Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

Forums › Off topic › Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#189063 15-Dec-2015 21:53

I don't know about you but I'm always sceptical about the type of talk fests we've just witnessed in Paris about the climate change accord.

I came across this blog today. It has some frightening figures.

The cost of the agreement by 2030 will be 1-2 trillion annually.

The agreed carbon emission reductions are less that 1% of what's actually required to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-have-treaty-what-cost-bjorn-lomborg

It all seems to be a very expensive waste of time to me.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451203 15-Dec-2015 22:06

I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451204 15-Dec-2015 22:08

oh and 4. Politics, Greenpeace, and the rest of the world. One cares about votes and power. One will protest just about anything, and try to crucify non conformists. The rest just struggle on to make ends meet.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451220 15-Dec-2015 22:45

joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

I see one of "Those Guys" is the writer of the blog I linked.

I'm not convinced CO2 emissions are the root cause of climate change. It's a proven fact the earth has been heating and cooling for 1000's of years. having said that I don't think we should just ignore pollution either.

As for Greenpeace they're just eco terrorists. They're not peaceful at all.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1451221 15-Dec-2015 22:53

A lot of what has been agreed, and demanded by the greenies, is just socialism on a global scale - redistribution of wealth from successful countries to struggling ones.

It must just be pure coincidence that many greenies used to be overt socialists and turned green when red went out of fashion

And the truly effective way of saving earth's resources - limiting global population growth - mustn't be mentioned

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451231 15-Dec-2015 23:39

Personally I think it is bunk. If the world never warmed, Europe would still be under several kilometres of ice.

There is money being made out of this and that is the reason why it is being blamed on humans and not on the sun, planetary movement, general natural climate change and so on.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1451244 16-Dec-2015 01:18

joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

1. Yes. Yes it does degrade.

2. The difference between China and the rest of the western world is nearly a billion people and some semblance of emissions standards.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451259 16-Dec-2015 06:48

Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451326 16-Dec-2015 09:23

MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.

So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451327 16-Dec-2015 09:27

Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.

So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.

There is a factor of natural climate swing however the evidence showing that climate change has been dramatically exacerbated and accelerated by man is extensive and compelling. On its own NZ can not do much but as part of a collective effort
we can be part of the solution, doing nothing will be vastly more costly.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451335 16-Dec-2015 09:41

joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

Ive read and watched many docos on climate change, for and against. The difference with the past is that is natural, and is more to do with coolling than heating. heating and cooling cycles occur and are natural. When you throw on a human created hearting effect, i.e. the spike from the Industrial Revolution thats a different manner. We are heating the atmosphere, and insulating it, and we are inputting a global cooling into the atmosphere as well, smoke particles. If we emitted gas, CFC, CO2, but no smoke we would be circa 2 degrees worse off. (smoke particles are large and block sunlight, and the moisture they hold is much larger and allow more diffusing of sunlight)

But I can see that this thread will go to the "it is real" and to the "it is rubbish" camps!

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451341 16-Dec-2015 09:47

Technofreak:
joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

I see one of "Those Guys" is the writer of the blog I linked.

I'm not convinced CO2 emissions are the root cause of climate change. It's a proven fact the earth has been heating and cooling for 1000's of years. having said that I don't think we should just ignore pollution either.

As for Greenpeace they're just eco terrorists. They're not peaceful at all.

I agree re Greenpeace

Heating and coolling, yes its natural, but we add our ingredients as well, thats not natural. Siberia has held massive methane under the tundra. Many areas have warmed there to 0 degrees, and some are leaking methane. Thats massive. Cows are a big issue. Removing vegeation, Amazon is a big deal, that area is huge in adding oxygen and removing CO2 as do all plants. When it gets away, its too late to reverse it.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451345 16-Dec-2015 09:57

One of the age old problems is the Lies, Damn Lie and Statistics.

Unfortunately I think both sides of the story are using Statistics to tell "lies".

One real problem I have is whether or not global warming is worsened by human influence there seems to be plenty of evidence to show the efforts being agreed to at meetings like the one in Paris will have virtually no effect but have significant cost. In the short term the money would be better spent on mitigating the effects rather than trying to stop the change. Money also needs to be spent on developing new technology

Another question needs to be asked. Is it actually possible to reduce the emissions enough to achieve the temperature reduction goals? Right now I'd say No, without the whole world returning to pre steam boat days style of living. Is that likely to happen? New technology may change this.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tangerz

625 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1451351 16-Dec-2015 10:06

shk292: And the truly effective way of saving earth's resources - limiting global population growth - mustn't be mentioned

Here is the root of the problem! We are far beyond the global population that our planets resources can viably sustain.

And with global population likely to reach 9-10 billion by 2050, demand for energy, food and water are only going to increase.

Wars over food and water will almost certainly happen within our lifetime....

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451352 16-Dec-2015 10:06

Technofreak: One of the age old problems is the Lies, Damn Lie and Statistics.

Unfortunately I think both sides of the story are using Statistics to tell "lies".

One real problem I have is whether or not global warming is worsened by human influence there seems to be plenty of evidence to show the efforts being agreed to at meetings like the one in Paris will have virtually no effect but have significant cost. In the short term the money would be better spent on mitigating the effects rather than trying to stop the change. Money also needs to be spent on developing new technology

Another question needs to be asked. Is it actually possible to reduce the emissions enough to achieve the temperature reduction goals? Right now I'd say No, without the whole world returning to pre steam boat days style of living. Is that likely to happen? New technology may change this.

Your questions are best directed at climate scientists.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1451355 16-Dec-2015 10:10

The Earth has not yet reached a tipping point, but that is not far off and the window of opportunity is closing fast. Once past the tipping point then we are going to be along for the ride and any actions then will be akin to King Cnut

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5