Emissions, Global warming or a scam

[breffni]

39 minutes ago, Stubby said:

There is always the moon ..

Ye we could fire old people like you into it!?

[Billhook]

I am worried about the accusation of being a climate change denier.   

 

Nobody denies that the climate changes the question is how much influence does human activity have on it.

 

There is a hypothesis that humans are causing it and like all scientific theories it needs to stand up to analysis and it is worrying and unscientific not to challenge that particular theory.

 

There are many other possibilities such as our orbit with the sun, the activity of the sun itself, the changing orbits of the planets, the heat coming from the Earth's core,  general radiation variations.   You cannot shut down conversation by shouting insults when the issue is mired with politics.

 

 

[difflock]

21 minutes ago, Big J said:

Climate change as a result of human activity is fact. There is an almost universal consensus amongst the scientific community and the evidence is irrefutable. 

Universal consensus is another way of saying groupthink, and driven by grants and funding.

Like a Consultants report for my employer many years ago which blandly stated "It is clear that  .  .  ." with no explanation or facts to explain why what was so clear was so clear.

But to what extent is climate change human caused, a / of a % or a more significent %? and how much is entirely natural.

For example anyone care to argue with an Ice Age caused advancing glacier, or how to prevent its inexorable advance, I dont doubt the IPCC would pontificate, quoting many "facts" but even they could not generate sufficient hot air to prevent the ice advancing.

So, simply, I do not believe it is within the power of man to change the affect of humankind on the Planet, with sufficient speed to contract the hugely alarming predictions of rapid climatic catastrophe, plus I would be more concerned about ever increasing habitat loss and specis extinctions.

Anyway I read a rather good article about the down through the ages predictions of "the end is nigh", and how the current breast-beating climate-change doom-mongers are merely the latest incarnation of this prevailing trend.

Marcus

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by difflock

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Billhook said:

I am worried about the accusation of being a climate change denier.   

 

Nobody denies that the climate changes the question is how much influence does human activity have on it.

 

There is a hypothesis that humans are causing it and like all scientific theories it needs to stand up to analysis and it is worrying and unscientific not to challenge that particular theory.

 

There are many other possibilities such as our orbit with the sun, the activity of the sun itself, the changing orbits of the planets, the heat coming from the Earth's core,  general radiation variations.   You cannot shut down conversation by shouting insults when the issue is mired with politics.

 

 

Interesting . As an aside , how cool to be the last man ever to walk on the moon .

Edited April 6, 2019 by Stubby

[tree-fancier123]

1 hour ago, Big J said:

What it comes down to for me is that there isn't anything that I can do with regards to population growth or decline.

Well I for one am not voting Labour - they would compassionately let just about anyone in - if the trend in the figure (from Oxford, not some right wing think tank) continues that is an extra 2m every ten years, a far greater increase than earlier decades.

 

Energy efficient houses with airlocks etc will be the in thing if this news item is to be believed

shock horror - no more natural gas in new homes from 2025 wtf. (except hobs, big deal)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47559920

[tree-fancier123]

2 hours ago, difflock said:

Universal consensus is another way of saying groupthink, and driven by grants and funding.

Like a Consultants report for my employer many years ago which blandly stated "It is clear that  .  .  ." with no explanation or facts to explain why what was so clear was so clear.

But to what extent is climate change human caused, a / of a % or a more significent %? and how much is entirely natural.

For example anyone care to argue with an Ice Age caused advancing glacier, or how to prevent its inexorable advance, I dont doubt the IPCC would pontificate, quoting many "facts" but even they could not generate sufficient hot air to prevent the ice advancing.

So, simply, I do not believe it is within the power of man to change the affect of humankind on the Planet, with sufficient speed to contract the hugely alarming predictions of rapid climatic catastrophe, plus I would be more concerned about ever increasing habitat loss and specis extinctions.

Anyway I read a rather good article about the down through the ages predictions of "the end is nigh", and how the current breast-beating climate-change doom-mongers are merely the latest incarnation of this prevailing trend.

Marcus

 

I get where you're coming from, but surely there is a psychological element where people don't want to believe in man made pollution and climate change purely because they don't want to feel personally guilty about their own activities?

I've got two old smoker vans and I don't feel guilty, because I know that the universe is infinite - so if we cause an apocalypse here there will an be infinite number of similar planets elsewhere that other peoples can enjoy, nothing special about this one, apart from it being ours

[Billhook]

5 hours ago, Big J said:

Climate change as a result of human activity is fact. There is an almost universal consensus amongst the scientific community and the evidence is irrefutable. 

