A fable for the fuel protesters ...

[Petrol Pete]

Tha

"But thanks for your time then you can thank me for mine. But after that's said , forget it.” Sixto Rodriguez.

Needs Quotation marks and acknowledgement.

He was hugely popular in SA & Australia when I was a teenager in South Africa. Very good movie about him called “Searching for Sugar Man”.

that's a concrete cold fact. I will edit it.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I agree. I would add though that the most successful species adapt to changing environments rather than try to adapt their environment. In fact i can't think of any successful species that significantly adapts it's environment. Beavers maybe? My personal thought is that it must be more energy efficient to adapt as a species rather than try to adapt the environment on a global scale. In an extreme example - do people living near the poles try to warm themselves by manipulating the regional temperature, or do they learn to put a coat on? Not the best example but hope you can see my point!

So yes i absolutely believe we should minimise energy use, pollution etc etc but also focus efforts into how we can adapt to climate change rather than try to control it. We know climate change is coming regardless - it wasn't that long ago (geologically speaking) that we had ice sheets North of London.

As humans we can adapt perhaps better than any other species because use of technology means that we don’t have to rely on inherent hardiness, evolution and the helping hand of luck, and so survival in all but the most adverse conditions is possible.

However what set humans apart from animals is our personal and social awareness of the impact we have upon the world around us. Even if we can adapt and survive, the impact upon other species and the planet as a whole is something that we must take responsibility for.

 

[GrahamT]

Are you saying that the temperature is not rising?

If you were asking me, - no. It is, and always has and will continue to do so. What I am far from certain about its the magnitude of mankind's role in all of it .

 

[Deleted member 126251]

I agree with your sentiments.

You’ll note that I didn’t comment that CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in the past, just that we have released CO2 which took nature many many millions of years to convert into fossil fuels.

Periods of intense volcanic activity and even large meteor strikes can cause huge surges in CO2 levels, however in recent times ambient CO2 levels have been relatively low, and so the release of CO2 from fossil fuels has had a greater effect.

What’s very unfortunate - but also of our own making - is that this has coincided with large scale deforestation which of course reduces the capacity of the planet to manage CO2 levels naturally.

I couldn’t agree more with your final point, humans cannot control nature. We can influence it but we cannot control it. What humans can do though is control what we do, and for that there are no excuses.

Nature was able to absorb CO2 released naturally before we industrialised the world. The amount of CO2 we have unleashed (and continue to release) plus the destruction of the resources that naturally absorbs CO2 is (IMO) unsustainable. Think of all the oil and coal that we have burned in the last 200 years.

As I alluded to earlier, can we afford to stand back and blithely say “it is a natural cycle” ?

Because, if we are wrong, the consequences are unthinkable.

 

[DrNick]

Yes sir right away sir, Ill just ignore the Israeli medical studies that show some effectiveness, back to the gulag for me.

Is your israeli study one of the ones that has since been retracted? Have a look at the BMJ Unethical studies of ivermectin for covid-19 and check that your study doesn't use any of the fraudulent and unethical studies in its analysis. If it does then, yes, I suggest you ignore it. Up to you if you want to go back to the gulag.

 

[ChipChop]

Nature was able to absorb CO2 released naturally before we industrialised the world. The amount of CO2 we have unleashed (and continue to release) plus the destruction of the resources that naturally absorbs CO2 is (IMO) unsustainable. Think of all the oil and coal that we have burned in the last 200 years.

As I alluded to earlier, can we afford to stand back and blithely say “it is a natural cycle” ?

Because, if we are wrong, the consequences are unthinkable.

And what are the consequences of ever increasing 'green' levies on society?

We have those less fortunate, many elderly, now having to choose between food or heating due to rising utility bill costs.

 

[ALFAitalia]

hat's the trouble with things like this. We have a tiny (actually, miniscule) period of data collection,...

Nope....we have several hundred million years of accurate data in the form of rock strata and ice cores. That why we know that CO was higher when dinosaurs roamed as mentioned above. Which was what also caused some plants and forests to grow massive and suck lots of the carbon out of the air over millions of years....then it ended up buried.....and then we dug it up as oil and coal, burned it and released that carbon back into the air in a very short time.....and of course we have chopped down so much rain forest etc that we don't have that CO grabbing and storage ability anymore....which just makes the current situation worse and why we have a global campaign to plant more trees and forests.

 

[st13phil]

Nope....we have several hundred million years of accurate data in the form of rock strata and ice cores.

I wasn't talking about that. We categorically do not have corresponding temperature data over that period, only questionable and unreliable proxies.

Next?

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Nature was able to absorb CO2 released naturally before we industrialised the world. The amount of CO2 we have unleashed (and continue to release) plus the destruction of the resources that naturally absorbs CO2 is (IMO) unsustainable. Think of all the oil and coal that we have burned in the last 200 years.

As I alluded to earlier, can we afford to stand back and blithely say “it is a natural cycle” ?

Because, if we are wrong, the consequences are unthinkable.

