It's getting hot in here!

[vikingTON]

12 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

Ooft. Denier confirmed. Sad moment, this.Funny how you think I'm an 'extremist' because I believe in the strong correlations between increasing CO2 emissions and average global temperature etc. I don't think that makes me an extremist at all. Climate change is of course a natural process but the data we have on this shows a clear link between human produced CO2 emissions and climate change.

I don't think you know what the words 'extremist', 'doommonger' or indeed 'denialist' mean. 

People who retain a wider perspective than yourself that incorporates AGW alongside hundreds of other issues are not denialists. People who do not subscribe to your hysterical shriekings about climate apocalypse are not deniers. People who observe and anticipate demonstrable technological progress rather than adopt the ecological ideological fantasy of back to nature, hair-shirted puritanism are the rational, right-thinking majority in every society across the world. And the more shrill and extreme that your advocate position gets, the less effective it becomes in achieving change.

Quote

Please bookmark this so you can come back and apologise to me when the Clyde Riviera has engulfed your home. 

https://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmaps/FloodRisk/FutureFloodMaps#_3

Given that SEPA's future flood risk analysis gives my location a less than a 0.5% chance of flooding by 2080 (i.e. negligible enough not to be recorded), I don't fancy your chances. And that's living five minutes walk away from the beach, practically at sea level. Scotland's geography is not the same as Miami chump.

More immediately, will you be coming back to apologise and delete your account when the Gulf Stream does not in fact shut down in 2025? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Edited July 27, 2023 by vikingTON

[jamamafegan]

16 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

But the record temperatures that are being broken aren't the hottest the world will have ever been.

Well obviously, but nobody gives a shit about how hot the earth was when it was covered by lava fields and volcanoes ie when we weren't there.

[Mark Connolly]

6 hours ago, highlandmac said:

Being told where "here" is would be handy

He did say, "here" is at his stepdaughter's.

[jamamafegan]

12 minutes ago, virginton said:

I don't think you know what the words 'extremist', 'doommonger' or indeed 'denialist' mean. 

People who retain a wider perspective than yourself that incorporates AGW alongside hundreds of other issues are not denialists. People who do not subscribe to your hysterical shriekings about climate apocalypse are not deniers. People who observe and anticipate demonstrable technological progress rather than adopt the ecological ideological fantasy of back to nature, hair-shirted puritanism are the rational, right-thinking majority in every society across the world. And the more shrill and extreme that your advocate position gets, the less effective it becomes in achieving change.

I've seen you alluded to this in the past and I still don't get it. There's nothing irrational about wanting to preserve ecosystems instead of destroying them out of mans selfish greed. I think it's pretty sad that you would seemingly rather rely on technology to guide us out of this mess rather than try to preserve the earth itself. You'd maybe be more 'hysterical' if you cared more about the state of nature on earth but you've consistently demonstrated that you aren't really that bothered.

18 minutes ago, virginton said:

Given that SEPA's future flood risk analysis gives my location a less than a 0.5% chance of flooding by 2080 (i.e. negligible enough not to be recorded), I don't fancy your chances. And that's living five minutes walk away from the beach, practically at sea level. Scotland's geography is not the same as Miami chump.

Less than 0.5% chance still means there's a chance!!!

19 minutes ago, virginton said:

More immediately, will you be coming back to apologise and delete your account when the Gulf Stream does not in fact shut down in 2025? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

I haven't said I believe the Gulf Stream will collapse, that's the first I've heard of this and a quick google suggests it's still hotly debated amongst scientists.

[vikingTON]

19 hours ago, jamamafegan said:

I've seen you alluded to this in the past and I still don't get it. There's nothing irrational about wanting to preserve ecosystems instead of destroying them out of mans selfish greed. I think it's pretty sad that you would seemingly rather rely on technology to guide us out of this mess rather than try to preserve the earth itself.

It's good to see you honestly setting out your ideology on the table. Unfortunately, it's just utter horseshit.

Human civilisation is a long history of altering the environment to make it more suitable for ourselves: from domestication of animals, to agriculture, irrigation etc. The remarkable improvement in the average life of human beings on this planet since 1700 - starting in western Europe and only now extending to all continents of the world - was produced chiefly by the energy revolution of industrialisation. We should absolutely deal with the pollutants and by-products - literally burning natural gas to heat homes is insane - but the only credible way of doing that is by using our ingenuity and technological skill to produce further solutions to those problems. 

Ecologists (in the political ideology sense) have been railing against that reality from the Second World War. They predicted massive global famines by the 1960s and 1970s that were crushed by the second agricultural revolution. They predicted constant disaster from nuclear power that is by any objective measurement a highly safe and clean method of producing energy for complex societies. 

