Just about nothing - it relies on tourism pretty much exclusively for its income. So there is little demand from heavy industry to power the country.

For both of these countries other forms of renewable energy - solar and wind for example, are almost negligible.

Geothermal is another form of renewable energy that is fantastic if you are sitting right on top of a huge hot spring surrounded by volcanoes. This enables Iceland to garner about 65% of its primary energy this way with the rest pretty much exclusively from hydro. Again, Iceland benefits from being surrounded by mountains and glacial rivers to supply this hydroelectricity. Heavy industry in Iceland is again minimal with tourism and fish processing being top of the list. The population of Iceland is 330,000 with a population density of 9 people per square mile. And yet...yet they still are not able to be 100% reliant on renewables.

So what does the UK have in natural resources that will enable it to become 100% green with its energy bearing in mind its population density of over 700 people per square mile. Well, there are some lovely rolling hills around the Chilterns where I am, but mountains, fast flowing big rivers, lakes? No. Volcanoes? Nope. Solar? It won't be shining until tomorrow morning so we ain't getting a single watt of power from this right now. And when it does shine tomorrow we will have about 8 hours of daylight.

Wind? I don't know at the moment but there will be times when they just do not turn, and we do not have the battery storage to contain this energy. It just is not enough. What about the environment? Well about 35 years ago, from memory, they reintroduced the beautiful Red Kite around here which is now flourishing. To get the required energy from onshore wind you're going to have to cover the country in these things. I wonder how the Kites and other bird will fare? And the take-up of land to put them on will simply be unviable.

Steel manufacturing? The electrification of trains, buses, cars? We are lauding the arrival of the electric car so we will be needing huge amounts of energy to run them.

Apparently we have loads more room for new arrivals? We will be building 300,000 new houses per year. What about hospitals of which we need still more to look after the growing population? I know I would be very uncomfortable if I had a loved one in the operating theatre relying on intermittent solar and wind and a bit of tidal power.

New renewables for us? Geothermal is being tested in one or 2 places but you have to drill down a mile or two to get to where it is just luke warm. I can't see that working either. And it's not without its own environmental problems.

I absolutely know we need to clean up our energy, but it's not going to be easy and I can't see it happening without nuclear. A source of energy with the most stringent regulations possible.


----------



## samuelsmiles

samuelsmiles said:


> Can you tell me how I do that please?
> 
> eta - done that now.


Well, I did ask.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles said:


> Well, I did ask.


----------



## Calvine

@samuelsmiles: It's always the wrong threads that seem to get closed.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I think it is simply not possible for the UK to satisfy its need for power with 100% renewable energy. The five main sources are solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydropower, and will just not be enough.
> 
> Some countries are blessed with their own natural resources to do this to great advantage. Norway with a natural abundance of mountains, lakes and heavy rainfall. Costa Rica with its volcanoes, rivers and, again, mountains. Costa Rica relies almost totally on hydroelectricity to supply energy to the homes of the population, however they rely, still, very much on petrol for their cars, buses and trains. In actual fact renewables make up less than 25% of the country's total energy use.
> 
> The populations of Norway and Costa Rica are both around 5 million people. Population density for Norway? 4 people per square mile. And Costa Rica? 250 per square mile.
> 
> What industry does Costa Rica have? Just about nothing - it relies on tourism pretty much exclusively for its income. So there is little demand from heavy industry to power the country.
> 
> For both of these countries other forms of renewable energy - solar and wind for example, are almost negligible.
> 
> Geothermal is another form of renewable energy that is fantastic if you are sitting right on top of a huge hot spring surrounded by volcanoes. This enables Iceland to garner about 65% of its primary energy this way with the rest pretty much exclusively from hydro. Again, Iceland benefits from being surrounded by mountains and glacial rivers to supply this hydroelectricity. Heavy industry in Iceland is again minimal with tourism and fish processing being top of the list. The population of Iceland is 330,000 with a population density of 9 people per square mile. And yet...yet they still are not able to be 100% reliant on renewables.
> 
> So what does the UK have in natural resources that will enable it to become 100% green with its energy bearing in mind its population density of over 700 people per square mile. Well, there are some lovely rolling hills around the Chilterns where I am, but mountains, fast flowing big rivers, lakes? No. Volcanoes? Nope. Solar? It won't be shining until tomorrow morning so we ain't getting a single watt of power from this right now. And when it does shine tomorrow we will have about 8 hours of daylight.
> 
> Wind? I don't know at the moment but there will be times when they just do not turn, and we do not have the battery storage to contain this energy. It just is not enough. What about the environment? Well about 35 years ago, from memory, they reintroduced the beautiful Red Kite around here which is now flourishing. To get the required energy from onshore wind you're going to have to cover the country in these things. I wonder how the Kites and other bird will fare? And the take-up of land to put them on will simply be unviable.
> 
> Steel manufacturing? The electrification of trains, buses, cars? We are lauding the arrival of the electric car so we will be needing huge amounts of energy to run them.
> 
> Apparently we have loads more room for new arrivals? We will be building 300,000 new houses per year. What about hospitals of which we need still more to look after the growing population? I know I would be very uncomfortable if I had a loved one in the operating theatre relying on intermittent solar and wind and a bit of tidal power.
> 
> New renewables for us? Geothermal is being tested in one or 2 places but you have to drill down a mile or two to get to where it is just luke warm. I can't see that working either. And it's not without its own environmental problems.
> 
> I absolutely know we need to clean up our energy, but it's not going to be easy and I can't see it happening without nuclear. A source of energy with the most stringent regulations possible.


As I said it would be a 'transition' to renewables. We need and mix of renewables (I accept that may mean we need nuclear - in the short term at least.) But it must be pointed out that energy efficiency is the key part of renewables based economy. For this we need to make our own homes more efficient & self sufficient this will reduce domestic peak load demands. Unfortunately this will only work with the correct legislation from government & the tories have cut support for home energy efficiency! What a surprise. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41167853

As you yourself point out in your opening sentence renewables are not just wind & solar lol The variable renewables in our mix must also be complemented by flexible resources - in particular storage. And also we can import/export renewable energy if need be. Norway's spare green energy presents opportunities via interconnectors to plug the gaps.

Renewable technology is accelerating rapidly. Look at what Elon Musk achieved in just 100 days? You liked Rona's post on the subject so assume you approve. We need massive investment green technology - but we must have a government committed to take on the challenge. The urgency to transition to zero carbon energy has never been greater.

Back to wind. There is no greater threat to life on earth than climate breakdown. Every credible green NGO supports wind. Including the charity which has possibly done more for bird conservation than any other - the RSPB - https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/ou...le-climate-change/uk-energy-policy/wind-farms

If you are sincerely concerned about our wonderful red kites, poisoning is the real & present danger to their recovery - What will the government do about this? * Bird pulled from brink of extinction facing poisoning threat *http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42097801

The reason public services & our NHS are stretched to breaking point has nothing to do with pressure from 'foreigners' & everything to do with massive cuts implemented by the tory party. For a start most migrants live in private rented accommodation (fact). Our NHS isn't under pressure from foreign nationals - its being propped up by them! Please don't fall for hard right spin. The scales will eventually fall from your eyes as migrants continue to leave & snub our country & things continue to get worse & worse - then you will be forced to acknowledge they were not the problem.

I'm afraid its impossible not to mention brexit when you keep promoting nuclear energy.

(by the way I'm really glad the thread wasn't closed. This is the most important thread on the forum imo. So well done for starting Samuel  )

(please read the whole article)








 *DeSmog UK*‏@*DeSmogUK*

Analysis: #*Brexit* and #*climatechange*. Three key issues, via @*ConversationUK*

*What will Brexit mean for the climate? (Clue: it doesn't look good) *December 1, 2017 9.05am GMT
https://theconversation.com/what-will-brexit-mean-for-the-climate-clue-it-doesnt-look-good-87476

EURATOM, meanwhile, is Europe's coordinating agency for civil nuclear development and is one of the oldest institutions of the EU. Over the decades, EURATOM has led to a highly interconnected implementation of nuclear technologies and facilities. Brexit will trigger the UK's automatic exclusion from EURATOM, creating an urgent need to agree new arrangements.

UK clean energy strategy relies heavily upon nuclear - and a hard exit from EURATOM would deal a huge blow to the sector. Strategic partnerships with European actors may be lost including EDF, the technology provider for the Hinkley Point C plant currently under construction. It also poses a threat to British companies in the sector (for example, Rolls Royce), challenging the fundamental sustainability of the UK nuclear programme.

*Space for hope … and fear*
The magnitude of these threats is unclear at the present stage of Brexit negotiations, but the current absence of climate change from the negotiation table is itself a reason for worry. Nevertheless, Brexit creates opportunities as well as threats. The UK will be free to build on its history as a climate champion by developing stable growth based upon a "clean" pathway. With a supportive domestic market, UK providers of clean energy systems could find lucrative markets abroad.

Yet, any possible solution to Brexit-related climate change issues lies in the hands of those charged with the whole Brexit process. Prominent supporters of Brexit, including current UK ministers, have declared their scepticism towards the anthropogenic origins of climate change, raising further doubts about the chance for a positive handling of the climate issue within Brexit debate


----------



## samuelsmiles

We'll have to disagree on 100% renewables being possible without nuclear then - and I don't believe nuclear power as a transition is an option either. With coal thankfully disappearing, it leaves a massive gap in the need for energy so we either do it or I think we'll be living in the dark. We _have _to have 100% reliable power, and nuclear emits no carbon once the power station is in operation.

I'm really interested that the Green's Caroline Lucas calls nuclear energy "environmentally reckless" despite it having a remarkably good safety record. Better, infact, than coal, oil, gas, biofuel, solar (people falling off of roofs). Can I ask you about wind power. How much coverage of the countryside would you deem acceptable to get the energy we need to run the country, because it _will _have to be vast swathes. Importing electricity from countries like Norway will be difficult if they're going to need it themselves in times of no wind and little daylight. And there is a finite limit to the hydro they can produce.

By the way, did you know that 'green' Norway is Europe's biggest exporter of oil? Drilling in the Barents and North Seas. They've also been test drilling in the Arctic, although this seems to have fallen from favour over the last few weeks.

*Why Norway's green image is much more style than substance*

Environmentalists take Norway to court over Arctic drilling

Anyway, it looks as though the government is getting behind nuclear now and the South Koreans appear to be the favourites to finance them with some government funding too. I find it puzzling that wind energy (big windmills) is called 'progressive' yet nuclear is often called a dinosaur.

*Korean energy firm rescues UK's Moorside nuclear power project*

*UK nuclear sector vows to cut construction cost by 30%*

ps. the poisoning of red kites, the NHS and B****t are not what is being discussed. They have plenty of their own threads.

pps The Clean Growth Strategy covers lots regarding helping people to insulate their homes properly.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> We'll have to disagree on 100% renewables being possible without nuclear then - and I don't believe nuclear power as a transition is an option either. With coal thankfully disappearing, it leaves a massive gap in the need for energy so we either do it or I think we'll be living in the dark. We _have _to have 100% reliable power, and nuclear emits no carbon once the power station is in operation.
> 
> I'm really interested that the Green's Caroline Lucas calls nuclear energy "environmentally reckless" despite it having a remarkably good safety record. Better, infact, than coal, oil, gas, biofuel, solar (people falling off of roofs). Can I ask you about wind power. How much coverage of the countryside would you deem acceptable to get the energy we need to run the country, because it _will _have to be vast swathes. Importing electricity from countries like Norway will be difficult if they're going to need it themselves in times of no wind and little daylight. And there is a finite limit to the hydro they can produce.
> 
> By the way, did you know that 'green' Norway is Europe's biggest exporter of oil? Drilling in the Barents and North Seas. They've also been test drilling in the Arctic, although this seems to have fallen from favour over the last few weeks.
> 
> *Why Norway's green image is much more style than substance*
> 
> Environmentalists take Norway to court over Arctic drilling
> 
> Anyway, it looks as though the government is getting behind nuclear now and the South Koreans appear to be the favourites to finance them with some government funding too. I find it puzzling that wind energy (big windmills) is called 'progressive' yet nuclear is often called a dinosaur.
> 
> *Korean energy firm rescues UK's Moorside nuclear power project*
> 
> *UK nuclear sector vows to cut construction cost by 30%*
> 
> ps. the poisoning of red kites, the NHS and B****t are not what is being discussed. They have plenty of their own threads.
> 
> pps The Clean Growth Strategy covers lots regarding helping people to insulate their homes properly.


I'm not sure you read my post - what I actually said was - _We need and mix of renewables (I accept that may mean we need nuclear - in the short term at least.). 
_
You'll find many leading experts share Caroline Lucas's views on nuclear to phase out nuclear energy. I really don't think you understand the urgency or the magnitude of what we are facing. Wind turbines covering vast swathes of our country really are the least of our worries. Time is not on our side. How long does it take to get nuclear power stations up and running? You do realise Your attack on renewables seems rather odd considering you were praising them at the beginning of this thread when you believed the tories were supporting renewable initiatives. Will you be promoting facking next I wonder?

I assume you know who Kevin Anderson is? I have referred to him on this thread I believe. He isn't someone you can try to discredit without making yourself look rather silly.

Kevin Anderson_: Nuclear may have an important role, but in the timeframe of 2°C carbon budgets its contribution is significantly limited._










(What are your thoughts on this? https://actions.sumofus.org/a/edf-toxic-waste-dump-cardiff
*Stop EDF Energy's toxic dump at Cardiff Bay*!

Yes, you read that right -- EDF Energy is planning to dump 300,000 tonnes of mud contaminated by waste from nuclear power plants into the sea off Cardiff Bay.)

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not an apologist for Norways shameful environmental abuses, it still doesn't alter the fact that they could already produce most of their own power though renewable sources.

You weren't really interested in the real threat to our Red Kites then, it was just another attack on wind energy. You are aware climate change is the greatest threat to birds - to all life on earth ?






Video filmed in the Canadian Arctic provides graphic evidence of the impact of climate change on polar bears in the region, showing an emaciated animal scrounging for food on ice-free land. The footage was recorded by the conservation group Sea Legacy during a late summer expedition in Baffin Island. 'My entire Sea Legacy team was pushing through their tears and emotions while documenting this dying polar bear,' the photographer Paul Nicklen wrote on social media. 'Soul-crushing' video of starving polar bear exposes climate crisis, experts say

Its impossible not to mention the implications of brexit on climate change. As Caroline Lucas warned climate change knows no boundaries & our best hope of mitigating the worst effects is by collaborating with our neighbours. Why do you think environmentalists voted to remain? ( Obviously a progressive government is what we really need as the tories are doing their utmost to sabotage EU climate targets, but governments do change & climate change is a major concern of the younger generation hence why they are abandoning the tory party).

Please check out this pdf by the National Grid.
http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1213/final-so-regionalisation-thought-piece-27-02-17-v21-pdf.pdf

*Our energy insights *

*Achieving secure, sustainable and affordable electricity for consumers is high on the European Commission's agenda. Their ambition is to form a single energy market with competition, facilitated by electricity flows that move efficiently across European borders. But how will this be achieved?

In this paper, we take a look at the changing face of Great Britain's electricity system, and the development towards European regional markets. Also outlined are the opportunities and challenges for consumers.

Four fictional scenarios called 'Going it alone', 'Collaboration', 'Regional centres', and 'Pan European' are used to explore the different options that Europe could take. 
Through the scenarios it is demonstrated why a collaborative framework approach will ensure the best outcomes for consumers across Europe.

The implications of Brexit for Great Britain's future relationship with the EU on energy are uncertain. However, there is a continued role for cooperation to create a more efficient European electricity system*

I'm sorry but you're doing it again - you're letting the tories off the hook with their shocking lack of real commitment to energy efficiency. It was EU Energy efficiency laws the tories lobbied to weaken @samuelsmiles ! And they must be aware energy efficiency is THE cheapest, most efficient way of cutting our emissions. Its as though they don't give a **** about our living planet.

Renewable energy will probably never meet our current rate of consumption, no, be we could change this unnecessary over indulgent use of energy & restructure our society so we can exist on far lower levels of energy use. This is why we need a courageous government committed to tacking the greatest challenge we face.

So just how are we going to meet our legally binding carbon emission targets now?

*Climate change: Ministers should be 'sued' over targets*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41401656

Ministers should tighten the UK's official climate change target - or face the courts, the government's former chief scientist has said.

Prof Sir David King is supporting a legal case forcing ministers to shrink carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

He says the current government goal - an 80% emissions cut by the same date - is too weak to protect the climate.

Ministers have promised more ambitious climate policies in their forthcoming and long-delayed Clean Growth plan.

But Prof King told BBC News the government knew the 80% target cut behind that plan was too weak.

*"*This is crazy," Prof King told the BBC. "The government knows very well what needs to be done - but it isn't doing it.

"If it takes legal action to force ministers to behave properly, then so be it - I'll support it."

Prof King is backing a preliminary legal action by a tiny group, Plan B, run by former government lawyer Tim Crosland.

It argues that Business Secretary Greg Clark is obliged under the act to tighten targets if the science shows it is needed. This is the basis of the case.

Mr Crosland has written to Mr Clark and says if there is no satisfactory reply after 14 days, he will take the case to the High Court for judicial review.

"The science has clearly hardened since the Climate Change Act was agreed," he said.

"If scientists are telling us our current course of emissions potentially takes us to catastrophe, then to stick to the current course is irrational.

"The best available science tells us the risks of crossing tipping points rise very sharply between 1.5 and 2C. And that means the UK cutting emissions to zero."
*
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41401656


----------



## samuelsmiles

_"You do realise Your attack on renewables seems rather odd considering you were praising them at the beginning of this thread when you believed the tories were supporting renewable initiatives."_

I'm not attacking renewables - I'm questioning the 100% renewables claims. It's about having an open mind and not sticking blindly to preconceived ideals and political beliefs.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> _"You do realise Your attack on renewables seems rather odd considering you were praising them at the beginning of this thread when you believed the tories were supporting renewable initiatives."_
> 
> I'm not attacking renewables - I'm questioning the 100% renewables claims. It's about having an open mind and not sticking blindly to preconceived ideals and political beliefs.


Really? I think most accept it would be a _transition_ to a renewable economy ( it's the IPCC that has called for this_* rapid*_ transition you know?), but ok, lets say you & George Monbiot are right & we need more investment in nuclear power do you accept what the leading experts say that we need a full mix of renewables including more onshore wind & solar, tidal & massive investment in energy efficiency if we have any hope of even meeting our own carbon targets nevermind averting catastrophic runaway climate breakdown?

Scientists are led by evidence not political beliefs that's why governments have them as advisors because Ministers are not experts. And the governments ex Chief Scientist Professor Sir David King says tory ministers should be sued over their climate targets....

If governments lack the will they must be held accountable so whether pro or anti nuclear this issue is far to serious & to urgent not to pressure government to take the urgent action needed. So thank god for the likes of Caroline Lucas & George Monbiot, if only there were more out there like them, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in if there were.


----------



## noushka05

God help us - all!.

_
UK politicians keep meeting with US #*climate* science deniers 
Meetings with Ebell, Inhofe and Lamar Smith:_
https://www.desmog.uk/2017/12/11/former-environment-secretary-promotes-post-brexit-special-relationship-us-climate-science-deniers…
_
Theresa May's special advisors meet with Koch-founded Cato Institute

._


----------



## noushka05

If only enough people right across the globe would put our living planet over party loyalty maybe we'd have a chance.

Great stuff from labour.

*Rebecca Long-Bailey*‏Verified [email protected]*RLong_Bailey* Dec 12

#*Climatechange* is threatening our planet. Only bold action can tackle it. Climate change is at the heart of @*UKLabour* Industrial Strategy, our 2017 pledge is that by 2030 60% of UK's #*energy* will come from low carbon and renewable sources. #*OnePlanetSummit* (1/2)

Tory Govt not done enough on #*Climatechange*. Not only did the Govt privatize the Green Investment Bank, but today we learnt that it was sold on the cheap. Labour puts climate change at the heart of its industrial strategy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/12/green-investment-bank-sold-too-cheaply-watchdog-says… (2/2)

*Green Investment Bank sold too cheaply, watchdog says *

*National Audit Office report puts Macquarie deal at low end of valuation with extra tens of millions lost from rejection of phased sale option
*
Shame on the tories.

.


----------



## Guest

I just can´t get how climate change isn´t everybody´s priority.


----------



## Zaros

It's not everybody's priority because the world is run by super rich, selfish old men who are, some time soon, about to be called upon by the grim reaper, and couldn't give a flea bitten rats 4r53 what happens to the rest of us after they've gone.

.


----------



## noushka05

MrsZee said:


> I just can´t get how climate change isn´t everybody´s priority.


I think a lot of the blame for this lies with the media. Every news outlet should be shouting about it from the rooftops, it should be on every news bulletin. Yet there only seems to be a few news outlets which prioritise news on climate change- the Guardian being the leader, the rest are hopeless, even the BBC, and the right wing press are doing their best to confuse people by muddying the waters on climate science .

Its really depressing, especially so as we don't have much time left.



Zaros said:


> It's not everybody's priority because the world is run by super rich, selfish old men who are, some time soon, about to be called upon by the grim reaper, and couldn't give a flea bitten rats 4r53 what happens to the rest of us after they've gone.
> 
> .


And those super rich, selfish old men have enough money to politicians. All of them are completely & utterly morally bankrupt. We are ruled by psychopaths & fed propaganda to vote them into power. The only answer - WAKE UP FAST! - don't enable them, use your vote wisely, don't be part of the problem.


----------



## Elles

My council area is Green Party. Our MP is labour. In the last GE the Green Party asked us to vote for a 21 year old archaeology student, who works on the university information desk, between studies. It’s not realistic.


----------



## Jonescat

I am not quite sure what to make of this and am wondering if anyone else has any insight?

While buying petrol today, someone asked me what I knew about carbon offsetting. Seems Shell are pilotting a scheme to give you the option to add 1p a litre to the bill to be spent offsetting your carbon by planting trees in Kenya. They couldn't give me any literature becuase it is a pilot, but I think she said they were working with Wildlife Works.


----------



## kimthecat

@Jonescat That sounds good . I would be willing to do that.

I'd like to see more tree planting in the UK.
its sad seeing so many trees illegally chopped down , people moving into new homes here , it seems the first thing they do is chop down the trees.
Trees chopped down on building sites , they chop and them down and they just pay the fine.


----------



## Jonescat

I agree - I said I would be willing too. The more trees we have the better.


----------



## noushka05

Jonescat said:


> I am not quite sure what to make of this and am wondering if anyone else has any insight?
> 
> While buying petrol today, someone asked me what I knew about carbon offsetting. Seems Shell are pilotting a scheme to give you the option to add 1p a litre to the bill to be spent offsetting your carbon by planting trees in Kenya. They couldn't give me any literature becuase it is a pilot, but I think she said they were working with Wildlife Works.


It sounds like a public relations exercise by one of the biggest polluters to me. The fossil fuel industry is the wealthiest industry yet Shell are getting the public to pay for their greenwashing project.


----------



## noushka05

*Bill McKibben*‏Verified [email protected]*billmckibben* Dec 22

Huge new Finnish study finds planet could run on 100% renewable energy by 2050 and for less money than we pay now.

Or, we could burn up the earth

https://www.ecowatch.com/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-2519335518.html


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> *Bill McKibben*‏Verified [email protected]*billmckibben* Dec 22
> 
> Huge new Finnish study finds planet could run on 100% renewable energy by 2050 and for less money than we pay now.
> 
> Or, we could burn up the earth
> 
> https://www.ecowatch.com/100-renewable-energy-by-2050-2519335518.html


This study has been doing the rounds for a few months now and is not without criticism (or a dose of reality.)

_"one does not have to dig too deeply into the LUT data before numerous problems become apparent. While the LUT plan may look good on paper there is no chance it will work in practice."_

I was getting quite excited about the prospect of renewable energy supplying us with 100% renewables a while back, but then the more you research (and think about it) - it just doesn't stack up.

Although coal has thankfully been cast aside as the major supplier of our energy, it has left a huge hole which has been filled by natural gas. About 42% of our energy is now coming from gas. Better than coal, but still a vast contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. So, to get to 100% renewables, we have to take away gas and replace this with wind, solar, biomass (burning wood from trees) hydro etc.

In 2017, 23% of our energy also came from nuclear so add this to the 42% gas and 7% coal and you have 72% of our energy needs to find through renewables within 33 years to meet the 2050 deadline. Considering offshore wind is running out of space around our coastline we will have to build wind farms onshore on a massive scale and solar would have to be implemented on a scale that belies the fact that the UK is not blessed with sun or light throughout much of the year.

And then, to compound this problem, we will all be driving electric cars by 2040. 25 million cars at the moment on our roads will all be electric. We can attain a carbon free energy supply but this simply will not be possible with just 100% renewables and without nuclear.

This is an interesting fact. "For the past two decades, 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warheads"

Yes, the nuclear energy industry has actually made the world safer.

We can't use nuclear as a transition energy either - what an utter fallacy and waste of money that would be. It has to be our main provider of clean energy, surely.

Noushka - I've given some numbers in this post. Can you give some numbers to back up the 100% renewables claim. How many wind farms will we need, how many solar farms, how much hydro? When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining what will be preventing the hospitals from failing?


----------



## samuelsmiles

*UK enjoyed 'greenest year for electricity ever' in 2017

*
"UK was reducing emissions faster than any other G7 country - which includes the US, Japan, Germany, Italy, France and Canada"


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> This study has been doing the rounds for a few months now and is not without criticism (or a dose of reality.)
> 
> _"one does not have to dig too deeply into the LUT data before numerous problems become apparent. While the LUT plan may look good on paper there is no chance it will work in practice."_
> 
> I was getting quite excited about the prospect of renewable energy supplying us with 100% renewables a while back, but then the more you research (and think about it) - it just doesn't stack up.
> 
> Although coal has thankfully been cast aside as the major supplier of our energy, it has left a huge hole which has been filled by natural gas. About 42% of our energy is now coming from gas. Better than coal, but still a vast contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. So, to get to 100% renewables, we have to take away gas and replace this with wind, solar, biomass (burning wood from trees) hydro etc.
> 
> In 2017, 23% of our energy also came from nuclear so add this to the 42% gas and 7% coal and you have 72% of our energy needs to find through renewables within 33 years to meet the 2050 deadline. Considering offshore wind is running out of space around our coastline we will have to build wind farms onshore on a massive scale and solar would have to be implemented on a scale that belies the fact that the UK is not blessed with sun or light throughout much of the year.
> 
> And then, to compound this problem, we will all be driving electric cars by 2040. 25 million cars at the moment on our roads will all be electric. We can attain a carbon free energy supply but this simply will not be possible with just 100% renewables and without nuclear.
> 
> This is an interesting fact. "For the past two decades, 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warheads"
> 
> Yes, the nuclear energy industry has actually made the world safer.
> 
> We can't use nuclear as a transition energy either - what an utter fallacy and waste of money that would be. It has to be our main provider of clean energy, surely.
> 
> Noushka - I've given some numbers in this post. Can you give some numbers to back up the 100% renewables claim. How many wind farms will we need, how many solar farms, how much hydro? When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining what will be preventing the hospitals from failing?


I find it seriously worrying that you reference a dubious blog to support your opinion Samuel. The blog offers a platform for notorious climate 'deniers' who spread misinformation on climate science. The authors of the blog _actually _praise UKIPs environmentally destructive energy manifesto in it . Good grief  Maybe its just me being cynical but I suspect the authors of this blog probably have vested interests in fossil fuel industry. With so many charlatans muddying the waters on climate change is crucial to seek out verifiedj sources.

http://euanmearns.com/the-ukip-energy-manifesto/
_UKIP offers a refreshing, uncompromising energy manifesto that is set apart from all the others. Like all the others UKIP promisses affordable, reliable and secure energy supplies. The difference is that UKIP's plan will deliver this while the others speak with a forked tongue. In summary, UKIP will:_


Repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act
Withdraw from the Paris Accord
Support a diverse energy mix based on fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewables
Support for shale gas while giving due respect to local opinion and environmental concerns
Removing VAT and Green taxes from electricity bills
_So what's not to like. I know that many will view the stance on the Climate Change Act and Paris accord with some disdain. The main issue I have with the other parties here is their committment to this legislation while also promissing cheap and relaible energy. Offshore wind is neither cheap nor reliable._

_My only points of issue with the UKIP manifesto is their support for solar which is a waste of money and energy in Scotland. And the swipe at the Utilities. British pension funds do need large profitable companies to invest in. Everyone in Britain who has pension provision that goes beyond the State Pension will benefit from the profits made by our untilities. I simply do not understand any political party wanting to undermine this prosperity. Apart from that, well done Mr Helmer
_

I'm not qualified to evaluate & neither are you. I haven't looked in depth into the numbers you ask for because I'm content to put my faith in real, genuine experts like Kevin Anderson, Professor Bob Watson et al who say its possible. I'm not going to argue with eminent experts who have devoted their entire careers looking at the realities of climate change & the solutions? I'm not an expert, I'm not so arrogant to believe *I* am better informed than they are. If _they_ say we need nuclear - fine. I'm for anything which will save the living planet I love. (And I'm glad my vote hasn't jeopardised our nuclear option, as someone so staunchly pro nuclear you must be feeling gutted about the prospect of leaving Euratom? If you had known about euratom prior to the vote would you still have voted to leave? ) From my own research based on trusted experts I believe we must focus on investing in the development of sustainable & clean energy sources, improving efficiency & storage capacity. And we must do it with the urgency of a world war situation - like our lives depend on it. Because millions upon millions of lives do, unstoppable, runaway climate breakdown, is just that - unstoppable. This isn't the time to be apathetic.

https://www.footprintnetwork.org/20...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer










NASA - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2442/power-play-envisioning-a-wind-water-and-solar-world/



samuelsmiles said:


> *UK enjoyed 'greenest year for electricity ever' in 2017
> 
> *
> "UK was reducing emissions faster than any other G7 country - which includes the US, Japan, Germany, Italy, France and Canada"


In spite of the government not because of it  Just think of the possibilities of what we could achieve if we had real political will?

Lets be clear the tories have cut taxes for the fossil fuel companies, they are going 'all out' for fracking & have deregulated the fracking industry (& would no doubt like to go even further), they have massively hiked taxes on solar, effectively banned onshore wind. I could go on - & on

Oh heres Carbon Briefs end of year review. I've just highlighted a few facts.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/2017-ca...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

In November, the IEA said cheap renewables will drive an inexorable shift from coal. It also scotched the idea that only coal can bring electricity to the world's poor, saying renewables will bring more people access to power.

Climate policy wonks in the UK spent most of 2017 waiting for the government's Clean Growth Strategy. *This was supposed to bridge the gap to meeting the UK's legally binding carbon targets*. When it arrived in early October, however, the quantified bits of the 165-page plan* left the UK significantly off track
*
While the UK power sector continues to cut its emissions,figures published in July showed progress onenergy efficiency, heat and transport is stalling.

Meanwhile, chancellor Philip Hammond had two chances to contribute to the climate agenda with a Spring Budget, delivered in March, and an Autumn Budget in November. *Instead, he announced more tax relief for the North Sea oil and gas sector* - which Carbon Brief had revealed in April to have recently become a net drain on the public finances.

The Autumn Budget put a freeze on further subsidies for low-carbon electricity, even after the latest auction in September showed offshore wind will soon be cheaper than new gas-fired power. (In October, innovative floating offshore wind turbines began generating power off Peterhead on Scotland's east coast).

Another much-anticipated report was Dieter Helm's review of the cost of energy in the UK. However, since it was published in October,* it has been kicked into the long grass.
*


----------



## noushka05

*We need to talk about consumption*

http://carbonomissions.org.uk/

(narrated by George Monbiot)


----------



## samuelsmiles

Noushka - in response to me asking you to give figures regarding the amount of wind and solar needed to run the UK you replied that _"I'm not qualified to evaluate & neither are you."_ So I've looked for some (more) figures myself. 

I'm comparing wind and nuclear here to give it some context.

The biggest onshore wind farm in the UK is Whitelee near Glasgow in Scotland. It has 215 turbines at the moment and generates 539MW of energy. It covers an area of 55 kilometers sq.

Then, for comparison, (and this is a very old nuclear technology built in the 60's and 80's) Sizewell A and B power stations produce 1600MW of energy and covers approximately 500 acres of land. That's 2 square kilometers in comparison to the 55 square kilometers needed by wind to produce a third of the energy.

Also bear in mind that all intermittent energy sources will require some form of backup in times of need. This back up energy will inevitably be some form of fossil fuel like coal or oil or gas.

Taking another of your statements (in response to me posting a link about 2017 being the greenest on record for the UK) - you said it was_ "In spite of the government not because of it  Just think of the possibilities of what we could achieve if we had real political will?_
Please tell me how either the Labour Party or, more especially the Greens, would improve this situation we have with _their _policies and their will.

The video by Monbiot? Well, there's really nothing too jaw dropping with his revelations, is there? The whole world is importing and exporting vastly more stuff nowadays - it's a worldwide problem, but an easy opportunity to attack our own current government. Hold the front page, George.

Noushka - we have a country of 65 million people packed into a small island with huge energy needs which ain't going to go away by promising fairy dust to run it, however nicey nice that sounds. We need something really big now.

We've moved on from being cold, to burning wood, to burning coal and to gas and we have to move forward to something new and transforming like new nuclear to get the carbon free and clean energy we are capable of getting. Unless you have a better idea (with hard facts and figures), of course.

Oh, and a Happy New Year.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Noushka - in response to me asking you to give figures regarding the amount of wind and solar needed to run the UK you replied that _"I'm not qualified to evaluate & neither are you."_ So I've looked for some (more) figures myself.
> 
> I'm comparing wind and nuclear here to give it some context.
> 
> The biggest onshore wind farm in the UK is Whitelee near Glasgow in Scotland. It has 215 turbines at the moment and generates 539MW of energy. It covers an area of 55 kilometers sq.
> 
> Then, for comparison, (and this is a very old nuclear technology built in the 60's and 80's) Sizewell A and B power stations produce 1600MW of energy and covers approximately 500 acres of land. That's 2 square kilometers in comparison to the 55 square kilometers needed by wind to produce a third of the energy.
> 
> Also bear in mind that all intermittent energy sources will require some form of backup in times of need. This back up energy will inevitably be some form of fossil fuel like coal or oil or gas.
> 
> Taking another of your statements (in response to me posting a link about 2017 being the greenest on record for the UK) - you said it was_ "In spite of the government not because of it  Just think of the possibilities of what we could achieve if we had real political will?_
> Please tell me how either the Labour Party or, more especially the Greens, would improve this situation we have with _their _policies and their will.
> 
> The video by Monbiot? Well, there's really nothing too jaw dropping with his revelations, is there? We've cut coal back to about 6% of the total energy we use so we are going to need gas to keep the country warm, lit, safe and running - duh. Hold the front page, George.
> 
> Noushka - we have a country of 65 million people packed into a small island with huge energy needs which ain't going to go away by promising fairy dust to run it, however nicey nice that sounds. We need something really big now.
> 
> We've moved on from being cold, to burning wood, to burning coal and to gas and we have to move forward to something new and transforming like new nuclear to get the carbon free and clean energy we are capable of getting. Unless you have a better idea (with hard facts and figures), of course.
> 
> Oh, and a Happy New Year.


I don't think I'm making myself understood, I'm sorry I'll try to clarify what I mean. _Time is not on our side_. If we don't take bold action to move away from our destructive economic model we are all screwed. How long have we been building Hinkley now? Hinkley has become a white elephant Samuel. Nuclear is expensive and slow to get up & running. The fact is its wishful thinking to believe nuclear is our saviour as time is not on our side - ecosystems which support life on earth (including ours) are already breaking down. You mock the video yet appear miss very point its making. The solution, according to leading experts like Kevin Anderson, is that we need to completely reform our economic model. It wont matter if we have 100% renewables or 100% nuclear unless we do that. We simply cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. We have to shift away from this destructive neoliberal economy & this why we have no hope of achieving this under a conservative government Samuel. Their ideology is never going to change. Of course our best hope would be a Green government - labour under Corbyn are listening but need to go much,much further. Labour cannot support the new runway for example, but labour aren't totally in the pockets of big business so could be pressured under Corbyn.

Kevin Anderson_: Cut the CO2 footprint of 10% of global population responsible for~50% of global CO2 to that of the average EU citizen=~30% cut in global CO2_

10% of the world are responsible for 50% of global emissions - that's us! As long as our economic model is driven by consumption & growth we will continue to outstrip resources & drive up emissions. We could still lead good lives consuming far less energy. Using less energy doesn't mean we will live in poverty. It just means removing ourselves from the current economic model which is driving all environmental problems - not just climate change. The Green Party understands this & labour are definitely moving in the right direction under Corbyn.

( are you aware nuclear cannot be turned off so the grid can't cope with too much nuc

*Is the Green Party a Single Issue Party? * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/darren-hall/green-party-policy_b_6761706.html

Rather than chasing endless growth for its own sake, we need to focus on the fact that we cannot divorce the economic system from human values and the health of the planet.

Ultimately we need to remember the current free market model of continual growth in GDP fueled by greed, has the potential to subject us to runaway climate change. If we don't have the foresight to recognize it in advance, we will soon be confronted with a world in which failing crop harvests, water shortage and other resources scarcities, combined with violent and unpredictable weather will force us to realize that the environment was never a separate issue. By the time this happens however it will be 40 years too late.

( are you aware nuclear cannot be turned off so the grid can't cope with too much nuclear by the way?)

I hope I've made myself clearer now? Thank you for your New year wishes - Happy New Year to you too. Hope you & yours have a goodun


----------



## noushka05

Is this the kind of world you want Samuel? An insight into the sociopathic mentality of the neocons. https://www.conservativehome.com/pl...the-ethics-of-adapting-to-climate-change.html










By Andrew Lilico

Along with many other economists, my view on global warming-associated climate change is that the world is most unlikely to be able to agree and coordinate globally, and then sustain for the centuries required, the growth-denying policies that would be needed if we were to limit human-induced global warming to any material effect beyond the limits that natural economic development will generate automatically via market forces.

Furthermore - again along with many other economists - I consider it very doubtful that, even if we could coordinate on policies that would materially limit climate change, the costs of doing so would be less than the benefits. Adaptation is almost certainly what, in practice, the world will do, almost certainly all it can do, and very probably what it would be economically best to do.

However, when making this case one commonly faces the objection that, regardless of whether adapting to climate change would be economically advantageous, it would be unethical not to make all the efforts we can to prevent or limit climate change. Certainly some adaptation will be required (the argument goes) and perhaps the pessimistic account of humanity's capacity for global coordination will prove right, but we must at least try. Not even to try would (it is said) be wrong, regardless of the economics.

That is the case I want to counter here. To lay my cards on the table from the start, I believe it to be completely wrong, from the bottom up.

To focus the discussion on the key ethical points, I shall take as given for our purposes here that human-induced climate change will be significant, absent material mitigation, and that adapting to climate change would be economically superior to attempting to prevent or mitigate it.

(I am of course aware that that each of those views is challenged in some quarters, but I don't want to replay either of those debates here. Instead, let's focus on the ethical argument that says if there will be significant climate change the economics don't matter.)

I identify four components to the ethical case for mitigating as much as we can, even if it is economically disadvantageous to do so, namely the claims that:


Humanity should seek to avoid having a transformative impact on the environment
It would be wrong to allow the deaths - perhaps even extinctions - of huge numbers of animals and plants
It is wrong to leave environmental damage for our children to clean up
The places in the world where adaptation would be most necessary are where people are least able to adapt
Let us take these in turn. First the claim that humans should seek to avoid having a transformative impact on the environment. That boat sailed thousands of years ago. Look across the English countryside with its green fields. It's virtually all a human-induced environment (and none the worse for that). Absent man's influence it would almost all be trees. Instead we have grass or crops or roads or hedges or stone walls or other human-created environments.

The same is true across that vast bulk of the earth where humans live. The ground is made by us. Similarly, much of the fauna is ours. Think of an enormously abundant large mammal, such as the American bison at its peak of some 30-100 million beasts. Then compare that to the 1.3 billion cattle or 24 billion chickens humans keep for their convenience.

Of the total mass of mammals, some 98 per cent or so are humans or human-used.

Obviously there are huge numbers of bacteria and insects and plankton and other creatures we do not so directly control. But the point remains that the earth - at least on the land - is a human-created environment moulded for our convenience - as is only right and proper. After all, the model attitude humans have adopted to the environment since ancient times was that of the steward of the Garden of Eden. Note that: a garden - a designed environment, not a wilderness.

Next, the question of whether it would be wrong to allow the deaths of huge numbers of plants and animals merely for our convenience. In a world of meat and leather and city-building and anti-biotic medicines the idea there is something unethical about allowing the deaths of large numbers of plants and animals simply for human convenience is a bit strained. But let's try to spice it up a bit by supposing climate change might lead to extinctions in the wild of many species.

(Obviously adaptation need not mean actual extinctions of any species we can identify and preserve samples or DNA of. That also means objections like "some animal that might go extinct might carry the cure to cancer" never really get off the ground even were they not so trivially countered by "some animal that might go extinct might otherwise have carried and communicated tomorrow's deadly plague".)

Mightn't extinctions in the wild be an important consideration?

Obviously I'm all in favour of avoiding hunting or driving creatures to extinction as a general principle. But I see that in aesthetic terms, as something related to the creatures we humans like (e.g. I have no great sorrow about smallpox becoming extinct in the wild but don't see why a rhino has any superior fundamental ethical claim to exist over a pox).

More generally, it is a classic policy error to believe one has stronger duties to preserve the things one can see today than to facilitate the things an alternative policy might create. That is well understood when it comes to companies or jobs or competition. We do not believe we should favour existing companies over new companies that might arise tomorrow.

Well, much the same applies to the environment. If the earth heats up by 4 degrees then many species that flourish at today's temperatures and weather patterns will cease to be best-suited and will die out to be replaced by current species that are better suited or new species that will evolve.

There is no reason at all for us to believe it ethical to favour the interests of today's creatures over the interests of tomorrow's other than some creatures being more convenient or interesting or useful for humans

Next the issue of leaving things to our children. First, our children will be unimaginably wealthier than we are, partly as a result of our innovations and infrastructure investments and capital accumulation. Our children will not be compensating us for our gifts to them other than by making the most of those gifts. Why should we be concerned if, alongside these huge gifts, they have a few challenges?

Perhaps they will never see the tropics as we can, but we shall never see the primordial forests of England as prehistoric man did. Do you feel your forebears let you down?

Last the claim that those that will need to adapt most are those least able to adapt. The idea here is that adaptation will be most required in poorer parts of the world. First we should note that, by the time folk in those "poorer" regions would be adapting, they are actually expected to be richer, per head, than those in today's "rich" regions. But, at least as importantly, the "adaptation" in question will be over an extended period.

Suppose that, in 150 years' time, climate change means the tropics have such frequent storms that almost no-one could live there. Why is that a problem? Almost no-one lives in Antarctica or the Sahara today. Is that a problem? If the tropics became uninhabitable overnight, that might require a significant and rapid movement of peoples. But if the great grandchildren of folk that today live in the tropics live instead in Canada or Russia why is that, per se, an ethical issue?

It's not "worse" living in Canada than in Haiti. It's merely "different". (And remember, whilst there might be a debate to be had about the costs of relocating the population of the tropics elsewhere, we are assuming throughout that adaptation is economically superior.)

The earth's environment is largely human-moulded on land already. Insofar as there are ethical considerations about changes to the environment (and there are indeed many such issues) they concern how changes to the environment reflect human tastes and needs and convenience.

If it is more convenient for humans that we allow significant climate change and adapt to it, there is nothing whatever unethical about our doing precisely that.


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Is this the kind of world you want Samuel? An insight into the sociopathic mentality of the neocons. https://www.conservativehome.com/pl...the-ethics-of-adapting-to-climate-change.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By Andrew Lilico
> 
> Along with many other economists, my view on global warming-associated climate change is that the world is most unlikely to be able to agree and coordinate globally, and then sustain for the centuries required, the growth-denying policies that would be needed if we were to limit human-induced global warming to any material effect beyond the limits that natural economic development will generate automatically via market forces.
> 
> Furthermore - again along with many other economists - I consider it very doubtful that, even if we could coordinate on policies that would materially limit climate change, the costs of doing so would be less than the benefits. Adaptation is almost certainly what, in practice, the world will do, almost certainly all it can do, and very probably what it would be economically best to do.
> 
> However, when making this case one commonly faces the objection that, regardless of whether adapting to climate change would be economically advantageous, it would be unethical not to make all the efforts we can to prevent or limit climate change. Certainly some adaptation will be required (the argument goes) and perhaps the pessimistic account of humanity's capacity for global coordination will prove right, but we must at least try. Not even to try would (it is said) be wrong, regardless of the economics.
> 
> That is the case I want to counter here. To lay my cards on the table from the start, I believe it to be completely wrong, from the bottom up.
> 
> To focus the discussion on the key ethical points, I shall take as given for our purposes here that human-induced climate change will be significant, absent material mitigation, and that adapting to climate change would be economically superior to attempting to prevent or mitigate it.
> 
> (I am of course aware that that each of those views is challenged in some quarters, but I don't want to replay either of those debates here. Instead, let's focus on the ethical argument that says if there will be significant climate change the economics don't matter.)
> 
> I identify four components to the ethical case for mitigating as much as we can, even if it is economically disadvantageous to do so, namely the claims that:
> 
> 
> Humanity should seek to avoid having a transformative impact on the environment
> It would be wrong to allow the deaths - perhaps even extinctions - of huge numbers of animals and plants
> It is wrong to leave environmental damage for our children to clean up
> The places in the world where adaptation would be most necessary are where people are least able to adapt
> Let us take these in turn. First the claim that humans should seek to avoid having a transformative impact on the environment. That boat sailed thousands of years ago. Look across the English countryside with its green fields. It's virtually all a human-induced environment (and none the worse for that). Absent man's influence it would almost all be trees. Instead we have grass or crops or roads or hedges or stone walls or other human-created environments.
> 
> The same is true across that vast bulk of the earth where humans live. The ground is made by us. Similarly, much of the fauna is ours. Think of an enormously abundant large mammal, such as the American bison at its peak of some 30-100 million beasts. Then compare that to the 1.3 billion cattle or 24 billion chickens humans keep for their convenience.
> 
> Of the total mass of mammals, some 98 per cent or so are humans or human-used.
> 
> Obviously there are huge numbers of bacteria and insects and plankton and other creatures we do not so directly control. But the point remains that the earth - at least on the land - is a human-created environment moulded for our convenience - as is only right and proper. After all, the model attitude humans have adopted to the environment since ancient times was that of the steward of the Garden of Eden. Note that: a garden - a designed environment, not a wilderness.
> 
> Next, the question of whether it would be wrong to allow the deaths of huge numbers of plants and animals merely for our convenience. In a world of meat and leather and city-building and anti-biotic medicines the idea there is something unethical about allowing the deaths of large numbers of plants and animals simply for human convenience is a bit strained. But let's try to spice it up a bit by supposing climate change might lead to extinctions in the wild of many species.
> 
> (Obviously adaptation need not mean actual extinctions of any species we can identify and preserve samples or DNA of. That also means objections like "some animal that might go extinct might carry the cure to cancer" never really get off the ground even were they not so trivially countered by "some animal that might go extinct might otherwise have carried and communicated tomorrow's deadly plague".)
> 
> Mightn't extinctions in the wild be an important consideration?
> 
> Obviously I'm all in favour of avoiding hunting or driving creatures to extinction as a general principle. But I see that in aesthetic terms, as something related to the creatures we humans like (e.g. I have no great sorrow about smallpox becoming extinct in the wild but don't see why a rhino has any superior fundamental ethical claim to exist over a pox).
> 
> More generally, it is a classic policy error to believe one has stronger duties to preserve the things one can see today than to facilitate the things an alternative policy might create. That is well understood when it comes to companies or jobs or competition. We do not believe we should favour existing companies over new companies that might arise tomorrow.
> 
> Well, much the same applies to the environment. If the earth heats up by 4 degrees then many species that flourish at today's temperatures and weather patterns will cease to be best-suited and will die out to be replaced by current species that are better suited or new species that will evolve.
> 
> There is no reason at all for us to believe it ethical to favour the interests of today's creatures over the interests of tomorrow's other than some creatures being more convenient or interesting or useful for humans
> 
> Next the issue of leaving things to our children. First, our children will be unimaginably wealthier than we are, partly as a result of our innovations and infrastructure investments and capital accumulation. Our children will not be compensating us for our gifts to them other than by making the most of those gifts. Why should we be concerned if, alongside these huge gifts, they have a few challenges?
> 
> Perhaps they will never see the tropics as we can, but we shall never see the primordial forests of England as prehistoric man did. Do you feel your forebears let you down?
> 
> Last the claim that those that will need to adapt most are those least able to adapt. The idea here is that adaptation will be most required in poorer parts of the world. First we should note that, by the time folk in those "poorer" regions would be adapting, they are actually expected to be richer, per head, than those in today's "rich" regions. But, at least as importantly, the "adaptation" in question will be over an extended period.
> 
> Suppose that, in 150 years' time, climate change means the tropics have such frequent storms that almost no-one could live there. Why is that a problem? Almost no-one lives in Antarctica or the Sahara today. Is that a problem? If the tropics became uninhabitable overnight, that might require a significant and rapid movement of peoples. But if the great grandchildren of folk that today live in the tropics live instead in Canada or Russia why is that, per se, an ethical issue?
> 
> It's not "worse" living in Canada than in Haiti. It's merely "different". (And remember, whilst there might be a debate to be had about the costs of relocating the population of the tropics elsewhere, we are assuming throughout that adaptation is economically superior.)
> 
> The earth's environment is largely human-moulded on land already. Insofar as there are ethical considerations about changes to the environment (and there are indeed many such issues) they concern how changes to the environment reflect human tastes and needs and convenience.
> 
> If it is more convenient for humans that we allow significant climate change and adapt to it, there is nothing whatever unethical about our doing precisely that.


Well, I am not a 'neocon', I am not 'far right', I hate the present state of consumerism as much as you, I have never voted Conservative in my life and I don't agree with what he has to say. So why you have posted this in response to my questioning the validity of 100% renewables powering the country I don't know?

I've said it previously - I was optimistic about the possibilities of this a while back but have now changed my mind. Yes, it is vital that we do something quickly to make things better, but my own thoughts at the moment are that it would be reckless to rely on governments and humans to alter their behaviour and simply cut back on their use of energy. The world could be made a better place with this technology - why waste the opportunity. Hey, with unlimited clean energy it could be put to use for other great things.

Is it reckless to believe that nuclear, a carbon free source of energy, can rid the world of all carbon emissions. Infact is the _only _way to rid the world of dangerous emissions?

One thimble full of uranium is enough to provide the energy for one person's whole lifetime. That's stunning and shouldn't be ignored, surely.

ps. Germany is closing down all of its nuclear power stations at the moment but just look at what they are digging up for their energy. An ancient forest.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Well, I am not a 'neocon', I am not 'far right', I hate the present state of consumerism as much as you, I have never voted Conservative in my life and I don't agree with what he has to say. So why you have posted this in response to my questioning the validity of 100% renewables powering the country I don't know?
> 
> I've said it previously - I was optimistic about the possibilities of this a while back but have now changed my mind. Yes, it is vital that we do something quickly to make things better, but my own thoughts at the moment are that it would be reckless to rely on governments and humans to alter their behaviour and simply cut back on their use of energy. The world could be made a better place with this technology - why waste the opportunity. Hey, with unlimited clean energy it could be put to use for other great things.
> 
> Is it reckless to believe that nuclear, a carbon free source of energy, can rid the world of all carbon emissions. Infact is the _only _way to rid the world of dangerous emissions?
> 
> One thimble full of uranium is enough to provide the energy for one person's whole lifetime. That's stunning and shouldn't be ignored, surely.
> 
> ps. Germany is closing down all of its nuclear power stations at the moment but just look at what they are digging up for their energy. An ancient forest.


Then help us hold this government to account & pressure them into real action Samual. I apologise if I offended you but I posted it because this is the vision of a party you seem to keep excusing. Lilico, Hannan, Rees Mogg, Fox, Johnson, May, Gove etc - they all share the same ideology. Lets put aside this focus on nuclear v renewables for the moment. We have already exceeded 1C of warming, science now says even 2C may be extremely dangerous - but our government are way off track to meet even that legally binding target. Yet they know we have no time left & a very narrow window of opportunity to act.

The only rational response to avert catastrophic climate breakdown is to listen to leading experts like Kevin Anderson - a tory government will never do that. The Green Party plan for climate change mitigation is comprehensive & science led. https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/cc.html

As it happens Kevin has retweeted this very timely podcast on his twitter feed.

Please listen to it - I think he answers your questions (and way better than I'm doing lol)

http://thesustainabilityagenda.com/episode-17-professor-kevin-anderson-climate-change-warning/

_
In this podcast, Kevin presents a stark vision of a world on the brink of catastrophic climate change-and argues that there is now no way to address this challenge without radical economic and social change. With a strong focus on the need for institutional change, Kevin draws attention to the urgent need to transform our energy infrastructure from a high- to zero-carbon over the coming decades. He weighs up various different policies to achieve this-and expresses strong concerns about overreliance on new technologies to deal with climate change (largely technologies that would remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere).

_
He has shared this too


----------



## noushka05

*James Murray*‏@*James_BG*  19h19 hours ago

_There's a point at which the 'it'd be more cost effective to adapt to climate change' crowd start to look quite silly_

https://www.theguardian.com/science...er-15c-or-quarter-of-planet-could-become-arid


----------



## noushka05

Huge well done to Sweden, leading the world on climate action. Swedish Green Party's Isabella Lovin is at the heart of this legislation. This is what we could be doing if only people cared enough about our planet & used their vote wisely to support a progressive party.

*Christian Christensen*‏Verified [email protected]*ChrChristensen*  Jan 3

_Sweden's Climate Act -- the most ambitious in the world with net zero emissions by 2045
-- went into effect on January 1, 2018.

_









*Swedish MFA*‏Verified [email protected]*SweMFA* Jan 1

Sweden's new Climate Act enters into force today, 1 January. For the first time, Sweden will have an act stating that each government has an obligation to pursue a climate policy based on the climate goals adopted by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament).


----------



## kimthecat

Micro beads banned in the UK yay!


----------



## samuelsmiles

I've watched a couple of presentations Kevin Anderson did last year and he certainly believes we are on the verge of catastrophe, doesn't he?

I would be really pessimistic if we tried to do things how he suggests, however, because the disruption he is talking about just doesn't seem plausible. I don't think people will accept less of anything that we have already. The freedom to travel long distances when we want, to keep ourselves warm, to cool our houses when we are too hot ,to race cars for sport. But he's saying we have gone too far now and must pay amends immediately, and we must feel guilty about what we have created.

In one of his presentations he said that _"if the climate reaches 2.0c many people will die and it will be the poor non white emitters who suffer. We've never cared about them before."_ He went on to say " _maybe the answer to climate change would be to arm all the poor countries._" He did, of course, then explain that this was a joke. (It didn't get a laugh) This, believe it or not, was addressed to a university, so he's also peddling his political views to students which doesn't feel right. He really does have a downer on those (us) who have created what we have now.

But what we have created has been amazing. Pretty much everyone in the UK and the developed world now lives in great comfort, if not luxury, and wants for nothing. 100 years ago and less we were burning coal at an alarming rate - every house being heated this way and the pollution was so great that people were dying from the poisonous atmosphere. Smog and stuff. It must have been appalling.

We have, thankfully, moved on in leaps and bounds to clean the air up with the available technology we have (the electrification of our houses for example), but now, we face different problems through sheer growth of the economy. The UK's population density is also a huge problem to get energy to us all with little impact to the environment - the Greens and Labour, both, will find this out if and when they get in to power. And it is unfair to compare us, like by like, with other countries that have vastly superior natural resources for renewables. The country you are now quoting as the beacon of light is Sweden. That's fine and their new Climate Act is wonderful, but in comparison the population of Sweden is roughly equivalent to that of London. But we _are _on track to remove coal from our energy mix by 2025. I think, for a country with our energy demands, that is a damn good achievement.

He's not really too keen on nuclear energy either is he? Noushka, it's also ironic that at the moment in the US they are having a period of a record deep freeze that, if we didn't have nuclear, coal, gas and oil power stations people would have died of the cold. Renewables like wind, solar, hydro, biomass etc on their own simply would not be sufficient to enable the country to survive.

I just don't think that the extreme alarmism that Anderson talks about is helpful. For example this article appeared in the Guardian 114 months ago telling us we had 100 Months to Save the World. 

One of the experts that I have been reading to get a lot of my factual information from, the late David MacKay, published this interesting e-book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air which has some fascinating facts in. He made the comment - "It's time to stop shouting, and start talking." I agree with that, and wouldn't it be a good start if the 14,000 climate scientists and academics, including Anderson, who attended the Paris Agreement Conference set an example by walking there instead of flying. "Do as I do, not as I say."

Just some of my rambling thoughts. I think we are doing ok for a country with such high energy demands, such a high population and the resources we have for renewables.

*UK hits clean energy milestone: 50% of electricity from low carbon sources*
eta - Just to back up what I was saying about climate scientists being some of the worst offenders for carbon emissions, the Tyndall Centre employees, of which Kevin Anderson is one, fly 2.3 times per year, compared to the UK average of 0.5. They also state that one of the reasons they go to climate conferences, is to travel to foreign countries. Gotta hand it to them - they don't try to hide it, it's right here (below link) for all to see.

In Table 1 of the report it gives the benefits of research interactions. I have amended this in an abridged version.

Advantages of online alternatives - Not hypocritical
Advantages of physical attendance - Hypocritical

Towards a culture of low - carbon research for the 21st Century


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I've watched a couple of presentations Kevin Anderson did last year and he certainly believes we are on the verge of catastrophe, doesn't he?
> 
> I would be really pessimistic if we tried to do things how he suggests, however, because the disruption he is talking about just doesn't seem plausible. I don't think people will accept less of anything that we have already. The freedom to travel long distances when we want, to keep ourselves warm, to cool our houses when we are too hot ,to race cars for sport. But he's saying we have gone too far now and must pay amends immediately, and we must feel guilty about what we have created.
> 
> In one of his presentations he said that _"if the climate reaches 2.0c many people will die and it will be the poor non white emitters who suffer. We've never cared about them before."_ He went on to say " _maybe the answer to climate change would be to arm all the poor countries._" He did, of course, then explain that this was a joke. (It didn't get a laugh) This, believe it or not, was addressed to a university, so he's also peddling his political views to students which doesn't feel right. He really does have a downer on those (us) who have created what we have now.
> 
> But what we have created has been amazing. Pretty much everyone in the UK and the developed world now lives in great comfort, if not luxury, and wants for nothing. 100 years ago and less we were burning coal at an alarming rate - every house being heated this way and the pollution was so great that people were dying from the poisonous atmosphere. Smog and stuff. It must have been appalling.
> 
> We have, thankfully, moved on in leaps and bounds to clean the air up with the available technology we have (the electrification of our houses for example), but now, we face different problems through sheer growth of the economy. The UK's population density is also a huge problem to get energy to us all with little impact to the environment - the Greens and Labour, both, will find this out if and when they get in to power. And it is unfair to compare us, like by like, with other countries that have vastly superior natural resources for renewables. The country you are now quoting as the beacon of light is Sweden. That's fine and their new Climate Act is wonderful, but in comparison the population of Sweden is roughly equivalent to that of London. But we _are _on track to remove coal from our energy mix by 2025. I think, for a country with our energy demands, that is a damn good achievement.
> 
> He's not really too keen on nuclear energy either is he? Noushka, it's also ironic that at the moment in the US they are having a period of a record deep freeze that, if we didn't have coal, gas and oil power stations people would have died of the cold. Renewables like wind, solar, hydro, biomass etc on their own simply would not be sufficient to enable the country to survive.
> 
> I just don't think that the extreme alarmism that Anderson talks about is helpful. For example this article appeared in the Guardian 114 months ago telling us we had 100 Months to Save the World.
> 
> One of the experts that I have been reading to get a lot of my factual information from, the late David MacKay, published this interesting e-book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air which has some fascinating facts in. He made the comment - "It's time to stop shouting, and start talking." I agree with that, and wouldn't it be a good start if the 14,000 climate scientists and academics, including Anderson, who attended the Paris Agreement Conference set an example by walking there instead of flying. "Do as I do, not as I say."
> 
> Just some of my rambling thoughts. I think we are doing ok for a country with such high energy demands, such a high population and the resources we have for renewables.
> 
> *UK hits clean energy milestone: 50% of electricity from low carbon sources*
> eta - Just to back up what I was saying about climate scientists being some of the worst offenders for carbon emissions, the Tyndall Centre employees, of which Kevin Anderson is one, fly 2.3 times per year, compared to the UK average of 0.5. They also state that one of the reasons they go to climate conferences, is to travel to foreign countries. Gotta hand it to them - they don't try to hide it, it's right here (below link) for all to see.
> 
> Towards a culture of low - carbon research for the 21st Century


.Ahh spoken like a true capitalist 

By trying to discredit one of the worlds leading climate scientists you simply discredit yourself. Its evidently clear from this & previous posts that your agenda is to attempt to discredit those who's message you don't want to be heard. .

Kevin Anderson is a leading climate scientist - one of the worlds leading experts on emissions - perhaps _the _leading expert. He hasn't flown for many years as I have actually mentioned previously on your thread.



noushka05 said:


> Kevin refuses to fly, he believes its important to demonstrate we can live good lives without having very high carbon footprints. He travelled to the UN Climate Summit in Paris buy boat & train for example. As he says although the emissions of one individual aren't very important its a symbolic message he's sending by not flying.


He says hes agnostic about nuclear because time is a luxury we quite simply do not have. We must act now to reduce our greedy over consumption ( which is quite possible if the greedy 10% were forced to change their ways & governments put climate at the forefront of policy making) As I said before its wishful thinking to believe nuclear is the magic solution to all our problems when it is so slow to get up & running. Taken from the link below -

*Time 
MacKay made no allowance for the time dimension. He just divided the power of a wind farm or power station by its area. This fails to consider that the nuclear power station took at least 10 years to build before its ~40 year generating lifespan, followed by a ~100 year decommissioning period. In contrast, the wind turbines are generating within months of build commencing and decommission can be similarly swift. This results in the nuclear power station using up the land for around three times longer than the period of time it is generating for, which effectively reduces its power per unit area by a factor of three.*

So despite ecosystems breaking down before our eyes & extreme weather events becoming more & more frequent you refuse to accept we're on the verge of catastrophe? Anyone who isn't 'alarmed' by climate change is completely ignorant of the facts and the impacts it brings & our own reliance on the natural world to survive. The scientific consensus is clear, we are heading for catastrophic climate breakdown if we don't make drastic changes to the way we live. This can only be achieved through bold government policy - like Swedens - under our current government we are way of course to hit even the legally binding target of 2C pre industrial.

We live in an extremely selfish society as your reaction to Kevin Andersons strategy clearly demonstrates, you don't want your lifestyle affected even though this is the greatest crisis we have ever faced. Runaway climate change will wipe out hundreds of millions of people and lifeforms. Food chains will collapse, the world we know gone forever. It will kill far more than the great wars when people were asked, not to sacrifice their holidays abroad , their fast cars & consumption habits - but their lives!

Its good to see you finally reference someone with credibility though. David Mackay was also vocal about our need to reduce our consumption. David was highly respected across the board, from Kevin Anderson to George Monbiot . His opinion on nuclear has been challenged by other academics - this is an interesting. You should read it. http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2011/10/a-...udges-the-figures-in-favour-of-nuclear-power/

As you brought up air pollution I thought you'd be Interested in these facts.

.
*Air pollution kills more people in the UK than in Sweden, US and Mexico *

WHO figures show people in Britain are more likely to die from dirty air than those living in some other comparable countries

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...than-in-sweden-us-and-mexico?CMP=share_btn_tw

*Keith Taylor MEP*‏Verified [email protected]*GreenKeithMEP*  1 Dec 2017

_UK government being dragged screaming to tackle air pollution by @ClientEarth thanks to EU law -
Brexit is looking toxic!_

*UK government 'being dragged screaming' to tackle air pollution*

MPs say ministers are showing no confidence in tackling the illegal levels of air pollution that prematurely *kill *an estimated *40,000* people a year

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ming-to-tackle-air-pollution?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ming-to-tackle-air-pollution?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## samuelsmiles

_


noushka05 said:



.Ahh spoken like a true capitalist 

By trying to discredit one of the worlds leading climate scientists you simply discredit yourself. Its evidently clear from this & previous posts that your agenda is to attempt to discredit those who's message you don't want to be heard. .

Kevin Anderson is a leading climate scientist - one of the worlds leading experts on emissions - perhaps the leading expert. He hasn't flown for many years as I have actually mentioned previously on your thread.

He says hes agnostic about nuclear because time is a luxury we quite simply do not have. We must act now to reduce our greedy over consumption ( which is quite possible if the greedy 10% were forced to change their ways & governments put climate at the forefront of policy making) As I said before its wishful thinking to believe nuclear is the magic solution to all our problems when it is so slow to get up & running. Taken from the link below -

*Time 
MacKay made no allowance for the time dimension. He just divided the power of a wind farm or power station by its area. This fails to consider that the nuclear power station took at least 10 years to build before its ~40 year generating lifespan, followed by a ~100 year decommissioning period. In contrast, the wind turbines are generating within months of build commencing and decommission can be similarly swift. This results in the nuclear power station using up the land for around three times longer than the period of time it is generating for, which effectively reduces its power per unit area by a factor of three.*

So despite ecosystems breaking down before our eyes & extreme weather events becoming more & more frequent you refuse to accept we're on the verge of catastrophe? Anyone who isn't 'alarmed' by climate change is completely ignorant of the facts and the impacts it brings & our own reliance on the natural world to survive. The scientific consensus is clear, we are heading for catastrophic climate breakdown if we don't make drastic changes to the way we live. This can only be achieved through bold government policy - like Swedens - under our current government we are way of course to hit even the legally binding target of 2C pre industrial.

We live in an extremely selfish society as your reaction to Kevin Andersons strategy clearly demonstrates, you don't want your lifestyle affected even though this is the greatest crisis we have ever faced. Runaway climate change will wipe out hundreds of millions of people and lifeforms. Food chains will collapse, the world we know gone forever. It will kill far more than the great wars when people were asked, not to sacrifice their holidays abroad , their fast cars & consumption habits - but their lives!

Its good to see you finally reference someone with credibility though. David Mackay was also vocal about our need to reduce our consumption. David was highly respected across the board, from Kevin Anderson to George Monbiot . His opinion on nuclear has been challenged by other academics - this is an interesting. You should read it. http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2011/10/a-...udges-the-figures-in-favour-of-nuclear-power/

As you brought up air pollution I thought you'd be Interested in these facts.

.
*Air pollution kills more people in the UK than in Sweden, US and Mexico *

WHO figures show people in Britain are more likely to die from dirty air than those living in some other comparable countries

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...than-in-sweden-us-and-mexico?CMP=share_btn_tw

*Keith Taylor MEP*‏Verified [email protected]*GreenKeithMEP*  1 Dec 2017

UK government being dragged screaming to tackle air pollution by @ClientEarth thanks to EU law -
Brexit is looking toxic!

*UK government 'being dragged screaming' to tackle air pollution*

MPs say ministers are showing no confidence in tacklihttps://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=vcIKWp_ON-WGgAbikrmQBQng the illegal levels of air pollution that prematurely *kill *an estimated *40,000* people a year

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ming-to-tackle-air-pollution?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ming-to-tackle-air-pollution?CMP=share_btn_tw

Click to expand...

_
Lots to get stuck into here, Noushka_. _Just for now though, (no time and little energy.)

I'm not a true capitalist by the way - I'm a realist._  _If we are on the verge of a climate catastrophe and we need to do something drastic quickly, I genuinely believe finding the most efficient clean energy source through technology (which would be nuclear right now) as opposed to fundamentally changing society 'Marshall style' is a more realistic way forward. That does not make me a capitalist, a conservative, a climate change denier, alt right, hard right, a neo-con or a neo anything. It is my belief.

You have included a link from the Guardian saying that Sweden and Mexico have lower mortality rates than the UK from air pollution. Why is this? For Mexico it's certainly not because of a clean energy policy. Maybe it's because it has a population density of 65 people per square kilometre compared to the UK's 420? And Sweden_? _mmmm, let's see - just 22 per square kilometre_. _Good, so we can discount that silly analogy. Surely, with these figures, both of these countries should already be CO2 neutral and running on 100% renewables?

Can I go back to the problem the US has just had though. Days of record breaking freezing weather? I'm not one to look at that and use it as a point to deny climate warming, but please can you just explain to me how you would keep those millions of people warm and alive with just (intermittent) renewables. Solar energy would be like p1ssing in the wind it would be so useless. And then the wind drops off, and then the giant new batteries run out of energy, and then....and then what. Oh yes - the back-up supplies are switched on. Coal and gas. And up go CO2 emissions as is happening now in Germany and China.

I'll put this here again. I think it's a hell of a good achievement considering the energy demands of our country.

UK hits clean energy milestone: 50% of electricity from low carbon sources

_

_


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> _
> _
> Lots to get stuck into here, Noushka_. _Just for now though, (no time and little energy.)
> 
> I'm not a true capitalist by the way - I'm a realist._  _If we are on the verge of a climate catastrophe and we need to do something drastic quickly, I genuinely believe finding the most efficient clean energy source through technology (which would be nuclear right now) as opposed to fundamentally changing society 'Marshall style' is a more realistic way forward. That does not make me a capitalist, a conservative, a climate change denier, alt right, hard right, a neo-con or a neo anything. It is my belief.
> 
> You have included a link from the Guardian saying that Sweden and Mexico have lower mortality rates than the UK from air pollution. Why is this? For Mexico it's certainly not because of a clean energy policy. Maybe it's because it has a population density of 65 people per square kilometre compared to the UK's 420? And Sweden_? _mmmm, let's see - just 22 per square kilometre_. _Good, so we can discount that silly analogy. Surely, with these figures, both of these countries should already be CO2 neutral and running on 100% renewables?
> 
> Can I go back to the problem the US has just had though. Days of record breaking freezing weather? I'm not one to look at that and use it as a point to deny climate warming, but please can you just explain to me how you would keep those millions of people warm and alive with just (intermittent) renewables. Solar energy would be like p1ssing in the wind it would be so useless. And then the wind drops off, and then the giant new batteries run out of energy, and then....and then what. Oh yes - the back-up supplies are switched on. Coal and gas. And up go CO2 emissions as is happening now in Germany and China.
> 
> I'll put this here again. I think it's a hell of a good achievement considering the energy demands of our country.
> 
> UK hits clean energy milestone: 50% of electricity from low carbon sources
> 
> _
> 
> _


Clearly not very realistic if you think we can carry on consuming the way we are on this finite planet of ours. We _are_ on the verge of catastrophe - what I can't seem to make you understand is that if we don't act now to reduce our consumption it will be too late. We're already at the tipping point for runaway climate change. You do know what that means? What makes you think we have the time to build a nuclear powered energy system when experts are telling us we need to act now? And id we could build one 'just like that!' how would that solve the problem of our consumer driven economy?

You're passing the book again & letting the govt off the hook as per, you're as blinkered about population as you are nuclear. The government are responsible for thousands of deaths due to air pollution - they could solve the problem if they had the will to do so.
You brought the subject up as though it was air pollution was a thing of the past yet due to our reliance on diesel its still killing tens of thousands of people today. https://green-budget.eu/tax-diesel-cars-based-on-air-pollution/

The Tory Times -










https://www.desmog.uk/2018/01/02/here-s-what-look-out-climate-change-2018

*Here's What to Look Out For on Climate Change in 2018*

_As 2017 came to a close, warnings of the catastrophic impact of climate change intensified. Devastating floods and hurricanes have highlighted the vulnerability of some communities around the world and the rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmospheres shows efforts to tackle climate change urgently need to be ramped up._

_In the UK, ongoing Brexit negotiations have brought no more certainty on the future of environmental regulation, while the government continues to support new and old fossil fuels industries._

_Here are some key events to look out for in 2018_.

*Brexit ......................*

*Fracking.....................*

*Air pollution court cases.............*

*1.5 degrees...............*

*COP24...............
*


----------



## samuelsmiles

What makes me think we have time to build the clean, non polluting nuclear energy power stations? Well it's our only option if we want to reduce emissions quickly and keep the country running.

Apparently we were at "the tipping point" 114 months ago. Did you read the Guardian article I linked? It stated we had 100 Months to Save the World. I would say that was 'alarmist.'

You didn't explain how the US would have sufficient energy in times of great need. Demand for energy would be so great from hospitals, the electric cars, emergency transport, schools etc etc etc?

I really don't think you're listening to me Noushka. Intermittent renewables. Will. Not. Be. Enough.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Just to confirm my earlier statement that intermittent renewables will _never be sufficient. _There is almost no wind tonight (2.2%) and, of course there is (now) 0% solar. Today we are importing nuclear energy from France and burning more coal_. _

Electricity at 3:00pm: gas 53.8%, nuclear 17.3%, coal 15.2%, imports 6.8%, wind 2.2%, biomass 1.6%, solar 1.5%, storage 0.9%, hydro 0.5%, national demand 42.9 GW


----------



## samuelsmiles

Wind has now dropped to 1.6% of our energy supply and to compensate for this, coal has risen to 17.8%. And that, my friends, is how intermittent renewables affects our grid.

GB electricity 8PM: wind 1.6% coal 17.8% nuclear 16.7% gas 54.0% hydro 1.1% import 6.5% solar 0.0% biomass 1.5% storage 0.6% other 0.2%. Carbon intensity = 418gCO2/kWh


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> What makes me think we have time to build the clean, non polluting nuclear energy power stations? Well it's our only option if we want to reduce emissions quickly and keep the country running.
> 
> Apparently we were at "the tipping point" 114 months ago. Did you read the Guardian article I linked? It stated we had 100 Months to Save the World. I would say that was 'alarmist.'
> 
> You didn't explain how the US would have sufficient energy in times of great need. Demand for energy would be so great from hospitals, the electric cars, emergency transport, schools etc etc etc?
> 
> I really don't think you're listening to me Noushka. Intermittent renewables. Will. Not. Be. Enough.


Its not the only option as I have clearly explained. This is how we save the planet - only you don't think its worth curbing your lifestyle to do so.










I've just had a read that excellent Guardian article by Andrew Simms. I hadn't seen it before so thank you 

It appears you believe science does exact predictions like a fortune teller?:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious We don't know at what _precise _point dangerous unstoppable climate breakdown will occur. When it does (just as your article states), it will release feedback loops, which lead to more warming because of the release of stored methane & so on, which will drive further warming regardless of whether we reduce our carbon emissions. Which is why it is crucial we don't reach that point. We've already passed 1C of warming scientists are warning us we must stay below 1.5 degrees.

So we are close to tipping point whether you choose to believe it or not.

*Stephen Hawking: We Are Close to the Tipping Point Where Global Warming Becomes Irreversible
*
https://futurism.com/stephen-hawkin...nt-where-global-warming-becomes-irreversible/

_We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible," the celebrated scientist told Pallab Ghosh from the BBC. The consequences, he explained, would be truly dire for the planet. "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid."
_
I'm afraid your language is that of a denier Samuel. Many deniers accept climate change is real & human driven but reject mainstream scientific opinion. Labelling respected climate scientists 'alarmists' is a typical ploy used by deniers. Anyone not 'alarmed' by the looming catastrophe staring us in the face is either wilfully ignorant or is totally uninformed.


----------



## noushka05

I think its time to share these again.


----------



## samuelsmiles

I find it laughable that you accuse me of being a climate change denier. I've taken the time to look for cold hard (undeniable) facts over the last few months with an _open mind - n_ot to blindly look for stuff to reinforce whatever preconceptions I had previously.

It must be very hard for you, as a Green Party supporter, to look at these figures I'm showing you and realise that by denying the absolute importance of being 'progressive' and positively employing the cleanest energy we know you will be encouraging an increase in fossil fuels.

I did contact Lucas, Scott Cato and Anderson to show them these figures but, strangely I didn't get a reply.

Go ahead - keep shouting with your big memes. Keep shouting and nobody will listen.

6.00am figures - 
Nuclear steady
Wind not blowing
Sun not out of bed, yet

GB electricity, 4AM wind 2.4% coal 5.7% nuclear 25.8% gas 50.5% hydro 0.4% import 12.5% solar 0.0% biomass 2.4% storage 0.0% other 0.3%. Total Demand is 30GW

8.00am figures
Wind down yet more
Solar still at 0%

GB electricity, 8AM wind 1.7% coal 12.5% nuclear 17.6% gas 58.1% hydro 0.5% import 6.5% solar 0.0% biomass 1.6% storage 1.2% other 0.2%. Total Demand is 44GW


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I find it laughable that you accuse me of being a climate change denier. I've taken the time to look for cold hard (undeniable) facts over the last few months with an _open mind - n_ot to blindly look for stuff to reinforce whatever preconceptions I had previously.
> 
> It must be very hard for you, as a Green Party supporter, to look at these figures I'm showing you and realise that by denying the absolute importance of being 'progressive' and positively employing the cleanest energy we know you will be encouraging an increase in fossil fuels.
> 
> I did contact Lucas, Scott Cato and Anderson to show them these figures but, strangely I didn't get a reply.
> 
> Go ahead - keep shouting with your big memes. Keep shouting and nobody will listen
> 
> GB electricity, 4AM wind 2.4% coal 5.7% nuclear 25.8% gas 50.5% hydro 0.4% import 12.5% solar 0.0% biomass 2.4% storage 0.0% other 0.3%. Total Demand is 30GW


What is beyond laughable is that you actually believe you have a better insight into what is required to save ourselves than the worlds leading climate scientists:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I find it laughable that you accuse me of being a climate change denier. I've taken the time to look for cold hard (undeniable) facts over the last few months with an _open mind - n_ot to blindly look for stuff to reinforce whatever preconceptions I had previously.
> 
> It must be very hard for you, as a Green Party supporter, to look at these figures I'm showing you and realise that by denying the absolute importance of being 'progressive' and positively employing the cleanest energy we know you will be encouraging an increase in fossil fuels.
> 
> I did contact Lucas, Scott Cato and Anderson to show them these figures but, strangely I didn't get a reply.
> 
> Go ahead - keep shouting with your big memes. Keep shouting and nobody will listen.
> 
> 6.00am figures -
> Nuclear steady
> Wind not blowing
> Sun not out of bed, yet
> 
> GB electricity, 4AM wind 2.4% coal 5.7% nuclear 25.8% gas 50.5% hydro 0.4% import 12.5% solar 0.0% biomass 2.4% storage 0.0% other 0.3%. Total Demand is 30GW
> 
> 8.00am figures
> Wind down yet more
> Solar still at 0%
> 
> GB electricity, 8AM wind 1.7% coal 12.5% nuclear 17.6% gas 58.1% hydro 0.5% import 6.5% solar 0.0% biomass 1.6% storage 1.2% other 0.2%. Total Demand is 44GW


But you don't have an open mind. You are blinkered into believing nuclear is our saviour when I keep trying to explain we have to act NOW to reduce our emissions. We need to change our economic model. Do you honestly think we can have infinite growth on a finite planet? Neoliberalism(Thatcherism in this country) is a scorched earth ideology Samual.

Not as hard as it must be for you as a leave voter


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I've watched a couple of presentations Kevin Anderson did last year and he certainly believes we are on the verge of catastrophe, doesn't he?
> 
> I just don't think that the extreme alarmism that Anderson talks about is helpful. For example this article appeared in the Guardian 114 months ago telling us we had 100 Months to Save the World.





samuelsmiles said:


> .
> 
> Apparently we were at "the tipping point" 114 months ago. Did you read the Guardian article I linked? It stated we had 100 Months to Save the World. I would say that was 'alarmist.'
> .


Well, well well. Look what I found on the GWPF denier blog an article by infamous climate denier Christopher Booker. This may be nothing more than a coincidence & you may not have seen it before but you & he are singing from the same hymn sheet

https://www.thegwpf.com/the-guardians-100-months-to-save-the-planet-was-always-just-bunk/
_100 months ago, The Guardian proclaimed that we have only "100 months" left to save the world from "irreversible climate change": soaring temperatures, melting ice caps, dangerously rising sea levels, more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and all the other familiar harbingers of catastrophe. Now those "100 months" are up and not one of these predictions has come true.
_

Would you say Stephen Hawking was an 'alarmist'? Do you think he is far better position to evaluate than us laymen are Samuel?

.
.

,


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> *But you don't have an open mind. You are blinkered into believing nuclear is our saviour* when I keep trying to explain we have to act NOW to reduce our emissions. We need to change our economic model. Do you honestly think we can have infinite growth on a finite planet? Neoliberalism(Thatcherism in this country) is a scorched earth ideology Samual.


I'd say, roughly six months ago, my thinking was that wind and solar _would _be our saviour. Then the nuclear option popped up along the way and it's advocates were strongly pointing to the fact that the intermittency of renewables would make it unviable to any large degree. (I do believe we need mix of energy, so some wind and solar would be of use in certain places) So I started researching energy.

I've been watching the UK grid power demand figures for weeks now and I have to say I was beginning to doubt that the nuclear advocates were anything more than climate sceptics. Wind energy in the UK was hovering around 15% to 25%. mmm, I thought, that's impressive - maybe if we just increase the number of turbines and solar farms by 75% it would be enough.

Yesterday, however, confirmed that the nuclear advocates are absolutely correct. Wind energy dropped suddenly to under 2% at times and solar was maxing at around 3.5%. And you think, blimey, what would happen if that went on for days and coincided with a few weeks of extreme cold weather. Now that truly would be a catastrophe.

Now, we are using 50% gas, a fossil fuel, so I'm assuming you also want that to go? Coal around 5%-15% will be cut from the energy mix in 2025 so we are looking at a massive void to fill. And this is even before we go all electric with our millions of cars in a bid to remove diesel and petrol. That is another massive square to circle.

Am I closed minded to have changed my mind after looking at all evidence available to me? Am I closed minded because I question you and _your _experts? Am I closed minded because I stopped eating meat a couple months back after reading sh1t and stuff on this forum?

Yeah - I'm open minded, ta.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> I'd say, roughly six months ago, my thinking was that wind and solar _would _be our saviour. Then the nuclear option popped up along the way and it's advocates were strongly pointing to the fact that the intermittency of renewables would make it unviable to any large degree. (I do believe we need mix of energy, so some wind and solar would be of use in certain places) So I started researching energy.
> 
> I've been watching the UK grid power demand figures for weeks now and I have to say I was beginning to doubt that the nuclear advocates were anything more than climate sceptics. Wind energy in the UK was hovering around 15% to 25%. mmm, I thought, that's impressive - maybe if we just increase the number of turbines and solar farms by 75% it would be enough.
> 
> Yesterday, however, confirmed that the nuclear advocates are absolutely correct. Wind energy dropped suddenly to under 2% at times and solar was maxing at around 3.5%. And you think, blimey, what would happen if that went on for days and coincided with a few weeks of extreme cold weather. Now that truly would be a catastrophe.
> 
> Now, we are using 50% gas, a fossil fuel, so I'm assuming you also want that to go? Coal around 5%-15% will be cut from the energy mix in 2025 so we are looking at a massive void to fill. And this is even before we go all electric with our millions of cars in a bid to remove diesel and petrol. That is another massive square to circle.
> 
> Am I closed minded to have changed my mind after looking at all evidence available to me? Am I closed minded because I question you and _your _experts? Am I closed minded because I stopped eating meat a couple months back after reading sh1t and stuff on this forum?
> 
> Yeah - I'm open minded, ta.


If you believe nuclear is the magic bullet that will stop us going over the tipping point when it quite clearly won't - I'm afraid you are closed minded, yes. If you think Kevin Anderson et al is an 'alarmist' - you clearly are a climate denier. Not addressing our consumption while depending on nuclear to get up and running is like kicking the ball down the street. I can't seem to get through to you that WE DONT HAVE TIME. If we don't take urgent & bold action to cut our emissions NOW it is going to be too late. Its as simple as that. And that's what you don't want to hear so you seek to discredit those who know better than we do. My experts are the worlds leading experts - yours range from 'ecomodernists' to out & out climate deniers. Oh & one real expert.

Do you really think you're better placed to evaluate the evidence then perhaps _the_ smartest man on the planet Samuel? Really?

I like how you keep ignoring the elephant in your room - Euratom. We may not have a nuclear option soon. What then? Will you fixate on something else or will you listen to the consensual position of the leading experts?

.This is the strategy set out by Kevin Anderson. We could save our living planet but soon it will be too late.


----------



## noushka05

Pro nuclear brexiteers must feel like they've shot themselves in the foot. Have you bothered to challenged the government over this Samuel?
*
Brexit and Euratom: Impact on Cancer treatment, nuclear power plants and climate change.
*
http://vip.politicsmeanspolitics.co...change/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## samuelsmiles

Ok. Let's do it the Green's way and yours. No nuclear. Bad nuclear has to go.

The magnitude of the problem is so great we have to act, starting tomorrow with the Greens at the helm. 

Just a reminder - we have wind supplying us with 1.1% of our energy needs and solar 3.3%. That is all we have today.

Precisely, with actual figures (as I have been giving all the way through this thread) where are the energy savings coming from?

12.00pm.

GB electricity, noon: wind 1.1% coal 14.4% nuclear 15.7% gas 56.0% hydro 0.6% import 6.4% #solar 3.3% biomass 1.5% storage 1.0% other 0.2%. Carbon intensity = 400gCO2/kWh


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Ok. Let's do it the Green's way and yours. No nuclear. Bad nuclear has to go.
> 
> The magnitude of the problem is so great we have to act, starting tomorrow with the Greens at the helm.
> 
> Just a reminder - we have wind supplying us with 1.1% of our energy needs and solar 3.3%. That is all we have today.
> 
> Precisely, with actual figures (as I have been giving all the way through this thread) where are the energy savings coming from?
> 
> 12.00pm.
> 
> GB electricity, noon: wind 1.1% coal 14.4% nuclear 15.7% gas 56.0% hydro 0.6% import 6.4% #solar 3.3% biomass 1.5% storage 1.0% other 0.2%. Carbon intensity = 400gCO2/kWh


Again, please see Andersons strategy. Nuclear may well be needed in our carbon free energy mix but what about leaving euratom? You are deliberately being evasive. I can't for the life of me think why:Hilarious


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Again, please see Andersons strategy. Nuclear may well be needed in our carbon free energy mix but what about leaving euratom? You are deliberately being evasive. I can't for the life of me think why:Hilarious


Yes, the Euratom issue will be demanding to sort out, but I'm confident a mutually beneficial outcome can be found. It has to. Although climate change isn't just a problem for the UK, it's a problem for the world, so I think it's a bit of a diversion to bring Brexit in to it (again)

Now - Anderson's strategy. You mean his Marshall style plan? Yes, can you elaborate on his plan. For example how much of the country would be covered in unreliable renewables? What would the rich 10% of the population who cause 50% of the emissions (including the climate scientists) be restricted from doing and how would it be put into practice.

It's all a bit nebulous isn't it - the big plan I mean?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Yes, the Euratom issue will be demanding to sort out, but I'm confident a mutually beneficial outcome can be found. It has to.
> 
> Now - Anderson's strategy. You mean his Marshall style plan? Yes, can you elaborate on his plan. For example how much of the country would be covered in unreliable renewables? What would the rich 10% of the population who cause 50% of the emissions (including the climate scientists) be restricted from doing and how would it be put into practice.
> 
> It's all a bit nebulous isn't it - the big plan I mean?


Well actually, no, it doesn't have to. In case you hadn't noticed the tories are an inept bunch of greedy shysters. Dragging us out of euratom should never even have been on the table. The nuclear industry and the BMA are worried, I'm glad you're not..

Have you even looked at 1 & 2? Hes opened minded about using nuclear in phase 3. How will your single minded nuclear strategy work then? How long will it take to get up & running? How can we reduce emissions if we aren't going to do anything to address our hyper-consumerism? I know you don't believe the scientific community who warn us we are close to the tipping point but we are - so what is the timescale & what can we hope to achieve putting all our faith in nuclear?

.


----------



## noushka05

Energy giant INEOS to announce plans to frack in North York moors. More great news with this environmentally friendly government.


*Ineos Shale to frack in North York Moors, the Heartbeat national park*
(Pic shows established fracking pads in US)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/308f44a6-eda1-11e7-8539-e5d3352c849a


----------



## noushka05

This useless, useless government

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas*  4h4 hours ago

_Am I right in thinking that there was literally nothing new on climate change in this speech? Nothing on the greatest environmental threat we face. #*25YEP*_

_That speech by @*theresa_may* was entirely underwhelming. No legislative backing for a set of vague, very 
long term ambitions. Nothing new at all on climate.

And any day now the Government are set to give the green light to fracking... #*25YEP*_

Molly nails it!

*Molly Scott Cato MEP*‏@*MollyMEP*  4h4 hours ago

May says promoting growth and protecting the environment can go hand-in-hand. No. She doesn't get it.
We need to shift the focus away from endless growth & pointless consumption towards ensuring everybody
has a decent, happy and meaningful life.


----------



## samuelsmiles

_ "so what is the timescale & what can we hope to achieve putting all our faith in nuclear"?
_
Well, we'll have to disagree on what we think is the quickest route to a low carbon/carbon free society. It may take 30 years to change our energy supply to carbon free, but I'd bet everything I own (except my dogs) that that would be a more realistic target than changing the very way people live on the planet today. If that makes me a neo-con, alt right, climate denier, that's your prerogative.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> _ "so what is the timescale & what can we hope to achieve putting all our faith in nuclear"?
> _
> Well, we'll have to disagree on what we think is the quickest route to a low carbon/carbon free society. It may take 30 years to change our energy supply to carbon free, but I'd bet everything I own (except my dogs) that that would be a more realistic target than changing the very way people live on the planet today. If that makes me a neo-con, alt right, climate denier, that's your prerogative.


30 years? How will that keep us below 2C? We have legally binding carbon budgets to meet, we must cut emissions to 57% below 1990 levels *by* 2030. That just 12 short years away. Kevin Anderson's framework is set out to keep us below 2C.

This is why its vital people listen to real scientists Samuel. I know you accept AGW is real but by refusing to accept the mainstream position of the scientific community is where you fall into the climate denier spectrum. Stephen Hawking is well known & trusted, deep down you must know he doesn't deal in 'alarmism'. We have no time. We need bold action to reduce our emissions right away.


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> 30 years? How will that keep us below 2C? We have legally binding carbon budgets to meet, we must cut emissions to 57% below 1990 levels *by* 2030. That just 12 short years away. Kevin Anderson's framework is set out to keep us below 2C.
> 
> This is why its vital people listen to real scientists Samuel. I know you accept AGW is real but by refusing to accept the mainstream position of the scientific community is where you fall into the climate denier spectrum. Stephen Hawking is well known & trusted, deep down you must know he doesn't deal in 'alarmism'. We have no time. We need bold action to reduce our emissions right away.


Ok. So I've got everything wrong - I now realise that. I'm sorry, but I seem to have fallen in with the wrong crowd. Got all my numbers wrong.

What should we be doing now with Anderson's framework. The Marshall style plan? Where will the energy savings be made? Lets do it. I'm all ears and right behind you.

GB electricity, 4PM *wind 0.6%* coal 14.9% nuclear 16.1% gas 56.6% hydro 0.9% import 6.4% *solar 1.0%* biomass 1.5% storage 1.8% other 0.2%. Total Demand is 47GW


----------



## samuelsmiles

Quick update. Wind up to 7% this morning. Sorry, no sunshine, so you're all rationed to one hot coffee and a slice of toast today.

GB electricity, 4AM
*wind 7.0%* coal 3.9% nuclear 24.5% gas 49.0% hydro 0.6% import 12.4%
*solar 0.0%* biomass 2.3% storage 0.0% other 0.3%. Total Demand is 30GW


----------



## samuelsmiles

On a more serious note - this is what happens when you abandon a clean source of energy in pursuit of fantasy. 

*German coalition negotiators agree to scrap 2020 climate target - sources*


----------



## samuelsmiles

Hallelujah!

*It's time to go nuclear in the fight against climate change*

In 2013, the environmental news site Grist denied nuclear science & safety

*Now, it has published an extraordinary affirmation: "It's Time to Go Nuclear Against Climate Change."*

_Historically, nuclear power has been the fastest way to decarbonize the global economy, and it can be again._
_
New reactor designs offer a generational leap in terms of cost and safety-that can displace huge amounts of fossil fuel within 10 years._

_Something big has to change, and fast, in order to prevent us from going over the climate cliff. Increasingly, that something appears to be a shift in our attitudes toward nuclear energy._
_
Solar power has grown at a whopping 68 percent average rate over the past 10 years, but still accounts for less than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity generation_

*If we were smart, we'd see nuclear power for what it is: A good bet to save the world*.

*Grist Goes Nuclear*

Noushka - you wouldn't have watched 'Pandoras Promise' when I gave you the link a few weeks back. You really should now, though - it is a real eye opener. Here's a new link. 

Pandoras Promise

WHEN "PANDORA'S PROMISE" WAS RELEASED IN 2013, GRIST ATTACKED NUCLEAR ENERGY, DENYING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR ITS SAFETY AND NECESSITY. NOW, GRIST HAS COME OUT STRONGLY FOR NUCLEAR *- PROOF THAT NOT ONLY PEOPLE, BUT ALSO INSTITUTIONS, CAN CHANGE*

*PS. I'v**e contacted Anderson, Lucas and Scott Cato over the last couple of days questioning them about the fact we've had no wind or sun over the last couple of days (again) and I'm still to get a reply. *

On 11 Jan the biggest contributors to GB electricity were Gas (55.1%), Nuclear (18.4%) and Coal (12.1%)


----------



## kimthecat

Petrol and diesel cars will be banned by 2040 which is good but how will we have enough electric to run electric cars ? 
They'd have to put solar panels on the car roof !


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Ok. So I've got everything wrong - I now realise that. I'm sorry, but I seem to have fallen in with the wrong crowd. Got all my numbers wrong.
> 
> What should we be doing now with Anderson's framework. The Marshall style plan? Where will the energy savings be made? Lets do it. I'm all ears and right behind you.
> 
> GB electricity, 4PM *wind 0.6%* coal 14.9% nuclear 16.1% gas 56.6% hydro 0.9% import 6.4% *solar 1.0%* biomass 1.5% storage 1.8% other 0.2%. Total Demand is 47GW


No worries, it takes a big person to admit when they're wrong 

I think what this debate demonstrates is how we need a massive education program to raise awareness of the magnitude of the crisis we're facing & the very limited time scale we have to address it - we are literally sleepwalking into catastrophe & if we don't act we're going to find ourselves in the midst of it & it will be too late.

There's a lot we can do as individuals, giving up meat as you have is an excellent start, but we must reduce our consumption everywhere, we must try to use less energy. Our homes/appliances must be energy efficient. Leave the car at home where possible & walk/use public transport etc. Most importantly of all we need a progressive government which puts climate action at the forefront of policy making - as they have done in Sweden. Right wing/conservative parties in all countries are a disaster for the environment. They represent only their donors - the billionaire class and corporate interests. Conservative parties are bought & paid for with many of their politicians having vested interests in big business.. So they will never work in the best interests of the majority of the people & certainly not the environment - they are driven by greed & greed alone. So whilst we have the current government we must lobby them, protest & demonstrate. We must expose them & hold them to account as our media is supposed to do. (The media must take a big share of the responsibility for the crisis we now face. There are very few shining lights in the media world holding power to account & trying to raise awareness of climate change.) In long run we desperately need a progressive government which will take the bold action required - urgently. We seriously need a new economic model - one which is sustainable. Continuous growth on a finite planet is impossible. We need long term sustainable solutions.

The green party has a bold framework to rapidly reduce our emissions. I know you don't like their anti nuclear stance but my party is democratic, even I get to vote on policies & have a say in shaping policies. It is also a science led party. https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/cc.html

Please see this by Kevin Anderson - https://www.carbonneutraluniversity.org/delivering-on-2-degrees---kevin-anderson.html



samuelsmiles said:


> On a more serious note - this is what happens when you abandon a clean source of energy in pursuit of fantasy.
> 
> *German coalition negotiators agree to scrap 2020 climate target - sources*


Sorry you've lost me In pursuit of what fantasy Samuel? I think I posted this by George Monbiot before on Merkel - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental



samuelsmiles said:


> Hallelujah!
> 
> *It's time to go nuclear in the fight against climate change*
> 
> In 2013, the environmental news site Grist denied nuclear science & safety
> 
> *Now, it has published an extraordinary affirmation: "It's Time to Go Nuclear Against Climate Change."*
> 
> _Historically, nuclear power has been the fastest way to decarbonize the global economy, and it can be again._
> _
> New reactor designs offer a generational leap in terms of cost and safety-that can displace huge amounts of fossil fuel within 10 years._
> 
> _Something big has to change, and fast, in order to prevent us from going over the climate cliff. Increasingly, that something appears to be a shift in our attitudes toward nuclear energy._
> _
> Solar power has grown at a whopping 68 percent average rate over the past 10 years, but still accounts for less than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity generation_
> 
> *If we were smart, we'd see nuclear power for what it is: A good bet to save the world*.
> 
> *Grist Goes Nuclear*
> 
> Noushka - you wouldn't have watched 'Pandoras Promise' when I gave you the link a few weeks back. You really should now, though - it is a real eye opener. Here's a new link.
> 
> Pandoras Promise
> 
> WHEN "PANDORA'S PROMISE" WAS RELEASED IN 2013, GRIST ATTACKED NUCLEAR ENERGY, DENYING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR ITS SAFETY AND NECESSITY. NOW, GRIST HAS COME OUT STRONGLY FOR NUCLEAR *- PROOF THAT NOT ONLY PEOPLE, BUT ALSO INSTITUTIONS, CAN CHANGE*
> 
> *PS. I'v**e contacted Anderson, Lucas and Scott Cato over the last couple of days questioning them about the fact we've had no wind or sun over the last couple of days (again) and I'm still to get a reply. *
> 
> 
> 
> kimthecat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> !
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't have much time to respond to this post but will look at it in full when I get chance. I've never heard of Grist.

But as I said previously we know we must massively reduce our consumption & carbon emissions first. As Kevin Anderson explains nuclear can only have a minor role keeping us below 2C. Nuclear is extremely slow to get up & running. Caroline & Molly understand these facts. (You have to understand people with high profiles must get asked numerous questions on a daily basis (& trolled a lot too). I doubt they'd have time to respond to them all. I really wouldn't take it personally Samuel.)


----------



## noushka05

kimthecat said:


> Petrol and diesel cars will be banned by 2040 which is good but how will we have enough electric to run electric cars ?
> They'd have to put solar panels on the car roof !


Quite easily as people would use their cars less if we shifted from our consumer driven economy to a low impact one & had massive investment in public transport.


----------



## samuelsmiles

_"Something big has to change, and fast, in order to prevent us from going over the climate cliff. Increasingly, that something appears to be a shift in our attitudes toward nuclear energy."_

Can I ask you just one question, Noushka. We've been polluting the planet for a couple of hundred years now.

So, what if I told you I've just discovered a new and clean energy that can power the world indefinitely. We will not have to use coal or fracked gas or oil any more. We can bring millions out of poverty and avoid putting any more co2 in to the atmosphere. We can start today - it WILL be possible.

Do you want me to give you the formula?


----------



## samuelsmiles

kimthecat said:


> Petrol and diesel cars will be banned by 2040 which is good but how will we have enough electric to run electric cars ?
> They'd have to put solar panels on the car roof !


We won't unless we invest heavily in nuclear. 

Eta. Or we can go with 100% renewables (+ coal and gas back-up when needed. Which will, of course, be every day)


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> _"Something big has to change, and fast, in order to prevent us from going over the climate cliff. Increasingly, that something appears to be a shift in our attitudes toward nuclear energy."_
> 
> Can I ask you just one question, Noushka. We've been polluting the planet for a couple of hundred years now.
> 
> So, what if I told you I've just discovered a new and clean energy that can power the world indefinitely. We will not have to use coal or fracked gas or oil any more. We can bring millions out of poverty and avoid putting any more co2 in to the atmosphere. We can start today - it WILL be possible.
> 
> Do you want me to give you the formula?


Go for it! I expect you'll be supporting your formula with robust evidence if you're going to be refuting the worlds leading experts on the subject  .



samuelsmiles said:


> We won't unless we invest heavily in nuclear.
> 
> Eta. Or we can go with 100% renewables (+ coal and gas back-up when needed. Which will, of course, be every day)


Or we can listen to the scientists who say we must massively reduce our consumption & transform to a sustainable economy AND invest in low carbon energy. We've been investing heavily in nuclear for 50 years. The tories have given huge subsidies to nuclear - yet we're still no further forward. Its extremely expensive meaning poorer countries cant afford a nuclear powered economy, & climate change is global problem requiring global action. (bare in mind this govt can find 'no more money' to save our NHS _now_ & we're going to be a hell of a lot poorer after brexit (fact) ) - nuclear takes years to get up & running. Nuclear has had decades to get its act together yet never lived up to its potential. Though I guess I should have held back before posting this as your previous post suggests you have some new science which will prove unequivocally nuclear power is a panacea?.


----------



## noushka05

By Mike Shellenberger. Thoughts SS?

The bankruptcy of Toshiba-owned nuclear energy group Westinghouse on Wednesday throws up in the air ambitious British plans to use nuclear power to replace coal and, eventually, natural gas. Britain's plan was to build 12 reactors to replace its current nuclear estate - and to raise the share of electricity it receives from atomic fission from roughly 20 per cent to 30 per cent by 2030. But now, all bets are off. Westinghouse's filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection means that its efforts to build new reactors in the UK look increasingly precarious.

That might be a good thing. Britain has an opportunity to contract and consolidate an industry that is vital for national, and perhaps international, development and climate goals.The UK has contracts with different consortiums to build various nuclear power plant designs. Others want more radical designs, such as those that use coolants other than water, to receive government support.Such diversity might seem positive but all of that variation is the opposite of what is known to work to reduce costs. And with low prices for coal and natural gas, few nations are buying nuclear plants. This puts Britain in such a powerful buyer's position that it could shape the future of nuclear power for generations to come.

The importance of standardisation was demonstrated by France throughout the 1970s and 1980s. While the cost of building nuclear plants rose when it switched designs, construction costs fell when it built the same reactor on the same site using the same team. Something similar happened in South Korea in the 1990s, and in the United Arab Emirates in the 2000s.So why then do the US and Britain keep opting for distinctiveness instead of
efficiency? In part, because they insist on using only private funds, which guarantees high interest rates and thus higher overall nuclear plant costs. But nuclear power is not like other market products. The manufacture of food or clothes, for example, does not require guaranteeing anywhere between £5bn and £10bn for the cost of building a farm or factory. As long as UK energy customers are paying for these plants they should at least enjoy the lower cost of electricity that will come from building and operating a single standard design. What does this mean for energy policy? It should scrap future nuclear deals and empower an independent commission to choose a single, experienced contractor and power utility to build the 10 or more reactors required - to a single, standard design. There should also be a long-term plan for the plants to be built sequentially, by the same construction managers, and with commitments progressively to reduce the cost of construction

While it may seem counterintuitive to go with something that is older rather than newer, the historical record is clear: nuclear reactors become safer the more experience we have of building, operating and regulating them. In other words, what makes nuclear plants safer are the human factors: not just the plant design but also the construction and operation.This does not mean that older is always better. Nobody is proposing to build the same, first- and second-generation plants that were built at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima. But the industry now has decades of experience operating 450 nuclear plants around the world. What matters is having a strong safety culture, strong regulatory oversight and effective worker training. New generic safety assessments promote standardisation, which reduces the burden on managers, workers and safety regulators.

Another benefit of going with high-experience designs is that they draw on existing supply chains where the real innovation and cost reduction occurs. The lack of such a supply chain is one of the main reasons for cost-overruns at US plants being built by Westinghouse at Vogtle in Georgia and VC Summer in South Carolina.It is clear that in the UK there are too many nuclear companies selling too many designs into too small a market. It is almost certain that the recent shake-up in the global industry will be the end of some of those companies. The British government should take action now to ensure that its nuclear ambitions do not go down with them by choosing a standard reactor design that will deliver lower capital costs and with them lower electricity costs.

https://www.ft.com/content/ac22b6c2-152d-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> By Mike Shellenberger. Thoughts SS?
> 
> The bankruptcy of Toshiba-owned nuclear energy group Westinghouse on Wednesday throws up in the air ambitious British plans to use nuclear power to replace coal and, eventually, natural gas. Britain's plan was to build 12 reactors to replace its current nuclear estate - and to raise the share of electricity it receives from atomic fission from roughly 20 per cent to 30 per cent by 2030. But now, all bets are off. Westinghouse's filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection means that its efforts to build new reactors in the UK look increasingly precarious.
> 
> That might be a good thing. Britain has an opportunity to contract and consolidate an industry that is vital for national, and perhaps international, development and climate goals.The UK has contracts with different consortiums to build various nuclear power plant designs. Others want more radical designs, such as those that use coolants other than water, to receive government support.Such diversity might seem positive but all of that variation is the opposite of what is known to work to reduce costs. And with low prices for coal and natural gas, few nations are buying nuclear plants. This puts Britain in such a powerful buyer's position that it could shape the future of nuclear power for generations to come.
> 
> The importance of standardisation was demonstrated by France throughout the 1970s and 1980s. While the cost of building nuclear plants rose when it switched designs, construction costs fell when it built the same reactor on the same site using the same team. Something similar happened in South Korea in the 1990s, and in the United Arab Emirates in the 2000s.So why then do the US and Britain keep opting for distinctiveness instead of
> efficiency? In part, because they insist on using only private funds, which guarantees high interest rates and thus higher overall nuclear plant costs. But nuclear power is not like other market products. The manufacture of food or clothes, for example, does not require guaranteeing anywhere between £5bn and £10bn for the cost of building a farm or factory. As long as UK energy customers are paying for these plants they should at least enjoy the lower cost of electricity that will come from building and operating a single standard design. What does this mean for energy policy? It should scrap future nuclear deals and empower an independent commission to choose a single, experienced contractor and power utility to build the 10 or more reactors required - to a single, standard design. There should also be a long-term plan for the plants to be built sequentially, by the same construction managers, and with commitments progressively to reduce the cost of construction
> 
> While it may seem counterintuitive to go with something that is older rather than newer, the historical record is clear: nuclear reactors become safer the more experience we have of building, operating and regulating them. In other words, what makes nuclear plants safer are the human factors: not just the plant design but also the construction and operation.This does not mean that older is always better. Nobody is proposing to build the same, first- and second-generation plants that were built at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima. But the industry now has decades of experience operating 450 nuclear plants around the world. What matters is having a strong safety culture, strong regulatory oversight and effective worker training. New generic safety assessments promote standardisation, which reduces the burden on managers, workers and safety regulators.
> 
> Another benefit of going with high-experience designs is that they draw on existing supply chains where the real innovation and cost reduction occurs. The lack of such a supply chain is one of the main reasons for cost-overruns at US plants being built by Westinghouse at Vogtle in Georgia and VC Summer in South Carolina.It is clear that in the UK there are too many nuclear companies selling too many designs into too small a market. It is almost certain that the recent shake-up in the global industry will be the end of some of those companies. The British government should take action now to ensure that its nuclear ambitions do not go down with them by choosing a standard reactor design that will deliver lower capital costs and with them lower electricity costs.
> 
> https://www.ft.com/content/ac22b6c2-152d-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76


Thoughts?

I agree with everything Shellenberger says here. 

_"The bankruptcy of Toshiba-owned nuclear energy group Westinghouse on Wednesday throws up in the air ambitious British plans to use nuclear power to replace coal and, eventually, natural gas._

"_That might be a good thing. Britain has an opportunity to contract and consolidate an industry *that is vital for national, and perhaps international, development and climate goals.
*
The British government should take action now to ensure that its nuclear ambitions do not go down with them by choosing a standard reactor design that will deliver lower capital costs and with them lower electricity costs."
_
As you know, Shellenberger is one of my main references. He was one of Time Magazine's
Heroes of the Environment in 2008. You tried to discredit him when I first mentioned him. Remember?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Thoughts?
> 
> I agree with everything Shellenberger says here.
> 
> _"The bankruptcy of Toshiba-owned nuclear energy group Westinghouse on Wednesday throws up in the air ambitious British plans to use nuclear power to replace coal and, eventually, natural gas._
> 
> "_That might be a good thing. Britain has an opportunity to contract and consolidate an industry *that is vital for national, and perhaps international, development and climate goals.
> *
> The British government should take action now to ensure that its nuclear ambitions do not go down with them by choosing a standard reactor design that will deliver lower capital costs and with them lower electricity costs."
> 
> As you know, Shellenberger is one of my main references. He was one of Time Magazine's
> Heroes of the Environment in 2008. You tried to discredit him when I first mentioned him. Remember?_


Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick SS. The only reason I posted the article is because I know you are a Shellenberger fan & the tories aren't exactly meeting his standards for a successful nuclear strategy (my opinions on MS haven't changed one iota  The 'ecomodernist' movement is disingenuous to say the least. Times Magazine?)

I'm sure you do agree with him on _those_ points. Coulda, woulda, shoulda My point is, things aren't exactly going well are they. The tories are against nationalisation yet they've got us subsidising foreign state owned companies to build & run _our_ nuclear power stations. The _Chinese_ state controls Hinkleys nuclear reactor. Utter madness.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-important-moorside-new-nuclear-plant-uk-climate-plans

*Conclusion*
*The government has significant hopes for new nuclear to help renew and decarbonise the UK's electricity system. The schemes - and the companies behind them - continue to face delays and financial problems.*

*This poses problems for the security of UK electricity supplies, given plans to phase out coal and limit new subsidies for renewables. If the UK leaves the EU Emissions Trading System (EUETS), then it could also pose a major challenge to meeting the UK's carbon targets
*


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick SS. The only reason I posted the article is because I know you are a Shellenberger fan & the tories aren't exactly meeting his standards for a successful nuclear strategy (my opinions on MS haven't changed one iota  The 'ecomodernist' movement is disingenuous to say the least. Times Magazine?)
> 
> I'm sure you do agree with him on _those_ points. Coulda, woulda, shoulda My point is, things aren't exactly going well are they. The tories are against nationalisation yet they've got us subsidising foreign state owned companies to build & run _our_ nuclear power stations. The _Chinese_ state controls Hinkleys nuclear reactor. Utter madness.
> 
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-important-moorside-new-nuclear-plant-uk-climate-plans
> 
> *Conclusion*
> *The government has significant hopes for new nuclear to help renew and decarbonise the UK's electricity system. The schemes - and the companies behind them - continue to face delays and financial problems.*
> 
> *This poses problems for the security of UK electricity supplies, given plans to phase out coal and limit new subsidies for renewables. If the UK leaves the EU Emissions Trading System (EUETS), then it could also pose a major challenge to meeting the UK's carbon targets*


Why is the ecomodernist movement disingenuous. Because you disagree with it? I would call it pragmatic, realistic and, well...... genuine.

Hey, I'm happy to be accused of being an ecomodernist - I like progress. It allows me to sit here in my little cottage knowing I'll be warm every day, I'll have enough electric to cook my vegetarian sausages, and I can drive a few miles with my dogs to my favourite walk this afternoon. This wouldn't have been guaranteed 100 years ago.


----------



## samuelsmiles

Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change

There's a couple of 'ecomodernist' scientists who wrote this article.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Why is the ecomodernist movement disingenuous. Because you disagree with it? I would call it pragmatic, realistic and, well...... genuine.
> 
> Hey, I'm happy to be accused of being an ecomodernist - I like progress. It allows me to sit here in my little cottage knowing I'll be warm every day, I'll have enough electric to cook my vegetarian sausages, and I can drive a few miles with my dogs to my favourite walk this afternoon. This wouldn't have been guaranteed 100 years ago.





samuelsmiles said:


> Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
> 
> There's a couple of 'ecomodernist' scientists who wrote this article.


Its because its _unrealistic_ that I disagree with the concept of ecomodernism Samuel. I'll explain why later - unless of course this magic nuclear formula to keep us under 2C (supported by hard evidence) can prove me wrong?

I don't have time to read the article but there are contrarians in every field - 3% of climate scientists don't even believe in climate change


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> Its because its _unrealistic_ that I disagree with the concept of ecomodernism Samuel. I'll explain why later - unless of course this magic nuclear formula to keep us under 2C (supported by hard evidence) can prove me wrong?
> 
> *I don't have time to read the article* but there are contrarians in every field - 3% of climate scientists don't even believe in climate change


OK - here's the full article with some highlights if you don't want to read it all. 

To solve the climate problem, *policy must be based on facts and not prejudice.* Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them.

*All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change,* variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth's history and investigate future scenarios.

We have become so concerned about humanity's slow response to this challenge that we have decided we must clearly set out what we see as the only viable path forward. As scientists we do not take advocacy positions lightly, but we believe the magnitude of climate change now presents an unprecedented moral challenge that compels us to speak out.

To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed. The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step, but unless there are strong measures to reduce emissions beyond 2030, global emissions would remain at a high level, practically guaranteeing that young people inherit a climate running out of their control. *A new and intensified approach is clearly needed.*

Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower - both commonly counted as renewable energy sources - can have terrible environmental consequences.

Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations - by offsetting fossil fuel combustion - have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. *Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion*. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.

To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions - not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. *The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions,* and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.

*The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking.* Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity's options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.

For example, a build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050. Accounting for increased global electricity demand driven by population growth and development in poorer countries, which would add another 54 reactors per year, this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario. We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years.

Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them. We are hopeful in the knowledge that, together with renewables, nuclear can help bridge the 'emissions gap' that bedevils the Paris climate negotiations. *The future of our planet and our descendants depends on basing decisions on facts, and letting go of long-held biases when it comes to nuclear power.*


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> OK - here's the full article with some highlights if you don't want to read it all.
> 
> To solve the climate problem, *policy must be based on facts and not prejudice.* Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them.
> 
> *All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change,* variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth's history and investigate future scenarios.
> 
> We have become so concerned about humanity's slow response to this challenge that we have decided we must clearly set out what we see as the only viable path forward. As scientists we do not take advocacy positions lightly, but we believe the magnitude of climate change now presents an unprecedented moral challenge that compels us to speak out.
> 
> To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed. The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step, but unless there are strong measures to reduce emissions beyond 2030, global emissions would remain at a high level, practically guaranteeing that young people inherit a climate running out of their control. *A new and intensified approach is clearly needed.*
> 
> Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower - both commonly counted as renewable energy sources - can have terrible environmental consequences.
> 
> Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations - by offsetting fossil fuel combustion - have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. *Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion*. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.
> 
> To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions - not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. *The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions,* and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.
> 
> *The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking.* Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity's options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.
> 
> For example, a build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050. Accounting for increased global electricity demand driven by population growth and development in poorer countries, which would add another 54 reactors per year, this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario. We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years.
> 
> Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them. We are hopeful in the knowledge that, together with renewables, nuclear can help bridge the 'emissions gap' that bedevils the Paris climate negotiations. *The future of our planet and our descendants depends on basing decisions on facts, and letting go of long-held biases when it comes to nuclear power.*


But unlike you & the ecomodernist movement these scientists clearly support renewable energy too - they are saying we should use all the tools in the box lol. Nulclear alone is not going to save us SS.



samuelsmiles said:


> *Alongside renewables*, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them.





samuelsmiles said:


> We urge an all-of-the-above approach* that includes increased investment in renewables *combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.


So we've got 12 years to massively reduce our emissions, how are we going to do it?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Hallelujah!
> 
> *It's time to go nuclear in the fight against climate change*
> 
> In 2013, the environmental news site Grist denied nuclear science & safety
> 
> *Now, it has published an extraordinary affirmation: "It's Time to Go Nuclear Against Climate Change."*
> 
> _Historically, nuclear power has been the fastest way to decarbonize the global economy, and it can be again._
> _
> New reactor designs offer a generational leap in terms of cost and safety-that can displace huge amounts of fossil fuel within 10 years._
> 
> _Something big has to change, and fast, in order to prevent us from going over the climate cliff. Increasingly, that something appears to be a shift in our attitudes toward nuclear energy._
> _
> Solar power has grown at a whopping 68 percent average rate over the past 10 years, but still accounts for less than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity generation_
> 
> *If we were smart, we'd see nuclear power for what it is: A good bet to save the world*.
> 
> *Grist Goes Nuclear*
> 
> Noushka - you wouldn't have watched 'Pandoras Promise' when I gave you the link a few weeks back. You really should now, though - it is a real eye opener. Here's a new link.
> 
> Pandoras Promise
> 
> WHEN "PANDORA'S PROMISE" WAS RELEASED IN 2013, GRIST ATTACKED NUCLEAR ENERGY, DENYING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR ITS SAFETY AND NECESSITY. NOW, GRIST HAS COME OUT STRONGLY FOR NUCLEAR *- PROOF THAT NOT ONLY PEOPLE, BUT ALSO INSTITUTIONS, CAN CHANGE*
> 
> *PS. I'v**e contacted Anderson, Lucas and Scott Cato over the last couple of days questioning them about the fact we've had no wind or sun over the last couple of days (again) and I'm still to get a reply. *
> 
> On 11 Jan the biggest contributors to GB electricity were Gas (55.1%), Nuclear (18.4%) and Coal (12.1%)


I watched some of Pandoras Promise & its as I suspected - nuclear is the be all & end all. I will try to watch the rest of it at some point.

Here is the very in depth review of the documentary by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/pandoras-false-promise

*Pandora's false promise*


Pandora's Promise, a documentary film by director Robert Stone that opens in US cities on June 12th, is the story of one-time anti-nuclear power activists who now advocate using nuclear energy.

The film unabashedly promotes nuclear power as the only energy source that can both meet worldwide demand and help reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to minimize further damage to the Earth's atmosphere. In it, engineers attest to the safety of advanced reactor technologies and disarmament experts comment on their reliability, without any reference to the risks posed by nuclear power. Erstwhile anti-nuclear power activists, including Stewart Brand and Gwyneth Cravens, are the major focus of the film, as they talk about their decisions to support nuclear power after many years of actively protesting against it. The major reason they offer for this change of heart is the growing threat of climate change.

*The flaw in the film's approach is its zealous advocacy of one solution -- one silver bullet -*- to meet the tremendous challenges of providing for some nine billion people by 2050, while also protecting societies from the ravages of climate disruption. The kind of thinking that led some of these environmentalists to single-mindedly protest nuclear power plants during the 1970s and 1980s leads them to just-as-single-mindedly advocate a push toward nuclear power 40 years later*.*





Nuclear power may indeed end up being part of the energy mix that leads to both a more stable climate and adequate livelihoods around the world. But the challenges posed by nuclear power -- like the risk of weapons proliferation and reactor accidents, and the need to securely store radioactive used fuel for many generations -- are not adequately addressed in the film.

Rather, Stone and his subjects seem as intent on promoting nuclear power as the one clear solution as they once were in denying that it had any place in responsible energy planning. Since they've now "seen the light," viewers are expected to join their new-found cause.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. In fact, there is much to admire in those who recognize altered circumstances, integrate fresh information, and come to a new judgment. What is disingenuous about Pandora's Promise is the way the new judgment is conveyed. The film mocks groups that continue to protest nuclear power, treating one-time colleagues as extremists and zealots. An audience discussion after a preview at the University of Chicago made it clear I was not the only one who sensed the self-righteous tone of the newly converted in the film's narrative. In the end, by dismissing the protestors and failing to engage them in significant debate about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, the film undermined its own message.

Pandora's Promise ticks off three major reasons for the sea change on nuclear power. First, activists recognize that poor people in developing countries deserve access to energy sources to advance their economies and raise their standards of living. The environmentalists in the film favor the rapid growth of nuclear power over the coal burning that is now common in emerging economies like China and India.

Second, the film's subjects recognize that nothing else has worked as well as nuclear power to reduce dependence on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Solar technologies are still too expensive, and wind power is supplying just a tiny fraction of current electricity despite large investments; only nuclear reactors, they claim, can supply the continuously available electrical power needed for large-scale commercial and household use.

Third, several movement leaders believe that the fight for a carbon tax to discourage the burning of fossil fuel has been lost in the United States, and that the likelihood US politicians will adopt policies to help slow climate change in the next 10 years is remote.
In short, it appears that these environmentalists have discovered poverty, the Keeling curve (a graph that depicts Earth's rising temperature since the 1950s), and the brawling political process for the first time and are shocked, simply shocked, by what they've seen. They're now out to rectify the situation in one fell swoop with the promise of nuclear power. By doing so, however, they have traded one brand of "solutionism

Solutionists lurch in fits and starts from one extreme position to another, from one answer to the next, failing to understand that the problems we have created are as complex as the societies we live in. We are disrupting the Earth's atmosphere through a combination of carbon-emitting technologies, population growth, overconsumption in industrial societies, and settlement patterns that have cleared huge forests that filter carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. No single technological fix is likely to "solve" the problem of climate change.

A more powerful approach to this complex threat to humanity would be to film a fact-based, passionate debate that explored the alternatives, trade-offs, and consequences of various energy options. Such an exploration might move us from the usual politics of zealotry to new habits of thought, and perhaps to new forms of action based on all the facts.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> Why is the ecomodernist movement disingenuous. Because you disagree with it? I would call it pragmatic, realistic and, well...... genuine.
> 
> Hey, I'm happy to be accused of being an ecomodernist - I like progress. It allows me to sit here in my little cottage knowing I'll be warm every day, I'll have enough electric to cook my vegetarian sausages, and I can drive a few miles with my dogs to my favourite walk this afternoon. This wouldn't have been guaranteed 100 years ago.





samuelsmiles said:


> One of the experts that I have been reading to get a lot of my factual information from, the late David MacKay published this interesting e-book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air which has some fascinating facts in ,


Have you finished the book yet SS? http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/simple_painless_report.pdf
_
The Cambridge physicist David McKay has done the environment movement a great service with the recent publication of his book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. 
(It's a service which is all the greater for his decision to make the entire content of this book freely available online). The book leads us, in rigorous quantitative detail, through the scale of the challenge we confront if we are to make the necessary reductions in our use of fossil fuels.

There is one message that leaps out from this analysis above all others:_


----------



## noushka05

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified [email protected]*CarolineLucas* 17h17 hours ago

_In other environmental news from Tory Britain. Shell is about to start a major oil _
_drilling operation in the North Sea - helped on by government tax breaks._

 *slow*hand*clap

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ns-field-shetland-scotland-jobs-a8160186.html


----------



## kimthecat

Published today . Still a lot to be done. 
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publicati...nt-uks-clean-growth-strategy-ambition-action/
This report provides the Committee on Climate Change's independent assessment of the UK Government's Clean Growth Strategy.

The report finds that:


The Government has made a strong commitment to achieving the UK's climate change targets.
Policies and proposals set out in the Clean Growth Strategy will need to be firmed up.
Gaps to meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets remain. These gaps must be closed.
Risks of under-delivery must be addressed and carbon budgets met on time.


----------



## noushka05

kimthecat said:


> Published today . Still a lot to be done.
> https://www.theccc.org.uk/publicati...nt-uks-clean-growth-strategy-ambition-action/
> This report provides the Committee on Climate Change's independent assessment of the UK Government's Clean Growth Strategy.
> 
> The report finds that:
> 
> 
> The Government has made a strong commitment to achieving the UK's climate change targets.
> Policies and proposals set out in the Clean Growth Strategy will need to be firmed up.
> Gaps to meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets remain. These gaps must be closed.
> Risks of under-delivery must be addressed and carbon budgets met on time.


Infographic from your own link 


'But, the Strategy doesn't go far enough. Without *urgent action *to firm up existing policies and identify additional measures, the UK is set to miss its legally-binding climate change targets.'










The tories are rolling out fracking, subsidising major oil drilling in the North Sea ( knowing we shouldn't be opening up new fossil fuel sources as we have to leave most of the ones we are extracting from now in the ground!)

This ........

*
UK green energy investment halves after policy changes*

*Investment in green energy fell 56% in UK in 2017 - biggest fall of any country - after 'stop-start' support from government*

_
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...nergy-investment-plunges-after-policy-changes
(expect to see the fall out from their ecocidal policies in the not too distant future)_


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

kimthecat said:


> Published today . Still a lot to be done.
> https://www.theccc.org.uk/publicati...nt-uks-clean-growth-strategy-ambition-action/
> This report provides the Committee on Climate Change's independent assessment of the UK Government's Clean Growth Strategy.
> 
> The report finds that:
> 
> 
> The Government has made a strong commitment to achieving the UK's climate change targets.
> Policies and proposals set out in the Clean Growth Strategy will need to be firmed up.
> Gaps to meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets remain. These gaps must be closed.
> Risks of under-delivery must be addressed and carbon budgets met on time.


Here is the excellent Carbon Briefs summary.

_
UK will miss climate goals despite new strategy, says official watchdog_

https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-will...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

(ends)

*Legal risk*

The CCC's official verdict is that the UK will miss its carbon targets for 2023-2032, without new policies. In the context of the legally binding provisions of the Climate Change Act, this verdict further opens the government to the risk of legal action.

The CCC says the government's Clean Growth Strategy will fall short, even taking a "generous" interpretation of the plans and policies it contains, many of which remain undeveloped.

The committee also pushes back firmly against any idea that this policy gap could be bridged using flexibilities in the act. Instead, it lists the areas where more detail or ambition will be needed and sets a timetable for government to deliver.

Speaking to Carbon Brief, acting committee chief executive Gault says: "There is still time to put in place necessary policies and measures…we're not saying the carbon budgets can't be met."

When the Clean Growth Strategy was published, legal NGO ClientEarth said: "[This] fails to put us on track to meet legally binding emissions targets. We are considering our legal options."

This week, in a statement to Carbon Brief, the NGO says:

"Though the Clean Growth Strategy moved things in the right direction, we agree with the CCC that further policy development is urgently needed…The ball remains very firmly in the government's court to go much further than it has done so far."


----------



## noushka05

Hahaa


----------



## samuelsmiles

noushka05 said:


> *Have you finished the book yet SS?* http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/simple_painless_report.pdf
> _
> The Cambridge physicist David McKay has done the environment movement a great service with the recent publication of his book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air.
> (It's a service which is all the greater for his decision to make the entire content of this book freely available online). The book leads us, in rigorous quantitative detail, through the scale of the challenge we confront if we are to make the necessary reductions in our use of fossil fuels.
> 
> There is one message that leaps out from this analysis above all others:_


No, I haven't finished David MacKay's book yet. It's not really a book to just read from cover to cover in one short go because it has a lot of technical stuff that needs to sink in (for me, anyhow) It's great to dip into, though, if all you want is nothing but statistics and facts to give the argument some substance and not just stupid big memes.

The Guardian had this article (link below) on him soon after his death. It's well worth reading and also having a look at the video he made with Mark Lynas.

*Idea of renewables powering UK is an 'appalling delusion' - David MacKay *

I have an analogy that keeps coming back to me, and clarifying my thought on the renewables which some think can run the country. Where I walk with my dogs in and around Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire there is a large network of canals which is the home to lots of narrowboaters. These boats can be covered in solar panels and even have little wind turbines on top - I saw one this afternoon with plenty of solar panels and two of the wind turbines whirring around in the strong breeze. And yet he had his diesel generator blasting away, sacks of coal and logs on top to put in his wood burning stove and a whole heap of smoke coming out of the chimney.

I've often talked to these people and they live a very frugal life - no washing machines, maybe a small laptop for a TV, no complicated central heating systems, basic lighting, a little 12v fridge. And yet they need diesel generators to get them through the long winter nights and natural gas to cook on the small stoves and coal to keep themselves warm and comfortable. I would guess they are getting under 1% of their energy from solar and wind. Even for these people of little energy needs they have to rely massively on fossil fuels to live and keep warm. I don't think they could cut back on their lifestyle any more than they already have.

You keep telling me I don't understand the severity of the problem, and how it could be solved, because I think technology (therefore nuclear) is our best chance of getting a low carbon society very quickly. I think it is our _only _chance.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles said:


> No, I haven't finished David MacKay's book yet. It's not really a book to just read from cover to cover in one short go because it has a lot of technical stuff that needs to sink in (for me, anyhow) It's great to dip into, though, if all you want is nothing but statistics and facts to give the argument some substance and not just stupid big memes.
> 
> The Guardian had this article (link below) on him soon after his death. It's well worth reading and also having a look at the video he made with Mark Lynas.
> 
> *Idea of renewables powering UK is an 'appalling delusion' - David MacKay *
> 
> I have an analogy that keeps coming back to me, and clarifying my thought on the renewables which some think can run the country. Where I walk with my dogs in and around Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire there is a large network of canals which is the home to lots of narrowboaters. These boats can be covered in solar panels and even have little wind turbines on top - I saw one this afternoon with plenty of solar panels and two of the wind turbines whirring around in the strong breeze. And yet he had his diesel generator blasting away, sacks of coal and logs on top to put in his wood burning stove and a whole heap of smoke coming out of the chimney.
> 
> I've often talked to these people and they live a very frugal life - no washing machines, maybe a small laptop for a TV, no complicated central heating systems, basic lighting, a little 12v fridge. And yet they need diesel generators to get them through the long winter nights and natural gas to cook on the small stoves and coal to keep themselves warm and comfortable. I would guess they are getting under 1% of their energy from solar and wind. Even for these people of little energy needs they have to rely massively on fossil fuels to live and keep warm. I don't think they could cut back on their lifestyle any more than they already have.
> 
> You keep telling me I don't understand the severity of the problem, and how it could be solved, because I think technology (therefore nuclear) is our best chance of getting a low carbon society very quickly. I think it is our _only _chance.


Rather than cherry picking perhaps you should read the whole book? you might then understand that we can and must reduce our emissions by changing the way we live. Government must be honest about the scale of the action required to deliver intended climate outcome. Something the conservative party will never do. Even if nuclear was the panacea - this governments handling of our nuclear power stations is shocking to say the least.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong? :/








 *Jon Snow*‏Verified [email protected]*jonsnowC4* Jan 17

_Disgraced Carillion chief, Richard Howson now director of firm (Wood Group PLC) in charge of inspections at Hinkley Point C nuclear power station._

341 replies 2,734 retweets 1,922 likes

*GeorgeMonbiot*‏@*GeorgeMonbiot*  Jan 17

_Oh blimey, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse_
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2018...ons-at-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station/

As I said a tiny 10% are responsible for 50% of global CO2 - if we change our economic model more people could lead decent lives, big consumers will have to get their priorities in order. I've posted this pod cast before but please have a listen to it SS. http://thesustainabilityagenda.com/episode-17-professor-kevin-anderson-climate-change-warning/

You said yourself you believe it will take 30yrs to get a nuclear powered economy up and running. So clearly focusing on nuclear alone is not our best chance, by 30yrs it will be too late. Our best hope is listening to the people who actually have the expertise to know what they're talking about. No one thing is a silver bullet in tackling the greatest threat we have ever faced, Samuel.

We know we have legally binding targets to meet in 12 short years - we know the window is fast closing to keep global temperatures below 2C - below 1.5C if we're being honest. 1.5-2°C requires 10-20% CO2 cuts year-on-year starting now(for OECD nations). Energy saving, reducing consumption - shifting our behaviour & addressing inequality, this is how we achieve these goals.. As Kevin Anderson puts it we need to reshape society and reframe what constitutes progress. Please explain how nuclear alone could meet our targets?

All the ecomodernist movement has done is to kick the ball down the road - then it will be too late to do anything. Ecomodernists don't want to change the way they live even if its to save our amazing biosphere so they have blind faith technology can somehow deliver a magical solution to all our problems. That's been my experience of ecomodernists. They have split the environmental movement by giving deniers ammunition to stall on real action. You've got notorious climate change deniers actually calling themselves ecomodernists now Says it all really.










The great Ban Ki Moons speech at Davos http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/28/ban-ki-moon-says-world-leaders-need-to-lead-by-action

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon today called for "*revolutionary action"* to achieve sustainable development, warning that the past century's* heedless consumption of resources is "a global suicide pact" with time running out to ensure an economic model for survival*
.

"Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all: Time," he told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in a session devoted to redefining sustainable development. *"We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change. Time to ensure sustainable, climate-resilient green growth. Time to generate a clean energy revolution."*

Calling sustainable development the growth agenda for the 21st century, Ban recited a litany of development errors based on a* false belief in the infinite abundance of natural resources that fuelled the economy in the last century.*

*"We mined our way to growth,"* he said. *"We burned our way to prosperity. We believed in consumption without consequences. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high.*

"*Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete.* It has rendered it extremely dangerous. Over time, that model is a recipe for national disaster. *It is a global suicide pact*

*All this now needs rethinking to secure the balanced development that will lift people out of poverty while protecting the planet and ecosystems* that support economic growth, he told the assembly of heads of State and government, international economists, business and industry leaders and civil society.

"Here at Davos - this meeting of the mighty and the powerful, represented by some key countries - it may sound strange to speak of revolution," he said. "But that is what we need at this time. We need a revolution. Revolutionary thinking. Revolutionary action. A free market revolution for global sustainability.

*"It is easy to mouth the words 'sustainable development,' but to make it happen we have to be prepared to make major changes - in our lifestyles, our economic models, our social organization, and our political life*. We have to connect the dots between climate change and what I might call here, WEF - water, energy and food." WEF is also the acronym for the Davos World Economic Forum.

"We need you to step up. Spark innovation. Lead by action. Invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy for those who need them most - your future customers. Expand clean energy access in developing countries - your markets of tomorrow."


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

This is very frightening. And our despicable government are determined to fast track fracking.

_1.5 degrees - the chaos begins - & in perhaps just five years - Met Office_

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/decadal-forecast-2018

.


----------



## noushka05

This is what climate action looks like. Ireland becomes the fourth country to ban fossil fuel exploration


*Green Party Ireland*‏Verified [email protected]*greenparty_ie*  Feb 8

BREAKING: The Dáil has said NO to future oil and gas exploration in Irish waters! This is a historic win for our climate, our coastal communities, and our marine life.
Well done to all the TDs that voted today for the #*ClimateEmergency* Bill to #*KeepItInTheGround*.


----------



## noushka05

Important nuclear news via Greenpeace.

G*reenpeace UK*‏Verified [email protected] Feb 14

- A new nuclear plant in China has been delayed (again) over unspecified 'safety concerns'

- A reactor of the same design is planned for the UK

- The company that designed the reactor filed for bankruptcy last year

- Nuclear power remains a bad idea

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/12/china-nuclear-reactor-delayed-again-on-safety-concerns.html


----------



## noushka05

.
*GeorgeMonbiot*‏@GeorgeMonbiot 58m58 minutes ago
_The Arctic meltdown this winter is the kind of event scientists warned we could face by 2050. Not by 2018. 
This is serious:_

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...scientists-alarmed-by-crazy-temperature-rises


----------



## noushka05

Leo Hickman makes a very interesting observation.

*Just a *week* after Paul Dacre is rumoured to have ended day-to-day editing of the Daily Mail and this happens...

Remarkable.

*


----------



## noushka05

12 years @samuelsmiles. Do you still believe nuclear is our saviour?

*The Independent*‏Verified account @Independent Oct 8
*'We have 12 years to act on climate change before the world as we know it is lost. How much more urgent can it get?*

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1539028418


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Absolutely I believe nuclear energy is our only option if you want to keep fossil fuels in the ground.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Absolutely I believe nuclear energy is our only option if you want to keep fossil fuels in the ground.


Explain how we can commission & build a fleet of nuclear reactors with immediate effect then?


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> Explain how we can commission & build a fleet of nuclear reactors with immediate effect then?


We can't or won't. That's not to say it's not possible, though, because France did this between 1974 and 1989. In just fifteen years they built nearly sixty reactors which now gives them about 75% of their energy needs. 75% of clean, safe, dense, highly regulated energy that keeps their C02 emissions so low.


----------



## ErsatzNihilist

Trump Administration argues that climate change is real and will be catastrophic - so catastrophic that our fates are already sealed, we're already dead so we might as well go ahead and loosen fuel efficiency standards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aee11a037bc6


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> We can't or won't. That's not to say it's not possible, though, because France did this between 1974 and 1989. In just fifteen years they built nearly sixty reactors which now gives them about 75% of their energy needs. 75% of clean, safe, dense, highly regulated energy that keeps their C02 emissions so low.


We can't. The tories are pro nuclear, labour have never stood in the way of nuclear either, yet they still havent got Hinkley off the ground! What you still dont seem to get, is that WE COULD, massively reduce our emissions by changing the way we live. Radical action is what we need - right now!



ErsatzNihilist said:


> Trump Administration argues that climate change is real and will be catastrophic - so catastrophic that our fates are already sealed, we're already dead so we might as well go ahead and loosen fuel efficiency standards.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.aee11a037bc6


Yes, before the vile republicans were saying 'its not real' - now theyre saying its real, but its too late to do anything about it. They are bunch of psychopaths who would see the planet destroyed for greed. Same as our own Conservatives - Australias too! Who in their right mind would vote for them? Their supporters are complicit in all this.


----------



## ErsatzNihilist

noushka05 said:


> Yes, before the vile republicans were saying 'its not real' - now theyre saying its real, but its too late to do anything about it. They are bunch of psychopaths who would see the planet destroyed for greed. Same as our own Conservatives - Australias too! Who in their right mind would vote for them? Their supporters are complicit in all this.


People who don't think beyond their own lifespans, basically. They're not going to live to see the consequences so they just want to rack up as much money as possible to try and win the high score table. You're right, it's insane.


----------



## noushka05

ErsatzNihilist said:


> People who don't think beyond their own lifespans, basically. They're not going to live to see the consequences so they just want to rack up as much money as possible to try and win the high score table. You're right, it's insane.


Yep, short term gain matters more than our beautiful living planet


----------



## noushka05

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified account @CarolineLucas
Caroline Lucas Retweeted Sky News Feed ⓥ
*
Beyond belief fracking getting go ahead - especially just days after UN so powerfully reminded us of urgency of tackling climate chaos & just days before Govt's so called #greengbweek starts. #Hyprocrisy doesn't even begin to cover it.*

*Sky News Feed ⓥ*


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> We can't. The tories are pro nuclear, labour have never stood in the way of nuclear either, yet they still havent got Hinkley off the ground! *What you still dont seem to get, is that WE COULD, massively reduce our emissions by changing the way we live. *Radical action is what we need - right now!
> 
> Degrowth? Put the country (world) in to recession, increase unemployment, disenable the poor countries striving to live a better life to have that better life? That sort of radical action? Sounds like Socialism on steroids. Well, yes, I suppose we could achieve your dream in 12 years without nuclear energy - Venezuela has managed it.
> 
> By the way - we have been given these calamitous ultimatums by the UN (IPCC) previously. Personally I don't believe we have just 12 years to avoid irreversible climate change. In 1989 we were told we by the UN that we had until 2000 to avoid runaway climate change. In 2007 Al Gore said we would have an ice free arctic in summer by 2015. Etc. You can be given these alarming warnings so many times, fed with alarming and often false statistics so many times before you want to question them.
> 
> Sadly people sceptical about catastrophic global warming, runaway climate change, and this year's new and dire "hothouse earth" which has now been upgraded to a "hellish hothouse earth" have even been banned from discussing climate change on the BBC. The Greens' Rupert Read forced that ban.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Degrowth? Put the country (world) in to recession, increase unemployment, disenable the poor countries striving to live a better life to have that better life? That sort of radical action? Sounds like Socialism on steroids. Well, yes, I suppose we could achieve your dream in 12 years without nuclear energy - Venezuela has managed it.

By the way - we have been given these calamitous ultimatums by the UN (IPCC) previously. Personally I don't believe we have just 12 years to avoid irreversible climate change. In 1989 we were told we by the UN that we had until 2000 to avoid runaway climate change. In 2007 Al Gore said we would have an ice free arctic in summer by 2015. Etc. You can be given these alarming warnings so many times, fed with alarming and often false statistics so many times before you want to question them.

Sadly people sceptical about catastrophic global warming, runaway climate change, and this year's new and dire "hothouse earth" which has now been upgraded to a "hellish hothouse earth" have even been banned from discussing climate change on the BBC. The Greens' Rupert Read forced that ban.[/QUOTE]


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Degrowth? Put the country (world) in to recession, increase unemployment, disenable the poor countries striving to live a better life to have that better life? That sort of radical action? Sounds like Socialism on steroids. Well, yes, I suppose we could achieve your dream in 12 years without nuclear energy - Venezuela has managed it.
> 
> By the way - we have been given these calamitous ultimatums by the UN (IPCC) previously. Personally I don't believe we have just 12 years to avoid irreversible climate change. In 1989 we were told we by the UN that we had until 2000 to avoid runaway climate change. In 2007 Al Gore said we would have an ice free arctic in summer by 2015. Etc. You can be given these alarming warnings so many times, fed with alarming and often false statistics so many times before you want to question them.
> 
> Sadly people sceptical about catastrophic global warming, runaway climate change, and this year's new and dire "hothouse earth" which has now been upgraded to a "hellish hothouse earth" have even been banned from discussing climate change on the BBC. The Greens' Rupert Read forced that ban.


[/QUOTE]

Can I ask you a one question? Do you believe we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?

(I will answer all your points later as I'm off out with my lovely boys and their girlfriends soon so don't have much time) (I had a feeling you'd revert to 'denier mode' though lol )


----------



## rona

https://www.birdguides.com/news/pro...3scHkly9prfgBr6IeqTSTh9Z6yqWb1esGjvisI9GOkoEk

"The Study Group has taken a firm stance and is strongly against the proposed development. The southern area of the county, where the development has been proposed, supports at least 11 pairs of Hen Harriers, which is the equivalent to 7 per cent of the entire Irish population. Although An Bord Pleanála's approval of the windfarm had been granted with conditions that included specific monitoring of the species during construction, and an employed Ecological Officer, the Study Group is pushing to prevent the development.

Hen Harrier has declined by 50 per cent in Ireland during the last four decades, and is now considered the rarest declining breeding bird in the country, having once been widespread. The number of nesting pairs has declined even within special areas set up to protect them. This population crash has been caused by various factors, including land use change, decline in habitat and reduced food availability."


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Can I ask you a one question? Do you believe we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?

(I will answer all your points later as I'm off out with my lovely boys and their girlfriends soon so don't have much time) (I had a feeling you'd revert to 'denier mode' though lol )[/QUOTE]

I haven't reverted to denier mode - I've moved forward and started to question the alarmist hysteria that came about after a lovely warm summer.

What is also galling is the fact that the voice of those who are sceptical about 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' are now being silenced.

To answer your question about finite resources on a finite planet - I believe we have, always, to look for better ways to preserve what we have and to not recklessly destroy it.

So, I know I continually bang on about nuclear energy, but what you do have right there, right now, is a clean energy source that _is_ practically infinite. There is enough uranium in the oceans alone to power the planet for thousands upon thousands of years.

PS. You really don't have to add the 'lols' to some of your comments. It's a little bit patronising, isn't it? Sweetheart.


----------



## noushka05

I'm off out again LOL but very quickly before I go, you say haven't reverted to denier mode in the same sentence as this >> _I've moved forward and started to question the alarmist hysteria that came about after a lovely warm summer. :Meh_


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Yes - what precisely am I denying?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Yes - what precisely am I denying?


:WideyedWhere to start? (but I will, when I get time to sit and dissect your posts) For now though, maybe you could explain _exactly_ what you mean by this then -


samuelsmiles2 said:


> I've moved forward* and started to* *question* the *alarmist hysteria* that came about after a lovely warm summer.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> :Wideyed*Where to start?* (but I will, when I get time to sit and dissect your posts) For now though, maybe you could explain _exactly_ what you mean by this then -


How about right here. What, precisely, am I _denying_?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> How about right here. What, precisely, am I _denying_?


OK then, for clarification purposes, simply explain what you mean by this  - _ I've moved forward* and started to* *question* the *alarmist hysteria* that came about after a lovely warm summer_.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> OK then, for clarification purposes, simply explain what you mean by this  - _ I've moved forward* and started to* *question* the *alarmist hysteria* that came about after a lovely warm summer_.


Ok - let me clarify exactly what I mean by this. I've moved forward and started to question the alarmist hysteria that came about after a lovely warm summer.

Now, what, precisely, am I _denying_?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Ok - let me clarify exactly what I mean by this. I've moved forward and started to question the alarmist hysteria that came about after a lovely warm summer.
> 
> Now, what, precisely, am I _denying_?


What alarmist hysteria are you talking about? No obfuscation please, just a straight forward answer to a straight forward question.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

:WideyedWhere to start? Have you not listened to, watched and read the alarmist hysteria during and following this summer? I'd say it's been very clear.

Now, again, what am I _denying, _exactly?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> :WideyedWhere to start? Have you not listened to, watched and read the alarmist hysteria during and following this summer? I'd say it's been very clear.
> 
> Now, again, what am I _denying, _exactly?


No I havent heard any 'alarmist hysteria', so you're going have to explain what you're going on about. Maybe you can post links if its easier?

.............................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## noushka05

_"One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a scathing attack on the government's fracking programme, accusing ministers of aping Donald Trump and ignoring scientific evidence."

James Hansen, who is known as the father of climate science, warned that future generations would judge the decision to back a UK fracking industry harshly.

"So the UK joins Trump, ignores science… full throttle ahead with the worst fossil fuels," Hansen told the Observer. "The science is crystal clear, we need to phase out fossil fuels starting with the most damaging, the 'unconventional' fossil fuels such as tar sands and 'fracking'."

Hansen has also written to the UK energy minister, Claire Perry, to underline his objections, warning that the decision was a serious policy error that would contribute to "climate breakdown".

_

*Top climate scientist blasts UK's fracking plans as 'aping Trump'*
James Hansen, 'father of climate science', accuses Britain of ignoring science

_
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...entist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans_


----------



## samuelsmiles2

OK. All of this stuff has happened before. The wildfires in the arctic, fires in Greece, California, England. Hot temperatures across Europe for a few weeks. It has all happened before and it has been more extreme, leading to more death and destruction than it did this summer. This summer, and the few days of warmer weather in the arctic last winter, was all the alarmists needed to _celebrate _the fact that we are causing CAGW.

I said previously we were told by the IPCC in 1989 that we had until 2000 before "rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map"
In 1999 we were told the "Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years"
In 2000 The Guardian told us that "snow will become a thing of the past"
2008 - Al Gore. "The arctic will be ice free by 2013"
In 2010 George Monbiot even had the gall to write in his column "That snow outside is what global warming looks like"

The "science is not settled" as the alarmists like to tell us. All of the above, and a whole hat full of contrary evidence suggests otherwise. If the 'experts' are getting it wrong so often, do you not think it wise to question it?

As you refuse to answer my question I will answer it for you. I am not denying anything. I am questioning the "catastrophic" part of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> _"One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a scathing attack on the government's fracking programme, accusing ministers of aping Donald Trump and ignoring scientific evidence."
> 
> *James Hansen, who is known as the father of climate science*, warned that future generations would judge the decision to back a UK fracking industry harshly.
> 
> "So the UK joins Trump, ignores science… full throttle ahead with the worst fossil fuels," Hansen told the Observer. "The science is crystal clear, we need to phase out fossil fuels starting with the most damaging, the 'unconventional' fossil fuels such as tar sands and 'fracking'."
> 
> Hansen has also written to the UK energy minister, Claire Perry, to underline his objections, warning that the decision was a serious policy error that would contribute to "climate breakdown".
> _
> 
> 
> 
> *Top climate scientist blasts UK's fracking plans as 'aping Trump'*
> James Hansen, 'father of climate science', accuses Britain of ignoring science
> 
> _
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...entist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans_


Yes, James Hansen_, _now a committed supporter of nuclear energy.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Here's the latest alarmist, hysterical headline. Lots of mays, may nots, we need new studies etc. The report does say that climate change may (or may not) also lead to less poisonous frogs and snakes but that wouldn't be so alarming, would it?

*Venomous sea creatures on the rise thanks to climate change*


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles2 said:


> I said previously we were told by the IPCC in 1989 that we had until 2000 before "rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map"
> In 1999 we were told the "Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years"
> In 2000 The Guardian told us that "snow will become a thing of the past"
> 2008 - Al Gore. "The arctic will be ice free by 2013"


Don't forget, in 70s we were told that we were approaching the next Ice Age .........Is that why we had all that snow last winter? 

Flooding in that decade
Rochester July 1978
Howard county Baltimore 1972
Australia, all western states 1970
Singapore 1978
Denver 1976
Cardiff 1979 
Brisbane 1974 
Romania 1975
Ontario 1974
China 1975
Etc etc etc


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> As you refuse to answer my question I will answer it for you. I am not denying anything. I am questioning the "catastrophic" part of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.


I'm going to answer your question myself, I just need to understand the bit you say you're questioning now. Are you questioning the science that to avert 'catastrophic' climate breakdown we must limit global warming to 'well below 2 degrees'? And if you agree we must keep well below 2 degrees pre industrial, are you arguing the consequences *will not* be 'catastrophic' if we do surpass it? Am I on the right track as your posts are very contradictory?



samuelsmiles2 said:


> Yes, James Hansen_, _now a committed supporter of nuclear energy.


Like George Monbiot is . I'm well aware of their positions on nuclear, and they both understand the existential threat we're facing.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Don't forget, in 70s we were told that we were approaching the next Ice Age .........Is that why we had all that snow last winter?
> 
> Flooding in that decade
> Rochester July 1978
> Howard county Baltimore 1972
> Australia, all western states 1970
> Singapore 1978
> Denver 1976
> Cardiff 1979
> Brisbane 1974
> Romania 1975
> Ontario 1974
> China 1975
> Etc etc etc


:Jawdrop


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> he report does say that climate change may (or may not) also lead to less poisonous frogs and snakes but that wouldn't be so alarming, would it?


Why wouldn't it?? I find it extremely alarming.


----------



## havoc

samuelsmiles2 said:


> I said previously we were told by the IPCC in 1989 that we had until 2000 before "rising sea levels will wipe entire nations off the map"


Surely that's if we did nothing and it could well be that by 2000 we had reached a point of no return. We have yet to see but the signs aren't good.


----------



## Happy Paws2

rona said:


> Don't forget, in 70s we were told that we were approaching the next Ice Age .........Is that why we had all that snow last winter?


I remember them saying that, very cold winters and hot summers would start in the early part of the 2000's


----------



## Elles

What is being and has been done is working. If you look back, we didn’t recycle and every chimney belched smoke. We still need to do more, especially the big guns, but to a large degree technology will help. It’s a combination of things that will save our environment. We haven’t stood still since these warnings. If we had carried on as we were in the seventies, with the knowledge we had then, the predictions could have been right.


----------



## kimthecat

The 60s had cold winters . Remember 1963. I can remember the fog or rather smog ! Greater London when smokeless in 1967 I think . We couldn't use coal or coke and my dad had to borrow money from gran and granddad to buy a gas fire . My mum was in heaven , just turn it on and warmth ! no more cleaning the grate and trying to get it to light . On the other hand , we couldn't roast chestnuts on the gas fire. 

Didnt the thames used to freeze up back in past times because of the cold winters .

But yes much more needs to be done and quickly , Australia wont stop using coal . 
If we all have electric cars in the near future , how ill we produce enough electricty ?


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> I'm going to answer your question myself, I just need to understand the bit you say you're questioning now. Are you questioning the science that to avert 'catastrophic' climate breakdown we must limit global warming to 'well below 2 degrees'? And if you agree we must keep well below 2 degrees pre industrial, are you arguing the consequences *will not* be 'catastrophic' if we do surpass it? Am I on the right track as your posts are very contradictory?
> 
> Like George Monbiot is . I'm well aware of their positions on nuclear, and they both understand the existential threat we're facing.


My belief is that these figures, whether 1.5c (now altered to 2c) are valid reasons to claim we are approaching 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming. There is also huge doubt that previous temperature readings have been accurately recorded, and without absolute accuracy, there is absolute reason to question how much the earth is warming, and what the alarmists predict will happen.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

havoc said:


> Surely that's if we did nothing and it could well be that by 2000 we had reached a point of no return. We have yet to see but the signs aren't good.


What are the signs that aren't good, exactly?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> My belief is that these figures, whether 1.5c (now altered to 2c) are valid reasons to claim we are approaching 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming. There is also huge doubt that previous temperature readings have been accurately recorded, and without absolute accuracy, there is absolute reason to question how much the earth is warming, and what the alarmists predict will happen.


So even you say they are valid reasons to claim we;re 'approaching' catastrophic breakdown, yet you dismiss the climate scientists as alarmists for saying the same? :Hilarious So, tell me, how will you know with 'absolute accuracy' when we've reached that tipping point Samuel?


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Edited post.

My belief is that these figures, whether 1.5c (now altered to 2c) are *not* valid reasons to claim we are approaching 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming. There is also huge doubt that previous temperature readings have been accurately recorded, and without absolute accuracy, there is absolute reason to question how much the earth is warming, and what the alarmists predict will happen.


----------



## havoc

samuelsmiles2 said:


> What are the signs that aren't good, exactly?


Well you can argue about temperature readings being accurate and the timescale but you can't deny the deforestation that's gone on in Nigeria and Brazil or that it has to have 'some' effect which is unlikely to be positive. We humans are expert at finding many ways to destroy this planet. That's nothing to do with natural cycles which did exist. You can't assume what happens now is one of those natural cycles from which we'll recover when we've changed the planet to such an extent.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Edited post.
> 
> My belief is that these figures, whether 1.5c (now altered to 2c) are *not* valid reasons to claim we are approaching 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming. There is also huge doubt that previous temperature readings have been accurately recorded, and without absolute accuracy, there is absolute reason to question how much the earth is warming, and what the alarmists predict will happen.


Wow.

(I can now answer your question in full. But once again I have to go out, so will respond asap)


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Wow. Cool. 

I'm looking forward to it with relish.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Wow. Cool.
> 
> I'm looking forward to it with relish.


Before I dash off, one more question. If you dont believe we have to stay well below 2c, is there another temperature you think we *do *need to stay below to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown? 2.5c maybe?


----------



## samuelsmiles2

_"Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890. Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler."
_
Judith Curry is one of many sceptical scientists whose comments I've been reading these past few months. You may want to have a read of her thoughts, too. It is research from scientists like this that makes me question 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming from the alarmists like you.

Judith Curry - 1.5 degrees


----------



## samuelsmiles2

havoc said:


> Well you can argue about temperature readings being accurate and the timescale but you can't deny the deforestation that's gone on in Nigeria and Brazil or that it has to have 'some' effect which is unlikely to be positive. We humans are expert at finding many ways to destroy this planet. That's nothing to do with natural cycles which did exist. You can't assume what happens now is one of those natural cycles from which we'll recover when we've changed the planet to such an extent.


