Wild fires in BC Canada.

[rafezetter]

You are of course correct.

There is a huge conspiracy of politicians and nobel prize winning scientists treating us all as puppets.

There is nothing wrong with children walking to school along streets with stationary traffic churning out fumes from ancient engines designed for less congested times, toughens them up. ULEZ must be ineffective by definition because it has a boundary and its inconceivable that areas well away from that boundary in a gerat big zone will be better than those close to it. Stands to reason, dunnit? (To quote Alf Garnett).

How do climate scientists get funded? Corporations and groups with an axe to grind.

Wind moves. Pollution moves with it. If you don't think it does, feel free to move INSIDE a ULEZ where the air is that much cleaner you and your family will all live to 100. I'm certain you'll be overjoyed at spending £4,562 per year EVERY YEAR for that opportunity.

I'm amazed there isn't news of homes inside all the ULEZ across England having a wating list of buyers willing to pay over market price to live inside that ULEZ paradise.

I suggest you look into the funding of "Just stop Oil" you might be surprised to learn significant portions of their funding comes from Oil profits. It honestly wouldn't surprise me at all to learn this is an elaborate reverse psychology stunt to make people push to protect oil usage, thus ensuring their continued profits. Let's face it, most people didn't even consider just how important petroleum based products were to our daily lives UNTIL PEOPLE SAID WE COULDN'T HAVE THEM ANYMORE

And we all know that Trump won in 2020, why else would all those law abiding heavily armed proud boys storm the capitol.

America was built on treason and revolution against our King. I suggest you check your history.

Plus when I look east out of my bedroom window all I can see is flat fields, the evidence of my very own eyes tells me that the Earth is flat so that means all those pictures from space are fakes - in fact I doubt we ever got into space, its all a conspiracy and it was filmed in a hollywood studio.

Pass, I really cannot tell if you are trolling.

Elvis is dead now, but after his supposed death we all know that he ran a karaoke bar above a chip shop in Neasden and sometimes worked in the chip shop.

I met him, twice whenever I bought a drink he always said "Thank you very much" in his own inimitable style.

The Norfolk Coast is as solid as it ever has been, its the Government bulldozing houses over the edge, not sea erosion.

Coastal erosion has been happening worldwide for as long as the sea has existed, AND the sea levels used to be higher until the ice age, nature is resetting what was OUT OF BALANCE.

Humans also managed to survive the ice age - the current cycle is arguably significantly less dangerous than having HALF THE PLANET UNDER ICE.

The Fayeds, inclusing Dodi, got a mention in the news. That got me started on the Dodi Fayed crash, it was definitely a contract put out by capo de regime Philp "the greek" Duke of Edinburgh, Diana was unfortunate collateral damage. The courts can deny it all they want, what do they know, they only rely on evidence. Opinion tainted by fact - a big mistake.

What?

Climate change, pah. It's Biden and Starmer supporters going round starting fires to discredit the right wing politicians who have known all along its just a con.

There are pictures and video evidence of people starting fires, or was that as faked as the moon landings?

So yes, we are all puppets of a deep state conspiracy, and we are all plain and simple like you say we are.

You really should learn to read better. I NEVER SAID IT WAS A STATE CONSPIRACY. I did state that I believe there are bad actors within the "save the planet" brigade that are doing things that have cost people their lives to re-inforce their agenda.

IT'S FACT. I suggest you check google. One report states 84% of wildfires are caused by humans INTENTIONALLY, over and above those set by forestry workers getting rid of buildup.

Richard - you've pretty much proved to everyone the mindset of the people that are pushing these agendas. You've got very little facts and an overabundance of 3rd party hyperbole.

AND YOU ARE DISREPSECTING THOSE WHO LOST THEIR LIVES AND HOMES BECAUSE OF IT.

Make you feel good about yourself does it?

(I'm about to order a few dozen yellow caps with the logo MIGA, to sell at a vast profit to fund my new "deny reality" campaign. when they arrive I will let you all know. Yes, it is MIGA not MAGA: Make Ignornance Great Again. No point weighing up evidence in the round, we now know the world isn't round. Facts are over-rated, so are experts. Nothing beats uninformed opinion, and that's final.)

haha wow.

Richard - you've pretty much proved to everyone the mindset of the people that are pushing these agendas. You've got very little facts and an overabundance of 3rd party hyperbole.

 

[rafezetter]

Y2K and climate change are fundamentally different.