I do agree that CO2 can be absorbed as part of the CO2 cycle but in the past, CO2 levels have been more than 10 times higher than they are now. I forget which period. Ordovician? I don't believe that means we should not try to control our emissions mind you.

One thing though im curious about. Do we really understand the implications of a higher global temperature? We've seen higher temperatures before but the general consensus is higher temps are bad. But why exactly? Yes sea levels will rise, but could there also be benefits? Or is it the change we are most fearful of? Change is coming anyway whether we like it or not. Im not saying this is an excuse not to do anything.

My own personal view is we should worry less about climate change as the end goal and concern ourselves more with general population control/density, energy efficiency, recycling and renewables, deforestation etc. Climate change just muddies the waters - we can only influence the rate of change and from a scientific basis i don't see how we can monitor the effectiveness of any controls we try to put in place. Due to the response time of the changes against the natural background variation and the magnitude of the changes we might see.

 

[whitenemesis]

An interesting short article on CO2 level and influences

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/1%20Glacial-Interglacial%20Cycles-Final-OCT%202021.pdf

Part of this more lengthy read..

Explainer: How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages

In this explainer, Carbon Brief explores how the last ice age provides strong evidence of the role CO2 plays as a “control knob” for the Earth’s climate. It also acts as a cautionary tale of how the climate can experience large changes from relatively small outside “forcings”.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[ChipChop]

Nope....we have several hundred million years of accurate data in the form of rock strata and ice cores. That why we know that CO was higher when dinosaurs roamed as mentioned above. Which was what also caused some plants and forests to grow massive and suck lots of the carbon out of the air over millions of years....then it ended up buried.....and then we dug it up as oil and coal, burned it and released that carbon back into the air in a very short time.....and of course we have chopped down so much rain forest etc that we don't have that CO grabbing and storage ability anymore....which just makes the current situation worse and why we have a global campaign to plant more trees and forests.

The unprecedented spike in global average temperatures was based on Dr Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. Championed by the IPCC since 1998 yet it is based on data which has never been released. All very unscientific. No data means conclusions are unrepeatable. Peer review. Forget it. Probably why climate alarmists resort to pejoratives (climate denier et cetera) as what else do they have as proof of an unprecedented temperature spike.

 

[DrNick]

One thing though im curious about. Do we really understand the implications of a higher global temperature? We've seen higher temperatures before but the general consensus is higher temps are bad. But why exactly? Yes sea levels will rise, but could there also be benefits? Or is it the change we are most fearful of? Change is coming anyway whether we like it or not. Im not saying this is an excuse not to do anything.

One effect is that as the temperature rises, there is more energy in the atmosphere which leads to more extreme weather events. The problem with this is although they tend to be short term, they can have long term effects. eg a big storm at a bad time of year (harvest) leads to crop destruction. If that keeps happening then we run into food shortages. Remember the great lettuce famine of a few years ago because of unusual weather events in Spain?

I think the problem is not so much change, but the speed of change. Evolution cant keep up when change happens fast.

 

[DrNick]

The unprecedented spike in global average temperatures was based on Dr Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. Championed by the IPCC since 1998 yet it is based on data which has never been released. All very unscientific. No data means conclusions are unrepeatable. Peer review. Forget it. Probably why climate alarmists resort to pejoratives (climate denier) as what else do they have as proof of an unprecedented temperature spike.

Here's an updated report by Michael Mann, with plenty of data and uses many studies that show effectively the same thing. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2112797118#fig01

And heres a Reuters fact check that discusses the validity of the hockey stick Fact Check-'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change

I copy the conclusion here for clarity. You can read the basis for this conclusion in the link above

 

[ChipChop]

Here's an updated report by Michael Mann, with plenty of data and uses many studies that show effectively the same thing. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2112797118#fig01

And heres a Reuters fact check that discusses the validity of the hockey stick Fact Check-'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change

I copy the conclusion here for clarity. You can read the basis for this conclusion in the link above
View attachment 126105

Dr Mann was unable to produce the data he used to create the hockey stick graph in a Canadian court of law who were tasked with settling a defamation case made by Dr Mann against another party, Dr Ball.

He was requested to produce the data behind the graph by a judge and he refused to do so. Dr Mann lost the case.

No data equals no science as science must be repeatable. Science based on fact checker findings, which are merely opinion, is laughable.

Part three: Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts

Fred Pearce: Emails expose tension between desire for scrupulous honesty, and desire to tell simple story to tell the policymakers

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Nature was able to absorb CO2 released naturally before we industrialised the world. The amount of CO2 we have unleashed (and continue to release) plus the destruction of the resources that naturally absorbs CO2 is (IMO) unsustainable. Think of all the oil and coal that we have burned in the last 200 years.

As I alluded to earlier, can we afford to stand back and blithely say “it is a natural cycle” ?

Because, if we are wrong, the consequences are unthinkable.

I agree, we can’t afford to stand back and shouldn’t stand back.

Even if we can use all of the Earth’s resources doesn’t mean we should. In my opinion, regardless of how significant our impact is on climate, we have affected it, and so we should absolutely do everything we can reduce our impact.