The deforestation in South and Central America is appalling. That, as well as natural cycles and other factors that we don't understand will, of course, have an effect on our climate but, what I am questioning is this 'catastrophic' description that has recently been added to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I am asking what are the actual physical signs of climate/weather that are happening today that haven't happened before? Six weeks of a particularly hot summer appeared to be all that was needed to bring out the alarmists with headlines screaming 'Hothouse Earth' and yet, for example heatwaves in the US in the 1930's were far more intense with far more deaths. The same happened in the UK in the early part of the 20th century. Some news reports were giving the impression that these events were more frequent, unprecedented and more dangerous. This is simply not true.

And then during this summer the voice of anyone who dared to question this 'catastophic' Global Warming was banned from taking part in BBC debate. The Greens' Rupert Read had a hissy fit and wouldn't appear on the radio next to a sceptic (or a 'denier' to give it a more sensational tone.) False equivalence they claimed because the "science is settled"? When is the science ever settled when there are so many unknowns?

He then gets this piece in The Guardian backed up by the other usual left wing friends telling anyone who dares question them that they are wrong and we won't contemplate debate. That's a dangerous stance to take, isn't it?

PS. If you can stomach it, this is Rupert Read addressing (alarming) his philosophy students.

Rupert Read - "The latter part of your lives will be grim or non-existent"


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> So even you say they are valid reasons to claim we;re 'approaching' catastrophic breakdown, yet you dismiss the climate scientists as alarmists for saying the same? :Hilarious *So, tell me, how will you know with 'absolute accuracy' when we've reached that tipping point Samuel? *


I don't know. But the UN (IPCC) predicted in 1989 that the tipping point would be the year 2000. That tipping point was nearly twenty years ago. Now, in the latest IPCC report, we have been given this alarming 12 years. It's beginning to look like nonsense, isn't it?

Quote from the so called 'scientist' below -
_
"The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth's temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown." _

As you say Noushka05 - Wow.

They sure got that one wrong..


----------



## havoc

samuelsmiles2 said:


> The deforestation in South and Central America is appalling. That, as well as natural cycles and other factors that we don't understand will, of course, have an effect on our climate but, what I am questioning is this 'catastrophic' description that has recently been added to Anthropogenic Global Warming.


I think we're beyond it being an argument over semantics.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> _"Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890. Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler."
> _
> Judith Curry is one of many sceptical scientists whose comments I've been reading these past few months. You may want to have a read of her thoughts, too. It is research from scientists like this that makes me question 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming from the alarmists like you.
> 
> Judith Curry - 1.5 degrees


Judith Curry? You mean the darling of climate deniers everywhere? favourite scientist of Trumps Republican Party and the Koch brothers and Nigel Lawsons climate denier lobby group the GWPF? That Judith Curry? I actually suspected you were getting your info from one of the notorious contrarians.

I was actually going to ask you outright whether Curry (or Pilke, Lindzen, Lomborg, Moore et al) were, perhaps, your sources . So thank you for saving me the trouble by confirming my suspicions.

Are you aware Judy is on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry Samuel??



samuelsmiles2 said:


> The deforestation in South and Central America is appalling. That, as well as natural cycles and other factors that we don't understand will, of course, have an effect on our climate but, what I am questioning is this 'catastrophic' description that has recently been added to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
> 
> I am asking what are the actual physical signs of climate/weather that are happening today that haven't happened before? Six weeks of a particularly hot summer appeared to be all that was needed to bring out the alarmists with headlines screaming 'Hothouse Earth' and yet, for example heatwaves in the US in the 1930's were far more intense with far more deaths. The same happened in the UK in the early part of the 20th century. Some news reports were giving the impression that these events were more frequent, unprecedented and more dangerous. This is simply not true.
> 
> And then during this summer the voice of anyone who dared to question this 'catastophic' Global Warming was banned from taking part in BBC debate. The Greens' Rupert Read had a hissy fit and wouldn't appear on the radio next to a sceptic (or a 'denier' to give it a more sensational tone.) False equivalence they claimed because the "science is settled"? When is the science ever settled when there are so many unknowns?
> 
> He then gets this piece in The Guardian backed up by the other usual left wing friends telling anyone who dares question them that they are wrong and we won't contemplate debate. That's a dangerous stance to take, isn't it?
> 
> PS. If you can stomach it, this is Rupert Read addressing (alarming) his philosophy students.
> 
> Rupert Read - "The latter part of your lives will be grim or non-existent"


Ah as I thought you are conflating 'climate' with 'weather'. This is why I tried to press you on this statement - _I've moved forward and started to question the alarmist hysteria that came about after a lovely warm summer. _I'm surprised someone who claims to have been researching the subject hasn't grasped the difference yet. Its very basic knowledge.

Of course countries have had heatwave anomalies before, but this 'heatwave' was 'global'. The long term trend is global temperatures are rising - the 5 hottest years have all been since 2010. 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have been since 2000.

UK's famous heatwave of 1976 compared to this years. Can you see a glaring difference @samuelsmiles2 ?



















In the UK, except for 2001 we've has 15 of the hottest summers on record.



samuelsmiles2 said:


> I don't know. But the UN (IPCC) predicted in 1989 that the tipping point would be the year 2000. That tipping point was nearly twenty years ago. Now, in the latest IPCC report, we have been given this alarming 12 years. It's beginning to look like nonsense, isn't it?
> 
> Quote from the so called 'scientist' below -
> _
> "The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth's temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown." _
> 
> As you say Noushka05 - Wow.
> 
> They sure got that one wrong..


The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the IPCC wasn't completed until 1990  - so can you reference a direct link to the study you refer to instead of a newspaper article please. Until now, the IPCC has actually been quite conservative when it comes to the predictions of it's impacts of climate change and consistently underestimated the consequences. Kevin Anderson has spoken out many times about this.

Rupert Read? What a star though ! ! Deniers across the net were flipping the lids More on that later though because, as per, time is not on my side:Beaver


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> And then during this summer the voice of anyone who dared to question this 'catastophic' Global Warming was banned from taking part in BBC debate. The Greens' Rupert Read had a hissy fit and wouldn't appear on the radio next to a sceptic (or a 'denier' to give it a more sensational tone.) False equivalence they claimed because the "science is settled"? When is the science ever settled when there are so many unknowns?
> 
> He then gets this piece in The Guardian backed up by the other usual left wing friends telling anyone who dares question them that they are wrong and we won't contemplate debate. That's a dangerous stance to take, isn't it?
> 
> PS. If you can stomach it, this is Rupert Read addressing (alarming) his philosophy students.
> 
> Rupert Read - "The latter part of your lives will be grim or non-existent"


No need for words. The brilliant Ralph Underhills cartoon will suffice.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Haha. It's fascinating, isn't it? The best you can do is attack the person and not her science, studies and peer reviewed papers. I really had no idea that you would travel that path yet again.

That's OK. If you want to go down that far left, DeSmog, simplistic form of debate, fine. What would you like me to tell you about one of your sources of climate change, David Suzuki?

The 'environmentalist' Suzuki who owns four or 5 houses (none running off grid, of course), has published 55 books, has a foundation worth millions with questions to answer about the use of that money, travels (or used to before criticism) to seminars on a private plane and, to boot, has a habit to tell people to 7uck off when they question him about this. Naomi Klein is another capitalist making millions from the system through her books and seminars. Hypocrites - like you.

Both have carbon footprints that are equal to the launch of Soyuz 5 in to orbit and yet have the absolute gall to preach to the masses how to live their lives. Wow, as you would say.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

Here is another alarmist UN prediction, this time dating to as far back as 1982, warning of the 'tipping point' within twenty years.

_"the world faces an ecological disaster as final as a nuclear war within a couple of decades"_

I think it's valid to question the alarmist 'catastophic' Anthropogenic Global Warming claim from the IPCC this month.


----------



## havoc

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Here is another alarmist UN prediction, this time dating to as far back as 1982, warning of the 'tipping point' within twenty y


How do you know we didn't reach the tipping point? Tipping point isn't necessarily a dramatic end of the world. It could be that we've caused so much damage we can't get back to where we need to be.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Haha. It's fascinating, isn't it? The best you can do is attack the person and not her science, studies and peer reviewed papers. I really had no idea that you would travel that path yet again.
> 
> That's OK. If you want to go down that far left, DeSmog, simplistic form of debate, fine. What would you like me to tell you about one of your sources of climate change, David Suzuki?
> 
> The 'environmentalist' Suzuki who owns four or 5 houses (none running off grid, of course), has published 55 books, has a foundation worth millions with questions to answer about the use of that money, travels (or used to before criticism) to seminars on a private plane and, to boot, has a habit to tell people to 7uck off when they question him about this. Naomi Klein is another capitalist making millions from the system through her books and seminars. Hypocrites - like you.
> 
> Both have carbon footprints that are equal to the launch of Soyuz 5 in to orbit and yet have the absolute gall to preach to the masses how to live their lives. Wow, as you would say.


I only expose the charlatans  - you on the other hand seek to undermine pretty much the entire scientific community on climate change.

You have made personal unfounded attacks on one of the worlds leading scientist, Professor Kevin Anderson, by accusing him of flying. Kevin hasnt flown for over a decade as he is highly principled and believes in leading by example. And he is bang on about the real problem - the need for growth.

For growth lies behind pretty much every environmental problem in the world. That people like you, cant see we are plundering our natural world at an unsustainable and alarming rate is staggering tbqh.

Desmog is widely respected by trusted experts for reporting things factually. It never seeks to undermine the consensus - that you call it far left is typical denier in denial. This is why Curry et al is so dangersous for sowing the seeds of doubt when there is no doubt -we are near the tipping point for catastrophic runaway climate breakdown.

Back to Judy>>>>

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

*Judith A. Curry* is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[

*Fossil fuel industry funding*
Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile[4], Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,

"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."
*Climate views*
Curry believes the IPCC has done a bad job of characterizing uncertainty".[5] She believes "skeptical scientists" have difficulty getting their papers published.[6] She does not view herself as a climate hawk[7](one who judges that the risks of climate change are sufficient to warrant a robust response.[8]) - though somewhat confusingly, she denies playing down the urgency of climate action: "I am saying nothing about that one way or the other"

(and so on)

WOW though



samuelsmiles2 said:


> Here is another alarmist UN prediction, this time dating to as far back as 1982, warning of the 'tipping point' within twenty years.
> 
> _"the world faces an ecological disaster as final as a nuclear war within a couple of decades"_
> 
> I think it's valid to question the alarmist 'catastophic' Anthropogenic Global Warming claim from the IPCC this month.


Instead of rooting around for obscure newspaper clippings, can you just provide the direct link to 'IPCC' report from erm,... 1989?


----------



## samuelsmiles2

David Suzuki?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> David Suzuki?


And? He doesn't seek undermine the overwhelming consensual position of scientists. Couldn't tell you if hes a monumental hypocrite though . I've quoted him before and whether hes a hypocrite or not - doesnt alter the fact that this is accurate, we simply cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet Samuel.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

It's interesting the way the far lefties attack 'big oil' and all of the fossil fuel industry as dangerous, money grabbing, neoliberal, far right, capitalists. Actually it's laughable.

I wonder. What state would we be in today if we hadn't discovered fossil fuels? There wouldn't be a tree left on this planet as we strived to keep ourselves warm and comfortable and alive.

I'm very thankful that there were amazing engineers who had the skill to drill for oil to pull us out of the dark ages. 

Noushka05 - what will be the source of energy that builds, maintains and then does the recycling of the highly toxic solar panels and the environmentally destructive wind turbines when they become obsolete after 25 years of intermittent and dilute energy?


----------



## samuelsmiles2

And what? Well why shouldn't I question his motives when he is such an appalling hypocrite. Why would I fund The David Suzuki Foundation to enable his lavish lifestyle when he is attacking the very people who are enabling him to live in this luxury?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> It's interesting the way the far lefties attack 'big oil' and all of the fossil fuel industry as dangerous, money grabbing, neoliberal, far right, capitalists. Actually it's laughable.
> 
> I wonder. What state would we be in today if we hadn't discovered fossil fuels? There wouldn't be a tree left on this planet as we strived to keep ourselves warm and comfortable and alive.
> 
> I'm very thankful that there were amazing engineers who had the skill to drill for oil to pull us out of the dark ages.
> 
> Noushka05 - what will be the source of energy that builds, maintains and then does the recycling of the highly toxic solar panels and the environmentally destructive wind turbines when they become obsolete after 25 years of intermittent and dilute energy?


Here we go. Far lefties  So here we go again? We've come full circle. I've already addressed your points on this very thread - a lot! It is blatantly obvious what we have to do - but if you choose to be wilfully blind, theres not much I or anyone else can do about that. But to refresh >>

"About half of CO2 emissions arise from 10% of the global pop.

& 70% from 20% of pop.

Direct correlation between wealth & high emissions. Kevin Anderson 

My father, and my Grandad were coal miners, they risked their lives to keep the lights on, but its time to move forward & leave fossil fuels in the ground, to move away from this devastating economic model. Or we WILL destroy our wonderful biosphere - FOREVER.

Ban Ki-Moon speaking at Davos >>>

*"Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all:* *Time*," he told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in a session devoted to redefining sustainable development. "*We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change. Time to ensure sustainable, climate-resilient green growth. Time to generate a clean energy revolution."*

Calling sustainable development the growth agenda for the 21st century, Mr. Ban recited a litany of development errors based on a false belief in the infinite abundance of natural resources that fuelled the economy in the last century.
*
"We mined our way to growth,"* he said. *"We burned our way to prosperity. We believed in consumption without consequences. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high.*

*"Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete. It has rendered it extremely dangerous. Over time, that model is a recipe for national disaster. It is a global suicide pact.*

*..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................*


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> And what? Well why shouldn't I question his motives when he is such an appalling hypocrite. Why would I fund The David Suzuki Foundation to enable his lavish lifestyle when he is attacking the very people who are enabling him to live in this luxury?


David Suzuki who, you claim, lives a lavish lifestyle is warning us we have to live sustainably if we want to save our living planet (which is obviously true) - what do you think his motives might be for saying that? Sounds as though he cares more about saving the planet than his 'lavish' lifestyle to me.


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> David Suzuki who, you claim, lives a lavish lifestyle is warning us we have to live sustainably if we want to save our living planet (which is obviously true) - what do you think his motives might be for saying that? *Sounds as though he cares more about saving the planet than his 'lavish' lifestyle to me*.


In what way, shape or form can Suzuki care about the environment if he doesn't act in the way he preaches?

You must live your life as I say, not as I do seems to be his message, as he accumulates his mass of wealth through the capitalist society that enables this.

Hypocrites. (Plural for a reason)


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> Here we go. Far lefties  So here we go again? We've come full circle. I've already addressed your points on this very thread - a lot! It is blatantly obvious what we have to do - but if you choose to be wilfully blind, theres not much I or anyone else can do about that. But to refresh >>
> 
> "About half of CO2 emissions arise from 10% of the global pop.
> 
> & 70% from 20% of pop.
> 
> Direct correlation between wealth & high emissions. Kevin Anderson
> 
> *My father, and my Grandad were coal miners, they risked their lives to keep the lights on, but its time to move forward & leave fossil fuels in the ground*, to move away from this devastating economic model. Or we WILL destroy our wonderful biosphere - FOREVER.
> 
> Ban Ki-Moon speaking at Davos >>>
> 
> *"Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all:* *Time*," he told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in a session devoted to redefining sustainable development. "*We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change. Time to ensure sustainable, climate-resilient green growth. Time to generate a clean energy revolution."*
> 
> Calling sustainable development the growth agenda for the 21st century, Mr. Ban recited a litany of development errors based on a false belief in the infinite abundance of natural resources that fuelled the economy in the last century.
> *
> "We mined our way to growth,"* he said. *"We burned our way to prosperity. We believed in consumption without consequences. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high.*
> 
> *"Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete. It has rendered it extremely dangerous. Over time, that model is a recipe for national disaster. It is a global suicide pact.*
> 
> *..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................*


And move away from fossil fuels to what. Would you like me to tell you how toxic solar panels are manufactured. The chemicals, the mining, the recycling of them. The poisonous crap that ends up in rivers during this process? Wind turbines and the environmental destruction they cause, maybe?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> In what way, shape or form can Suzuki care about the environment if he doesn't act in the way he preaches?
> 
> You must live your life as I say, not as I do seems to be his message, as he accumulates his mass of wealth through the capitalist society that enables this.
> 
> Hypocrites. (Plural for a reason)


In the West, we are all hypocrites to varying degrees. The difference between Suzuki and you for example, is he wants strong leadership that will put saving our planet at the top of the agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki

*Carbon footprint[edit]*
Suzuki himself laments that in travelling constantly to spread his message of climate responsibility, he has ended up "over his [carbon] limit by hundreds of tonnes." He has stopped vacationing overseas and taken to "clustering" his speaking engagements together to reduce his carbon footprint. He would prefer, he says, to appear solely by video conference.[35]



samuelsmiles2 said:


> And move away from fossil fuels to what. Would you like me to tell you how toxic solar panels are manufactured. The chemicals, the mining, the recycling of them? Wind turbines and the environmental destruction they cause, maybe?


So you still believe solar panels and wind turbines could be more environmentally destructive than irreversible, runaway climate change? . I've answered your question - over & over again. Please just refer to world renowned scientist - Kevin Anderson. And save my time


----------



## samuelsmiles2

noushka05 said:


> In the West, we are all hypocrites to varying degrees. The difference between Suzuki and you for example, is he wants strong leadership that will put saving our planet at the top of the agenda.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
> 
> *Carbon footprint[edit]*
> Suzuki himself laments that in travelling constantly to spread his message of climate responsibility, he has ended up "over his [carbon] limit by hundreds of tonnes." He has stopped vacationing overseas and taken to "clustering" his speaking engagements together to reduce his carbon footprint. He would prefer, he says, to appear solely by video conference.[35]
> 
> So you still believe solar panels and wind turbines could be more environmentally destructive than irreversible, runaway climate change? . I've answered your question - over & over again. Please just refer to world renowned scientist - Kevin Anderson. *And save my time*


Hahahaha. Noushka05 - I am so sorry for wasting your time. I'll be back in 12 years to see how things are going, though.

The floor is all yours now for big memes, sanctimony and alarmism.


----------



## rona

https://theconversation.com/climate...ld-will-be-anomalously-warm-until-2022-101542
"The next four years are going to be anomalously warm - even on top of regular climate change. That's according to new research my colleague Sybren Drijfhout and I have just published."

"We developed a new prediction system we call PROCAST (PROabilistic foreCAST), and used it to predict the natural variability of the climate system. This refers to how the climate varies naturally from warm to cool phases that last a few years at a time, and is separate from the long-term trend of anthropogenic global warming. PROCAST predicts a warm phase for the next few years."


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles2 said:


> Hahahaha. Noushka05 - I am so sorry for wasting your time. I'll be back in 12 years to see how things are going, though.
> 
> The floor is all yours now for big memes, sanctimony and alarmism.


Lovely to see someone bow out of a debate so gracefully. _memes, sanctimony and alarmism_ - not to mention plenty of debating to expose your deeply flawed arguments. ( & theres still plenty of points to address when I get the chance) I suspect this was also a contributing factor in your decision to go ;0). No hard feelings though, I hope. And believe me when I say, I hope with everything I have, that the overwhelming evidence is wrong & you will be proved right. I'm not prepared to take that chance though, I believe in science & I love my children & our living planet so I am going to fight to save it until time runs out.

And if the science was wrong, would a greener world be so bad? >>

(warning meme alert)


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Construction of the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station has been suspended. So, there goes another source of reliable, clean, highly regulated energy in the UK. It would have produced enough energy (2.9gw) to power 5 million homes.

At the same time, in Moray, plans are in place to build another 600 environmentally destructive wind turbines over presently pristine countryside, necessitating the tearing down of thousands of trees and sinking in thousands of tonnes of concrete foundations.

To put things into perspective, Whitelee Wind Farm near Glasgow has over 200 wind turbines producing about 500mw of energy but covers 55km2 of countryside. To get the same output as Wylfa nuclear you would need 1200 wind turbines covering 300km2 of land.

Why are the 'greens' who purport to care for the environment so much not campaigning against this. Why are they not angry about this destruction of our landscape? Why are they not blocking attempts to start this nonsense of a project?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Construction of the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station has been suspended. So, there goes another source of reliable, clean, highly regulated energy in the UK. It would have produced enough energy (2.9gw) to power 5 million homes.
> 
> At the same time, in Moray, plans are in place to build another 600 environmentally destructive wind turbines over presently pristine countryside, necessitating the tearing down of thousands of trees and sinking in thousands of tonnes of concrete foundations.
> 
> To put things into perspective, Whitelee Wind Farm near Glasgow has over 200 wind turbines producing about 500mw of energy but covers 55km2 of countryside. To get the same output as Wylfa nuclear you would need 1200 wind turbines covering 300km2 of land.
> 
> Why are the 'greens' who purport to care for the environment so much not campaigning against this. Why are they not angry about this destruction of our landscape? Why are they not blocking attempts to start this nonsense of a project?


Brexiters are a to blame for Wylfa. As someone who voted for brexit who has pinned everything to the nuclear mast, Hitachi pulling the plug must be extremely gutting for you. If only remain had won, hey Samuel?

_This was Toshiaki Higashihara, CEO of Hitachi, tel*ling me in March 2016 before the referendum that his firm was against* *Brexit and it'd have to review its investments including the nuclear project if they voted to leave the EU. *_

_

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085807960952004608_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I'm more interested in the actual facts of the (so called) Greens opposing nuclear energy and replacing with renewables that you support. What certainly _is _gutting is the ripping down of Scottish forests in Moray to accommodate these environmentally destructive wind turbines. I'll leave the Brexit whataboutery to you this time.

Does it not worry you when you see this desecration? Will the 'Greens' be out in force, campaigning against it like they are at the fracking site in Lancashire?

Because, to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, this will be what you are campaigning _for_.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I'm more interested in the actual facts of the (so called) Greens opposing nuclear energy and replacing with renewables that you support. What certainly _is _gutting is the ripping down of Scottish forests in Moray to accommodate these environmentally destructive wind turbines. I'll leave the Brexit whataboutery to you this time.
> 
> Does it not worry you when you see this desecration? Will the 'Greens' be out in force, campaigning against it like they are at the fracking site in Lancashire?
> 
> Because, to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, this will be what you are campaigning _for_.


Its not whataboutery, brexiteers have put the kibosh on the nuclear power plant at Wylfa. 
(proof below )

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085807960952004608


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Well, perhaps your opinions would best be taken to the Brexit thread, then. I'm genuinely more interested in discussing energy and the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewables. I will try again though. 

When replacing nuclear energy and, as you have previously called it, the "filthy" fossil fuel industry with renewables, do you consider the desecration of Moray an acceptable outcome? Taking into consideration the loss of trees, the loss of wildlife habitat, the danger to bats and birds, the millions of tonnes of concrete required for the foundations. The utter spoiling of the landscape and views for such unreliable energy?

You would be content to sit back, and let that happen.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Well, perhaps your opinions would best be taken to the Brexit thread, then. I'm genuinely more interested in discussing energy and the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear, fossil fuels and renewables. I will try again though.
> 
> When replacing nuclear energy and, as you have previously called it, the "filthy" fossil fuel industry with renewables, do you consider the desecration of Moray an acceptable outcome? Taking into consideration the loss of trees, the loss of wildlife habitat, the danger to bats and birds, the millions of tonnes of concrete required for the foundations. The utter spoiling of the landscape and views for such unreliable energy?
> 
> You would be content to sit back, and let that happen.


Please watch the video and see the damage brexit is doing to our nuclear industry Sam 



noushka05 said:


> Its not whataboutery, brexiteers have put the kibosh on the nuclear power plant at Wylfa.
> (proof below )
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085807960952004608


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Noushka05, you seem to change your opinions on nuclear energy flipperty flopperty just to suit your argument, so it's very difficult to gauge your standpoint. Your post above suggests that you now believe it is good, when in previous posts you have either attacked it full on or called it a "transition" to 100 % renewables.

You still haven't answered the question of the wind turbines on Moray. Why is this acceptable to the 'greens'? You have praised the Scottish government for their environmental policies before so I'm assuming you're cool with this?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka05, you seem to change your opinions on nuclear energy flipperty flopperty just to suit your argument, so it's very difficult to gauge your standpoint. Your post above suggests that you now believe it is good, when in previous posts you have either attacked it full on or called it a "transition" to 100 % renewables.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question of the wind turbines on Moray. Why is this acceptable to the 'greens'? You have praised the Scottish government for their environmental policies before so I'm assuming you're cool with this?


Not at all, my mind changes with the evidence  I said YOU have pinned everything on the nuclear mast - not I. So it must be gutting that YOUR decision to vote leave has sabotaged the nuclear industry. Be a big person and stop trying to pin the blame elsewhere.

Can you please provide references to a summary of the impact assessments for the Moray wind farm then? , I believed it was offshore turbines yet you are talking about tearing down thousands of trees, I can't comment until I know what we're talking about.


----------



## MilleD

I'm confused, is nuclear considered to be good or bad?


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> I'm confused, is nuclear considered to be good or bad?


There are arguments for & against it MD, personally I'm indifferent to it. We need to act to now & nuclear is very expensive & takes a long, long time to get up & running. Look at Hinkley?


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> There are arguments for & against it MD, personally I'm indifferent to it. We need to act to now & nuclear is very expensive & takes a long, long time to get up & running. Look at Hinkley?


If only they could pin down that pesky fusion? Nuclear power with no waste


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> If only they could pin down that pesky fusion? Nuclear power with no waste


 Quite. Astronomical amounts of funding have been thrown at nuclear fusion over the decades, and still it has provided no practical generation of energy. Even if we had nuclear fusion generation now, we would still need to address the sustainability conundrum. The consumption of other resources, would still be putting us on an unsustainable course. We need to switch our entire economic model - and mindset.


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> Quite. Astronomical amounts of funding have been thrown at nuclear fusion over the decades, and still it has provided no practical generation of energy. Even if we had nuclear fusion generation now, we would still need to address the sustainability conundrum. The consumption of other resources, would still be putting us on an unsustainable course. We need to switch our entire economic model - and mindset.


Well I'm off to walk to work now if that helps?

And it's bloomin' freezing!


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> Well I'm off to walk to work now if that helps?
> 
> And it's bloomin' freezing!


Shanks's pony is THE most ecofriendly mode of transport!

Wrap up & have a good day :Cold x


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> Shanks's pony is THE most ecofriendly mode of transport!
> 
> Wrap up & have a good day :Cold x


You too x


----------



## samuelsmiles3

MilleD said:


> I'm confused, is nuclear considered to be good or bad?


All energy sources have a payback.

Nuclear, though, is proven to be the safest, the most reliable, the densest, the most highly regulated and, importantly, the cleanest form of energy we have available to us. Despite producing vast amounts of clean energy in the UK since 1956 not one person has died, either directly or indirectly, as a result of this. The comparatively small amount of land take-up required is also a very strong point in its favour.

The cost is often quoted as its drawback, however, France built its own nuclear power industry in a 15 year period which saw them produce over 50 power reactors giving the country about 70% clean, safe low Co2 energy. Again, there has not been one death in France related to its nuclear energy system. So it can be done.

I have posted figures before to compare the land take-up of wind and nuclear before, but -

Whitelee Wind Farm near Glasgow has over 200 wind turbines producing about 500mw of energy but covers 55km2 of countryside. *To get the same output as Wylfa nuclear you would need 1200 wind turbines covering 300km2 of land*.

Conversely, Germany has been going full steam ahead (pun intended) in their adoption of renewables and wind in particular. They have 30,000 wind turbines covering the country and yet Co2 emissions have increased, energy costs have risen and people are now getting very p1ssed off with their energy policy.

Germany's transition to renewables has been an abject failure - and at a high cost to the environment. The exact opposite of 'green.'


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Not at all, my mind changes with the evidence  I said YOU have pinned everything on the nuclear mast - not I. So it must be gutting that YOUR decision to vote leave has sabotaged the nuclear industry. Be a big person and stop trying to pin the blame elsewhere.
> 
> Can you please provide references to a summary of the impact assessments for the Moray wind farm then? , I believed it was offshore turbines yet you are talking about tearing down thousands of trees, I can't comment until I know what we're talking about.


Yes, I've done my own impact assessment by comparing the land needed by one nuclear power station and a wind farm to give the same amount of energy. You will see my impact study in the post above. 

I can't post links because I haven't posted enough yet but if you copy and paste _Savewildmoray _you will find a campaign that is trying to halt the devastation that wind turbines are causing to the landscape. I don't think any 'greens' are opposing this - it must make very uncomfortable reading for them.

Of course it's not just Moray, it appears that the Scottish government's so called 'green' energy policy is beginning to turn Scotland in to a wind turbine wasteland.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

MilleD said:


> If only they could pin down that pesky fusion? Nuclear power with no waste


The amount of high level waste produced by the world's nuclear power industry since the 1950s would fit inside a football stadium. It's not a serious problem when you take into account the amount of energy we get from it.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, I've done my own impact assessment by comparing the land needed by one nuclear power station and a wind farm to give the same amount of energy. You will see my impact study in the post above.
> 
> I can't post links because I haven't posted enough yet but if you copy and paste _Savewildmoray _you will find a campaign that is trying to halt the devastation that wind turbines are causing to the landscape. I don't think any 'greens' are opposing this - it must make very uncomfortable reading for them.
> 
> Of course it's not just Moray, it appears that the Scottish government's so called 'green' energy policy is beginning to turn Scotland in to a wind turbine wasteland.


I've just done another impact study of my own. 

Whitelee Wind Farm. (The biggest in the UK.) Maximum output = 0.5 Gw.
UK electricity demand now = 50Gw.
That's 100 x Whitelee's current output - so 100 x Whitelees are required.
Whitelee is 55Km2 so 100 x 55Km2 = 5,500Km2
Unfortunately wind turbines have a capacity of about 25% because they don't produce energy when the wind isn't blowing and they have to be turned off when the wind is too strong. Also, remember at this time, if we don't have nuclear we will be using coal and gas. Up goes the Co2.
So - 4 x 5500Km2 =22,000Km2

Yorkshire = 12,000Km2
Cornwall = 3,500Km2
Lake District = 2,500Km2
Snowdonia = 2,000Km2
Lancashire = 3,000Km2

Total Land in Km2 = 23,000Km2


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> A
> 
> The cost is often quoted as its drawback, however, *France built its own nuclear power industry in a 15 year period *which saw them produce over 50 power reactors giving the country about 70% clean, safe low Co2 energy. Again, there has not been one death in France related to its nuclear energy system. So it can be done.
> 
> I have posted figures before to compare the land take-up of wind and nuclear before, but -
> 
> Whitelee Wind Farm near Glasgow has over 200 wind turbines producing about 500mw of energy but covers 55km2 of countryside. *To get the same output as Wylfa nuclear you would need 1200 wind turbines covering 300km2 of land*.
> 
> Conversely, Germany has been going full steam ahead (pun intended) in their adoption of renewables and wind in particular. They have 30,000 wind turbines covering the country and yet Co2 emissions have increased, energy costs have risen and people are now getting very p1ssed off with their energy policy.
> 
> Germany's transition to renewables has been an abject failure - and at a high cost to the environment. The exact opposite of 'green.'


I can't be bothered to keep addressing your claims, I'm just going to point out the most significant sentence in your entire post. *France built its own nuclear power industry in a 15 year period*

We don't have 15 years, I've tried from the day you became obsessed with nuclear to explain this to you & still you don't understand..



samuelsmiles3 said:


> *Yes, I've done my own impact assessment *by comparing the land needed by one nuclear power station and a wind farm to give the same amount of energy. You will see my impact study in the post above.


:Hilarious

I meant environmental impact studies on the cost to the environment by a professional body that knows how to properly evaluate the cost. The RSPB maybe?



samuelsmiles3 said:


> I can't post links because I haven't posted enough yet but if you copy and paste _Savewildmoray _you will find a campaign that is trying to halt the devastation that wind turbines are causing to the landscape. I don't think any 'greens' are opposing this - it must make very uncomfortable reading for them.


Is this all there is? Seems strange, I would have expected it to be widely reported. If it is factual, then no, I don't agree with wind farms here. There must have been environmental impact studies done? Oddly I can't find any.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Of course it's not just Moray, it appears that the Scottish government's so called 'green' energy policy is beginning to turn Scotland in to a wind turbine wasteland.


12 YEARS.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> I've just done another impact study of my own.
> 
> Whitelee Wind Farm. (The biggest in the UK.) Maximum output = 0.5 Gw.
> UK electricity demand now = 50Gw.
> That's 100 x Whitelee's current output - so 100 x Whitelees are required.
> Whitelee is 55Km2 so 100 x 55Km2 = 5,500Km2
> Unfortunately wind turbines have a capacity of about 25% because they don't produce energy when the wind isn't blowing and they have to be turned off when the wind is too strong. Also, remember at this time, if we don't have nuclear we will be using coal and gas. Up goes the Co2.
> So - 4 x 5500Km2 =22,000Km2
> 
> Yorkshire = 12,000Km2
> Cornwall = 3,500Km2
> Lake District = 2,500Km2
> Snowdonia = 2,000Km2
> Lancashire = 3,000Km2
> 
> Total Land in Km2 = 23,000Km2


So even if your assessments are spot, its a bit of a moot point now, isn't it? You have helped to sabotage your nuclear dream


----------



## noushka05

*GeorgeMonbiot*‏ @GeorgeMonbiot Jan 22  _Brexit is important. But this is 1000 times more important._


*Greenland's Melting Ice Nears a 'Tipping Point', Scientists say.*

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/climate/greenland-ice.html


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> *GeorgeMonbiot*‏ @GeorgeMonbiot Jan 22  _Brexit is important. But this is 1000 times more important._
> 
> *Greenland's Melting Ice Nears a 'Tipping Point', Scientists say.*
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/climate/greenland-ice.html


That's a broken link Noush.

Edit to add - I see why, the l at the end is outside of the hyperlink text.


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> That's a broken link Noush.
> 
> Edit to add - I see why, the l at the end is outside of the hyperlink text.


Thanks for the heads up Mille x Reposted it & copied it just incase. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/climate/greenland-ice.html

Greenland's enormous ice sheet is melting at such an accelerated rate that it may have reached a "tipping point" and could become a major factor in sea-level rise around the world within two decades, scientists said in a study published on Monday.

The Arctic is warming at twice the average rate of the rest of the planet, and the new research adds to the evidence that the ice loss in Greenland, which lies mainly above the Arctic Circle, is speeding up as the warming increases. The authors found that ice loss in 2012, more than 400 billion tons per year, was nearly four times the rate in 2003. After a lull in 2013-14, losses have resumed.

The study is the latest in a series of papers published this month suggesting that scientific estimates of the effects of a warming planet have been, if anything, too conservative. Just a week ago, a separate study of ice loss in Antarctica found that the continent is contributing more to rising sea levels than previously thought.

Another new analysis suggested that the oceans are warming far faster than earlier estimates. Warming oceans are currently the leading cause of sea-level rise, since water expands as it warms.

Researchers said these findings underscored the need for action to curb emissions of planet-warming gases and avoid the worst effects of climate change.

_[__A record number of Americans are concerned about global warming, a new poll found.__]_

Rising sea levels are one of the clearest consequences of global warming; they are caused both by thermal expansion of the oceans and by the melting of ice sheets on land. Current projections say that if the planet warms by two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial times, average sea levels will rise by more than two feet, and 32 million to 80 million people will be exposed to coastal flooding.

Much of the previous research on Greenland's ice has dealt with the southeast and northeast parts of the island, where large chunks of glacial ice calve into the sea. The new paper focuses on the ice-covered stretches of southwest Greenland, which has few large glaciers and was not generally considered as important a source of ice loss.

But as the earth warms, the paper concludes, the vast plains of southwestern ice will increasingly melt, with the meltwater flowing to the ocean. Within two decades, it says, the region "will become a major contributor to sea level rise."


*Greenland Is Melting Away*
This river is one of a network of thousands at the front line of climate change.


The study, which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used satellite data and ground-based instruments to measure Greenland's ice loss in the 21st century. It looked closely at what seemed to be a pause in the ice loss for about a year, beginning in 2013, that followed a stretch of greatly accelerated melting.

The researchers tied the pause in melting to a reversal of the cyclical weather phenomenon known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. Before the pause, the oscillation was in what is known as its negative phase, which is associated with warmer air hitting west Greenland, along with less snowfall and more sunlight, all of which contribute to ice loss. When the cycle shifted into a positive phase in 2013, an "abrupt slowdown" of melting occurred.

Yet, the slowdown was anything but good news, said Michael Bevis, the lead author of the paper and a professor in the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University.

The North Atlantic Oscillation has occurred throughout the historical record, he noted. But before 2000, overall average temperatures were cool enough that the N.A.O.'s positive and negative cycles did not have much of an effect on rates of melting in Greenland

Now, the strong effect that the cooler cycle had on the rate of melting - even if it was helpful in stopping ice loss - is a reason for concern, Dr. Bevis said. If the warm cycles of the N.A.O. are associated with huge losses of ice, and the cool cycles only pause the melting, it suggests a threshold has been reached: As average temperatures rise further, melting will be more sustained, and the cooling cycles will have less of an effect in slowing the ice loss.

"If a relatively minor cycle can cause massive melting," he said, "it means you've reached a point of amazing sensitivity" to warmer temperatures, which could represent "the tipping point."

And so, he said, "One degree of warming in the future will have way more impact than one degree of warming in the last century."

The new research dovetails with other recent papers on the accelerating melting. Last month a team of researchers published a paper in Nature that used satellite observations, analysis of ice cores and models to show that losses from the Greenland ice sheet have reached their fastest rate in 
at least 350 years.

A study published last week, also in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed four decades of data and found faster losses in some regions than scientists had previously estimated.

The continent has presented a mixed story in recent years, with researchers measuring substantial losses in some regions but stability and even gains in others. But the new paper found considerable losses of glacial ice in East Antarctica, previously considered to be relatively stable. As a whole, Antarctica lost about 40 billion tons of ice per year in the 1980s, but it has been losing roughly 250 billion tons per year in the past decade.

That new paper adds to a body of recent research showing that Antarctica's ice loss is accelerating, including a study in June that found that the rate of ice loss had tripled since 2007. Scientists estimate the Antarctic melting will contribute six inches to sea-level rise by 2100.

Luke D. Trusel, a glaciologist at Rowan University and an author of last month's Nature paper on Greenland, said the new research by Dr. Bevis and his colleagues "provides clear and further illustration of how sensitive Greenland now is" to global warming.

"What's happening today is well beyond the range of what could be expected naturally," he said. "The human fingerprint on Greenland melting today is unequivocal."

Still, he said, most estimates of a tipping point for Greenland ice loss cite higher average temperatures than are currently occurring, more along the lines of 1.5 or two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Global average temperatures have already increased by about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

A co-author of the Nature paper, Sarah B. Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, agreed that Dr. Bevis's study reinforced her own team's conclusions and showed "how quickly Greenland is disappearing." The common finding, she said, is that climate change has brought Greenland to a state in which "a little bit of a nudge is going to have an outsized impact," causing enormous melting.

But, she said, "I take issue with using 'tipping point' to describe the accelerating mass loss Greenland is experiencing," because "it makes it appear as if we have passed, or soon will pass, the point of no return." She said she saw reasons for hope.

Dr. Trusel agreed that talk of tipping points could discount humans' ability to mitigate global warming. "We may be able to control how rapidly the ice sheet changes in the future," he said.

"By limiting greenhouse gas emissions we limit warming, and thus also limit how rapidly and intensely Greenland affects our livelihoods through sea-level rise," he added. "That, it seems, is our call to make."


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Ok, let's forget nuclear energy - unfortunately we haven't discovered this, yet._
_
However, would you answer just this one question, please.

To save the planet you want 100% renewable energy, which will mean masses of wind turbines (and solar panels.) What energy source will you be using to build these 140 metre high turbines, what energy source will you be using to transport them, and how will you recycle/dispose of them when they reach end of life (25 years.)_

"Each typical 3MW turbine requires …. 335 tons of Steel; 4.7 tons of Copper; 1200 tons of Concrete (cement & aggregates); 3 tons of Aluminium; 2 tons of Rare Earth elements; zinc; molybdenum, all drilled, mined, extracted & processed using fossil fuelled machines before being transported thousands of miles across the world."
_
Baring in mind the German Green's co-founder, Otto Georg Schily, has declared Germany's transition to renewables_ "an economic, social and ecological disaster"
_
You've got just 12 years to sort this mess out and the clock's ticking. Actually, no - you've got just 11 years and about 6 months now._ 
_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Save Wild Moray.

*Wind Energy AMPLIFIES the growth of fossil fuels*

A new observational analysis using data from 10 European Union countries affirms the devastating conclusion that wind power installation "_preserves fossil fuel dependency_" because for every 1% increase in the installed capacity of wind power a quarter as much again is required in backup.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Ok, let's forget nuclear energy - unfortunately we haven't discovered this, yet.
> 
> However, would you answer just this one question, please.
> 
> To save the planet you want 100% renewable energy, which will mean masses of wind turbines (and solar panels.) What energy source will you be using to build these 140 metre high turbines, what energy source will you be using to transport them, and how will you recycle/dispose of them when they reach end of life (25 years.)
> _
> "Each typical 3MW turbine requires …. 335 tons of Steel; 4.7 tons of Copper; 1200 tons of Concrete (cement & aggregates); 3 tons of Aluminium; 2 tons of Rare Earth elements; zinc; molybdenum, all drilled, mined, extracted & processed using fossil fuelled machines before being transported thousands of miles across the world."
> _
> Baring in mind the German Green's co-founder, Otto Georg Schily, has declared Germany's transition to renewables_ "an economic, social and ecological disaster"
> _
> You've got just 12 years to sort this mess out and the clock's ticking. Actually, no - you've got just 11 years and about 6 months now.


I've already answered the question - on this very thread (more than once) . How many more times do I have to repeat myself? Only radical action to cut our emissions will save our planet. I have never said renewables alone will do it.

And if I remember rightly, you didn't want to give up your lifestyle? You believe we can carry on consuming if we put all our eggs in the nuclear basket?.

The reality is we are doomed if we don't change our ways.










This amazing child gets it.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087779799639175170
So the 'Greens' are only credible if they say something which fits with your extreme confirmation bias? LOL Except Otto Schily switched allegiance from the Green Party decades ago Sam 

I wonder what Petra Kelly would have made of that if she was still with us?

....


----------



## noushka05

Davos.

*David Attenborough*










*George Monbiot.*

_The point I tried to make on Newsnight is that it's not enough for "influencers" at Davos to ask heads of industry and government
if they would kindly do something about climate breakdown.

This is about power, and it requires the political fight of our live_s

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088029154522660864


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Crikey, it's like trying to grab hold of a greased balloon getting you to answer any of my questions. Very slippery. Never mind.

OK - right now, the UK and much of central Europe have daytime temperatures of just above freezing and overnight below freezing. At the same time wind has dropped to absolutely negligible levels and we, in this country, are getting a miserable* 2.8% of our electricity through wind turbines and pretty much nothing from solar.* I saw a house in my village this morning and the solar panels were covered in snow. Who knew.

Billions £££ has been spent on renewables in this country, mostly, surprisingly ending up in the pockets of corporations, the rich landowners (wind turbines) and those fortunate enough to be able to fit solar panels at the expense of us poor folk who cannot afford them. And for what return? Co2 will not be reduced with renewables. Not in 12 years, not in 50 years.

Meanwhile, those who preach the loudest continue to be the biggest hypocrites. David Suzuki, of course, and now Bernie Sanders spending $300,000 flying the US on private planes on his election campaign.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Crikey, it's like trying to grab hold of a greased balloon getting you to answer any of my questions. Very slippery. Never mind.
> 
> OK - right now, the UK and much of central Europe have daytime temperatures of just above freezing and overnight below freezing. At the same time wind has dropped to absolutely negligible levels and we, in this country, are getting a miserable* 2.8% of our electricity through wind turbines and pretty much nothing from solar.* I saw a house in my village this morning and the solar panels were covered in snow. Who knew.
> 
> Billions £££ has been spent on renewables in this country, mostly, surprisingly ending up in the pockets of corporations, the rich landowners (wind turbines) and those fortunate enough to be able to fit solar panels at the expense of us poor folk who cannot afford them. And for what return? Co2 will not be reduced with renewables. Not in 12 years, not in 50 years.
> 
> Meanwhile, those who preach the loudest continue to be the biggest hypocrites. David Suzuki, of course, and now Bernie Sanders spending $300,000 flying the US on private planes on his election campaign.


Its just like deja vu this

No, its just you seem to be incapable of understanding. We must drastically cut our emissions NOW. The only way to do that is to radically change the way we live. Is that so hard to grasp? I really dont think you understand how urgent this is. As you've sabotaged any hope of nuclear what do you suggest - fracking?:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

**

*Caroline Lucas*‏Verified account @CarolineLucas 5h5 hours ago

_This is embarrassing.

We've got less than 12 years to avoid climate catastrophe and our Government is spending billions to lock us into polluting, climate-wrecking fossil fuels. Ministers must urgently shift funds to the clean energy we need. _https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission …


----------



## noushka05

If only all adults had the same understanding as this wonderful, amazing child.

_I don't care about being popular, I care about climate justice. Our civilisation is being sacrificed....our biosphere is being sacrificed....so that rich people can live in luxury. It is the sufferings of the many that pay for the luxuries of the few....We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis. _
_We need to keep the fossil fuels in the ground & we need to focus on equity. And if solutions within this system are so impossible to find, maybe we should change the system itself?_

_We have not come here to beg world leaders to care. You have ignored us in the past and will ignore us again. _

_We have run out of excuses & we are running out of time......_
*
Greta Thunberg addressed the COP24 plenary session December 12th*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is an interesting new study by Dr. Judith Curry.

_"Until we can explain the early 20th century warming, I have little confidence IPCC and NCA4 attribution statements regarding the cause of the recent warming."_

In the first part of the 20th century a pattern of warming happened that is very similar to what is happening now. A cool period followed by warming. The warming between 1910 and 1945 coincided with a Co2 increase of 10ppm.

Between 1950 and 2018 the Co2 increase was 90ppm but the temperature increase in this time was pretty much the same as in the earlier period.

This is why I will continue to question 'catastrophic' anthropogenic global warming.

Dr. Judith Curry has been attacked for stepping away from the 'consensus' and voicing her opinions, but has been very brave in doing so.

In advance of the usual attempt to discredit any of my sources, this is Dr.Curry's CV and a list of her published papers up until 2011.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Its just like deja vu this
> 
> No, its just you seem to be incapable of understanding. We must drastically cut our emissions NOW. The only way to do that is to radically change the way we live. Is that so hard to grasp? I really dont think you understand how urgent this is. As you've sabotaged any hope of nuclear what do you suggest - fracking?:Hilarious:Hilarious


Yes, I commented a year or so ago that I was against fracking. Now, after looking at the evidence and taking everything into consideration I would be far more content with fracking than renewables (wind turbines in particular.)


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> **
> 
> *Caroline Lucas*‏Verified account @CarolineLucas 5h5 hours ago
> 
> _This is embarrassing.
> 
> We've got less than 12 years to avoid climate catastrophe and our Government is spending billions to lock us into polluting, climate-wrecking fossil fuels. Ministers must urgently shift funds to the clean energy we need. _https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission …


What Lucas seems unable to understand is that by advocating renewables she is, by definition, locking us into fossil fuels. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It would, just as importantly, come at a massive cost to the environment. Birds, bats, trees....

Depressing.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> In advance of the usual attempt to discredit any of my sources


I already have 



noushka05 said:


> Judith Curry? You mean the darling of climate deniers everywhere? favourite scientist of Trumps Republican Party and the Koch brothers and Nigel Lawsons climate denier lobby group the GWPF? That Judith Curry? I actually suspected you were getting your info from one of the notorious contrarians.
> 
> I was actually going to ask you outright whether Curry (or Pilke, Lindzen, Lomborg, Moore et al) were, perhaps, your sources . So thank you for saving me the trouble by confirming my suspicions.
> 
> Are you aware Judy is on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry Samuel??
> 
> Ah as I thought you are conflating 'climate' with 'weather'. This is why I tried to press you on this statement - _I've moved forward and started to question the alarmist hysteria that came about after a lovely warm summer. _I'm surprised someone who claims to have been researching the subject hasn't grasped the difference yet. Its very basic knowledge.
> 
> Of course countries have had heatwave anomalies before, but this 'heatwave' was 'global'. The long term trend is global temperatures are rising - the 5 hottest years have all been since 2010. 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have been since 2000.
> 
> UK's famous heatwave of 1976 compared to this years. Can you see a glaring difference @samuelsmiles2 ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the UK, except for 2001 we've has 15 of the hottest summers on record.
> 
> The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the IPCC wasn't completed until 1990  - so can you reference a direct link to the study you refer to instead of a newspaper article please. Until now, the IPCC has actually been quite conservative when it comes to the predictions of it's impacts of climate change and consistently underestimated the consequences. Kevin Anderson has spoken out many times about this.
> 
> Rupert Read? What a star though ! ! Deniers across the net were flipping the lids More on that later though because, as per, time is not on my side:Beaver


 It really is hilarious how ALL deniers give credence to the same tiny minority of contrarian scientists (& 'Greens' in your case) yet refute the near unanimous consensus of the entire scientific community:Hilarious



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, I commented a year or so ago that I was against fracking. Now, after looking at the evidence and taking everything into consideration I would be far more content with fracking than renewables (wind turbines in particular.)





samuelsmiles3 said:


> What Lucas seems unable to understand is that by advocating renewables she is, by definition, locking us into fossil fuels. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It would, just as importantly, come at a massive cost to the environment. Birds, bats, trees....
> 
> Depressin


 You're not even trying to disguise the fact you're a full blown climate denier anymore.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I'm not sure why I am a "climate denier" - I've not, for one second, denied that the climate is changing. Strange thing to say.

If you don't want to read the study (It is very interesting) that's fine. A very similar warming pattern happened in the first part of the last century without any significant increase in Co2. I have read it, and it does make me think, question and keep an open mind.

I have just looked at the GB National Grid on this freezing cold morning and we are getting 0.52% of our electricity needs from wind turbines right now. 0.52% despite having much of our beautiful landscape blighted by these things from a past age. Wind energy is not dispatchable, it cannot be used on demand. In other words, when the wind isn't blowing like now we have to get it from somewhere else. This morning that is mostly coal, gas and, ironically, clean nuclear energy from France.

Solar is giving us not even 1%. It's the middle of winter, about 8 hours of daylight everyday. So in total we are getting, in effect, nothing from renewable energy. That's despite the billions £££ handed out in subsidies in previous years.

I've said all these things before, I'm sure, but you just tell me I don't understand. But, I do understand we need energy to stop us freezing to death right now. I do understand we need lots and lots of electricity to keep the hospitals functioning 24 hours a day. I do understand that if we are all to have electric cars by 2030 we will need a load more electricity from somewhere. I do understand that if we want to help drag poorer people out of poverty we will need more energy produced. And I do understand that this could all be achieved with a clean energy source if we had the will.

PS. In the few minutes taken to write this wind has dropped to 0.47% of our electricity needs. Pretty much nothing.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I'm not sure why I am a "climate denier" - I've not, for one second, denied that the climate is changing. Strange thing to say.
> 
> If you don't want to read the study (It is very interesting) that's fine. A very similar warming pattern happened in the first part of the last century without any significant increase in Co2. I have read it, and it does make me think, question and keep an open mind.
> 
> I have just looked at the GB National Grid on this freezing cold morning and we are getting 0.52% of our electricity needs from wind turbines right now. 0.52% despite having much of our beautiful landscape blighted by these things from a past age. Wind energy is not dispatchable, it cannot be used on demand. In other words, when the wind isn't blowing like now we have to get it from somewhere else. This morning that is mostly coal, gas and, ironically, clean nuclear energy from France.
> 
> Solar is giving us not even 1%. It's the middle of winter, about 8 hours of daylight everyday. So in total we are getting, in effect, nothing from renewable energy. That's despite the billions £££ handed out in subsidies in previous years.
> 
> I've said all these things before, I'm sure, but you just tell me I don't understand. But, I do understand we need energy to stop us freezing to death right now. I do understand we need lots and lots of electricity to keep the hospitals functioning 24 hours a day. I do understand that if we are all to have electric cars by 2030 we will need a load more electricity from somewhere. I do understand that if we want to help drag poorer people out of poverty we will need more energy produced. And I do understand that this could all be achieved with a clean energy source if we had the will.
> 
> PS. In the few minutes taken to write this wind has dropped to 0.47% of our electricity needs. Pretty much nothing.


 You're a denier of the science Sam. Many deniers accept the climate is changing(how can they not! ) but are in denial about the science. They slander honest scientists as 'alarmists' whilst using industry shills to support their argument. They deny the severity of the crisis we are facing playing it down as alarmism. The same circular, straw man arguments. Same old, same old. And the same bluster from climate change deniers that they aren't climate change deniers lol

And its no coincidence that all the people liking your posts support brexit either

If you sincerely were open minded you would be able to grasp that we can massively cut our emissions by changing the way we live. If we lived much simpler lives, there would no longer be anywhere near the amount of energy use that there is today, & then renewables could go a long way to suppying our energy needs. You are so closed minded when it comes to renewables, that you can see no further than the nose on your face - infact you appear to have an irrational loathing of renewable energy (but then that is a common trait amongst deniers too)

Here is the Green Partys energy policy. https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ey.html

If you want reliable sources of factual information you could start here with >

Carbon Brief, Carbon Tracker, Simon Evans.

*Carbon Tracker*‏Verified account @CarbonBubble Jan 17
Carbon Tracker Retweeted Simon Evans

As @DrSimEvans notes for @*CarbonBrief*, the costs of wind & solar continue to fall, while the cost of nuclear energy has remained elevated, raising Qs as to why Government energy policy (Hinkley) locks consumers into highest cost electricity


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085845317818363904


----------



## Elles

@Magyarmum didn't vote for brexit. What do you mean by 'simpler lives'? Do you honestly think that enough people will change their living standards to bring a halt to climate change? Imo only technology will bring about change. Technology is the problem and technology will be the answer. Billions of people won't change and if they do, it will be poorer countries becoming wealthier and following the same path we have. Worse not better. We need to keep up the pressure, if only to show an interest and persuade those that can to invest in the right technologies.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> @Magyarmum didn't vote for brexit. What do you mean by 'simpler lives'? Do you honestly think that enough people will change their living standards to bring a halt to climate change? Imo only technology will bring about change. Technology is the problem and technology will be the answer. Billions of people won't change and if they do, it will be poorer countries becoming wealthier and following the same path we have. Worse not better. We need to keep up the pressure, if only to show an interest and persuade those that can to invest in the right technologies.


Thanks for the heads up Elles - have now corrected my post. Will address your post when I get chance. (probably be in the morning now)


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Interestingly, this study has been published just this week that questions global warming.

Has global warming already arrived?

"Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

This won't be mentioned in the media.


----------



## Elles

Tbh if they’re wrong and there is no global warming/climate change we can do anything about, changing our habits and tech getting cleaner is still a good thing. Kids are still suffering and dying from asthma and pollution related disease and people are still suffering and dying from diet related disease, malnutrition and poverty. Even before we take into account what’s happening to the natural world. Cleaning up our act is very valuable. If they’re right and I highly suspect they are, that’s the least of our problems and our tech people better get a move on. 

I would agree that huge wind turbines and fields covered in solar panels is no long term answer. I hope that smaller versions become more efficient instead. Look at computers. It needs to go the same way imo and we need more. Telling people they have 12 years and trying to persuade them to become vegan, or live off the grid isn’t realistic. We’d all die before we give up what innovation and progress has given us. Unfortunately nuclear probably is a useful part of a stop gap, if we don’t want our environment totally destroyed. We just have to hope it’s efficient, safe and enough, alongside judicious use of renewables in their current state, until we progress to cleaner, more efficient, cheaper, safer fuels and better food supplies. 

I don’t agree with fracking at all. I think it’s far too dangerous, but we have no chance of persuading the Russians against it. Still no need to inflict it on our little country though. I have no doubt that the solar panel and wind turbine abominations will be improved upon and we just have to suffer them in the meantime. If China and America don’t get on board and do more we may as well try to enjoy our lives while we still have them.  

China probably will. They like Technology, they like being first with it and they like making money from it. If there’s profit and status in it, they’ll go for it and their people have to do as they’re told. America I’m not so sure about atm.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> @Magyarmum didn't vote for brexit. What do you mean by 'simpler lives'? Do you honestly think that enough people will change their living standards to bring a halt to climate change? Imo only technology will bring about change. Technology is the problem and technology will be the answer. Billions of people won't change and if they do, it will be poorer countries becoming wealthier and following the same path we have. Worse not better. We need to keep up the pressure, if only to show an interest and persuade those that can to invest in the right technologies.


 Many people already do live simpler lives which are fulfilled & happy whilst many more lead grim lives within our current high consumption system. We can reject consumerism & use precious resources in a sustainable way, . Consuming far less animal products alone would massively reduce the impact on our natural environment and at the same time cut emissions. And we couldnt decarbonise the electricity grid fast enough to achieve the reductions we need, but we could massively reduce demand.

This is more than about about cutting our emissions, its about changing the entire unsustainable way we live

No I don't think enough people will change their living standards on their own - it has to come from the top. Which is why we urgently need bold leadership to implement a Marshall style plan. And that is never going to come from the current government! This is why I despise everything the tories stand for, its their toxic neoliberal ideology which has put us on this suicidal course.









https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

We cant pin our hopes on new technology miraculously saving us. The only hope of averting the looming catastrophy is we implement a Marshall style plan & we already have the technology for renewable energy. Samuel argues that renewable energy cannot provide the same level of constant energy that burning fossil fuels does (neither does nuclear  ). And Sam is probably right, but if we restructure our society we can exist on far lower levels of energy use, we can stop the unnecessary extravagant use of energy & resources.

It is impossible to have infinite growth on a finite planet. We are entirely reliant on the natural environment and natural ecosystems.

If you believe poorer countries will be worse for us taking radical action required, then you too, really haven't grasped the seriousness & the urgency of what we we are facing.

We know from models done by the worlds leading climate scientist what needs to be done. It needs political courage at the top to implement it.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Interestingly, this study has been published just this week that questions global warming.
> 
> Has global warming already arrived?
> 
> "Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"
> 
> This won't be mentioned in the media.


 lol



Elles said:


> Tbh if they're wrong and there is no global warming/climate change we can do anything about, changing our habits and tech getting cleaner is still a good thing. Kids are still suffering and dying from asthma and pollution related disease and people are still suffering and dying from diet related disease, malnutrition and poverty. Even before we take into account what's happening to the natural world. Cleaning up our act is very valuable.


This? 












Elles said:


> If they're right and I highly suspect they are, that's the least of our problems and our tech people better get a move on.


The scientific consensus could not be clearer Elles.



Elles said:


> I would agree that huge wind turbines and fields covered in solar panels is no long term answer. I hope that smaller versions become more efficient instead. Look at computers. It needs to go the same way imo and we need more.


Already the advances in renewable technology in such a short time are amazing.



Elles said:


> Telling people they have 12 years and trying to persuade them to become vegan, or live off the grid isn't realistic.


If they don't understand the magnitude and the urgency to act, they will be less inclined to accept the radical action required to save our living planet - to save ourselves.


Elles said:


> We'd all die before we give up what innovation and progress has given us.


Only those who are in denial about the crisis we face would - a crisis which literally *is* putting our civilisation in peril.



Elles said:


> Unfortunately nuclear probably is a useful part of a stop gap, if we don't want our environment totally destroyed


I wont argue nuclear could play a part but it is no silver bullet as Samuel would like to have us believe. There is no way to address the challenge without radical social & economic change.



Elles said:


> We just have to hope it's efficient, safe and enough, alongside judicious use of renewables in their current state, until we progress to cleaner, more efficient, cheaper, safer fuels and better food supplies.


Where have you formed such a negative opinion on renewables from? Can you provide some references? Again, this comment suggests you dont understand the reality of the crisis we are facing



Elles said:


> don't agree with fracking at all. I think it's far too dangerous, but we have no chance of persuading the Russians against it. Still no need to inflict it on our little country though


We should be leading by example. We have to phase out fossil fuels, not open up new reserves.



Elles said:


> I have no doubt that the solar panel and wind turbine abominations will be improved upon and we just have to suffer them in the meantime


There are turbines in some of the fields in my surrounding area - they are far more appealing than the pit tip in my village I can tell you. Green & clean.



Elles said:


> If China and America don't get on board and do more we may as well try to enjoy our lives while we still have them.





Elles said:


> China probably will. They like Technology, they like being first with it and they like making money from it. If there's profit and status in it, they'll go for it and their people have to do as they're told. America I'm not so sure about atm.


 As opposed to the American government the Chinese government does at least believe in climate change!.

Even if they invented some new technology in the short window of time they have before it slams shut! , that alone could not save us Elles.


----------



## Elles

I hate, hate, hate wind turbines. Horrible things and I would rather live in a tent in the woods than live near one. A necessary evil imo. I can’t wait for improvements in tech. I’d like them to size down so they can be like a satellite dish on the side of buildings, rather than a concrete and metal abomination, churning away. I hate that we need to cover swathes of land in solar panels. I can’t wait for the day when most households are powered in a major part by a satellite dish and a small, unobtrusive roof or wall panel and I’m convinced that’s the direction we will go, just hope there’s enough time.

Obviously I support vegan/vegetarian/less meat/dairy and getting rid of animal torture chambers. If humans last long enough, it’s something future man will look back on in horror and disgust I have no doubt. Not just for the suffering beings, but for what it’s doing to us and the planet. To me chopping parts off animals and putting their flesh in your mouth is so crazy I can’t really get my head around it, so it’s a no brainer.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> I hate, hate, hate wind turbines. Horrible things and I would rather live in a tent in the woods than live near one. A necessary evil imo. I can't wait for improvements in tech. I'd like them to size down so they can be like a satellite dish on the side of buildings, rather than a concrete and metal abomination, churning away. I hate that we need to cover swathes of land in solar panels. I can't wait for the day when most households are powered in a major part by a satellite dish and a small, unobtrusive roof or wall panel and I'm convinced that's the direction we will go, just hope there's enough time.
> 
> Obviously I support vegan/vegetarian/less meat/dairy and getting rid of animal torture chambers. If humans last long enough, it's something future man will look back on in horror and disgust I have no doubt. Not just for the suffering beings, but for what it's doing to us and the planet. To me chopping parts off animals and putting their flesh in your mouth is so crazy I can't really get my head around it, so it's a no brainer.


Your post brought to mind the series of tweets Jonathan Leake made a while back lol

*Wind* *turbines wreck landscapes - Protest NOW!* #windfarms









*How windfarms RUIN landscapes - shocking illustration of the destruction wrought by 
wind industry fanatics










Stop the wind turbine menace! Another shocking illustration of landscape destruction by #wind farms








*


----------



## noushka05

Wind farms should be the least of peoples worries. Saving our living planet should be all that matters.

*Caroline Lucas*‏:

_Climate breakdown is accelerating - yet global corporations keep burning fossil fuels & tearing down forests.

This is an unforgivable failure of political will around the world.

UK Govt must declare #ClimateEmergency and reprogramme our economy so it works for people & nature.
_
*Worrying' rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019*
Levels of the climate-warming gas are set to rise by near-record amounts, Met Office predicts

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1548407391


----------



## noushka05

*Caroline Lucas*‏: _Fossil fuel companies spent decades undermining climate science & delaying action on emissions.

Handing their clean-up bill to the taxpayer is a twist of the knife.

Ministers must stand up to these corporations & force them to clean up their own mess._

*UK taxpayers to spend at least £24bn cleaning up after oil companies in the North Sea*
https://www.newstatesman.com/spotli...t-24bn-cleaning-after-oil-companies-north-sea


----------



## Elles

My priority and why I accept they’re a necessary evil, but I wouldn’t live near one, is that they’re hypnotic and make me feel sick. The darn things follow you around the A30 like something out of War of the Worlds, I have to be really aware of not fixating on them. Please do hide them in industrial areas until they’re smaller, greener and more efficient. 

Caroline Lucas can keep going on, but until the Greens put forward viable candidates people won’t, or can’t vote for them. I did. I voted for a 20 year old university student I knew nothing about. There was no information other than his name and that he was a member of some political group at Exeter university. He didn’t do very well. However my area want to vote Green. Our councillor is Green Party. We were given more information about him and he didn’t concentrate all his efforts on his mates at uni.

The Greens needing to appear politically correct isn’t helping their image either. Yes I’m talking about the scandal surrounding this. 

“David Challenor, 50, who was jailed for 22 years for child sex offences, had been the agent for Aimee Challenor at the 2017 general election.” Aimee Challenor had made a bid to become deputy leader. 

He had been arrested for the offences when his transsexual daughter employed him as agent and member of the Green Party. What he did defies belief and is extremely upsetting, the Greens need to be a bit more careful, if they’re our main, if not only hope.


----------



## Grigori

What is answers to problem for global warming. It is power of wind. It is power of sun. It is power of sea. All natural earth elements. We have technology to make sun and wind and water productive for all need. Fracking is poison for earth like nuclear power. Chernobyl should be warning to all.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Wind farms should be the least of peoples worries. Saving our living planet should be all that matters.
> 
> *Caroline Lucas*‏:
> 
> _Climate breakdown is accelerating - yet global corporations keep burning fossil fuels & tearing down forests.
> 
> This is an unforgivable failure of political will around the world.
> 
> UK Govt must declare #ClimateEmergency and reprogramme our economy so it works for people & nature.
> _
> *Worrying' rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019*
> Levels of the climate-warming gas are set to rise by near-record amounts, Met Office predicts
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1548407391


The Guardian? This isn't news reporting. This is alarmism.

This was the Guardian Environment in 2004.

*Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us*

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major *European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.* Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

*·* Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
*·* Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
*·* Threat to the world is greater than terrorism


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> My priority and why I accept they're a necessary evil, but I wouldn't live near one, is that they're hypnotic and make me feel sick. The darn things follow you around the A30 like something out of War of the Worlds, I have to be really aware of not fixating on them. Please do hide them in industrial areas until they're smaller, greener and more efficient.


If we want to leave a habitable planet for our children we really can't afford to be NIMBYs Elles. Its a simple as that.

I come from a mining area , I welcome turbines on my doorstep over the pit or fracking wells.



Elles said:


> Caroline Lucas can keep going on, but until the Greens put forward viable candidates people won't, or can't vote for them. I did. I voted for a 20 year old university student I knew nothing about. There was no information other than his name and that he was a member of some political group at Exeter university. He didn't do very well. However my area want to vote Green. Our councillor is Green Party. We were given more information about him and he didn't concentrate all his efforts on his mates at uni.
> 
> The Greens needing to appear politically correct isn't helping their image either. Yes I'm talking about the scandal surrounding this.
> 
> "David Challenor, 50, who was jailed for 22 years for child sex offences, had been the agent for Aimee Challenor at the 2017 general election." Aimee Challenor had made a bid to become deputy leader.
> 
> He had been arrested for the offences when his transsexual daughter employed him as agent and member of the Green Party. What he did defies belief and is extremely upsetting, the Greens need to be a bit more careful, if they're our main, if not only hope.


The Greens have many other amazing politicians, Caroline obviously being the most high profile. This scandal was a terrible error of judgement which has been referred for independent investigation by the Green Party. Caroline wrote this article on the issue - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ee-challenor-trans-green-party-caroline-lucas



Grigori said:


> What is answers to problem for global warming. It is power of wind. It is power of sun. It is power of sea. All natural earth elements. We have technology to make sun and wind and water productive for all need. Fracking is poison for earth like nuclear power. Chernobyl should be warning to all.


Well said Grigori.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> The Guardian? This isn't news reporting. This is alarmism.
> 
> This was the Guardian Environment in 2004.
> 
> *Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us*
> 
> A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major *European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020.* Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
> 
> *·* Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
> *·* Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
> *·* Threat to the world is greater than terrorism


Round & around we go trying to discredit climate scientists Still in deniel you're a denier no doubt:Hilarious

As I have tried to explain before climate scientists are not fortune tellers It isnt a case that if the science didn't absolutely predict the future then we can dismiss everything as false. And no one with their eyes open can dispute that the scientific projections have been broadly correct. In fact most climate scientists have been taken aback by the speed of events - climate change is happening quicker than even they expected.

It is known from past climate change that it seriously disrupts ecosystems and leads to wide scale extinctions of biodiversity. We totally rely on these natural systems for our food & for our economy. So as food systems collapse & drought/flooding creates millions more climate refugees don't you think its logical to assume millions of desperate people will riot? As countries run out of resources don't you think its logical to assume we'll see an escalation in hostilities for remaining precious resources? Britain isn't Siberian? Have you not heard of the warm Arctic cold continents hypothesis?

Anyway this is* ACTUALLY* where we're at now? And you don't find it 'alarming'? 

https://wmo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=855267a7dd394825aa8e9025e024f163

And the latest.
*
Greenland's melting ice nears a "tipping point," scientists say*

https://buff.ly/2R778ZV

*Blistering Australian heat is shattering records and killing wildlife*
https://www.axios.com/australia-hea...rds-a906a39b-bdff-4fa6-8daf-11732c12a52f.html

*The most dangerous climate feedback loop is speeding up
In Siberia, the carbon-rich permafrost warmed by 1.6°F in just the last decade.*
https://thinkprogress.org/dangerous...T0h0RfXm7ffnmz8B5qs_fhoYsXgk37DOIjEZKroB9TW8U

*Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...breakdown-insect-populations?CMP=share_btn_tw

*Worrying' rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019*
Levels of the climate-warming gas are set to rise by near-record amounts, Met Office predicts

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...global-co2-forecast-for-2019?CMP=share_btn_tw
*Military buildup in Arctic as melting ice reopens northern borders*
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ice-reopens-northern-borders?CMP=share_btn_tw
*Alaska's vanishing ice threatens to destroy cultures - including our own*
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...y-cultures-including-our-own?CMP=share_btn_tw

So lets now imagine Bush with his selfish, greedy ideology had only heeded the warning from the scientists & taken action back then! ???



........................................................................


----------



## Elles

You can have them on your doorstep if you like, if I have a choice, I’ll choose to live somewhere they aren’t.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> You can have them on your doorstep if you like, if I have a choice, I'll choose to live somewhere they aren't.


I would accept ANYTHING on my doorstep to save our beautiful living planet, of course its your prerogative to move away.

Fracking licences have been released in my area and many others, as the ecocidal tories 'go all out for gas'. And thats despite overwhelming opposition by citizens & rejection by councils (mine included) the tories are still forcing fracking on communities. They intend to lock us into new sources of filthy climate destroying energy knowing the clock is ticking & we must act radically to phase it out. They dont really care about the 'will of the people'. They dont even care about our biosphere. And & when the frackers come here, we wont have the luxury of being able to up sticks - we both have our elderly dads to care about for one thing.

It isnt because I'm a NIMBY that I dont want fracking on my doorstep - I don't want it on ANYONES doorstep and I stand side by side with communities elsewhere who are having it forced upon them.

..

I love this kid.


----------



## noushka05

David Attenborough speaking in Davos (like Greta)

.._.we have to convince them we are facing a major crisis & that they have the power & everybody with power including the national governments but also including industry & also including all the electorates, we have to get together to solve this problem._

_This is something the enormity of which has only just dawned on quite a lot of people_ (still yet to dawn on @samuelsmiles3 & followers) , _and we now see doom over there_.

_And its not in the imagination, ands its not a trick of rhetoric.

Doom is over there, and unless we sort ourselves out within the decade or so, we are dooming our children & grandchildren to an appalling future..........

...........we have to think about things that are painful. Because if we do not, there's going to be a bigger difficulty & a bigger pain that's waiting round the corner._


----------



## Grigori

Hello Noushka05. It is nice to meet you. Thank you for agreement. People who think nuclear power station is answer for global warming I ask them to visit Prypyat in Ukraine then make decision.


----------



## Elles

A wind turbine on my doorstep won’t save the planet. There are plenty of other places they’ll be better placed until they’re small and unobtrusive enough that one can be put in my back yard. Putting them in areas where concrete abominations won’t harm wildlife or upset the natives, like industrial areas that are already compromised, as in your photos, is far better than digging up the countryside and filling it with concrete. What has fracking and elderly people got to do with it? I am against fracking. You aren’t using fracking as whataboutery are you?


----------



## noushka05

Grigori said:


> Hello Noushka05. It is nice to meet you. Thank you for agreement. People who think nuclear power station is answer for global warming I ask them to visit Prypyat in Ukraine then make decision.


Aw thank you. Its nice to meet you too - welcome to the forum  I remember well the terrible Chernobyl disaster. It was scary for me living thousands of miles away - how terrifying it must have been for people actually living there & in the surrounding areas



Elles said:


> A wind turbine on my doorstep won't save the planet. There are plenty of other places they'll be better placed until they're small and unobtrusive enough that one can be put in my back yard. Putting them in areas where concrete abominations won't harm wildlife or upset the natives, like industrial areas that are already compromised, as in your photos, is far better than digging up the countryside and filling it with concrete. What has fracking and elderly people got to do with it? I am against fracking. You aren't using fracking as whataboutery are you?


No not whataboutery Elles. When I brought fracking into the equasion, I was trying to point out the sheer hypocrisy & deceitfulness of the tories. Anti wind turbine nimbys have played right into the tories hands. The tories used the excuse of Nimbys complaining about them on their doorsteps as a reason hamstring the wind industry - an industry they know we must invest in - but lets face it they are the party of the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...3/jun/06/wind-farms-shale-gas-fracking-energy

_Power to the people! That, say ministers, is what changes to windfarm rules announced on Thurday deliver. What they fail to say is it only applies to the minority of people who live in Conservative constituencies where the Tories feel compelled to out-loony the climate change deniers of UKIP. The majority of the British public who support renewable energy are left powerless.

But giving local communities a veto on wind farms raises an intriguing question: will the same apply to those who oppose fracking? Chancellor George Osborne is determined to bet the UK's energy future on a shale gas boom. Yet giving communities in Sussex, Lancashire and beyond the same veto would kill the already tiny chance that the US fracking revolution can be repeated in the UK.

You should be in no doubt that the roaring protests against fracking will make the opposition to wind farms look like a gentle breeze. Wind turbines are entirely harmless beyond changing the view: fracking, if done badly, risks polluting water and leaking methan_e.

_The signs are that it will be one rule for wind, another for shale gas. Osborne have already said he will ensure communities benefit from fracking, but there's been no mention of allowing them to benefit by choosing to not having any fracking at a_ll.


----------



## noushka05

*Bernie Sanders*‏Verified account @SenSanders

_Young people all over the world are demanding action on climate change, like @GretaThunberg, who had the courage to demand that the world's corporate elite do their part to address this global crisis


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1089575009612222464
................_

Leading climate scientist Kevin Anderson:

*Kevin Anderson*‏ @KevinClimate Jan 28
Kevin Anderson Retweeted Greta Thunberg

_Let's lighten the load on @GretaThunberg 's shoulders. Use her speech as a call to arms and emulate her bravery. _

_Call out the selfish & morally bereft at Davos, the subterfuge in politics, the cowardice & sychofancy in academia. _

_But then let's act with cogency, honesty & courage._

............................................................................


----------



## noushka05

*GeorgeMonbiot*‏ @GeorgeMonbiot 39m39 minutes ago

*Bolsonaro now threatens the lives of everyone on Earth, as he plans to torch our biggest terrestrial carbon store:

Bolsonaro government reveals plan to develop the 'Unproductive Amazon'
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/01/b...eals-plan-to-develop-the-unproductive-amazon/*


----------



## Elles

The government shouldn't use it as an excuse not to use wind farms at all, or to do fracking instead. I don't see why they should get away with inflicting them unnecessarily on people and wildlife living habitats because it's cheaper and easier, or make the most money, when there are alternative positions.

However, although mostly inefficient atm, or under development,

https://singularityhub.com/2017/07/...ntle-breeze/#sm.00gd32xt1837epd10mu19i1t10pho

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-paris/

https://vortexbladeless.com/

Other tech under development too. Current tech is likely to be outdated pretty quickly.

In the meantime, the abominations are a necessary evil that earn already wealthy landowners a lot of money and that said wealthy landowners tend to make sure are as far away from them as possible and stuff the locals. I'm simply suggesting that there are better places than people's back yards for them.

Fracking has nothing to do with it. Fracking shouldn't be considered at all. The wind turbines should be placed where they will have as little detrimental impact as possible. That doesn't mean getting rid of them altogether and fracking instead. I'm not as altruistic as you @noushka05 You probably have a houseful of vegan refugees and live off the grid?


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> The government shouldn't use it as an excuse not to use wind farms at all, or to do fracking instead. I don't see why they should get away with inflicting them unnecessarily on people and wildlife living habitats because it's cheaper and easier, or make the most money, when there are alternative positions.
> 
> However, although mostly inefficient atm, or under development,
> 
> https://singularityhub.com/2017/07/...ntle-breeze/#sm.00gd32xt1837epd10mu19i1t10pho
> 
> http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-paris/
> 
> https://vortexbladeless.com/
> 
> Other tech under development too. Current tech is likely to be outdated pretty quickly.
> 
> In the meantime, the abominations are a necessary evil that earn already wealthy landowners a lot of money and that said wealthy landowners tend to make sure are as far away from them as possible and stuff the locals. I'm simply suggesting that there are better places than people's back yards for them.
> 
> Fracking has nothing to do with it. Fracking shouldn't be considered at all. The wind turbines should be placed where they will have as little detrimental impact as possible. That doesn't mean getting rid of them altogether and fracking instead. I'm not as altruistic as you @noushka05 You probably have a houseful of vegan refugees and live off the grid?


Fracking has everything to do with the point I was making about the tories sheer hypocrisy and dishonesty when it comes to respecting the will of the people. And it should not be for communities to decide where renewables are cited. Robust ecological impact studies (preferably by independent bodies such as the RSPB) should be carried out to assess the impact before deciding where to cite them - not nimbys who clearly cant understand the magnitude of the crisis we are facing. Climate breakdown/consumerism is the greatest threat to life on earth and we are at the tipping point of no return. We dont have time to wait for new technology to come along we have to go with what we've got.

Despite on shore wind is the cheapest source of green energy - the tories have killed off the industry. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...wable-energy-renewableuk-yougov-a8449381.html

I'm just doing the very best that I can for the sake of my children & living planet that I love.


----------



## Elles

Hang on, so you want the will of the people to be respected over fracking, but they should have no say on windfarms? 

I didn’t say anything about communities deciding, I said they should be placed where they cause as little disruption to living habitats. At the moment wealthy landowners decide which land they want to rent out for them, (for the money) as far away from their own living habitat as possible, stuff the locals and wildlife and councils decide whether to agree to the planning.

For me fracking and windfarms have entirely separate issues surrounding them. We have to have windfarms, they should ban fracking. So now we’ve decided that, where should the wealthy be permitted/encouraged to put their Wind farms.

If you don’t care where they put them, that’s your prerogative. I live in Devon and I don’t want huge areas of outstanding natural beauty and moorland dug up and covered in wind and solar farms. So yes. Not in my backyard. They also make me feel sick and dizzy and I can’t be the only one, so away from where people have to stare at them if at all possible. There also needs to be more research into their impact on birds and wildlife. They aren’t benign structures, we need them, but that doesn’t mean they should be dumped wherever.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> Hang on, so you want the will of the people to be respected over fracking, but they should have no say on windfarms?
> 
> I didn't say anything about communities deciding, I said they should be placed where they cause as little disruption to living habitats. At the moment wealthy landowners decide which land they want to rent out for them, (for the money) as far away from their own living habitat as possible, stuff the locals and wildlife and councils decide whether to agree to the planning.
> 
> For me fracking and windfarms have entirely separate issues surrounding them. We have to have windfarms, they should ban fracking. So now we've decided that, where should the wealthy be permitted/encouraged to put their Wind farms.
> 
> If you don't care where they put them, that's your prerogative. I live in Devon and I don't want huge areas of outstanding natural beauty and moorland dug up and covered in wind and solar farms. So yes. Not in my backyard. They also make me feel sick and dizzy and I can't be the only one, so away from where people have to stare at them if at all possible. There also needs to be more research into their impact on birds and wildlife. They aren't benign structures, we need them, but that doesn't mean they should be dumped wherever.


It isn't being a nimby to not want fracking in ANYONES backyard. The problem with nimbys is they object to it being in their own back yard yet are unconcerned if its in someone elses.

Obviously I care where they put they put turbines or i wouldnt have said this


noushka05 said:


> Robust ecological impact studies (preferably by independent bodies such as the RSPB) should be carried out to assess the impact before deciding where to cite them -


I have not advocated erecting turbines is areas where they would have a big ecological impact. I may only live in the 'desolate north' but I am surrounded by some really beautiful countryside & I can recognise climate change is a far, far greater threat to my local ecology than wind turbines would be, that said obviously I would want them citing where they have the least ecological impact. Preferably in farmers fields as some already are.

The tories banned all onshore wind projects in 2015, Elles. (thanks to the anti wind nimbys)

Lots of studies have been done on their ecological impact . Heres one. As this is a pet forum note the number of birds killed by turbines in comparison to the number killed by cats. https://www.generationfit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/PB-onshore-wind-energy-UK.pdf

Here is another from the USA on bird mortality.










...


----------



## Elles

Rubbish imo. It’s got nothing to do with nimbys. You’re saying that the Tories listen to communities who don’t want windfarms on the horizon, but not to communities who don’t want fracking? I think you’re blaming the wrong people. The tories do exactly what they want to, peppered with a desire to stay in power. If they wanted windfarms, we’d have windfarms and communities wouldn’t be permitted to have a say. Same as fracking.


----------



## Elles

https://1010uk.org/articles/the-governments-newest-policy-could-ban-wind-for-years-to-come

Not quite banned, but obstructed. Obstructed due to complaints by around 3% of the country? Seems unlikely, when majorities, including a majority of Tory voters are saying they agree that we need on shore wind turbines, but oppose fracking? More to this than meets the eye imo, though you're normally on top of conspiracy theories, have you missed something when blaming nimbys?

Offshore maybe?

https://utilityweek.co.uk/onshore-limits-on-turbine-size-could-make-offshore-wind-cheaper/


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> Rubbish imo. It's got nothing to do with nimbys. You're saying that the Tories listen to communities who don't want windfarms on the horizon, but not to communities who don't want fracking? I think you're blaming the wrong people. The tories do exactly what they want to, peppered with a desire to stay in power. If they wanted windfarms, we'd have windfarms and communities wouldn't be permitted to have a say. Same as fracking.


 And I said the tories used anti wind nimbys as their excuse to hamstring the industry. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...3/jun/06/wind-farms-shale-gas-fracking-energy .https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30504891

And over 100 tory mps mostly from the tory heartlands wrote to Cameron in an attack on the industry - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...to-David-Cameron-on-wind-power-subsidies.html (Why on earth would people vote for these dinosaurs? Mind boggling )

What I'm saying is the anti wind nimbys played straight into the hands of a government in bed with the fossil fuel industry - and I tried to point out the tories galling hypocrisy ( as you appear to acknowledge), that, the tories only care about the 'will of the people' if it fits theIR agenda. (Though they do have to keep the tory shires happy enough to keep getting their votes which they need to keep them in power)

You say you support onshore wind as long as its not on your own doorstep - what about nimbys in other areas who say the same thing? How would that work for the industry?



Elles said:


> https://1010uk.org/articles/the-governments-newest-policy-could-ban-wind-for-years-to-come
> 
> Not quite banned, but obstructed. Obstructed due to complaints by around 3% of the country? Seems unlikely, when majorities, including a majority of Tory voters are saying they agree that we need on shore wind turbines, but oppose fracking? More to this than meets the eye imo, though you're normally on top of conspiracy theories, have you missed something when blaming nimbys?
> 
> Offshore maybe?
> 
> https://utilityweek.co.uk/onshore-limits-on-turbine-size-could-make-offshore-wind-cheaper/


10:10 is an excellent source of reliable information on wind power - In effect the tories have banned onshore wind. https://1010uk.org/articles/the-governments-newest-policy-could-ban-wind-for-years-to-come

Hope I've clarified.


----------



## Elles

You are horrible sometimes aren’t you. You want people to agree to the unnecessary positioning of windfarms by the wealthy and the Tory government, where they will be right in their face. Concrete monstrosities that make them feel sick and disorientated. The government and the wealthy don’t want them near them and industrial land would be more expensive, but if we don’t agree to windfarms being put wherever they want to put them, we’re nimbys which is an insult and which you would never be, and encouraging fracking. 

If you read Caroline’s tweets, you will see that she congratulated the government of softening their stance on onshore wind.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> You are horrible sometimes aren't you. You want people to agree to the unnecessary positioning of windfarms by the wealthy and the Tory government, where they will be right in their face. Concrete monstrosities that make them feel sick and disorientated. The government and the wealthy don't want them near them and industrial land would be more expensive, but if we don't agree to windfarms being put wherever they want to put them, we're nimbys which is an insult and which you would never be, and encouraging fracking.
> 
> If you read Caroline's tweets, you will see that she congratulated the government of softening their stance on onshore wind.


I'm not meaning to be horrible Elles, I'm just trying to speak the truth and to explain what I mean. And you're putting words into my mouth. I have never said any such thing -


Elles said:


> You want people to agree to the unnecessary positioning of windfarms by the wealthy and the Tory government, where they will be right in their face


I have clearly stated decisions to cite wind turbines should only be made after robust ecological assessments have been made. Under the tories Natural England & Defra are no longer fit for purpose, I would not trust these government bodies to carry out the work, so I made clear these assessments should be done by an independent body such as the RSPB. We need to do everything possible if we seriously want to address the greatest crisis we face & that means we must include massively investing in the green technology - including onshore wind. There will always be some objections to wind - so what are we to do?

By definition a nimby is someone who objects to something in their own back yard but is fine if its in someone elses. The people objecting to fracking don't want it in theirs or anyone else's back yard. 1) because it poisons & pollutes the local environment. 2) because it destroys the climate. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'encouraging fracking'?

They are just words by the government - there has to be action! The tories are masters of doublespeak - they talk the talk but rarely walk the walk on progressive issues. Caroline knows this.


----------



## noushka05

*
Global warming is killing off starfish in the largest disease epidemic ever seen in an ocean species*

https://choice.npr.org/index.html?o...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190130


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> *Global warming is killing off starfish in the largest disease epidemic ever seen in an ocean species*
> 
> https://choice.npr.org/index.html?o...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190130


Obviously sad to see the sea stars struggling, but one quote from the report did stand out -

"The study _*did*_ *not examine* why warmer water _*might*_ make sea stars more susceptible to disease."

So quite an important omission.

I did find this study from a few years back, however, and the results showed that the sea stars grew by 110% when they increased the temperature by 3.0c and by 67% when exposed to higher levels of Co2.

So the headline "Global Warming is Killing off Starfish" does seem misleading.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Obviously sad to see the sea stars struggling, but one quote from the report did stand out -
> 
> "The study _*did*_ *not examine* why warmer water _*might*_ make sea stars more susceptible to disease."
> 
> So quite an important omission.
> 
> I did find this study from a few years back, however, and the results showed that the sea stars grew by 110% when they increased the temperature by 3.0c and by 67% when exposed to higher levels of Co2.
> 
> So the headline "Global Warming is Killing off Starfish" does seem misleading.


*
Anyway - here is some good news 

Nearly wiped out by mystery illness, California starfish make stunning recovery
*
Starfish are again brightening up tide pools along the California coast after being ravaged by a mysterious wasting disease, and the colorful invertebrates have undergone a remarkable genetic adaptation that is protecting them from the deadly pathogen, a new study has found.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Obviously sad to see the sea stars struggling, but one quote from the report did stand out -
> 
> "The study _*did*_ *not examine* why warmer water _*might*_ make sea stars more susceptible to disease."
> 
> So quite an important omission.
> 
> I did find this study from a few years back, however, and the results showed that the sea stars grew by 110% when they increased the temperature by 3.0c and by 67% when exposed to higher levels of Co2.
> 
> So the headline "Global Warming is Killing off Starfish" does seem misleading.


Classic denier, focusing purely on uncertaintiesenguin

(the actual paper)
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau7042

In what way does that 9 year old study negate current findings?. Good grief Sam.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> *Anyway - here is some good news
> 
> Nearly wiped out by mystery illness, California starfish make stunning recovery
> *
> Starfish are again brightening up tide pools along the California coast after being ravaged by a mysterious wasting disease, and the colorful invertebrates have undergone a remarkable genetic adaptation that is protecting them from the deadly pathogen, a new study has found.


That is the Ochre sea star - a completely different species

_"That ochre sea stars had the capacity to adapt to events as dramatic as this is remarkable, and perhaps re-assuring that future climate change may be withstood by some species," Dawson said.

"*But the ochre sea star is perhaps a species with greater resilience than many, and with projected climate swings expected to be more extreme, the ochre sea star's resilience is perhaps a small, distant bright light on a pretty stormy sea*."_

The awesome & stunningly beautiful Sunflower sea star (_Pycnopodia helianthoides_) is the starfish in question & it has not made a 'stunning recovery', it has been virtually wiped out across most of its range. The sunflower sea star is a keystone predator, its loss means the whole ecosystem is in danger.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/shocking-undersea-plague-obliterating-key-ocean-species
_An "underwater zombie apocalypse." That's how wildlife veterinarian Joe Gaydos of the University of California (UC), Davis, describes "sea star wasting disease," a blight that has decimated more than 20 species of sea stars from Mexico to Alaska since 2013. Now, a new study by Gaydos and colleagues has more bad news: The disease has hit the sunflower star (Pycnopodia helianthoides)-a key predator within kelp forests-hardest of all. This once-common species has vanished from the majority of its range, sending shock waves through the ecosystems it once called home. The team also found a worrying association between warmer ocean temperatures and the severity of the outbreak, suggesting climate change could exacerbate future marine epidemics.

"This is shocking," says marine ecologist Mark Carr of UC Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the study. "This is not just a population reduction, this is virtually the loss of a key species over thousands of miles. We've never seen anything like this before."

Sea star wasting disease progresses from "that looks weird," to "horror movie," over a few days. White lesions appear, then expand into fissures of melting tissue. Limbs fall off and crawl away. And finally, the sea star disintegrates into a pale mound of decaying flesh._


----------



## samuelsmiles3

[QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1065380928, member: 2189"*]Classic denier, focusing purely on uncertainties*enguin

But the uncertainty lies with the climate models, and that is why it has to be continually questioned and not accepted as the so called "settled science." Climate models that have relentlessly got the predictions incorrect. Here is the latest correction.

*Studies shed new light on Antarctica's future contribution to sea level rise*

_"The papers together suggest a likely contribution of around 15cm from melting Antarctic ice by the end of this century, with a 5% likelihood that it will exceed 39cm under a high-emissions scenario."

"The original study, published in Nature, *grabbed headlines with the finding that Antarctic ice was at risk from "marine ice-cliff instability", which would see towering cliffs of glacier ice collapse into the ocean *under their own weight."_


----------



## Elles

Maybe they aren’t getting the predictions incorrect, maybe it’s because we are making some of the recommended changes. If a doctor says to a 40 a day smoker ‘carry on as you are now and you’ll hardly be able to breathe in 3 years’, and they give up smoking and run a marathon 3 years later, you can’t say his prediction was wrong.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Except the study isn't saying the outlook is better because we have or we are decreasing our Co2 emissions. It is saying they got the model wrong. Catastrophically wrong. A difference of a 3 metre sea rise in the alarmist 2016 study and a (worst case) 39cm rise in the new study.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> But the uncertainty lies with the climate models, and that is why it has to be continually questioned and not accepted as the so called "settled science.". Climate models that have relentlessly got the predictions incorrect. Here is the latest.
> 
> *Studies shed new light on Antarctica's future contribution to sea level rise*
> 
> _"The papers together suggest a likely contribution of around 15cm from melting Antarctic ice by the end of this century, with a 5% likelihood that it will exceed 39cm under a high-emissions scenario."
> 
> "The original study, published in Nature, *grabbed headlines with the finding that Antarctic ice was at risk from "marine ice-cliff instability", which would see towering cliffs of glacier ice collapse into the ocean *under their own weigh
> _


I'll tell you what is predictable? The same old circular, straw man arguments regurgitated by climate change deniers.

Saying that the science is not settled is a fallacious argument Sam. No field of science is complete and there are many open questions still in those fields of science (if there wasn't there wouldn't be any research science!). All science uses models, a model is a tool which is constantly reassessed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling So, whilst many questions still exist, much that is known is fairly certain as it is actually confirmed by a mountain range of *empirical* *evidence* and *observations*.



Elles said:


> Maybe they aren't getting the predictions incorrect, maybe it's because we are making some of the recommended changes. If a doctor says to a 40 a day smoker 'carry on as you are now and you'll hardly be able to breathe in 3 years', and they give up smoking and run a marathon 3 years later, you can't say his prediction was wrong.


IA] [/QUOTE]
_
_
We most certainly are not making the recommended changes - its full speed ahead towards catastrophe. Since the first COP there has been a massive 65% rise in emissions Elles








samuelsmiles3 said:


> Except the study isn't saying the outlook is better because we have or we are decreasing our Co2 emissions. It is saying they got the model wrong. Catastrophically wrong. A difference of a 3 metre sea rise in the alarmist 2016 study and a (worst case) 39mm rise in the new study.


----------



## noushka05

I thought you might be interested to read this @Elles?.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mate-change-threshold/?utm_term=.045ff81662f3


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*Climate change is turning these cute birds into crazed murderers.
*
Yes, that's a genuine headline - "Climate change is turning these cute birds into crazed murderers"

"_Here's one effect that scientists didn't anticipate, however: *murderous, brain-eating birds." *_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables
*
"_Bottom line? Had California and Germany spent on nuclear what they instead spent on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power_."

Interesting read from Michael Shellenberger.


----------



## rona

https://www.sciencealert.com/naviga...lt7gCAdY2HbZ0EJPPI-vtBncCrZWUlYn1GNx_ebXwvkCY

While this happens the Magnetic field gets weaker, a consequence of this is a thinner atmosphere and unstable outer core

https://theconversation.com/why-the...-swap-places-and-how-it-would-affect-us-71910

Of course, animals that rely on magnetic force for migratory or other purposes are also being effected by this

We still need to cut down on our disgusting polluting ways, but I really don't think this is all the problem the Earth is facing. We just aren't that important in the scheme of things. Hopefully, a blink of the eye in the earths existence and humans will disappear soon


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> *Climate change is turning these cute birds into crazed murderers.
> *
> Yes, that's a genuine headline - "Climate change is turning these cute birds into crazed murderers"
> 
> "_Here's one effect that scientists didn't anticipate, however: *murderous, brain-eating birds." *_


Look beyond the emotive language - you still don't find it alarming ??



noushka05 said:


> I
> 
> Anyway this is* ACTUALLY* where we're at now? And you don't find it 'alarming'?
> 
> https://wmo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=855267a7dd394825aa8e9025e024f163
> 
> And the latest.
> *
> Greenland's melting ice nears a "tipping point," scientists say*
> 
> https://buff.ly/2R778ZV
> 
> *Blistering Australian heat is shattering records and killing wildlife*
> https://www.axios.com/australia-hea...rds-a906a39b-bdff-4fa6-8daf-11732c12a52f.html
> 
> *The most dangerous climate feedback loop is speeding up
> In Siberia, the carbon-rich permafrost warmed by 1.6°F in just the last decade.*
> https://thinkprogress.org/dangerous...T0h0RfXm7ffnmz8B5qs_fhoYsXgk37DOIjEZKroB9TW8U
> 
> *Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown*
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...breakdown-insect-populations?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> *Worrying' rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019*
> Levels of the climate-warming gas are set to rise by near-record amounts, Met Office predicts
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...global-co2-forecast-for-2019?CMP=share_btn_tw
> *Military buildup in Arctic as melting ice reopens northern borders*
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ice-reopens-northern-borders?CMP=share_btn_tw
> *Alaska's vanishing ice threatens to destroy cultures - including our own*
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...y-cultures-including-our-own?CMP=share_btn_tw
> 
> So lets now imagine Bush with his selfish, greedy ideology had only heeded the warning from the scientists & taken action back then! ???
> 
> 
> 
> ........................................................................





noushka05 said:


> *Global warming is killing off starfish in the largest disease epidemic ever seen in an ocean species*
> 
> https://choice.npr.org/index.html?o...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190130


You're not alarmed by any of this?

But, but.............nuclear



samuelsmiles3 said:


> *The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables
> *
> "_Bottom line? Had California and Germany spent on nuclear what they instead spent on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power_."
> 
> Interesting read from Michael Shellenberger.


I totally agree Germany should not have phased out nuclear, but how ridiculous to suggest that more money has been thrown at renewables. Nuclear is FAR more expensive, we have been pumping astronomical amounts of cash into for decades. It has not delivered.

Brexiteers have likely killed off nuclear in this country. As someone totally obsessed by nuclear power, I can't begin to imagine how you must be feeling about that.

*
Britain's nuclear ambition must make way for renewable energy, warns commissio*n
https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-b...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Alarm bells ringing yet?

*Met Office: global warming could exceed 1.5C within five years*
Lowest Paris agreement target may temporarily be surpassed for first time between now and 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...arming-could-exceed-1-point-5-c-in-five-years


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> https://www.sciencealert.com/naviga...lt7gCAdY2HbZ0EJPPI-vtBncCrZWUlYn1GNx_ebXwvkCY
> 
> While this happens the Magnetic field gets weaker, a consequence of this is a thinner atmosphere and unstable outer core
> 
> https://theconversation.com/why-the...-swap-places-and-how-it-would-affect-us-71910
> 
> Of course, animals that rely on magnetic force for migratory or other purposes are also being effected by this
> 
> We still need to cut down on our disgusting polluting ways, but I really don't think this is all the problem the Earth is facing. We just aren't that important in the scheme of things. Hopefully, a blink of the eye in the earths existence and humans will disappear soon


We're so unimportant as a species that we can actually change the climate & trigger the sixth mass extinction. We will probably be gone far sooner than most people think.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Look beyond the emotive language - *you still don't find it alarming ??*
> 
> You're not alarmed by any of this?
> 
> But, but.............nuclear
> 
> I totally agree Germany should not have phased out nuclear, but how ridiculous to suggest that more money has been thrown at renewables. Nuclear is FAR more expensive, we have been pumping astronomical amounts of cash into for decades. It has not delivered.
> 
> Brexiteers have likely killed off nuclear in this country. As someone totally obsessed by nuclear power, I can't begin to imagine how you must be feeling about that.
> 
> *
> Britain's nuclear ambition must make way for renewable energy, warns commissio*n
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-b...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
> 
> Alarm bells ringing yet?
> 
> *Met Office: global warming could exceed 1.5C within five years*
> Lowest Paris agreement target may temporarily be surpassed for first time between now and 2023
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...arming-could-exceed-1-point-5-c-in-five-years


Of course I don't find it alarming. Surely slightly more mild weather will be beneficial to the birds' survival.

The reason the tits are murdering the flycatchers is because there are more of each species surviving and, therefore, more coming into contact with each other.

The actual study does concede that there is no decline in flycatcher numbers because of the 'murderous brain eating tits.' So that's good news.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Of course I don't find it alarming. Surely slightly more mild weather will be beneficial to the birds' survival.
> 
> The reason the tits are murdering the flycatchers is because there are more of each species surviving and, therefore, more coming into contact with each other.
> 
> The actual study does concede that there is no decline in flycatcher numbers because of the 'murderous brain eating tits.' So that's good news.


I'm going to respond to this when I have more time.

You don't think theres anything to be alarmed about here either?


noushka05 said:


> Alarm bells ringing yet?
> 
> *Met Office: global warming could exceed 1.5C within five years*
> Lowest Paris agreement target may temporarily be surpassed for first time between now and 2023
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...arming-could-exceed-1-point-5-c-in-five-years


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*You don't think theres anything to be alarmed about here either*?[/QUOTE]

No, I am not alarmed by this report - The Guardian ran the same story precisely 1 year ago. The last two years have seen cooling however, so they have just changed the dates from 2018-2022 to 2019-2023. It does seem to be a feature of this science.

There is also only a 10% chance of this happening and "_we are seeing a chance of a* temporary rise* of 1.5C due to a combination of global warming and* natural climate variation.*_*"
*
No, not alarmed by this report in the Guardian, just alarmed at the alarmism.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> *You don't think theres anything to be alarmed about here either*?


No, I am not alarmed by this report - The Guardian ran the same story precisely 1 year ago. The last two years have seen cooling however, so they have just changed the dates from 2018-2022 to 2019-2023. It does seem to be a feature of this science.

There is also only a 10% chance of this happening and "_we are seeing a chance of a* temporary rise* of 1.5C due to a combination of global warming and* natural climate variation.*_*"
*
No, not alarmed by this report in the Guardian, just alarmed at the alarmism.[/QUOTE]

You highlight natural climate variation - does this imply you don't think concentration of AGW significant?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> No, I am not alarmed by this report - The Guardian ran the same story precisely 1 year ago. The last two years have seen cooling however, so they have just changed the dates from 2018-2022 to 2019-2023. It does seem to be a feature of this science.
> 
> There is also only a 10% chance of this happening and "_we are seeing a chance of a* temporary rise* of 1.5C due to a combination of global warming and* natural climate variation.*_*"
> *
> No, not alarmed by this report in the Guardian, just alarmed at the alarmism.


You highlight natural climate variation - does this imply you don't think* concentration of AGW *significant?[/QUOTE]

If you are asking me if the concentration of human caused C02 in the atmosphere effects the temperature of the planet, I would say minimal.

Here is a report from 1988 claiming that the Maldives could be inundated by sea level rise within 20-30 years.
And here is the Maldives today.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> If you are asking me if the concentration of human caused C02 in the atmosphere effects the temperature of the planet, I would say minimal.


I know you think you're a scientist, but you're not:Hilarious What on earth are you basing your opinion on?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> I know you think you're a scientist, but you're not:Hilarious *What on earth are you basing your opinion on?*



Lots of research. And you?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is one of the latest alarmist pieces from The Guardian.

Firstly the report, when published yesterday, claimed that many weather events had increased in intensity manyfold since 2005. This massive error was quickly pointed out to one of the authors, Laurie Laybourn-Langton, who quickly claimed it was a 'typo' and altered the date to 1950.

Guardian -

_• This article was amended on 12 February 2019. After publication the IPPR issued a correction to a date in their report: it is since 1950, not since 2005 as the original report said, that the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires sevenfold.
_
Astonishing!

However, if you look at what the IPCC wrote in their 1.5c report last year it stated that -

1. *Drought*. No change vs AR5 *"low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale*... likely to be trends in some regions of the world, including increases in drought in the Mediterranean and W Africa & decreases in droughts in central N America & NW Australia"

2. "There is *low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods*. "

3. *Floods*: "In summary, streamflow trends since 1950 are *non-statistically significant in most of the world's largest rivers (high confidence)*" Though some basins see up trends, some down.

4. *Tropical cyclones:* "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported* a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones* and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"

5. *Tropical cyclones*: "there is only* low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.*"

So the much vaunted IPCC is reporting that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to human caused AGW.

It's important to remember The Guardian is not a reliable source for balanced reporting on climate change. It is alarmism.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Lots of research. And you?


Only lots of research to find dubious sources to feed your confirmation bias could possibly lead you to this conclusion: _concentration of human caused C02 in the atmosphere effects the temperature of the planet, *I would say minimal.
*_

And me? The scientific evidence 

Scientists can PROVE the billions of tons of C02 accumulating in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.












samuelsmiles3 said:


> This is one of the latest alarmist pieces from The Guardian.
> 
> Firstly the report, when published yesterday, claimed that many weather events had increased in intensity manyfold since 2005. This massive error was quickly pointed out to one of the authors, Laurie Laybourn-Langton, who quickly claimed it was a 'typo' and altered the date to 1950.
> 
> Guardian -
> 
> _• This article was amended on 12 February 2019. After publication the IPPR issued a correction to a date in their report: it is since 1950, not since 2005 as the original report said, that the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires sevenfold.
> _
> Astonishing!
> 
> However, if you look at what the IPCC wrote in their 1.5c report last year it stated that -
> 
> 1. *Drought*. No change vs AR5 *"low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale*... likely to be trends in some regions of the world, including increases in drought in the Mediterranean and W Africa & decreases in droughts in central N America & NW Australia"
> 
> 2. "There is *low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods*. "
> 
> 3. *Floods*: "In summary, streamflow trends since 1950 are *non-statistically significant in most of the world's largest rivers (high confidence)*" Though some basins see up trends, some down.
> 
> 4. *Tropical cyclones:* "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported* a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones* and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"
> 
> 5. *Tropical cyclones*: "there is only* low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.*"
> 
> So the much vaunted IPCC is reporting that there is little basis for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased, much less increased due to human caused AGW.
> 
> It's important to remember The Guardian is not a reliable source for balanced reporting on climate change. It is alarmism.


Classic cherry picking. The IPCC report couldn't have painted a bleaker picture. We are already seeing the terrible impacts of climate change, which unsurprisingly, you have chosen to ignore. There is something seriously lacking in people who aren't alarmed.

Prophetic 30 years old speech by Carl Sagan on human driven climate change, addressing all of your denier arguments & proving the extent of your denial


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This doesn't make any sense at all. A massive solar farm requiring the desecration of woodland (210 acres and thousands of trees.)

*Georgetown wants to raze 210 acres of trees to meet green-energy goals. Environmentalists are crying foul.*

This is what the Greens, Greenpeace and activists have campaigned for for many years, though. Without fossil fuels and nuclear this is the alternative - a dilute energy source that will provide electricity for about only 50% of a 24hour period.

Also, with much of the USA currently enduring record freezing cold temperatures and snow, these solar panels would now probably be covered in snow and giving no electricity at all. The public hearing on February 27th will hopefully reject this planned folly.

ETA. It is actually a 537 acre site, not 210. Just the trees to be felled cover an area of 210 acres.


----------



## Elles

I *LOVE* the WWF campaign and ad. Such a moving, yet positive message.

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/wwfs-bold-ad-uncommon-urges-people-fight-world/1497550


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> I *LOVE* the WWF campaign and ad. Such a moving, yet positive message.
> 
> https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/wwfs-bold-ad-uncommon-urges-people-fight-world/1497550


I totally disagree with this statement "A TV spot highlights to the first generation to know they are destroying the world that they could be the last to reverse the damage."

I've known since the 70s when I myself was a teenager and I believe every sane person has known since around that time, however, the powers that be are only after lining their own pockets and power grabbing, without governments actually acting rather than giving lip service, we as individuals can only make a tiny difference by our actions


----------



## Elles

We are the first generation to know. I’m not dead yet.

And while I’m at it, don’t world leaders and businessmen own TVs. ?


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> We are the first generation to know. I'm not dead yet.


Odd thing to say then as there was only really one generation before ours, maybe just verging on two, that have been injuring the world.


----------



## Elles

The industrial revolution started it though. Look at the old smogs.

I like the ad because it’s moving and positive. Usually it’s doomladen, telling kids they only have 10 years left, which sounds impossible and probably gives them nightmares.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> fossil fuels























rona said:


> I totally disagree with this statement "A TV spot highlights to the first generation to know they are destroying the world that they could be the last to reverse the damage."
> 
> I've known since the 70s when I myself was a teenager and I believe every sane person has known since around that time, however, the powers that be are only after lining their own pockets and power grabbing, without governments actually acting rather than giving lip service, we as individuals can only make a tiny difference by our actions


Interesting you should say this, because on this forum you have behaved like a classic climate change denier. Even as recently as this thread with your posts & liking @samuelsmiles3 posts who is an outright climate denier.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> The industrial revolution started it though. Look at the old smogs.
> 
> I like the ad because it's moving and positive. Usually it's doomladen, telling kids they only have 10 years left, which sounds impossible and probably gives them nightmares.


Children want the truth, its their future on the line Elles, and they are fighting for it. Our generation should be ashamed.


----------



## noushka05

Nothing to be alarmed about @samuelsmiles3 


*Prof Ben Garrod*‏Verified account @Ben_garrod
It_'s not a big, iconic or 'sexy' species and it won't get much coverage in the media but this is important.

The Bramble Cay melomys is now extinct ... the first mammal to be declared extinct due to human-caused climate change.

Don't let this go unnoticed. https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...caused-mammal-extinction-20190219-p50yry.html








_


----------



## noushka05

These are the planned/happening student strikes all over the world. I hope older generations will get out & support them.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Noushka05, I'm more than happy to discuss global warming, and my scepticism with you, but you make it very difficult when you throw childish memes, various links, big photos and stuff at me all over the place.

Do you want a discussion, or do you want me to just obey you?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka05, I'm more than happy to discuss climate change, and my scepticism with you, but you make it very difficult when you throw childish memes, various links, big photos and stuff at me all over the place.
> 
> Do you want a discussion, or do you want me to just obey you?


No you're not, I have tried to discuss it with you, but like all deniers you just keep moving the goal posts. If you have been researching as you claim you have, you could not be in denial. As Greta Thunberg stated, even a young child can understand climate change and the urgent action it requires.

..,


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka05, I'm more than happy to discuss global warming, and my scepticism with you, but you make it very difficult when you throw childish memes, various links, big photos and stuff at me all over the place.
> 
> Do you want a discussion, or do you want me to just obey you?


Hahaha 

You are a little more sceptical than I but the scaremongering is off the scale. I feel so sorry for the young these days, they must think there's no future so not worth bothering


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Hahaha
> 
> You are a little more sceptical than I but the scaremongering is off the scale. I feel so sorry for the young these days, they must think there's no future so not worth bothering


Ahh as I suspected - still a denier.












rona said:


> they must think there's no future so not worth bothering


You have got to be kidding? And these youngsters are far better informed than you & Samuel.


----------



## noushka05

State of the tories The sooner these kids can vote the better!

*Greta Thunberg*‏Verified account @GretaThunberg Feb 15
_British PM says that the children on school strike are "wasting lesson time". That may well be the case. But then again, political leaders have wasted 30 yrs of inaction. And that is slightly worse._


----------



## noushka05

God help our youngsters with attitudes like this. This is why we'll never get anywhere with 'centrists' either. 


*Sen Feinstein Dismisses children pushing for #GreenNewDeal: "You didn't vote for me"*

*



*


----------



## MollySmith

Elles said:


> I *LOVE* the WWF campaign and ad. Such a moving, yet positive message.
> 
> https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/wwfs-bold-ad-uncommon-urges-people-fight-world/1497550


Oh I loved this too @Elles , I sat forward watching it and it moved me so much.


----------



## MollySmith

noushka05 said:


> State of the tories The sooner these kids can vote the better!
> 
> *Greta Thunberg*‏Verified account @GretaThunberg Feb 15
> _British PM says that the children on school strike are "wasting lesson time". That may well be the case. But then again, political leaders have wasted 30 yrs of inaction. And that is slightly worse._


I detest her because of this as you'd probably guess but this is terrible. Matt Haig really pulled her apart on this and good for him. I loved that a lot of headteachers agreed on 'training days' for teachers to allow their students to go and good for those heroes. I can't imagine believing so strongly in something and having to sit in a classroom when a passionate is going on. So much can be learned from protests from behaviours, empowerment, politics. It's as if Leadsom doesn't want to get found out...


----------



## Elles

The ad is quite honest, but it also offers hope and what we as individuals can do to help, with what we eat, what we buy and the way we live. You seem to think that's a lie and there is nothing positive anyone can do @noushka05 . So why bother?

Constantly telling kids that there's 10 or 12 years left or whatever, with no encouraging or positive message isn't telling them the whole truth at all. We are all going to die, no one is immortal, but that's a pointless message on its own. Sorry kids, you can take as many days off school as you like, you will die, the planet will eventually be free of the human race and there's nothing you can do about it. And that's the truth.


----------



## kimthecat

rona said:


> I totally disagree with this statement "A TV spot highlights to the first generation to know they are destroying the world that they could be the last to reverse the damage."
> 
> I've known since the 70s when I myself was a teenager and I believe every sane person has known since around that time, however, the powers that be are only after lining their own pockets and power grabbing, without governments actually acting rather than giving lip service, we as individuals can only make a tiny difference by our actions


Indeed . Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have been active for years .


----------



## noushka05

MollySmith said:


> I detest her because of this as you'd probably guess but this is terrible. Matt Haig really pulled her apart on this and good for him. I loved that a lot of headteachers agreed on 'training days' for teachers to allow their students to go and good for those heroes. I can't imagine believing so strongly in something and having to sit in a classroom when a passionate is going on. So much can be learned from protests from behaviours, empowerment, politics. It's as if Leadsom doesn't want to get found out...


She is a vile woman. I know the tory party are not short of candidates , but Andrea must be in the running for the most inept, ignorant & corrupt politician there is. This is why she hates the kids drawing attention to climate breakdown. Shes a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry - https://www.desmog.co.uk/2015/05/25...d-energy-minister-andrea-leadsom-s-rise-power

I didn't see that with Matt Haig, In searching I came across this . Is this the Matt Haig you were referring to Molly?












Elles said:


> The ad is quite honest, but it also offers hope and what we as individuals can do to help, with what we eat, what we buy and the way we live. You seem to think that's a lie and there is nothing positive anyone can do @noushka05 . So why bother?
> 
> Constantly telling kids that there's 10 or 12 years left or whatever, with no encouraging or positive message isn't telling them the whole truth at all. We are all going to die, no one is immortal, but that's a pointless message on its own. Sorry kids, you can take as many days off school as you like, you will die, the planet will eventually be free of the human race and there's nothing you can do about it. And that's the truth.


I'm sorry, but what do I seem to think is a lie? Please can you elaborate.

You're the one who appears to dispute the findings of the IPCC - not me. We have a short window of opportunity to take urgent & radical action before climate breakdown becomes unstoppable. We have around a decade to drastically cut emissions before its too late. This is the warning from the scientific community. The kids get it, you clearly don't.

WWF accepts the findings.

http://www.wwf.org.za/oceans/?26061...rming-of-15C-urges-stronger-action-on-climate

A landmark scientific report released today assesses the prospects for limiting global warming to 1.5 Deg C and shows the critical need for urgent action. Approved by 195 governments, the report underscores the narrow window of opportunity we have to move from the dangerous path the world is on.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) _Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5_ _Deg C _will guide governments' decision-making on climate actions moving forward. It makes clear that 1.5 Deg C is safer than 2 Deg C in terms of climate impacts.

To avoid overshooting 1.5 Deg C, it is imperative that the ambition of current climate and energy policies needs to be ramped up substantially. Taking action on climate change would lead to the achievement of various Sustainable Development Goals, including poverty eradication. In the light of this, WWF South Africa calls on the South African government, cities, businesses, civil society and individuals to commit to realising a carbon neutral South African economy by 2050.

Dr Prabhat Upadhyaya, Senior Policy Analyst, Climate and Energy WWF-SA:

"To realise the best-case scenario as defined in the IPCC report, tough decisions are needed. Limiting global warming to 1.5 Deg C will require global CO2 emissions to start declining well before 2030. This would give us a chance of achieving a 45% decline in the next 12 years from 2010 CO2 emission levels with the ultimate aim of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

"In all four model pathways illustrated by the IPCC, the global share of renewable energy in electricity needs to be ramped up substantially. For the best-case scenario, the generation of primary energy from coal by 2030 will have to decline globally by 78% from 2010 levels. The question is not _if_ we should wean our energy system off coal but _how_ to do so - in a way that is in line with current science and increases flexibility in the energy system to realise a just transition.

"More than ever, strong political will and leadership is needed to pursue climate resilient development. This calls for just, rapid and far-reaching transitions, in energy, land, urban and infrastructure, and industrial systems."

Kgaugelo Chiloane, Senior Manager: Climate Change Programme WWF-SA:

"Climate related impacts and risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5 Deg C than at present, but substantially lower than the 2 Deg C. Limiting warming to 1.5 Deg C will lower the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems and maintain the ecosystem services that they provide. By 2100, in terms of sea level rise, this translates into a 10 cm difference between 1.5 Deg C and 2 Deg C.

"In South Africa, climate and global warming related impacts on natural and human systems are already being observed, particularly on various inland and ocean ecosystems and the ecosystems services they provide. Given the IPCC findings, the choices and implementation of suitable adaptation measures will be critical in South Africa's transition towards low carbon and climate-resilient development."



kimthecat said:


> Indeed . Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have been active for years .


We're the first generation to feel the impacts of climate disruption, and the last generation that can do something about it.


----------



## noushka05

Well I say the youngsters are better informed, clearly there are exceptions to the rule. This young man does not ;get it' AT ALL:Jawdrop. I'd bet my life savings on this lad being a Conservative


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Well I say the youngsters are better informed, clearly there are exceptions to the rule. This young man does not ;get it' AT ALL:Jawdrop. I'd bet my life savings on this lad being a Conservative


Yes, the hip kids are quite clearly better informed. I wonder if, when they have been at school, they have read any of these reports and scientific studies that cast doubt on some of the claims of the alarmists. I'm really not comfortable with the way the children are being used in this way to push an idealogical agenda.

I think they'd better serve us if they stayed at school, did some studying and developed some critical thinking. I also wonder if they know what they are really campaigning for and what they will have to give up.

Also, some of the hysteria we had during February's warm days was astonishing. Monbiot, Lucas, The Guardian etc. It was a beautiful few days to enjoy, wasn't it? But, of course, we were not allowed to just enjoy it were we - it is climate breakdown.

February did appear to be very warm but it was only the 15th warmest. 1779, 1869, 1779, 1873, 1903, 1914 etc. were all warmer.

*A Test of the Anthropogenic Sea Level Rise Hypothesis*
_We conclude that the data presented in 
Figures 20,21,&22 do not provide credible evidence that the rate of sea level rise is related to the rate _
_fossil fuel emissions_

*Studies shed new light on Antarctica's future contribution to sea level rise*
_a new study - also published in Nature - has revisited the 2016 paper and undertaken further statistical analysis. The new findings question whether there is sufficient *evidence to support MICI playing a role in sea level rise this century.*_

*Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought?*
*Honest scientists, unlike activists, are prepared to admit and correct factual mistakes in their papers, whether or not they alter its primary conclusions. I expect that Cheng et al. will accordingly submit a correction to Science to substitute correctly calculated 1971-2010 upper 2000 m AR5 OHC trend values for their erroneous values.*

*Study shows that Vikings enjoyed a warmer Greenland.*
*After reconstructing southern Greenland's climate record over the past 3,000 years, a Northwestern University team found that it was relatively warm when the Norse lived there between 985 and 1450 C.E., compared to the previous and following centuries*

*Scientists alarmed by unprecedented warming in Arctic*
_The paleo data presented above shows that in 12 out of 20 temperature datasets (including lake sediment data) and in 10 out of 18 temperature datasets with only d180 data, *we find evidence that climate has changed faster than it is changing now.* These changes occurred within the last 2,000 years in the pre-industrial era._

*Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations*
*data confirm that total land area increased in eight of the nine atolls.*

*Insectageddon is a great story. But what are the facts?*
_The results are equally limited - partly because of the limited search terms, and partly because of lack of existing knowledge. There are no data available from most countries, or for many insect taxa._

*White Lie: Polar bear starvation is virtually never caused by sea ice loss*
_The famous emaciated bear filmed by Paul Nicken was not on Baffin Island as originally reported, but on Somerset Island in the middle of the Lancaster Sound subpopulation region, home to one of the largest populations of polar bears in the Arctic:

*New Study Claims Tornadoes Are Getting More Frequent In Southeast*
Sometimes a story comes along which underlines just how corrupt climate science has become.
_
*Climate cannot be experimented on | Marcel Crok | TEDx (Video)*
_These models need to be carefully interpreted as the variables which compose them portray individual behaviors which can alter our perception of the situation at hand. In other words, things are not as bad as they seem,_


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, the hip kids are quite clearly better informed. I wonder if, when they have been at school, they have read any of these reports and scientific studies that cast doubt on some of the claims of the alarmists. I'm really not comfortable with the way the children are being used in this way to push an idealogical agenda.


Hip kids?:Hilarious Hip kids are science deniers then? who knew:Wideyed I know this is hard for you to grasp, but climate science isn't an ideology Sam . And the children who believe in science are the ones driving the protests. They're not being pushed. They are fighting for the future of this living planet. We all owe them our gratitude.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> I think they'd better serve us if they stayed at school, did some studying and developed some critical thinking. I also wonder if they know what they are really campaigning for and what they will have to give up.


Climate change deniers = critical thinking? :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Also, some of the hysteria we had during February's warm days was astonishing. Monbiot, Lucas, The Guardian etc. It was a beautiful few days to enjoy, wasn't it? But, of course, we were not allowed to just enjoy it were we - it is climate breakdown.
> 
> February did appear to be very warm but it was only the 15th warmest. 1779, 1869, 1779, 1873, 1903, 1914 etc. were all warmer.


Where did you get your information from Sam? Are talking about the mean CET? lol (central England temperature) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature

When we talk about climate, do you still not understand we're talking about LONG TERM TRENDS & not 'weather'? This is basic stuff. For someone who claims to have been doing their research, like the 'hip kids', you are still clueless.

I'm not going to waste my time going through the rest of your rubbish. I'll just leave this here >>>>

*MetOffice.*

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...d-climate/2019/february-and-winter-statistics

*No one* could have missed that February was record breaking. (No one except @samuelsmiles @rona & @kimthecat :Hilarious)

*Daily maximum temperatures* have been the highest on record (dating back to 1910), *averaging out at 10.0C,* ahead of the 9.8C recorded in 1998.

When considering mean temperatures (24 hour temperature totals) the provisional end-of-February statistics show it is the second warmest with 6.0C recorded, behind 1998 at 6.8C. Daily minimum temperatures were also well above average, but a cold start to the month, and some clear skies at the end resulted in some colder nights meaning they were not record breaking.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Climate change denier? When did I ever deny that the climate was changing? Actually, when did I ever claim that the climate wasn't slightly warming? The only thing I've ever questioned is the hysteria - the alarmism. That's all. Oh, and the shutting down of debate from most major media outlets.

The historical average for the UK in February was taken from the Met Office website itself. Look, here. My claim is correct. 1779, 1869, 1873, 1903, 1914 etc. were all warmer. I didn't need Wikipedia, I found the information myself and did the sums.

Yes, I understand long term trends (30 year periods as decided by the IPCC) but I wanted to counter some of the alarmism by Caroline Lucas who quickly jumped on the lovely weather of late February to scream "climate breakdown" and The Guardian which used it as an opportunity to write, also, about 'climate breakdown'.

Noushka, I didn't expect you to look at any of my links "because they're rubbish". Confirmation bias? I wish you had of done though. I have battled my way through many of yours and found much to counter your claims.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Climate change denier? When did I ever deny that the climate was changing? Actually, when did I ever claim that the climate wasn't slightly warming? The only thing I've ever questioned is the hysteria - the alarmism. That's all. Oh, and the shutting down of debate from most major media outlets.
> 
> The historical average for the UK in February was taken from the Met Office website itself. Look, here. My claim is correct. 1779, 1869, 1873, 1903, 1914 etc. were all warmer. I didn't need Wikipedia, I found the information myself and did the sums.
> 
> Yes, I understand long term trends (30 year periods as decided by the IPCC) but I wanted to counter some of the alarmism by Caroline Lucas who quickly jumped on the lovely weather of late February to scream "climate breakdown" and The Guardian which used it as an opportunity to write, also, about 'climate breakdown'.
> 
> Noushka, I didn't expect you to look at any of my links "because they're rubbish". Confirmation bias? I wish you had of done though. I have battled my way through many of yours and found much to counter your claims.


You dont have to be a denier to accept the climate is changing. You are denier of the science. Or do you believe the near unanimous consensual position of the climate scientists? Because your posts suggest otherwise  We have a tiny window of opportunity to take urgent & radical action if we are to avert dangerous climate change. if you're not alarmed by this then there is something radically wrong with you. Are you in denial on this?

And I asked if you if you meant the mean CET and not daily average temperatures:Hilarious Good grief. This is classic cherry picking to fit your extreme confirmation bias Sam.

This IS the Metoffice. Are saying they're lying? Or do you think maybe you don't understand that mean temperatures & daily maximum temperatures are not the same thing? lol

_No one could have missed that February was record breaking.

*Daily maximum temperatures* have been the highest on record (dating back to 1910), averaging out at 10.0C, ahead of the 9.8C recorded in 1998.

When considering *mean temperatures* (24 hour temperature totals) the provisional end-of-February statistics show it is the second warmest with 6.0C recorded, behind 1998 at 6.8C. Daily minimum temperatures were also well above average, but a cold start to the month, and some clear skies at the end resulted in some colder nights meaning they were not record breaking._

The climate is breaking down, soon we will go the tipping point and it will be irreversible. Runaway climate change cannot be stopped.

The science is clear Samuel. If you dont believe the consensual position of the the scientists you are a contrarian - a climate change denier ...........


----------



## noushka05

I have more time to respond to your posts this morning Samuel.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Climate change denier? When did I ever deny that the climate was changing? Actually, when did I ever claim that the climate wasn't slightly warming? The only thing I've ever questioned is the hysteria - the alarmism. That's all. Oh, and the shutting down of debate from most major media outlets.


A climate change denier is someone who doesn't believe human activity is driving climate change. Do you believe this? A climate denier is someone who doesn't accept the consensual position of the scientific community on climate change. Do you accept it? And if you answer yes to one or both of these questions & are not alarmed by what we are facing, then, you have no conscience. If you answer no to either - you are a denier.

When a problem is alarming, we need people to be honest about the problem, and alarmed if need be, so they will take the proper radical, and sometime painful action necessary to address the problem.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> The historical average for the UK in February was taken from the Met Office website itself. Look, here. My claim is correct. 1779, 1869, 1873, 1903, 1914 etc. were all warmer. I didn't need Wikipedia, I found the information myself and did the sums.


I suspected you'd confused the 'mean' with daily temps. See previous post. This is what tends to happens when you're cherry picking 



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, I understand long term trends (30 year periods as decided by the IPCC) but I wanted to counter some of the alarmism by Caroline Lucas who quickly jumped on the lovely weather of late February to scream "climate breakdown" and The Guardian which used it as an opportunity to write, also, about 'climate breakdown


Does the NASA visual not alarm you Sam? You seem to think the IPCC has been alarmist when infact they have been incredibly conservative. Kevin Anderson has spoken out about this for years!






If we don't take urgent & radical action we will soon reach the point of no return & reducing our emissions will have no effect. Climate change releases positive feedback loops such as methane stored in the permafrost and in the oceans. This is why its crucial we act now, before we go over that tipping point.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka, I didn't expect you to look at any of my links "because they're rubbish". Confirmation bias? I wish you had of done though. I have battled my way through many of yours and found much to counter your claims.


You are cherry picking in your attempt to undermine the scientific community. As I recently pointed out on another thread, when something is seen as advantageous to a deniers argument they will accept this part of climate science without question. Whereas when climate change deniers find other parts of climate science inconvenient to their argument, they will just refuse to accept it. So predictable because deniers all use the same tactics lol. You have never countered my claims, because you can't. I'm not the one in denial, I accept the scientific consensus 

When Carl Sagan speaks about denial he talking about people like you @samuelsmiles3, not me. Climate change was a crisis 30 years ago when he made that speech & if we had taken action required back then we wouldn't be in the desperate position we're facing now!


----------



## noushka05

May as well post this on here too.

At least some MPs have perspective & understand the gravity of what we're facing, sadly brexit will now make it nigh on impossible to tackle these issues.

*Poverty and climate more important than Brexit, says Corbyn*

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...limate-more-important-than-brexit-says-corbyn


----------



## noushka05

So pleased this amazing & inspirational( & brave!) young girl has been recognised. I so hope she wins it.

*Swedish teen climate activist Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel Peace Prize* http://dlvr.it/R0lqZg

......................................


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Noushka, the 97% consensus that is supposed to exist to prove catastrophic AGW is an absolute fabrication of statistics. Even if it were true it would be utterly unscientific to not be able to question that science. And even The Guardian had to, begrudgingly, run this story that found fault in the 97% consensus.
"_Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong_"

That is not being a denier, that is being open to new studies and facts. I don't understand why I need to keep repeating this - it's getting tiring.

"_No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong_." Albert Einstein

Why won't you open any of the links I posted previously which contradict some (most?) of your alarmist claims? Insectaggedon for example? Why wouldn't you want to read what this ecologist has to say? The article doesn't even deny climate change (as I don't.) It counters the alarmist headlines - puts some balance to the story.

The polar bear story? I remember earlier in this thread that you posted an image and newspaper article (The Guardian, I would think) showing an emaciated polar bear dying from 'climate change' due to loss of arctic sea ice. The story was completely untrue. The bear was old and ill and its suffering had absolutely nothing to do with sea ice loss.

Dying Polar Bear Story Another Example Of Climate Porn
_"SeaLegacy co-founder Cristina Mittermeier admitted as much later in the interview quoted above and *said the reason the bear died was "irrelevent"* - essentially admitting that she was using this poor individual as a serendipitous photo op to illustrate the future fate she imagines for all bears."
_
If the climate was catastrophically "breaking down" why would I be finding studies that show warming isn't happening at an alarming rate. Should I just ignore them - go with the consensus?
1 Satellite-based regional warming hiatus in China and its implication
_"We conclude that there is a regional warming hiatus, a pause or a slowdown in China, and imply that GHGs-induced warming is suppressed by ONAT in the early 21st century."

2 The Key Role of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillationin Minimum Temperature Over *North America During Global Warming Slowdown*
"In the early 21st century,warming slowdown is seen over the North Hemisphere and North America is one of the major cooling centers."

3_ Some Methodological Issues in Climate Science_
"No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious."

4_ Inuit elders sharing information with NASA regarding Earth's "WOBBLE"_
"The elders who were interviewed across the north all said the same thing, their sky has changed. The stars the Sun and the Moon have all changed affecting the temperature, even affecting the way the wind blows, it is becoming increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must on the Arctic"
_
I don't understand. Do you want me to stop finding good and interesting stuff - stuff that counters your alarmist headlines? Listen to Greta Thunberg and the woke striking kids because they have done their research and know we are headed for catastrophic climate breakdown in 12 years time?_ 
_
You persistently *tell me* I'm cherry picking. Well, yes, it's a bloody big cherry tree with a whole heap of cherries to pick from_. 
_
PS. I know you love a conspiracy theory, Noushka.  This quote is from Stephen Schneider, lead author of three IPCC reports_ -

"...we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, *and make little mention of the doubts we might have.* Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being"

_


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka, the 97% consensus that is supposed to exist to prove catastrophic AGW is an absolute fabrication of statistics. Even if it were true it would be utterly unscientific to not be able to question that science. And even The Guardian had to, begrudgingly, run this story that found fault in the 97% consensus.
> "_Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong_"
> 
> That is not being a denier, that is being open to new studies and facts. I don't understand why I need to keep repeating this - it's getting tiring.
> 
> "_No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong_." Albert Einstein
> 
> Why won't you open any of the links I posted previously which contradict some (most?) of your alarmist claims? Insectaggedon for example? Why wouldn't you want to read what this ecologist has to say? The article doesn't even deny climate change (as I don't.) It counters the alarmist headlines - puts some balance to the story.
> 
> The polar bear story? I remember earlier in this thread that you posted an image and newspaper article (The Guardian, I would think) showing an emaciated polar bear dying from 'climate change' due to loss of arctic sea ice. The story was completely untrue. The bear was old and ill and its suffering had absolutely nothing to do with sea ice loss.
> 
> Dying Polar Bear Story Another Example Of Climate Porn
> _"SeaLegacy co-founder Cristina Mittermeier admitted as much later in the interview quoted above and *said the reason the bear died was "irrelevent"* - essentially admitting that she was using this poor individual as a serendipitous photo op to illustrate the future fate she imagines for all bears."
> _
> If the climate was catastrophically "breaking down" why would I be finding studies that show warming isn't happening at an alarming rate. Should I just ignore them - go with the consensus?
> 1 Satellite-based regional warming hiatus in China and its implication
> _"We conclude that there is a regional warming hiatus, a pause or a slowdown in China, and imply that GHGs-induced warming is suppressed by ONAT in the early 21st century."
> 
> 2 The Key Role of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillationin Minimum Temperature Over *North America During Global Warming Slowdown*
> "In the early 21st century,warming slowdown is seen over the North Hemisphere and North America is one of the major cooling centers."
> 
> 3_ Some Methodological Issues in Climate Science
> _"No evidence exists to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 or the rate of warming to fossil fuel emissions because correlations presented for these relationships are spurious."
> 
> 4_ Inuit elders sharing information with NASA regarding Earth's "WOBBLE"
> _"The elders who were interviewed across the north all said the same thing, their sky has changed. The stars the Sun and the Moon have all changed affecting the temperature, even affecting the way the wind blows, it is becoming increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must on the Arctic"
> _
> I don't understand. Do you want me to stop finding good and interesting stuff - stuff that counters your alarmist headlines? Listen to Greta Thunberg and the woke striking kids because they have done their research and know we are headed for catastrophic climate breakdown in 12 years time?_
> _
> You persistently *tell me* I'm cherry picking. Well, yes, it's a bloody big cherry tree with a whole heap of cherries to pick from_.
> _
> PS. I know you love a conspiracy theory, Noushka.  This quote is from Stephen Schneider, lead author of three IPCC reports_ -
> 
> "...we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, *and make little mention of the doubts we might have.* Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being"
> 
> _


Thank you for proving once and for all, you are indeed a climate change denier  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Thank you for proving once and for all, you are indeed a climate change denier  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial


Ah - why do I even bother if you won't bother reading anything I write..


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Ah - why do I even bother if you won't bother reading anything I write..


Oh I do read what you write


----------



## samuelsmiles3

You haven't read any of my links, Noushka - it doesn't fit your agenda. Some hopefully will read one or two of them and find them interesting, though.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> You haven't read any of my links, Noushka - it doesn't fit your agenda. Some hopefully will read one or two of them and find them interesting, though.


I've just finished reading this one as it happens - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming I found it very interesting indeed:HilariousThe author of this piece of [email protected] is non other than Richard Tol, who was an advisor to the GWPF - Nigel Lawsons climate denier think tank .


----------



## samuelsmiles3

And so it goes on. You look at who wrote it, don't bother reading the content, google his/her/their name and screech 'climate denier' believing that has proved your point.

That's cool. Not great for debate. But I'm cool with that.


----------



## MollySmith

I'm not sure if anyone else is even reading this thread now but I don't know where else to post this. Talks coming up in Cambridge from the Natural History on the future of agricultural farming 
http://www.cnhs.org.uk/?fbclid=IwAR3HVot2JJwJ8UgVQvqK-3WyrgW43TFSdVJXjZd8GB8Umk5Vg1_AJk0vcbY


----------



## MollySmith

And this, I have been beset by worries because so much of what I read scares me, anything that makes me think I'm faintly glad to not be a mum, worries me. But as this article says do something. 3am worries do not help and dare I say, arguing on forum doesn't help anyone and I hope, and almost sure, that there will be many out there being active instead or as well as posting here
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/15/normally-not-worth-panicking


----------



## rona

MollySmith said:


> And this, I have been beset by worries because so much of what I read scares me, anything that makes me think I'm faintly glad to not be a mum, worries me. But as this article says do something. 3am worries do not help and dare I say, arguing on forum doesn't help anyone and I hope, and almost sure, that there will be many out there being active instead or as well as posting here
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/15/normally-not-worth-panicking


Good article and my view precisely.
It's not about denying anything, it's just pointless and counter productive to "Catastrophize" and certainly not good for mental health of the person doing it or the people who believe it all


----------



## Elles

It’s why I keep trying to link what we can actually do and to where people are making a positive difference and as adult human beings we can help. People do seem to like scaring themselves witless though. I hate when they do it to young children. We should be protecting their minds, not terrifying them. Do we want to condemn young people to nightmares and depression? It seems some do.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Yes, I said in an earlier post that I was uncomfortable with the way young children are being pushed to the forefront in this 'campaign'. It would be nice if, at the very least, their innocence could be respected.

This article says it better.

_"So - if you want to work with children - take them outside and let them play. Use other ways to deal with your own despair and powerlessness."_


----------



## MilleD

What I don't understand is how the 'predictions' keep changing.

Wasn't there one recently where they said the sea level was going to rise massively by some date - and it's been downgraded hugely now as they got it wrong. I don't think they help themselves with people who may be a little sceptical to start off with. I understand it isn't an exact science, but in the ballpark would be good.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> And so it goes on. You look at who wrote it, don't bother reading the content, google his/her/their name and screech 'climate denier' believing that has proved your point.
> 
> That's cool. Not great for debate. But I'm cool with that.


Once again you cite a denier or a contrarian as your source . You cherry pick the science which fits your extreme confirmation bias whilst in denial about the overwhelming scientific consensus. You are the conspiracy theorist, You are the contrarian, not I. So I concentrate on exposing your false arguments. It isn't wise to debate the details of the science or quote data sets, figures etc, with climate change deniers as it simply gives them credence where they have none, and encourages the false impression that they are engaged in some sort of meaningful debate about the science, which they are not.



MollySmith said:


> And this, I have been beset by worries because so much of what I read scares me, anything that makes me think I'm faintly glad to not be a mum, worries me. But as this article says do something. 3am worries do not help and dare I say, arguing on forum doesn't help anyone and I hope, and almost sure, that there will be many out there being active instead or as well as posting here
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/15/normally-not-worth-panicking


Do you know what Molly? I've said to my hubby that I wish we'd never had the kids - because I love them so much. They are the best thing that ever happened to us but I am terrified for their futures, they are going to have to live with the terrible consequences of our apathy & inaction . And this is why I believe its important to expose climate change deniers like Samuel & Rona where ever possible, because we do have a short window of opportunity to act before it becomes irreversible & unstoppable. The science is clear, human activity is driving climate change & if we do not take immediate & radical action we are soon going to reach a point of no return. Climate change is an existential threat to our civilisation. Climate change is a threat to our food supply systems - causing mass starvation, a threat to our economies - causing the collapse of our political structures based on these. Life on Earth is in grave peril, unless we act.



Elles said:


> It's why I keep trying to link what we can actually do and to where people are making a positive difference and as adult human beings we can help. People do seem to like scaring themselves witless though. I hate when they do it to young children. We should be protecting their minds, not terrifying them. Do we want to condemn young people to nightmares and depression? It seems some do.


The youngsters are driving this campaign themselves because they have listened & understood the scientists, the inaction of governments is what is scaring them witless & the apathy of the older generation!. They understand that without robust action from above their futures are bleak.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, I said in an earlier post that I was uncomfortable with the way young children are being pushed to the forefront in this 'campaign'. It would be nice if, at the very least, their innocence could be respected.
> 
> This article says it better.
> 
> _"So - if you want to work with children - take them outside and let them play. Use other ways to deal with your own despair and powerlessness."_


Who are they being pushed by? Have you been to one of their climate strike protests? I have


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> What I don't understand is how the 'predictions' keep changing.
> 
> Wasn't there one recently where they said the sea level was going to rise massively by some date - and it's been downgraded hugely now as they got it wrong. I don't think they help themselves with people who may be a little sceptical to start off with. I understand it isn't an exact science, but in the ballpark would be good.


Can I ask you to listen to this please Mille?


----------



## MollySmith

rona said:


> Good article and my view precisely.
> It's not about denying anything, it's just pointless and counter productive to "Catastrophize" and certainly not good for mental health of the person doing it or the people who believe it all


Thank you. Catastrophisng is terrible for mental health but making small steps that are manageable carbon offsetting for example or cutting back on meat or less car journeys and planting bee friendly gardens are things we can all do which make an impact overall. Yes, some can do more (I do get passionate about sourcing local) but being mindful of panic and being reasonable is so much better. Sharing advice and tips more constructive.

@noushka05 and @samuelsmiles3 my apologies if I have offended either of you but I looked at this thread last night and despaired a little! You both clearly feel passionately about this but can we be more constructive and informative? I'm happy to start a new thread but didn't feel we needed two. Perhaps that wasn't the intention of this thread 34 pages ago.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

MollySmith said:


> Thank you. Catastrophisng is terrible for mental health but making small steps that are manageable carbon offsetting for example or cutting back on meat or less car journeys and planting bee friendly gardens are things we can all do which make an impact overall. Yes, some can do more (I do get passionate about sourcing local) but being mindful of panic and being reasonable is so much better. Sharing advice and tips more constructive.
> 
> @noushka05 and @samuelsmiles3 my apologies if I have offended either of you but I looked at this thread last night and despaired a little! You both clearly feel passionately about this but can we be more constructive and informative? I'm happy to start a new thread but didn't feel we needed two. Perhaps that wasn't the intention of this thread 34 pages ago.


I'm not offended at all, MollySmith. I would love to hear some new opinions in this thread.

It'll very soon die without fresh thoughts.


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> What I don't understand is how the 'predictions' keep changing.
> 
> Wasn't there one recently where they said the sea level was going to rise massively by some date - and it's been downgraded hugely now as they got it wrong. I don't think they help themselves with people who may be a little sceptical to start off with. I understand it isn't an exact science, but in the ballpark would be good.


No field of science is complete Mille. No one would be questioning the climate scientists, had billions of $$$ not been pumped into the climate denial propaganda machine by vested interests. https://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial The evidence on climate change is being strengthened all the time not diminished. Global temperatures are rising because humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, this is already having a devastating impacts across the globe - you only need to look at the news to see that. Extreme weather events are becoming more & more common. The ice is melting - the seas are rising Mille & acidifying.



MollySmith said:


> @noushka05 and @samuelsmiles3 my apologies if I have offended either of you but I looked at this thread last night and despaired a little! You both clearly feel passionately about this but can we be more constructive and informative? I'm happy to start a new thread but didn't feel we needed two. Perhaps that wasn't the intention of this thread 34 pages ago.


You certainly haven't offended me either, you have nothing to apologise for Molly x. If you read the whole of this thread you will see I have tried to be constructive. Samuel started the thread & he appeared to be in supporting renewable energy. My criticism of the tories dire record on climate change didnt go down to well. When I informed him the tories were actually trashing the renewables industry, selling off our Green investment bank and so on - suddenly renewables are bad - & nuclear is our saviour. So I tried to explain we had just a few short years to reduce our emissions & pressed Sam on how long would it take to get nuclear powered economy up & running? Sams answer was 30 years..... I pointed out the obvious flaw in his logic and Sam went into full blown denier mode & here we today. You cant have a honest debate with a climate change denier, if you stick around long enough on this thread you will find that out for yourself. I really hope you will.



MollySmith said:


> Thank you. Catastrophisng is terrible for mental health but making small steps that are manageable carbon offsetting for example or cutting back on meat or less car journeys and planting bee friendly gardens are things we can all do which make an impact overall. Yes, some can do more (I do get passionate about sourcing local) but being mindful of panic and being reasonable is so much better. Sharing advice and tips more constructive.


I know its horrible thing to face, but climate change threatens our very existence. And the grim reality is that without bold action to totally transform our entire economic model & the way we live, we as individuals won't be able to make enough difference to mitigate climate catastrophe. Which is why we need a government who will take the unprecedented action required. We are playing a deadly experiment with our planet, if we don't listen to the scientists we are screwed, there's no nice way of saying it. but we have to face it our we will continue down this suicidal path we're all on. Offsetting is a scam Molly, offsetting doesnt really offset the emissions we're putting into the atmosphere. Since we began offsetting & so on, our emissions have gone up by 60% & still rising.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> I'm not offended at all, MollySmith. I would love to hear some new opinions in this thread.
> 
> It'll very soon die without fresh thoughts.


Do you accept we live on a finite planet Samuel?


----------



## MollySmith

I suspect this may get lost here but how to cope with the news when it gets a bit too much 
https://www.blurtitout.org/2018/07/26/self-care-news-terrifying/


----------



## noushka05

MollySmith said:


> I suspect this may get lost here but how to cope with the news when it gets a bit too much
> https://www.blurtitout.org/2018/07/26/self-care-news-terrifying/


If I may add to that list, I've found the best form of therapy is becoming an activist myself & joining like minded people fighting for change. I'm really sorry my posts are so depressing, but I feel its vital we know the truth or we have no hope of addressing the greatest crisis mankind faces. And we could address it if there was the will to. The younger generation have given me hope, but we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.


----------



## noushka05

This is brilliant _The Age of Stupid is drawing to a close_. If only lol

( Featuring; PM Fred Miliband, President Adrianna Ocasio-Cortez, Khris Peckham, President of the European Union Carolyn Lukas  )

*WHAT IF? *

*new film from AGE OF STUPID team to celebrate STUPID's 10th birthday*


----------



## Jonescat

Have you seen this?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...t-of-water-within-25-years-environment-agency

Climate change x population rise x poor infrastructure = water shortage

What do we need to do to avoid it?


----------



## noushka05

Jonescat said:


> Have you seen this?
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...t-of-water-within-25-years-environment-agency
> 
> Climate change x population rise x poor infrastructure = water shortage
> 
> What do we need to do to avoid it?


Switching to a plant based diet would be a good start. The livestock industry uses vast amounts of water. And this is yet other reason to ban fracking. We have to totally change the way we live.

ETA and renationalise the water industry, thats very important imo.


----------



## rona

Jonescat said:


> Have you seen this?
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...t-of-water-within-25-years-environment-agency
> 
> Climate change x population rise x poor infrastructure = water shortage
> 
> What do we need to do to avoid it?


This of course is based on the SE of UK. The rest of the UK has adequate reservoirs, rainfall to fill them and a population that isn't growing at a rate of about 25% with no infrastructure changes.

I've seen two water leaks recently where the water company have put a barrier around the leak and then left it to lose millions of litres over the course of several weeks 

We need to stop breeding, that would solve most of the worlds problems....................


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> We need to stop breeding, that would solve most of the worlds problems....................


But it wouldn't.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

As rona says, fixing the leaks is our first priority. We are losing more than 3 billion litres a day. That's appalling.
England and Wales lost 3.1 billion litres of water every day from leakage, according to the Consumer Council for Water (CCW). 

I checked a couple of water authorities reservoir levels, United Utilities and South East Water and they are all at near to 100% capacity at the moment. And that is despite an exceptionally dry summer, last year.

This study I find interesting because it says winter and autumn has seen increases in rainfall in recent years. (1900 -2006)

And summer?
_
Osborn et 5 al., for example, reported on the strong decrease of heavy summer rainfall from the peak around 1970s to the lows around 1995 (though they did note that rainfall earlier in the 20th century may have also been less intense). *Recent measurements, however, have indicated a return to more normal conditions
*_
These studies always seem to have a kicker at the end, though. This one reminds us -
_* "It is not yet possible to say whether these observed changes in UK rainfall characteristics can be attributed to man-made climate change, because (although they can have very significant impacts) the changes may not be outside the range of variation that could occur naturally"
*_
PS. Rainwater capture systems on new build houses would also surely be an easy and cheap job?
_*
*_


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> Switching to a plant based diet would be a good start. The livestock industry uses vast amounts of water.


To be fair, plants require vast amounts of water too, particularly during a Summer such as last year's.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> These studies always seem to have a kicker at the end, though. This one reminds us -
> _* "It is not yet possible to say whether these observed changes in UK rainfall characteristics can be attributed to man-made climate change, because (although they can have very significant impacts) the changes may not be outside the range of variation that could occur naturally"*_


Nice cherry picking 
*
It is not yet possible to say whether these observed changes in UK rainfall characteristics can be attributed to man-made climate change, because (although they can have very significant 7 impacts) the changes may not be outside the range of variation that could occur naturally*.

Nevertheless, *it is* possible to say that the changes are consistent with scenarios of man-made climate change, based on climate model simulations. These simulations indicate a trend towards larger rainfall totals during winter and reductions in summer (especially in southern UK), and an increase in the intensity of precipitation (especially during winter); see Jones and Reid (2001).



Rafa said:


> To be fair, plants require vast amounts of water too, particularly during a Summer such as last year's.


But the vast majority of plants (crops) are grown to feed livestock. If we ate crops directly we would use far less land, far less water. And crucially it would drastically reduce our emissions which are driving these changes in our climate @Rafa.


----------



## noushka05

You couldn't make this up.

Shame on them!

*New coal mine in Cumbria 'unanimously approved' by councillors despite escalating climate change crisis*
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...odhouse-colliery-climate-change-a8830046.html

Hear, hear!

*Sue Perkins*‏:

_This is a disgrace. We should be leading the way in reducing CO2 emissions. Instead we are building coal mines. if the schoolkids want an old bird to march
with them next time, I'm in.

.._


----------



## noushka05

This is perhaps the most important thing you could read. Greta is wise beyond her years, if only older generations had her wisdom. Her understanding & clarity is absolutely incredible. She so deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize, there is no more important an issue than climate change - which we know if we do not address will likely lead to war.


----------



## MilleD

I'm sorry Noush, but god, she must be irritating to live with.


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> I'm sorry Noush, but god, she must be irritating to live with.


:HilariousTrust you!


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> :HilariousTrust you!


I said sorry!!

:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

.Can we concentrate on this serious topic now, please @Mille!. 



Greta & the striking youngsters are supported by leading scientists. 25,000 from Germany, Switzerland & Austria. Americas top climate scientists, including renowned names such as Katherine Hayhoe, Peter Kalmus & Michael Mann. 1228 scientists from Finland & so on. This is unprecedented & shows how serious the crisis we face is.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGI-1Oa5Yi0L1XDYFuA6O6MhIZjHLdjkcbbjEqJzopU/edit

Today's elementary and high school students have lived their short lives on a planet measurably different than any other generation in the history of human civilization. Every year of their lives has been one of the warmest 20 years since records began, and they've also witnessed increasingly frequent, disruptive, and costly extreme weather events.

They recognize the battle for their future. Without aggressive action to reduce humanity's carbon emissions, these students can expect to bear witness to a world we can't fully imagine yet: one where irreversible changes to our water and food systems, our infrastructure and our economy, shape a planet and a society very different from what we see today, a world characterized by greater insecurity, uncertainty, and inequity that directly threatens their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

It has already been more than 50 years since US scientists formally warned a US president of the dangers of human-induced climate change. Yet rather than being paralyzed by despair, these brave students are demanding bold, urgent action now to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and limit future warming to below 1.5°C.

This goal and the need for immediate action is consistent with the most current scientific assessment of the challenge that climate change poses today. The world, including the U.S., is presently on an emissions trajectory that could see the planet warm by well over 3°C within most of their lifetimes. It is still possible to avert this future; but this can only be achieved by reversing our current trend of increasing emissions and decarbonizing the global economy at the pace and urgency of a moon race. And as Earth scientists, we know that the longer we wait, the worse it will be. Every year we delay serious action ensures additional costly and even potentially dangerous impacts.

Yet a different and better future isn't as far away as it might seem. The cost of renewables is falling quickly, in the US and around the world. Texas leads the US in wind energy production; California, in solar. Storage technology is becoming economically viable. Electrification of transport is already underway in some markets.

Our scientific understanding of currently observed and projected future climate impacts clearly calls for the transformation of our energy systems and our society at all scales and across all sectors in order to rapidly decarbonize our economy. Those who oppose specific policies have an obligation to offer viable and effective alternatives at a scale commensurate with the problem. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

Students' demands for bold, urgent action are fully supported by the best available science. They need our support, but more than that, they need all of us to act. Their future depends on it; and so does ours.

A video message from our own Kevin Anderson.

*Kevin Anderson*‏ @KevinClimate
_Streaked in tears we may look back on this time when our children cried out but we were too arrogant to listen. Or perhaps we'll look back & smile, we listened, & began to cooperate rather than compete. Heady days


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105952983341240321
...................................._


----------



## noushka05

noushka05 said:


> You couldn't make this up.
> 
> Shame on them!
> 
> *New coal mine in Cumbria 'unanimously approved' by councillors despite escalating climate change crisis*
> https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...odhouse-colliery-climate-change-a8830046.html
> 
> Hear, hear!
> 
> *Sue Perkins*‏:
> 
> _This is a disgrace. We should be leading the way in reducing CO2 emissions. Instead we are building coal mines. if the schoolkids want an old bird to march
> with them next time, I'm in.
> 
> .._


Just noticed Kevin Anderson's reaction to this.

*Kevin Anderson*‏ @KevinClimate 8h8 hours ago
_In desperately pushing thro hi-CO2 shale gas, whooping for joy over evermore N.Sea oil & gas, & now overseeing a new UK coal mine for home use &export, claire perry mp & UK Gov demonstrate their disdain for the concerns raised in last Fridays school strike.

._


----------



## noushka05

Nothing to see here


*Eric Holthaus*‏Verified account:

Beira, Mozambique _"will go down in history as having been the first city to be completely devastated by climate change,"_ said Graça Machel, the country's former first lady.