The former had the capacity to disable critical and integrated systems on the "stroke of midnight" - banking, communications, energy supplies, water, sewage etc. Food and fuel supplies would have become stressed within days, civil unrest possibly increasing to social meltdown within weeks.

That there was no catastrophe does not mean the threat was imagined - at least to some extent the attention paid to Y2K would have reduced catastrophic risk.

The latter is slow burn with no quick fix. "Net zero" is more about protecting future generations not the current one, half of whom will have passed on, up or down by 2075. The strategy needs to be coherent, capable of delivery, and "owned" - not a scattergun of initiatives.

As a democracy populations need to broadly buy in to the mitigate and adapt strategy - if not it will not happen. The UK should count itself fairly fortunate compared to many internationally - currently a temperate climate, developed infrastructures, relatively wealthyand capable of adaptation.

Tell that to China, and India and Russia and all the other MORE PULLUTING COUNTRIES.

In business, and generally life too, most people put the most investment where it will do the MOST BENEFIT.

Yet right now the UK and other western countries are looking at spending TRILLIONS to reduce our pollution levels from 1% to 0%.

Meanwhile China is spending FU(K ALL to reduce pollution.
Meanwhile INDIA is spending FU(K ALL to reduce pollution.
Meanwhile RUSSIA is spending FU(K ALL to reduce pollution.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile....

Country after country ARE DOING NOTHING.

Western countries will be bankrupt and the atmosphere will be hardly changed.

Is that REALLY the direction you think the UK should be going?

 

[Richard_C]

Rafezetter. Almost 2 whole weeks to share your thoughts. Is that the best you can do? Go on, try harder.

I am almost converted to your views, just a bit more of your common sense might tip me over.

 

[Cobbs]

Tell that to China, and India and Russia and all the other MORE PULLUTING COUNTRIES.

In business, and generally life too, most people put the most investment where it will do the MOST BENEFIT.

Yet right now the UK and other western countries are looking at spending TRILLIONS to reduce our pollution levels from 1% to 0%.

Meanwhile China is spending FU(K ALL to reduce pollution.
Meanwhile INDIA is spending FU(K ALL to reduce pollution.
Meanwhile RUSSIA is spending FU(K ALL to reduce pollution.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile.
Meanwhile....

Country after country ARE DOING NOTHING.

Western countries will be bankrupt and the atmosphere will be hardly changed.

Is that REALLY the direction you think the UK should be going?

Wow!

No-one else is throwing that drowning man a lifeline, so why should I?

Flawless logic.

 

[Jacob]

As Rafezetter burbles on maniacally the clear-up continues in Libya where 20000 may have been killed as a consequence of climate change.
Yes it was also due to bad government, lack of maintenance, no warnings.
This is how it will be - the weakest and most vulnerable parts of the defences, for whatever reason, will fall first.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pre...month-period-record-unprecedented-sea-surface

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The loss of life in Libya has (probably) nothing to do with climate change.

The Mediterranean has a few (between 0 and 4) violent storms each year with hurricane level winds and rain (Medicanes)

The impact depends on the storm track and and the quality of the local infrastructure hit. Similar strikes on Italy, Greece, France will cause significant local flooding and damage, and sometimes limited loss of life.

Libya, sadly, has suffered with a degraded infrastructure, political strife, and woeful lack of resource resilience - hence the outcome.

 

[Jacob]

The loss of life in Libya has (probably) nothing to do with climate change.

It very probably has a lot to do with climate change.
CC isn't a separate sort of weather arriving sometime in the future, it's more severe "normal" weather occurring more frequently. These worsening storms are forecast by CC science.

....

Libya, sadly, has suffered with a degraded infrastructure, political strife, and woeful lack of resource resilience - hence the outcome.

Climate change will affect those places with least resilience most severely. Hence the outcome.

As a matter of interest - what sort of weather event would you attribute to climate change? What are you expecting to happen?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/libya-derna-floods-climate-breakdown-western-states-warning/https://www.wired.co.uk/article/libya-medicane-flooding-storm-daniel-derma"The flood may also have a much wider significance. It may not be traceable directly to climate change, but it is highly likely to bear some responsibility, since the chances of far more intense and damaging weather events have been predicted with increasing certainty for years."

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It very probably has a lot to do with climate change.
CC isn't a separate sort of weather arriving sometime in the future, it's more severe "normal" weather occurring more frequently. These worsening storms are forecast by CC science.

From a paper produced by Eumetsat on the subject - there is no trend since 1980, and apparently most authoritative work on the subject suggests a reduction in these storms with climate change.

