Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)

Latest News Forums Discussion Forum Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 16 posts - 301 through 316 (of 316 total)
  • Author
  • #99363 Reply
    michael norton

      Clark, I barely ever watch T.V. unless it is something I am very interested in.
      I almost don’t read newspapers, because you have to pay to be mislead and bullshitted.
      You almost can’t trust anything the BBC come out with.
      It is quite difficult, I imagine, if you are working, to have much bandwidth to think much through, especially if you have small children.
      Do people get their information from sound bites or stuff sent to their smartphones?
      I don’t know, I am in my early seventies, so I have a lot of time to waste on the internet and a lot of time to think and run things past friends. I think it would be an extremely useful exercise, to try and clue the public up on the extreme difficulty we will have to achieve Carbon Zero by 2025 “ESO”
      or within the next 50-100 years.
      I wouldn’t mind betting society will break down before it ever happens.
      I expect very few people understand the phenominally difficult position we are in, with a world population of 8,100,000,000 people to clothe/house and supply energy to.

      #99369 Reply

        Michael, your media habits are similar to my own, and I too have worried that people lack time and energy after the pressures of everyday life. Commercialism wastes people’s time and energy just like it wastes resources, which makes what I call “politics as a spectator sport” attractive; people feel they’re participating by picking the “right side”, arguing over it, and occasionally voting, but that “system” is what got us into this mess.

        “I wouldn’t mind betting society will break down before [net zero] ever happens”

        I agree that looks most likely, but there are some things that give me hope.

        The inequality figures I posted on the previous page. Clearly, with 6/7ths of the world’s population living on only slightly more resources than us, the mere 1/7th in the “advanced economies”, the problem is much smaller than it looks from our high-energy, high-materialism perspective.

        Further, “net zero” doesn’t mean no fossil fuel use at all, it means that emissions have to be balanced by removal, and rewilding would draw down carbon dioxide remarkably quickly. Atmospheric methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and decays much faster, so reduction of methane emissions would buy us time. Simple mirrors can reflect away solar heat, and they can be made from waste. Mounting them on rooftops reduces the need for air conditioning:

        There’s actually a lot that’s hopeful; the main obstacle is the investment-based financial system, which is what enforces perpetual economic growth and corrupts our politics and the advertising-funded media.

        #99372 Reply
        michael norton

          Clark, it has been imagined, that Sir Starmer is going to go “Hell for Leather” towards a Carbon Free Economy.
          He has invented his own energy firm, that does not have any money, will not make any electricity and will not sell any electricity.
          Probably much like the current ESO.
          Ask Sir Starmer just one question.
          How will he install two million E.V. on street chargers?

          #99376 Reply

            “…it has been imagined,”

            Well; precisely. I think you covered this a couple of pages back with “governments are mostly useless”. Actually Starmer has slashed the energy transition budget he said he’d committed to to get elected leader of the Labour party. I think he slashed it to one seventh, funnily enough.

            #99419 Reply


              “Simple mirrors can reflect away solar heat, and they can be made from waste. Mounting them on rooftops reduces the need for air conditioning”

              That’s a really interesting proposition and it may have some merit. However, would reflecting the energy from sunlight not have more of a localised warming effect than if it were absorbed by the building? Not sure if our avian friends would relish the prospect either, but I’d be interested to read about any projects using reflective tech.

              #99424 Reply

                Shibboleth – “…I’d be interested to read about any projects using reflective tech.”

                The link I gave, – MEER have some projects going. MEER stands for Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing. They suggest making mirrored surfaces with remoulded plastic from discarded transparent bottles, backed with a layer of aluminium from discarded drink cans. By angling such mirrors skyward, visible wavelengths of sunlight can be reflected away from the surface, preventing them from heating less reflective surfaces such as rooftops. The resultant lower average temperature of the surface reduces re-radiation in the infrared bands, which are the ones greenhouse gases would trap. The atmosphere is as transparent to reflected visible light on its way back up as it was on its way down. Of course some of the reflected visible light gets stopped by clouds on its way back up, but any that gets out to space is a net reduction in the solar energy absorbed by Earth. Basically, it artificially increases Earth’s albedo.

                I like the idea because it’s so low-tech, and in the unlikely event that it has bad effects you can just take the mirrors down, and they were made from waste anyway. I’ve often seen suggestions of orbiting sunshades, or even a vast sunshade at the L1 Lagrange point, but reflection works just as well at ground level, at about a thousandth of the cost. The big drawback is the vast area needed to make a big difference; planting different crops is probably more effective. It has been looked into extensively and Wikipedia has quite a bit on it:



                #99426 Reply

                  Thank you – I couldn’t open the link earlier, but that’s most helpful. Remarkable – but then some simple solutions are!


