In the 70’s the biggest worry climate scientists had was the impending ice age. I know cos I was there.
Net Zero - its over.
- Thread starter SilliamWhale
- Start date
Y Fan Wen
Member
- Location
- N W Snowdonia
Still is! Which do we think we can handle better, a Mediterranean climate or trying to farm under a kilometre of ice?
The media reported it as such. A study of published papers from the time showed that scientists were more in fact focussed on global warming as a long term issue instead of global cooling.
Global cooling - Wikipedia
Well there was a lot of scientists who were quite willing to go on the media at the time to promote their theories on the next ice age I’m quite sure the same scientists would be promoting global warming if they were alive today.The media reported it as such. A study of published papers from the time showed that scientists were more in fact focussed on global warming as a long term issue instead of global cooling.
Global cooling - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Yeah probably. The media exist to sell papers and generate advertising revenue.
Very true but the world of science is pretty mercenary as well. A lot of scientists change their dialogue to suit the agenda.
True..but following that logic, the petrochemical industry has literal billions and they'd love to put forward a proven hypothesis that shows global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by humanity. Similarly,the IPCC has multiple members who benefit greatly from the petrochemical industry as it is today.
Unfortunately neither of these very rich and powerful groups have undone the established theory that humans are causing global warming.
The idea that there's an underdog group of scientists bravely fighting against the IPCC is a bit silly. Because those underdogs would be fully supported by the impoverished likes of Exxon Mobil, Shell et al.
That's just my opinion anyway. I accept I am a layman who can't get into the details of climate science. The petrochemical industry has had the scientific and financial upper hand for decades and yet global warming has come through as a major issue so I'm not prepared to bury my head in the sand.
Last edited:
I think the petroleum companies might be smarter than you think why is air travel and vehicle travel not been banned, if saving the planet was so important these things would be happening instead they have diverted attention to cows and blaming them for global warming helped by the IPCC and their insidious mission creep. That Chris Sharp is down right evil in his drive to exterminate animal agriculture.
Oh I agree and I don't underestimate them at all. You are absolutely right and the example of blaming cows just demonstrates how insidious and political things have got. The main issue is burning fossil fuels to get energy, everything else is tinkering at best.
ollie989898
Member
The fossil fuel industry hasn't got anything to concern itself with but obtaining fossil fuels and selling them. There is no way mankind can do without them at present and for all the bilge you read about carbon dioxide in the media it hasn't made a single jot of difference globally because coal and oil as still very much in demand.
wanton dwarf
Member
Fossil Fuels are required for everything including Renewables - Mining, Smelting, Manufacture, Transport, Insulation, Seals, Lubricants, Paint, Steel, Copper, Concrete, Ships - Renewables are swimming in CO2
The need for Fossil Fuels will not end for a long long time to come - everyone including the IPCC knows this
Western governments are removing democracy, freedoms & installing massive taxes THAT is the goal of IPCC & all Western Governments
Carbon Credits produce nothing, literally are nothing - EU market for Carbon Credits in 2021 was 760+ BILLION Euros all of which is paid for by poor people giving money to rich politicians
CO2 is just an excuse
The market for Carbon Credits is forecast to be 10x the size of the current Fossil Fuel market
I fear there is no stopping the sheer size & greed involved - Millions of people can be bought using this level of money
Property will be forced out of the hands of the public into the hands of "Responsible Caretakers" - we are living in an era bringing about a new form of Totalitarianism using models of Financial Markets as the stick & Environmentalism as the excuse
wanton dwarf
Member
Canadian Milk, 7 Dollars a litre
I believe it was BP who coined the phrase carbon footprint. They did that to deflect the onus onto the consumer of the fossil fuels and divert attention away from its production so they’d already influenced the debate decades ago. Also the industry has sought to undermine the whole area of climate change in spite of your belief that it has had zero success at it, it has clearly had some success.
Oh, and the "established theory" isn’t that humans have caused global warming, (a term which was dropped ages ago cos it was a bit er awks) the established theory is that humans have played some part in the current short-term period. How big a part is subject to huge debate amongst scientists, a lot of whom don’t support the narrative as it stands. The IPCC reports are full of levels of uncertainties.
But more importantly than the science, there is the policymaker response which blatantly isn’t based on "the science", but has been massively influenced by groups like the fossil fuel companies, who are quite happy to have vastly more influence over policy than science. Of the two, they’d defo choose policy.
- Location
- Wiltshire
Another nail in the expensive coffin. The equivalent of sub prime mortgages.
I’ve saying for years that planting trees is rubbish unless you chop them down in 20 years and shove them in a coal mine
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lose-billions-as-offsets-deemed-worthless-aoe
I’ve saying for years that planting trees is rubbish unless you chop them down in 20 years and shove them in a coal mine
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...lose-billions-as-offsets-deemed-worthless-aoe
make that 30 and shove them in our logburner 
SilliamWhale
Member
It may be that the climate is changing but who is to say it is catastrophic or can't be handled?
Steven Koonin is one of America's most distinguished scientists, with decades of experience, including a stint as undersecretary of science at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration. In this wide-ranging discussion, based in part on his 2021 book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Koonin gives a more refined look at the science behind the climate issue than the media typically offers, guiding us through the evidence and its implications. As Koonin explains in this interview, he was “shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed” and that the “overwhelming evidence” of catastrophic implications of anthropogenic global warming wasn’t so overwhelming after all.
More than worth a listen.
Uncommon Knowledge: Hot Or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science And Methodology | Uncommon Knowledge | Peter Robinson | Hoover Institution on Apple Podcasts
Show Uncommon Knowledge, Ep Hot Or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science And Methodology | Uncommon Knowledge | Peter Robinson | Hoover Institution - 22 Aug 2023
podcasts.apple.com
More than worth a listen.
That story was ran a few months ago, FYI. They’ve just updated it because it was a pre-print and has now passed peer review. No harm highlighting it again though.
wanton dwarf
Member
New World Order has arrived. Saudi, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Argentina set to join BRICS January 2024. More to join later.
To add to this and not anything to do with the political wishful thinking of Net Zero but the practicalities of needing fossil fuels for decades to come, I watched a youtube vid of austrailan academic Simon Michaux (based in Finland) and he had something interesting to say about BRICS:
He said the BRICS, being the raw materials suppliers of our western energy needs, are starting to tie their respective currencies to their commodities. So, since the Ukrainian invasion and sanctions, Russia is only accepting payment in rubles for its oil and China aren't accepting payments in petro-dollars but their own currency because of the US interest in Taiwan.
China's current deflation worries and Russia's losses in the war mean this is much bigger than just politics.
He contrasted this with the West's QE-boosted fiat currencies that have no material backing and how it wont be good for us little people in the West.
He seemed serious so I'll make light of it and ask is it time to start stocking on bog roll again?
