@Mother hucker, stopping eating meat will have zero effect on the climate unless you’ve swallowed the nonsense put out by St Cwis
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Here's for a middle ground.
1. Climate change has of course happened throughout Earth's history, in much wider temperature and sea level ranges
2. However it's happening a lot faster now, driven of course by carbon released by humans - and left unchecked it will wreak havoc on our societies and our politics (just taking increased migration as a problem, to start with).
3. Individual action by reducing consumption has limited impact and is almost certainly bound to fail by itself, considering population growth, and the desire of developing countries to get the luxuries of developed ones (and of the developed ones to keep most of theirs)
4. However creating awareness of the issue and as a result gradually increasing societal willingness to do something about it will lead to major public and private investment in technologies and infrastructure which WILL make a difference - wind, solar, hydrogen, carbon capture etc.
5. A side result may be that we will live in a cleaner world and that we will have to worry less about finite reserves of energy and about who exactly owns them. (though of course solar and wind are not equally distributed either).
6. Another nice side result may be an economic investment impact lasting for decades. (People are really short-sighted about this. I'm a full-blown capitalist, but a key contributor to most major economic growth supercycles has been public investment in various technologies and infrastructure...we are at the beginning of a major 30-40 year cycle of investment in renewing our energy infrastructure, if we don't do this we'll need to do something else to keep the economy going)
6. Whitegold confuses correlation and causation (and is wedded to linear prediction)... that said in line with some other posters I can also get tired of neverending pessimism. It's good to think that there may be solutions, too.
So where am I? Happy that some of my tax money is used for investment in green energy infrastructure and technology, considering changes that make sense to me, but not preaching and not thinking doomsday is here due to climate change.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@Mother hucker, -1
Wow...you really are what you say you are
@horizon,+1
Wow...you are so often a voice of reason here
@horizon,+1
Wow...you are so often a voice of reason here
Totally agree.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
horizon wrote:
Here's for a middle ground.
4. However creating awareness of the issue and as a result gradually increasing societal willingness to do something about it will lead to major public and private investment in technologies and infrastructure which WILL make a difference - wind, solar, hydrogen, carbon capture etc.
.
And how do you build/produce solar, wind, hydrogen, carbon capture devices?
By using great amounts of energy powered by coal, gas & oil.
The majority of the world is not developed. Less than 1 in 10 live in developed country. You have no right to preach to the other 9 because you are privileged in having running water, lighting when it gets dark, heating when it gets cold, etc.
China produces a 3rd of world emissions & that has doubled in less than 20 years. They are generations away from being developed.
India's has also doubled & is developing. A developed EU & developing India co2 is about the same. One has reduced by 20% in 20 years, while the other has increased by 50%
@Extremophile, I sincerely hope that you are only on a skiing forum.for the online interaction.
Clearly you feel strongly about these things, fair enough, and I'm sure you would agree that it would be total hypocrisy to actual go skiing (even if you walked all the way to the mountains, and up them).
For someone like you there is surely no middle ground.
For someone like me there is a vast middle ground.
What this thread clearly shows is that for a lot of people all nuances and subtleties are gone.
There are the Righteous
And the Deniers
Sadly, in my opinion, we can see this in other areas too like Brexit and Trans.
You realise whatever i do as an individual is absolutely pointless in the face of the global problem right? Whatever i do is less than tiny drop in the ocean because China, the US, and India are responsible for more than 50% of the worlds carbon emissions, but you think whether i go skiing or not is what is causing climate change or going to save the world? You are intentionally choosing to underestimate the scale of the problem.
I take public transport where possible, walking is preferable. I buy environmental products. We do go skiing but we drive, our cumulative yearly miles even with 2 or 3 trips to the alps each year are less than the average driving commuter we drive probably 7 - 9,000 miles. We have a small engine car which we bought second hand 7 years ago, and it’ll be driven until it cannot be repaired anymore. We take 1 flight roughly every 5 years. We cut our meat, poultry and fish consumption and try to buy local. I have 1 child from a previous relationship (an abusive relationship so be careful how you comment in reply to that).