*UN*: This is the worst weather disaster in history in the Southern Hemisphere.

https://grist.org/article/mozambique-floods-are-larger-than-nyc-chicago-dc-and-boston-combined/


----------



## kimthecat

On the bbc news now. 65ft fatburg being removed fron sewer in Sidmouth. A common sutuation caused by wet wipes etc.  They really need to tackle this and publicise it.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is from the last IPCC report, October 2018. It's very sad news about Mozambique but, I'm sorry, to attribute this to CAGW is utterly false.
_
*Numerous studies leading up to and after AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones* and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy (Emanuel, 2005; Elsner et al., 2008; Knutson et al., 2010; Holland and Bruyère, 2014; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015; Walsh et al., 2016). A theoretical physical basis for such a decrease to occur under global warming was recently provided by Kang and Elsner (2015). However, using a relatively short (20 year) and relatively homogeneous remotely sensed record, Klotzbach (2006) reported no significant trends in global cyclonic activity, consistent with more recent findings of Holland and Bruyère (2014). Such contradictions, in combination with the fact that the almost four-decade-long period of remotely sensed observations remains relatively short to distinguish anthropogenically induced trends from decadal and multi-decadal variability, implies that there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades._

_Moreover, studies that have used more homogeneous records, but were consequently limited to rather short periods of 20 to 25 years, have reported no statistically significant trends or decreases in the global number of these systems (Kamahori et al., 2006; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015). Likewise, CMIP5 model simulations of the historical period have not produced anthropogenically induced trends in very intense tropical cyclones (Bender et al., 2010; Knutson et al., 2010, 2013; Camargo, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013), consistent with the findings of Klotzbach and Landsea (2015). There is consequently low confidence in the conclusion that the number of very intense cyclones is increasing globally. General circulation model (GCM) projections of the changing attributes of tropical cyclones under high levels of greenhouse gas forcing (3°C to 4°C of global warming) consistently indicate decreases in the global number of tropical cyclones (Knutson et al., 2010, 2015; Sugi and Yoshimura, 2012; Christensen et al., 2013; Yoshida et al., 2017)._


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> o
> 
> This is from the last IPCC report, October 2018. It's very sad news about Mozambique but, I'm sorry, to attribute this to CAGW is utterly false.
> _
> *Numerous studies leading up to and after AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones* and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy (Emanuel, 2005; Elsner et al., 2008; Knutson et al., 2010; Holland and Bruyère, 2014; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015; Walsh et al., 2016). A theoretical physical basis for such a decrease to occur under global warming was recently provided by Kang and Elsner (2015). However, using a relatively short (20 year) and relatively homogeneous remotely sensed record, Klotzbach (2006) reported no significant trends in global cyclonic activity, consistent with more recent findings of Holland and Bruyère (2014). Such contradictions, in combination with the fact that the almost four-decade-long period of remotely sensed observations remains relatively short to distinguish anthropogenically induced trends from decadal and multi-decadal variability, implies that there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades._
> 
> _Moreover, studies that have used more homogeneous records, but were consequently limited to rather short periods of 20 to 25 years, have reported no statistically significant trends or decreases in the global number of these systems (Kamahori et al., 2006; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015). Likewise, CMIP5 model simulations of the historical period have not produced anthropogenically induced trends in very intense tropical cyclones (Bender et al., 2010; Knutson et al., 2010, 2013; Camargo, 2013; Christensen et al., 2013), consistent with the findings of Klotzbach and Landsea (2015). There is consequently low confidence in the conclusion that the number of very intense cyclones is increasing globally. General circulation model (GCM) projections of the changing attributes of tropical cyclones under high levels of greenhouse gas forcing (3°C to 4°C of global warming) consistently indicate decreases in the global number of tropical cyclones (Knutson et al., 2010, 2015; Sugi and Yoshimura, 2012; Christensen et al., 2013; Yoshida et al., 2017)_


So does this mean you accept the rest of the IPCCs findings or are you, once again, just cherry picking the bits of science which fit your confirmation bias?

I'll ask again, since you keep evading this question. Do you accept that we live on a finite planet Samuel?


----------



## noushka05

So this week, Conservatives both side of the Atlantic reject Green Deals put forward by progressives. Shame on these greedy selfserving psychopaths

AOC, like Caroline Lucas is absolutely awesome.






*Caroline Lucas*‏:
_Global emissions are at an all-time high. The UK is way off our long-term climate targets. So today I asked the Prime Minister to back a #GreenNewDeal, transform our economy and deliver green jobs in every constituency.

Apparently she'd rather defend the status quo. #PMQs

 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110890149288787968_
Well done Caroline Lucas & Labours Clive Lewis for tabling the bill. This is THE most important bill, but no doubt it wont even get a hearing never mind pass.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/03/26/uk-mps-table-green-new-deal-bill/


----------



## AB123

Honestly, those who claim climate change is a myth drive me up the wall - don't need any more evidence other than the fact we no longer get great amounts of snow around Christmas and winter! 

Plus there was the whole beast from the East thing last year, followed by the warmest summer ever. Somethings up, and it needs to be recognised and dealt with :Arghh


----------



## Elles

We were told to use plastic instead of paper to save the trees and to drive diesel cars to save the air you know. If I wore a 1920s fur coat I’d be lynched, but a plastic coat over a synthetic fleece would be fine. We were told about beauty without cruelty, but not micro beads and the wonders of tech and recycling, but not where and how.

Will these concerned children and teachers give up their trainers, iPads and mobile phones to save the planet? Or just a day at school?

For many of us we’ve been doing as asked and advised by governments and experts and still do, yet it’s governments and experts that got us here. Of course most of us aren’t scientists, experts, or members of government, so we have to trust the information and advice they give us is correct. Sadly it would seem it often isn’t.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> We were told to use plastic instead of paper to save the trees and to drive diesel cars to save the air you know. If I wore a 1920s fur coat I'd be lynched, but a plastic coat over a synthetic fleece would be fine. We were told about beauty without cruelty, but not micro beads and the wonders of tech and recycling, but not where and how.
> 
> Will these concerned children and teachers give up their trainers, iPads and mobile phones to save the planet? Or just a day at school?
> 
> For many of us we've been doing as asked and advised by governments and experts and still do, yet it's governments and experts that got us here. Of course most of us aren't scientists, experts, or members of government, so we have to trust the information and advice they give us is correct. Sadly it would seem it often isn't.


A hell of a lot of straw man arguments here Elles.

Unlike the kids, the governments are NOT listening to the climate scientists Elles. The scientific position on climate change has NEVER changed - it just gets stronger & stronger & stronger . The near unanimous scientific community agree humans are driving climate change & we must take urgent & radical action to address it before we go over the tipping point of no return.

Or do you seriously believe there is some global conspiracy between thousands of the worlds leading climate scientists & scientific institutions? Are you a conspiracy theorist on this too Elles? Thats what climate deniers are.

Are you prepared to gamble with you childrens, your grand childrens futures?





..


----------



## noushka05

*Greta Thunberg*‏Verified account @GretaThunberg Mar 29
_Over 25 000 school strikers in Berlin today according to arrangers. And more than 40 000 in all of Germany! And tens of thousands across the world. Thank you all! #climatestrike #fridaysforfuture #schoolstrike4climate_


----------



## noushka05

Nothing to see here @Elles.

*CNN*‏Verified account @CNN Mar 29
_Alaska hit 70 degrees the earliest ever, and more record highs are expected https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/29/..._source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-03-29T18:15:01








_


----------



## rona

Not about climate change as such,,,,,,,

https://www.farminguk.com/news/Fren...z1UFDIZ0iHqs84zHtyGhU6sIMIEldt-afNvDnDwAoEA_U

""In the Brittany region several farmers have reported losses of hundreds of cows, and veterinarians have been unable to explain the cause".
But after tests on the region's farmland, some are claiming that electricity is travelling through the ground which is leading to severe weight loss in animals and ultimately death.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> So does this mean you accept the rest of the IPCCs findings or are you, once again, just cherry picking the bits of science which fit your confirmation bias?
> 
> I'll ask again, since you keep evading this question. *Do you accept that we live on a finite planet Samuel?*


I accept that we have to use our resources carefully, yes. That's why I've come to despise so called renewable energy like wind and solar with a passion. It provides dilute, unreliable non dispatchable electricity that relies on '"filthy" fossil fuels to compensate for its failures. It can never stand alone. And, if you want to decrease CO2 emissions, wind and solar will not do this. (Compare France and Germany).

We already have a form of energy (you call it my obsession) in nuclear which can provide pretty much infinite, clean, reliable, safe, dense energy. It will also give us the time to develop something even better in the future. I prefer progress to regression and have the optimism to believe humans can do this. This is why I don't understand why the Greens, Greenpeace etc are called progressives. Pessimists would be more suitable, I think.

This is renewable energy - this is what you have campaigned for. All built with fossil fuels, transported by fossil fuels, dismantled by fossil fuels, maintained with fossil fuels and maybe even recycled with fossil fuels.

I wonder if Greta and the kids will be content when they realise what they are bunking off school for. "Filthy fossil fuels" that have given them their cosy lifestyles of unprecedented comfort and wealth. The teachers who are encouraging this should be ashamed.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Not about climate change as such,,,,,,,
> 
> https://www.farminguk.com/news/Fren...z1UFDIZ0iHqs84zHtyGhU6sIMIEldt-afNvDnDwAoEA_U
> 
> ""In the Brittany region several farmers have reported losses of hundreds of cows, and veterinarians have been unable to explain the cause".
> But after tests on the region's farmland, some are claiming that electricity is travelling through the ground which is leading to severe weight loss in animals and ultimately death.


Renewable bashing is very relevant to this thread, its a climate deniers favourite passtime. See post below:Hilarious

Its time farmers understood the concept that 'correlation doesn't imply causation. This is why we have the despicable badger cull.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> I accept that we have to use our resources carefully, yes. That's why I've come to despise so called renewable energy like wind and solar with a passion. It provides dilute, unreliable non dispatchable electricity that relies on '"filthy" fossil fuels to compensate for its failures. It can never stand alone. And, if you want to decrease CO2 emissions, wind and solar will not do this. (Compare France and Germany).
> 
> We already have a form of energy (you call it my obsession) in nuclear which can provide pretty much infinite, clean, reliable, safe, dense energy. It will also give us the time to develop something even better in the future. I prefer progress to regression and have the optimism to believe humans can do this. This is why I don't understand why the Greens, Greenpeace etc are called progressives. Pessimists would be more suitable, I think.
> 
> This is renewable energy - this is what you have campaigned for. All built with fossil fuels, transported by fossil fuels, dismantled by fossil fuels, maintained with fossil fuels and maybe even recycled with fossil fuels.
> 
> I wonder if Greta and the kids will be content when they realise what they are bunking off school for. "Filthy fossil fuels" that have given them their cosy lifestyles of unprecedented comfort and wealth. The teachers who are encouraging this should be ashamed.
> 
> View attachment 398940


We've been over & over your irrational hatred of renewables & your fetish with nuclear where you ended up apologising for being wrong. So I just want to press you on your first sentence.

You have accepted that we have to use resources carefully. I assume this means you agree that we do indeed live on a finite planet with limited resources?. So do you also accept that its impossible to have infinite growth on this finite planet of ours? And do you agree that our current economic model is an unsustainable model Samuel?

ETA Can you give a reference to the source of your pic please?
.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Renewable bashing is very relevant to this thread, its a climate deniers favourite passtime. See post below:Hilarious
> 
> Its time farmers understood the concept that 'correlation doesn't imply causation. This is why we have the despicable badger cull.
> 
> *We've been over & over your irrational hatred of renewables & your fetish with nuclear where you ended up apologising for being wrong*. So I just want to press you on your first sentence.
> 
> You have accepted that we have to use resources carefully. I assume this means you agree that we do indeed live on a finite planet with limited resources?. So do you also accept that its impossible to have infinite growth on this finite planet of ours? And do you agree that our current economic model is an unsustainable model Samuel?
> 
> ETA Can you give a reference to the source of your pic please?
> .


Did I? Where?

Eta. This is the source of the wind farm pic.

Why do you ask? What was you expecting a wind farm to look like?


----------



## kimthecat

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Did I? Where?
> 
> Eta. This is the source of the wind farm pic.
> 
> Why do you ask? What was you expecting a wind farm to look like?


I thought the turbines would look like this  :Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Did I? Where?


Here.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> I accept that we have to use our resources carefully, yes.


[/QUOTE]

Where exactly do you stand on these 3 questions?



noushka05 said:


> I assume this means you agree that we do indeed live on a finite planet with limited resources?.
> 
> So do you also accept that its impossible to have infinite growth on this finite planet of ours?
> 
> And do you agree that our current economic model is an unsustainable model Samuel?





samuelsmiles3 said:


> Eta. This is the source of the wind farm pic.
> 
> Why do you ask? What was you expecting a wind farm to look like?


Because I'm curious where the farm is cited as that one looks photoshopped to me. A wind farm as big that must be well known & documented. Cant you find a credible source of reference? I've seen a number of wind farms to know what they look like .


----------



## Elles

I unignored to read your reply to me on this thread.  I really wish I hadn’t bothered. However, as I did. I just said that many of us have been doing what governments and experts have told us to do. In order to reduce our footprint and preserve the planet. I pointed out a couple of things we were told to do that we’re totally wrong. Now people like you are accusing us of carelessly destroying the planet, being in denial and using straw man arguments, or whatever term you’re applying at the moment.

Your accusatory, holier than thou attitude and posts full of hatred and insinuations is why I have you on ignore. I’m absolutely kicking myself for not sticking to it on this thread as well as others.

You’re attacking a lifetime vegetarian, now vegan who cycles mostly everywhere, dresses mainly in cotton and doesn’t use make-up, creams and hair dyes (as Cheekyscrip can confirm) and uses as few chemicals as possible. Kids and teachers taking a day off school to stand in the street does pretty much nothing. If they changed their lifestyles, or even took a day out to do something more constructive than banner waving, I might have more respect. I don’t blame the kids. I don’t enjoy your posts, or find them informative or constructive, so I’ll just leave it.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> I unignored to read your reply to me on this thread.  I really wish I hadn't bothered. However, as I did. I just said that many of us have been doing what governments and experts have told us to do. In order to reduce our footprint and preserve the planet. I pointed out a couple of things we were told to do that we're totally wrong. Now people like you are accusing us of carelessly destroying the planet, being in denial and using straw man arguments, or whatever term you're applying at the moment.
> 
> Your accusatory, holier than thou attitude and posts full of hatred and insinuations is why I have you on ignore. I'm absolutely kicking myself for not sticking to it on this thread as well as others.
> 
> You're attacking a lifetime vegetarian, now vegan who cycles mostly everywhere, dresses mainly in cotton and doesn't use make-up, creams and hair dyes (as Cheekyscrip can confirm) and uses as few chemicals as possible. Kids and teachers taking a day off school to stand in the street does pretty much nothing. If they changed their lifestyles, or even took a day out to do something more constructive than banner waving, I might have more respect. I don't blame the kids. I don't enjoy your posts, or find them informative or constructive, so I'll just leave it.


I accept the science & governments aren't even doing what the science says we MUST do to avert this looming catastrophe. Whatever we do as individuals wont be enough Elles. We have to change our entire economic model. I don't hate anyone, I'm fighting for my childrens future & for the future of every lifeform. Sometimes the truth is hard to face so there is no easy way to say if we dont take urgent & drastic action it will be too late to save our beautiful living planet. We are already close to the tipping point of no return.

I'm not attacking you, I'm debating you. The kids, as they have no vote, are doing the only thing they can do & the school strike movement is growing. They understand that whatever they do as individuals will not be enough - change has to come from above. I dont particularly enjoy your posts but I will always respond if I disagree.


----------



## noushka05

As this is a climate change thread & Greta is a climate hero, I thought it was the best place to post this 

*Jeremy Corbyn*‏:
_On #WorldAutismAwarenessDay this is a must read from @GretaThunberg.








_


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> As this is a climate change thread & Greta is a climate hero, I thought it was the best place to post this
> 
> *Jeremy Corbyn*‏:
> _On #WorldAutismAwarenessDay this is a must read from @GretaThunberg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Don't jump down my throat, but I'm not entirely sure I'm surprised at this.

She's certainly embracing it.


----------



## Elles

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fântânele-Cogealac_Wind_Farm

All this for 10% of Romania's green energy. We really do need to find something a lot better and reduce our power consumption.

Whitelee windfarm in Scotland is Europe's second largest.

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-27257599-aerial-views-scotland-4k-whitelee-wind-farm

There are currently arguments about water contamination in the area and there have been problems. With these kind of sums involved, I wouldn't trust the company denials and assurances that the issues have been resolved.

The future probably is nuclear, but not Chernobyl style.

https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/

https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2...-of-top-10-breakthrough-technologies-of-2019/


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet
*
I also believed nuclear energy was a risky, dangerous energy source until I started researching energy. The exact opposite is the truth.

Wildlife has also taken over around the old Chernobyl site and it is now a rewilding advocate's dream scenario. (Get rid of the humans and let nature reclaim it).

*Wildlife is abundant in Chernobyl, study reveals*


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> Don't jump down my throat, but I'm not entirely sure I'm surprised at this.
> 
> She's certainly embracing it.


No I agree, I wasn't surprised either.

And good for her



Elles said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fântânele-Cogealac_Wind_Farm
> 
> All this for 10% of Romania's green energy. We really do need to find something a lot better and reduce our power consumption.
> 
> Whitelee windfarm in Scotland is Europe's second largest.
> 
> https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-27257599-aerial-views-scotland-4k-whitelee-wind-farm
> 
> There are currently arguments about water contamination in the area and there have been problems. With these kind of sums involved, I wouldn't trust the company denials and assurances that the issues have been resolved. Nuclear isnt going to be our saviour. We have to keep average temperature below 1.5C n
> 
> The future probably is nuclear, but not Chernobyl style.
> 
> https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/
> 
> https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2...-of-top-10-breakthrough-technologies-of-2019/


The only way to reduce our power consumption is to actually reduce our consumption. Approximately 50% of global carbon emissions are produced by just 10% of the worlds population. We MUST change our entire economic model to a sustainable one & then we wouldn't need the vast amounts of energy we use today, renewables & nuclear if you like, could adequately supply our needs.

The future is bleak unless we take the urgent and radical action to do this Elles.

*Low-carbon sources produce majority of UK electricity supply for first time ever*

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arbon-sources-fossil-fuels-coal-a8139366.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arbon-sources-fossil-fuels-coal-a8139366.html



samuelsmiles3 said:


> *Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet
> *
> I also believed nuclear energy was a risky, dangerous energy source until I started researching energy. The exact opposite is the truth.
> 
> Wildlife has also taken over around the old Chernobyl site and it is now a rewilding advocate's dream scenario. (Get rid of the humans and let nature reclaim it).
> 
> *Wildlife is abundant in Chernobyl, study reveals*


Do you find it difficult to answer these straightforward questions @samuelsmiles3 ?



noushka05 said:


> I assume this means you agree that we do indeed live on a finite planet with limited resources?.
> 
> So do you also accept that its impossible to have infinite growth on this finite planet of ours?
> 
> And do you agree that our current economic model is an unsustainable model Samuel?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I have answered all of those questions multiple times in this thread if you care to read what I post. You are seeking obedience, not debate.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I have answered all of those questions multiple times in this thread if you care to read what I post. You are seeking obedience, not debate.


I don't recall you ever answering & I believe I've only ever asked one of those 3 questions before anyway. This is from October & you evaded answering here.



noushka05 said:


> Can I ask you a one question? Do you believe we can have infinite growth on a finite planet?





samuelsmiles2 said:


> (I will answer all your points later as I'm off out with my lovely boys and their girlfriends soon so don't have much time


Asking straightforward questions relevant to the debate isnt seeking obedience 

.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Just go away and look. Look and read and you will find the answers.


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Just go away and look. Look and read and you will find the answers.


Head and brick wall. Ignore is an amazing function


----------



## samuelsmiles3

rona said:


> Head and brick wall. Ignore is an amazing function


I did do that last week, but when I looked at the forum without being logged on it was there - I saw it. I saw it all.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Just go away and look. Look and read and you will find the answers.


I don't have time to trawl the thread. If you choose to be evasive that is of course your prerogative  But I dont recall you ever agreeing outright that we do live on a finite planet so its impossible to have infinite growth. And I don't recall you agreeing our current economic model is unsustainable.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Head and brick wall. Ignore is an amazing function


Is that the pretend ignore function?


----------



## noushka05

.

This is brilliant, restoring natural ecosystems to help combat the climate crisis. Can't see our current ecocidal government endorsing it sadly. https://www.naturalclimate.solutions/#breakdown

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tion-to-the-climate-disaster?CMP=share_btn_tw

*A natural solution to the climate disaster*
Climate and ecological crises can be tackled by restoring forests and other valuable ecosystems, say scientists and activist

The world faces two existential crises, developing with terrifying speed: climate breakdown and ecological breakdown. Neither is being addressed with the urgency needed to prevent our life-support systems from spiralling into collapse. We are writing to champion a thrilling but neglected approach to averting climate chaos while defending the living world: natural climate solutions. This means drawing carbon dioxide out of the air by protecting and restoring ecosystems.

By defending, restoring and re-establishing forests, peatlands, mangroves, salt marshes, natural seabeds and other crucial ecosystems, large amounts of carbon can be removed from the air and stored. At the same time, the protection and restoration of these ecosystems can help minimise a sixth great extinction, while enhancing local people's resilience against climate disaster. Defending the living world and defending the climate are, in many cases, one and the same. This potential has so far been largely overlooked.

We call on governments to support natural climate solutions with an urgent programme of research, funding and political commitment. It is essential that they work with the guidance and free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people and other local communities.

This approach should not be used as a substitute for the rapid and comprehensive decarbonisation of industrial economies. A committed and well-funded programme to address all the causes of climate chaos, including natural climate solutions, could help us hold the heating of the planet below 1.5C. We ask that they are deployed with the urgency these crises demand.

*Greta Thunberg*_ Activist_
*Margaret Atwood*_ Author_
*Michael Mann*_ Distinguished professor of atmospheric science_
*Naomi Klein *_Author and campaigner_
*Mohamed Nasheed*_ Former president, the Maldives_
*Rowan Williams*_ former Archbishop of Canterbury_
*Dia Mirza*_ Actor and UN environment goodwill ambassador_
*Brian Eno*_ Musician and artist_
*Philip Pullman*_ Author_
*Bill McKibben*_ Author and campaigner_
*Simon Lewis*_ Professor of global change science_
*Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall*_ Presenter and author_
*Charlotte Wheeler*_ Forest restoration scientist_
*David Suzuki*_ Scientist and author_
*Anohni*_ Musician and artist_
*Asha de Vos*_ Marine biologist_
*Yeb Saño*_ Activist_
*Bittu Sahgal*_ Founder, Sanctuary Nature Foundation_
*John Sauven*_ Executive director, Greenpeace UK_
*Craig Bennett*_ CEO, Friends of the Earth_
*Ruth Davis*_ Deputy director of global programmes, RSPB_
*Rebecca Wrigley*_ Chief executive, Rewilding Britain_
*George Monbiot*_ Journalist_


----------



## noushka05

The kids are right about the older generation.

Its almost as though the older the less you care as you probably wont be around when it gets really bad.


----------



## kimthecat

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I did do that last week, but when I looked at the forum without being logged on it was there - I saw it. I saw it all.


:Hilarious


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> The kids are right about the older generation.
> 
> Its almost as though the older the less you care as you probably wont be around when it gets really bad.


Isn't that just human nature though?


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> Isn't that just human nature though?


God, I'd have hoped not. Even if I didn't have my own children's future to think about, I know I would still care passionately about leaving habitable planet for future generations, a healthy planet for all of Earths lifeforms.


----------



## noushka05

As David Attenborough is respected across the divide. I do hope the deniers on this tread will tune in to this.

Something like this is LONG overdue from the BBC! They have been worse than useless on what should be THE most talked about topic. I suspect Greens Rupert Read may have pricked a few consciences at the beeb!



_BBC One will air "Climate change - The facts", presented by Sir David Attenborough, at 9pm on Thursday, 18 April.

It will be 90mins, so will push back the 10 O'Clock News by 30 mins_

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00049b1


----------



## noushka05

*Climate change denial is evil, says Mary Robinson*
Exclusive: chair of Elders group also says fossil fuel firms have lost their social licence

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...l-is-evil-says-mary-robinson?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The headlines are very shocking, but it is worth reading the whole article in this new report from Science before getting our knickers in a twist.

*New climate models predict a warming surge*
Heat waves, like one in Australia in January, will get worse in a warming world

_"Modelers are *struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this* heightened sensitivity"

There's no question," says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. "Is that realistic or not?* At this point, we don't know.*"

That's an urgent question:* If the results are to be believed,*

The new simulations are only now being discussed at meetings, and not all the numbers are in, so "it's a bit* too early to get wound up*,"

The results so far are "not sufficient to convince me," says Kate Marvel, "*the new models could easily have strayed from reality,"* she says.
_
_"We're *kind of mystified,*" Winton says_

eta. Ooops - just seen the post above. I'm evil.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> The headlines are very shocking, but it is worth reading the whole article in this new report from Science before getting our knickers in a twist.
> 
> *New climate models predict a warming surge*
> Heat waves, like one in Australia in January, will get worse in a warming world
> 
> _"Modelers are *struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this* heightened sensitivity"
> 
> There's no question," says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. "Is that realistic or not?* At this point, we don't know.*"
> 
> That's an urgent question:* If the results are to be believed,*
> 
> The new simulations are only now being discussed at meetings, and not all the numbers are in, so "it's a bit* too early to get wound up*,"
> 
> The results so far are "not sufficient to convince me," says Kate Marvel, "*the new models could easily have strayed from reality,"* she says.
> _
> _"We're *kind of mystified,*" Winton says_
> 
> eta. Ooops - just seen the post above. I'm evil.


So it could be even worse but we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist?  Models have been broadly accurate you know Sam? and a rise of 2C will be devastating, nevermind higher. In a way it must be lovely to be able to deny reality, though personally I will always choose to face things head on & know that I tried to do the best I could to save our living planet.

But if you are sincerely interested in educating yourself about climate models, it would be a good idea to start with this excellent work by Carbon Brief -
*Q&A: How do climate models work?*

https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

*Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?*

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

*Conclusion*
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.

Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.


----------



## noushka05

I was choked up watching this last night. If only all people would listen to her & take action on the greatest existential crisis we face.


----------



## noushka05

David Attenborough is one of our most trusted public individuals so I do hope deniers everywhere will watch tonight.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## samuelsmiles3

David Attenborough just linked wildfires in the US last year to climate change and showed dramatic pictures of people in a car fleeing the fire.

The IPCC has already said in its last report that there was no link. In fact no scientific study has shown this to be the case.

Alarmism.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

James Hansen. It's worth remembering that he said, in 1988, Lower Manhatten would be underwater by 2018. That date passed last year. This is Lower Manhatten today.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Now its electric aeroplanes. Oh dear.

And something about a machine sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere. (Powered by fossil fuels?) Don't trees do this?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

More images of a tearful Greta Thunberg. Just sickening.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

So that's climate change in a nutshell.

Sleep well.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> More images of a tearful Greta Thunberg. Just sickening.


Vile. If only everyone cared about this planet as much as wonderful Greta. She will go down on the right side of history.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> So that's climate change in a nutshell.
> .


Only to a denier


----------



## noushka05

Tell the UK government to take urgent climate action

Time is running out to stop catastrophic climate change. Our leaders have let us down, but millions of people across the world are taking action. Will you join them?
https://act.friendsoftheearth.uk/petition/climate

................


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is when, in 1988, James Hansen, one of the contributors to last night's show predicted Manhattan would be under water.

_"Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up." _

I'm sorry Noushka, but I find the way Greta Thunberg has been put to the forefront of this campaign genuinely sickening. There was no science on last night's show. It was alarmism on steroids.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I'm sorry Noushka, but I find the way Greta Thunberg has been put to the forefront of this campaign genuinely sickening.


Greta hasn't been put anywhere - she is LEADING the campaign. Why not go straight to the horses mouth & she what she says?

Here, to save you having to look for yourself.












samuelsmiles3 said:


> There was no science on last night's show. It was alarmism on steroids.


Like your other fave label CAGW, Alarmism another term used ONLY by deniers

So putting aside climate change for a moment. Do you think we can just carry on as we are with our current economic system? If so, maybe you can explain then, how we can maintain growth, which means increasing consumption of finite resources, in a finite system?

,,
.

.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Noushka, one thing I agree with you on is that it would be nice if everyone cared for the planet as much as Greta Thunberg does, but by having a different opinion on the way forward doesn't mean I care less.

But what has she actually said that will convince me that we are heading for CAGW apart from soundbites like "our house is on fire" etc. I've heard nothing coming from her that is new and I'm more than uncomfortable about how a 16 year old autistic child is in the position she now is.

You're content with this so would you be content to put her in an unbiased interview with CAGW sceptic with a long scientific background?

Dr. Judith Curry or Roger Pielke for example? (There are many, many more, of course)


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> but by having a different opinion on the way forward doesn't mean I care less.


Yet again you evade my very straightforward question.



noushka05 said:


> Do you think we can just carry on as we are with our current economic system? If so, maybe you can explain then, how we can maintain growth, which means increasing consumption of finite resources, in a finite system?





samuelsmiles3 said:


> but by having a different opinion on the way forward doesn't mean I care less.


What is your way forward then? Nuclear? lol


samuelsmiles3 said:


> But what has she actually said that will convince me that we are heading for CAGW apart from soundbites like "our house is on fire" etc. I've heard nothing coming from her that is new and I'm more than uncomfortable about how a 16 year old autistic child is in the position she now is.


Greta's analysis of the situation we are facing is profound & eloquent. No surprise that you are incapable of seeing that. She has courageously put herself in that position because of our inaction.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> You're content with this so would you be content to put her in an unbiased interview with CAGW sceptic with a long scientific background?


Of course not. There are contrarians in every field. I will always go with the consensual position. And the scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Dr. Judith Curry or Roger Pielke for example? (There are many, many more, of cours


Judith Curry, Roger Pielke :Watching



noushka05 said:


> Judith Curry? You mean the darling of climate deniers everywhere? favourite scientist of Trumps Republican Party and the Koch brothers and Nigel Lawsons climate denier lobby group the GWPF? That Judith Curry? I actually suspected you were getting your info from one of the notorious contrarians.
> 
> I was actually going to ask you outright whether Curry (or *Pilke*, Lindzen, Lomborg, Moore et al) were, perhaps, your sources . So thank you for saving me the trouble by confirming my suspicions.
> 
> Are you aware Judy is on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry Samue





noushka05 said:


> I only expose the charlatans  - you on the other hand seek to undermine pretty much the entire scientific community on climate change.
> 
> You have made personal unfounded attacks on one of the worlds leading scientist, Professor Kevin Anderson, by accusing him of flying. Kevin hasnt flown for over a decade as he is highly principled and believes in leading by example. And he is bang on about the real problem - the need for growth.
> 
> For growth lies behind pretty much every environmental problem in the world. That people like you, cant see we are plundering our natural world at an unsustainable and alarming rate is staggering tbqh.
> 
> Desmog is widely respected by trusted experts for reporting things factually. It never seeks to undermine the consensus - that you call it far left is typical denier in denial. This is why Curry et al is so dangersous for sowing the seeds of doubt when there is no doubt -we are near the tipping point for catastrophic runaway climate breakdown.
> 
> Back to Judy>>>>
> 
> https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry
> 
> *Judith A. Curry* is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[
> 
> *Fossil fuel industry funding*
> Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile[4], Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,
> 
> "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."
> *Climate views*
> Curry believes the IPCC has done a bad job of characterizing uncertainty".[5] She believes "skeptical scientists" have difficulty getting their papers published.[6] She does not view herself as a climate hawk[7](one who judges that the risks of climate change are sufficient to warrant a robust response.[8]) - though somewhat confusingly, she denies playing down the urgency of climate action: "I am saying nothing about that one way or the other"
> 
> (and so on)
> 
> WOW though
> 
> Instead of rooting around for obscure newspaper clippings, can you just provide the direct link to 'IPCC' report from erm,... 1989?


----------



## noushka05

George Monbiot's analysis of last nights BBC climate facts programme.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Yesterday's 'Climate Change:The Facts' had a very alarming piece showing a father and son driving through a forest fire that they were extremely lucky to survive. It gave the impression that wildfires in the US have become more common and more dangerous due to climate change. This is untrue.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

One wildfire in October 1871 caused the deaths of between 1500 and 2500 people. This cannot be attributed to CAGW and wildfires are _not _becoming more common.

Why Few Remember The Peshtigo Fire, The Deadliest In American History

_"The Peshtigo Fire ultimately reached the blistering temperature of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and speedily fanned through the fire hazard of a town built out of wood.

When the flames eventually died out, the damage of the Peshtigo Fire was staggering: The conflagration had consumed 1,875 square miles, obliterated 12 communities, and caused the deaths of between 1,500 and 2,500 people" _


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yesterday's 'Climate Change:The Facts' had a very alarming piece showing a father and son driving through a forest fire that they were extremely lucky to survive. It gave the impression that wildfires in the US have become more common and more dangerous due to climate change. This is untrue.


Oops.

FACTCHECKS 
9 August 2018 13:35
*Factcheck: How global warming has increased US wildfires*

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires
*Those sceptical about the role of climate change in the recent increase in fires have pointed to the full dataset, trying to argue that the fire area has decreased by around 80% over the past century.

This is not an accurate comparison, according to Randy Eardley, a spokesman at the NIFC. As he tells Carbon Brief:*

I wouldn't put any stock in those numbers. To try and compare any of the more modern data to that earlier data is not accurate or appropriate, because we didn't have a good way to measure [earlier data]. Back then we didn't have a reliable reporting system; for all I know those came from a variety of different sources that often double-counted figures. When you look at some of those years that add up to 60 or 70 million acres burned a lot of those acres have to be double counted two or three times. We didn't have a system to estimate area burned until 1960, but it was really refined in 1983.

Those sceptical about the role of climate change in the recent increase in fires have pointed to the full dataset, trying to argue that the fire area has decreased by around 80% over the past century.

This is not an accurate comparison, according to Randy Eardley, a spokesman at the NIFC. As he tells Carbon Brief:

I wouldn't put any stock in those numbers. To try and compare any of the more modern data to that earlier data is not accurate or appropriate, because we didn't have a good way to measure [earlier data]. Back then we didn't have a reliable reporting system; for all I know those came from a variety of different sources that often double-counted figures. When you look at some of those years that add up to 60 or 70 million acres burned a lot of those acres have to be double counted two or three times. We didn't have a system to estimate area burned until 1960, but it was really refined in 1983.

Today, the US has larger and more organised firefighting operations in place. Therefore, recent increases are not due to any change in firefighting approach. If anything, many more resources have been devoted to fighting fires in the past few decades than in any prior period.

*US wildfires and climate change*
The recent period of large wildfires in forested areas of the western US has coincided with near-record warm temperatures. The figure below shows spring and summer temperatures (May through to August) - the period that overlaps with fire season - for the western half of the US. Annual values are shown by black dots, while a smoothed average of temperature over time is shown in red.










While the dust-bowl era year of 1934 still holds the record for the warmest spring/summer in the western US, it was something of an anomaly compared to other years at the time. In contrast, modern temperatures are considerably higher than temperatures typical of the 1930s, as shown by the red smoothed average line.

Temperatures in the western US between March and July in 2018 have been at near-record levels, similar to the spring/summer temperatures for the past three years.

There are many different factors that contribute to forest fires in a given year, including how many fires are ignited (arson, lightning strikes, downed power lines, malfunctioning equipment, etc), where they occur, how high temperatures are, how low precipitation has been and wind conditions where fires occur. For any given fire, local factors will play a large role, but when aggregated across the whole western US the role of climate conditions stands out sharply.

In a 2006 paper published in Science, Prof Anthony Westerling at the University of California, Merced and colleagues examined the relationship between climate conditions and large forest fire frequency. They found that, while land-use history and "fuel-loading" - the amount of accumulated burnable vegetation - were important factors for specific forest areas, "the broad-scale increase in wildfire frequency across the western US has been driven primarily by sensitivity of fire regimes to recent changes in climate over a relatively large area".

*Westerling identified a clear link between changes in temperature, length of fire season and areas burned over time.*

Carbon Brief has compared spring and summer temperatures in the western US to forest fire area, similar to an analysis in Westerling's paper, but updated through to present. As the figure below shows, there is a strong relationship between temperature (black line) and fire extent (red bars), with warmer years generally having higher fire extent than relatively cooler ones since the early 1980s.










In the figure above, temperature changes explain about 40% of the variability in area burned, based on an "ordinary least squares" regression of temperature on forest fire area. However, temperature is not the only factor at work; some years with higher temperatures, such as 2004, can still have relatively low areas burned. For example, a warm year with wetter summer conditions, or where fires that start are more quickly extinguished by firefighters, could still have low areas burned.

As Westerling explains to Carbon Brief:

*I would say there is no question whatsoever that climate plays a role in the increase in fires. I think it is shown without any room for reasonable doubt that climate is warming and becoming more variable because of human activity. Because precipitation is more variable in western US and temperatures are increasing, you know that wildfires will be amped up because of climate change.*

A recent 2016 paper in PNAS by Prof John Abatzogloua at the University of Idaho and Prof A Park Williams at Columbia University found an even stronger relationship between forest fire area and fuel aridity - a combination of temperature and precipitation - in the western US.

The figure below, updated from the one featured in the Abatzogloua paper, shows a clear connection between the two factors, as well as a dramatic increase in fuel aridity between the 1984-1999 period and the 2000-2017 period. Here, each dot represents the area burned and the fuel aridity in a given year, while the black line shows the strong relationship between the two. Years between 1984-1999 are shown in blue, while the more recent 2000-2017 period is shown in red, highlighting that forest fire area and fuel aridity have increased in tandem over the last two decades.









(its a long indepth analysis so please see link for full article)


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> This cannot be attributed to CAGW


Who said it was?



samuelsmiles3 said:


> wildfires are _not _becoming more common.


Yes they are.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Noushka, I said wildfires had not "become more common and more dangerous* due to climate change."* I was quite clear about that, and stand by my opinion. Population increase in those areas, I would suggest, is hugely more relevant than a slight increase in temperature. California for example has had a population increase from 90,000 in 1850 to 40,000,000 today. How many extra cigarettes is that thrown out of a car window? How many more barbeques? The likelihood of fires occurring due to this, in my opinion far, far outweighs the less than 1 degree average temperature rise during the last 120 years.


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> On the bbc news now. 65ft fatburg being removed fron sewer in Sidmouth. A common sutuation caused by wet wipes etc.  They really need to tackle this and publicise it.


They are always publicising it but it still happens. Recently it was a ''15-ton fatberg'' the size of a double decker bus in a London sewer . . . and the stuff they find down there is mind-boggling, it seems. Apparently some people, if they pee themselves, just stuff their pissy knickers down the lavatory! (True!)


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> Your accusatory, holier than thou attitude and posts full of hatred and insinuations is why I have you on ignore.


Now, let me guess who . . . errrrr, oh yes. And not just on this thread.


----------



## Calvine

AB123 said:


> the whole beast from the East thing last year


I rather thought it turned out to be the wimp from the West where I was.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka, I said wildfires had not "become more common and more dangerous* due to climate change."* I was quite clear about that, and stand by my opinion. Population increase in those areas, I would suggest, is hugely more relevant than a slight increase in temperature. California for example has had a population increase from 90,000 in 1850 to 40,000,000 today. How many extra cigarettes is that thrown out of a car window? How many more barbeques? The likelihood of fires occurring due to this, in my opinion far, far outweighs the less than 1 degree average temperature rise during the last 120 years.


The scientists say otherwise.


----------



## Elles

We have cleaner technology. Governments, corporations and investors need to be persuaded to put their money in it, support and subsidise it and progress it faster.

The oil companies are putting money in and lobbying for what they want

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/03/...ion-climate-lobbying-advertising-influencemap

In the meantime individuals are being told to recycle and kids terrified and taken out of school. I don't agree with targeting and using children to further a cause and I don't agree that windfarms are even close to an answer. They're lip service and damaging to the environment themselves imo.

I could be wrong, but I'm wary of experts these days. I agree that our planet is being damaged, I do believe that it's dirty, polluted and our living habitat is being destroyed. I'm suspicious of some of what is supposed to be the answer to it. We've been told answers so many times before and they often turned out to be well meaning but wrong, or downright lies. We need information not propaganda.


----------



## Calvine

It's the conflicting advice which floors some people (like me). One day you are told to scrap your diesel car, if you own one, and that you will even be paid to do so . . . and in no time at all you are told something different, or vice versa. Not sure what happens to all the old, but still useable, ones. I'd also like to know what happens to all the old fuel meters that they are trying to make us replace with ''smart'' ones. Do they all go to landfill or what?


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> but by having a different opinion on the way forward doesn't mean I care less.


Well said; sadly, some people here do not understand this and simply look down on people with other opinions. I find it unacceptably arrogant and have told them this in past threads. It makes no difference.


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> Now, let me guess who . . . errrrr, oh yes. And not just on this thread.


Here you are again.



Elles said:


> I don't agree with targeting and using children to further a cause and I don't agree that windfarms are even close to an answer.


Windfarms aren't the answer but they are an important part of the solution.

And as for the kids. This.





















Elles said:


> They're lip service and damaging to the environment themselves imo.


Greta & the kids have lit the touch paper to force global action on climate change.



Elles said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm wary of experts these days. I agree that our planet is being damaged, I do believe that it's dirty, polluted and our living habitat is being destroyed. I'm suspicious of some of what is supposed to be the answer to it. We've been told answers so many times before and they often turned out to be well meaning but wrong, or downright lies. We need information not propaganda.


The science on climate change has never moved - it just gets stronger & stronger as more & more evidence comes in.


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> Well said; sadly, some people here do not understand this and simply look down on people with other opinions. I find it unacceptably arrogant and have told them this in past threads. It makes no difference.


My opinion is based on science, the same as David Attenborough's is. And I respect everyone's right to their opinion, but if I strongly disagree with it, I will challenge it. Especially when its something as serious as the greatest threat to life on earth. I feel no subject is more important.


----------



## Elles

Calvine said:


> It's the conflicting advice which floors some people (like me). One day you are told to scrap your diesel car, if you own one, and that you will even be paid to do so . . . and in no time at all you are told something different, or vice versa. Not sure what happens to all the old, but still useable, ones. I'd also like to know what happens to all the old fuel meters that they are trying to make us replace with ''smart'' ones. Do they all go to landfill or what?


Yep. If anyone looks back over years of these threads, I've been saying that I think new cleaner technologies will be the answer and more money needs to be put into them. Technology and industry has caused the problem, technology and industry is where the real answers are imo.

Smart meters aren't the whole answer either, it's not just how much power I use, but where it comes from that's the real problem. Me having a smart meter and turning off my lights might save a bit of energy, but it's not going to make up for the lights on in Las Vegas.

I've been heavily criticised for saying so, but now people are actually thinking about it and coming around to it and campaigning for just that. It's mostly what this extinction rebellion are about. It's about time. 

I agree we can all do our bit with conserving energy, recycling and making adjustments to our own lifestyles, but those who care about it have been doing that for years already and it hasn't altered the course of the destruction juggernaut one iota if we're honest about it. We have no choice now, we have to target the real culprits and force them into changing imho.

I'm hoping that the clean meat will make a difference too, if people can get past the 'lab grown' and the propaganda that will come from the animal agriculture lobbies. No one really actually wants to kill animals and eat them do they? I know of an ex dairy farmer who eats meat once a week. They're mostly plant based the rest of the week, because they didn't like what was going on either and what we eat is a major part of pollution and our destruction.

I think between tech and our lifestyles, we can save ourselves, but we can't do it on our own and we need honest information, investment and government intervention and controls to do it. For too long the onus has been just on the man on the street and a pretence at the big guns doing something about it, when in reality it's just been a smoke screen and we've been choking on it.


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> They are always publicising it but it still happens. Recently it was a ''15-ton fatberg'' the size of a double decker bus in a London sewer . . . and the stuff they find down there is mind-boggling, it seems. Apparently some people, if they pee themselves, just stuff their pissy knickers down the lavatory! (True!)


I had a fatberg the size of my fist blocking my drains a few months ago. As the drop to my holding tank is shallow, no toilet paper, wet wipes, fat, oil etc are allowed to go down the pipes. Only grey water and sewage from the toilet has gone down the drain since it was first constructed ten years ago, but even so there's sufficient "fat" from soap, shampoo, grease on pans and dishes to form a "fatberg" over a period of time

This is from one house with one occupant, so imagine what it must be like when you're talking of hundreds of houses and people!


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> Yep. If anyone looks back over years of these threads, I've been saying that I think new cleaner technologies will be the answer and more money needs to be put into them. Technology and industry has caused the problem, technology and industry is where the real answers are imo.


By the time new technology is found it will be too late. We have to act now.


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> We have no choice now, we have to target the real culprits and force them into changing imho.


Spot on; but targeting the real culprits is exactly what this latest lot have not been doing. Yoga on Waterloo Bridge is not going to change anything. It is targeting the easy victims who are probably trying to contribute what bit they can, in their own way.


----------



## Elles

Calvine said:


> Spot on; but targeting the real culprits is exactly what this latest lot have not been doing. Yoga on Waterloo Bridge is not going to change anything. It is targeting the easy victims who are probably trying to contribute what bit they can, in their own way.


They're just a small part, look at France.  Don't forget they targeted the Shell building too and I don't know about where you are, but down here council and local government offices have been the target of their demos. The main message behind it is aimed at government and corporations. 

The victims can get involved too btw. They don't have to complain about having to take a detour. They're not even causing as much disruption as a flake of snow, or leaves on the line.


----------



## Elles

This is the kind of disruption greed, indifference and government policy caused. Yoga on a bridge, as part of a campaign is hardly a drop in this ocean.


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> This is the kind of disruption greed, indifference and government policy caused. Yoga on a bridge, as part of a campaign is hardly a drop in this ocean.
> 
> View attachment 401314


Where is this, out of interest?


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> Where is this, out of interest?


I think it's the Somerset Levels Floods of 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...levels-and-moors-reducing-the-risk-of-floodin

*Somerset Levels and Moors: reducing the risk of flooding*


----------



## Calvine

*Can't connect securely to this page*

@Magyarmum - Thank you; but the above is what I get when I (try to) open the link.


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> *Can't connect securely to this page*
> 
> @Magyarmum - Thank you; but the above is what I get when I (try to) open the link.












How strange! I always check them after I've posted and it worked OK. Since you replied though it gives the same message as you're getting ?????????????????????????

Here's another one .... hope it works

https://www.geography.org.uk/download/ga resources flooding somerset levels ga mag article.pdf

Flooding on the Somerset Levels 201


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> How strange! I always check them after I've posted and it worked OK. Since you replied though it gives the same message as you're getting ?????????????????????????
> 
> Here's another one .... hope it works
> 
> https://www.geography.org.uk/download/ga resources flooding somerset levels ga mag article.pdf
> 
> Flooding on the Somerset Levels 201


Thank you!!


----------



## Elles

Calvine said:


> Where is this, out of interest?


Yes, Somerset flats. They built houses without thinking about what the levels actually do and doing something about it first. I know we need houses, but if you have to build them there, at least build them on stilts and tell people buy boats not diesel cars. Maybe they should have looked at Venice for tips. :Hilarious

It's just an example of real disruption looks like though.  It took me 3 days to drive back from oxford, had to sleep in my car.  Then there was the roadworks on the A303, the diversion was miles around and took hours. I had a clinic to get to and ended up 4 hours late, for something that should have taken about 2 1/2 hours to get to and I'd left at 5.30 am to get there.

I do know what you're saying about the disruption and I do sincerely hope they aren't delaying emergency services, but from what I can gather, there has been comparatively little disruption and a lot of support. It probably depends, as usual. on which media reports we look at if we aren't actually there.


----------



## kimthecat

Calvine said:


> Now, let me guess who . . . errrrr, oh yes. And not just on this thread.


:Hilarious


----------



## kimthecat

Calvine said:


> They are always publicising it but it still happens. Recently it was a ''15-ton fatberg'' the size of a double decker bus in a London sewer . . . and the stuff they find down there is mind-boggling, it seems. Apparently some people, if they pee themselves, just stuff their pissy knickers down the lavatory! (True!)


Not just in London , this is Sidmouth

A lot of it is caused by wet wipes that are supposed to be disposable and they are not .
The government really should do something about . At least have a TV advert about it to make people aware .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-47134178


----------



## kimthecat

OMG Im in the wrong thread,  I thought this was the one about the Climate protesters <sneaks off quietly>


----------



## kimthecat

kimthecat said:


> I planted four baby cob nut trees in two local parks last autumn . I have a cob nut tree that I planted in my garden in 2000 to mark the new century. it came form the kennels where I worked. the squirrel buries the nuts and they grow , so rather than mow them down , I' ve started to replant them and hope to do some each year in different places.
> 
> Heres one I planted earlier ! I hope they all survive.


They have survived but they are not much bigger, about a 18 inches taller. 
I have more to plant out, the sane size but dont know whether to do it now or in autumn .


----------



## noushka05

May as well pop this on this thread too.


----------



## Magyarmum

Everything one needs to know about Global Warming.

Some extremely interesting articles from Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/global-warming/

*Global warming is real, and it is changing the climate.*


----------



## noushka05

Magyarmum said:


> Everything one needs to know about Global Warming.
> 
> Some extremely interesting articles from Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/global-warming/
> 
> *Global warming is real, and it is changing the climate.*


This has changed MM (c&p off your link) >>> T_o limit global warming (average global temperature increases) to 2° C above preindustrial levels.

_
Its since been revised to 1.5 C pre-industrial levels, because the consequences of allowing temperatures to rise above it will be too catastrophic.

,


----------



## Elles

If there was no pollution and climate change until recently, how would past generations be able to do anything about it?


----------



## catz4m8z

Elles said:


> If there was no pollution and climate change until recently, how would past generations be able to do anything about it?


TBF I think scientists in the field have been warning us for at least the last 30 or so years, it just didnt seem that immeadiate I suppose.
Although I think things started going wrong since the industrial revolution!


----------



## Elles

catz4m8z said:


> TBF I think scientists in the field have been warning us for at least the last 30 or so years, it just didnt seem that immeadiate I suppose.
> Although I think things started going wrong since the industrial revolution!


I agree. Maggie warned us in the 80s and if even she thought it was happening and was concerned about it, it was already a problem. People didn't realise how bad it all was and where it would lead, but they didn't like breathing smog and like I said, we were told to use plastic to save the trees.

On the one hand though, we're being told the kids today are the first ones to know about it, but on the other hand it's all our fault for doing nothing about it. They can't have it both ways.

If it's our fault and the kids are going to fix it, I hope they all go meat free, vote green and do a lot more as individuals, or the next generation will be blaming them and they won't have the excuse that they didn't know. We've been protesting since the '60s and complaining about oil money trumping clean energy and more environmentally friendly tech. A lot of it got no investment and put on the back burner. It's the governments, investors and corporations who could really make a difference. Not your average bod who had little choice, if they were even given the right information and we often weren't, or were kept in the dark.

From a personal and individual stance, young people are doing as much about it as we did. Few want to give up what they've been given. Some are more concerned and active than others. It's not really any different.

We should learn from the past, not deny it.


----------



## MollySmith

I wanted to share here that Polly Higgins passed away this weekend. Polly was a wonderful pioneering human being, her legacy will be an amazing one as her team continue to realise her ambition for ecocide law. She inspired me because sometimes there is an element of pronatalism in climate change in some often say they are doing it for their children or their grandchildren and Polly was involuntary childless. I will be continuing to support #pollyslaw because we should all be doing this for ourselves too.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ns-environmentalist-eradicating-ecocide-dies?


----------



## kimthecat

MollySmith said:


> I wanted to share here that Polly Higgins passed away this weekend. Polly was a wonderful pioneering human being, her legacy will be an amazing one as her team continue to realise her ambition for ecocide law. She inspired me because sometimes there is an element of pronatalism in climate change in some often say they are doing it for their children or their grandchildren and Polly was involuntary childless. I will be continuing to support #pollyslaw because we should all be doing this for ourselves too.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ns-environmentalist-eradicating-ecocide-dies?


 Heartbreaking . A real loss.


----------



## Elles

MollySmith said:


> I wanted to share here that Polly Higgins passed away this weekend. Polly was a wonderful pioneering human being, her legacy will be an amazing one as her team continue to realise her ambition for ecocide law. She inspired me because sometimes there is an element of pronatalism in climate change in some often say they are doing it for their children or their grandchildren and Polly was involuntary childless. I will be continuing to support #pollyslaw because we should all be doing this for ourselves too.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ns-environmentalist-eradicating-ecocide-dies?


Very Sad news and an amazing lady.


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> I agree. Maggie warned us in the 80s and if even she thought it was happening and was concerned about it, it was already a problem. People didn't realise how bad it all was and where it would lead, but they didn't like breathing smog and like I said, we were told to use plastic to save the t


Thatcher did warn about climate change, ironically it was she who is responsible for the current rampant ideology gobbling up the natural world - neoliberalism (Thatcherism)



Elles said:


> On the one hand though, we're being told the kids today are the first ones to know about it, but on the other hand it's all our fault for doing nothing about it. They can't have it both ways.


It was Obama who first said: _We are the first generation that fully understands climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. _He was talking about older generations, the kids don't even have a vote - as Greta begs older generation - use your vote for her generation & future generations.



Elles said:


> If it's our fault and the kids are going to fix i


It will likely be too late for the kids - hence why they are using the only power they have - striking from school.



Elles said:


> e've been protesting since the '60s and complaining about oil money trumping clean energy and more environmentally friendly tech. A lot of it got no investment and put on the back burner


This is why we need progressive governments.



Elles said:


> It's the governments, investors and corporations who could really make a difference


I agree.



Elles said:


> Not your average bod who had little choice, if they were even given the right information and we often weren't, or were kept in the dark.


Besides a few shining examples like the Guardian, the media have failed in informing the public about climate change. Worse still many news outlets have given a platform to climate change deniers. This has served to muddy the waters about the realities of the greatest threat we face.

_If humanity fails to prevent climate breakdown, the media will be to blame

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-greatest-challenge-hurtle-us-collapse-planet_



MollySmith said:


> I wanted to share here that Polly Higgins passed away this weekend. Polly was a wonderful pioneering human being, her legacy will be an amazing one as her team continue to realise her ambition for ecocide law. She inspired me because sometimes there is an element of pronatalism in climate change in some often say they are doing it for their children or their grandchildren and Polly was involuntary childless. I will be continuing to support #pollyslaw because we should all be doing this for ourselves too.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ns-environmentalist-eradicating-ecocide-dies?


Terrible loss


----------



## noushka05

catz4m8z said:


> TBF I think scientists in the field have been warning us for at least the last 30 or so years, it just didnt seem that immeadiate I suppose.
> Although I think things started going wrong since the industrial revolution!


And its worth remembering that the reason many people deny the science today is because billions of $$ have been pumped into funding climate change denial to deliberately cast doubt on climate science. In 1978 Exxon Mobil's own scientists told them climate change was happening due to burning fossil fuels, but all they cared about was profit!. This has to be the most serious corporate fraud in human history ever.

*Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change*
*https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html?smid=tw-nytmag&smtyp=cur*


----------



## kimthecat

I think those on a low income are more likely to be more conscientious than more wealthy people about saving electricity and gas because of the high cost and probably cant afford a car etc.
I wonder if the younger generations are aware of how much electricity they use , with TV in each room , on line gaming etc . How many of them wear T shirts indoors and then turn up the heating because they are cold.

Today on the BBC morning news , In Germany I think , they have found a way to recycle disposable nappies and make cat litter etc out of them , A great idea and I hope it catches on .

ETA Parents living in towns clogging the roads taking their senior kids to school , Nightmare that could be avoided if their children used public transport.


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> How many of them wear T shirts indoors and then turn up the heating because they are cold.


I have two neighbours who have their central heating on in winter, but a couple of windows wide open. I find it strange.


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> if their children used public transport


Which they get for free, so no excuse not to.


----------



## Jonescat

interesting research on how climate change is affecting individual countries from Stanford University. 
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/04/22/climate-change-worsened-global-economic-inequality/


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I haven't had time to read the report yet, have you? 

Just interested to know how a slight warming of about 1 degree C over the past 150 odd years has impacted negatively on world economies. Will have a look when I have more time.


----------



## MilleD

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I haven't had time to read the report yet, have you?
> 
> Just interested to know how a slight warming of about 1 degree C over the past 150 odd years has impacted negatively on world economies. Will have a look when I have more time.


It's caused growth in cooler countries, including us (9.5%) apparently. And reduced growth in hotter countries (Sudan/India/Nigeria).

I guess what they don't know is what that growth/decline would have been if the temp increase of 1 degree hadn't happened.

Caveat - I did skim read a little


----------



## kimthecat

Sorry if this petition has already been posted .

Why petitions make a difference -
When talking to MPs and ministers, petitions are one of the most effective ways to show how important an issue is to people across the UK. The more people who sign, the more likely we will be able to cut through the Brexit noise and get ocean protection high on the political agenda.

Greenpeace.
*Hi Alison - David Attenborough just gave a powerful call to arms to start treating climate change like an emergency (did you catch his show on the BBC?).*

Tens of thousands of school strikers and people from all walks of life have been in the streets these past months demanding a solution to the climate emergency.[1] They've been calling on the government to take action - and some government ministers have already been forced to respond.[2]

Today, let's add our voices to theirs to help build the momentum and increase the pressure on the government - because we're running out of time to avoid climate disaster.

*Sign this petition calling on the UK government to declare a Climate Emergency and then act like it:

*
https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/pa...ace&utm_medium=EM&utm_campaign=ECCLNAPEEM01ZH

Also One about plastics in our oceans
https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/pa...ace&utm_medium=EM&utm_campaign=OCMRGLPEEM017O

Since I last emailed you, Environment Secretary Michael Gove gave a speech where he announced his support for a UN Global Ocean Treaty that could help us protect marine life in at least a third of the world's oceans. [1]

This is a step in the right direction. *But, we're not done yet - and you can still help.*

Here's the deal: Gove may be saying all the right things to us, but we are yet to see this translate to the negotiating room. At the last international meeting, the UK failed to show the leadership we need to win a strong agreement for our oceans.

If the UK continues to act this way, we could be facing a Global Oceans Treaty that keeps the door open to extractive industries, allowing them to pillage the homes of whales, turtles, seabirds and other marine life.

It's time for us to make sure the government turns their words into action.

*Can you help ramp up the pressure to show the UK government that nice speeches alone just won't do? Add your name now.*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Had a quick look through this study but Stanford University does seem to have form on reporting this sort of nonsense, so it's worth taking with a pinch of salt. They did this one study that implied climate change was the cause of an increase in suicides.

*Stanford researchers explore the effect of climate change on suicide rates*
_In warmer temperatures suicide rates increase, leading to concerns about an uptick in suicides as the globe continues to warm_

For this new study they've done, the probable truth is that the gdp of rich cool countries increases more quickly than hotter poor countries because they are more rich, not because of climate change. Correlation doesn't imply causation?

For example -


----------



## MilleD

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Had a quick look through this study but Stanford University does seem to have form on reporting this sort of nonsense, so it's worth taking with a pinch of salt. They did this one study that implied climate change was the cause of an increase in suicides.
> 
> *Stanford researchers explore the effect of climate change on suicide rates*
> _In warmer temperatures suicide rates increase, leading to concerns about an uptick in suicides as the globe continues to warm_
> 
> For this new study they've done, the probable truth is that the gdp of rich cool countries increases more quickly than hotter poor countries because they are more rich, not because of climate change. Correlation doesn't imply causation?
> 
> For example -
> 
> View attachment 401731


Yes, but did they get tangled whilst they were on skiing holidays??


----------



## AlexPed2393

noushka05 said:


> May as well pop this on this thread too.


Instead of finding solutions, we will just rant at how bad everyone else is...


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Here is another example that shows how being rich (cool country/David Attenborough) becomes more wealthy than the poor (hot country/Me) due to climate change. This is just a back of envelope estimate though.


----------



## MilleD

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Here is another example that shows how being rich (cool country/David Attenborough) becomes more wealthy than the poor (hot country/Me) due to climate change. This is just a back of envelope estimate though.
> View attachment 401743


Tut. You could have at least used the back of a *** packet...


----------



## noushka05

AlexPed2393 said:


> Instead of finding solutions, we will just rant at how bad everyone else is...


The solution is - we have to transform our entire society & economy to a sustainable model. To make these radical changes we need strong leadership.


----------



## noushka05

This is really worrying. Looks like our government have gone full blown UKIP. But then iLiam Fox's association with Atlantic Bridge & the Koch brothers is well documented The Koch brothers fund climate denial & are funding the attacks on Greta Thunberg!

So this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone really.

*Liam Fox accused of 'staggering' ignorance after appearing to legitimise climate change denial*
*Cabinet minister later clarified remarks after coming under fire for suggesting the science was up for debate*


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ction-rebellion-london-protests-a8886676.html

*How US billionaires are fuelling the hard-right cause in Britain*
That Spiked magazine's US funding arm received $300,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation suggests a hidden agenda

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...spiked-magazine-charles-david-koch-foundation


----------



## AlexPed2393

noushka05 said:


> The solution is - we have to transform our entire society & economy to a sustainable model. To make these radical changes we need strong leadership.


How do you plan on doing that?

Alienating the working people of London, taking radical action that annoys commuters and people trying to get to their jobs on public transport (which weirdly is what environmental activists want people to use) will not work.

What will work is showing people the benefits of being more eco-friendly, changing trends, making it more economically viable to do so etc etc


----------



## samuelsmiles3

You see lots of graphic images of the earth burning up and red and orange is always the colour used to emphasise this devastation but here, for example, is a chart that shows the (about) 1 degree warming during the last 70 years.

Although we have seen some record years in the last decade, temperatures have actually dropped for the last 2 years.










Eta source
NCAR R1


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Here is another example that shows how being rich (cool country/David Attenborough) becomes more wealthy than the poor (hot country/Me) due to climate change. This is just a back of envelope estimate though.
> View attachment 401743


Don't forget to recycle that envelope please.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

Eco brand plans to reduce palm oil with coffee waste.

https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/replace-palm-oil-coffee-waste

Adidas creates recyclable sneakers made from reclaimed ocean plastic - you send them back when you have finished with them and they get recycled into new sneakers.

https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/adidas-sneakers-reclaimed-ocean-plastic


----------



## Elles

Many people in London weren’t at all alienated and the evidence so far is that it is working, the authorities are taking notice and more people are getting involved and changing their habits. What we’ve been doing so far hasn’t been enough. All the things suggested can and are being done. The demonstrations are as well as, not instead of, and global, not confined to London.


----------



## Magyarmum

Elles said:


> Many people in London weren't at all alienated and the evidence so far is that it is working, the authorities are taking notice and more people are getting involved and changing their habits. What we've been doing so far hasn't been enough. All the things suggested can and are being done. The demonstrations are as well as, not instead of, and global, not confined to London.


My son and DIL arrived in Kosice Slovakia on Tuesday and said there was a demonstration, only about 20 people though, in the main square of the city.


----------



## Jonescat

samuelsmiles3 said:


> _F_or this new study they've done, the probable truth is that the gdp of rich cool countries increases more quickly than hotter poor countries because they are more rich, not because of climate change. Correlation doesn't imply causation?


"

Agreed it doesn't, but I think they were trying to say this "The historical data clearly show that crops are more productive, people are healthier and we are more productive at work when temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold," Burke explained. "This means that in cold countries, a little bit of warming can help. The opposite is true in places that are already hot."


----------



## Elles

The main people that need stopping now imho, are those who want to spread our dirty industries to developing countries, in the pursuit of profits. We should be investing there in clean energy, not greedily investing in fracking and oil, damaging their environments even worse than our own, because we don’t have to live in it. 

I don’t believe these people and groups are climate deniers, but rather climate couldn’t care less, I’m all right jacks. Doesn’t have the same ring as denier. Climate liars maybe?


----------



## AlexPed2393

Elles said:


> Many people in London weren't at all alienated and the evidence so far is that it is working, the authorities are taking notice and more people are getting involved and changing their habits. What we've been doing so far hasn't been enough. All the things suggested can and are being done. The demonstrations are as well as, not instead of, and global, not confined to London.


I think everyone working at the stock exchange will have been. You can choose to keep your investments away from less eco-friendly companies when setting up a portfolio.


----------



## Elles

AlexPed2393 said:


> I think everyone working at the stock exchange will have been. You can choose to keep your investments away from less eco-friendly companies when setting up a portfolio.


They started the protest at about 6 in the morning, when the stock exchange wasn't even open.

All of the protestors involved have been named and they themselves are ordinary people from all walks of life.

One minute people are saying they should target those who can make a difference, the next they're being criticised for doing just that.


----------



## Elles

Many of us are switching to Green energy suppliers. If you don’t agree with factory farming, check your supply isn’t supporting factory farming. 

Energy from the waste of factory farmed animals isn’t environmentally friendly, renewable, or green imo whatever the companies might say about it. They’ve already impacted badly on the planet before they get that far and it’s not helping. Just more ways of being economical with the truth and conning us out of our money.


----------



## noushka05

AlexPed2393 said:


> How do you plan on doing that?
> 
> Alienating the working people of London, taking radical action that annoys commuters and people trying to get to their jobs on public transport (which weirdly is what environmental activists want people to use) will not work.
> 
> What will work is showing people the benefits of being more eco-friendly, changing trends, making it more economically viable to do so etc etc


I'm not an expert, but leading climate scientist Kevin Anderson & others have done modelling to show how it can be done.

This cartoon speaks a thousand words.












samuelsmiles3 said:


> You see lots of graphic images of the earth burning up and red and orange is always the colour used to emphasise this devastation but here, for example, is a chart that shows the (about) 1 degree warming during the last 70 years.
> 
> Although we have seen some record years in the last decade, temperatures have actually dropped for the last 2 years.
> 
> View attachment 401841
> 
> 
> Eta source
> NCAR R1


Cherry picking the science which fits your bias - again. Climate change is about 'long term trends'. This is basic stuff. There may well be cooler periods but the long term trajectory is up! The likes on your post show how easily people are duped by climate change deniers.

I would advise you check out NCAR's Weather & Climate BASICS page. https://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html


----------



## noushka05

Will one of our most cherished public figures feel a backlash for saying this?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...school-climate-strikes-outrage-greta-thunberg


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Stunning isn't it? Instead of looking at the colours (ie add a lot of orange) look at the numbers. That chart actually shows precisely the same data as the chart I posted. There has been a slight increase of about 1 degree c. over this time period.

All you have to do is add red/orange and scrunch up the x axis and you can get this dramatic effect.

Actually, if you look carefully, you will see there was no temp. increase between about 1950 and the year 2000.

Here is another chart, (Nasa) which shows the same data. Does this now look alarming? Should we all be told "to panic", is "our house on fire"?

And what have I cherry picked?


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Stunning isn't it? Instead of looking at the colours (ie add a lot of orange) look at the numbers. That chart actually shows precisely the same data as the chart I posted. There has been a slight increase of about 1 degree c. over this time period.
> 
> All you have to do is add red/orange and scrunch up the x axis and you can get this dramatic effect.
> 
> Actually, if you look carefully, you will see there was no temp. increase between about 1950 and the year 2000.
> 
> Here is another chart, (Nasa) which shows the same data. Does this now look alarming? Should we all be told "to panic", is "our house on fire"?
> 
> And what have I cherry picked?
> 
> View attachment 401950


And you believe that 'slight' increase of 1C is somehow insignificant?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Who said it was insignificant? By the way, you don't have to be so patronising to the few who 'liked' my post - I have never once denied the climate is changing.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Who said it was insignificant? By the way, you don't have to be so patronising to the few who 'liked' my post - I have never once denied the climate is changing.


Were you not trying to play down the seriousness of 1C by posting the plain coloured graph? Do you accept human activity is driving climate change? Simple question. A question you have evaded several times.


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Stunning isn't it? Instead of looking at the colours (ie add a lot of orange) look at the numbers. That chart actually shows precisely the same data as the chart I posted. There has been a slight increase of about 1 degree c. over this time period.
> 
> All you have to do is add red/orange and scrunch up the x axis and you can get this dramatic effect.
> 
> Actually, if you look carefully, you will see there was no temp. increase between about 1950 and the year 2000.
> 
> Here is another chart, (Nasa) which shows the same data. Does this now look alarming? Should we all be told "to panic", is "our house on fire"?
> 
> And what have I cherry picked?
> 
> View attachment 401950


This grey one looks more insidious and threatening. The bright orange/red ones I glanced past, like you say the burning colours make it look alarmist and manipulative. In the grey, we can clearly see the recent upward trend.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

After spending hours, days and the last couple of years looking at data and research whilst questioning the headlines, I believe we could be causing some warming (I have made this clear many times previously) What I don't accept is the claim that it is catastrophic (I have made this clear many times previously)

The fact is a 1 degree c. temperature rise during the industrial revolution (about 200 years) does not alarm me. As you so correctly say, this has happened and will happen continually as long as there is a Planet A.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> This grey one looks more insidious and threatening. The bright orange/red ones I glanced past, like you say the burning colours make it look alarmist and manipulative. In the grey, we can clearly see the recent upward trend.


More threatening? What would be so unusual about a 1 degree period of warming. What temperature would you prefer?

If you look at the chart you will see that between about 1910 and 1940 there was a very similar pattern of warming that we have seen recently. This was when we had much less CO2 in the atmosphere. Why did that warming occur? And between 1940 and 1980 there was a period of no increase/decrease when there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. What caused that to happen?

ETA - For what it's worth, just because I don't believe the alarmism of CAGW I do understand we need to take more care of our natural environment. These are two very different things.

Does this one look threatening?


----------



## Elles

Have to admit, I read about the planet warming and climate change and the talk about the next 50 or 100 years, with the arguments over whether it’s happening and how bad it is or isn’t going to be and I just wonder why they don’t shut up and get on with it.

We’re suffocating before we’re drowning and whether the planet gets warmer, or weather events more extreme, if we don’t do something about the filth, greed and pollution, we’ll kill ourselves and the rest before the planet explodes in fiery rain anyway. I think nature will sort itself out and I don’t believe humans can actually destroy the planet, but we are unnecessarily making it an unpleasant and impossible planet to live on, for ourselves and other species and it is getting worse. I don’t need scientists or experts to tell me that.

It’s more threatening, because it’s in grey and those tiny blocks look as though it’s trying to be hidden and downplayed, whereas the others look exaggerated and fearmongering. I’m talking about the impression it gives. If you want to try to scare me, show me the grey one and try to reassure me. Yell at me about how we’re all doomed and show me fiery charts and I’m more likely to turn off. I’m not arguing about the science, I’m onside with the extinction rebellion people.


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> ETA - For what it's worth, just because I don't believe the alarmism of CAGW I do understand we need to take more care of our natural environment. These are two very different things.


Although I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation that it's happened before and is nothing to get concerned about, for me personally this is good enough.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> Although I don't necessarily agree with the interpretation that it's happened before and is nothing to get concerned about, *for me personally this is good enough*.


Thank you. When I began this thread I was convinced that global warming was dramatic and weather events were getting worse and to not believe this was to be a terrible 'climate denier.' I was actually hoping a 'climate denier' would join the thread and I would have the information to knock them down. Through my own research I now believe we have more urgent problems to fix (pollution) than climate change. Climate change is something we will always have to adapt to - we have done for ever. Even the Vikings, about 500 years ago, lived a comfortable existence on Greenland with a mild temperature of 50 degrees f. We are very lucky to be living in the most clement time in history.

*Medieval warmth confirmed at the Norse Eastern Settlement in Greenland*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jonescat said:


> "
> 
> Agreed it doesn't, but I think they were trying to say this "The historical data clearly show that crops are more productive, people are healthier and we are more productive at work when temperatures are neither too hot nor too cold," Burke explained. "This means that in cold countries, a little bit of warming can help. The opposite is true in places that are already hot."


More from the Stanford University study. In other words, they're making this stuff up. 

"Here, we build on past work linking economic growth and fluctuations in temperature (4, 14) to quantify the impact of historical anthropogenic climate forcing on the global distribution of country-level per capita GDP (_Materials and Methods_ and Fig. 1). We use the Historical and Natural climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (20) to quantify the temperature trajectory of different countries in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. We then combine these *counterfactual *country-level temperature trajectories with empirically derived nonlinear temperature-GDP response functions to calculate the *counterfactual *per capita GDP of individual countries over the past half century. Finally, we use those *counterfactual *country-level economic trajectories to calculate the impact of historical anthropogenic forcing on population-weighted country-level economic inequality, *accounting for both uncertainty in the relationship between temperature and economic growth and uncertainty in the climate response to historical forcing*."

_adjective_
adjective: *counterfactual*; adjective: *counter-factual*

1.
relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case.

1.a counterfactual conditional statement (e.g. _If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over_ )

Eta. A little investigation finds that Paul Ehrlich has affiliations to Stanford University so reports coming from that source don't surprise me. He wrote The Population Bomb and is the King of Alarmism.

"_Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."

5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born," wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled "Eco-Catastrophe! "By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."
_


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> More from the Stanford University study. In other words, they're making this stuff up.
> 
> "Here, we build on past work linking economic growth and fluctuations in temperature (4, 14) to quantify the impact of historical anthropogenic climate forcing on the global distribution of country-level per capita GDP (_Materials and Methods_ and Fig. 1). We use the Historical and Natural climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (20) to quantify the temperature trajectory of different countries in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. We then combine these *counterfactual *country-level temperature trajectories with empirically derived nonlinear temperature-GDP response functions to calculate the *counterfactual *per capita GDP of individual countries over the past half century. Finally, we use those *counterfactual *country-level economic trajectories to calculate the impact of historical anthropogenic forcing on population-weighted country-level economic inequality, *accounting for both uncertainty in the relationship between temperature and economic growth and uncertainty in the climate response to historical forcing*."
> 
> _adjective_
> adjective: *counterfactual*; adjective: *counter-factual*
> 
> 1.
> relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case.
> 
> 1.a counterfactual conditional statement (e.g. _If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over_ )
> 
> Eta. A little investigation finds that Paul Ehrlich has affiliations to Stanford University so reports coming from that source don't surprise me. He wrote The Population Bomb and is the King of Alarmism.
> 
> "_Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
> 
> 5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born," wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled "Eco-Catastrophe! "By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
> 
> 6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."
> _


He didn't take into account the cruel and unusual tenacity of man. He gives you mass starvation, I give you factory farming, antibiotics, in-breeding and pesticides. Better we had all starved. 

Let's hope today's man can come up with better solutions for adversity.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> He didn't take into account the cruel and unusual tenacity of man. He gives you mass starvation, I give you factory farming, antibiotics, in-breeding and pesticides. Better we had all starved.
> 
> *Let's hope today's man can come up with better solutions for adversity*.


Also, let's hope calm, rational debate can replace the alarmism that is taking place today.


----------



## Elles

Wouldn’t it be terrible if the alarmism over food shortages and climate change in any way contributed to today’s factory farming and agriculture subsidies. People afraid of starving and the big corporations and governments taking advantage of it, pressuring towards ‘efficient’ food production and cheap prices.


----------



## Orange&White

noushka05 said:


> Cherry picking the science which fits your bias - again. Climate change is about 'long term trends'. This is basic stuff. There may well be cooler periods but the long term trajectory is up! The likes on your post show how easily people are duped by climate change deniers.


If it weren't for cherry picking on both sides of the debate, then there would be no debate at all.

Climate alarmists seem to deny recorded history of Earth's rather dramatic and quick "resets".

20,000 years ago, the ice sheets extended all the way south to Chicago and New York. Then after glaciers receded for thousands of years, the Earth did a very fast "reset" and this happened:
"In a single day enough water came through the channel to cover Manhattan to a depth at least two times the height of the World Trade Center, and the roar of the cascading water would have been audible at least 100 miles away. Anyone living in the fertile farmlands on the northern rim of the sea would have had the harrowing experience of seeing the boundary of the ocean move inland at the rate of a mile a day."

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/#JWKZxvUOeSFRTAw4.99

While we humans are in charge of being good custodians of our planet, we have not done the best we could. However to suggest that man can prevent another global "reset" by trying to undo a little over one century of industrialization is rather arrogant, if not flat out ignorant.

We need to continue to work on improving the impact we have on the planet, certainly. Technology has already made tremendous progress in finding ways to produce cleaner energy. We are heading in the right direction, and expect we will succeed, especially if the governments stay out of it. The number of times governments have taken power and control over issues and mucked them up versus helping with solutions seems pretty obvious. Why do the alarmists expect politicians to actually "solve" the climate? Look at the Yellow Vest protests in France to see what government does with "green taxes".


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> After spending hours, days and the last couple of years looking at data and research whilst questioning the headlines, I believe we could be causing some warming (I have made this clear many times previously) What I don't accept is the claim that it is catastrophic (I have made this clear many times previously)


So you admit you dont accept the consensual position of the scientitists that humans are driving climate change & to avert dangerous climate change we must cut our emissions by almost half by 2030 - reaching net 0 by 2050.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> The fact is a 1 degree c. temperature rise during the industrial revolution (about 200 years) does not alarm me.


And as I suggested, that is why you posted the plain coloured graph. 1C is a very significant rise Samuel .



samuelsmiles3 said:


> As you so correctly say, this has happened and will happen continually as long as there is a Planet A.


At what point would you be alarmed? 2C? 3C? 4C? higher? But bare in mind there was a difference of only 4C between the last Ice Age and the Holocene 



Orange&White said:


> If it weren't for cherry picking on both sides of the debate, then there would be no debate at all.


The scientific consensus on climate change has never changed - it has only got stronger as more & more evidence comes in. The only reason there is debate on the subject is because billions of $$$ has been pumped in to fund climate change deniel. This is why so many people are oblivious to the dangers we are facing.



Orange&White said:


> 20,000 years ago, the ice sheets extended all the way south to Chicago and New York. Then after glaciers receded for thousands of years, the Earth did a very fast "reset" and this happened:
> "In a single day enough water came through the channel to cover Manhattan to a depth at least two times the height of the World Trade Center, and the roar of the cascading water would have been audible at least 100 miles away. Anyone living in the fertile farmlands on the northern rim of the sea would have had the harrowing experience of seeing the boundary of the ocean move inland at the rate of a mile a day."


Well thats probably because 20,000 years ago we were in the grip of the last Ice Age . The Pleistocene epoch. We entered the Holocene over 11,000 years ago, now, due to human activity we have now destroyed this garden of eden & have entered the Anthropocene. We are in the midst of the 6th mass extinction - which we have induced.

*David Attenborough says Earth's 'Garden of Eden' age is no more*

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/david-attenborough-says-earths-garden-of-eden-age-is-no-more.html
_The naturalist and TV presenter David Attenborough warned that human activity has forced the Earth into a "new geological age."

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Monday, Attenborough said that he was born during the Holocene, a 12,000-year era of climatic stability that had allowed civilization to flourish. But, he continued, that long period of history had ended during his lifetime.

"The Holocene has ended. The Garden of Eden is no more. We have changed the world so much that scientists say we are in a new geological age: the Anthropocene, the age of humans," he declared._


[SIZE=6 said:


> [/SIZE]
> "Orange&White, post: 1065426494, member: 1480956"]While we humans are in charge of being good custodians of our planet, we have not done the best we could. However to suggest that man can prevent another global "reset" by trying to undo a little over one century of industrialization is rather arrogant, if not flat out ignorant.


I choose a living planet over a political & economic ideology. There is no economy on a dead planet.



Orange&White said:


> . Why do the alarmists expect politicians to actually "solve" the climate? Look at the Yellow Vest protests in France to see what government does with "green taxes".


Because without strong leadership on climate action we will fail. In a few short years it will be too late to act because runaway climate breakdown is unstoppable. Hence the urgency.

This is off your Smithsonian Institution link - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/inno...take-action-against-climate-change-180970620/ No surprise that climate change deniers tend to be on the right of the political spectrum.


----------



## kimthecat

Sadiq khan wants London to be a car free zone by 2041. 
There are yearly strategy reports.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/the-mayors-transport-strategy


----------



## AlexPed2393

noushka05 said:


> I'm not an expert, but leading climate scientist Kevin Anderson & others have done modelling to show how it can be done.


What changes were they suggesting? What would we need to change in our day to day lives, what would change in how everything runs at the moment?


----------



## Magyarmum

*ODD NEWS*









The key to climate change is invisible aliens breeding with humans, according to an Oxford professor. Dr Young-hae Chi claims that insect-like aliens have already been breeding with humans on earth to produce a superspecies that is capable of solving our environmental woes. "They are just next to us, we can't see them," he said.


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> *ODD NEWS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key to climate change is invisible aliens breeding with humans, according to an Oxford professor. Dr Young-hae Chi claims that insect-like aliens have already been breeding with humans on earth to produce a superspecies that is capable of solving our environmental woes. "They are just next to us, we can't see them," he said.


 I read something similar; can't remember where tho'.


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> I read something similar; can't remember where tho'.


Dr Young-hae-Chi is a Professor at Oxford and therefore has to be an expert and what he says must be true!


----------



## Orange&White

Future "mankind" battling CO2:


----------



## catz4m8z

Magyarmum said:


> *ODD NEWS*
> Dr Young-hae Chi claims that insect-like aliens have already been breeding with humans on earth to produce a superspecies that is capable of solving our environmental woes.


They need to get cracking and sort out the environment pretty sharpish then. I'll happily bow to our insect overlords if they can solve all our environmental problems!


----------



## noushka05

AlexPed2393 said:


> What changes were they suggesting? What would we need to change in our day to day lives, what would change in how everything runs at the moment?


If we want to save our living planet -to save ourselves - we have to change pretty much everything.

This video explains how the UK could be lead the world in the required changes. I previously mentioned leading climate scientist Kevin Anderson and he speaks on this video.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> I read something similar; can't remember where tho'.


Probably in the Mail or the Sun or some other right wing rag. Its why a huge chunk of people are so badly informed in this country.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Thank you. When I began this thread I was convinced that global warming was dramatic and weather events were getting worse and to not believe this was to be a terrible 'climate denier.' I was actually hoping a 'climate denier' would join the thread and I would have the information to knock them down. Through my own research I now believe we have more urgent problems to fix (pollution) than climate change. Climate change is something we will always have to adapt to - we have done for ever. Even the Vikings, about 500 years ago, lived a comfortable existence on Greenland with a mild temperature of 50 degrees f. We are very lucky to be living in the most clement time in history.
> 
> *Medieval warmth confirmed at the Norse Eastern Settlement in Greenland*


The Medieval warming period?:Jawdrop And you claim to have done your research? *sigh*


----------



## AlexPed2393

noushka05 said:


> If we want to save our living planet -to save ourselves - we have to change pretty much everything.
> 
> This video explains how the UK could be lead the world in the required changes. I previously mentioned leading climate scientist Kevin Anderson and he speaks on this video.


I'd rather not watch a 40 minute video... Any key points I should garner from it?


----------



## Calvine

AlexPed2393 said:


> I'd rather not watch a 40 minute video.


I can relate to that, Alex; life really is too short, isn't it!!


----------



## AlexPed2393

Calvine said:


> I can relate to that, Alex; life really is too short, isn't it!!


Well I just have other things to do really. I've got my own wedding on Saturday so I'm fully booked the rest of this weeks evenings with family etc.


----------



## Magyarmum

noushka05 said:


> Probably in the Mail or the Sun or some other right wing rag. Its why a huge chunk of people are so badly informed in this country.


It wasn't meant to be taken seriously ........ groans ..........










It was from The Week actually, which according to my information has a slight to moderate liberal bias and as far as I can see appears to be totally independent of the Murdoch Empire and influence.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-week-uk/

No doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

Strange that Ms Klein in her great wisdom only names English speaking "colonialist" countries, completely forgetting France for example 

Could she be biased I wonder?


----------



## noushka05

AlexPed2393 said:


> I'd rather not watch a 40 minute video... Any key points I should garner from it?


The key point is that if we don't cut our emissions , if we don't switch to a sustainable economic model with immediate effect we are screwed.












Calvine said:


> I can relate to that, Alex; life really is too short, isn't it!!


Irony alert.












Magyarmum said:


> It wasn't meant to be taken seriously ........ groans ..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was from The Week actually, which according to my information has a slight to moderate liberal bias and as far as I can see appears to be totally independent of the Murdoch Empire and influence.
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-week-uk/
> 
> No doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.
> 
> Strange that Ms Klein in her great wisdom only names English speaking "colonialist" countries, completely forgetting France for example
> 
> Could she be biased I wonder?


I know it wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but I used it to make a very important point. The reason there are so many deniers is largely due to the right wing media which are responsible for pumping out propaganda to deliberately muddy the waters on the greatest crisis we have ever faced. The establishment media is worse than useless and now millions of people are in complete denial that we are hurtling head first towards catastrophe.

Naomi Klein was trying to understand why there are so many climate change deniers in said countries. In what way do you think she could be biased?


----------



## AlexPed2393

noushka05 said:


> The key point is that if we don't cut our emissions , if we don't switch to a sustainable economic model with immediate effect we are screwed


I think most of us get this, the bit a lot of people can't get their head around is (me included) how?


----------



## noushka05

AlexPed2393 said:


> I think most of us get this, the bit a lot of people can't get their head around is (me included) how?


Kate Raworth explains the basics in a few short seconds.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123994536596975622 Obviously to achieve this we will need a progressive government which will urgently take the radical action required.


----------



## AlexPed2393

noushka05 said:


> Kate Raworth explains the basics in a few short seconds.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1123994536596975622 Obviously to achieve this we will need a progressive government which will urgently take the radical action required.


She speaks well, but just saying 'f$$k it' and "leaping" to renewable energy sources outright, isn't economically viable at this moment in time


----------



## noushka05

AlexPed2393 said:


> She speaks well, but just saying 'f$$k it' and "leaping" to renewable energy sources outright, isn't economically viable at this moment in time


 There wont be an economy on a dead planet. I don't think you understand the urgency, we simply dont have time to delay.


----------



## Calvine

AlexPed2393 said:


> Well I just have other things to do really. I've got my own wedding on Saturday so I'm fully booked the rest of this weeks evenings with family etc.


Congratulations, hope the day goes well for you!!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...-bottles-minute-91-not-recycled/#72dde97d292c

*We're Now At A Million Plastic Bottles Per Minute - 91% Of Which Are Not Recycled*

*Several recent reports indicate the dire global situation associated with the world's plastic use. Two statistics jump out immediately. One, that globally humans buy a million plastic bottles per minute. The second, 91% of all plastic is not recycled. On top of that, it is estimated that over half a trillion plastic bottles will be sold in 2020.*

*It is estimated that by 2050 the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish. The plastic that finds its way into the oceans inevitably will pose a risk of ingestion by sea birds, fish, marine mammals, etc. It's not uncommon to see articles of sea life found dead with significant amounts of plastic in their stomach.*


----------



## kimthecat

AlexPed2393 said:


> Well I just have other things to do really. I've got my own wedding on Saturday so I'm fully booked the rest of this weeks evenings with family etc.


 Best wishes for tomorrow and hope it all goes smoothly


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

:Jawdrop:Jawdrop

https://amp.freep.com/amp/3291156002

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - PFAS - is the biggest emerging contaminant problem in Michigan. The nonstick compounds were used for decades, from the 1950s to the 2000s, in aqueous firefighting foam, industrial processes and a host of popular consumer products: Teflon nonstick pots and pans, ScotchGard stain protectants on carpets and upholstery; Gore-Tex water-resistant shoes and clothing, and more.

PFAS can now be found in the blood of nearly 99% of Americans. It has even been found in polar bears in the Arctic Circle, as the chemicals have worked their way up the food chain from fish and seals.

Some 46 sites in Michigan are known to have groundwater with PFAS levels above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's lifetime health advisory guideline of 70 parts per trillion, a level above which a person consuming the water for a lifetime might expect health problems. And state officials have identified more than 11,000 sites in Michigan where PFAS was used and contamination may be an issue.

And it's not just the Great Lakes State's problem. In a new study, citing updated federal government data, the Washington-based nonprofit Environmental Working Group identified 610 sites in 43 U.S. states or territories known contaminated with PFAS, including drinking water systems serving 19 million people.


----------



## kimthecat

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...uses-to-be-introduced-in-london-a4139256.html

The world's first hydrogen-powered double-deckers are being introduced in London to cut bus emissions and tackle toxic air.

Twenty of the £500,000 "zero emission" vehicles will enter service on three routes next year, Transport for London announced today.

They will be used on route seven, which links East Acton and Oxford Circus, N7, which extends further west to Northolt, and the 245, which links Alperton and Golders Green.


----------



## noushka05

https://unfccc.int/news/heads-of-un...er-states-to-pursue-ambitious-climate-actions


----------



## noushka05

The Good news. Wish this would happen to them all. While climate scientists are screaming about the looming collapse of our civilisation, deniers are deliberately lying & spreading disinformation to muddy the waters.



















The not so good news. 









*Planet is entering 'new climate regime' with 'extraordinary' heat waves intensified by global warming, study says*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...arting-all-over-again/?utm_term=.ea45c038bce8










And on a lighter note. 
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...low-these-simple-rules-and-dont-make-it-weird
*How do you hug a climate scientist? Follow these simple rules and don't make it weird*









First Dog on the Moon
If you think you're miserable - imagine being one of those long suffering mass extinction Cassandras!


----------



## noushka05

I think this needs to go on here too. Climate scientist Kathering Hayhoe >>>










*Mapped: A Who's Who of Brexit and Climate Science Denial*
Read time: 20 mins
By Chloe Farand and Mat Hope and Richard Collett-White • Monday, June 10, 2019 - 00:01

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/06/07/brexit-climate-denier-map


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> The Good news. Wish this would happen to them all. While climate scientists are screaming about the looming collapse of our civilisation, deniers are deliberately lying & spreading disinformation to muddy the waters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The not so good news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Planet is entering 'new climate regime' with 'extraordinary' heat waves intensified by global warming, study says*
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...arting-all-over-again/?utm_term=.ea45c038bce8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on a lighter note.
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...low-these-simple-rules-and-dont-make-it-weird
> *How do you hug a climate scientist? Follow these simple rules and don't make it weird*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Dog on the Moon
> If you think you're miserable - imagine being one of those long suffering mass extinction Cassandras!


Haha, your name from here on in shall be Greeny Doomsayer.

Now, to find a scientist to hug....


----------



## Magyarmum

Interesting and only just over 6 minutes long.

https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/climate-change-the-problem-with-the-enemy-narrativ/p079qlwd

puts on tin hat and retreats to bunker


----------



## O2.0

Magyarmum said:


> Interesting and only just over 6 minutes long.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/climate-change-the-problem-with-the-enemy-narrativ/p079qlwd
> 
> puts on tin hat and retreats to bunker


That was a really good watch, thanks for sharing. "Attacking others can become just a way of forgetting the role we all play in this issue."
Well said


----------



## kimthecat

A common saying now on Twitter is If you think that , then you're the problem and they say it simply because you have a different view from them .

Edited because I left a word out . For some reason Ive been doing that in my posts today


----------



## Magyarmum

Food for thought?

https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/what-would-a-world-without-humans-be-like/p078352j


----------



## noushka05

MilleD said:


> Haha, your name from here on in shall be Greeny Doomsayer.
> 
> Now, to find a scientist to hug....


And I aim to live up to it:Smuggrin.

Can I recommend this one? Hes my favourite:Kiss












Magyarmum said:


> Interesting and only just over 6 minutes long.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/climate-change-the-problem-with-the-enemy-narrativ/p079qlwd
> 
> puts on tin hat and retreats to bunker


George too fully accepts the science MM , he too accepts that we must take radical & urgent action. I hope people on here will listen to someone as non confrontational and thoughtful as he is.

Here is a very insightful article by George. What he fails to mention however, is the progressive campaign for remain was practically shut out of the referendum debate. The media focused primarily on the right wing camp for remain.

puts on my tin hat and retreats to my bunker lol

( I once naively believed facts were enough )

_In reality, though, facts alone are not enough to shift attitudes. Climate change communicators know this all too well. Despite twenty years of reports, documentaries, and increasingly outspoken expert warnings, the public has never fully accepted the consensus on climate change._

https://climateoutreach.org/brexit-climate-communications/
























































O2.0 said:


> That was a really good watch, thanks for sharing. "Attacking others can become just a way of forgetting the role we all play in this issue."
> Well said


Aw hes great is George, a real eccentic lol. Years ago I was a member of the Rainforest Foundation of which George was involved. So was very excited when hubby bought us tickets for my birthday to see him & George Monbiot at the Festival of debate in Sheffield last month. (Sadly Monbiot had to pull out due to him having surgery).
(By coincidence, in the video below, a lady in the audience explains how her hubby bought their tickets to see the two Georges for her birthday too!)

Here are the two Georges at a Guardian live event in 2015.

I hope communicators like George Marshall will be able to convince not only people who deny the science, but those who say they accept the science yet dont appear to grasp the urgency to act or the radical changes required.






Extinction Rebellions activism along with Greta & the school strikers are having an amazing impact in raising awareness but we definitely need to reach those who are convinced climate change is some hoax - ASAP!. Go George!



Magyarmum said:


> Food for thought?
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/what-would-a-world-without-humans-be-like/p078352j


The problem is we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, which means the populations of many species will never have the chance to recover should humans disappear. Using the narrators examples of lions & elephants, at the current rates of decline these species will be extinct in the wild long before humans are.


----------



## noushka05

kimthecat said:


> A common saying now on Twitter is If you think that , then you're the problem and they say it simply because you have a different view from them .


If you're referring to climate change (and as this is a thread on the subject I will assume so) then we're talking about people who believe that their views have the same validity as fact. Scientific fact is not opinion. And science is skeptical by nature. Climate 'skeptics' are deniers, they aren't seeking the truth, they are seeking confirmation bias.










So delusional are deniers that they even troll the climate scientists on twitter. I've shared this before, but I love the way Katie Mack toasted this one:Cigar


----------



## rottiepointerhouse

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-nonviolent-direct-action-over-climate-crisis

More than 1,000 doctors including 40 professors, several eminent public health figures and past presidents of royal colleges are calling for widespread nonviolent civil disobedience in the face of the environmental crisis.

"We are particularly alarmed by the effects of rising temperatures on health and heed predictions of societal collapse and consequent mass migration. Such collapse risks damage to physical and mental health on an unprecedented scale."


----------



## kimthecat

Glastonbury !  Isn't the message getting through?


----------



## MilleD

kimthecat said:


> Glastonbury !  Isn't the message getting through?


Disgusting people


----------



## rona

kimthecat said:


> Glastonbury !  Isn't the message getting through?


Well they all cheered David Attenborough and then they do that 

There's an awful lot in this world that talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Got no time for them


----------



## Calvine

The irony is that the majority of this lot are the younger generation who have been brought up to understand about the dangers of pollution and the importance of recycling - looking after the planet in other words. They are the ones who should know better; the ones who feel moved to take days off to protest about it. The sheer hypocrisy of it all really hits one extremely hard as it is quite clear that the message is not getting through. Filthy creatures, just too lazy to pick up after themselves. I bet much of that stuff is reusable - tents and sleeping bags which could be washed and given to some charity or other. But no, let's send it to refill then go and spout about how worried we are about the planet.


----------



## MollySmith

I'm not defending anyone at Glastonbury but having done my fair share of festivals in my youth, I thought the litter versus number of people wasn't that bad. It's not zero, it never will be at an event of that size. But it's a lot better than it was in the past. The staff are very clear on recycling on the site and I believe that the stallholders have to be very eco minded about how they sell food so that what litter is left is compostable or recycled.

In the past you will have seen a sea of left over tents there and each year they've tried to make people more aware? This year they got 99% of tents taken home, a new record.

Here's an article with a few statistics behind the photos to give context. It is getting better but I'll pull this out...

_In 2017, more than 60 tonnes of paper and card, 32 tonnes of glasses, 45 tonnes of cans, and 40 tonnes of plastic bottles were recycled.

That year, 132 tonnes of food waste were turned into compost, while 4,500 litres of cooking oil was made into biofuel_

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...al-in-new-record-organisers-say-a4180636.html


----------



## Calvine

https://www.thenational.ae/world/cl...ruption-at-london-s-heathrow-airport-1.882926

Something to look forward to. What is the significance of the colour pink which this lot seem to favour?


----------



## Elles

Great. The government will end up banning drones. Wtg.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I'm not sure why pink - some sort of show that it is a "non-violent" protest, I suppose. You threaten to bring down any aeroplane that dares to enter the skies above, therefore endangering the lives of all those with the temerity to fly.

It's a non-violent protest in their book. Not mine, though.


----------



## Elles

If they stick to 6ft in the air and away from flightpaths, having told Heathrow in advance, it will probably be a minor inconvenience to the authorities, as flying drones anywhere near an airport is now illegal, but unlikely to cause disruption at the actual airport, or get even close to bringing a plane down.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

They aren't looking to cause a minor inconvenience, though. It's a threat.

They are threatening violence if they don't get what they want. Is Antifa involved with ER at all?


----------



## Calvine

I imagine many of the drones will be made of plastic too? You know, the stuff we are being told to cut down on.


----------



## kimthecat

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-week-un-warns?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

Climate crisis disasters are happening at the rate of one a week, though most draw little international attention and work is urgently needed to prepare developing countries for the profound impacts, the UN has warned.

Catastrophes such as cyclones Idai and Kenneth in Mozambique and the drought afflicting India make headlines around the world. But large numbers of "lower impact events" that are causing death, displacement and suffering are occurring much faster than predicted, said Mami Mizutori, the UN secretary-general's special representative on disaster risk reduction. "This is not about the future, this is about today."

This means that adapting to the climate crisis could no longer be seen as a long-term problem, but one that needed investment now, she said. "People need to talk more about adaptation and resilience."

Estimates put the cost of climate-related disasters at $520bn a year, while the additional cost of building infrastructure that is resistant to the effects of global heating is only about 3%, or $2.7tn in total over the next 20 years.

Mizutori said: "This is not a lot of money [in the context of infrastructure spending], but investors have not been doing enough. Resilience needs to become a commodity that people will pay for." That would mean normalising the standards for new infrastructure, such as housing, road and rail networks, factories, power and water supply networks, so that they were less vulnerable to the effects of floods, droughts, storms and extreme weather.

* Climate crisis seriously damaging human health, report finds *
Read more
Until now, most of the focus of work on the climate crisis has been on "mitigation" - jargon for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and not to be confused with mitigating the effects of the climate crisis. The question of adapting to its effects has taken a distant second place, in part because activists and scientists were concerned for years that people would gain a false complacency that we need not cut emissions as we could adapt to the effects instead, and also because while cutting emissions could be clearly measured, the question of adapting or increasing resilience was harder to pin down.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*Climate Change Is Making Sharks Right-Handed

Global warming might be causing dogs to become depressed, say pet behaviourists










*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

We have 18 months to save world, Prince Charles warns Commonwealth leaders.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> We have 18 months to save world, Prince Charles warns Commonwealth leaders.


Maybe he should have a word with his son!!
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/prince-harry-hires-6000-helicopter-15941474


----------



## Elles

Yeah, us poor folks, walking or cycling everywhere and unable to afford new stuff every five minutes, or holidays every year aren’t responsible for this. It’s all very well the wealthy and privileged telling us all to cut back, when their excesses caused it in the first place and they’re still gallivanting and making excuses.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

samuelsmiles3 said:


> We have 18 months to save world, Prince Charles warns Commonwealth leaders.


Our Charlie does have form on climate alarmism though.

100 months to act on climate, warns Charles


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> Yeah, us poor folks, walking or cycling everywhere and unable to afford new stuff every five minutes, or holidays every year aren't responsible for this. It's all very well the wealthy and privileged telling us all to cut back, when their excesses caused it in the first place and they're still gallivanting and making excuses.


Yes - it's the wealthy preachers of doom who really grind my gears.

Al Gore, a multi millionaire climate alarmist with 3 houses all over the place.

David Suzuki, (an environmentalist) millionaire with 3 or 4 houses - none off grid.

Socialist millionaire climate alarmist, Bernie Sanders - 3 lovely big houses and first class (sometimes a private jet) flights all over the place.

Climate alarmism is big business. And I refuse to feel any guilt about chucking a few logs and a few bricks of coal into my fireplace to keep warm on a cold winter's night here in England.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Why Climate Activists Threaten Endangered Species With Extinction

I agree completely that we need to look after our environment with much more care, but some of the so called solutions are just not going to solve anything. There isn't any rational discussion about climate change and how best to adapt any more. Just lots of shouting. It's now more about politics rather than science.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Our Charlie does have form on climate alarmism though.


I remember he used to talk to trees . . . allegedly.


samuelsmiles3 said:


> Socialist millionaire climate alarmist, Bernie Sanders - 3 lovely big houses and first class (sometimes a private jet) flights all over the place.


 Leonardo di Caprio too, bangs on about climate change, but travels by private jet (pretty huge ''carbon footprint'' there). (Don't do as I do, do as I say.)


----------



## kimthecat

Calvine said:


> I remember he used to talk to trees . . . allegedly.


There's nothing wrong with talking to trees


----------



## O2.0

kimthecat said:


> There's nothing wrong with talking to trees


Agreed! 
I have one particular tree I talk to a lot. It would feel rude to walk by him and not stop and say hi


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Yep - they just love the extra CO2 kick.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*Sir David Attenborough points climate change finger at Britain: 'We started it all in the industrial revolution'
*
_Britain owes it to the world to take a lead on tackling climate change having "started the problem" with the industrial revolution, Sir David Attenborough has said._

Flipping industrial revolution. We were all having such a great time being peasants before we discovered fossil fuels. :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yep - they just love the extra CO2 kick.


There aren't enough trees to absorb all the extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> *Sir David Attenborough points climate change finger at Britain: 'We started it all in the industrial revolution'
> *
> _Britain owes it to the world to take a lead on tackling climate change having "started the problem" with the industrial revolution, Sir David Attenborough has said._
> 
> Flipping industrial revolution. We were all having such a great time being peasants before we discovered fossil fuels. :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


Attenborough is spot on! Its our moral duty to take the lead.

The Industrial revolution started in the late 18th early 19th century & yet well over a hundred years later vast numbers of the population were living in abject poverty. Millions of people lived in slums. Kids were sent to work down mines, in mills, sweeping chimneys. There were work houses. Do you think this was an improvement?

Even my own Grandparents were brought up in abject poverty. My Grandad was born in 1909, he was sent to work down the coal mine at just 14 years old. His sister died of tb when she was a child. My Nan's Dad was killed in the 1st world war when she was 5, When she was just 13 years old her Mum sent her away to work in service. Her mother lied about her age because they were so poor & desperate. Two of my Nans infant brothers died with the measles. The industrial revolution did make a lot of industrialists very rich though - and our country more prosperous. Real social change came with the Attlee government after the WW2. And now we're seeing the reverse of our social gains with the tories austerity policies.

But anyway, we simply cannot carry on with this unsustainable model, not if we want to leave a habitable planet for our children, for future generations & all the lifeforms we share this planet with. To quote Ban Ki-Moon former Secretary General of the UN again. https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/01/365432#.WO3kuKK1uUk

Ban Ki Moon, called for "_*revolutionary action*_" *to achieve sustainable development, warning that the past century's heedless consumption of resources is* _*"a global suicide pact" *_*with time running out to ensure an economic model for survival.*
_*
"Let me highlight the one resource that is scarcest of all: Time,*_" he told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in a session devoted to redefining sustainable development. *"We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change. Time to ensure sustainable, climate-resilient green growth. Time to generate a clean energy revolution."*

Calling sustainable development the growth agenda for the 21st century, Mr. Ban recited a litany of development errors based on a false belief in the infinite abundance of natural resources that fuelled the economy in the last century.

*"We mined our way to growth,"* he said. _*"We burned our way to prosperity. We believed in consumption without consequences. Those days are gone. In the 21st century, supplies are running short and the global thermostat is running high".*_


----------



## lullabydream

Sorry but the Industrial revolution bore factories....that was the whole point of the industry development...factories that didn't exist prior, factories that put people working together...
Why industry fails to do because man is no longer needed due to machine....

I do wonder what people learnt on on history key facts etc...what they took from history lessons.


----------



## noushka05

lullabydream said:


> Sorry but the Industrial revolution bore factories....that was the whole point of the industry development...factories that didn't exist prior, factories that put people working together...
> Why industry fails to do because man is no longer needed due to machine....
> 
> I do wonder what people learnt on on history key facts etc...what they took from history lessons.


I'm not sure what your point is? I dont refute the industrial revolution bore factories. Vast amounts of coal powered the industrial revolution is my point (releasing tons of CO2). And the revolution didn't create a rise in living standards for swathes of the population.


----------



## lullabydream

You can blame history all you like, but it was important for socioeconomic growth whether you like the fact fossil fuels caused pollution or not...

Factories are important ...we probably wouldn't be here now but you would probably like that anyway...

Women would definitely not be voting...


----------



## noushka05

lullabydream said:


> You can blame history all you like, but it was important for socioeconomic growth whether you like the fact fossil fuels caused pollution or not...
> 
> ...


David Attenborough is correct, we started this unsustainable economic system which is destroying the living planet, so its our moral duty to take the lead. The system relied on systemic exploitation for profit (still does) . Yes it brought improvements for some people by exploiting countless others. It was funded by the slave trade. Social gains were hard fought from below. The Tol puddle Martyrs , the Chartists, Trade unionists, the Matchstick girls stood up for their rights and forced the rich and powerful to concede ( & now all their hard won gains are being chipped away and millions of people are suffering & dying whilst the handful at the top get ever richer). .

The industrial revolution was the beginning of mass environmental degradation & the vast consumption of coal which has put on this suicidal path. It has led to great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few and it has had dreadful impacts for people & the environment right across the globe if you look at the bigger picture.



lullabydream said:


> Factories are important ...we probably wouldn't be here now but you would probably like that anyway..


At the moment factories are generally important for mass producing stuff to feed our unsustainable consumption..( And by the way I have worked in factories, all closed now. Production likely moved to China or India where these people suffer the same horrible conditions as our ancestors, working long hours for a pittance. All part of this economic model). And actually, what I would really like is for people to care about the young generation, future generations & the living world because I would really like is to leave a habitable planet for them.



lullabydream said:


> Women would definitely not be voting...


Possibly not. Who knows? But what use are votes on a dead planet? Our economic model relies on exploiting finite resources to maintain economic growth. Obviously this could not last. We're now at the tipping point where the natural world can no longer sustain our economy. Unless we make radical changes urgently & switch to a sustainable system we could see the end of our civilisation @lullabydream. We are essentially stealing what future generations need to sustain themselves to make huge profits and great wealth for a few greedy individuals today.


----------



## lullabydream

We would be a developing country otherwise....

The point be you can't blame history saying it did no good for something that was important. I respect David Attenborough but honestly blame what people didn't know.... and made us a developed country,....

Wind and water power wasn't enough....


----------



## noushka05

lullabydream said:


> We would be a developing country otherwise....
> 
> The point be you can't blame history saying it did no good for something that was important. I respect David Attenborough but honestly blame what people didn't know.... and made us a developed country,....
> 
> Wind and water power wasn't enough....


You can't possibly know that. The economic capitalist system created during the Industrial Revolution is merely one possible type of economy. It wasnt set in stone. This economic model which is driving both climate change and biodiversity loss was a manmade invention - we could have developed a different system entirely, a system not based on consumption for profit. A system which appreciated & valued our natural world we all depend upon for our survival. . The industrial capitalist system was created for the purpose of creating greater and greater industrial output, which would drive continuous economic growth. The problem being that the end point of what this would lead to was never thought through.

Attenborough is merely saying this path to suicide began with us, so its our moral duty to take the lead. We have known for decades that our economic system is unsustainable but carried on regardless. So what do you suggest? carry on with business as usual until its too late and it all collapses? Or take the action required?


----------



## noushka05




----------



## lullabydream

noushka05 said:


> Attenborough is merely saying this path to suicide began with us, so its our moral duty to take the lead.


Come off it...doesn't take a genius to realise that man has impacted the environment...but blaming important historical movements is ridiculous

You can't possibly know either but look at developing countries in comparison with no industries and who are farming as we did many moons ago...you can't say we would be developed another way?

Am out, you are surely blinkered..

I have never said I didn't care, I don't believe and that i haven't done anything within my power but quite frankly with your attitude because I disagree with you and David Attenborough, well it's post like this that make me feel like throwing my recycling bags into the river!


----------



## Jesthar

lullabydream said:


> Come off it...doesn't take a genius to realise that man has impacted the environment...but blaming important historical movements is ridiculous
> 
> You can't possibly know either but look at developing countries in comparison with no industries and who are farming as we did many moons ago...you can't say we would be developed another way?
> 
> Am out, you are surely blinkered..
> 
> I have never said I didn't care, I don't believe and that i haven't done anything within my power but quite frankly with your attitude because I disagree with you and David Attenborough, well it's post like this that make me feel like throwing my recycling bags into the river!


To be fair to David Attenborough, I doubt he meant his remarks to be condemnatory, as no-one at the time of the industrial revolution could have had any idea how the things they were inventing could impact the future in a negative way. I see them more as an urging to take some responsibility for being a leading instigator in building the initial path the industrial revolution has eventully led down.

There is always going to be the law of unintended consequences. For example, when xrays were discovered, people had them taken for fun and took no precautions to limit exposure because no-one knew radiation was dangerous. That took quite some time to discover, and to take the most extreme examples, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still living with both the literal and figurative fallout. Likewise CFCs, leaded petrol, asbestos and a whole host of other 'wonder products' or practices that have eventually been found to do more harm than good.

Incidentally, I studed British Social and Economic History, 1700 - 1850 for GCSE at school, so I'm reasonably well versed in the pros and cons


----------



## lullabydream

Jesthar said:


> To be fair to David Attenborough, I doubt he meant his remarks to be condemnatory, as no-one at the time of the industrial revolution could have had any idea how the things they were inventing could impact the future in a negative way. I see them more as an urging to take some responsibility for being a leading instigator in building the initial path the industrial revolution has eventully led down.
> 
> There is always going to be the law of unintended consequences. For example, when xrays were discovered, people had them taken for fun and took no precautions to limit exposure because no-one knew radiation was dangerous. That took quite some time to discover, and to take the most extreme examples, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still living with both the literal and figurative fallout. Likewise CFCs, leaded petrol, asbestos and a whole host of other 'wonder products' or practices that have eventually been found to do more harm than good.
> 
> Incidentally, I studed British Social and Economic History, 1700 - 1850 for GCSE at school, so I'm reasonably well versed in the pros and cons


Oh absolutely agree... In science classes many years ago asbestos was any amazing material to use, to look at to touch and play with...no one knew the risks.... As you say many examples of things we didn't know the risks of...

I just think it's diabolical that everything the Industrial Revolution achieved, and as everything the pros and cons, a certain poster decides it was all bad, bad bad bad....

Since I disagree because like you I have studied this area of history it absolutely intrigues me after studying it too for GCSE, and in University...it means I obviously do not care one jot about climate change. I obviously am a nonbeliever.


----------



## Magyarmum

Jesthar said:


> To be fair to David Attenborough, I doubt he meant his remarks to be condemnatory, as no-one at the time of the industrial revolution could have had any idea how the things they were inventing could impact the future in a negative way. I see them more as an urging to take some responsibility for being a leading instigator in building the initial path the industrial revolution has eventully led down.
> 
> There is always going to be the law of unintended consequences. For example, when xrays were discovered, people had them taken for fun and took no precautions to limit exposure because no-one knew radiation was dangerous. That took quite some time to discover, and to take the most extreme examples, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still living with both the literal and figurative fallout. Likewise CFCs, leaded petrol, asbestos and a whole host of other 'wonder products' or practices that have eventually been found to do more harm than good.
> 
> Incidentally, I studed British Social and Economic History, 1700 - 1850 for GCSE at school, so I'm reasonably well versed in the pros and cons


https://shakespeareandbeyond.folger.edu/2017/04/21/air-pollution-london-fumifugium/

*A solution for pollution?*


----------



## noushka05

lullabydream said:


> I just think it's diabolical that everything the Industrial Revolution achieved, and as everything the pros and cons, a certain poster decides it was all bad, bad bad bad....


I accept there were pro's, but do you accept the were/are cons? .And are there any pro's which outweigh the destruction of our natural world which every living thing (& our economy!) depends upon for survival? I can think of nothing more important. As Ban Ki-Moon said our current economic model is a global suicide pact. The economic model we unleashed all those years ago is heralding the the sixth mass extinction, it will bring catastrophic runaway climate breakdown & the likely collapse of our civilisation. Do we sacrifice our biosphere for short term economic gain?


----------



## Magyarmum

lullabydream said:


> Oh absolutely agree... In science classes many years ago asbestos was any amazing material to use, to look at to touch and play with...no one knew the risks.... As you say many examples of things we didn't know the risks of...
> 
> I just think it's diabolical that everything the Industrial Revolution achieved, and as everything the pros and cons, a certain poster decides it was all bad, bad bad bad....
> 
> Since I disagree because like you I have studied this area of history it absolutely intrigues me after studying it too for GCSE, and in University...it means I obviously do not care one jot about climate change. I obviously am a nonbeliever.


What else do you expect? Of course the British are guilty for all the sins of the world! How silly of you to think otherwise!

An interesting albeit old article which gives a slightly different point of view.

https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-causes-pollution/

*Why Socialism Causes Pollution*

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foundation-for-economic-education/

I visited Prague earlier this year and you can clearly see the effects of acid rain particularly on the historic buildings which look as though they're covered with a thick layer of soot! The year before I visited Krakow and on the way there and back travelled through the Tatra Mountains through forests of trees killed by acid rain like these ........


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> we could have developed a different system


Would you care to elaborate?

What would have been your alternative to Industry?


----------



## noushka05

Rafa said:


> Would you care to elaborate?
> 
> What would have been your alternative to Industry?


A sustainable model which didnt steal from future generations would have been nice. One which didn't rely on plundering natural resources to fuel mass consumption to make vast profits for industrialists. But we can do nothing about the past - what we can do is make revolutionary changes _now_ to try to save our future.

The Doughnut is fantastic by economist Kate Raworth 










https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/167878e7-5244-4892-91dd-a927248ad4ee?in=16:00:36&out=00:00:00


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> A sustainable model which didnt steal from future generations


Yes, but what?


----------



## noushka05

Magyarmum said:


> What else do you expect? Of course the British are guilty for all the sins of the world! How silly of you to think otherwise!
> 
> An interesting albeit old article which gives a slightly different point of view.
> 
> https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-causes-pollution/
> 
> *Why Socialism Causes Pollution*
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foundation-for-economic-education/
> 
> I visited Prague earlier this year and you can clearly see the effects of acid rain particularly on the historic buildings which look as though they're covered with a thick layer of soot! The year before I visited Krakow and on the way there and back travelled through the Tatra Mountains through forests of trees killed by acid rain like these ........


FEE is a libertarian think tank Another front for the insidious Koch brothers MM.

*Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)*

Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/glob...groups/foundation-for-economic-education-fee/


----------



## noushka05

Rafa said:


> Yes, but what?


How about an egalitarian society? , where resources were shared equally, and the natural environment which sustained them was revered. Where the natural world was respected and not just seen as resources to be exploited. If this was the path we had gone down we would not be staring into the abyss today. But is a moot point, we cant change the past, all we can do is change course to a sustainable model ASAP. What do you think about Kates Doughnut economy?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

[QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1065469017, member: 2189"*]A sustainable model which didnt steal from future generations would have been nice*. One which didn't rely on plundering natural resources to fuel mass consumption to make vast profits for industrialists. But we can do nothing about the past - what we can do is make revolutionary changes _now_ to try to save our future.

The Doughnut is fantastic by economist Kate Raworth 










https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/167878e7-5244-4892-91dd-a927248ad4ee?in=16:00:36&out=00:00:00





[/QUOTE]

What would that 'sustainable model' be, precisely, that didn't "steal" from future generations?

The young of today have been given a lifestyle of comfort, wealth and opportunity that people of just 100 years ago would have thought impossible. Fossil fuel, and the brilliant scientists, engineers and industrialists have made that possible.

We have to always look forward. We have to look for ways to improve on our mistakes and find better alternatives to these mistakes. We have to be optimistic.

I think it would be good to just help the young of today to look for things that will improve their futures even more. Be positive. This continuing catastrophic, ecocide, end of the world narrative and "your elders have let you down" (Green's Rupert Read) nonsense is just so negative and depressing.

They deserve more encouragement than to be dragged down into this crap.


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> [QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1065469017, member: 2189"*]A sustainable model which didnt steal from future generations would have been nice*. One which didn't rely on plundering natural resources to fuel mass consumption to make vast profits for industrialists. But we can do nothing about the past - what we can do is make revolutionary changes _now_ to try to save our future.
> 
> The Doughnut is fantastic by economist Kate Raworth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/167878e7-5244-4892-91dd-a927248ad4ee?in=16:00:36&out=00:00:00


What would that 'sustainable model' be, precisely, that didn't "steal" from future generations?
.[/QUOTE]

See Kates Doughnut 

The young of today are clearly very well informed. They understand we must act now or their future is going to be a very frightening one. If only people like yourself had the same grasp on the situation Greta has.


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> We have to always look forward. We have to look for ways to improve on our mistakes and find better alternatives to these mistakes. We have to be optimistic.
> 
> I think it would be good to just help the young of today to look for things that will improve their futures even more. Be positive. This continuing catastrophic, ecocide, end of the world narrative and "your elders have let you down" (Green's Rupert Read) nonsense is just so negative and depressing.
> 
> They deserve more encouragement than to be dragged down into this crap.


I really believe that it's all this crap and negativity that is harming the mental health of our young people. They are bombarded with doom and gloom 24/7


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> What do you think about Kates Doughnut economy?


I haven't read it.

I have my own, strong, opinions on climate change. I do everything in my power to keep my carbon footprint to a minimum. Whoever Kate Doughnut is, I'm sure she wouldn't be anxious to hear my opinions.

Truthfully, it would be impossible to read everything you post. I just don't have the time or the will.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I mean, just look at these extinction rebellion idiots. Have you ever seen so much self-righteousness in one place at one time. Can you imagine trying to have a conversation with any of these that is contrary to their own ideologies?


----------



## Rafa

Despots no doubt.

They look ridiculous.

How on Earth do they expect anyone to take them seriously?


----------



## rona

Doesn't really matter what they look like, it's what is being done to their brains. It's like an extreme sect. There seems to be more and more extremes in this internet age


----------



## HarlequinCat

The industrial revolution was both good and bad. Nothing is ever as clear as black and white.
Industry was bad for cottage industries, and climate etc. A lot of people lived and worked in very poor conditions. 

But it is also good. Without the industrial revolution we wouldn't have the recreational time we have now. We wouldn't be able to talk like this on the internet. 

Bias gets bandied a lot, but theres bias on both sides of an argument. That's nothing new. If you can look at things objectively you can look at both sides and make your own decision.


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> What do you think about Kates Doughnut economy?


I suspect that, as usual, the common people would end up being left with the hole...


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> I really believe that it's all this crap and negativity that is harming the mental health of our young people. They are bombarded with doom and gloom 24/7


If they are ignorant to the facts how can they have any hope of fighting for their futures? Do you want them to be ignorant? If this thread anything to go by, they still can't rely on older generations to fight for their future for them. Unlike some, they are facing their fears & not sticking their heads in the sand - and Greta says this action has helped her mental health. She feels she is doing something. Some children are on the front line of climate change now Rona.

India










Uganda




















Rafa said:


> I haven't read it.
> 
> I have my own, strong, opinions on climate change. I do everything in my power to keep my carbon footprint to a minimum. Whoever Kate Doughnut is, I'm sure she wouldn't be anxious to hear my opinions.
> 
> Truthfully, it would be impossible to read everything you post. I just don't have the time or the will.


See, this is where you & I differ. Climate change is science NOT opinion. I don't have my own strong opinions on climate change, I try to relay what the best climate scientists are telling us. This is the greatest threat we have ever faced & yet many of us are still sleepwalking. Only radical changes implemented from our leaders can avert this catastrophe - individual action cannot. We live on a finite planet which our current economic system is destroying it at alarming speed to make big profits for a few greedy individuals.

Kate 'Raworth' is an economist Rafa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Raworth

Dont believe me, take time to listen to the climate scientists. Climate/ecological breakdown is arguably the greatest threat mankind has ever faced..












samuelsmiles3 said:


> View attachment 410549
> 
> 
> I mean, just look at these extinction rebellion idiots. Have you ever seen so much self-righteousness in one place at one time. Can you imagine trying to have a conversation with any of these that is contrary to their own ideologies?


They accept the science. And science isn't an ideology - its science.

Climate deniers are the ideologues.



Rafa said:


> Despots no doubt.
> 
> They look ridiculous.
> 
> How on Earth do they expect anyone to take them seriously?


Despots?

No, they're definitely not despots Rafa lol. They are trying to raise awareness that we are actually in a climate/ecological emergency so we must act now because soon it will be too late.


rona said:


> Doesn't really matter what they look like, it's what is being done to their brains. It's like an extreme sect. There seems to be more and more extremes in this internet age


Their brains have computed the facts. Their generations & future generations will be the ones most seriously affected. Yet our generation is the only generation with the ability to prevent this preventable catastrophe. Therefore we will be passing this problem onto future generations, who have no way of averting the consequences. Little wonder they're so disillusioned with older generations. Your hero supports these extremists.












Jesthar said:


> I suspect that, as usual, the common people would end up being left with the hole...


lol
Unlike our current system, one of the big things the doughnut addresses is equity Jesthar.


----------



## noushka05

Here is heavyweight of the economics world, Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman's, view on climate change 'sceptics'.


----------



## Magyarmum

noushka05 said:


> FEE is a libertarian think tank Another front for the insidious Koch brothers MM.
> 
> *Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)*
> 
> Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group
> https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/glob...groups/foundation-for-economic-education-fee/


Irrelevant!

It doesn't matter who wrote the article, the fact still remains that the Soviet Union was responsible for the degradation of the environment in the countries it occupied, which has contributed to the change in climate

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764

*The Grim Pollution Picture in the Former Soviet Union*

(or perhaps you prefer to deny it because it doesn't suit your agenda)?


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> There's nothing wrong with talking to trees


Is that you Charles?


----------



## Calvine

Rafa said:


> I do everything in my power to keep my carbon footprint to a minimum


What I find very irritating is when you try to do the ''right'' thing but get thwarted. There is a ''farm shop'' near the stables which has ducks and hens and sells the eggs. I had a a pile of egg boxes which I had saved for a friend who kept a couple of hens (now retired), so I asked the farmer if he would like them to which he replied that he had had a ''visit'' and been told all the egg boxes he used must be new; either that or put them in bags which would be cheaper but must also be new. I ended up just taking a box with me whenever I shopped there; think most people did the same.


----------



## kimthecat

Calvine said:


> Is that you Charles?


 Last time I looked I was a girl


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Some new terms to add to the ever increasing list. 

"climate distress," "climate grief," "climate anxiety" and "eco-anxiety."

'Climate Grief': Fears About The Planet's Future Weigh On Americans' Mental Health

Professor Judith Curry comments on this succinctly. _"Incite panic with exaggeration and misinformation, then express concern when people are panicking."_


----------



## ForestWomble

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Some new terms to add to the ever increasing list.
> 
> "climate distress," "climate grief," "climate anxiety" and "eco-anxiety."
> 
> 'Climate Grief': Fears About The Planet's Future Weigh On Americans' Mental Health
> 
> Professor Judith Curry comments on this succinctly. _"Incite panic with exaggeration and misinformation, then express concern when people are panicking."_


 That is awfull, but not surprising. I used to enjoy wildlife and explore/adventure type programmes, however all the programmes on this year so far that I've tried to watch because I normally really like the person doing the programme, minus one programme, are all doom and gloom, aren't we a terrible species style which just makes me turn off. :Stop
There has been one programme on which I watched recently which did mention Climate change, however rather than the doom and gloom, they showed what is being done, why we need to save what is left and increase what is left which gave hope, surely that is the right way to do it, give people hope rather than make a generation of mentally ill people who think we are heading for a living hell.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> "climate distress," "climate grief," "climate anxiety" and "eco-anxiety."


 Scarily enough, if these words/expressions are used frequently and long enough, they put them into a dictionary. What exactly is ''climate grief''?


----------



## Calvine

Rafa said:


> How on Earth do they expect anyone to take them seriously?


 They do though; and there are people on this forum who do! Just saying . . .


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Calvine said:


> Scarily enough, if these words/expressions are used frequently and long enough, they put them into a dictionary. What exactly is ''climate grief''?


There is no official clinical diagnosis for any of these 'conditions.'

_"With the group, she has participated in nonviolent protests and (Laura) *is organizing the Atlanta chapter's first grief circle*, where people can *share their anxiety and grief about the destruction of the Earth."*
_
Well that should make them all feel a lot better. It really is taking on a whole new level of weirdness.


----------



## lullabydream

ForestWomble said:


> That is awfull, but not surprising. I used to enjoy wildlife and explore/adventure type programmes, however all the programmes on this year so far that I've tried to watch because I normally really like the person doing the programme, minus one programme, are all doom and gloom, aren't we a terrible species style which just makes me turn off. :Stop
> There has been one programme on which I watched recently which did mention Climate change, however rather than the doom and gloom, they showed what is being done, why we need to save what is left and increase what is left which gave hope, surely that is the right way to do it, give people hope rather than make a generation of mentally ill people who think we are heading for a living hell.


Brilliant post!


----------



## ForestWomble

Thanks :Shy


----------



## noushka05

Magyarmum said:


> Irrelevant!
> 
> It doesn't matter who wrote the article, the fact still remains that the Soviet Union was responsible for the degradation of the environment in the countries it occupied, which has contributed to the change in climate
> 
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764
> 
> *The Grim Pollution Picture in the Former Soviet Union*
> 
> (or perhaps you prefer to deny it because it doesn't suit your agenda)?


Of course its relevant - especially on a thread about climate change. The Koch brothers became billionaires through the exploitation of fossil fuels. . They bankroll propaganda to undermine climate science & to promote their rampant laissez faire, free market capitalism They believe in deregulation, low taxes for the rich & small government because it benefits them, this makes it easier for corporations to plunder the natural world of resources to make them ever richer. (& this is why they are behind brexit!) They would destroy the world for greed!.

Of course the former Soviet Union was also responsible for environmental degradation. They too had an industrial model & plundered the living world. I'm not falling for your whataboutism, Unlike yourself, I can criticise our terrible ecocidal economic model AND theirs.

The Koch's want to scare the American people into believing socialism is communism to protect their own vested interests. That is what your article was doing.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Some new terms to add to the ever increasing list.
> 
> "climate distress," "climate grief," "climate anxiety" and "eco-anxiety."
> 
> 'Climate Grief': Fears About The Planet's Future Weigh On Americans' Mental Health
> 
> Professor Judith Curry comments on this succinctly. _"Incite panic with exaggeration and misinformation, then express concern when people are panicking."_


Sigh.

Judith Curry is a contrarian - favorite scientist of the climate denying Republican Party in the US. Says it all.

Anyone who isnt distressed is in denial or doesnt give a to$$!



ForestWomble said:


> That is awfull, but not surprising. I used to enjoy wildlife and explore/adventure type programmes, however all the programmes on this year so far that I've tried to watch because I normally really like the person doing the programme, minus one programme, are all doom and gloom, aren't we a terrible species style which just makes me turn off. :Stop
> There has been one programme on which I watched recently which did mention Climate change, however rather than the doom and gloom, they showed what is being done, why we need to save what is left and increase what is left which gave hope, surely that is the right way to do it, give people hope rather than make a generation of mentally ill people who think we are heading for a living hell.


There is hope if we take radical action now, the window of opportunity is almost closed. We could have taken gradual action had governments acted on their promises at the Rio summit 27 years ago. We have no more road left to kick the ball down.



Calvine said:


> Scarily enough, if these words/expressions are used frequently and long enough, they put them into a dictionary. What exactly is ''climate grief''?


You wouldn't know.



Calvine said:


> They do though; and there are people on this forum who do! Just saying . . .


I'm proud to say I take them seriously. Like them I accept the science. I'm a firm believer in it!

..


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> Of course its relevant - especially on a thread about climate change. The Koch brothers became billionaires through the exploitation of fossil fuels. . They bankroll propaganda to undermine climate science & to promote their rampant laissez faire, free market capitalism They believe in deregulation, low taxes for the rich & small government because it benefits them, this makes it easier for corporations to plunder the natural world of resources to make them ever richer. (& this is why they are behind brexit!) They would destroy the world for greed!.
> 
> Of course the former Soviet Union was also responsible for environmental degradation. They too had an industrial model & plundered the living world. I'm not falling for your whataboutism, Unlike yourself, I can criticise our terrible ecocidal economic model AND theirs.
> 
> The Koch's want to scare the American people into believing socialism is communism to protect their own vested interests. That is what your article was doing.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Judith Curry is a contrarian - favorite scientist of the climate denying Republican Party in the US. Says it all.
> 
> Anyone who isnt distressed is in denial or doesnt give a to$$!
> 
> There is hope if we take radical action now, the window of opportunity is almost closed. We could have taken gradual action had governments acted on their promises at the Rio summit 27 years ago. We have no more road left to kick the ball down.
> 
> You wouldn't know.
> 
> I'm proud to say I take them seriously. Like them I accept the science. *I'm a firm believer* in it!
> 
> ..


You understand and accept the science, or you "believe" it ?

PS. Judith Curry has been a very brave lady to stick her head above the parapet to question the alarmism. She is a real scientist, not a 'climate denier'.


----------



## rona

Just have a peep at Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, explains why the ice is melting too. They reckon it will change again around 2050. Until then, expect a bumpy ride


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> You understand and accept the science, or you "believe" it ?
> 
> PS. Judith Curry has been a very brave lady to stick her head above the parapet to question the alarmism. She is a real scientist, not a 'climate denier'.


I accept it.

Wake up Samuel.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

noushka05 said:


> I accept it.
> 
> Wake up Samuel.


Noushka, you've just lifted the above attack on Judith Curry from a left wing smear site - SourceWatch.

An alternative would be to read and consider her scientific research. This list isn't exhaustive and doesn't include work from 2012 until today. 

Judith A Curry refereed papers.

Eta. Oh, and here is her CV.


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka, you've just lifted the above attack on Judith Curry from a left wing smear site - SourceWatch.
> 
> An alternative would be to read and consider her scientific research. This list isn't exhaustive and doesn't include work from 2012 until today.
> 
> Judith A Curry refereed papers.


Now come on, you know that the only scientist worth listen too are the ones that predict Armageddon.
Anything less than that is denial, even if they agree that humans are partly to blame


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> The young of today are clearly very well informed. They understand we must act now or their future is going to be a very frightening one.


Yes indeed, we should all follow the example set by the "young of today".

Aftermath of the Glastonbury Festival.










Aftermath of the Beatherder Festival.


----------



## ForestWomble

noushka05 said:


> Of course its relevant - especially on a thread about climate change. The Koch brothers became billionaires through the exploitation of fossil fuels. . They bankroll propaganda to undermine climate science & to promote their rampant laissez faire, free market capitalism They believe in deregulation, low taxes for the rich & small government because it benefits them, this makes it easier for corporations to plunder the natural world of resources to make them ever richer. (& this is why they are behind brexit!) They would destroy the world for greed!.
> 
> Of course the former Soviet Union was also responsible for environmental degradation. They too had an industrial model & plundered the living world. I'm not falling for your whataboutism, Unlike yourself, I can criticise our terrible ecocidal economic model AND theirs.
> 
> The Koch's want to scare the American people into believing socialism is communism to protect their own vested interests. That is what your article was doing.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Judith Curry is a contrarian - favorite scientist of the climate denying Republican Party in the US. Says it all.
> 
> Anyone who isnt distressed is in denial or doesnt give a to$$!
> 
> *There is hope if we take radical action now, the window of opportunity is almost closed. We could have taken gradual action had governments acted on their promises at the Rio summit 27 years ago. We have no more road left to kick the ball down. *
> 
> You wouldn't know.
> 
> I'm proud to say I take them seriously. Like them I accept the science. I'm a firm believer in it!
> 
> ..


Um, I'm not sure why you got the idea I was saying we don't need to take action, or that we can 'wander slowly down the road kicking a ball'.

I just think that, for the sake of mental health, we need some positivity amongst all the doom and gloom stuff.
I already do my bit, but, going back to the only positive programme I have seen this year on the telly, I learnt far more from it, and a passion I already have for wildlife and trees was intensified and I have made a promise that when (if) I can I will do even more than I already have. It also left me feeling that there is a chance, there is hope.
Doom and gloom stuff on the other hand does the opposite for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'm not saying hide the truth, but I am saying that knowing what is already being done, seeing what we have and why we need to save it can be just as empowering as the alarmist stuff.


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> Unlike our current system, one of the big things the doughnut addresses is equity Jesthar.


*shrug* In theory. History, though, tells us that the execution of such theories inevitably fails, as there are always those who refuse to play nice in favour of the pursuit of power and personal gain.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Just have a peep at Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, explains why the ice is melting too. They reckon it will change again around 2050. Until then, expect a bumpy ride


Natural phenomena are going to amplifying the effects of human driven climate change Rona.

Listen to your hero.












samuelsmiles3 said:


> Noushka, you've just lifted the above attack on Judith Curry from a left wing smear site - SourceWatch.
> 
> An alternative would be to read and consider her scientific research. This list isn't exhaustive and doesn't include work from 2012 until today.
> 
> Judith A Curry refereed papers.
> 
> Eta. Oh, and here is her CV.


Its only a smear when it isn't true. Unlike your denial blogs, all of Sourcewatch's claims are fully referenced 

Here is the media fact checking site endorsed by Magyarmum
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sourcewatch/










You tried & failed to smear Kevin Anderson a scientist with more integrity in his little finger than Curry - yet you dismiss/ignore everything he says. The claims about Curry are true.

This article is great.

*How do you explain Judith Curry?*

https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/20/how-do-you-explain-judith-curry





















rona said:


> Now come on, you know that the only scientist worth listen too are the ones that predict Armageddon.
> Anything less than that is denial, even if they agree that humans are partly to blame


I'm not fooled by the handful of dodgy contrarian scientists or the denier bloggers you listen to. . Like David Attenborough, I am not a climate change denier. I accept the consensual position of the scientists( which is overwhelming). Even Thatcher accepted the science Rona 

And by definition, you are climate change denier Rona. Anyone who disputes the scientific consensus on climate change (that human activity is driving it) .and including the extent to which its caused by humans & its impacts is a CC denier.

The scientific consensus >>






.



Rafa said:


> Yes indeed, we should all follow the example set by the "young of today".
> 
> Aftermath of the Glastonbury Festival.
> 
> View attachment 410691
> 
> 
> Aftermath of the Beatherder Festival.
> View attachment 410692


You have evidence that the mess made by young climate/enviro activists? Our economy is fueled by our throw away society - you are the one who seems happy with status quo - not the activists. Plastic pollution is just another impact of our unsustainable economic model.


ForestWomble said:


> Um, I'm not sure why you got the idea I was saying we don't need to take action, or that we can 'wander slowly down the road kicking a ball'.
> 
> I just think that, for the sake of mental health, we need some positivity amongst all the doom and gloom stuff.
> I already do my bit, but, going back to the only positive programme I have seen this year on the telly, I learnt far more from it, and a passion I already have for wildlife and trees was intensified and I have made a promise that when (if) I can I will do even more than I already have. It also left me feeling that there is a chance, there is hope.
> Doom and gloom stuff on the other hand does the opposite for me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'm not saying hide the truth, but I am saying that knowing what is already being done, seeing what we have and why we need to save it can be just as empowering as the alarmist stuff.


Sorry, I'll try to expand on what I meant FW. What I meant by kicking the can down the road is that huge commitments were made to address climate change & sustainability 27 years ago!. Way back in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit over 170 governments recognised that economic growth was unsustainable. More commitments in 1997 with Kyoto Protocol, then again in 2016 in Paris. No progress has been made. The grim reality is carbon emissions are now 60% higher since Rio & biodiversity loss has continued to the point where we have entered the 6th mass extinction. Back in the 90's climate change denial didn't exist.

There is still hope FW, we still have time to act if we act now, but where once we had time to implement progressive changes, now only revolutionary changes will avert catastrophe.



Jesthar said:


> *shrug* In theory. History, though, tells us that the execution of such theories inevitably fails, as there are always those who refuse to play nice in favour of the pursuit of power and personal gain.


Our current system which has created obscene levels of wealth for a few individual whilst leaving billions of people in poverty & it is literally killing the living planet - we are facing complete ecological collapse because of it. What could possibly be worse than that?. I dont see what other option we have but to switch to a sustainable economy because if we carry on down this suicidal path, the current economic system collapses anyway.

Actually, has a sustainable economy ever been tried before Jesthar?

George Monbiot has done a good article on the subject.

Climate change
*Dare to declare capitalism dead - before it takes us all down with it*

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet#comment-128361520


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> Plastic pollution is just another impact of our unsustainable economic model.


Yes.

And tons of plastic discarded at those festivals, despite the fact there were huge recycling bins provided.

Hard to believe the majority of the thousands attending Glastonbury were Pensioners.

I saw earlier you tell Samuel to "waken up". You are ridiculously blinkered.

Why don't you waken up?

The young are not all enlightened Messiahs. Many of them are still contributing to the problem.


----------



## noushka05

Rafa said:


> Yes.
> 
> And tons of plastic discarded at those festivals, despite the fact there were huge recycling bins provided.
> 
> Hard to believe the majority of the thousands attending Glastonbury were Pensioners.
> 
> I saw earlier you tell Samuel to "waken up". You are ridiculously blinkered.
> 
> Why don't you waken up?
> 
> The young are not all enlightened Messiahs. Many of them are still contributing to the problem.


Yes the blinkered ones are the ones who think our children deserve a future on a habitable planet whether they throw litter or not. Not the ones who deny the science and who put an economic ideology above our living planet which we all depend upon to survive. They're not blinkered at all.


----------



## Jason25

I'm 27 now, when I was kid the orchard behind my mums house used to be covered with black and orange caterpillars that grow into the cabbage white butterfly..you go out there now and you'd struggle to find one  grasshoppers, don't see many of them anymore either. I'm trying to think of more but them two are the ones that really stand out to me. Is this due to climate change?


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> The young of today are clearly very well informed. They understand we must act now or their future is going to be a very frightening one.





noushka05 said:


> Yes the blinkered ones are the ones who think our children deserve a future on a habitable planet whether they throw litter or not


So, which is it?

Are the young of today very well informed and pushing for immediate action to safeguard their future, or are they an entitled bunch who demand a clean environment, whilst reserving the right to trash the countryside with mountains of litter and plastic?


----------



## ForestWomble

Jason25 said:


> I'm 27 now, when I was kid the orchard behind my mums house used to be covered with black and orange caterpillars that grow into the cabbage white butterfly..you go out there now and you'd struggle to find one  grasshoppers, don't see many of them anymore either. I'm trying to think of more but them two are the ones that really stand out to me. Is this due to climate change?


Its (partially) due to pesticide use and loss of habitat.


----------



## mrs phas

Rafa said:


> The young are not all enlightened Messiahs. Many of them are still contributing to the problem.


theyre not the messiahs!
theyre just very naughty boys ( and girls)


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> Our current system which has created obscene levels of wealth for a few individual whilst leaving billions of people in poverty & it is literally killing the living planet - we are facing complete ecological collapse because of it. What could possibly be worse than that?. I dont see what other option we have but to switch to a sustainable economy because if we carry on down this suicidal path, the current economic system collapses anyway.
> 
> Actually, has a sustainable economy ever been tried before Jesthar?


Hon, just because someone points out the very obvious flaws in a plan, doesn't mean they disagree with what the plan is designed to achieve. A world where everyone behaved equitably would be marvellous - but it won't happen because it can't. Such a plan depends on everyone behaving fairly and being content with their equal lot, and there are always people who will hijack even the noblest of causes for selfish ends. Any student of basic psychology will tell you that one.

If a sustainable economy has been tried before and succeeded, then it will have been on a very small scale with a group of like minded individuals. Once it gets too big, someone is going to make a power play.


----------



## rona

Jason25 said:


> I'm 27 now, when I was kid the orchard behind my mums house used to be covered with black and orange caterpillars that grow into the cabbage white butterfly..you go out there now and you'd struggle to find one  grasshoppers, don't see many of them anymore either. I'm trying to think of more but them two are the ones that really stand out to me. Is this due to climate change?


The black and orange caterpillars are Cinnabar Moth, they feed on Ragwort. You will often find that they come in and clear an area of Ragwort over a few year period and then disappear for several years until the plant has established again.
https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/cinnabar

The Grasshoppers really need the right habitat and the modern fanaticism for mown grass and tidiness, does not suit them. One of my clients who cuts their grass low all the time, had a mower breakdown last year and ended up with what can only be described as a flower meadow. Everything flourished, including Grasshoppers. Unfortunately the mower got fixed


----------



## Jason25

rona said:


> The black and orange caterpillars are Cinnabar Moth, they feed on Ragwort. You will often find that they come in and clear an area of Ragwort over a few year period and then disappear for several years until the plant has established again.
> https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/cinnabar
> 
> The Grasshoppers really need the right habitat and the modern fanaticism for mown grass and tidiness, does not suit them. One of my clients who cuts their grass low all the time, had a mower breakdown last year and ended up with what can only be described as a flower meadow. Everything flourished, including Grasshoppers. Unfortunately the mower got fixed


I've been lied to all these years, I was always told they turned into the cabbage white  never mind, what a pretty moth though!!!

One good thing I've noticed is at one of the country parks we go for a walk to, there's quite a few of these caterpillars about, so hopefully they will do well down there


----------



## MilleD

rona said:


> The black and orange caterpillars are Cinnabar Moth, they feed on Ragwort. You will often find that they come in and clear an area of Ragwort over a few year period and then disappear for several years until the plant has established again.
> https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/cinnabar
> 
> The Grasshoppers really need the right habitat and the modern fanaticism for mown grass and tidiness, does not suit them. One of my clients who cuts their grass low all the time, had a mower breakdown last year and ended up with what can only be described as a flower meadow. Everything flourished, including Grasshoppers. Unfortunately the mower got fixed


There were hundreds of cinnabar moth caterpillars in our cycle shed at work. Then just before they became moths, someone destroyed all the ragwort in there.

I went absolutely mad at them, particularly as I'd asked them to wait to get rid of it until they had finished feeding. I'm very surprised I wasn't reprimanded over it to be honest.

My lawn is beautifully un-mown most of the time. And I leave bee borders all over it. My neighbours must think I'm insane!

There are grass hoppers and crickets (although more of these) all over the place.


----------



## MilleD

Has anyone posted this before?

https://climateactiontracker.org/


----------



## rona

MilleD said:


> There are grass hoppers and crickets (although more of these) all over the place.


I can't hear them any more, it's the first thing I lost when my hearing started to go 

I need a hearing aid


----------



## rona

MilleD said:


> Has anyone posted this before?
> 
> https://climateactiontracker.org/


Apparently, we are in the country called EU 

It actually says EU country


----------



## MilleD

rona said:


> Apparently, we are in the country called EU
> 
> It actually says EU country


It does. It's a shame it doesn't split us out - all the countries, not just us!


----------



## Calvine

Rafa said:


> Yes indeed, we should all follow the example set by the "young of today".
> 
> Aftermath of the Glastonbury Festival.
> 
> View attachment 410691
> 
> 
> Aftermath of the Beatherder Festival.
> View attachment 410692


Poor things: they really are very concerned about the environment and ''their'' future aren't they! And these are the ones brought up to know better, when everything that can be recycled has to be. My brother's son lobbed a banana skin into ''the wrong bin'' which the council then refused to empty, saying that it had been ''contaminated'' (polonium?).


----------



## noushka05

Rafa said:


> So, which is it?
> 
> Are the young of today very well informed and pushing for immediate action to safeguard their future, or are they an entitled bunch who demand a clean environment, whilst reserving the right to trash the countryside with mountains of litter and plastic?


The young activists are clearly very well informed. Obviously not all youngsters are, for example the young man in the video below most certainly isnt informed . As I said previously do you have evidence young enviro/climate activists were responsible for the litter? I have children of my own & am fighting for their future, I don't want to leave them a terrifying world, because that is the reality if we fail to take radical action.

Already the perma frosts are melting releasing methane an even more potent greenhouse gas. Soon we will trigger catastrophic runaway climate breakdown then nothing we do will stop it. Addressing climate change is urgent, it is an existential threat to all life on earth. . You dont appear to care about the youngsters and the bleak future they will inherit but dont you have any children of your own? Grandchildren? Young relatives? What about the animals who will be wiped out?

No one has answered this question, I hope you will Rafa, I try to answer questions asked of me. Do you think we can have infinite growth in a finite planet?








Jesthar said:


> Hon, just because someone points out the very obvious flaws in a plan, doesn't mean they disagree with what the plan is designed to achieve. A world where everyone behaved equitably would be marvellous - but it won't happen because it can't. Such a plan depends on everyone behaving fairly and being content with their equal lot, and there are always people who will hijack even the noblest of causes for selfish ends. Any student of basic psychology will tell you that one.
> 
> If a sustainable economy has been tried before and succeeded, then it will have been on a very small scale with a group of like minded individuals. Once it gets too big, someone is going to make a power play.


Today, in this current system, the richest 1% own 45% of the worlds wealth. The living planet is being destroyed to sate the insatiable greed of a few psychopaths. Nothing could be worse than the current system. And I'd rather take a chance than have no chance. Because that is the alternative if we stay on this suicidal path we're on now. We are the last generation who can act, it would immoral not to try.



rona said:


> Apparently, we are in the country called EU
> 
> It actually says EU country


We won't be in the EU soon, once we've left the tories will unleash full blown disaster capitalism upon us. - . https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-capitalism-tory-right-brexit-roll-back-state

Bye Bye NHS.


----------



## Calvine

ForestWomble said:


> Its (partially) due to pesticide use and loss of habitat


 The common house sparrow is on the point of becoming an endangered species (supposedly) as there is now such a lack of insects (invertebrate prey) to feed them that many chicks die in the nest: sad.


----------



## noushka05

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...ure-record-alert-nunavut-alaska-a9008181.html


----------



## Calvine

Rafa said:


> So, which is it?
> 
> Are the young of today very well informed and pushing for immediate action to safeguard their future, or are they an entitled bunch who demand a clean environment, whilst reserving the right to trash the countryside with mountains of litter and plastic?


I know which group I think they belong to. And the ones who shout the loudest are always the worst.


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> The common house sparrow is on the point of becoming an endangered species (supposedly) as there is now such a lack of insects (invertebrate prey) to feed them that many chicks die in the nest: sad.


Expect things to get MUCH worse. All those EU regulations which protect us & our environment are going to be torn up. Deregulation, low taxes for the rich is what brexit was always about. This will be a race to the bottom for our standards. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/climate/epa-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-ban.html


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> Today, in this current system, the richest 1% own 45% of the worlds wealth. The living planet is being destroyed to sate the insatiable greed of a few psychopaths. Nothing could be worse than the current system. And I'd rather take a chance than have no chance. Because that is the alternative if we stay on this suicidal path we're on now. We are the last generation who can act, it would immoral not to try


You're missing the point I'm trying to make. Either that or you have great faith that the rich, powerful and ambitious won't find a way to commandeer any 'new system' for their own ends. I, being a cynical realist, don't - short of the Second Coming, anyway 

Please note, I'm not saying it's right, or that we shouldn't try to change things for the better Of course we should, and I'm certainly trying to make a difference in many ways (though I don't often talk much about it). But if you think the current system is the worst it can get, you need to spend some time watching the History channel - plenty of other regimes of all sizes have managed to be much worse for both the environment and their citizens.


----------



## ForestWomble

Calvine said:


> The common house sparrow is on the point of becoming an endangered species (supposedly) as there is now such a lack of insects (invertebrate prey) to feed them that many chicks die in the nest: sad.


Our bats are suffering too due to lack of insects and habitat loss and pesticide use too.


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> You're missing the point I'm trying to make. Either that or you have great faith that the rich, powerful and ambitious won't find a way to commandeer any 'new system' for their own ends. I, being a cynical realist, don't - short of the Second Coming, anyway
> 
> Please note, I'm not saying it's right, or that we shouldn't try to change things for the better Of course we should, and I'm certainly trying to make a difference in many ways (though I don't often talk much about it). But if you think the current system is the worst it can get, you need to spend some time watching the History channel - plenty of other regimes of all sizes have managed to be much worse for both the environment and their citizens.


No, I'm not missing the point Jesthar, I understood what you meant. Those who are at the top now & many of our politicians are sociopaths - look at Trump & our new PM for example! But people are not asking for regime change, just for our current leaders to take the radical action required now. Our current economic model is a threat, not just to the future of humanity - but to life on earth. What other economic system can you say that about?

The industrialist capitalist model is unsustainable under any regime. What you or I do as individuals wont make any difference unless we drastically cut our emissions and switch to a sustainable economy. 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global emissions Jesthar. This is my point, individual action alone will not save us & the living planet unless we have bold leadership from above to police corporations etc..


----------



## Calvine

ForestWomble said:


> Our bats are suffering too due to lack of insects and habitat loss and pesticide use too.


There will be nothing left soon.


----------



## noushka05

Calvine said:


> The common house sparrow is on the point of becoming an endangered species (supposedly) as there is now such a lack of insects (invertebrate prey) to feed them that many chicks die in the nest: sad.


Professor Dave Goulson is a leading authority on wild pollinators. This is due to our current unsustainable economic model. https://gallery.mailchimp.com/5da0f..._Release_Land_Degradation_and_Restoration.pdf












Calvine said:


> There will be nothing left soon.


Which is why I don't understand why people put greater value on an economic system over our natural world - then bemoan at its impacts


----------



## Jesthar

noushka05 said:


> No, I'm not missing the point Jesthar, I understood what you meant. Those who are at the top now & many of our politicians are sociopaths - look at Trump & our new PM for example! But people are not asking for regime change, just for our current leaders to take the radical action required now. Our current economic model is a threat, not just to the future of humanity - but to life on earth. What other economic system can you say that about?


Historically speaking, most of them, unless you can give historical examples to the contrary (your doughnut theory doesn't count, as it's a theorum. We're talking real-life-actually-happened here.). We're just the first to really know it.



noushka05 said:


> The industrialist capitalist model is unsustainable under any regime. What you or I do as individuals wont make any difference unless we drastically cut our emissions and switch to a sustainable economy. 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global emissions Jesthar. This is my point, individual action alone will not save us & the living planet unless we have bold leadership from above to police corporations etc..


You know, you really do have a knack for expressing things in a way that causes people to question why they even bother trying to make any kind of a difference in their own small way. No, I can't fix everything, nor do I pretend I can. I'm one person, I can't do anything about, say, a juggernaut of a Chinese corporation. However, if ENOUGH individuals act, then you gain momemtum and start to achieve things.

It's perhaps fortunate for you I'm made of stern stuff, so I'm going to carry on doing what I can without waiting for The Powers That Be to get a grip (if they ever do). In the meantime, perhaps you might consider _inspiring _people to action, rather than bashing them over the head with constant, apathy inducing negativity? You obviously have a wealth of knowledge on this subject, why not use if for good?


----------



## ForestWomble

Jesthar said:


> Historically speaking, most of them, unless you can give historical examples to the contrary (your doughnut theory doesn't count, as it's a theorum. We're talking real-life-actually-happened here.). We're just the first to really know it.
> 
> *You know, you really do have a knack for expressing things in a way that causes people to question why they even bother trying to make any kind of a difference in their own small way. No, I can't fix everything, nor do I pretend I can. I'm one person, I can't do anything about, say, a juggernaut of a Chinese corporation. However, if ENOUGH individuals act, then you gain momemtum and start to achieve things.
> 
> It's perhaps fortunate for you I'm made of stern stuff, so I'm going to carry on doing what I can without waiting for The Powers That Be to get a grip (if they ever do). In the meantime, perhaps you might consider inspiring people to action, rather than bashing them over the head with constant, apathy inducing negativity? You obviously have a wealth of knowledge on this subject, why not use if for good?*


Excellent! 

It's like the saying from the film Dinotopia (might have origins elsewhere but its where I heard it)* *A single raindrop raises the sea**


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> What you or I do as individuals wont make any difference


Then why did you post the other day, listing what measures you are taking personally?

If efforts we as individuals are making to reduce our carbon footprint are one big waste of time, why bother?

Your posts are tediously negative.


----------



## rona

Here someone cashing in and not giving a toss about the environment
http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/news/stunning-photographic-safari-in-kenya-with-chris

https://order-order.com/2019/05/08/...ashing-carbon-belching-luxury-wildlife-tours/
"joining disruptive Extinction Rebellion protests, writing articles warning about the _"catastrophic impact"_ of climate change, ranting about _"extreme capitalism"_ or generally lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives"
"Funnily enough, Chris's concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own _"Travel with Chris Packham"_ . It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there."

88 tonnes apparently


----------



## lullabydream

rona said:


> Here someone cashing in and not giving a toss about the environment
> http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/news/stunning-photographic-safari-in-kenya-with-chris
> 
> https://order-order.com/2019/05/08/...ashing-carbon-belching-luxury-wildlife-tours/
> "joining disruptive Extinction Rebellion protests, writing articles warning about the _"catastrophic impact"_ of climate change, ranting about _"extreme capitalism"_ or generally lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives"
> "Funnily enough, Chris's concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own _"Travel with Chris Packham"_ . It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there."
> 
> 88 tonnes apparently


All I can say @rona is when Chris Packham was booked by my town as a has been celeb pre Autumn/Spring watch came back on our screens and the young children were all enquiring 'Who is he'... He was very brown then...or orange either a lot of fake tan or was loving his holidays... probably both I would say!


----------



## rona

lullabydream said:


> All I can say @rona is when Chris Packham was booked by my town as a has been celeb pre Autumn/Spring watch came back on our screens and the young children were all enquiring 'Who is he'... He was very brown then...or orange either a lot of fake tan or was loving his holidays... probably both I would say!


He does several a year apparently plus a cruise and a trip to Antarctica on snow mobiles.

Not only polluting by 100 tonnes but disturbing wildlife too 
* *


----------



## Beth78

Pfft silly man. I know he loves his wildlife. 
But just think man !
Hypocrisy


----------



## samuelsmiles3

rona said:


> Here someone cashing in and not giving a toss about the environment
> http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/news/stunning-photographic-safari-in-kenya-with-chris
> 
> https://order-order.com/2019/05/08/...ashing-carbon-belching-luxury-wildlife-tours/
> "joining disruptive Extinction Rebellion protests, writing articles warning about the _"catastrophic impact"_ of climate change, ranting about _"extreme capitalism"_ or generally lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives"
> "Funnily enough, Chris's concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own _"Travel with Chris Packham"_ . It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there."
> 
> 88 tonnes apparently


Utterly galling isn't it, Rona? Gobbing off at the Extinction Rebellion protests telling us peasants how we must all behave to save the planet, and yet here he is doing what we musn't.

They're all the same. All of them. Hypocrites.


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Utterly galling isn't it, Rona? Gobbing off at the Extinction Rebellion protests telling us peasants how we must all behave to save the planet, and yet here he is doing what we musn't.
> 
> They're all the same. All of them. Hypocrites.


Yep, it's like they keep jetting all over the world to spread the message


----------



## samuelsmiles3

And, just a reminder. This is one of billionaire 'climate change alarmist' Al Gore's houses in Nashville. Notice the absence of solar panels or wind turbines.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

rona said:


> Yep, it's like they keep jetting all over the world to spread the message


Yep. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism keeps the money rolling in.


----------



## mrs phas

samuelsmiles3 said:


> And, just a reminder. This is one of billionaire 'climate change alarmist' Al Gore's houses in Nashville. Notice the absence of solar panels or wind turbines.
> View attachment 410886


Not even a single flower for a bee or butterfly


----------



## O2.0

samuelsmiles3 said:


> And, just a reminder. This is one of billionaire 'climate change alarmist' Al Gore's houses in Nashville. Notice the absence of solar panels or wind turbines.
> View attachment 410886


That photo isn't Al Gore's Tennessee home. It might be his Florida home, but that house isn't in Tennessee, that kind of palmetto doesn't grow in that region. In fact, most of the flora in the unkempt parts of that photo are all wrong for that region.

