Climate change: what are YOU doing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: what are YOU doing to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand?

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 19

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845608 12-Aug-2017 17:50

shk292:

frednz:

But don't you think a target date could be set by the Government for the exclusion of ICE vehicles as has been done by some other countries? This article discusses the merits of this idea.

No, I think that's meaningless. Trying to predict in advance when all the technical, cultural and financial implications will be adequately addressed is futile.

We don't know the technical, cultural and financial implications of NOT going to EVs either.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845610 12-Aug-2017 18:02

Of course everyone with half a brain and the intelligence to look at the science knows that climate change is very real. Even banks may soon have to face up to it. In the meantime, those who haven't already completely closed their minds might want to look at this.

Unless of course they have so many degrees and so much private knowledge and such high IQs that they are better qualified and better informed than 97% of the world's real scientists.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845616 12-Aug-2017 18:39

Rikkitic:

Of course everyone with half a brain and the intelligence to look at the science knows that climate change is very real. Even banks may soon have to face up to it. In the meantime, those who haven't already completely closed their minds might want to look at this.

Unless of course they have so many degrees and so much private knowledge and such high IQs that they are better qualified and better informed than 97% of the world's real scientists.

Please, not the 97% bogus stat! That's been debunked so many times it has as much credibility as Santa Claus.

I'm not arguing against climate change, just that specific "fact".

I'm absolutely on side with EVs when they make sense for NZers, including non-urban ones who don't fit the mould. But I see no point whatsoever with picking an arbitrary date and predicting that by then, we should ban the import of ICEs. When the reasons to transition stack up, the move will make sense without a ban on anything.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845617 12-Aug-2017 18:57

shk292:

Please, not the 97% bogus stat! That's been debunked so many times it has as much credibility as Santa Claus.

I'm not arguing against climate change, just that specific "fact".

It doesn't really matter if it is 97% or 99%. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists agree that climate change is real. A smaller but still significant majority believe it is anthropogenic.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845628 12-Aug-2017 19:47

Rikkitic:

shk292:

Please, not the 97% bogus stat! That's been debunked so many times it has as much credibility as Santa Claus.

I'm not arguing against climate change, just that specific "fact".

It doesn't really matter if it is 97% or 99%. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists agree that climate change is real. A smaller but still significant majority believe it is anthropogenic.

Yes. The globe has been hotter and it has been colder, as in ice ages. But the fact is we are the cream on top this time. Invented, user created, and being as smart as we are, we can fix it.

When its cheaper to do so

When our car failed, we fix it

When our hot water cylinder fails we fix it.

When we overheat the Earth, its when coal and oil runs out, we will fix it, aka we will then use green energy

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1845636 12-Aug-2017 20:13

techmeister:

Climate change is rubbish, anyone with a half a brain can see that by looking up real stats on climate but

i am sure the PTB will make huge amounts off money out of it and in fact already are.

Good post, feel free to backup with information that is based on science

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845653 12-Aug-2017 20:38

Rikkitic:

It doesn't really matter if it is 97% or 99%. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists agree that climate change is real. A smaller but still significant majority believe it is anthropogenic.

97, 99, 1.6 - who knows? But quoting that figure just makes you look like a sheep who doesn't bother reading the story behind the headlines

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#2de5833b3414

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845658 12-Aug-2017 20:51

Actually I did read the story. We are just reading different ones. The one I read (the link and some others that put me onto the link) was in fact pretty specific about the 97% figure. The one you cite says no. I have to wonder if there is any statement anywhere on the Internet that passes unchallenged. The relevant fact for me is still that the great majority of scientists in the field do believe climate change is real. Whatever the specific percentage is, if this can even be calculated, there seems to be little doubt that it is actually happening. This is the science I believe until or unless something else comes along to persuade me otherwise. So far that hasn't happened. Someone simply saying it isn't so is not proof to my mind.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845668 12-Aug-2017 21:24

shk292:

Rikkitic:

It doesn't really matter if it is 97% or 99%. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists agree that climate change is real. A smaller but still significant majority believe it is anthropogenic.