Even so, there is a false notion propagated by climate deniers, skeptics, and the inconvenienced that i should live in a cave and not do anything if i am passionate about preserving the environment and preventing climate change. I refer you to you comments about skiing - if you travel regularly by plane you are a frequent flyer, and frequent flyers are responsible for about two thirds of aviation emissions with the super wealthy 1% causing ~50%.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Extremophile,
why make cut backs at all?
you already agree it makes no difference.
You feel guilty for what?
I have solar panels & drive an EV
Solar panels was purely financial as I put my order in when energy prices was going sky high before Gov. help stepped in. I had savings earning next to no interest.
Would I do it today? Probably not. Savings interest rates are just as high as the current energy savings.
EV Car - I dont do long distance journeys. I like the smoothness & how quiet it is.
99% of my charging is done in work where energy I pay is cheap. 1/2 what I would pay at home.
I no longer have to visit forecourts to fill up.
The cost of my commute has dropped by 70%
On current factors, I would stick with an EV. If I changed jobs, or the energy cost was raised, I would re-evaluate. As it is, I am only 6 months into a 3 year lease. So stuck with it for now!
After all it is free
After all it is free
Gored wrote:
@Extremophile,
why make cut backs at all?
you already agree it makes no difference.
You feel guilty for what?
I have solar panels & drive an EV
Solar panels was purely financial as I put my order in when energy prices was going sky high before Gov. help stepped in. I had savings earning next to no interest.
Would I do it today? Probably not. Savings interest rates are just as high as the current energy savings.
EV Car - I dont do long distance journeys. I like the smoothness & how quiet it is.
99% of my charging is done in work where energy I pay is cheap. 1/2 what I would pay at home.
I no longer have to visit forecourts to fill up.
The cost of my commute has dropped by 70%
On current factors, I would stick with an EV. If I changed jobs, or the energy cost was raised, I would re-evaluate. As it is, I am only 6 months into a 3 year lease. So stuck with it for now!
Because i want to feel like i tried - also, it’s rather confusing when deniers, skeptics, and those in denier denial say ‘if you think climate change is real then i hope you are a cave dwelling vegan who doesn't do anything or go anywhere’, then if you say yes, ask ‘why?’ When you say it won’t make a difference, or say those who know but live the same are the most dangerous, like you want me to be a cave dwelling vegan hermit to justify my viewpoint, or i’m the polar opposite over consumer who has 4 or 5 children, several cars and fly 3 or 4 times a year for holiday - you need to choose a stance.
Good job on ignoring the idea of a false notion though. Like this is an individual problem instead of a global governmental one.
If you’re the denier or denier in denial, you are gambling with your own childrens futures.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Extremophile wrote:
Gored wrote:
@Extremophile,
why make cut backs at all?
you already agree it makes no difference.
You feel guilty for what?
I have solar panels & drive an EV
Solar panels was purely financial as I put my order in when energy prices was going sky high before Gov. help stepped in. I had savings earning next to no interest.
Would I do it today? Probably not. Savings interest rates are just as high as the current energy savings.
EV Car - I dont do long distance journeys. I like the smoothness & how quiet it is.
99% of my charging is done in work where energy I pay is cheap. 1/2 what I would pay at home.
I no longer have to visit forecourts to fill up.
The cost of my commute has dropped by 70%
On current factors, I would stick with an EV. If I changed jobs, or the energy cost was raised, I would re-evaluate. As it is, I am only 6 months into a 3 year lease. So stuck with it for now!
Because i want to feel like i tried
If you’re the denier or denier in denial, you are gambling with your own childrens futures.
So let me get this straight
It's a personal choice for you to make yourself feel better even though you know it makes not a jot compared with and in collaboration with systemic, global changes
But if people don't do along with how you feel and act then they are the antichrist?
Did I get that right?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Back on to the "catastrophic climate collapse by 2025" ......