Rather than identifying solutions from a rational analysis of facts, your ecological view provides the solutions based on ideology and then misuses the facts to peddle this apocalyptic nonsense. 

Quote

You'd maybe be more 'hysterical' if you cared more about the state of nature on earth but you've consistently demonstrated that you aren't really that bothered.

Inert nature has no such answers and the 'natural' utopia that you pine for is in fact across most of the planet a human-created landscape. 

Quote

Less than 0.5% chance still means there's a chance!!!

It's a statistically insignificant chance - SEPA don't even measure risk beneath that point, so it could be 0.01%. It doesn't change the reality that by the projections set out by Scotland's environmental protection agency, your claim that the Clyde Riviera will be underwater in my lifetime is complete and utter bollocks. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by vikingTON

[ICTChris]

What technologies can and should we invest in to reduce carbon emissions?  Nuclear energy is one that's often discussed, what are the others?

[coprolite]

34 minutes ago, virginton said:

It's good to see you honestly setting out your ideology on the table. Unfortunately, it's just utter horseshit.

Human civilisation is a long history of altering the environment to make it more suitable for ourselves: from domestication of animals, to agriculture, irrigation etc. The remarkable improvement in the average life of human beings on this planet since 1700 - starting in western Europe and only now extending to all continents of the world - was produced chiefly by the energy revolution of industrialisation. We should absolutely deal with the pollutants and by-products - literally burning natural gas to heat homes is insane - but the only credible way of doing that is by using our ingenuity and technological skill to produce further solutions to those problems. 

Ecologists (in the political ideology sense) have been railing against that reality from the Second World War. They predicted massive global famines by the 1960s and 1970s that were crushed by the second agricultural revolution. They predicted constant disaster from nuclear power that is by any objective measurement a highly safe and clean method of producing energy for complex societies. 

Rather than identifying solutions from a rational analysis of facts, your ecological view provides the solutions based on ideology and then misuses the facts to peddle this apocalyptic nonsense. 

Inert nature has no such answers and the 'natural' utopia that you pine for us in fact across  most of the planet a human-created landscape. 

It's a statistically insignificant chance - SEPA don't even measure risk beneath that point, so it could be 0.01%. It doesn't change the reality that by the projections set out by Scotland's  environmental protection agency, your claim that the Clyde Riviera will be underwater in my lifetime is complete and utter bollocks. 

The main problem with relying on a technological solution is that the people who have the ability to invest in the necessary research aren't the ones who would benefit most from that research. 

It's a classic externality causing a market failure. 

Market failures need political solutions. Government can't mandate technological progress but it can limit emissions. 

Pushing for limits on emissions quickly is the way in which that technological progress happens. It won't happen automatically. 

Your characterisation of "Ecologists (in a political ideology sense)" as a "they" who keep doing wrong things is like something out of a Littlejohn column, except with bigger words. 

 

[101]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

But if the human impact on glabal warming is marginal at best, then the human ability to slow it is equally marginal, if not less so.

The temperature on earth hasn't been this hot for well over 100,000 years. Yes some form of early human survived these temperatures but I don't think it's clear what effect it had on our evolution.

CO2 has almost certainly never been as prevalent in our atmosphere and rocketed in the 1800s as we began burning coal, peat and oil so the human impact over the last 200 years has been significant. Some research suggests there may have been cooling effect without human impacts during the 20th and 21st centuries, almost certainly wouldn't have been the level of changes seen without us.

However, we don't have to go to a pre-industrial level of life to stem the tide and begin to reverse changes made this far.

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Which is why it would be wiser to focus more on assisting the areas where the impact will be greatest cope with the changes that are coming, than pretend that greenwashing etc will prevent.

Net Zero policies are appear to be more abour making better off people feel better about those that happen to live in the areas that will feel the biggest changes because at least they are "doing something", when the reality is likely that they will make no difference.

The arrogance that humans can control absolutely everything was the opposite of helpful during the pandemic, and it isn't going to be helpful here either.

Technology has of course made a huge difference, it is shocking however that it's taken to what science says is the brink of no return for us to rapidly develop solar, wind and wave power. Even without climate change these are far better ways to produce power then fossil fuels and the mistakes made from the 80s onwards were ridiculous we should have been scaling these things up probably since 2000. Previous generations have sat back and got rich from rapid economic growth on the back of oil and gas, particularly in America.

I don't like net zero as I think it detracts from actually reducing towards zero emissions, it offshores our problems and like you say is designed, in part, to make people feel better.