97, 99, 1.6 - who knows? But quoting that figure just makes you look like a sheep who doesn't bother reading the story behind the headlines

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#2de5833b3414

I decided to do what you suggest and read the story behind the headlines. Since I already read the story I quoted, I decided to look into the one you cite. Here is an interesting quote about Forbes: Has a right of center bias in reporting and political affiliation. Usually evidence based with science unless it involves climate change. They employ James Taylor as a columnist who writes anti-climate science propaganda. Taylor has connections to the Heartland Institute and Exxon-Mobil. (7/14/2016)

I added the bold emphasis. Everything else is original. The source is Mediabiasfactcheck.com.

Alex Epstein is a well-known petroleum industry shill. His book and 'Center for Industrial Progress' propaganda web site exist solely to promote fossil fuel interests and to counter environmental concerns. Of course he and his organisation have every right to publish their ideas but he is not exactly someone I would dish up as an impartial commentator.

The point being that anyone can find anything on the Internet to back up any claim they want to make. I do not find your Forbes opinion piece more credible than my 97% claim. In fact, it is less so. Until or unless there is overwhelming evidence presented to dispute anthropogenic global warming, I will continue to believe it is by far the more accurate and likely explanation of what we see happening to the world around us. I think you are the sheep here and you are letting yourself be led by a few sensationalist headlines.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845726 13-Aug-2017 09:29

tdgeek:

When our car failed, we fix it

When we overheat the Earth, its when coal and oil runs out, we will fix it, aka we will then use green energy

If you don't fix a water leak in your car when you see it, then you will end up with a fix that is so expensive that you can't do it.

If we don't fix the CO2 leak into our atmosphere, then it will be horrendously difficult and expensive to fix the resulting overheating.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1845792 13-Aug-2017 13:34

Rikkitic:

shk292:

Please, not the 97% bogus stat! That's been debunked so many times it has as much credibility as Santa Claus.

I'm not arguing against climate change, just that specific "fact".

It doesn't really matter if it is 97% or 99%. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists agree that climate change is real. A smaller but still significant majority believe it is anthropogenic.

If it doesn't matter then why does it keep getting rolled out as part of the discussion? If there's no definitive list of these scientists and their individual positions, how do we know there's a majority? And even if there is a majority belief, there was once a majority belief that the world was flat too.

I certainly don't believe anthropogenic sources are a significant factor in climate change.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1845807 13-Aug-2017 14:02

cadman:

I certainly don't believe anthropogenic sources are a significant factor in climate change.

You don't have to believe it. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. I believe it because there seems to be strong evidence from many different directions pointing to that. There is no question the climate is changing. The timing of it seems to coincide with human greenhouse gas emissions. We know we are pumping megatons of these gasses into the atmosphere. Many, many highly qualified climate scientists, whatever the exact percentage may be, seem to think this is having an effect. I believe them. When I am shown convincing evidence to the contrary, I will believe that.

I suspect a lot of the climate change deniers just don't want to have to give up anything or change anything that might inconvenience them in any way so they try to persuade themselves that there is no need to. Maybe they are right. There will always be a degree of uncertainty about this kind of thing. But if they are wrong, we will all die proving that. It seems sensible to me to err on the side of caution.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1845812 13-Aug-2017 14:16

There is also another aspect to all this that hasn't been discussed here, that is, air pollution in some of the world's major cities. There is much greater urgency to introduce electric vehicles in these cities than in NZ.

I think there may be a relationship between air pollution and global warming..perhaps this may be worth a Google search?

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1846089 13-Aug-2017 22:37

Rikkitic:

Of course everyone with half a brain and the intelligence to look at the science knows that climate change is very real.

Meanwhile, those with more than half a brain know that those governmental institutions that so heavily promote the theory of AGW, and that's all it is, a THEORY, have very self-serving interests and so treat it as is deserves - with a heavy dose of scepticism. They might talk-the-talk but do they walk-the-walk? I say "No".

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1846107 14-Aug-2017 02:53

I'm in Vietnam as I write this. In two days, I've seen more vehicles than I see in a year in NZ.

China and India will doubtless be even worse. We could all start riding horses and living in caves in NZ but unless we can figure out how to get these billions out of their cars, trucks, buses, mopeds etc we may as well try and raise sea level by spitting into the ocean.

1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 19