Absolute proof of ................... better snow in 2023 -
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
There are many things that are "environmentally friendly" but actually just a good thing to do for various other reasons. It could be good for your health, for your wallet, for the mental well being. For me, what is environmental discussions have just raised lots of questions about how I live my life. And as Extremophile says all this awareness drives bigger/wider change.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Mike Pow wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
Gored wrote:
@Extremophile,
why make cut backs at all?
you already agree it makes no difference.
You feel guilty for what?
I have solar panels & drive an EV
Solar panels was purely financial as I put my order in when energy prices was going sky high before Gov. help stepped in. I had savings earning next to no interest.
Would I do it today? Probably not. Savings interest rates are just as high as the current energy savings.
EV Car - I dont do long distance journeys. I like the smoothness & how quiet it is.
99% of my charging is done in work where energy I pay is cheap. 1/2 what I would pay at home.
I no longer have to visit forecourts to fill up.
The cost of my commute has dropped by 70%
On current factors, I would stick with an EV. If I changed jobs, or the energy cost was raised, I would re-evaluate. As it is, I am only 6 months into a 3 year lease. So stuck with it for now!
Because i want to feel like i tried
If you’re the denier or denier in denial, you are gambling with your own childrens futures.
So let me get this straight
It's a personal choice for you to make yourself feel better even though you know it makes not a jot compared with and in collaboration with systemic, global changes
But if people don't do along with how you feel and act then they are the antichrist?
Did I get that right?
No, you didn’t. Up to you if you want to gamble with your own childrens future like that, ultimately they are the ones who are going to ask you why you didnt do anything because you were ‘a questioner’, denier or in denial. Your choice, but that choice doesnt make the science invalid.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Extremophile wrote:
Mike Pow wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
Gored wrote:
@Extremophile,
why make cut backs at all?
you already agree it makes no difference.
You feel guilty for what?
I have solar panels & drive an EV
Solar panels was purely financial as I put my order in when energy prices was going sky high before Gov. help stepped in. I had savings earning next to no interest.
Would I do it today? Probably not. Savings interest rates are just as high as the current energy savings.
EV Car - I dont do long distance journeys. I like the smoothness & how quiet it is.
99% of my charging is done in work where energy I pay is cheap. 1/2 what I would pay at home.
I no longer have to visit forecourts to fill up.
The cost of my commute has dropped by 70%
On current factors, I would stick with an EV. If I changed jobs, or the energy cost was raised, I would re-evaluate. As it is, I am only 6 months into a 3 year lease. So stuck with it for now!
Because i want to feel like i tried
If you’re the denier or denier in denial, you are gambling with your own childrens futures.
So let me get this straight
It's a personal choice for you to make yourself feel better even though you know it makes not a jot compared with and in collaboration with systemic, global changes
But if people don't do along with how you feel and act then they are the antichrist?
Did I get that right?
No, you didn’t. Up to you if you want to gamble with your own childrens future like that, ultimately they are the ones who are going to ask you why you didnt do anything because you were ‘a questioner’, denier or in denial. Your choice, but that choice doesnt make the science invalid.
With the exception of flying to go skiing and eating meat/fish on average once a week I do most of what you said you're doing
I've NEVER said the science is invalid. I've questioned the modelling and forecasting.
I find it very interesting that it's a black or white situation with you and others.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Mike Pow wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
Mike Pow wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
Gored wrote:
@Extremophile,
why make cut backs at all?
you already agree it makes no difference.
You feel guilty for what?
I have solar panels & drive an EV
Solar panels was purely financial as I put my order in when energy prices was going sky high before Gov. help stepped in. I had savings earning next to no interest.
Would I do it today? Probably not. Savings interest rates are just as high as the current energy savings.
EV Car - I dont do long distance journeys. I like the smoothness & how quiet it is.
99% of my charging is done in work where energy I pay is cheap. 1/2 what I would pay at home.
I no longer have to visit forecourts to fill up.
The cost of my commute has dropped by 70%
On current factors, I would stick with an EV. If I changed jobs, or the energy cost was raised, I would re-evaluate. As it is, I am only 6 months into a 3 year lease. So stuck with it for now!
Because i want to feel like i tried
If you’re the denier or denier in denial, you are gambling with your own childrens futures.
So let me get this straight
It's a personal choice for you to make yourself feel better even though you know it makes not a jot compared with and in collaboration with systemic, global changes
But if people don't do along with how you feel and act then they are the antichrist?
Did I get that right?
No, you didn’t. Up to you if you want to gamble with your own childrens future like that, ultimately they are the ones who are going to ask you why you didnt do anything because you were ‘a questioner’, denier or in denial. Your choice, but that choice doesnt make the science invalid.
With the exception of flying to go skiing and eating meat/fish on average once a week I do most of what you said you're doing
I've NEVER said the science is invalid. I've questioned the modelling and forecasting.
I find it very interesting that it's a black or white situation with you and others.
Regarding forecasting, there is uncertainty in everything it is a basic principal of science. To say European climate could collapse by 2060 +/- uncertainty of 35 years, doesn't mean for a jot the European climate will collapse by 2025, and that is the kind of stuff the media uses to sensationalise the science.
But the basic principal remains - these severe effects may not be felt for a few years yet, but they will occur if humanity doesn't change its course. I genuinely hope we can, but i’m also realistic. The data regarding the trend is clear, and has been for a while, yet little has changed. Man made climate change is a delayed positive feedback loop, and there-in lay the problem, by the time the more serious effects are happening, it’ll probably be too late to do anything to mitigate against it. That’s me being realistic not pessimistic.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
rungsp wrote:
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
I decry the fact that scientists have been studying and issuing warnings for decades, only to be told by politicians that it’s all hunky-dory business as usual, nothing to see here. To quote a line from day after tomorrow - you didn't want to know about the science when it could have made a difference.
Successive governments have chosen and are choosing to ignore climate change, and oil giants have faux scienced their way to business as usual, lobbying against anything the might even slightly affect their profits. So i have lost quite a lot of faith in governments to actually make the scientific changes needed to make sure everything actually does continue as normal. Governments are very good at sweeping things under the carpet.
The UK, by far a small carbon emitter at something like 1 or 2% the worlds output. We have net zero by 2050, net zero… yet we currently have no real carbon capture. Technology that could of existed for decades if governments paid attention to the science earlier.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Extremophile wrote:
rungsp wrote:
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
I decry the fact that scientists have been studying and issuing warnings for decades, only to be told by politicians that it’s all hunky-dory business as usual, nothing to see here. To quote a line from day after tomorrow - you didn't want to know about the science when it could have made a difference.
Successive governments have chosen and are choosing to ignore climate change, and oil giants have faux scienced their way to business as usual, lobbying against anything the might even slightly affect their profits. So i have lost quite a lot of faith in governments to actually make the scientific changes needed to make sure everything actually does continue as normal. Governments are very good at sweeping things under the carpet.
The UK, by far a small carbon emitter at something like 1 or 2% the worlds output. We have net zero by 2050, net zero… yet we currently have no real carbon capture. Technology that could of existed for decades if governments paid attention to the science earlier.
We could also have had alternative energy - hydro, wave - for longer
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Mike Pow wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
rungsp wrote:
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
I decry the fact that scientists have been studying and issuing warnings for decades, only to be told by politicians that it’s all hunky-dory business as usual, nothing to see here. To quote a line from day after tomorrow - you didn't want to know about the science when it could have made a difference.
Successive governments have chosen and are choosing to ignore climate change, and oil giants have faux scienced their way to business as usual, lobbying against anything the might even slightly affect their profits. So i have lost quite a lot of faith in governments to actually make the scientific changes needed to make sure everything actually does continue as normal. Governments are very good at sweeping things under the carpet.
The UK, by far a small carbon emitter at something like 1 or 2% the worlds output. We have net zero by 2050, net zero… yet we currently have no real carbon capture. Technology that could of existed for decades if governments paid attention to the science earlier.
We could also have had alternative energy - hydro, wave - for longer
Obviously. It was just an example. But realistically I don’t believe we will ever move away from oil and gas because it is worth too much to governments and fossil fuel companies who have a lot of power and influence, and dont want their business model changed.