Humans can control their behaviour, particularly their behaviour that impacts on the climate, we have been successful in impacting in a negative way in the UK and US for 200+ years China and India are doing a good job in the last 20 years. Therefore it seems fairly sensible to try at least and stop abusing the only known planet in the known universe that supports life. I don't think that is particularly radical nor political.

[Raidernation]

3 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

He did say, "here" is at his stepdaughter's.

Northern Illinois.

At 7am this morning it was 89F and 93% humidity

[Silvio Tattiescone]

The contrarian p***k has found another issue he can be contrarian about.

 

Mind you, his limp-brained observation that advertising doesn't alter behaviour will come as some surprise to the $600bn a year industry 

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, coprolite said:

The main problem with relying on a technological solution is that the people who have the ability to invest in the necessary research aren't the ones who would benefit most from that research. 

It's a classic externality causing a market failure. 

Market failures need political solutions. Government can't mandate technological progress but it can limit emissions. 

Pushing for limits on emissions quickly is the way in which that technological progress happens. It won't happen automatically. 

The government can't limit emissions across an entire economy and a single government can't limit emissions across the planet. A credible tax on carbon would be a more effective measure although that would also require buy-in on an international level.

The idea that there isn't enough investment or incentives available to develop technological solutions is just nonsense. Solar and wind have made enormous strides in recent decades; nuclear fusion - whether it turns out to be practically effective or not - is being actively developed. Indeed the geopolitical tensions provide a far greater incentive for technological innovation because energy self-sufficiency is an increasing concern for all of the major power blocs. The issues you raise limit the speed of progress but do not prevent it from happening.

Quote

Your characterisation of "Ecologists (in a political ideology sense)" as a "they" who keep doing wrong things is like something out of a Littlejohn column, except with bigger words

If you don't understand how political philosophy works, sure. But failing to recognise that the green movement is a political ideology with a set of in-built assumptions, true belief advocates, a desired utopia, as well as different factions within it who contest those issues prevents you from applying any logical analysis of the current climate change debate. It is as real an ideology as socialism or fascism. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Newbornbairn said:

The contrarian p***k has found another issue he can be contrarian about.

 

Mind you, his limp-brained observation that advertising doesn't alter behaviour will come as some surprise to the $600bn a year industry 

Advertising does not brainwash people into changing from an utterly shite holiday in Wales or Skegness to a fortnight in the Med. The purpose of that $600bn a year industry is to choose one business over another to meet their needs: in this case, to fly with Jet2, over easyJet, Ryanair etc. It doesn't generate the demand in the first place. 

This was clearly expressed in a post that you either failed to read for the sake of comprehension, or were too thick to understand. My money's on the latter. 

[Silvio Tattiescone]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Advertising does not brainwash people into changing from an utterly shite holiday in Wales or Skegness to a fortnight in the Med. The purpose of that $600bn a year industry is to choose one business over another to meet their needs: in this case, to fly with Jet2, over easyJet, Ryanair etc. It doesn't generate the demand in the first place. 

This was clearly expressed in a post that you either failed to read for the sake of comprehension, or were too thick to understand. My money's on the latter. 

Pish. You don't understand marketing or advertising.  

[vikingTON]

A truly limp-brained riposte to follow up your initial face plant into the mud. 

[highlandmac]

7 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

He did say, "here" is at his stepdaughter's.

So he did,can't believe I missed that.

That answers that then...

[Cosmic Joe]

3 hours ago, Raidernation said:

Northern Illinois.

At 7am this morning it was 89F and 93% humidity

Mods!

Can we please use Scottish terms of reference. 

[highlandmac]

3 hours ago, Raidernation said:

Northern Illinois.

At 7am this morning it was 89F and 93% humidity

Och,youre in the states,y'all will have Aircon,both in your homes&your massive SUVs,dry your eyes

[Raidernation]

17 minutes ago, highlandmac said:

Och,youre in the states,y'all will have Aircon,both in your homes&your massive SUVs,dry your eyes

I do not have a massive SUV, I have nothing to compensate for.

I was going to try to get some time on the practice range this morning but no way can I spend anything more than a few minutes outdoors in this.

[Raidernation]

23 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Mods!

Can we please use Scottish terms of reference. 

^^^ incapable of simple arithmetic to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius 

[blackislekillie]

3 hours ago, Newbornbairn said:

The contrarian p***k has found another issue he can be contrarian about.

 

Mind you, his limp-brained observation that advertising doesn't alter behaviour will come as some surprise to the $600bn a year industry 

This is already over as a climate crisis. Now LoOk At MeEEe.