Ah, just looked it up, that's his home in CA. I knew those plants and trees didn't look right. Thought the very green lawn is a huge red-flag in California with their water issues.

There were several news articles on his homes after An Inconvenient Truth came out, he did have his home in TN renovated to make some green changes, but it still uses and obscene amount of energy compared to the average American home.

I'm all for calling out the hypocrisy of the rich telling us plebs how to live, but let's be accurate in our criticisms otherwise we risk having everything dismissed. 
It may not be an obvious flaw to your eyes, but for those of us who spend a lot of time out in nature in many different regions of the US, there is a clear 'look' to each region. Not just the vegetation, but the look of the soil, the air, the sky. I love traveling around this country and experiencing the natural beauty everywhere, and you would no more confuse a Tennessee landscape with a Wyoming one than you would think a Scottish landscape looked like a Greek one. It's almost a little insulting, like saying a border collie looks like a boston terrier because they're both black and white. 

Nashville TN is in the Appalachian region (I'm in the same region, more southeast), and one glance tells me that photo is not in the Appalachian region.

But I agree with your criticism of folks like Gore's hypocrisy. Reminds me of this meme:


----------



## stuaz

samuelsmiles3 said:


> And, just a reminder. This is one of billionaire 'climate change alarmist' Al Gore's houses in Nashville. Notice the absence of solar panels or wind turbines.
> View attachment 410886


That house is actually in California. His Nashville house looks a lot less extravagant. That said, I do wonder how he waters that lush green lawn, considering most of California sits in very long running water shortage. My bet is that he isn't saving water to keep that lawn! 

Edited: Whoops cross posted with @O2.0


----------



## kimthecat

I wasn't that keen on Chris Packham until I saw a programme about his Aspergers and how he copes with it.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

O2.0 said:


> That photo isn't Al Gore's Tennessee home. It might be his Florida home, but that house isn't in Tennessee, that kind of palmetto doesn't grow in that region. In fact, most of the flora in the unkempt parts of that photo are all wrong for that region.
> 
> Ah, just looked it up, that's his home in CA. I knew those plants and trees didn't look right. Thought the very green lawn is a huge red-flag in California with their water issues.
> 
> There were several news articles on his homes after An Inconvenient Truth came out, he did have his home in TN renovated to make some green changes, but it still uses and obscene amount of energy compared to the average American home.
> 
> I'm all for calling out the hypocrisy of the rich telling us plebs how to live, but let's be accurate in our criticisms otherwise we risk having everything dismissed.
> It may not be an obvious flaw to your eyes, but for those of us who spend a lot of time out in nature in many different regions of the US, there is a clear 'look' to each region. Not just the vegetation, but the look of the soil, the air, the sky. I love traveling around this country and experiencing the natural beauty everywhere, and you would no more confuse a Tennessee landscape with a Wyoming one than you would think a Scottish landscape looked like a Greek one. It's almost a little insulting, like saying a border collie looks like a boston terrier because they're both black and white.
> 
> Nashville TN is in the Appalachian region (I'm in the same region, more southeast), and one glance tells me that photo is not in the Appalachian region.
> 
> But I agree with your criticism of folks like Gore's hypocrisy. Reminds me of this meme:
> 
> View attachment 410900


Fair points 0.20. Here are some notes about his Nashville home. This one does have some token solar panels.

_"Some basic math shows that Gore's annual pool heating bill is nearly seven times the annual electricity used by an entire American household."_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

It's interesting that the BBC reveals this story on the warmest day of the summer so far (Thursday could be even warmer.)

*Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months.*

Very alarming.

However, in 1868, before the industrial revolution (and therefore the effects of anthropogenic CO2 could be considered) we were having some exceptional temperatures. July 21st and 22nd in particular were very, very warm.

There is some discussion about the positioning of the temperature reading equipment being placed so that temperatures could be affected, but that discussion continues today, also, with some temperature gauge positioning. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is thought to influence many of today's readings. Anyway, here are the July 1868 heatwave numbers -


----------



## noushka05

Jesthar said:


> Historically speaking, most of them, unless you can give historical examples to the contrary (your doughnut theory doesn't count, as it's a theorum. We're talking real-life-actually-happened here.). We're just the first to really know it.


Non have been so devastating as the current model which began with the industrial revolution. It is a system which steals from the future & now we are nearing the end game.

Well we really know now that the climate & ecosystems which our whole food supply, economy and civilisation rely on cannot sustain _this_ economic model. Without urgently changing to a sustainable system, it is very difficult to see how we will make it to the end of this century.

This is the truth, determined by science, not by me.












Jesthar said:


> You know, you really do have a knack for expressing things in a way that causes people to question why they even bother trying to make any kind of a difference in their own small way. No, I can't fix everything, nor do I pretend I can. I'm one person, I can't do anything about, say, a juggernaut of a Chinese corporation. However, if ENOUGH individuals act, then you gain momemtum and start to achieve things.


I'm accept my vocabulary & delivery arent very good, but I am merely relaying the facts. There is no way to sugar coat them. If you listen to Attenborough or watch his Climate change documentary he paints a stark picture too, because this is the reality - yet we do still have time if we act now. .

We have to keep global temperatures to 1.5C pre-industrial times (preferably below), we have already reached approc 1.C pre industrial.. So if CO2 emissions carry on at the current rate we will reach + 1.5C in around 11 years time. This is why only radical action across all areas of society taken with immediate effect will work to avoid 1.5C. If we fail, we risk triggering dangerous tipping points which will result in dangerous runaway climate breakdown.

The constraint on action is political, leaders have broken promise after promise because they know taking bold action will make them unpopular with the public (as this thread seems to suggest) (eta, also many politicians work in the interest of their donors). The public need to show them this is what they want by taking to the streets and demanding it.



Jesthar said:


> It's perhaps fortunate for you I'm made of stern stuff, so I'm going to carry on doing what I can without waiting for The Powers That Be to get a grip (if they ever do). In the meantime, perhaps you might consider _inspiring _people to action, rather than bashing them over the head with constant, apathy inducing negativity? You obviously have a wealth of knowledge on this subject, why not use if for good?


I too am going to carry on doing my bit, we all should - but fully understanding the reality that must have radical changes from above. The powers that be have been promising action for decades and things have got worse not better, which is why people are taking to the streets Jesthar. This is what gives me hope, if masses more people took to the streets & supported the activists I believe we could force world leaders to act.

This is the summary of IPCC report. https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summ...obal-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/












ForestWomble said:


> Excellent!
> 
> It's like the saying from the film Dinotopia (might have origins elsewhere but its where I heard it)* *A single raindrop raises the sea**


We have to drastic action now. We have around 11 years to mitigate the worst effects FW.
*Planet has only until 2030 to stem catastrophic climate change, experts warn*
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html



Rafa said:


> Then why did you post the other day, listing what measures you are taking personally?
> 
> If efforts we as individuals are making to reduce our carbon footprint are one big waste of time, why bother?
> 
> Your posts are tediously negative


You have taken what I said completely out of context. I am doing my bit fully aware that climate change is not going to be stopped by individual action alone, we urgently need bold action from above. I have more hope than I have ever had that leaders will take climate change seriously, thanks to Greta & student strike movement & Extinction Rebellion.



noushka05 said:


> What you or I do as individuals wont make any difference unless we drastically cut our emissions and switch to a sustainable economy. 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global emissions Jesthar. This is my point, individual action *alone* will not save us & the living planet unless we have bold leadership from above to police corporations etc..


----------



## noushka05

samuelsmiles3 said:


> It's interesting that the BBC reveals this story on the warmest day of the summer so far (Thursday could be even warmer.)
> 
> *Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months.*
> 
> Very alarming.
> 
> However, in 1868, before the industrial revolution (and therefore the effects of anthropogenic CO2 could be considered) we were having some exceptional temperatures. July 21st and 22nd in particular were very, very warm.
> 
> There is some discussion about the positioning of the temperature reading equipment being placed so that temperatures could be affected, but that discussion continues today, also, with some temperature gauge positioning. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is thought to influence many of today's readings. Anyway, here are the July 1868 heatwave numbers -


Yet again, you conflate local weather with global temperatures & long term trends.

Global temperatures are rising.


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> Here someone cashing in and not giving a toss about the environment
> http://www.chrispackham.co.uk/news/stunning-photographic-safari-in-kenya-with-chris
> 
> https://order-order.com/2019/05/08/...ashing-carbon-belching-luxury-wildlife-tours/
> "joining disruptive Extinction Rebellion protests, writing articles warning about the _"catastrophic impact"_ of climate change, ranting about _"extreme capitalism"_ or generally lecturing everyone else on how to live their lives"
> "Funnily enough, Chris's concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own _"Travel with Chris Packham"_ . It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there."
> 
> 88 tonnes apparently


Does this apply to your hero, David Attenborough?. Doesn't he give a toss about the environment either. He must have a far bigger carbon footprint than Chris, yet he too supports the climate activists AND radical changes to our economy.

I suspect the reason you have singled Chris out, is because he isnt afraid to speak out about the horrific persecution of eagles, hen harrier & other species on the grouse moors.

The latest incidents have broke my heart.

WARNING to people who love raptors. Very distressing.


----------



## rona

:Yawn :Yawn :Yawn :Yawn :Yawn 

I'm such a wildlife hater


----------



## noushka05

rona said:


> :Yawn :Yawn :Yawn :Yawn :Yawn
> 
> I'm such a wildlife hater


On pretty much every raptor persecution thread you have sought to excuse wildlife crime on driven grouse moors despite the irrefutible evidence that grouse moors are are sink for birds of prey and the reason our beautiful hen harrier is on the brink of extinction. There is a wealth of evidence on this forum Rona.


----------



## noushka05

I hope people will listen to amazing Greta Thunberg's latest speech. Her understanding of the crisis is so profound and she articulates so well into layman terms (something I am incapable of doing).

_"....they say we children are exaggerating, that we are alarmists."

"To answer this, I would like to refer to page 108, chapter 2 in the latest IPCC report. There you will find all our 'opinions' summarised, because there you find our remaining carbon dioxide budget. Right there, it says if we are to have a 67% chance of limiting the global temperature rise to below 1.5C we had, on Jan 1st 2018, 420 GT of carbon left in our CO2 budget.

And of course, that number is much lower today! We omit about 42 GTs of CO2 every year. At current emissions levels that remaining budget is gone within roughly 8 and a half years.

These numbers are as real as it gets, though a great number of scientists suggest that they are too generous, these are the ones that have been accepted by all nations through the IPCC. And not once.........have I heard any politician, journalist or business leader - even mention these numbers. It is almost like you dont even know they exist. As if you haven't even read the latest IPCC report on which the future of our civilisation is depending. Or maybe you're simply not mature enough to tell it like it is? Because even that burden you leave to us children" We become the bad guys who have to tell people these uncomfortable things ...._


----------



## Elles

If the people who are warning us the most, are doing nothing themselves, or even worse than most of us, how are people going to believe them? If it’s a crisis and we’re heading for Armageddon, why on earth would people warning us about it carry on as usual and make even more money out of it? Are we being duped? I’m not a scientist, I can only go on what they say and they could be making it up.

What they aren’t making up, because I can see it and breathe it myself, is that bad air is bad and chemicals and plastic rubbish is lethal to wildlife. The global warming/climate change thing I have to rely on others and when the others are charging £8k to fly to safaris in Africa and living in luxury dwellings they will neither give up, nor improve, forgive me for being sceptical.


----------



## rona

I really must look at my buying habits now I'm not quite on the breadline, when I wash up these days, I have more recycling than plates 

Just so much packaging


----------



## MilleD

noushka05 said:


> _
> And of course, that number is much lower today! We omit about 42 GTs of CO2 every year. At current emissions levels that remaining budget is gone within roughly 8 and a half years.
> 
> _


Surely if we 'omit' it, that's good right?


----------



## Calvine

rona said:


> Just so much packaging


And for the simplest things - it takes you an age to get a biscuit out of its packaging sometimes.


----------



## Magyarmum

MilleD said:


> Surely if we 'omit' it, that's good right?


----------



## noushka05

Elles said:


> If the people who are warning us the most, are doing nothing themselves, or even worse than most of us, how are people going to believe them? If it's a crisis and we're heading for Armageddon, why on earth would people warning us about it carry on as usual and make even more money out of it? Are we being duped? I'm not a scientist, I can only go on what they say and they could be making it up.


This is a massive sweeping statement. Plenty of climate experts & climate commentators are leading by example. And rather than looking at celebrities, you could try getting your information from scientific sources Elles .

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Because it would have to be a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions to believe that tens of thousands of scientists involved in climate change, the worlds leading scientific institutions & most of the worlds governments (who are doing sod all to address it!) have made it all up.

Even if there was no climate change - what about all the other environmental crisis we are facing? the sixth mass extinction. The soil crisis. Phosphorous crisis, Antibiotic crisis & so on, at their root is the same problem - the belief we can have perpetual growth on a finite planet.



Elles said:


> What they aren't making up, because I can see it and breathe it myself, is that bad air is bad and chemicals and plastic rubbish is lethal to wildlife. The global warming/climate change thing I have to rely on others and when the others are charging £8k to fly to safaris in Africa and living in luxury dwellings they will neither give up, nor improve, forgive me for being sceptical.


Bad air, chemicals, plastic rubbish - all thanks to our current economic model

The evidence of the already devastating impacts of climate change are all around us - if we choose to look.

Leo Hickman is an expert on climate change has this pinned on his twitter feed.










Fast forward to 2019.





















rona said:


> I really must look at my buying habits now I'm not quite on the breadline, when I wash up these days, I have more recycling than plates
> *
> Just so much packaging*


Thats capitalism for ya.



MilleD said:


> Surely if we 'omit' it, that's good right?


Emit


----------



## Guest

noushka05 said:


> Fast forward to 2019.


So I am guessing you didn't enjoy the hot weather in the UK yesterday? 

We had over 40 degrees here in the Netherlands yesterday and had a lovely fun day and are set to over 37 degrees today. Weather is going to change over the weekend and it is going to rain next week. So we are enjoying the sun and heat whilst it lasts.


----------



## Guest

We (my partner and I) do what we can to help cut back on waste (plastics etc).


----------



## noushka05

saartje said:


> So I am guessing you didn't enjoy the hot weather in the UK yesterday?
> 
> We had over 40 degrees here in the Netherlands yesterday and had a lovely fun day.


Not really & neither did my pets. I prefer a stable climate because I treasure the living world & my precious children. The rising temperatures only make me fear for their future.

(You might have had a fun day, but please bare in mind some people & creatures will have perished due to this excessive heat)

I guess the media in the Netherlands are as bad as our useless media by framing the heatwave as a positive? If only our uk media as much attention to this REAL crisis we face instead of brexit, we would have had a far better chance of addressing it. Now we have a hard right government at the helm its going to be so much tougher.


----------



## noushka05




----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.cityam.com/bad-day-at-t...urce=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign

*Bad day at the office: Climate change activists protest outside the wrong building*


----------



## MollySmith

Ethiopia have broken a world record by planting 350 million tress in 12 hours to tackle with the climate crisis.


----------



## Magyarmum

MollySmith said:


> Ethiopia have broken a world record by planting 350 million tress in 12 hours to tackle with the climate crisis.


I think you must e following me around, because I'd already posted it on the ER thread

*MagyarmumPetForums VIP*

Makes the 25 trees I've planted look insignificant!

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/africa/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-intl-hnk/index.html

*Ethiopia plants more than 350 million trees in 12 hours*

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/04/...hirds-of-carbon-emissions-scn-intl/index.html

*Restoring forests could capture two-thirds of the carbon humans have added to the atmosphere*


----------



## Rafa

noushka05 said:


> Not really & neither did my pets. I prefer a stable climate because I treasure the living world & my precious children. The rising temperatures only make me fear for their future.
> 
> (You might have had a fun day, but please bare in mind some people & creatures will have perished due to this excessive heat)


Oh, for Heaven's sake!

This Summer has been very mediocre. A few warm days here and there.

Then, we get two hot and humid days and here you are preaching death, doom and tragedy.

Nobody should make the most of it and maybe take the children to the seaside, instead, they should stay at home, rigid with fear, preaching to their kids about the impending horror about to befall them.


----------



## mrs phas

MollySmith said:


> Ethiopia have broken a world record by planting 350 million tress in 12 hours to tackle with the climate crisis.


And just where is the water going to come from to help them grow? Don't you know we're running out of water fast


----------



## mrs phas

Rafa said:


> Oh, for Heaven's sake!
> 
> This Summer has been very mediocre. A few warm days here and there.
> 
> Then, we get two hot and humid days and here you are preaching death, doom and tragedy.
> 
> Nobody should make the most of it and maybe take the children to the seaside, instead, they should stay at home, rigid with fear, preaching to their kids about the impending horror about to befall them.


I'm going to presume non of these harbingers of doom were alive during the summer of 76
They all would've been running around like headless chickens shouting
Doom doom and thrice ye doom!


----------



## Rafa

mrs phas said:


> I'm going to presume non of these harbingers of doom were alive during the summer of 76
> They all would've been running around like headless chickens shouting
> Doom doom and thrice ye doom!


Exactly. Remember it well.

Also, the Winter of 1963 when we were snowed in for weeks on end.


----------



## Magyarmum

Rafa said:


> Exactly. Remember it well.
> 
> Also, the Winter of 1963 when we were snowed in for weeks on end.


I remember the winter of 1947 when I couldn't get to school for 6 weeks.


----------



## MollySmith

mrs phas said:


> And just where is the water going to come from to help them grow? Don't you know we're running out of water fast


No idea. Yes I do.

But I'm pretty sure that it's been thought about, the water shortage there is a little more dire than the West and even... shock horror... the one in 76 in the UK.
https://www.ecowatch.com/ethiopia-p...es-2639514648.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1


----------



## MollySmith

Magyarmum said:


> I think you must e following me around, because I'd already posted it on the ER thread
> 
> *MagyarmumPetForums VIP*
> 
> Makes the 25 trees I've planted look insignificant!
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/africa/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-intl-hnk/index.html
> 
> *Ethiopia plants more than 350 million trees in 12 hours*
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/04/...hirds-of-carbon-emissions-scn-intl/index.html
> 
> *Restoring forests could capture two-thirds of the carbon humans have added to the atmosphere*


:Bag:Bag:Bag:Bag:Bag I was going undercover in my eco friendly paper bag disguise


----------



## mrs phas

MollySmith said:


> No idea. Yes I do.
> 
> But I'm pretty sure that it's been thought about, the water shortage there is a little more dire than the West and even... shock horror... the one in 76 in the UK.
> https://www.ecowatch.com/ethiopia-p...es-2639514648.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1


for goodness sake, did you not see the winking smilies?
they were put there so everyone could see i was joking, at least those who read a post properly, not just the bits that they wanted to pick apart
the water shortage in 76, for most regions, the rain started a couple of days after the minister for drought, Dennis Howell, was introduced and continued for the next 10 days, within which time period his title was changed to minister for flooding
but youre right
bob geldof never had to hold a fundraiser for the drought of 76 ( which actually started in sept75) like he did for ethiopia


----------



## MollySmith

mrs phas said:


> for goodness sake, did you not see the winking smilies?
> they were put there so everyone could see i was joking, at least those who read a post properly, not just the bits that they wanted to pick apart
> the water shortage in 76, for most regions, the rain started a couple of days after the minister for drought, Dennis Howell, was introduced and continued for the next 10 days, within which time period his title was changed to minister for flooding
> but youre right
> bob geldof never had to hold a fundraiser for the drought of 76 ( which actually started in sept75) like he did for ethiopia


I was around in 76 too. The climate change started before 76, or at least it's since the 70s when the Earth Overshoot Day scientists began to record that we were in a deficit - that's to say we're using more energy than the Earth can provide. There is a thread on it with a link. But if that data is correct, then 76 is a marker too.


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> https://www.cityam.com/bad-day-at-t...urce=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign
> 
> *Bad day at the office: Climate change activists protest outside the wrong building*


:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## Calvine

I rest my case!! Hypocrites, and thick ones too if they think no-one will notice the double standards being displayed.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/r...climate-change-using-hundreds-of-private-jets

:Arghh:Arghh


----------



## rona

Calvine said:


> I rest my case!!
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/r...climate-change-using-hundreds-of-private-jets


Lot of money behind suppressing the masses


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> I rest my case!! Hypocrites, and thick ones too if they think no-one will notice the double standards being displayed.
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/r...climate-change-using-hundreds-of-private-jets
> 
> :Arghh:Arghh


A word of warning! Put on your tin hat and be prepared to be s*** on from great heights by "she who is always right - or believes she is"!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-site-news/


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> A word of warning! Put on your tin hat and be prepared to be s*** on from great heights by "she who is always right - or believes she is"!
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-site-news/


She knows that I have her on ignore!!


----------



## noushka05

Rafa said:


> Oh, for Heaven's sake!
> 
> This Summer has been very mediocre. A few warm days here and there.
> 
> Then, we get two hot and humid days and here you are preaching death, doom and tragedy.
> 
> Nobody should make the most of it and maybe take the children to the seaside, instead, they should stay at home, rigid with fear, preaching to their kids about the impending horror about to befall them.


Spare a thought.

(And as the temperatures continue to rise more & more people, animals, species will die. Life on earth is in peril - our civilisation is facing collapse.)(Michael Mann is a world leading climate scientist)



















Its clear from this post that your_ "own strong opinions on climate change_' are at odds with the science.

These are actual facts Rafa > June was not only the hottest June EVER recorded in Europe, it was also the hottest June on record globally! The past 4 years have been the 4 warmest years on record - and the warmest 20 years on record have been in the last 22 years.

The 'long term trend' shows global temperatures are RISING, already we have exceeded 1.C pre industrial temps. Each degree of warming increases our risk of triggering dangerous irreversible tipping points which will lead to rapid warming which will be unstoppable. The perma frosts are already melting releasing deadly methane. The Arctic is on fire. Greenland ice sheet is melting.

What terrifies me more than anything is the apathy & the cowardice of people who choose to be wilfully blind even while our beautiful living planet collapses around them. Its this mentality which will doom us to fail. Without the masses rising up, what hope is there?.

The Age of Stupid:_ "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"_

FACTS.









https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-...and-climate/2019/state-of-the-uk-climate-2018

















Calvine said:


> I rest my case!! Hypocrites, and thick ones too if they think no-one will notice the double standards being displayed.
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/r...climate-change-using-hundreds-of-private-jets
> 
> :Arghh:Arghh


They're not all hypocrites Calvine, its just you don't want to know about those who are leading by example.



rona said:


> Lot of money behind suppressing the masses


You mean suppress the masses with propaganda so our current economic model can carry on destroying the planet for greed ? Then I agree.



Magyarmum said:


> A word of warning! Put on your tin hat and be prepared to be s*** on from great heights by "she who is always right - or believes she is"!
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-site-news/


 For those who are anti science, here is a taste of reality. We are in climate/ecological emergency whether you choose to believe it or not. If we don't urgently & radically change our current system, we will destroy the natural systems everything depends upon for survival.

I will always heed the experts, as I am not so arrogant to believe I am better informed than they are. And then, I have peace of mind knowing, I will have done the best I could for my childrens future & all the life forms we share this planet with.


----------



## noushka05

Touche!


----------



## noushka05

mrs phas said:


> I'm going to presume non of these harbingers of doom were alive during the summer of 76
> They all would've been running around like headless chickens shouting
> Doom doom and thrice ye doom!





Rafa said:


> Exactly. Remember it well.
> 
> Also, the Winter of 1963 when we were snowed in for weeks on end.


You are confusing a localised weather anomaly with climate. Weather & climate are not the same thing. Climate is about long term trends.

Can you see the difference? The whole planet is heating up.





















Magyarmum said:


> I remember the winter of 1947 when I couldn't get to school for 6 weeks.


Sigh.

Once again you confuse weather fluctuations/seasons with long term climate trends. Climate change is based on long term trends not like the daily weather. And the long term global picture is the climate is getting warmer & warmer and.....


----------



## Cleo38

Calvine said:


> I rest my case!! Hypocrites, and thick ones too if they think no-one will notice the double standards being displayed.
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/r...climate-change-using-hundreds-of-private-jets
> 
> :Arghh:Arghh


Unbelievable isn't it?! Tbh it's almost laughable & like a scene from something Chris Morris would write 

Makes a complete mockery of the cause & probably does more harm than good


----------



## Elles

If they believed it, you’d think they’d cut back on their excesses. They’d rather we do, so they can carry on.


----------



## Calvine

Cleo38 said:


> Unbelievable isn't it?! Tbh it's almost laughable & like a scene from something Chris Morris would write
> 
> Makes a complete mockery of the cause & probably does more harm than good


Such obvious ''virtue signalling'' really makes you want to heave.


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> They'd rather we do, so they can carry on.


 Oh yes indeed! ''Don't do as I do, do as I say,'' comes to mind. What do these little get-togethers of the rich and famous (and hypocritical) actually achieve? Other than publicity for their goodly and caring selves?


----------



## Magyarmum

[QUOTE="noushka05, post: 1065476120, member: 2189"}

For those who are anti science, here is a taste of reality. We are in climate/ecological emergency whether you choose to believe it or not. If we don't urgently & radically change our current system, we will destroy the natural systems everything depends upon for survival.

I will always heed the experts, as I am not so arrogant to believe I am better informed than they are. And then, I have peace of mind knowing, I will have done the best I could for my childrens future & all the life forms we share this planet with.


































[/QUOTE]

You're jumping to conclusions! Had you read my post correctly you'd have realised I was warning @Calvine that the publishers of the article she posted were suspect and to expect you to pick up on the fact........ that's all! Which doesn't prove me to be a climate denier or not understanding what's happening with the planet.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-site-news/

*LifeSiteNews*

_*Has this Media Source failed a fact check?*_ *LET US KNOW HERE.*

Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare190
*RIGHT BIAS*
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.


*Overall, we rate LifeSiteNews far right biased based on story selection that always favors evangelical Christianity and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks.*
*Detailed Report*
Factual Reporting: *MIXED*
Country: *Canada*
World Press Freedom Rank: *Canada 18/180*

_*History*_

_According to their about page LifeSiteNews "is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family." The website was founded by the Campaign Life Coalition which is a Canadian political lobbyist organization founded in 1978. Based in Toronto, the organization advocates for socially conservative values. In addition to its initial goals of passing restrictions on abortion and euthanasia, Campaign Life Coalition advocates for what it describes as traditional family values, including opposition to same-sex marriage and age-inappropriate sex education._

_*Funded by / Ownership*_

_LifeSiteNews is owned by the Conservative Campaign Life Coalition and is funded, according to their about page as "LifeSiteNews.com depends primarily on the donations of generous readers to maintain its free service. It also has a paid advertising program."_

_*Analysis / Bias*_

_In review, LifeSiteNews primarily reports on anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro-Evangelical Christian Issues. An example of a pro-Christian story can be found here: Why being Christian means traveling with Jesus from Bethlehem to Calvary. LifeSiteNews also has a favorable opinion of President Trump as evidenced by this piece: How Trump brought Christmas back to America. Editorially, every single story is right leaning, such as this story that also sources non-credible sources such as Rush Limbaugh and CNSNews. In general, story selection favors the Christian right and denigrates the left._

_A factual search reveals that LifeSiteNews has failed a few fact checks by IFCN fact checkers here and here._


_Target is donating $100,000 to "promote gay lifestyles to school children." - *MOSTLY FALSE*_
_Parents in California are not allowed to pull their children out of sexual education classes. - *MOSTLY FALSE*_
_The proceeds of Girl Scout Cookies are used to support Planned Parenthood. - *FALSE*_
_Overall, we rate LifeSiteNews far right biased based on story selection that always favors evangelical Christianity and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks. (11/25/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 06/18/2019)_


----------



## rona

Magyarmum said:


> Which doesn't prove me to be a climate denier or not understanding what's happening with the planet.


Same as all of us, what some seem to have missed is that we are objecting to the delivery and hypocrisy not the message


----------



## rona

Magyarmum said:


> Had you read my post correctly you'd have realised I was warning @Calvine that the publishers of the article she posted were suspect


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ed-by-hollywood-stars-slammed-as-hypocritical

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/b1d176202beead4c0ab861a99ceeb6ab

There are loads of other sources to this story, some more reliable than others


----------



## Calvine

rona said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ed-by-hollywood-stars-slammed-as-hypocritical
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/b1d176202beead4c0ab861a99ceeb6ab
> 
> There are loads of other sources to this story, some more reliable than others


 Yes: I could have taken my pick of about 10.


----------



## Magyarmum

noushka05 said:


> You are confusing a localised weather anomaly with climate. Weather & climate are not the same thing. Climate is about long term trends.
> 
> Can you see the difference? The whole planet is heating up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sigh.
> 
> Once again you confuse weather fluctuations/seasons with long term climate trends. Climate change is based on long term trends not like the daily weather. And the long term global picture is the climate is getting warmer & warmer and...*..


No I'm not!

I do know the difference between weather fluctuations and climate change without being given a Reith lecture on the subject..

I didn't realise that going slightly off topic isn't allowed .......... silly me!


----------



## lullabydream

Magyarmum said:


> No I'm not!
> 
> I do know the difference between weather fluctuations and climate change without being given a Reith lecture on the subject..
> 
> I didn't realise that going slightly off topic isn't allowed .......... silly me!


To be fair it was only the other week the industrial revolution was being blamed for Climate change...so it could be logical to presume any weird and wonderful climate anomalies 'may' be part of it all...they might not show a specific trend on a graph but then science does not read text books!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Found this really interesting extract from a book about heat events and wildfires in the Arctic. Well worth a read taking into account recent newspaper articles.


----------



## Magyarmum

Food for thought ....

https://theconversation.com/what-karl-marx-has-to-say-about-todays-environmental-problems-97479

*What Karl Marx has to say about today's environmental problems*

…all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility.

- Karl Marx, Capital vol 1


----------



## rona

Magyarmum said:


> Food for thought ....
> 
> https://theconversation.com/what-karl-marx-has-to-say-about-todays-environmental-problems-97479
> 
> *What Karl Marx has to say about today's environmental problems*
> 
> …all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility.
> 
> - Karl Marx, Capital vol 1


This has been so true but modern methods and modern farmers are now changing this in the UK


----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lfish-as-it-lays-out-climate-crisis-blueprint

*'Fight for our lives': Fiji calls world leaders 'selfish' as it lays out climate crisis blueprint*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Magyarmum said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lfish-as-it-lays-out-climate-crisis-blueprint
> 
> *'Fight for our lives': Fiji calls world leaders 'selfish' as it lays out climate crisis blueprint*


They are not so concerned that they are discouraging flying to their islands, though.

Fiji breaks ground on Nausori International Airport upgrade

"A modern, world-class airport in Nausori will* attract more tourists, diplomats, and business travellers to come directly to Suva*."

And some studies are showing that islands are growing - not sinking.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is a study that suggests Fiji is not in danger of being inundated because of sea level rise.

New Records of Sea Level Changes
in the Fiji Islands

_"In the last 60 years coral reefs died due to a sea level lowering of about 10-20 cm or due to severe coral bleaching
at the 1998 ENSO event. After that, very stable sea level conditions must have prevailed forcing corals at several sites 
to grow laterally into microatolls.
This documentation (Figure 57) implies that there is a total lack of signs indicating a present rise in sea level; on 
the contrary, our results are indicative of quite stable sea level conditions.

Consequently, our records may be taken as
reassurance for low-laying coasts and islands that potential for flooding in the near future is unlikely."
_
Added to this are many previous claims of catastrophic sea level rise that have always proven to be very different to reality.


----------



## noushka05

Cleo38 said:


> Unbelievable isn't it?! Tbh it's almost laughable & like a scene from something Chris Morris would write
> 
> Makes a complete mockery of the cause &* probably does more harm than good*


World leading climate scientist, Kevin Anderson, would agree. He calls them the climate glitterati.












Elles said:


> If they believed it, you'd think they'd cut back on their excesses. They'd rather we do, so they can carry on.


They are neoliberals Elles.. What else do you expect ?



Calvine said:


> Such obvious ''virtue signalling'' really makes you want to heave.





Calvine said:


> Oh yes indeed! ''Don't do as I do, do as I say,'' comes to mind. What do these little get-togethers of the rich and famous (and hypocritical) actually achieve? Other than publicity for their goodly and caring selves?





rona said:


> Same as all of us, what some seem to have missed is that we are objecting to the delivery and hypocrisy not the message





rona said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...ed-by-hollywood-stars-slammed-as-hypocritical
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/b1d176202beead4c0ab861a99ceeb6ab
> 
> There are loads of other sources to this story, some more reliable than others


Didn't many of you ridicule young Greta for holding these rich & powerful people to account at Davos ?















]



Magyarmum said:


> No I'm not!
> 
> I do know the difference between weather fluctuations and climate change without being given a Reith lecture on the subject..
> 
> I didn't realise that going slightly off topic isn't allowed .......... silly me!


I've read your discussion & your previous posts & likes MM.



Rafa said:


> Oh, for Heaven's sake!
> 
> This Summer has been very mediocre. A few warm days here and there.
> 
> Then, we get two hot and humid days and here you are preaching death, doom and tragedy.
> 
> Nobody should make the most of it and maybe take the children to the seaside, instead, they should stay at home, rigid with fear, preaching to their kids about the impending horror about to befall them.





mrs phas said:


> I'm going to presume non of these harbingers of doom were alive during the summer of 76
> They all would've been running around like headless chickens shouting
> Doom doom and thrice ye doom!





Rafa said:


> Exactly. Remember it well.
> 
> Also, the Winter of 1963 when we were snowed in for weeks on end.





Magyarmum said:


> I remember the winter of 1947 when I couldn't get to school for 6 weeks.


Just a mediocre summer...










*July Was the Hottest Month in Human History*
*The climate disaster isn't coming. It's here.*


https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/july-2019-hottest-month-ever-866436/


lullabydream said:


> To be fair it was only the other week the industrial revolution was being blamed for Climate change...so it could be logical to presume any weird and wonderful climate anomalies 'may' be part of it all...they might not show a specific trend on a graph but then science does not read text books!


>>>

Industrial revolution
A period of rapid industrial growth with far-reaching social and economic consequences, beginning in Britain during the second half of the eighteenth century and spreading to Europe and later to other countries including the United States. The invention of the steam engine was an important trigger of this development. The industrial revolution marks the beginning of a strong increase in the use of fossil fuels and emission of, in particular, fossil *carbon dioxide*. In this report the terms pre-industrial and industrial refer, somewhat arbitrarily, to the periods before and after 1750, respectively.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.





















samuelsmiles3 said:


> Found this really interesting extract from a book about heat events and wildfires in the Arctic. Well worth a read taking into account recent newspaper articles.





samuelsmiles3 said:


> This is a study that suggests Fiji is not in danger of being inundated because of sea level rise.
> 
> New Records of Sea Level Changes
> in the Fiji Islands
> 
> _"In the last 60 years coral reefs died due to a sea level lowering of about 10-20 cm or due to severe coral bleaching
> at the 1998 ENSO event. After that, very stable sea level conditions must have prevailed forcing corals at several sites
> to grow laterally into microatolls.
> This documentation (Figure 57) implies that there is a total lack of signs indicating a present rise in sea level; on
> the contrary, our results are indicative of quite stable sea level conditions.
> 
> Consequently, our records may be taken as
> reassurance for low-laying coasts and islands that potential for flooding in the near future is unlikely."
> _
> Added to this are many previous claims of catastrophic sea level rise that have always proven to be very different to reality.


[/QUOTE]

More cherrypicking.


----------



## noushka05

Bella Lack. another amazing young lady, who hasn't lost her connection to nature as many of our generation appear to have. I head her speak ay the Peoples Walk for Wildlife last year and she is so articulate & caring. Shame on those who are trolling the youngsters who are fighting for a habitable planet & a fairer society.


----------



## rona

noushka05 said:


> Didn't many of you ridicule young Greta for holding these rich & powerful people to account at Davos ?


Most are concerned about her being manipulated and having to deal with the mental anguish, but you carry on thinking whatever...........in your warped little way you have


----------



## O2.0

noushka05 said:


> Didn't many of you ridicule young Greta for holding these rich & powerful people to account at Davos ?


I was part of that conversation, and I don't remember a single person ridiculing Greta. If you remember differently I would love to see the examples.

BTW, most of your twitter screenshots don't show up for me. Don't know if it's a different wifi thing or what but I just get a bunch of these:









Not that I'm complaining! :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## Magyarmum

https://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/au-m...henderson-paradis-perdu-plastique-735148.html

*In the middle of the Pacific, Henderson Island, paradise lost by the plastic*

https://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/reun...onia-avaient-du-plastique-estomac-733176.html

*220 sea turtles treated by Kelonia had plastic in the stomach*


----------



## Magyarmum

https://webdoc.france24.com/algae-beaches-france-saint-brieuc-farming/

*A favourite of summer holidaymakers, the bay of Saint-Brieuc in northwest France has been swamped by tonnes of toxic green algae, dealing a blow to a region that hoped to have put the noxious - and potentially lethal - scourge behind it. *


----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

*Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet*

https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/land-critical-resource-ipcc-report-says

*Land is a Critical Resource, IPCC report says*


----------



## Magyarmum

I worked with sangoma in South Africa, and one of our projects was growing and preserving the traditional herbs they use in their medicine.

Absolutely fascinating!

https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/08...ssons-about-wildlife-and-land-use-experts-say

*Indigenous peoples can teach us lessons about wildlife and land use, experts say*


----------



## Magyarmum

https://horizon-magazine.eu/article...dium=share&fbclid=IwAR02kw-1q2eX_aPpZiS2BKomV

*Sharing seeds could help farmers grow better food*


----------



## Magyarmum

In view of some of the opinions expressed on this and other threads I thought this was quite relevant!

https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/three-ways-to-spot-a-conspiracy-theory/p07j9sjk


----------



## Magyarmum

https://luxtimes.lu/european-union/38133-the-case-for-an-eu-climate-and-nature-czar

*The case for an EU climate and nature czar*


----------



## Magyarmum

Magyarmum said:


> I worked with sangoma in South Africa, and one of our projects was growing and preserving the traditional herbs they use in their medicine.
> 
> Absolutely fascinating!
> 
> https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/08...ssons-about-wildlife-and-land-use-experts-say
> 
> *Indigenous peoples can teach us lessons about wildlife and land use, experts say*


Interesting article, A reply from indigenous people .....

https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/08...ists-recognize-what-we-have-always-known-view

*Finally, the world's top climate scientists recognize what we have always known ǀ*


----------



## Jesthar

Not a good day for wildlife in the USA. The Trump administration is rolling back a major part of endangered species environmental protection law. Some of the key changes are:


Previously only science was allowed to be taken into account when assessing environmental matters and deciding if animals are in danger. Now, 'economic impact' (i.e. financial cost of protecting a species, so for example how much the profit margins of logging or mining companies might be impacted by having to protect animals) will be a deciding factor too.
It will be easier to get species removed from the endangered list
The impact of climate change can be disregarded

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-rule-change-species-extinction-a9054731.html


----------



## Magyarmum

Jesthar said:


> Not a good day for wildlife in the USA. The Trump administration is rolling back a major part of endangered species environmental protection law. Some of the key changes are:
> 
> 
> Previously only science was allowed to be taken into account when assessing environmental matters and deciding if animals are in danger. Now, 'economic impact' (i.e. financial cost of protecting a species, so for example how much the profit margins of logging or mining companies might be impacted by having to protect animals) will be a deciding factor too.
> It will be easier to get species removed from the endangered list
> The impact of climate change can be disregarded
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-rule-change-species-extinction-a9054731.html


That man is really despicable ....... Did you know he quietly slipped this one in last month as well?

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-science-alaska-drilling-rush/

*How Science Got Trampled in the Rush to Drill in the Arctic*


----------



## Magyarmum

*The Daily Mash
*
*Environmentalist too self-important to worry about Brexit*
14th August 2019









*A MAN refuses to waste his time thinking about Brexit because intelligent people like him are more concerned with saving the planet.*

Tom Booker regularly tells friends and colleagues that destroying the environment would be far worse than a no-deal Brexit, something he believes has not occurred to them.

Administration assistant Booker said: "I've got a direct debit with Friends of the Earth and I cycle to work, so I can see the big picture.

"But most people can't grasp that the Earth becoming uninhabitable is more important than a recession and a few job losses. I actually feel sorry for them, not understanding things like I do.

"I told Lucy 'You won't be worrying about your sister's insulin when the human race is extinct', but she just stared at me. I expect she was feeling guilty about her carbon footprint."

Co-worker Donna Sheridan said: "Ironically he's probably helping to destroy the environment, because after speaking to the condescending pr*ck you feel like booting a penguin into landfill just for the hell of it."


----------



## rona

Magyarmum said:


> *The Daily Mash
> *
> *Environmentalist too self-important to worry about Brexit*
> 14th August 2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A MAN refuses to waste his time thinking about Brexit because intelligent people like him are more concerned with saving the planet.*
> 
> Tom Booker regularly tells friends and colleagues that destroying the environment would be far worse than a no-deal Brexit, something he believes has not occurred to them.
> 
> Administration assistant Booker said: "I've got a direct debit with Friends of the Earth and I cycle to work, so I can see the big picture.
> 
> "But most people can't grasp that the Earth becoming uninhabitable is more important than a recession and a few job losses. I actually feel sorry for them, not understanding things like I do.
> 
> "I told Lucy 'You won't be worrying about your sister's insulin when the human race is extinct', but she just stared at me. I expect she was feeling guilty about her carbon footprint."
> 
> Co-worker Donna Sheridan said: "Ironically he's probably helping to destroy the environment, because after speaking to the condescending pr*ck you feel like booting a penguin into landfill just for the hell of it."


Haha I didn't expect you to


----------



## lullabydream

Magyarmum said:


> Co-worker Donna Sheridan said: "Ironically he's probably helping to destroy the environment, because after speaking to the condescending pr*ck you feel like booting a penguin into landfill just for the hell of it."


Love this comment...

Hold my hands up to saying something similar on this thread but am just not as witty!


----------



## lullabydream

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/meet-mum-inspired-daughters-open-3204627

Anyone know of places similar?

No doubt this place won't be enough for some..

Interesting comment about oil too in the article


----------



## Magyarmum

lullabydream said:


> https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/meet-mum-inspired-daughters-open-3204627
> 
> Anyone know of places similar?
> 
> No doubt this place won't be enough for some..
> 
> Interesting comment about oil too in the article


https://welovebudapest.com/en/2018/11/08/buda-gets-a-new-zero-waste-store-for-plastic-free-shopping/

*BUDA GETS A NEW ZERO-WASTE STORE FOR PLASTIC-FREE SHOPPING*


----------



## Magyarmum

A quite frightening article ....

https://qz.com/1689529/nurdles-are-...d-of/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=daily-brief

*Virgin plastic pellets are the biggest pollution disaster you've never heard of*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

In 1989 UN scientists said that 1/6th of Bangladesh (coasts) would be flooded and 22 million displaced by sea level rise.

1989 - U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
"_Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people."_

2017 - Where is the coast? Monitoring coastal land dynamics in Bangladesh:
An integrated management approach using GIS and remote sensing techniques
"_Overall land dynamics indicate a net gain of 237 km2 (7.9 km2 annual average) of land in the area for the whole period from 1985 to 2015."_

That was 40 years ago, so it's not quite doing what it is supposed to be doing.

.


----------



## kimthecat

Awful fires in the Amazon. Devasting ,  Cant help thinking of the poor animals , they dont have a chance.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

kimthecat said:


> Awful fires in the Amazon. Devasting ,  Cant help thinking of the poor animals , they dont have a chance.


We have to be very careful, Kimthecat - there is a lot of misinformation and hysteria in the media (social and mainstream) right now. This NASA analysys puts things into perspective.

_"As of August 16, 2019 an analysys of NASA satellite data indicated that *total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the last 15 years"*_

President Macron tweeted a much publicized photograph yesterday of a fire raging in 'the Amazon' adding to the hysterical outpourings. It was a stock image from a photo library taken in 2003 by a photojournalist called Loren McIntyre.

This is not a 'climate change' story.


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> We have to be very careful, Kimthecat - there is a lot of misinformation and hysteria in the media (social and mainstream) right now. This NASA analysys puts things into perspective.
> 
> _"As of August 16, 2019 an analysys of NASA satellite data indicated that *total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the last 15 years"*_
> 
> President Macron tweeted a much publicized photograph yesterday of a fire raging in 'the Amazon' adding to the hysterical outpourings. It was a stock image from a photo library taken in 2003 by a photojournalist called Loren McIntyre.
> 
> This is not a 'climate change' story.


Love that link. Found this too
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/videos/the-ozone-hole

There's also an article about the ice caps melting mainly, though not totally, through warmed water from beneath. This backs up a link I put on earlier in this thread


----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.boredpanda.com/500-mill...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

*500 Million Bees Have Already Died In Brazil Within Three Months And The Future Of Our Food Is In Question*


----------



## ForestWomble

Magyarmum said:


> https://www.boredpanda.com/500-mill...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic
> 
> *500 Million Bees Have Already Died In Brazil Within Three Months And The Future Of Our Food Is In Question*


When will governments learn to stop increasing the use of pesticides


----------



## mrs phas

ForestWomble said:


> When will governments learn to stop increasing the use of pesticides


Wait til BJ (i m so childish, that made me snigger) ties us in as the 51st state and we're eating gmf and using stuff akin to agent orange, as pesticides


----------



## mrs phas

Seeing as meat farming is being touted as next to Satan when it comes to global warming
And
Feeding raw or animal based kibble is part of that
Has anyone tried this with their dogs?

https://www.allaboutdogfood.co.uk/dog-food-reviews/1950/yora-dog-food


----------



## Magyarmum

mrs phas said:


> Wait til BJ (i m so childish, that made me snigger) ties us in as the 51st state and we're eating gmf and using stuff akin to agent orange, as pesticides


https://www.europeandatajournalism....pe-continues-to-sell-more-and-more-pesticides

*Europe continues to sell more and more pesticides*


----------



## Magyarmum

The EU's answer to Napoleon a hypocrite...... Never!

https://www.fern.org/news-resources...-on-halting-deforestation-in-the-tropics-937/

*MONTAGNE D'OR MINE: FRANCE NEEDS TO WALK THE TALK ON HALTING DEFORESTATION IN THE TROPICS*

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/a...ue-de-la-foutaise-un-jeu-de-communication-sel

*Emmanuel Macron defender of the Amazon: "The joke, the hogwash, a game of communication" according to Yannick Jadot*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Mike Shellenberger, Time Magazine's 'Hero of the environment' in 2008, gives us the facts to counter the alarmist reporting of the Amazon fires. Extreme and alarming weather is not becoming more common - extreme and alarming reporting is.

Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The 'Lungs Of The World,' Is 
Wrong

_"I was curious to hear what one of the world's leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the "lungs" claim.

"It's bullshit," he said. "There's no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it's a wash." _


----------



## Magyarmum

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/europe-is-warming-faster-than-even-climate-models-projected

*Europe Is Warming Faster Than Even Climate Models Projected*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Are forest fires as bad as they seem?

The BBC's 'Reality Check team' has produced this article to dampen the previous alarming headlines.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*Ship with Climate Change Warriors caught in ice, Warriors evacuated *

"Something is very wrong with Arctic ice, instead of melting as ordered by UN/IPCC, it captured the ship with Climate Change Warriors."


----------



## Elles

It’s a shame really, so long as people are panicking about it, we might actually clean up a bit, but if it drops off the agenda, we’ll forget about the plastic and pollution and go back to our careless ways.


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> It's a shame really, so long as people are panicking about it, we might actually clean up a bit, but if it drops off the agenda, we'll forget about the plastic and pollution and go back to our careless ways.


Too much money going into it and earned from it to be dropped


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> It's a shame really, so long as people are panicking about it, we might actually clean up a bit, but if it drops off the agenda, we'll forget about the plastic and pollution and go back to our careless ways.


Who is panicking and what, specifically, should I be panicking about? And how is panic going to help with anything that may be wrong right now?


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Who is panicking and what, specifically, should I be panicking about? And how is panic going to help with anything that may be wrong right now?


We're not panicking I hope, but the climate people were and as long as they're panicking, governments might clean up.


----------



## Magyarmum

Elles said:


> We're not panicking I hope, but the climate people were and as long as they're panicking, governments might clean up.


As far as the Trump administration is concerned "might" is certainly the right word

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/04/politics/trump-climate-change-policy-rollbacks/index.html

*Trump's rollback of climate change regulations will be felt far beyond his presidency*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Some interesting stuff about saving the planet.

Pushing up the daisies. (Composting yourself)

Cannibalism (Eating someone else)

Flatulent shellfish (Trumping oysters)

Sleep tight.


----------



## Magyarmum

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Some interesting stuff about saving the planet.
> 
> Pushing up the daisies. (Composting yourself)
> 
> Cannibalism (Eating someone else)
> 
> Flatulent shellfish (Trumping oysters)
> 
> Sleep tight.


When they were younger my two sons would tell me that when I die they'd either put me onto the compost heap or make me into meat pies!


----------



## rona

British farmers at the forefront yet again. Whatever is asked of them they adapt.

https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/nfu-reiterates-its-net-zero-aims-for-agriculture/

"However, we will not halt climate change by curbing British production and exporting it to countries which may not have the same environmental conscience, or ambition to reduce their climate impact. Rather, we must farm smarter, focussing on improving productivity, encouraging carbon capture and boosting our production of renewable energy.

"In Britain, 65% of our farmland is best suited to grazing animals, so our ambition is that the climate impact of UK grazing is amongst the lowest in the world. Already, research from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation shows that beef production in Western Europe is 2.5 times more carbon-efficient than the global average. At the same time UK farmland conserves important carbon stocks in England's uplands.

"British farmers have an important role to play in tackling climate change and our members are committed to this challenge, alongside fulfilling their responsibility to the public in providing high quality, sustainable and affordable food."


----------



## Magyarmum

An interesting little video from the BBC.

Hope the link works

https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/climate-change-the-problem-with-the-enemy-narrativ/p079qlwd

*Climate change: The problem with the enemy narrative*


----------



## Elles

Why is 65% of our land only suited to grazing animals. It’s for increasing yield too, rich grass grown for cattle is useless for horses, or animals you want to keep sound and healthy. The grass is planted and grown, with areas cleared for it, to grow for silage too. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that way naturally. They can go about it as much as they want tbh, many people are moving away from animal based produce, they need to adapt, not try to persuade people to keep up with unhealthy meat and dairy rich diets, because it hits their profits. 

I don’t think of a cow as food, so I don’t think of it as sustainable, or high quality though.


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> Why is 65% of our land only suited to grazing animals. It's for increasing yield too, rich grass grown for cattle is useless for horses, or animals you want to keep sound and healthy. The grass is planted and grown, with areas cleared for it, to grow for silage too. I'm pretty sure it wasn't that way naturally. They can go about it as much as they want tbh, many people are moving away from animal based produce, they need to adapt, not try to persuade people to keep up with unhealthy meat and dairy rich diets, because it hits their profits.
> 
> I don't think of a cow as food, so I don't think of it as sustainable, or high quality though.


I think cutting down on animal products has got to be good as long as more land isn't given over to crops, vineyards and solar panels.
A grass field with animals is infinitely preferable to any of those and much more wildlife friendly. A cow is it's own micro world with all sorts of benefits to the planet


----------



## Elles

rona said:


> I think cutting down on animal products has got to be good as long as more land isn't given over to crops, vineyards and solar panels.
> A grass field with animals is infinitely preferable to any of those and much more wildlife friendly. A cow is it's own micro world with all sorts of benefits to the planet


What's wrong with crops and vineyards?


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> What's wrong with crops and vineyards?


Sprays and mono cultures.


----------



## Elles

rona said:


> Sprays and mono cultures.


Two completely different words to crops and vineyards.


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> Two completely different words to crops and vineyards.


Eh?

You think we'll feed the world by organic and not clearing more land to use?


----------



## Elles

rona said:


> Eh?
> 
> You think we'll feed the world by organic and not clearing more land to use?


Who cares about the world? We're talking about Britain. Yes, Britain can go mostly organic. Why are the only options out in the mud, organic and free, or monocrops covered in chemicals? No we don't need to clear more land, we need to grow the right stuff.

I'm not arguing with you though Rona. We agree on practically everything except farmers and farming and the ones I've met have annoyed the heck out of me with their greed, superiority and actions, often very cruel actions, so we'll have to agree to differ on this one.


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> Who cares about the world? We're talking about Britain. Yes, Britain can go mostly organic. Why are the only options out in the mud, organic and free, or monocrops covered in chemicals? No we don't need to clear more land, we need to grow the right stuff.
> 
> I'm not arguing with you though Rona. We agree on practically everything except farmers and farming and the ones I've met have annoyed the heck out of me with their greed, superiority and actions, often very cruel actions, so we'll have to agree to differ on this one.


We certainly couldn't feed our own whatever we do. Too many ruddy people


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Here's another more optimistic article from Stewart Brand to counter some of the pessimistic headlines we see a lot of at the moment. 

Rethinking extinction. Stewart Brand.

"The idea that we are edging up to a mass extinction is not just wrong - it's a recipe for panic and paralysis"

_But a perception problem stands in the way.

Consider the language of these news headlines: 'Fuelling Extinction: Obama Budget Is Killer For Endangered Species' (Huffington Post, February 2015). '

"Racing Extinction" Sounds Alarm On Ocean's Endangered Creatures' (NBC News, January 2015).

'"Extinction Crisis": 21,000 Of World's Species At Risk Of Disappearing (Common Dreams, July 2013).

Australian Mammals On Brink Of "Extinction Calamity"' (BBC, February 2015).

'The Sixth Extinction Is Here - And It's Our Fault (Re/code, July 2014).

The headlines are not just inaccurate. As they accumulate, they frame our whole relationship with nature as one of unremitting tragedy. The core of tragedy is that it cannot be fixed, and that is a formula for hopelessness and inaction. Lazy romanticism about impending doom becomes the default view._


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is so sad to see. The adults that have facilitated this - put this young girl in this position should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Poor, poor girl.


----------



## 3dogs2cats

samuelsmiles3 said:


> This is so sad to see. The adults that have facilitated this - put this young girl in this position should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Poor, poor girl.


I agree the poor girl looks deranged! she needs a break from it before she becomes seriously ill.


----------



## mrs phas

3dogs2cats said:


> I agree the poor girl looks deranged! she needs a break from it before she becomes seriously ill.


did you see the look she gave Trump when he arrived
pure evil
i know hes retarded in his climate thinking ( amongst other things)
but
if my ASC child, looked at anyone like that, id remove him from the situation right away ( i believe she has been said to be on the spectrum) as her whole look was of being on the verge of a meltdown
if it was one of my neurotypical children, id have them down the psychiatrist pdq


----------



## 3dogs2cats

mrs phas said:


> did you see the look she gave Trump when he arrived
> pure evil
> i know hes retarded in his climate thinking ( amongst other things)
> but
> if my ASC child, looked at anyone like that, id remove him from the situation right away ( i believe she has been said to be on the spectrum) as her whole look was of being on the verge of a meltdown
> if it was one of my neurotypical children, id have them down the psychiatrist pdq


I did yes and as much as I dislike Trump I found Greta disturbing, her parents need to ask themselves some serious questions concering their daughters welfare!


----------



## mrs phas

3dogs2cats said:


> I did yes and as much as I dislike Trump I found Greta disturbing, her parents need to ask themselves some serious questions concering their daughters welfare!


Maybe social services in Sweden need to be looking into how she is being parented.
I'm not saying a teenager cannot have a voice, make a stand or be passionate about something
But
This now seems to be going to far, the girl needs a break and a rest, and, perhaps, some fun in her life to learn that, despite what's she's been conditioned to believe,
Life is not all gloom and doom
Right now she looks on the verge of a complete breakdown,
I might not agree with her, in many ways, but
I also know I don't want to hear,
one day very soon, if she keeps being pushed,
that she's been admitted to a psych ward due to that breakdown


----------



## kimthecat

mrs phas said:


> did you see the look she gave Trump when he arrived
> pure evil


She scared the crap out of me . Im not sure if being hostile to world leaders , even if they deserve it , is going to help . I think a charm offensive from a young person perhaps ,would be more effective.


----------



## Happy Paws2

samuelsmiles3 said:


> This is so sad to see. The adults that have facilitated this - put this young girl in this position should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Poor, poor girl.


Just watched this, I agree I'm really worried about her health.


----------



## Elles

Jeez.  Poor girl. It felt really, really wrong to hear people cheering and clapping a young person who is having a breakdown on camera. It’s horrible.


----------



## O2.0

To be fair, she seems much more composed here:





Another reason for me to admire Trevor Noah, I think he went a long way towards helping her feel more at ease. 
She doesn't seem to enjoy the interviews


----------



## rona

This isn"t just her though is it? These harbingers of doom are affecting the mental state of a whole generation. 
Is it any wonder that there are more suicides, self harming, mental breakdowns amongst the young


----------



## Elles

I couldn’t understand the clapping and cheering tbh. The girl is crying and breaking down at the funeral of our planet, at least that’s how she sees it and they all cheer like they’ve just watched Independence Day. Sickening.


----------



## Elles

O2.0 said:


> To be fair, she seems much more composed here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason for me to admire Trevor Noah, I think he went a long way towards helping her feel more at ease.
> She doesn't seem to enjoy the interviews


Not available in your country.

We are only allowed to see her looking terribly distressed it seems.


----------



## Magyarmum

Elles said:


> Not available in your country.
> 
> We are only allowed to see her looking terribly distressed it seems.


Try this. Hope it works!


----------



## Elles

Magyarmum said:


> Try this. Hope it works!


Nope


----------



## Magyarmum

Elles said:


> Nope


Oh dear! I believe it's something to do with the EU copyright regulations.

There are some US videos and websites I can't open but that's not one of them!

Have you tried Youtube under Trevor Noah "The Daily Show"?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> I couldn't understand the clapping and cheering tbh. The girl is crying and breaking down at the funeral of our planet, at least that's how she sees it and they all cheer like they've just watched Independence Day. Sickening.


She's distressed because she's been told that that is happening. Not because it is. But, you're right, Elles, the whole show is sickening.


----------



## Rafa

IMO, for her to be so obsessed and so fearful, it cannot be a good thing and could well have a very negative impact on her mental health.

She appears to be feeling that she's carrying a huge weight on her shoulders.

Of course, it's good to be aware and concerned about climate change and to do your bit to make change but a thirteen year old girl should have other things going on in her life.

I cannot believe she's having much fun at all.


----------



## Elles

Instead of some hysterical, terrified child lecturing, it should be someone like Bill Gates, who not only understands the issues, but is also working on solutions and putting his and others’ money into it. The Trump administration and the China/America divisions are a bigger problem than it just appears to be on the surface, as is fear of nuclear power.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I don't know if anyone remembers a story from last October/November telling us that the oceans were heating up faster than previously predicted? I well remember it on the BBC News and in most newspapers at the time and have been following the story. Here are some of the alarming news reports that came out at the time of the study [link] being published last October 31st in Nature.

The Independent: Climate change could accelerate faster than predicted, new research into world's oceans warns

Scientific American: The Oceans Are Heating Up Faster Than Expected

The Washington Post: 
Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming

Physics World: Ocean warming may be faster than thought

Common Dreams: (This one is particularly, and deliberately alarmist)
'We Have Less Time Than We Thought': Alarming New Study Shows Oceans Have Retained Far More Heat Than Previously Believed

But the study was faulty. And, ten months after informing Nature Journal that there were serious errors, the study has been retracted from publication. It has taken the work of a brilliant statistician, Nic Lewis, with the help of the wonderful *independent* climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry to achieve this retraction. (For anyone interested here is Judith Curry's blog site)

Although the story got massive headline coverage last Autumn, adding fuel to the fire of the alarmist narrative, you will be very unlikely to hear the subsequent developments.

ETA. Here is Nic Lewis's brief summary - 
Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome


----------



## Elles

Apart from scaring the kids, it doesn’t really matter. We do need to do better. We need nuclear for a start.


----------



## Calvine

Rafa said:


> IMO, for her to be so obsessed and so fearful, it cannot be a good thing and could well have a very negative impact on her mental health.
> 
> She appears to be feeling that she's carrying a huge weight on her shoulders.
> 
> Of course, it's good to be aware and concerned about climate change and to do your bit to make change but a thirteen year old girl should have other things going on in her life.
> 
> I cannot believe she's having much fun at all.


 I agree she looks 13, but in fact she is 16; most 16-year-olds look much more mature than she does. Her mother is a (quite famous) opera singer I read.


----------



## Elles

Calvine said:


> I agree she looks 13, but in fact she is 16; most 16-year-olds look much more mature than she does. Her mother is a (quite famous) opera singer I read.


Apparently she starved herself and stunted her growth.


----------



## Calvine

3dogs2cats said:


> I agree the poor girl looks deranged! she needs a break from it before she becomes seriously ill.


Certainly if I was her parents I would be worried about her state of mind. And, as @kimthecat suggested, behaving in such a distraught manner, raving and shouting at the world, is not going to attract many people to her ''cause''. The whole thing was simply disturbing.


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> Apparently she starved herself and stunted her growth.


An obsession about food can be a possible symptom of autism I think.


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> Certainly if I was her parents I would be worried about her state of mind. And, as @kimthecat suggested, behaving in such a distraught manner, raving and shouting at the world, is not going to attract many people to her ''cause''. The whole thing was simply disturbing.


Her mother is a singer and her father and grandfather are actors. I wouldn't be surprised if she hasn't been coached how to elicit the maximum response to her speeches by being overly theatrical?

Just a thought.


----------



## Magyarmum

This article has just arrived in my inbox.

https://www.melaniephillips.com/weaponisation-western-children/

*THE WEAPONISATION OF WESTERN CHILDREN*


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> Her mother is a singer and her father and grandfather are actors. I wouldn't be surprised if she hasn't been coached how to elicit the maximum response to her speeches by being overly theatrical?
> 
> Just a thought.


I read that she was coached by a German woman?
https://www.infowars.com/surprised-greta-thunbergs-coach-a-soros-bill-melinda-gates-operative/


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> I read that she was coached by a German woman?
> https://www.infowars.com/surprised-greta-thunbergs-coach-a-soros-bill-melinda-gates-operative/


It's a good job a certain person no longer posts on PF otherwise you'd have to be wearing a steel reinforced helmet and full body armour to protect yourself from the onslaught of being torn of a strip and lectured about Infowars being a publication run by a madman who believes in conspiracy theories and pseudo science.

Be afraid .... very ...... very afraid!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/infowars-alex-jones/

**
*CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE*


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> It's a good job a certain person no longer posts on PF otherwise you'd have to be wearing a steel reinforced helmet and full body armour to protect yourself from the onslaught of being torn of a strip and lectured about Infowars being a publication run by a madman who believes in conspiracy theories and pseudo science.
> 
> Be afraid .... very ...... very afraid!
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/infowars-alex-jones/
> 
> **
> *CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE*


I'm petrified of course, but I've seen it in several places.


----------



## Calvine

I rather imagined that being ''passionate'' about something imbued you with a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction, but that's not the case with GT; although, of course, there is a difference between a ''passion'' and an ''obsession''. She comes over as hysterical or like a child having a tantrum.


----------



## Elles

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what people like Bill and Melinda Gates are doing. The guy is putting money into researching clean power, including nuclear and tried to wipe out polio and poverty. Unlikely he’ll have much to do with putting kids on the stage.

If you’re a figure in climate change, you’re bound to photographed with other cc activists and lobby at the same events. There are other kids and other groups. It’s been going on for a while. I think she goes willingly, but there is a lot of hysteria around it all.

I’ve just been watching the other side of the coin. The people who deny there’s anything happening and some Australian news. The guy said more people die of cold and there’s more rain in Australia, so global warming isn’t happening. The Maldives aren’t underwater and old people wont be able to afford to heat their homes and will die of cold. I’m listening to his arguments thinking they sound like the completely bonkers view of an uneducated conspiracist, yet it’s mainstream news downunder apparently. :Blackalien


----------



## catz4m8z

Magyarmum said:


> This article has just arrived in my inbox.
> 
> https://www.melaniephillips.com/weaponisation-western-children/
> 
> *THE WEAPONISATION OF WESTERN CHILDREN*


wow, that author really loves Donald Trump and totally buys into his 'climate change is fake news' bullcrap!:Wideyed TBH Ive never really watched GT giving any of her speeches, I dont need a child to tell me what countless scientists and adult climate change activists have been telling me for years!
Im sure children are worrying about this....and why shouldnt they? Its a real worry! To me its analogous with kids being taught to duck and cover and hide under their desks in the event Russia dropped the bomb in the 50's. Only difference is that this is something scary that is more likely to ruin their lives then the adults around them.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

catz4m8z said:


> wow, that author really loves Donald Trump and totally buys into his 'climate change is fake news' bullcrap!:Wideyed TBH Ive never really watched GT giving any of her speeches, I dont need a child to tell me what countless scientists and adult climate change activists have been telling me for years!
> Im sure children are worrying about this....and why shouldnt they? Its a real worry! To me its analogous with kids being taught to duck and cover and hide under their desks in the event Russia dropped the bomb in the 50's. Only difference is that this is something scary that is more likely to ruin their lives then the adults around them.


What was it in particular that Melanie Phillips wrote that you disagreed with, and why do you think the children of today should be scared?


----------



## Magyarmum

Another, thoughtful article about young girls and climate change

https://qz.com/1718325/young-girls-lead-climate-action/

*Our young girls are bearing the burden of climate action. But should they be?*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

"You will die of old age - Our children will die of climate change"

A poster being held up by a girl of maybe six or 7 years old. I would be really interested to see the evidence to back that statement up but, more importantly I would be very interested to know who told her this. 

I don't have young children but, if I did, they would not be scared (or _made _to be scared of) climate change.


----------



## lullabydream

samuelsmiles3 said:


> "You will die of old age - Our children will die of climate change"
> 
> A poster being held up by a girl of maybe six or 7 years old. I would be really interested to see the evidence to back that statement up but, more importantly I would be very interested to know who told her this.
> 
> I don't have young children but, if I did, they would not be scared (or _made _to be scared of) climate change.


As a child those government TV ads where save yourself from a house fire by throwing a mattress out the window, then yourself... That worried me. As no way could any mattress fit through our windows and getting out the window when I had a fear of heights.. No but that this fear didn't rule my life. I remember other children have the same fear too from conversation at school as you do in in infant school but then I am sure conversation went on to what games to play.

The repurcussions of what may happen with Nuclear War, thanks government. Again felt real, worrying but as children we just moved on. Am sure it was worse for older children teens with the TV show Threads, take away the term its really an entertainment value... Children/Teens probably discussed it but they still lived their childhoods.

I have also been honest and open with my children as much as I can. Gave as much insight as possible so they can understand at their level, but they shouldn't, and we shouldn't be living in fear.


----------



## kimthecat

samuelsmiles3 said:


> "You will die of old age - Our children will die of climate change"
> 
> A poster being held up by a girl of maybe six or 7 years old. I would be really interested to see the evidence to back that statement up but, more importantly I would be very interested to know who told her this.
> 
> I don't have young children but, if I did, they would not be scared (or _made _to be scared of) climate change.


They don't mention nuclear war . There's a very big chance they will die in one.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

kimthecat said:


> They don't mention nuclear war . There's a very big chance they will die in one.


And old age. There's a very big chance they'll die of old age. :Hilarious


----------



## catz4m8z

I think the evidence is all out there. Its indisputable and you cant really argue with hard facts. We can measure the change in the planet since the industrial revolution which tells us our damaging impact. Not to mention the fact that there are too many of us who are still using the planets resources in a profligate manner that is totally unsustainable. Change has to happen.
Also Im not sure why we should be shocked that kids are right in the middle of the protests TBH. All around the world right now kids are starving in famines, being killed in wars and working to support their families. They arent exempt from all the **** that goes on in the world sadly.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Scientists hope to breed sheep that emit less greenhouse gases

_"The UK part of *the project will receive £250,000* in funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Research Council of Norway and New Zealand's Ministry for Primary Industries."_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

There is no climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown: there is a debate emergency. Unfortunately if you are a sceptic of the alarmism you are a denier, (a term used intentionally to conjure up images of the holocaust) and not worthy of debating the subject. The Guardian and the BBC have effectively banned any contrary views from being aired, and an online magazine, The Conversation, has also just banned sceptics of CAGW from writing articles for them. _"They are dangerous and don't deserve a place on our site." _So The Conversation bans thought.

Pretty much all you will hear is that CO2 is bad and if it rises, weather extremes will increase and the climate will heat up and runaway heating will occur and we will all die within a few generations. But, a little research from some chemical engineers, AGW sceptics and climate change scientists throws up all sorts of anomalies that need to be debated, as the two research papers below show.

One shows us that when CO2 was at 4200 ppm during the Ordovician (it is at 415ppm today), the Earth was covered in ice and sea levels dropped. When CO2 was 280 ppm 3 interglacials ago, the Arctic Ocean was 8-10°C warmer than it is today.

Multiple Stratigraphy Study of the Ordovicianin SW Ordos, China -
_
"The carbon cycle fluctuated greatly (Melchin et al., 2013; Cramer et al., 2015) and *atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached ~4200 ppm. During the Late Ordovician, severe glacial conditions developed and the Earth entered its second Snowball Earth period"
*_
Biological response to climate change in the Arctic Ocean: the view from the past -

_"Globally, the mid-Brunhes Event coincides with the glacial termination between MIS 12 and MIS 11 (~450-400 ka) after which interglacial periods had smaller continental ice sheets, higher sea level, warmer temperatures, and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. MIS 11 was* an exceptionally warm interglacial, notable because, whereas atmospheric CO2 concentrations (~280 ppmv*) and orbital insolation were similar to those of the Holocene interglacial,* global sea level was higher than today"
*_
The papers above throw up all sorts of questions that need to be debated, but sceptics (or climate deniers) are being silenced. Of course_*, *_they have links to 'big oil' or 'big business' so ignore them. There's loads more reasons to doubt/question the alarmists. Loads.

PS. Below is a quote from the IPCC in their 2001 report_*.*_ It has now been removed.
_*
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible"
*_


----------



## catz4m8z

I thought the point wasnt that the climate is changing....it happens all the time after all and we have already had 5 extinction events long before humanity even existed. Isnt it that this time we are the ones responsible for it?
Normally changes take thousands of years to happen whereas now its happening in hundreds, which coincides with the industrial revolution and our abuse of the planet .


----------



## O2.0

I saw this today and made me think of this thread, or maybe the Extinction Rebellion one? Either way, it did make me think/pause which is always good.


----------



## Calvine

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/06/poli...ellion-activists-two-weeks-protests-10869325/

More to look forward to.


----------



## catz4m8z

Calvine said:


> https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/06/poli...ellion-activists-two-weeks-protests-10869325/
> 
> More to look forward to.


'police confiscated gazebos, portable toilets and bean bags' :Hilarious were they going to use them as offensive weapons?? just how far could you throw a gazebo!? LOL
(sry...that just tickled my funny bone!).

Im not really up on politics TBH:Shy does anybody know if all these worldwide protests have had any effect on the governments being protested againest?


----------



## mrs phas

catz4m8z said:


> 'police confiscated gazebos, portable toilets and bean bags' :Hilarious were they going to use them as offensive weapons?? just how far could you throw a gazebo!? LOL
> (sry...that just tickled my funny bone!).


maybe not
but it does stop them being used as 
barriers, 
shelters
seats in the road,
recepticals for pee and poo ( to be flung at police, politicians and bystanders that dont agree with them)
and further acts that come under the public order act

it is, after all, the police's job to stop crime being commited, if that includes pre-emptive strikes, then so be it


----------



## Elles

O2.0 said:


> I saw this today and made me think of this thread, or maybe the Extinction Rebellion one? Either way, it did make me think/pause which is always good.


I made a thread and linked to him and the ocean clean up, including the live launch at the time. I think there was little interest, because it's not sensationalist enough.  It's not just the media, many people seem to prefer accusations and handwringing to supporting positive action and not just on climate change. It must be hard wired into us or something. Maybe nature thinks stress and fear is good for us, but now we don't run from lions, so we have to be scared of something else.


----------



## Calvine

mrs phas said:


> seats in the road,


Yes, one of them actually said that ''it was a peaceful protest: *they just planned to sit in the middle of the road*''. I can just imagine what reaction that would get from some black cab driver, apoplectic with rage unable to pick up a 'fare' because of them!! Some years back I saw a 'peaceful protest' outside a London hotel, all standing outside the main entrance with placards. The window cleaner wanted to clean the large glass doors, gave them about three seconds to move, then picked one of them up and threw him as far as he could. The rest of them fled.


----------



## catz4m8z

Calvine said:


> The window cleaner wanted to clean the large glass doors, gave them about three seconds to move, then picked one of them up and threw him as far as he could. The rest of them fled.


holy crap! He attacked somebody taking part in a peaceful protest!!?:Wideyed What a scumbag!


----------



## 3dogs2cats

catz4m8z said:


> holy crap! He attacked somebody taking part in a peaceful protest!!?:Wideyed What a scumbag!


Agree! Shocking if the window cleaner was allowed to get away with that!


----------



## Jesthar

catz4m8z said:


> just how far could you throw a gazebo!? LOL


Based on experience, in a high wind about half a campsite 

(not our gazebo, thankfully!)


----------



## Calvine

catz4m8z said:


> holy crap! He attacked somebody taking part in a peaceful protest!!?:Wideyed What a scumbag!


Yes, he removed him forcibly so that he and a queue of tourists could get into the hotel. The manager who had come out tried asking them politely to let the guests in, even if they themselves wanted to stand there all day with their placards. They refused to do so.


----------



## kimthecat

Jesthar said:


> Based on experience, in a high wind about half a campsite
> 
> (not our gazebo, thankfully!)


:Hilarious

On the BBC London news , a bit about how trainers (shoes) can add to Climate change. They are hugely popular with some teenagers having many pairs , some said they spend up to 200 pounds on one pair.
I couldnt find information on the BBC website but found a similar article in the Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/23/running-shoes-carbon-footprint

I hope all those young people are aware of this.

I think the Strike protests were good but on going long protests like the one starting today , I dont think helps.


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> but on going long protests like the one starting today , I dont think helps.


 Absolutely: causing so much inconvenience to people going about their otherwise normal lives simply turns people against what should be a worthwhile cause. The bottom line really is that there are just too many people for the planet to sustain unless the birthrate drops drastically. Education would do more good than chaining yourself to a hearse.


----------



## catz4m8z

Jesthar said:


> Based on experience, in a high wind about half a campsite
> 
> (not our gazebo, thankfully!)


If thats the case then maybe the protesters should arm themselves with garden trampolines as well...Ive seen those things move pretty quickly in a high wind!:Hilarious

In all seriousness it probably does suck for people trying to go about their lives but we live in a country where peaceful protest and civil disobedience are allowed....a fact Im very thankful for.


----------



## Calvine

kimthecat said:


> They are hugely popular with some teenagers having many pairs


And betcher life they would not dream of giving them up . . . like you say, at £200 a pair, they are a status symbol.


----------



## Calvine

catz4m8z said:


> peaceful protest


 I'm sure if I and a few neighbours sat ****peacefully*** in the middle of the road to protest about a new Lidl being built in an already congested area, we'd be moved pretty quickly though. It seems to depend on what your gripe is as to how you are dealt with.


----------



## catz4m8z

Calvine said:


> I'm sure if I and a few neighbours sat ****peacefully*** in the middle of the road to protest about a new Lidl being built in an already congested area, we'd be moved pretty quickly though.


Depends how many neighbours surely? A few thousand might cause problems and might prevent your Lidl being built. Its democracy at work!

*mutters* Id love a Lidl near me......


----------



## Calvine

catz4m8z said:


> *mutters* Id love a Lidl near me.


You can have ours! We have a serious problem here with traffic, as we are a couple of miles from Twickenham Stadium. When there is a ''big'' match, the gate can be as much as 82,000, and consequently the traffic is so bad that you really don't take your car out (unless it's an emergency) as a) traffic is literally bumper to bumper, and b) if you go out, when you get back you will never find a parking space. . Add to this that there is going to be a school on top (!!) with the extra traffic generated twice a day. We are already having to increase the Resident Parking hours in anticipation of the extra traffic.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Very interesting blog from a Brazilian geologist, Geraldo Luís Lino_, _which counters much of the alarming stories about the rainforest being on fire that circulated in the media this summer. 

*What everybody needs to know about the Amazon Rainforest*

9) "The number of fires in the Legal Amazon (including the Cerrado) has also been falling since the record years of 2004-05; the projections for 2019 indicate that they will reach half or so the numbers of those years. A good deal of such fires occur in private properties where people have been using fire as a method of cleaning the terrain for centuries; it's not the best method but it is what they have access to."


----------



## MollySmith

Calvine said:


> I'm sure if I and a few neighbours sat ****peacefully*** in the middle of the road to protest about a new Lidl being built in an already congested area, we'd be moved pretty quickly though. It seems to depend on what your gripe is as to how you are dealt with.


I've tried to protest via legal planning and still they got permission despite the Cambridge Greater Partnership vowing to make the city greener and cut down on traffic. Worse Lidl is an awful offender for ethics, not as bad as Asda but far from good.