Most probably it has nothing to do with climate change!

Climate change is a serious threat - but overstating the case makes the arguments less not more convincing.

 

[Jacob]

From a paper produced by Eumetsat on the subject - there is no trend since 1980, and apparently most authoritative work on the subject suggests a reduction in these storms with climate change.

Most probably it has nothing to do with climate change!

Splitting hairs - you must have missed the conclusion:
"Finally, concerning the estimation of trend on occurrence of Medicanes, given the small number of events it is difficult to extract a significant determination."
But in the meantime we have evidence of climate change globally, we have record sea temperatures which generate hurricanes, we have the general forecast that weather events are going to get more severe, we have expectation that events such as these will become more frequent.
It would be improbable, and impossible to prove, that this event was not affected by climate change.

Climate change is a serious threat - but overstating the case makes the arguments less not more convincing.

The problem has been exactly the reverse of this - there has been too much caution, understatement, scepticism, downright denial and dishonesty. Or just over optimism and wishful thinking!

 

[Spectric]

We previously managed for millennia without either.

But once the cat is out of the bag and we went through the industrial revolution it will be hard to change. The people before all this were probably quite happy living in small villages where everyone relied on everyone else and although they lived for a shorter time period they knew no different so had nothing to complain about. Infact they would have been living in an enviroment with no plastic pollution, clean water running in the rivers and much lower levels of background radiation with wildlife all around.

I certainly am not and don't subscribe to the world is ending mentality.

The world may not be ending, it will just be very different and maybe without as many if any humans. Things come and go, change is normal but humans have been like a catalyst to accelerate the change.

https://ourworldindata.org/mass-extinctions

What we are not thinking about is the full picture when it comes to petrochemicals, once we stop the ICE then the refineries will not be viable and without petrol and diesel there will be no byproducts or aviation fuel which has a knock on effect on things like lubricants and plastics, not to mention bitumen for our roads. So now we all have our nice shiny new EV's that will wear out the road surface faster due to increased weight but the roads cannot be repaired because there is no Bitumen. We also have a problem because 60% of the material used to make tyres is synthetic rubber which is derived from petrochemicals and so we have no tyres. Then our wheels will stop turning because there are no lubricants like grease but luckily we will be stuck on our driveway because we could not charge the car as the power stations have ground to a halt as they also relie on lubricants, but an even bigger problem is that the ships delivering from China have also stopped and so eventually we will be back to where our ancestors just managed for milenia but living without there knowledge of that lifestyle and also with the planet in a much more unstable state.

 

[Jacob]

The loss of life in Libya has (probably) nothing to do with climate change.

The Mediterranean has a few (between 0 and 4) violent storms each year with hurricane level winds and rain (Medicanes)

The impact depends on the storm track and and the quality of the local infrastructure hit. Similar strikes on Italy, Greece, France will cause significant local flooding and damage, and sometimes limited loss of life.

Libya, sadly, has suffered with a degraded infrastructure, political strife, and woeful lack of resource resilience - hence the outcome.

Or to put it another way - all earths's weather systems are now affected by climate change in various ways.
Whether or not storm Daniel would have been any different if climate change was not happening can only be a guess, there's no way of knowing. But all the evidence suggests it probably would have been less energetic and might not have been catastrophic.

 

[whereistheceilidh]

But once the cat is out of the bag and we went through the industrial revolution it will be hard to change. The people before all this were probably quite happy living in small villages where everyone relied on everyone else and although they lived for a shorter time period they knew no different so had nothing to complain about. Infact they would have been living in an enviroment with no plastic pollution, clean water running in the rivers and much lower levels of background radiation with wildlife all around.



The world may not be ending, it will just be very different and maybe without as many if any humans. Things come and go, change is normal but humans have been like a catalyst to accelerate the change.

https://ourworldindata.org/mass-extinctions
View attachment 166376

What we are not thinking about is the full picture when it comes to petrochemicals, once we stop the ICE then the refineries will not be viable and without petrol and diesel there will be no byproducts or aviation fuel which has a knock on effect on things like lubricants and plastics, not to mention bitumen for our roads. So now we all have our nice shiny new EV's that will wear out the road surface faster due to increased weight but the roads cannot be repaired because there is no Bitumen. We also have a problem because 60% of the material used to make tyres is synthetic rubber which is derived from petrochemicals and so we have no tyres. Then our wheels will stop turning because there are no lubricants like grease but luckily we will be stuck on our driveway because we could not charge the car as the power stations have ground to a halt as they also relie on lubricants, but an even bigger problem is that the ships delivering from China have also stopped and so eventually we will be back to where our ancestors just managed for milenia but living without there knowledge of that lifestyle and also with the planet in a much more unstable state.