This is precisely the kind of talk which tries to shut down reasoned debate.

The 97% of all scientists figure quoted by Obama is from a very unscientific survey

Most agree that the planet is warming but there is no scientific consensus that human activity is causing it

When they examined the ice cores they discovered that over time CO 2 levels increased after warming and not before.  How do you explain that?

There has also been a deliberate manipulation of figures to give the worst possible outcome which does not help the case for man made warming.

As I have said before if we concentrate on preserving our natural resources and try to improve air quality it would be something most people would agree on

If you really want to tackle the problem messing about with tier 4 emissions and the like is pissing in the wind

Yoi also need to stop all Military activity on the planet which must be a top polluter and waste of resources 

You also have to address the human population growth issue which will mean big fines on more than one child or even compulsorily sterilisation for those who continue to breed

It is the truth and one day mankind has to face it but what political party is going to win on that manifesto?

[difflock]

First, thank you Billhook for that post above, which exactly mirrors my own beliefs(&  I was wile tempted to merely post "perhaps" in reply to "J's" rather dogmatic statement)

then

Hmmmm?

Apart from building a big slap of conventional, but reasonably insulated, masonary construction house, which should do us, and future generations for 100+ years, we live very plain, i.e. we do not buy clothes for fashion, then dump them, ditto for household appliances, furniture(or every-day used suite is 30+ years old, the rest is cherished 2nd hand stuff), electronics(we dont hardly own any) and cars(the ave age of our 3 veh fleet is 20, and would be 26 if I put the 1984 veh back on the road)

So unfortunately I do regard most humans as a plague on the Planet with their trashy profligate jet-setting resource wasteful polluting ways.

Btw. I spent yesterday lifting others peoples rubbish from the roadside woodland we are custodians of, said unprotected woodland that I could well have sold for building sites, probably at least 2 but choose not to.

I also hope to leave an area of woodland for future generations to enjoy.

Yes we drive a limited amount of unneeded miles for pleasure, but that is about it.

And we only had 2 children.

So yes, most people choose to bury their heads in the sand, or say "its not our fault".

But it is, and to some unavoidable extent, ours too, but I can live with the responsibility without wearing a hair shirt or other such virtue signalling.(& could the above statement be construed as virtue signalling?)

EDIT:

Just to say I am plagued by doubts, and as lazy as sheaugh water, and not to sound too much like TVI, but prone to ponder the meaning of life, so far far from anything approaching perfection,

just in case that all sounded a bit "up myself".

BUT, for sure I detest our current society and its "values", comprising as it does of mostly plastic people seeking continual instant gratification with the entirely needless trash they generate and so generously distribute throughout the countryside.

Cheers,

Marcus

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by difflock

[Jonny69]

17 hours ago, Big J said:

Improving the quality of our housing stock is one of the most significant ways that the UK can improve it's environmental footprint. So, not only the running costs over the building's lifespan, but the embodied energy in it's construction, and how easy it is to recycle at the end of it's lifespan.

 

So using methods such as straw bale (grown locally) with timber frame (grown locally) in conjunction perhaps with box profile steel roofs (used widely in northern climes, and recyclable), lime render, clay plaster and locally sourced timber cladding, you can hugely reduce the CO2 cost of the building, and ensure that the construction is inexpensive, and the recycling at the end of the building's life, simple. 

 

I've always thought that the public in the UK need to take a bit more control over their house building. Very few people are happy with the direction that building companies have been going with the construction of new housing stock, or indeed the planning laws that govern them. We need to use the example that many of our European neighbours exhibit with regards to self build. I don't mean literally building it yourself, but rather the whole system needs to be much more straightforward for normal families to commission their own house builds, getting exactly what they want and need, rather than what is prescribed to them by the likes of Barratt, Wimpy and Persimmon.

All of those are lovely ideas! Good luck persuading any of the big developers to do anything different when they are making very good money with the current plan.

 

The government made a rod for every poor soul who brought a new build home when the 20% help to buy started. 

 

Unfortunately all it did was allowed developers to make even more money on the plot and most people aren't smart enough to work out what was happening. Really a shame for people struggling to buy a house, but often they want something new and shiny (poorly built and too expensive)

[Billhook]

another good one to watch from a Greenpeace activist