"The last report of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) pointed out that during the last year recorded (2020), the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere broke another record, despite a drop in fossil fuel emissions during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the concentration reached 413 parts per million (ppm) in 2020, 149% more than pre-industrial levels (before 1750).
The Top 10 Polluters are-
Most of this pollution comes from just a few countries: China, for example, generates around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States is responsible for almost 14%. In the ranking below you can find the 10 countries that produce the most emissions, measured in millions of tons of CO2 in 2019.
China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2
Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2
Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2
Germany, 759 million tons of CO2
Iran, 720 million tons of CO2
South Korea, 659 million tons of CO2
Saudi Arabia, 621 million tons of CO2
Indonesia, 615 million tons of CO2" ....
Not all countries face the same level of responsibility.
The UK has low emissions these days. We lost most of our remaining heavy industry in the 1980s. Our CO2 emissions dropped dramatically once we were importing most of our steel, coal and manufactured goods.
Our CO2 emissions dropped dramatically once we were importing most of our steel, coal and manufactured goods.
You mean our emissions were exported. We still own them in reality.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Extremophile wrote:
rungsp wrote:
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
I decry the fact that scientists have been studying and issuing warnings for decades, only to be told by politicians that it’s all hunky-dory business as usual, nothing to see here. To quote a line from day after tomorrow - you didn't want to know about the science when it could have made a difference.
Successive governments have chosen and are choosing to ignore climate change, and oil giants have faux scienced their way to business as usual, lobbying against anything the might even slightly affect their profits. So i have lost quite a lot of faith in governments to actually make the scientific changes needed to make sure everything actually does continue as normal. Governments are very good at sweeping things under the carpet.
The UK, by far a small carbon emitter at something like 1 or 2% the worlds output. We have net zero by 2050, net zero… yet we currently have no real carbon capture. Technology that could of existed for decades if governments paid attention to the science earlier.
Normal folk are getting tired of the doomsday hysteria that never comes true.
Every year we're told we're all going to boil to death.
And every year we just get a nice suntan and the human race gets bigger, richer, safer, better, and healthier.
Go check the UN website.
It's got one section saying the world is going to fry.
And another section forecasting record human population of a healthy 10 billion people by 2060.
It's beyond parody.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Layne wrote:
Peter S wrote:
Our CO2 emissions dropped dramatically once we were importing most of our steel, coal and manufactured goods.
You mean our emissions were exported. We still own them in reality.
It's an interesting point, do you ascribe CO2 emissions to the country in which they are produced, or to the country which is the ultimate recipient of the items produced? By that argument then the UK's total historical C02 emissions would be a lot less than usually calculated, as a lot of goods produced in the UK since the industrial revolution up to recent times were exported to countries around the world.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Peter S wrote:
The UK has low emissions these days. We lost most of our remaining heavy industry in the 1980s. Our CO2 emissions dropped dramatically once we were importing most of our steel, coal and manufactured goods.
Dropped?
instead of making 100 ton of steel, we now import it. Likely from China.
The steel is still made, but now an added co2 of shipping the stuff from the other side of the world.
How exactly is that a win?
Would love to know the thought process in why that is a good idea! Maybe the shipping co2 is offset by the loss of good paying jobs & less consumer power?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Peter S wrote:
The UK has low emissions these days. We lost most of our remaining heavy industry in the 1980s. Our CO2 emissions dropped dramatically once we were importing most of our steel, coal and manufactured goods.
My EV car was built & shipped from china.
Why should that co2 emissions be booked in China when it was built & shipped to spec, for me as the consumer?
Co2 should be booked at the point of consumption not production. If I did not order the car, it would not have been produced.
Global shipping that is to feed our consumption of goods is 2x that of the whole of the UK co2 production.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
I was commenting on the table linked by Skimastaaah. I agree that we should count CO2 emissions by consumption rather than production. Our Govt will be aware that we effectively exported our emissions when we closed our manufacturing industries in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
skimastaaah wrote:
Quote ...
Most of this pollution comes from just a few countries: China, for example, generates around 30% of all global emissions, while the United States is responsible for almost 14%.