I would suggest that it will be humans that will be in an unstable state. The planet will probably just heave a huge sigh of relief... & get on with things......

 

[John Brown]

I would suggest that it will be humans that will be in an unstable state. The planet will probably just heave a huge sigh of relief... & get on with things......

You are almost certainly right. People always talk about "The environment". Really it's "Our environment" we have to worry about. Those cockroaches are rubbing their legs together in eager anticipation of taking over, and I'm not talking about the ones in the palace of Westminster .

 

[John Brown]

What we are not thinking about is the full picture when it comes to petrochemicals,

Oh I think this has occured to the scientific community. After all, it's been mentioned on this forum before, and I'm confident that the experts keep a close eye on the pontifications and debates that take place here.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Refineries will not stop production overnight - they will wind down over a 20-30 year period as ICE is replaced by EV. There will still be demand for their products even if the transition to EV is fully complete with no laggards. By nature I tend to be glass half full:

• there will be a drive to replace by-products of petrol and diesel with alternative products - eg: using plant based oils
• I know nothing of refining technology - but suspect there is some flexibility to vary (possibly not change radically) the different products output
• changed refinery output will be engineered into changed products - plastics, lubricants etc

That something is not feasible today does not mean it is forever unattainable. 25 years ago:

• the iPhone didn't exist (launched 2007),
• average internet download speed was 58kbs,
• Uber didn't exist (2009),
• Just Eat (2006 in UK),
• Nissan Leaf launched 2010 with a range of <80miles
• etc etc etc

 

[Spectric]

something is not feasible today does not mean it is forever unattainable. 25 years ago

But not all are progress, we can live without mobile phones which are creating a zombie culture where people are now disconnected from their surroundings and society, the internet started off really great but has been drowned in mis-information and so called influencers that are often nothing more than con merchants in drag and we can certainly live without Uber like the majority of the Uk. It is bad enough that people do eat some right shieete but at least they got some exercise by actually going out to get it, now companies like JE deliver shieete to the door. EV's in theory would be good but are still restricted by the law of conservation of energy which is 180 years old, somethings never change. The problem is that we want what we cannot have but are suicidal in the attempt of getting there, ie carbon neutral by 2030.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I completely agree not all change is progress - very rarely feel the need for Uber, Just Eat - but made the point simply to illustrate how fast change can happen.

The "net zero" aspiration is 2050 not 2030 (needs better definition). Effectively the replacement of fossil fuelled energy with non-greenhouse gas emitting alternatives. This could be through "green" generation, carbon capture (daft in my view) and reducing energy usage (eg: insulation).

2030 is the date for the ICE ban on new car sales in the UK (hybrids 2035). There will probably still be ICE cars on UK roads in 2045 and possibly later.

2050 allows a 27 year transition period - a demanding but not suicidal challenge. My guess is that some areas will lag - eg: old housing stock - and the UK will get to 70-80%.

 

[Spectric]

how fast change can happen.

In some areas you end up running into a wall, look at semiconductors where they are now reaching physical limits, ie transisters that are just 70 silicon atoms wide. Back in the day of the Pentium CPU it was 130nm, today they are 5nm and the Huawei 9000 has more than 15 billion transistors on it. Moores law has worked well and may not have taken us to the so called promised land but has delivered huge technogical strides and wealth to silicon valley but it is fast slowing down as it will come to an end, they are finding the benefits of size reduction are barely there as they approach the quantum level and are thwarted by the size of atoms. Many just say use lots of these small cpus interconnected as one but you have an issue with signal delays at Ghz frquencies, it all comes down to energy and physic's, it is as if we are in a straight jacket and cannot break out.

 

[RogerS]

From a paper produced by Eumetsat on the subject - there is no trend since 1980, and apparently most authoritative work on the subject suggests a reduction in these storms with climate change.

Most probably it has nothing to do with climate change!

Climate change is a serious threat - but overstating the case makes the arguments less not more convincing.

Have you not realised yet, Terry, that providing Jacob with accurate and scientific facts in the hope that he might see the light and jump off his bandwagon is like trying to nail jelly to a tree ?

 

[Fergie 307]

Indeed, Deema just the most recent of many waves to crash against that particular rock. Mind you not such a good analogy, after all even rocks erode eventually