Climate changes may be reversible given enough time, but replenishment of natural resources will take an even longer timescale in the case of carbon based matter like oil and diamonds, and may never be replenished in the case of precious metals.

Common sense suggests that we should limit the use of limited resources and identify sustainable alternatives, because what do you do when you run out but are still dependent upon them?

 

[ALFAitalia]

I wasn't talking about that. We categorically do not have corresponding temperature data over that period, only questionable and unreliable proxies.

Next?

LOL......the evidence is massive and overwhelming (as yes we do have temperature data for millions of years....see below) and agreed by something like 97% percent of climate scientists the VAST majority of whom have absolutely nothing to gain from their studies. .....and If I'm not mistaken you are not one of them..
Some of the posts on here are laughable and right up there with the Flat Earth Society! Believe what you want.....but posting online nonsense and conspiracy theory as fact is just frankly ridiculous. No wanting it to be true (like me) and actually saying it isn't true are very different things. I'll leave you "experts" to it.

Here's How Scientists Reconstruct Earth's Past Climates

Scientists apply different methods to the geologic record with the goal of better understanding and quantifying ancient Earth's temperatures.

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

And what are the consequences of ever increasing 'green' levies on society?

We have those less fortunate, many elderly, now having to choose between food or heating due to rising utility bill costs.

I think there may be other factors driving energy costs too, not just the cost sustainable energy production and “green levies”. One might argue that had we invested more in renewable energy sooner then we wouldn’t be in the situation that we’re now in regarding energy prices,

It’s possible to tackle poverty and sustainability simultaneously.

 

[ChipChop]

I think there may be other factors driving energy costs too, not just the cost sustainable energy production and “green levies”. One might argue that had we invested more in renewable energy sooner then we wouldn’t be in the situation that we’re now in regarding energy prices,

It’s possible to tackle poverty and sustainability simultaneously.

Really. The French government took a £7 billion pound hit to protect French households from energy price rises. The state owned French supplier EDF raised its prices by 54% in the UK compared with only a 4% rise in France as a consequence.

 

[m80]

We assume climate change is a load of rubbish and do nothing and it turns out that it was actually a problem. The earth is stuffed.

Not quite. In a million years or so, a snapshot of the 4.3 billion years that earth has been revolving evolving, we will likely have beggered off and left new evolved species to enjoy the place w/o our destructive influence.
The earth will be a new type of habitat and better w/o us.

But we think the earth was fabricated in 6 days just for us. Most find the idea of earth w/o 'umans unthinkable.

I’m undecided on climate change but would prefer the second option for the future of the planet just incase those sceintists are right.

Well sort of. But scientist's are paid. That can create a conflict of interest, assuming the interest be the truth.

So might I suggest the sentence might be more accurate as "in case the politician's are right", they being the policy makers, they being most often the one's with their hands in the honey pot of influence and money.
Being cynical I now question all the experts that are feasibly persuaded by personal gain, if I have time.

Remember the great lettuce famine of a few years ago because of unusual weather events in Spain?

Did they build a big ship to sail to America to get their own?
Sorry poor taste in sarcasm I'm sure.

Personally I see that climate change must be affected / exaggerated by mans industrialisation.
I feel for more than the humans living on this place. Much more probably cos our continual abuse is somewhat self deserving of a slapped ass.

Similar to comment/s above. Any chance of us rebalancing our effect is a total waste of flippin' time as long as we are happy to export pollution. Planting a tree don't so it.
I'm like most in that I want big telly, drive everywhere in me diesel at low cost, and frown upon those that have multitudes of kids that'll need disposable nappies, need schools building, hospitals, hi rise posh flats, choke the roads........

The pretend to do something fed us by our bleeders will just make the lives of those underlings already here more difficult.
If there were an aim for a significant population reduction in the future then proportionally more problems than pollution would be reduced.
Why there is no realistic chance is that more tax, and everyone pays tax, is more power to Gov't's to abuse.
Then there are the nations that couldn't realistically control birth rates if they tried, India haven't tried of course and China decided to build new and big to accommodate their massive population, and no longer dictate the 1 child policy.

Doomed a' tell yee.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Really. The French government took a £7 billion pound hit to protect French households from energy price rises. The state owned French supplier EDF raised its prices by 54% in the UK compared with only a 4% rise in France as a consequence.

There’s one way of dealing with rising energy costs. The Government initially meets the cost of rising energy costs, and then passes on those costs to payers.

The energy is not free, the Government can’t absorb all costs so someone somewhere will end up paying for it in the form of tax rather than an electricity bill.

Trouble is some of those tax payers on lower incomes - or in poverty despite working - could then have to meet their own energy costs plus a share of the rest.

That can be dealt with too by increasing tax rates only for those on higher incomes, but that has an impact too, sadly nothing is for free, someone somewhere pays.

This approach is what you would expect in France as they have a history of state intervention, including industry. The UK’s approach is different. Neither is wrong.

Vive la difference.