China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2
5,400 > 50% of 10,000
14 < 50% of 30
What am I missing?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Whitegold wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
rungsp wrote:
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
I decry the fact that scientists have been studying and issuing warnings for decades, only to be told by politicians that it’s all hunky-dory business as usual, nothing to see here. To quote a line from day after tomorrow - you didn't want to know about the science when it could have made a difference.
Successive governments have chosen and are choosing to ignore climate change, and oil giants have faux scienced their way to business as usual, lobbying against anything the might even slightly affect their profits. So i have lost quite a lot of faith in governments to actually make the scientific changes needed to make sure everything actually does continue as normal. Governments are very good at sweeping things under the carpet.
The UK, by far a small carbon emitter at something like 1 or 2% the worlds output. We have net zero by 2050, net zero… yet we currently have no real carbon capture. Technology that could of existed for decades if governments paid attention to the science earlier.
Normal folk are getting tired of the doomsday hysteria that never comes true.
Every year we're told we're all going to boil to death.
And every year we just get a nice suntan and the human race gets bigger, richer, safer, better, and healthier.
Go check the UN website.
It's got one section saying the world is going to fry.
And another section forecasting record human population of a healthy 10 billion people by 2060.
It's beyond parody.
Another one, who is as thick as mince.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Alastair Pink wrote:
Layne wrote:
Peter S wrote:
Our CO2 emissions dropped dramatically once we were importing most of our steel, coal and manufactured goods.
You mean our emissions were exported. We still own them in reality.
It's an interesting point, do you ascribe CO2 emissions to the country in which they are produced, or to the country which is the ultimate recipient of the items produced? By that argument then the UK's total historical C02 emissions would be a lot less than usually calculated, as a lot of goods produced in the UK since the industrial revolution up to recent times were exported to countries around the world.
TBH my main point is it's not as simple as saying China is releasing x amount and we are releasing x amount and these are the top polluters.
It's back to the middle ground and nuance thing again.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Layne wrote:
Whitegold wrote:
Extremophile wrote:
rungsp wrote:
@Extremophile, I find it interesting that your article of faith is The Science.
The broad thrust of which seems clear..
Though is remains unproven by its very nature of being predictions (I don't dispute, I'm not a denier of change)
And yet you decry my faith in science to help us ameliorateany/most of the issues of climate change, even though we have totally verified history of science achieving huge crop yield increases, incredible medical advances, energy industry changes etc etc.
I decry the fact that scientists have been studying and issuing warnings for decades, only to be told by politicians that it’s all hunky-dory business as usual, nothing to see here. To quote a line from day after tomorrow - you didn't want to know about the science when it could have made a difference.
Successive governments have chosen and are choosing to ignore climate change, and oil giants have faux scienced their way to business as usual, lobbying against anything the might even slightly affect their profits. So i have lost quite a lot of faith in governments to actually make the scientific changes needed to make sure everything actually does continue as normal. Governments are very good at sweeping things under the carpet.
The UK, by far a small carbon emitter at something like 1 or 2% the worlds output. We have net zero by 2050, net zero… yet we currently have no real carbon capture. Technology that could of existed for decades if governments paid attention to the science earlier.
Normal folk are getting tired of the doomsday hysteria that never comes true.
Every year we're told we're all going to boil to death.
And every year we just get a nice suntan and the human race gets bigger, richer, safer, better, and healthier.
Go check the UN website.
It's got one section saying the world is going to fry.
And another section forecasting record human population of a healthy 10 billion people by 2060.
It's beyond parody.
Another one, who is as thick as mince.
This is getting tiresome
If you don't agree with the viewpoint / call in to question the poster's logic please enlighten and educate us rather than the blanket 'mince' statement
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
rungsp wrote:
No, I have faith that the science that has led to enormous advances in medicine, nutrition and even energy will, when combined with technology, enable life to continue all over our planet without enormous difficulties (though changed).
You only have to look at agriculture to see what I am talking about:
Massive yield increases from the same underlying crop types. Vitamin D in so called Golden Rice that has largely cured childhood blindness in many countries.
The list is long and a cause for optimism not pessimism.
In my lifetime I can easily remember terrible, really terrible, starvation events in far flung places.
Those are happily behind us, I doubt ever to be seen again.
Of course there is hunger, bad hunger, and still starvation...but nothing like the scale of the quite recent past. There is still a lot to be done.
Why?
Agricultural changes...from science.
BTW I strongly object to your assumption of "I'm alright Jack" to my opinion.
One minor detail, the science and the technology won't matter, when there are no pollinating insects left we will go extinct.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
There have been huge advances in food production, but to imply science has solved the problem would probably be disputed by the 800 million to 1 billion people who don't have enough food, and the two billion who don't have clean drinking water, or the 3.6 billion who don't have safe sanitation.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
RobinS wrote:
There have been huge advances in food production, but to imply science has solved the problem would probably be disputed by the 800 million to 1 billion people who don't have enough food, and the two billion who don't have clean drinking water, or the 3.6 billion who don't have safe sanitation.
That's a people problem - as in too many in the wrong parts of the world - which technology can't solve
There have been huge advances in food production, but to imply science has solved the problem would probably be disputed by the 800 million to 1 billion people who don't have enough food, and the two billion who don't have clean drinking water, or the 3.6 billion who don't have safe sanitation.
Famine worldwide has collapsed -99% this century.
Famine is gone.
Global hunger is down -80%.
Hunger is on the way out.
The world has a gigantic food surplus of +30%.
There are 8 million liters of water for every single human being on planet Earth.
More than enough for everyone on the entire planet to eat and drink.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Whitegold wrote:
There are 8 million liters of water for every single human being on planet Earth.
Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink
After all it is free
After all it is free
skimastaaah wrote:
Whitegold wrote:
There are 8 million liters of water for every single human being on planet Earth.
Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink
Especially if this figure includes sea water.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@eblunt, 97% of the earth's water is found in the oceans (too salty for drinking, growing crops, and most industrial uses except cooling).
320 million cubic miles of water in the oceans
3% of the earth's water is fresh.
2.5% of the earth's fresh water is unavailable: locked up in glaciers, polar ice caps, atmosphere, and soil; highly polluted; or lies too far under the earth's surface to be extracted at an affordable cost.
0.5% of the earth's water is available fresh water.
If the world's water supply were only 100 liters (26 gallons), our usable water supply of fresh water would be only about 0.003 liter (one-half teaspoon).
In actuality, that amounts to an average of 8.4 million liters (2.2 million gallons) for each person on earth.
This supply is continually collected, purified, and distributed in the natural hydrologic (water) cycle.
Where Water is Found and the Percentage
Oceans 97.2%
Ice Caps/Glaciers 2.0%
Groundwater* 0.62%
Freshwater Lakes 0.009%
Inland seas/salt lakes 0.008%
Atmosphere 0.001%
Rivers 0.0001%
TOTAL 99.8381%
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
skimastaaah wrote:
@eblunt, 97% of the earth's water is found in the oceans (too salty for drinking, growing crops, and most industrial uses except cooling).
320 million cubic miles of water in the oceans
3% of the earth's water is fresh.
2.5% of the earth's fresh water is unavailable: locked up in glaciers, polar ice caps, atmosphere, and soil; highly polluted; or lies too far under the earth's surface to be extracted at an affordable cost.
0.5% of the earth's water is available fresh water.
If the world's water supply were only 100 liters (26 gallons), our usable water supply of fresh water would be only about 0.003 liter (one-half teaspoon).
In actuality, that amounts to an average of 8.4 million liters (2.2 million gallons) for each person on earth.
This supply is continually collected, purified, and distributed in the natural hydrologic (water) cycle.
Where Water is Found and the Percentage
Oceans 97.2%
Ice Caps/Glaciers 2.0%
Groundwater* 0.62%
Freshwater Lakes 0.009%
Inland seas/salt lakes 0.008%
Atmosphere 0.001%
Rivers 0.0001%
TOTAL 99.8381%
Always baffled me that we can send a man to the moon but can't desalinate seawater
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