It's inconsistent thinking that makes people sit in the road and sheer bloody frustration.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

There is an AGW sceptic called* Tony Heller* who, for a couple of decades, has got right under the skin of the alarmists by looking at past temperature data and finding unusual activity. This summer he posted a video which showed some very suspicious data tampering from NOAA, an institution which drives much of the narrative of global warming. Heller claims that massive fraud has been going on with cooling of the past and warming of the present to give an alarming picture of so called AGW.

It's a very convincing video but, not wanting to just take it at face value, I decided to present it to a leading 'climate scientist' who knows of Heller. The climate scientist, who has just received an MBE for services to climate science, dismissed the video when I very politely asked him if he could comment. He said it would be "wasting his time". I asked, very politely, once again if he could please just look at the data but he replied that he was only open to debate with 'sensible people'.

So I'm not worthy of an answer in kind, and good faith, to my simple question despite the MetOffice being publicly funded to the tune of £200,000,000. As I have said a million times previously, these people do not debate. The arrogance is astonishing.

Below is the video. It accuses NOAA of massive fraud so, if no data has been tampered with, you would have thought NOAA would be suing Tony Heller to the hilt. They aren't.

Eta - correct video now below.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

And here is a selection of the emails that made up 'Climategate'. Yes, I know investigations found "no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct". Nevertheless they are equally fascinating and thought provoking.

Climategate emails.

example -

*From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009*

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"


----------



## MollySmith

How polluters tried to delude people into thinking climate change is a myth

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lic-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby


----------



## samuelsmiles3

A new paper reports a rapid decline in fire activity in the USA since 1940.

Global change impacts on forest and fire dynamics using paleoecology and tree census data for eastern North America

_Our analysis identifies multiple instances in which fire and vegetation changes were likely *driven by shifts in human population and land use beyond those expected from climate alone.*_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

When CO2 levels were around 190ppm about 17 thousand years ago (we are at 417ppm today) grass eating horses were grazing the Arctic North Alaska. They had enough grass to survive even the Arctic winters.

Late Quaternary insects and freshwater invertebrates of the Alaskan North Slope and paleoenvironmental reconstructions in Arctic Alask

_Even during coldest time of the Pleistocene, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)*, summer temperatures were higher here then they are today* (Alfimov, Berman, 2001, Alfimov et al., 2003). _


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Does anyone know what the temperature of earth will be if we go carbon emissions free by 2025, (Extinction Rebellion demand) 2030 (Labour's promise) or 2050, (Conservatives) ????

What would the answer be in degrees C?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Another couple of interesting studies. 

Coral first established itself on earth during the Ordovician period when atmospheric CO2 was at about 6000ppm

100 Million Years of Reef Prosperity and Collapse: Ordovician to Devonian Interval

"_This 100 myr long Middle Paleozoic reef consortium thrived under SST averages of 30°+, to latitudes as high as 45°-55°, under high atmospheric CO2 conditions of 6000+ ppm"
_
And this study shows that coral regulates its own CO2 which can cause the CO2 in the sea around it to change between 300 and 900ppm within hours.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Great Barrier Reef Showing 'Signs of Recovery' 

_"The RRRC, in cooperation with the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, conducted detailed surveys at key tourism dive sites around the city of Cairns in 2016 and 2017 and says certain reefs that were strongly affected in the bleaching event are showing significant signs of improvement."_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This study is _really_ interesting.

Some corals 'killed' by climate change are now returning to life.

_"When the polyps that make up a C. caespitosa colony are hit by warm weather, Kersting and Linares found that they shrink and recede deep within the coral skeleton. To the eye the hard coral looks devoid of life. But given time these tiny polyps - the characteristic "tentacles" on coral - can regrow."_

So we have been looking at these corals thinking they are dead but they are going into a natural state of 'hibernation' when faced with changing conditions.

This must surely be a survival technique that the corals have adapted to over millenia.

It reminds me a little of certain seeds that can lie dormant for years until favourable conditions return.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

More coral stuff. 

Growing corals turn water more acidic without suffering damage

"_These corals didn't seem to mind the fluctuations in local acidity that they created, which were much bigger than those we expect to see from climate change. This may mean that corals are well equipped to deal with the lower pH levels."_

So, they actually create their own healthy environment by increasing CO2 levels in the sea around them.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

BBC1 8.30pm tonight.

Climate Change: What Can We Do?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Article in The Times, this morning by Labour activist, Jade Azim

Extinction Rebellion must reach beyond the middle class to fight climate change

*"Climate change absolutely will kill us all* unless we do something about it."


----------



## Magyarmum

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Article in The Times, this morning by Labour activist, Jade Azim
> 
> Extinction Rebellion must reach beyond the middle class to fight climate change
> 
> *"Climate change absolutely will kill us all* unless we do something about it."


That's stating the obvious


----------



## stuaz

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysi...irst-time?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

We are inching closer to being fully reliant on renewables. We need to go closer to nuclear as well to make that leap away from fossil fuels even quicker.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Just having a look at the record temperatures for Greta Thunberg's home country and was surprised to find the dates of these records. Queen Victoria was still on the throne when 2 of the records were made.

Sweden Temperature records.

January 12,4° Allgunnen den 5 januari *1973 *(Götaland)
February 16,7° Karlshamn den 26 februari *2019 *(Götaland 
March 22,2° Oskarshamn och Sandbäckshult den 30 mars *1968 *(Götaland)
April 29,0° Genevad den 27 april *1993 *(Götaland)
May 32,5° Kalmar den 28 maj *1892 *och Kristianstad
June 38,0° Målilla den 29 juni *1947 *(Götaland)
July 36,0° Borås den 20 juli *1901 *(Götaland)
August 36,8° Holma den 9 augusti *1975 *(Götaland)
September 29,1° Stehag den 1 september *1975 *(Götaland)
October 24,5° Oskarshamn den 9 oktober *1995 *(Götaland)
November 18,4° Ugerup den 2 november *1968 *(Götaland)
December 13,7° Fårösund-Ar den 20 dec *2015 *och Simrishamn den 24 dec 1977 (Göt.)


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The sea (according to NASA) is currently rising at about 3.3mm per year which equates to a rise of about 1 foot over the next 100 years. The study below found some interesting results. 

'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: study 

_[The study] found eight of the atolls and almost* three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period,* lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average. Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, *challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.*

"While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors,* loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu.*"

The Study - 
_
Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Climate breakdown/emergency/crisis 1902 style.

Alpine glaciers are disappearing.

"These glaciers are not running away by any means, but they are deteriorating slowly, with *a persistency that means their final annihilation."*


----------



## mrs phas

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Just having a look at the record temperatures for Greta Thunberg's home country and was surprised to find the dates of these records. Queen Victoria was still on the throne when 2 of the records were made.
> 
> Sweden Temperature records.
> 
> January 12,4° Allgunnen den 5 januari *1973 *(Götaland)
> February 16,7° Karlshamn den 26 februari *2019 *(Götaland
> March 22,2° Oskarshamn och Sandbäckshult den 30 mars *1968 *(Götaland)
> April 29,0° Genevad den 27 april *1993 *(Götaland)
> May 32,5° Kalmar den 28 maj *1892 *och Kristianstad
> June 38,0° Målilla den 29 juni *1947 *(Götaland)
> July 36,0° Borås den 20 juli *1901 *(Götaland)
> August 36,8° Holma den 9 augusti *1975 *(Götaland)
> September 29,1° Stehag den 1 september *1975 *(Götaland)
> October 24,5° Oskarshamn den 9 oktober *1995 *(Götaland)
> November 18,4° Ugerup den 2 november *1968 *(Götaland)
> December 13,7° Fårösund-Ar den 20 dec *2015 *och Simrishamn den 24 dec 1977 (Göt.)


hate to disagree with you but only one is victorian~
by july 1901 victoria was dead,
so that one was Edward vii


----------



## mrs phas

Having watched the news tonight, all I can say is
this XR bunch should thank their lucky stars, that they are having their petulant pout fest in the good old UK
And
Not Spain, Hong Kong or Mexico
As, I think, being dragged off the top of a train, would be the least of their worries

One really has to give kudos to the UK, the only country, in the world, that buys water cannons (well done BJ ) then decides its really not fair, nor the done thing, to use them on those breaking the public order act to the extreme


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I love this video reconstruction of "the advance and retreat of the Alpine glaciers over the last 115,000 years." 

The advance and retreat of Alpine Glaciers over the last 115,000 years.

_"The results of this simulation indicate that Alpine glaciers advanced and retreated more often than previously thought."_


----------



## Calvine

mrs phas said:


> Having watched the news tonight, all I can say is
> this XR bunch should thank their lucky stars, that they are having their petulant pout fest in the good old UK
> And
> Not Spain, Hong Kong or Mexico
> As, I think, being dragged off the top of a train, would be the least of their worries
> 
> One really has to give kudos to the UK, the only country, in the world, that buys water cannons (well done BJ ) then decides its really not fair, nor the done thing, to use them on those breaking the public order act to the extreme


 I know they were never used because of people objecting to them, but fairly sure it was Sadiq Khan who sold them for scrap for a few grand?


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> I know they were never used because of people objecting to them, but fairly sure it was Sadiq Khan who sold them for scrap for a few grand?


https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-mayor-of-london-water-cannons-sold-for-scrap/

*Boris Johnson's water cannons sold for scrap*
'I am pleased we have managed to finally get rid of them,' says London Mayor Sadiq Khan.


----------



## mrs phas

Calvine said:


> I know they were never used because of people objecting to them, but fairly sure it was Sadiq Khan who sold them for scrap for a few grand?


Yes it was,
My rolling eyes was at BJ, because he was the **** that wasted money buying them in the first place, thinking the the GBP would be behind him using them, in the very short lived riots
Let's face it, why would the softies, that make up most of the GBP, sanction the use of water cannons, when they wouldn't even, at the time, sanction the use of fire engines turning their hoses on them? ( never mind that the chief fire officer, at the time, had already told BJ where to go)


----------



## Elles

And yet we’re supposed to be living in such a terrible country. The Spanish are happy enough to use them.


----------



## Magyarmum

Elles said:


> And yet we're supposed to be living in such a terrible country. The Spanish are happy enough to use them.


And even the French who are supposed to be so very very civilised use them!


----------



## Elles

Yes it's the Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-drivers-1-500-miles-without-charging-it.html

This looks incredible!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

New study just published. 

Antarctic ice cliffs may not contribute to sea-level rise as much as predicted

A realistic picture

*The results suggest that the Earth's tallest ice cliffs are unlikely to collapse catastrophically and trigger a runaway ice sheet retreat*. That's because the fastest rate at which ice shelves are disappearing, at least as documented in the modern record, is on the order of weeks, not hours, as scientists observed in 2002, when they captured satellite imagery of the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf - a chunk of ice as large as Rhode Island that broke away from Antarctica, shattering into thousands of icebergs over the span of two weeks.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Study from 2006 with some interesting conclusions -

Greenland Warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005.

"Although the last decade of 1995-2005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer"

18] iv) "The Greenland warming of the 1995-2005 period is similar to the warming of 1920-1930, although the rate of temperature increase was by about 50% higher during the 1920-1930 warming period."

"a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise"
*
*
22] To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930.


----------



## Jonescat

I thought it was Theresa May as Home Secretary who declined to allow the use of water cannon in London on the grounds of safety (old, in need of repair and alteration) and suitabilty (riot crowds in London too agile to target)? I don't remember her saying that the GBP were too soft.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Lewis Hamilton brushes off critics and steps up efforts to be more green

_" I sold my plane over a year ago"._

Well done Lewis - that must have been a big sacrifice for you. I've been thinking about selling my plane, too.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is what I remember being worried about in the 70s, as well as nuclear war. Fascinating and atmospheric documentary from 1978.

Brrrrrrrr.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This was a 'warning' from a climate scientist in 2018.

We Have Five Years Left To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist says.

_"The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said..
_
But, this is the Arctic ice extent today_. 









_


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Lewis Hamilton brushes off critics and steps up efforts to be more green
> 
> _" I sold my plane over a year ago"._
> 
> Well done Lewis - that must have been a big sacrifice for you. I've been thinking about selling my plane, too.


Me too, tho' we are hanging on to the yacht for the time being. These people really live in a different world, don't they; they have no idea what they sound like when they come out with comments like this!! It would be funny, were it not so ironic.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

*Canadian kids sue government over climate change*

_"Lawsuit alleges that the federal government has violated citizens' rights by promoting and enabling fossil-fuel development_".

*Winter weather: Environment Canada updates Metro Vancouver forecast*

_"the region saw some unseasonably frigid weather earlier this month, when Vancouver *set a record for the coldest day in 122 years.* As such, October could see a colder than average overall temperature for the month"._

So, considering north America and Canada have just had some of their coldest weather on record, I wonder how wind farms and solar farms (covered under snow) will keep these kids alive and, maybe more importantly, able to use their iphones and ipads?


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> *Canadian kids sue government over climate change*
> 
> _"Lawsuit alleges that the federal government has violated citizens' rights by promoting and enabling fossil-fuel development_".
> 
> *Winter weather: Environment Canada updates Metro Vancouver forecast*
> 
> _"the region saw some unseasonably frigid weather earlier this month, when Vancouver *set a record for the coldest day in 122 years.* As such, October could see a colder than average overall temperature for the month"._
> 
> So, considering north America and Canada have just had some of their coldest weather on record, I wonder how wind farms and solar farms (covered under snow) will keep these kids alive and, maybe more importantly, able to use their iphones and ipads?


in some ways this could be a good thing. People working on new technologies and the scientific research, for example into cleaner, safer nuclear, or the fuel cell guy I linked, could be supported and protected from the big guns and back hander government policy, if governments are taken to task for it.


----------



## MilleD

Elles said:


> Yes it's the Daily Mail
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-drivers-1-500-miles-without-charging-it.html
> 
> This looks incredible!


He's got 8 kids so I guess he's got to do _something_ to offset that


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Asthma carbon footprint 'as big as eating meat'
_
"Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty, they add".
_
As someone who has asthma I can assure the writers of this study that I don't, and won't, be made to feel guilty about using my prescribed inhalers. 

ETA. Bloody hell, this nonsense has just made it on to the news on the radio.


----------



## Cleo38

Hahahaha, @samuelsmiles3 !! Bloody hilarious, & even more so that he fails so badly to understand the complete hypocrisy of his ramblings


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Asthma carbon footprint 'as big as eating meat'
> _
> "Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty, they add".
> _
> As someone who has asthma I can assure the writers of this study that I don't, and won't, be made to feel guilty about using my prescribed inhalers.
> 
> ETA. Bloody hell, this nonsense has just made it on to the news on the radio.


This report is aimed at the people prescribing them isn't it? If we cleaned up the planet there might not be as many people with asthma anyway. Victim blaming at its finest.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Here is the actual study from the BMJ regarding asthma inhalers.

_"We found some reliever inhalers (eg, Ventolin) to have a *carbon footprint over 25 kg CO2e per inhaler, while others use far less* HFA134a (eg, Salamol) with a carbon footprint of <10 kg CO2e per inhaler".
_
Considering we all breath out about 400kg of CO2 per year, my use of one or 2 inhalers per year (50kg max) won't be the cause of the Antarctic catastrophically melting, I don't think.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Germany, which has phased out half of its nuclear power stations as part of its 'clean energy' transformation, is now building a new coal power station to replace that lost capacity. It should open in January 2020.

So, despite covering the landscape in 'clean energy' wind farms and solar panels, it now has pretty much the most expensive electricity in the EU and their carbon emissions per person are pretty much the highest in the EU.

Renewables May Make Us Feel Good, But Realistically They Just Don't Work 

"_Despite the hype over the ever-increasing connected capacity at wind and solar farms worldwide, none, yes, let me repeat that, none have replaced any of the hydro, natural gas, coal, or nuclear generating plants that are providing continuous and uninterruptable electricity to people and businesses around the world"

_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

California wildfires not climate change. Who knew.

1. Stolen Car

2. Arson

3. Arson


----------



## Elles

Maybe some of the actions being taken are improving matters. London used to be a suffocating City of smog and nothing much could live in the Thames. People caused it and people are fixing it. It being better now, doesn’t make it a lie before. Same with aerosols. I watched someone only yesterday saying aerosols weren’t a problem, because the ozone layer is ok. Yeah, because cfcs in aerosols were banned for most uses, before it destroyed it altogether, not because they lied to us.

I don’t think it’s worth being extreme at either end. We need to clean up our act and the more we do, the less right the climate change panickers will be. If we ignore the mess, their predictions about the habitability of the planet may come true, eventually, but we’ll have suffocated and starved, so we won’t live to see it. I doubt very much that humans will actually destroy the planet, but we can make it pretty inhospitable to live on and setting cars and forests alight is probably not helping.

You seem to trying to prove that we don’t have a problem.


----------



## rona

Elles said:


> You seem to trying to prove that we don't have a problem.


I don't think anyone is trying to do that. Rather temper the hysteria that surrounds climate change and that is causing such distress among our young people.

Unfortunately, unless the human race wakes up to the fact that they need to stop reproducing, anything else is just kidding ourselves


----------



## Magyarmum

https://euobserver.com/environment/146494

*Climate won't go back to normal in our time*

*"I often get mail from young people who seriously believe that they are going to die from this [climate change] before they turn old. But that is not on the cards", he assures.

"Obviously, a lot of people are going to die from this, it's clear. But we are not moving towards the extinction of the human race. Absolutely not. So that kind of anxiety is useless and results from a heated debate about the climate, where you just talk about crises and not solutions".
*


----------



## Calvine

rona said:


> Rather temper the hysteria that surrounds climate change and that is causing such distress among our young people.


Many with mental health issues because they are being told ''if you are still alive . . . ''. They need to hear something positive.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> Maybe some of the actions being taken are improving matters. London used to be a suffocating City of smog and nothing much could live in the Thames. People caused it and people are fixing it. It being better now, doesn't make it a lie before. Same with aerosols. I watched someone only yesterday saying aerosols weren't a problem, because the ozone layer is ok. Yeah, because cfcs in aerosols were banned for most uses, before it destroyed it altogether, not because they lied to us.
> 
> I don't think it's worth being extreme at either end. We need to clean up our act and the more we do, the less right the climate change panickers will be. If we ignore the mess, their predictions about the habitability of the planet may come true, eventually, but we'll have suffocated and starved, so we won't live to see it. I doubt very much that humans will actually destroy the planet, but we can make it pretty inhospitable to live on and setting cars and forests alight is probably not helping.
> 
> You seem to trying to prove that we don't have a problem.


I'm not trying to _prove _anything; I'm posting what I think are very interesting studies and articles that counter the dangerous (climate change) alarmism that is all pervasive at the moment. Have you actually read any of them?

The BBC has banned all contrary views to the alarmist narrative and The Guardian continues to increase the alarmism with no balance and no voice for the many scientists, chemical engineers and climatologists who don't agree. AGW sceptics are being silenced.

Read the studies and debate them, but don't just attack me for posting interesting and thought provoking studies. Do you want me to stop? I can stop posting them if you would like me to stop?


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I can stop posting them if you would like me to stop?


Of course not. 

I don't run petforums and if I did I wouldn't stop anyone posting (well apart from obvious trolls and advertisers ofc ) . I've agreed with a lot of your posts, I just felt that they seem to be going down the 'nothing to see here' route, at the opposite end of the scale and I'm starting to disagree. I do think there is a problem and throwing the baby out with the bath water, just blocks the plumbing.

What I really don't like about the climate activists is the them and us I see from them. They want to block any innovation or progress and send us all back to the swamp (not living there themselves of course) and not allowing less developed countries to progress at all. I really don't agree with that, or their using kids which they clearly are. That doesn't mean I think everything is fine though. As I said, I don't actually care about climate change, things need sorting out and cleaning up way before we get to climate change. I'm very suspicious of the extremist's agenda.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> Of course not.
> 
> I don't run petforums and if I did I wouldn't stop anyone posting (well apart from obvious trolls and advertisers ofc ) . I've agreed with a lot of your posts,* I just felt that they seem to be going down the 'nothing to see here' route*, at the opposite end of the scale and I'm starting to disagree. I do think there is a problem and throwing the baby out with the bath water, just blocks the plumbing.
> 
> What I really don't like about the climate activists is the them and us I see from them. They want to block any innovation or progress and send us all back to the swamp (not living there themselves of course) and not allowing less developed countries to progress at all. I really don't agree with that, or their using kids which they clearly are. That doesn't mean I think everything is fine though. As I said, I don't actually care about climate change, things need sorting out and cleaning up way before we get to climate change. I'm very suspicious of the extremist's agenda.


OK, cool.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

samuelsmiles3 said:


> OK, cool.


However, I found another study this morning regarding uncertainty about climate change. I might not post it for you now. It's a real beaut.:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## Magyarmum

samuelsmiles3 said:


> However, I found another study this morning regarding uncertainty about climate change. I might not post it for you now. It's a real beaut.:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


Oh go one ................... be a devil!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Magyarmum said:


> Oh go one ................... be a devil!


No. I've got the hump now.


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> No. I've got the hump now.


Stockpiling food in preparation for Armageddon?


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> However, I found another study this morning regarding uncertainty about climate change. I might not post it for you now. It's a real beaut.:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


 Ratbag!! If you don't post it I'll report you for . . . something. Anything. I'll complain that you've been trying to groom us all online.


----------



## Calvine

Elles said:


> Stockpiling food in preparation for Armageddon?


 They do that already. Have you seen the supermarket shelves when there is even a hint of a problem with manufacturing or delivery/petrol shortages etc. It's pitiful!


----------



## MollySmith

Published this month with the added note from me that having worked many years ago in academic journal publishing, that this isn't nimby reporting with bias but heavily accredited work that has to fulfil the publisher and editorial board criteria 
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806


----------



## Elles

rona said:


> Unfortunately, unless the human race wakes up to the fact that they need to stop reproducing, anything else is just kidding ourselves


11,000 scientists agree.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> 11,000 scientists agree.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392


Yes, I read that report this afternoon. They really are anti humanity, aren't they?

_"Encouraging signs include decreases in global fertility (birth) rates"_

Have you found the names of the 11,000 scientists yet? I would be very interested to see if they have children, how many they have and if they are planning to have any more?


----------



## MilleD

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, I read that report this afternoon. They really are anti humanity, aren't they?
> 
> _"Encouraging signs include decreases in global fertility (birth) rates"_
> 
> Have you found the names of the 11,000 scientists yet? I would be very interested to see if they have children, how many they have and if they are planning to have any more?


You know it's always "do as I say, not do as I do" though don't you?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Of course, we have been through all of this before. Paul R Ehrlich's Population Bomb published in 1968 had some pretty repugnent opinions.

_"unlike Malthus, Ehrlich did not see any means of avoiding the disaster entirely (although some mitigation was possible), and proposed solutions that were much more radical than those discussed by Malthus, such as starving whole countries that refused to implement population control measures"_

_"The original edition of The Population Bomb began with this statement: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ..."[20] Ehrlich argued that the human population was too great, and that while the extent of disaster could be mitigated, humanity could not prevent severe famines, the spread of disease, social unrest, and other negative consequences of overpopulation"
_
A racist too_ -

Ehrlich writes: "I don't see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980".
_
Have you found the names of the 11,000 scientists yet. I haven't been able to yet.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The rags have now got hold of this story. Lots of dramatic photographs of wildfire and stuff.

Scientists call for 'population control' as they declare worldwide climate EMERGENCY and claim failure to act will lead to 'untold human suffering'


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The Guardian's take. "Untold suffering".

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering'

_"We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,"_


----------



## Magyarmum

*NEWS THUMP

Wednesday 6 November 2019 by Neil Tollfree*

*World leaders confident they will be able to ignore climate study endorsed by 11,000 scientists*









*World leaders led by Donald Trump are confident they will be able to successfully ignore a new study that declares Climate change to be a 'clear and unequivocal' emergency.*

Initially it had been thought that the study, which is endorsed by 11,000 scientists, would force governments to work together and solve the problem. However, the global determination to do nothing about climate change has, once again, won out.

"Oh sure, you can prove anything with science," said Donald Trump, in response to the study.

"But, I think that what you've got to do is put the science to one side and ask the question - do I feel colder than I did twenty years ago and, for me, I know I don't.

"So, these scientists. These 11,000 scientists. When I feel colder, I'll let you know, but for now I think we can ignore this."

Boris Johnson, Britain's Prime Minister for the next few weeks chose a different way to ignore it.

"Well, obviously, reports like this are tremendously important, and that's why we need to focus on completely different things that I want to focus on like Brexit and having inappropriate and sexy relationships with attractive American businesswomen."

Vladimir Putin simply cackled when asked about the report and supped on what appeared to be a cup of blood.

Other leaders were busy doing war with other leaders but promised to ignore the report at some point.

It is expected that when the entire population of the world is forced to move to central Europe as that is the only habitable bit of the world left, then global leaders will consider thinking about climate change.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Haha.

If there is a genuine climate emergency/crisis/breakdown, why are people not acting like there is one. Why are they more interested in Brexit, running, random chat and petty things that annoy you? :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


----------



## lullabydream

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Haha.
> 
> If there is a genuine climate emergency/crisis/breakdown, why are people not acting like there is one. Why are they more interested in Brexit, running, random chat and petty things that annoy you? :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious


What do you expect people to do? Genuine question...

This is surely just a forum for some type of escapism from everyday life and catch up with like minded people


----------



## samuelsmiles3

lullabydream said:


> What do you expect people to do? Genuine question...
> 
> This is surely just a forum for some type of escapism from everyday life and catch up with like minded people


Share their concerns, maybe. Discuss how best to avert the catastrophe we are told we're facing. How best to stop the climate changing.

How we can help poor people in impoverished countries escape from their poverty without using fossil fuels.

Is there a climate emergency?


----------



## lullabydream

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Share their concerns, maybe. Discuss how best to avert the catastrophe we are told we're facing. How best to stop the climate changing.
> 
> How we can help poor people in impoverished countries escape from their poverty without using fossil fuels.
> 
> Is there a climate emergency?


I think no one has said there isn't a problem, I think with the overlapping threads; extinction rebellion people have stated what they are doing etc. From the basics to recycling, thinking about plastics, carbon footprints etc but they know its not enough. People have also written to MPs am sure, signed petitions, many ways... However you obviously seem to be reading a different thread to me if you think no one believes in it. Am sure many do..

However this 'we' should be doing this because its worked in impoverished countries can't be taken as it could happen and work in others. However if you want to pester your MP etc and put your idea to the global leaders please do.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

MollySmith said:


> Published this month with the added note from me that having worked many years ago in academic journal publishing, that this isn't nimby reporting with bias but heavily accredited work that has to fulfil the publisher and editorial board criteria
> https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806





Elles said:


> 11,000 scientists agree.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392



View attachment 421651
View attachment 421651


So, this poorly written report is actually just a rehash from the same people from 2017. Back then it had 15,000 supporting 'scientists' so it looks as though it's losing backing. I'm surprised The Guardian and the BBC etc. haven't looked a little harder to see this.

World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice 

_"We have been overwhelmed with the support for our article and thank the more than *15,000 signatories* from all óends of the Earth (see supplemental file S2 for list of signatories)."
_
And eugenics seems, still, to dominate the thoughts of the authors -

"_It is also time to re-examine and change our individual behaviors, including limiting our own reproduction (ideally to replacement level at most) "_

This report has no basis in science whatsoever, and the graphs from the report linked below have been fitted into equal size boxes for no other reason than to try to alarm. Embarassing.


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> So, this poorly written report is actually just a rehash from the same people from 2017. Back then it had 15,000 supporting 'scientists' so it looks as though it's losing backing. I'm surprised The Guardian and the BBC etc. haven't looked a little harder to see this.
> 
> World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice
> 
> _"We have been overwhelmed with the support for our article and thank the more than *15,000 signatories* from all óends of the Earth (see supplemental file S2 for list of signatories)."_



The report does say they haven't actively chased signatures this time around. Besides, if the facts haven't changed, why should the observations?



samuelsmiles3 said:


> And *eugenics *seems, still, to dominate the thoughts of the authors -
> 
> "_It is also time to re-examine and change our individual behaviors, including limiting our own reproduction (ideally to replacement level at most) "_



I don't think that word means what you think it means...



samuelsmiles3 said:


> This report has no basis in science whatsoever,


Interesting assertion, which of your qualifications lead you to say that?



samuelsmiles3 said:


> and the graphs from the report linked below have been fitted into equal size boxes for *no other reason than to try to alarm*. Embarassing.
> 
> View attachment 421652


_Or_ - and here's a radical idea - for _ease of comparison with each other... _Changing the scale doesn't change the data, but it does let you see cross-correlation without squinting.

And at this stage I'm really not sure whether you're serious, or just having a serious wum...


----------



## Magyarmum

An interesting article with a slightly different take on climate change.

https://www.dw.com/en/amitav-ghosh-what-the-west-doesnt-get-about-the-climate-crisis/a-50823088

*Amitav Ghosh: What the West doesn't get about the climate crisis*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> The report does say they haven't actively chased signatures this time around. Besides, if the facts haven't changed, why should the observations?
> 
> I don't think that word means what you think it means...
> 
> Interesting assertion, which of your qualifications lead you to say that?
> 
> _Or_ - and here's a radical idea - for _ease of comparison with each other... _Changing the scale doesn't change the data, but it does let you see cross-correlation without squinting.
> 
> And at this stage I'm really not sure whether you're serious, or just having a serious wum...


No, of course I'm not a scientist, I do understand what eugenics is and absolutely not a wum (wind up merchant, I guess). Just very interested in the subject and very tired of the one sided and alarmist debate that is taking place at the moment. I get my sources from some amazing people well qualified to have an opinion on climate change, and if I find new and interesting studies that are contrary to this climate emergency nonsense I will post it.

Does it really look as bad as the headlines claim? (Taking into account the fact that these warnings are as regular as they are wrong)

Climate crisis: _11,000 scientists_ warn of *'untold suffering*'
_11,000 scientists_ is backing a study with a dire warning:* Earth is facing a climate emergency*
Climate emergency declared by 11,000 scientists worldwide who warn of *'catastrophic threat' to humanity*
'Climate emergency': Over 11,000 scientists sound* thunderous warning*

Agriculture yields are up- https://ourworldindata.org/....
Poverty has decreased- https://ourworldindata.org/....
Life expectancy has increased- https://ourworldindata.org/....
Deaths from weather related disasters have declined- https://ourworldindata.org/....
The planet and deserts are greening from the increase in CO2- https://www.nasa.gov/featur...


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> No, of course I'm not a scientist, I do understand what eugenics is and absolutely not a wum (wind up merchant, I guess).


I would be interested to hear your definiton of eugenics, then...



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Just very interested in the subject and very tired of the one sided and alarmist debate that is taking place at the moment. I get my sources from some amazing people well qualified to have an opinion on climate change. And if I find new and interesting studies that are contrary to this climate emergency nonsense I will post it.


Which is fair enough, but you may want to check some of these these wonderful people are not the modern day equivalent of tobacco industry 'scientists' 



samuelsmiles3 said:


> Agriculture yields are up- https://ourworldindata.org/....
> Poverty has decreased- https://ourworldindata.org/....
> Life expectancy has increased- https://ourworldindata.org/....
> Deaths from weather related disasters have declined- https://ourworldindata.org/....
> The planet and deserts are greening from the increase in CO2- https://www.nasa.gov/featur...


Ah, I love statistics (to A Level level, actually ), but none of these statistics have anything real connection with climate change except the last one, which is one small upside to the overall not so good news of increasing CO2 levels. The article itself says as much towards the end.

You might also have had a tenuous case with agricultural yields, but given that the article makes no reference to climate but has indepth explorations of things like fertiliser use, crop varieties and inproved yield density, I'd say not. The Poverty report, on the other hand, clearly states "it is also clear that humanity's impact on the environment is at a level that is not sustainable and is endangering the biosphere and climate on which we depend"

The other two - well, you might as well include things like 'House prices have increased in my area', it would be about as relevant.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> I would be interested to hear your definiton of eugenics, then...
> 
> Which is fair enough, but you may want to check some of these these wonderful people are not the* modern day equivalent of tobacco industry 'scientists*'
> 
> Ah, I love statistics (to A Level level, actually ), but none of these statistics have anything real connection with climate change except the last one, which is one small upside to the overall not so good news of increasing CO2 levels. The article itself says as much towards the end.
> 
> You might also have had a tenuous case with agricultural yields, but given that the article makes no reference to climate but has indepth explorations of things like fertiliser use, crop varieties and inproved yield density, I'd say not. The Poverty report, on the other hand, clearly states "it is also clear that humanity's impact on the environment is at a level that is not sustainable and is endangering the biosphere and climate on which we depend"
> 
> The other two - well, you might as well include things like 'House prices have increased in my area', it would be about as relevant.


Yes, the tobacco industry 'scientist' thing often crops up when you question climate alarmism.

No, they are independent, open minded, inquisitive and able to see through the nonsense that is the climate emergency.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a "climate emergency".

Oopsie. 

_Concern about the petition, which was heavily promoted internationally as a call for action on climate change, was sparked by questions about some of its celebrity signatories.

Mickey Mouse from the Mickey Mouse School of the Blind, Namibia made it through onto an official list published along with the BioScience article._


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a "climate emergency".
> 
> Oopsie.
> 
> _Concern about the petition, which was heavily promoted internationally as a call for action on climate change, was sparked by questions about some of its celebrity signatories.
> 
> Mickey Mouse from the Mickey Mouse School of the Blind, Namibia made it through onto an official list published along with the BioScience article._


Mmm, so anyone could add a name?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Yes, Rona - anyone could have signed this appeal, although Albus Dumbledore and Micky [sic] Mouse have now been removed. I found these this morning.

There were never 11,000 scientists, yet alone 11,000 climate scientists. It is very doubtful that you will see this reported to counter the alarming headlines on Wednesday.

Herpetologist
Eco Activist
Pharmacist
Librarian
Curator of Vertebrates
Paediatrician
Vet
Student
Medical Doctor
Safari Tour Operator
Researchers
Research Assistants
Horticulturist
Staff Researcher
Zoo Keeper
Animal Behaviourist
General Practitioner NHS


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yes, the tobacco industry 'scientist' thing often crops up when you question climate alarmism.
> 
> No, they are independent, open minded, inquisitive and able to see through the nonsense that is the climate emergency.


I assure you, I'm the last person to take anything at face value - if you note, I very deliberately said SOME, not all. I just prefer to fact check BOTH sides of the debate, for whilst there is most certainly a climate change bandwagon to be jumped on, there is also the equivalent in the denial camp - and a goodly number of profiteers in both.

Yes, I'm that cynical.

Now, did you intend to answer my other points/questions?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> I assure you, I'm the last person to take anything at face value - if you note, I very deliberately said SOME, not all. I just prefer to fact check BOTH sides of the debate, for whilst there is most certainly a climate change bandwagon to be jumped on, there is also the equivalent in the denial camp - and a goodly number of profiteers in both.
> 
> Yes, I'm that cynical.
> 
> Now, did you intend to answer my other points/questions?


The one about the misleading graphs?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Oh, and the "eugenics" question. Yes, I understand perfectly the meaning of "eugenics", thank you.


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> The one about the misleading graphs?


Well, that was one certainly - they make logical sense to me so I would be interested to know why you believe they are misleading.

The other was your definition of eugenics - I know you said you understand it, but you didn't actually say what your understanding of it is. Which means it could be anything, really.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> Well, that was one certainly - they make logical sense to me so I would be interested to know why you believe they are misleading.
> 
> The other was your definition of eugenics - I know you said you understand it*, but you didn't actually say what your understanding of it is*. Which means it could be anything, really.


Yeah, not overly concerned that you're dissatisfied with my understanding of eugenics. I'll answer the graph question when I get more time (hopefully tomorrow) Off out to lunch now.


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Yeah, not overly concerned that you're dissatisfied with my understanding of eugenics. I'll answer the graph question when I get more time (hopefully tomorrow) Off out to lunch now.


Oh, I'm not dissatisfied with your understanding of it - I just don't know what it is!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The graphs in the 'study' are misleading because they're manufactured to give a steep rise (in most cases) by altering the '_y'_ axis maximum, or the ratio of the graph dimensions which will affect the slope of the horizontal line.
























Or you start at a date that suits your story, like graph 'J' taken from the study (below left) which shows an alarming rate of ocean acidification. But this is taken over a period of ten years which is not a period of time long enough to get any proper data about climate change. The MetOffice says 30 years is the period of time needed to accurately measure climate change. And, again, the data in the 'y' axis is deliberately used to get the steep decline in ph levels. The graph (below right) shows ocean ph levels over a period of nearly 200 years. Given in context, that doesn't look like a climate emergency to me.
















Also, in one of my previous posts I linked to a study that showed corals actually create their own healthy environment by increasing CO2 levels in the sea around them. So, go figure? The other graphs get a similar treatment.

This so called 'study' has pretty much been discredited within hours of appearing. What is the Alliance of World Scientists? Who peer reviewed this report? How did it get so much coverage in the press without any proper scrutiny? And, since when was a safari tour operator or an eco activist considered a scientist?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Edited to remove Mickey Mouse cartoon. Was just being silly.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Having another quick look at the graphs from the Alliance of World Scientists 'study'. Below left (black & white) is the sea level rise graph 'k'. This one uses the start date of 1993 at the beginning of a twenty year period when sea levels rose (if the data are correct) by a degree of 3mm per year compared to a mean average of 1.7mm in the 20th century. So, the Alliance of World Scientists, whoever they are, have chosen a specific period to get the most alarming result in this graph too.

From the IPCC report of 2013 -

_"It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged *sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/year between 1901 and 2010 . . . and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/year between 1993 and 2010*. It is likely that* similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.*" _















The coloured graph to the right shows sea levels from 1800-2000. It shows that sea levels were retreating but started to rise many years before CO2 would have had any influence and have been rising slowly at a steady rate since. So, there is no clear correlation between rising CO2 and sea level rise because so many other natural variations make it impossible to come to that conclusion.

From (WCRP, 2017a) states:

_"Despite considerable progress during the last decade, *major gaps remain in our understanding of past and contemporary sea level change and their causes. These uncertainties arise from limitations in our current conceptual understanding of relevant physical processes, deficiencies in our observing and monitoring systems, and inaccuracies in statistical and numerical modeling approaches to simulate or forecast sea level."
*_
Judith Curry has recently written the study below that goes into great depth and has many interesting facts that show there are a whole load of other influences that affect sea level rise (and retreat).

Sea Level and Climate Change

_"Sea level was apparently higher than present at the time of the Holocene Climate Optimum (~ 5000 years ago), at least in some regions.

• Tide gauges show that sea levels began to rise during the 19th century, after several centuries associated with cooling and sea level decline. Tide gauges also show that rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates.

• Recent research has concluded that there is no consistent or compelling evidence that recent rates of sea level rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records back to the 19th century that are available across Europe"_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Below is the Alliance of World Scientists' graph showing Antarctica Ice Loss, and it looks catastrophic with just a casual look. The notes say that they are using "Climatic response time series from *1979 to the present*". I say it sounds catastrophic because that is what this graph has been manufactured to do - it is intentional. Antarctica does gain and lose ice mass every summer (our winter) and every winter (our summer) but the continent never, or extremely rarely, gets above freezing, and that is still the case today. Antarctica will always be gaining and losing ice mass in terms of gigatons, but it just looks scarier when used in a graph this way to make it as alarming as they can.









Of course, the Alliance of World Scientists could have shown a graph of the *temperatures *across Antarctica for the same time period, but that would have shown a horizontal line all the way across the graph. This temperature record goes back to 1995. Not so alarming.









PS. If you want a look at how the Antarctic is doing right now, below I have linked to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) which updates the Arctic and Antarctica's ice extent daily. A quick look at the below link, compared to the first graph, is a very interesting contrast.

National Snow and Ice Data Centre: Antarctica (Just click on Antarctic)

Oh, and just ETA if you also click on the Arctic 'button' and click between 'monthly' and 'daily' you will see that it has accumulated a huge amount of sea ice over the last few days alone because it is now coming into its winter.


----------



## Elles

In Italy the education minister is a climate activist apparently. He has made climate change education compulsory, beginning with an hour a week, but eventually building it into other classes, such as maths. Italian politics seem a bit complicated at the moment though.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> In Italy the education minister is a climate activist apparently. He has made climate change education compulsory, beginning with an hour a week, but eventually building it into other classes, such as maths. Italian politics seem a bit complicated at the moment though.


Lorenzo Fioramonti encouraged school children to join the school strike in September so I'm not sure there will be any balance in the climate change lessons.

It would be nice if the children were given balanced information which allowed them to think for themselves so they could come to their own conclusions.

Also, it would be sad if the opportunity was missed and it just produced little activists instead of scientists.


----------



## Magyarmum

*Scientist says cannibalism is the answer to climate change*
Sep 10, 2019
*And other stories from the stranger side of life*










A Swedish scientist says that cannibalism could save us from climate change. Professor Magnus Soderlund, of Stockholm School of Economics, argues that eating the flesh of dead humans could be a sustainable alternative to meat or dairy. "I'd have to say... I'd be open to at least tasting it," he said.


----------



## mrs phas

Magyarmum said:


> *Scientist says cannibalism is the answer to climate change*
> Sep 10, 2019
> *And other stories from the stranger side of life*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'd have to say... I'd be open to at least tasting it," he said.


Just like everything else.
Tastes like chicken

Wonders if said scientist has ever watched a zombie movie:Hurting


----------



## Jesthar

Issues with the data behind the graphs is an important challenge to raise (although one must obviously take care to avoid being as selective with the evidence presented for rebuttal purposes), but I should note it is NOT what was originally challenged as being wrong with the graphs. What was said was: 


samuelsmiles3 said:


> the graphs from the report linked below have been fitted into equal size boxes for no other reason than to try to alarm. Embarassing.


So there was no mention of the _quality _of data they display, the challenge was only that putting them all in equal size boxes (and, as a logical continuation, presumably using the same scale for the X-axis for ease of comparison purposes) was somehow misleading. As displaying data in a comparable manner is a standard statistical analysis methodology (and, indeed, I would quite rightly expect claims of misleading intent if data was deliberately presented at _different _x-axis scales to increase it's impact), from a data presentation point of view there is nothing wrong with that.

As to the differences in Y axis, it's considered good practice to use a scale that shows the data points in the clearest possible context - i.e. that uses as much of the vertical height as possible. It's a bit pointless, for example, to show a graph of, say, global birth rate over the last 40 years and insist the y axis begins at zero, as you're going to end up with a relatively small wiggle at the top end of the graph. Some of the graphs in the report are displaying data in a range in the even higher hundred, or even the thousands, so that would be even more problematic.

So, as far as I can see, whilst you may have issues with the data selection process, there is no fault with the graphical presentation itself.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> Issues with the data behind the graphs is an important challenge to raise (although one must obviously take care to avoid being as selective with the evidence presented for rebuttal purposes), but I should note it is NOT what was originally challenged as being wrong with the graphs. What was said was:
> 
> So there was no mention of the _quality _of data they display, the challenge was only that putting them all in equal size boxes (and, as a logical continuation, presumably using the same scale for the X-axis for ease of comparison purposes) was somehow misleading. As displaying data in a comparable manner is a standard statistical analysis methodology (and, indeed, I would quite rightly expect claims of misleading intent if data was deliberately presented at _different _x-axis scales to increase it's impact), from a data presentation point of view there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> As to the differences in Y axis, it's considered good practice to use a scale that shows the data points in the clearest possible context - i.e. that uses as much of the vertical height as possible. It's a bit pointless, for example, to show a graph of, say, global birth rate over the last 40 years and insist the y axis begins at zero, as you're going to end up with a relatively small wiggle at the top end of the graph. Some of the graphs in the report are displaying data in a range in the even higher hundred, or even the thousands, so that would be even more problematic.
> 
> So, as far as I can see, whilst you may have issues with the data selection process, there is no fault with the graphical presentation itself.


My contention was that they were "misleading" to alarm. I was correct. That was their intention and that is why they succeeded in alarming the gullible. Just a quick first glance at them should have caused concern for anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject.

The data was carefully selected by day and period of time.

The 'paper' was an appeal, not a scientific study and has, thankfully, been completely and thoroughly kicked into the long grass.

That the BBC, The Guardian, and all of the other mainstream media outlets took any serious notice of it before giving it any proper scrutiny is embarrassing to them all.

But this is where we are right now.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

PS @Jesthar you said of me - _"And at this stage I'm really not sure whether you're serious, or just having a serious wum..._

I have put forward my case against the paper in some detail, are you going to put your case forward to defend it now?


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> My contention was that they were "misleading" to alarm. I was correct. That was their intention and that is why they succeeded in alarming the gullible. Just a quick first glance at them should have caused concern for anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject.


But you gave the wrong _context._ and context is very, very important. Critical, actually.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> The data was carefully selected by day and period of time.


And if 'the selected data is wrong' had been your stated challenge, that would have been an applicable observation in this specific debate. But it wasn't, you only raised issue with the displpay of the data, specifically the fitting of the graphs into equal size boxes. I, in turn, pointed out why presenting the data that way was logical and appropriate (without reference to the quality of the data as that had not been mentioned).



samuelsmiles3 said:


> The 'paper' was an appeal, not a scientific study and has, thankfully, been completely and thoroughly kicked into the long grass.
> 
> That the BBC, The Guardian, and all of the other mainstream media outlets took any serious notice of it before giving it any proper scrutiny is embarrassing to them all.
> 
> But this is where we are right now.


Having looked at both papers (which are genuine academic papers, as @MollySmith pointed out), I don't see the term 'appeal' mentioned in either of them. I don't regard the Daily Fail as a valid scientific source (or as an acceptable quality source for anything, really), but that doesn't appear to contain the word 'appeal' either. The original papers are both clearly labelled as 'Viewpoint' papers, so there can be no confusion as to the intent of the paper. How other people interpret the paper and choose to report on it is not within the control of the authors.



samuelsmiles3 said:


> PS @Jesthar you said of me - _"And at this stage I'm really not sure whether you're serious, or just having a serious wum..._
> 
> I have put forward my case against the paper in some detail, are you going to put your case forward to defend it now?


Strangely, I have never been trying to defend the paper - or defend anything. Only educate on the precise, logical nature and understanding of scientific and statistical process, as the higher academic world can be a rather strange and unfathomable one to those unused to it's quirks


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> But you gave the wrong _context._ and context is very, very important. Critical, actually.
> 
> And if 'the selected data is wrong' had been your stated challenge, that would have been an applicable observation in this specific debate. But it wasn't, you only raised issue with the displpay of the data, specifically the fitting of the graphs into equal size boxes. I, in turn, pointed out why presenting the data that way was logical and appropriate (without reference to the quality of the data as that had not been mentioned).
> 
> Having looked at both papers (which are genuine academic papers, as @MollySmith pointed out), I don't see the term 'appeal' mentioned in either of them. I don't regard the Daily Fail as a valid scientific source (or as an acceptable quality source for anything, really), but that doesn't appear to contain the word 'appeal' either. The original papers are both clearly labelled as 'Viewpoint' papers, so there can be no confusion as to the intent of the paper. How other people interpret the paper and choose to report on it is not within the control of the authors.
> 
> Strangely, I have never been trying to defend the paper - or defend anything. Only educate on the precise, logical nature and understanding of scientific and statistical process, as the higher academic world can be a rather strange and unfathomable one to those unused to it's quirks


Thank you so much for '_educating me on the precise, logical nature and understanding of scientific and statistical process," _ I am very grateful_.
_
If, in future, you have anything to contribute to the climate change debate itself I'd be interested to hear, although references to "genuine academic papers" endorsed by Albus Dumbledore, Mickey Mouse, eco activists and safari tour operators and the like will be subject to the same scrutiny.


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Thank you so much for '_educating me on the precise, logical nature and understanding of scientific and statistical process," _ I am very grateful_._


And you are very welcome  I'm pleased to have been of service


----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019...kddZzoqsR9ePKSmH2lDF0v7Mf9bVqgvAPlSJGrWFb1bj7

*Electronic waste is piling up in homes, this EU regulation aims to stamp that out*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Two interesting studies about the wildfires in Australia. *
*
*Influence of Location, Population, and Climate on Building Damage and Fatalities due to Australian Bushfire: 1925-2009*
_"One unequivocal result from our analyses is the absence of any signiﬁcant trend in normalized HE over time (Fig. 1b). This being the case, a reasonable *conclusion at this time, consistent with similar studies summarized by Bouwer (2010), is that it is not possible to detect a greenhouse-gas climatic-change signal in the time series of Australian bushﬁre building damage once it has been normalized. *Such an inﬂuence is not ruled out by our analysis, but, if it does exist, it is clearly dwarfed by the magnitude of the societal change and the large year-to-year variation in impacts"._
_
_
*Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world*
_"The fact that nowadays the latest news reports about disasters from around the world are readily available to large parts of the population may be a contributing factor. What is not spreading equally well is the recognition that fire is a fundamental natural ecological agent in many of our ecosystems and only a 'problem' where we choose to inhabit these fire-prone regions or we humans introduce it to non-fire-adapted ecosystems [3]. *The 'wildfire problem' is essentially more a social than a natural one*."_

_

_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Greta Thunberg is on La Vagabonde on her way to COP25 in Madrid. The link below shows the exact live position of the yacht and the weather in the Atlantic Ocean which looks rather scary, and you can see that there is a tropical storm called Sebastien below the yacht. Looking at some weather forecasts it seems as though the storm is following the yacht's course so hopefully they stay safe.

Greta Thunberg on La Vagabonde


----------



## Magyarmum

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Greta Thunberg is on La Vagabonde on her way to COP25 in Madrid. The link below shows the exact live position of the yacht and the weather in the Atlantic Ocean which looks rather scary, and you can see that there is a tropical storm called Sebastien below the yacht. Looking at some weather forecasts it seems as though the storm is following the yacht's course so hopefully they stay safe.
> 
> Greta Thunberg on La Vagabonde


November is the hurricane season but a popular time to cross the Atlantic as many people want to be home for Christmas. The most dangerous part of the journey is crossing the Bay of Biscay and often you have to wait for the weather to improve.

My son is a yacht skipper who does yacht deliveries. He and the family have sailed round the world 3 times and crossed the Atlantic many times.

https://www.sailingtoday.co.uk/practical/technical-guides/atlantic-weather/

*Sailing across the Atlantic*


----------



## Beth78

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Greta Thunberg is on La Vagabonde on her way to COP25 in Madrid. The link below shows the exact live position of the yacht and the weather in the Atlantic Ocean which looks rather scary, and you can see that there is a tropical storm called Sebastien below the yacht. Looking at some weather forecasts it seems as though the storm is following the yacht's course so hopefully they stay safe.
> 
> Greta Thunberg on La Vagabonde


Gosh she's a brave girl.


----------



## Magyarmum

Beth78 said:


> Gosh she's a brave girl.


Not really ...... all she has to do is sit tight and let the crew, who presumably know what they're doing, sail the boat.

It's only the same as flying in the sense that when you board a plane, you're placing your life in the hands of the pilots and crew to get you to your destination safely!


----------



## Siskin

Magyarmum said:


> Not really ...... all she has to do is sit tight and let the crew, who presumably know what they're doing, sail the boat.
> 
> It's only the same as flying in the sense that when you board a plane, you're placing your life in the hands of the pilots and crew to get you to your destination safely!


I agree with that. However it's the sort of thing I would have done at that age - I used to do a lot of dinghy sailing at sea as well as rivers. Some of the things we did would scare me to death now, but back then most teens think they are invincible.


----------



## Beth78

Depends on the teenager I suppose.
I was scared of everything at that age.


----------



## Magyarmum

Siskin said:


> I agree with that. However it's the sort of thing I would have done at that age - I used to do a lot of dinghy sailing at sea as well as rivers. Some of the things we did would scare me to death now, but back then most teens think they are invincible.


My son always delegated me to the galley to do the cooking, or because I was the smallest person on the yacht to guide the anchor chain in the chain locker. Once someone closed the lid and it was only when everyone wanted breakfast they realised I was still in there in the pitch dark, that they let me out, otherwise I might still be in there today!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Mike Shellenberger in Forbes gives some perspective on the current state of climate alarmism. 

Why Everything They Say About Climate Change Is Wrong.

_"Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public"._
_
I asked the Australian climate scientist Tom Wigley what he thought of the claim that climate change threatens civilization. "It really does bother me because it's wrong," he said. "All these young people have been misinformed. And partly it's Greta Thunberg's fault. Not deliberately. But she's wrong."_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

A lovely balanced opinion piece from the wonderful Dr. Judith Curry. Sadly, climate change hysteria has reached such levels that it won't get much, if any coverage in any main media sources.

Madrid

"_Apart from uncertainties in future emissions, we are still facing a factor of 3 or more uncertainty in the sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over manmade warming".

_


----------



## Siskin

ER remind me of a modern day version of the people you used to see years ago wandering about with a sandwich board with the words ‘The end of the world in nigh’.

ER has better PR I guess


----------



## Calvine

Siskin said:


> 'The end of the world in nigh'.


 Hahaha, yes: ''Repent before it is too late!''.


----------



## Calvine

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/emma-thompson-extinction-rebellion-forecast-a4306091.html

Here she goes again: we'll all be eating the cats soon. I wonder if she travelled by plane to share this gem with us?


----------



## Elles

One of the founders of XR. Its not about the climate.

https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49


----------



## rona

This lady was saying that something needed doing in 1989. Why was she not listened too?
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817

" one has grown clearer than any other in both urgency and importance-I refer to the threat to our global environment."

"And second, as we travel through space, as we pass one dead planet after another, we look back on our earth, a speck of life in an infinite void. It is life itself, incomparably precious, that distinguishes us from the other planets"

"What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate-all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways."

"More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world's population was some 2 billion people. My grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people.

Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities:  The land they cultivate ever more intensively;  The forests they cut down and burn;  The mountain sides they lay bare;  The fossil fuels they burn;  The rivers and the seas they pollute."


----------



## Happy Paws2

Victoria Falls has dried up
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...to-a-trickle-after-worst-drought-in-a-century


----------



## Guest

I am no climate expert, I can only read the news and form my own opinions same as everyone else. However, there are hard facts, not just opinions, that show that our climate is heating up. It was reported recently that over the last decade the average global temperature was the highest since records began. We have glaciers melting at an alarming rate, an increase in extreme weather patterns ranging from hurricanes with increasing ferocity and occurrence, flooding caused by intense rainfall, droughts and forest fires. Yes of course we have always had these problems, but not at the extremes we are experiencing today. Some will argue this is a normal pattern that cycles back and forth, others will say its climate change brought about by human activity. But surely it can be no coincidence that the increase in world wide industrial development together with the increase in atmospheric pollution are increasing hand in hand with global temperatures. 
Is it just a coincidence? I think not, but as I said I am no expert, so I read what the experts say and draw my own conclusions based on what that they claim and the figures they produce to support their arguments.
I find the evidence for global warming caused by human activity to be overwhelming.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Happy Paws2 said:


> Victoria Falls has dried up
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...to-a-trickle-after-worst-drought-in-a-century


There's nothing unusual about this. It is right at the end of the dry season when the Zambezi is at its lowest.

Victoria Falls
_"At this time it becomes possible (though not necessarily safe) to walk across some stretches of the river at the crest. It is also possible to walk to the bottom of the First Gorge at the Zimbabwean side. The minimum flow, which occurs in November,"_

When to visit Victoria Falls
September to November 

_The end of the dry season when the falls are at their lowest level_

_Excellent visibility from the Zimbabwe side_

*Falls may dry up almost completely on the Zambian side, leaving just a dry rock wall*

Average monthly snow and rainfall in Lusaka in millimeter

*Victoria Falls Is Not Dry' - Zimbabwe tour operators send the message out*
Several Zimbabwean tour operators have visited the Victoria Falls and posed for pictures at one of the viewing points.

"_It said the level of the Zambezi has not yet dropped below that of the 1995 drought, and that water levels in the Zambezi have in fact risen in the past week.

The falls stretch over a 1.7 km-long expanse of rock spanning Zimbabwe and Zambia and part of the water curtain dries up each dry season."_


----------



## Happy Paws2

samuelsmiles3 said:


> There's nothing unusual about this. It is right at the end of the dry season when the Zambezi is at its lowest.
> _"_


Did you read this part....

the worst drought in a century has slowed the waterfalls to a trickle, fueling fears that climate change could kill one of the region's biggest tourist attractions.
While they typically slow down during the dry season, officials said this year had brought an unprecedented decline in water levels.
"In previous years, when it gets dry, it's not to this extent,"


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Yes, I read the whole article. This was a report from 1950.

















Eta. This, below, was probably the most balanced quote in the article.

_"Harald Kling, a hydrologist at engineering firm Poyry and a Zambezi river expert, said climate science dealt in decades, not particular years, "so it's sometimes difficult to say this is because of climate change because droughts have always occurred"._


----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.dw.com/en/cop25-who-are...Yhbzl-T5Vh3ygznZWrm7NJCb5YeWTb7wE8zVdn6Y-rXsc

*COP25: Who are the biggest climate winners and losers?*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Poll Finds Most People Would Rather Be Annihilated By Giant Tidal Wave Than Continue To Be Lectured By Climate Change Activists

_"Come, sweet death," one man scrawled on the survey response form after hearing just 30 seconds of a Greta Thunberg lecture. "O, sweet release that ends my suffering on this mortal plane! Embrace me in your salty arms, great wave of destiny." :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Climate scientist, Judith Curry, has just published this article in response to a letter she received from a young person in the UK who has been traumatised by the alarmism currently happening.

The toxic rhetoric of climate change

*JC message to children and young adults: * "_Don't believe the hype that you are hearing from Extinction Rebellion and the like. Rather than going on strike or just worrying, take the time to learn something about the science of climate change. The IPCC reports are a good place to start; for a critical perspective on the IPCC, Climate Etc. is a good resource.

Climate change - manmade and/or natural - along with extreme weather events, provide reasons for concern. However, the rhetoric and politics of climate change have become absolutely toxic and nonsensical.

In the mean time, live your best life. Trying where you can to lessen your impact on the planet is a worthwhile thing to do. Societal prosperity is the best insurance policy that we have for reducing our vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate."
_
*JC message to Extinction Rebellion and other doomsters:* _ "Not only do you know nothing about climate change, you also appear to know nothing of history. You are your own worst enemy - you are triggering a global backlash against doing anything sensible about protecting our environment or reducing our vulnerability to extreme weather. You are making young people miserable, who haven't yet experienced enough of life to place this nonsense in context"._


----------



## kimthecat

saw Greta Thunberg on the news , she had to be rescued from a crowd of people , she look so frail and tired. Why are her parents protecting her?

ETA It seems she recognises she needs a rest and is heading home for a break .


----------



## Beth78

kimthecat said:


> saw Greta Thunberg on the news , she had to be rescued from a crowd of people , she look so frail and tired. Why are her parents protecting her?
> 
> ETA It seems she recognises she needs a rest and is heading home for a break .


Hopefully her parents feed her up abit, she looks very thin.


----------



## kimthecat

Beth78 said:


> Hopefully her parents feed her up abit, she looks very thin.


I think she has lost weight.


----------



## Lurcherlad

.

.


----------



## rona

Lurcherlad said:


> Saw this satellite picture of Australia in a newspaper the other day.
> 
> No words
> 
> View attachment 428674


It's not a photo but a visualization of all the fires that have been ravaging Australia this year based on NASA data. Many of those fires have been out for months 
Still pretty shocking


----------



## Lurcherlad

Oh - my bad!

Probably best to delete it then.


----------



## rona

Lurcherlad said:


> Oh - my bad!
> 
> Probably best to delete it then.


It still represents what's happened in Australia this last year


----------



## catz4m8z

They have such a unique ecosystem over there....all those fires must be just devastating it.


----------



## margy

After feeling thoroughly depressed by Sir David Attenborough telling us how we are doomed unless we change our ways immediately, what a breath of fresh air Chris Packham was on the One Show tonight, the voice of reason. Yes we do have to do our bit but humanity is adaptable and we can survive this. He really set my mind at ease not for me but for my grandchildren.


----------



## Siskin

This turned up on fb this morning.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The hypocricy of the 'climate emergency' narrative laid bare. Greta is there too.

Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> The hypocricy of the 'climate emergency' narrative laid bare. Greta is there too.
> 
> Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk


Um, that article is from 22nd January 2019 - a year old...

I'm also curious as to what practical, non-hypocritical transport methods are available, assuming that first class or business class air travel will be deemed equally heinous


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Jesthar said:


> Um, that article is from 22nd January 2019 - a year old...
> 
> I'm also curious as to what practical, non-hypocritical transport methods are available, assuming that first class or business class air travel will be deemed equally heinous


None. If you scream 'climate emergency' and preach about keeping fossil fuels in the ground because "our house is on fire", you don't ever fly on a plane, you don't drive and you don't get on a bus or a train. You walk and you ride a bicycle. The bicycle, of course, will have to use fossil fuels to manufacture, though.

So, you just walk.

Eta. And the same would apply to Extinction Rebellion members who block and obstruct people from entering petrol stations.


----------



## Jesthar

samuelsmiles3 said:


> None. If you scream 'climate emergency' and preach about keeping fossil fuels in the ground because "our house is on fire", you don't ever fly on a plane, you don't drive and you don't get on a bus or a train. You walk and you ride a bicycle. The bicycle, of course, will have to use fossil fuels to manufacture, though.
> 
> So, you just walk.
> 
> Eta. And the same would apply to Extinction Rebellion members who block and obstruct people from entering petrol stations.


So basically, anyone concerned enough about the effect ot humans on the climate to want to do something about it should remove themselves from society never to heard from again? Bit extreme...


----------



## MollySmith

Slightly more educative is the Flight Free campaign which I've signed up. The idea is the we should all fly a lot less. I chose not to at all and offset my journeys. Sometimes when there is no choice and the journey is essential, the flying maybe necessary but it's a last choice not straight to Flybe (saved thanks to our apparently good government)

https://flightfree.co.uk/

Advice on not flying here from them who know more than I could ever understand 
https://noflyclimatesci.org/

For those who love pictures more
http://www.saxifrages.org/eco/

Why flying is getting more eco (but trains are still a bit better)
https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/yes-flying-less-can-help-tackle-climate-change-4830

Alternatives
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190909-why-flight-shame-is-making-people-swap-planes-for-trains


----------



## samuelsmiles3

If they believe that our use of fossil fuels is causing a 'climate emergency' they should set an example and stop using it themselves. They are the extremists who are demanding this. We have good solutions that can help with cleaner electricity like nuclear, but these peope, like XR, hate that because it is a solution - a way forward.

They just want to ban, obstruct and have something to whine about. It's their oxygen. I care about the environment and earth just as much as they do.


----------



## MollySmith

samuelsmiles3 said:


> None. If you scream 'climate emergency' and preach about keeping fossil fuels in the ground because "our house is on fire", you don't ever fly on a plane, you don't drive and you don't get on a bus or a train. You walk and you ride a bicycle. The bicycle, of course, will have to use fossil fuels to manufacture, though.
> 
> So, you just walk.
> 
> Eta. And the same would apply to Extinction Rebellion members who block and obstruct people from entering petrol stations.


Oh yes, I'll let the local XR chap know when I've stopped laughing (vegan, volunteers for a charity who restores abandoned bikes, flight free) he'll be sure to that on board.

Did you know that emails have carbon footprints, I wonder how much a long forum post has?! 
https://carbonliteracy.com/the-carbon-cost-of-an-email/


----------



## MollySmith

samuelsmiles3 said:


> If they believe that our use of fossil fuels is causing a 'climate emergency' they should set an example and stop using it themselves. They are the extremists who are demanding this. We have good solutions that can help with cleaner electricity like nuclear, but these peope, like XR, hate that because it is a solution - a way forward.
> 
> They just want to ban, obstruct and have something to whine about. It's their oxygen. I care about the environment and earth just as much as they do.


Where is the evidence of anyone at the Cambridge protest who also uses fossil fuel. I would like to know because that is worrying, I would genuinely mention it to the people I know.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

MollySmith said:


> Oh yes, I'll let the local XR chap know when I've stopped laughing (vegan, volunteers for a charity who restores abandoned bikes, flight free) he'll be sure to that on board.
> 
> Did you know that emails have carbon footprints, I wonder how much a long forum post has?!
> https://carbonliteracy.com/the-carbon-cost-of-an-email/


I'm really not quite sure what the carbon footprint of a long forum post is. I do know that the phone I made it from has replaced my daily newspaper, a torch, visits to the library, buying CDs and videos, and a camera. That happened because of technology and optimism - not just giving stuff up and pessimism.


----------



## O2.0

I don't remember if I've shared this before, but it seems an apt place to put it.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

O2.0 said:


> I don't remember if I've shared this before, but it seems an apt place to put it.


She's down to 113,000,000 now. My guess is that in 11 years time it will be a catastrophically lower number.


----------



## MollySmith

I don't know this years figures 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...rivate-jet-flights-davos-leaders-climate-talk


----------



## MollySmith

Brilliant news! 
https://reneweconomy.com.au/portugal-reaches-100-renewables-ends-fossil-fuel-subsidies-32820/


----------



## Magyarmum

MollySmith said:


> Slightly more educative is the Flight Free campaign which I've signed up. The idea is the we should all fly a lot less. I chose not to at all and offset my journeys. Sometimes when there is no choice and the journey is essential, the flying maybe necessary but it's a last choice not straight to Flybe (saved thanks to our apparently good government)
> 
> https://flightfree.co.uk/
> 
> Advice on not flying here from them who know more than I could ever understand
> https://noflyclimatesci.org/
> 
> For those who love pictures more
> http://www.saxifrages.org/eco/
> 
> Why flying is getting more eco (but trains are still a bit better)
> https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/yes-flying-less-can-help-tackle-climate-change-4830
> 
> Alternatives
> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190909-why-flight-shame-is-making-people-swap-planes-for-trains


One of the reasons I moved to Hungary was because having "commuted" to work for the past 7 years, I'd grown to hate travelling by plane. I've been here for 12 years now and only once, due to a family emergency, have I travelled by plane. All other journey's I've made abroad have been either by car, bus or by train, which I find is a much more leisurely and cheaper way to travel.

Having said that my family always fly to Hungary, but in mitigation they've lived on a yacht for the past 35 years during which time they've sailed round the world three times, so all in all their carbon footprint is or should be relatively small.


----------



## Magyarmum

https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion...he Time for Postponing Climate Action Is Over

*The Time for Postponing Climate Action Is Over*


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Really good news about Victoria Falls, with flow at this time increased in comparison to last year's flow.

The Victoria Falls is Moving Steadily to its Fullest Splendour.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Students demanded divestment from fossil fuels, a professor offered to turn off the gas heating

_"Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. "I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice," he wrote. "But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal_."

To which the student responded -

_"This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It's January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating." :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

I think this is to stop the climate changing, or saving the planet, or stopping the Antarctic from melting. Or something. Not quite sure, to be honest. :Yawn

Eat Crawlers. Insect grub.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Extinction Rebellionist, Jane Fonda, shows that she cares for the planet more than most. She will only wear *ethically harvested gold and sustainable diamonds*, and wore a dress to the Oscars that she last wore in 2014. She also endured seven hours at the hairdresser having her hair trimmed and coloured. Amazing lady. What a trouper.

Jack Martin, her hair colourist, described her as "humble". :Hilarious:Hilarious:Hilarious

Jane Fonda recycles Cannes dress at the Oscars - and teams with 'climate change' coat she's been arrested in five times.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> dress to the Oscars that she last wore in 2014


 This totally gets me; gotta laugh really. The Duchess of Cambridge was recently described as ''Thrifty Kate'' for wearing an outfit for the second time (it cost £3000, incidentally:Joyful). This was described as ''recycling'' the outfit, as tho' she had made a jacket for Charlotte and a pair of trousers each for Louis and George.


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> I think this is to stop the climate changing, or saving the planet, or stopping the Antarctic from melting. Or something. Not quite sure, to be honest. :Yawn
> 
> Eat Crawlers. Insect grub.


 I read that Amazon do chocolate coated ones (not checked that out though). Insect-based pet food too I believe? (Maybe that was just a dream.)


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> I read that Amazon do chocolate coated ones (not checked that out though). Insect-based pet food too I believe? (Maybe that was just a dream.)


No you're not dreaming! I remember as far back as the 70's you used to be able to buy chocolate covered ants in Harrods! And you can buy insect based dog food from Zooplus over here.

https://www.zooplus.hu/shop/kutya/s...MIv-G5rcnJ5wIVEEMYCh0iOwcdEAYYASABEgJIFfD_BwE

*Concept for Life Veterinary Diet Hypoallergenic Insect*


----------



## Calvine

Magyarmum said:


> No you're not dreaming! I remember as far back as the 70's you used to be able to buy chocolate covered ants in Harrods! And you can buy insect based dog food from Zooplus over here.
> 
> https://www.zooplus.hu/shop/kutya/s...MIv-G5rcnJ5wIVEEMYCh0iOwcdEAYYASABEgJIFfD_BwE
> 
> *Concept for Life Veterinary Diet Hypoallergenic Insect*


You'd need swarms of insects to feed a Chihuahua, let alone a Great Dane, though. Will they be factory farmed or what? The reason I'm asking is that I've read a few times that birds like the House Sparrow are possibly heading for distinction because the parents cannot find enough insects to feed them and often abandon the second clutch before it hatches as they know hatching them is a waste of time. Poor things, eh?


----------



## Magyarmum

Calvine said:


> You'd need swarms of insects to feed a Chihuahua, let alone a Great Dane, though. Will they be factory farmed or what? The reason I'm asking is that I've read a few times that birds like the House Sparrow are possibly heading for distinction because the parents cannot find enough insects to feed them and often abandon the second clutch before it hatches as they know hatching them is a waste of time. Poor things, eh?


https://www.businessinsider.co.za/s...ed-made-from-insect-larvae-agriprotein-2019-4

*More South African animal feed and pet food now contain insect larvae - thanks in part to Bill Gates*

This is AgriProtein in South Africa which produces insect meal on a commercial basis. The Company was started by Jason Drew who got the idea when fishing with his grandfather as a child in the UK.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Interesting article about the floods and climate change. 

Defeatist officials need to stop hiding behind climate change and take action on floods

"_Eustice and Bevan are also on shaky ground when they say that floods are becoming more extreme. "The Welland & Deepings Internal Drainage Board in Lincolnshire have been keeping rainfall records since 1829," says local farmer Nicholas Watts, "and when* I look back on the rainfall over the past 190 years we are getting less extreme events than we used to. The worst year was 1880.*" This tallies with the conclusions of a number of other farmers around the country who keep rain gauges"'_


----------



## rona

samuelsmiles3 said:


> Interesting article about the floods and climate change.
> 
> Defeatist officials need to stop hiding behind climate change and take action on floods
> 
> "_Eustice and Bevan are also on shaky ground when they say that floods are becoming more extreme. "The Welland & Deepings Internal Drainage Board in Lincolnshire have been keeping rainfall records since 1829," says local farmer Nicholas Watts, "and when* I look back on the rainfall over the past 190 years we are getting less extreme events than we used to. The worst year was 1880.*" This tallies with the conclusions of a number of other farmers around the country who keep rain gauges"'_


I remember the rivers flooding this much several times onto the flood plains in the 1970s, worse in fact. What is different is the amount of the countryside, including flood plains that are now built on.
Really don't know where they think the water is supposed to go?


----------



## Jesthar

rona said:


> I remember the rivers flooding this much several times onto the flood plains in the 1970s, worse in fact. What is different is the amount of the countryside, including flood plains that are now built on.
> Really don't know where they think the water is supposed to go?


The clue is in the name, isn't it?


----------



## samuelsmiles3

This is a really good tool from the MetOffice which shows average rainfall, temperature and sunshine hours. Annual rainfall shows no real trend spring, summer, autumn or winter despite an increase in temperature of about 1.5c since the mid 19th century. Although it has been an upward trend if anything.

UK temperature, rainfall and sunshine time series


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Very sad about the floods on the River Severn. It has happened so many times before.

River Severn Floods.

1607 - "_Many hundreds of men, women and children perished during this great flood, which was between Gloucester and the estuary. It was at 9 o'clock in the morning that large waves were to be seen coming up the river. This must have been the Bore, which would have met floodwater coming downstream."_


----------



## mrs phas

a lot of this flooding couldve been averted had the government at the time not allowed building and intensive farming on flood plains
had they allowed farmers to carry on cropping and raising things and animals that could cope with living on flood plains ( like how romney marsh sheep, and, saltmarsh sheep still are) then the flood plains, which are no longer, would work as they were supposed to do
some farmer on the news just now was bemoaning the fact that his whole wheat crop was underwater, guess what, wheat doesnt grow om marshland or flood plains naturally!!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Much is said about extreme weather being a result of the climate warming, but there is no good evidence to back up this statement. For this very interesting article, all of Ross McKitrick's (and Roger Pielke's) summaries are taken from the IPCC assessment reports.

Ross McKitrick: Apocalyptic rhetoric about extreme weather keeps ramping up. But experts say there's no emergency

Flooding:_ "Lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale_" IPCC.

Droughts: "_Not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall)_" IPCC.

Hurricanes, tornadoes etc the same.

The political side story to all of this is very interesting too. In the same way that Dr.Judith Curry was hounded and forced out of academia for daring to challenge the alarmism, Roger Pielke Jr. and his father have both received the same treatment.The last sentence of McKitrick's piece is very apt.

_"Clip out this column, keep it close at hand, and quote from the experts when the occasion arises. Just be prepared to be dismissed as a science denier."_


----------



## samuelsmiles3

The 'climate emergency' wasn't even a thing 67 years ago. Now it is everything.

British Pathe News video. Lincolnshire flooding (1953)


----------



## Calvine

samuelsmiles3 said:


> when* I look back on the rainfall over the past 190 years*


How old is he for God's sake!


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Good news. 

Victoria Falls Roars Back to Life.

After prolonged rainfall in the Zambezi Basin and areas upstream during the past three months or so, the Victoria Falls is likely to have a higher flow than it did in the 1970s within the next two weeks. The Zambezi River Authority, records the data daily.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

A new film backed by Michael Moore looks at why renewable energy is not going to clean the environment or have any effect on climate change. 500 year old yucca plants and joshua trees being cut down and shredded to make way for solar farms, for example. It will be very interesting to see how this is covered in the main media outlets like the BBC. I don't think it will be.






And an article by Michael Shellenberger that puts things nicely (depressingly) in to perspective.

New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables

"The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built - but* after cutting down forests. "It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone*," says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, staring at a former solar farm in California. "I learned that the solar panels don't last."


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Some stunning new images of Victoria Falls which is experiencing the highest flows since 2010. Unfortunately, few are able to witness this spectacle due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Victoria Falls reaches highest flow in 10 years - but no one's there to see it.

"It has been quite some time since anyone witnessed the majesty and intensity of this level of water flowing over the Victoria Falls, with the last period of such floods being 10 years ago."


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Calls to add 'climate change' to death certificates

"Climate change is a killer, but we don't acknowledge it on death certificates," co-author Dr Arnagretta Hunter, from the ANU Medical School, said.


----------



## Happy Paws2

This is worrying

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/fahren-hype-alarmism-as-arctic-temperature-soars-by-0-4-degrees/


----------



## rona

https://planet-earth-2017.com/wandering-poles/

The rate of shift of the magnetic pole is on the increase and it seems that in the past decade alone, it had moved a distance close to the distance it had moved in the whole of the past century. Comparing the two phenomena, there seems to be a relation between the location of the magnetic pole and the location of ice build up; where both are moving towards Siberia in tandem? Older ice cap will melt while at the same time new ice cap will form over new location. Melting occurs faster, as the former ice cap has now been covered by a warmer Temperature Belt, but the build up of new ice cap comes from precipitation, and accumulation of ice takes place over hundreds of years, and new ice caps take centuries to fully form.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Long time environmentalist, Michael Shellenberger, has spoken out against the alarmism of the catastrophists for many years now. This piece, and his new book just published, could go a long way to put right the scare stories we hear in the main media sources like the BBC and The Guardian. Book ordered. 

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

"Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that's because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an "existential" threat to human civilization, and called it a "crisis."

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public".


----------



## Elles

I could never agree with increasing the suffering of animals to feed humans. Think again.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

Elles said:


> I could never agree with increasing the suffering of animals to feed humans. Think again.


He's advocating using better, cleaner and less environmentally damaging energy sources to make better use of the land and to increase the well being of humanity by hauling millions out of poverty, but this doesn't mean the suffering of animals has necessarily to increase.

He does say he addresses animal cruelty in the new book, though, so I will read and then "think again".


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> He's advocating using better, cleaner and less environmentally damaging energy sources to make better use of the land and to increase the well being of humanity by hauling millions out of poverty, but this doesn't mean the suffering of animals has necessarily to increase.
> 
> He does say he addresses animal cruelty in the new book, though, so I will read and then "think again".


The think again was aimed at him, I should have been clearer.  He's the one offering solutions. Seems like these folk do go all in on whatever cause, or theory they've got into though.


----------



## samuelsmiles3

"These folk and their causes"? Have you read Shellenberger's history of caring for wildlife, animals and people? It's long and interesting. He cares.


----------



## Elles

samuelsmiles3 said:


> "These folk and their causes"? Have you read Shellenberger's history of caring for wildlife, animals and people? It's long and interesting. He cares.


Nope, no idea who he is. In your post he was a climate doomsayer, warning about catastrophe, now he's not. Once he enthusiastically promoted the fear laden climate change narrative, now he's gone the other way and factory farming animals is the answer.


----------