                  #99430 Reply
                  michael norton

                    Sir Starmer goes to South Wales.

                    “Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of the Community union, said there was a “real opportunity” to persuade Tata to keep blast furnace 4 operating beyond September.

                    Mr. Rickhuss, whose union is the largest representing steelworkers in Port Talbot, said there were four to six weeks of negotiations to try and change direction but “we are up against it, time-wise”.

                    “We’re living in with this fear and uncertainty, it’s not in their interest to prolong the debate. We need to have these discussions quick,” he said.

                    You can’t have a transition, without steel.

                    #99443 Reply

                      Shibboleth, when a user restricts JavaScript it sometimes makes links invisible to them on this site. I must be more disciplined, and always type out full html a-tags, as I did in my repost of the MEER link. In case my Wikipedia links aren’t showing, I shall repost them properly as well:

                      Reflective surfaces (climate engineering)

                      Solar radiation modification – Terrestrial

                      #99445 Reply

                        Michael, it does make sense to make steel locally. Same with everything else too; the more we re-localise, the less emissions from transport. It also preserves skills and infrastructure locally, making our society more resilient as societies start to collapse.

                        #99450 Reply
                        michael norton

                          I am worried for the United Kingdom, we can’t keep going, by thinking we used to be a world power, yet we now mine almost nothing.
                          There must be good reasons why the Industrial Revolution started in the U.K.
                          We now seem to think ourselves aloof from extraction.
                          Yet where will the minerals come from, if we want an almost all electric future?
                          Is it even moral to expect people in other lands to rip their land apart, so we can have an electric future?
                          We still have Graphite, Coal, Oil, Methane, Slate, Clay, Salt, Tin, Copper, Tungsten, Lead, Gold, Silver, Iron, Zinc, Kaolin, Limestone, Sand, Ballast, Chalk, Phosphates and Polyhalite.

                          A question is, does net Zero or Carbon Zero mean leaving all this stuff in the ground?

                          If that is to be the future, then we are truly buggered.

                          What will we trade with the rest of the world, what exactly is it we do, selling insurance for shipping, that bird might be flying out the window as we speak.
                          We have decided to cut ourselves off from Russia, they are beyond the pale. We no longer buy their raw materials, like the Iron that comes from the Kursk Anomaly
                          About 60,000,000,000 of Iron Ore.
                          This massive deposit is just to the north of the Black Sea, so, if we were to resume trade with Russia, not that long a journey. So, what will Sir Kier Starmer line up for our future/
                          I expect today he will be in Washington, to kiss the hand of Joe Biden.
                          We will be told Russia bad, Ukraine good.
                          War, war, war.
                          Maybe that will be our future?

                          #99453 Reply

                            Re fitting mirrored surfaces made from remoulded plastic and aluminium from cans, an even more low-tech solution is to just use white paint, like they do in some hot parts of the world.

                            #99478 Reply


                              “Investing in Climate Chaos 2024: $4.3 trillion for fossil fuel industries”

                              “Berlin, 09.07.2024

                              Today, urgewald, together with 17 partner organizations, published this year’s edition of the financial research “Investing in Climate Chaos”. It reveals the fossil investments of over 7,500 institutional investors worldwide. The financial data was collected in May 2024 and shows that these investors are currently invested with 4.3 trillion US dollars in bonds and shares of companies active in fossil industries. These investments are held by pension funds, insurers, asset managers, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, foundation funds or asset management subsidiaries of commercial banks. ”


                              #99483 Reply


                                “As NATO Members’ Military Spending Surges, So Do Emissions
                                The sharp uptick that exacerbates climate breakdown serves only to enrich weapons manufacturers, says a new briefing.”

                                By Edward Carver CommonDreams
                                July 9, 2024


                                #99540 Reply

                                  Concerning white-washing roofs – there’s a discussion of it on Inside science, radio4, 22 minutes in:


                                  They seemed to have neglected the point that having cooler buildijgs actually reduces requirements for air conditioning, which itself pours more heat into the local environment besides requiring a lot of electricity.

                                  #99570 Reply
                                  michael norton

                                    Labour have been talking about GB Energy for some time.
                                    It seems to be something that has no money, will not make any electricity and will not sell any electricity – also it does not exist – in reality?

                                    “According to the Labour Party, some of the funding for GBE would be provided from additional taxation of the fossil fuel industry.”
                                    Ed Milliband wants to have no more coal mines, no more gas wells and no more oil wells, yet he will fund GB Energy by taxing the fossile fuel industries, is this what Labour mean by joined up thinking?

                                  Viewing 16 posts - 301 through 316 (of 316 total)
                                  Reply To: Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)
                                  Your information: