RickBradford

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More evasion from someone clearly allergic to data.

No, it's your (understandable) unwillingness to look at the facts and see that the whole thing has been a colossal waste of time and money.

The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) on climate were agreed on legally at the Paris Climate jamboree a few years back, and are being monitored. Are they sufficient?

https://climateactiontracker.org

Here's the entry for China, the biggest cog in the climate machine: "Highly insufficient. NDCs with this rating fall outside of a country's 'fair share' range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2C let alone with the Paris Agreement's stronger 1.5C limit. If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3C and 4C."

USA's rating - critically insufficient, ie even worse than China. "If all government NDCs were in this range, warming would reach between 3C and 4C." Brazil (insufficient) , Indonesia (highly insufficient), Japan (highly insufficient). They left out India and Russia from their analysis, probably right off the charts, but you get the picture.

My advice to you would be - when some unpleasant data comes along, don't immediately cast about for a way to discredit it, or explain it away. Examine it on its merits, and incorporate that into your world view. It works out much better in the long run.

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just more nonsense and innuendo from you because that's all you've got.

I have much more.

I have the certainty that no sufficiently concerted effort will be made by governments worldwide to avoid whatever catastrophes the WRI, Bob Geldof, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg or the IPCC say may happen. Even the most rabid supporters of "clImate action" have now understood that.

So you may as well just get ready for the consequences, whatever they may be.

Or, better yet, start your own climate NGO and get on the gravy train while it lasts. Better hurry, though, there are thousands of them popping up everywhere, from the ACE and the ACF to the WRI, WWF and XR.

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

Does this mean that you think that the warnings of the IPCC, in contrast to those of celebrities, should be taken seriously and acted upon?

Ah, the dear old World Resources Institute. Part of the New Climate Economy, funded by the World Bank and the IMF.

The former home of the egregious Jennifer Morgan, who went on to become Greta Thunberg's special adviser and was head of Greenpeace International. Collaborators with E3G and the WWF, friends of Lisa Neubauer and Extinction Rebellion.

The perfect climate NGO.

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Their job is calling attention to the problem, and with every post here you're confirming they're doing a good job.

What they are actually doing is making themselves look ridiculous, and damaging the credibility of attempts to "fix" the climate with their sanctimonious self-righteous hypocrisy.

On that, they are admittedly doing a good job, as witness the inadequate commitments of governments worldwide to do anything substantive on climate.

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The difference is the celebrities are following the science.

Bob Geldof stated several years ago that "all humans will die before 2030" due to the ravages of climate change.

Is that "following the science", in your opinion?

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Same old misdirection

The misdirection is not mine.

The views of Bob Geldof, Prince Charles, Greta Thunberg and similar uninformed and ignorant nimrods garner hundreds of times the publicity in the mainstream media that the IPCC reports do. And celebrity noise, no matter how infantile, has a considerable influence.

Regrettably, this relentless media hype is also what influences the equally uninformed minds of the average politician, so what the IPCC says, no matter how well researched it may be, is largely irrelevant.

Just now, KannikaP said:

You say that it is the BEER which is a diureatic. I will do a scientific study with Heineken Zero and Singha. Results when I recover from the Heineken !

You've probably run this experiment before. 

Ever woken up with a tongue that feels like a piece of old carpet which has gotten stuck to the roof of your mouth? That's dehydration, quite possibly caused by the diuretic effect of alcohol (or caffeine, incidentally).

2 hours ago, KannikaP said:

Beer at 5% ABV is 95% water!

True. But beer is a diuretic (makes you pee more), an effect which continues for hours after you stop drinking beer, leaving you more dehydrated than before.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

So when it's too late you want to be informed.

Time was, when people ran around wailing "The End is Nigh", we very gently took them away, sat them down in rooms with soft walls and removed any sharp implements from the space.

Now we encourage them to address the United Nations and the European Parliament with their nonsense.

With experts like Bob Geldof, Prince Charles and Greta Thunberg telling us how to run the planet before we go extinct, what could possibly go wrong with the Great Green Experiment?

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Well, then, why did you cite them? Their predictions lie clearly outside the mainstream.

You were babbling about false predictions, so I provided some. I never used or even suggested the word "consensus".

You should stop making stuff up and attributing it to other posters.

6 hours ago, Nick in Thailand said:

I'm 40 years old. I'm a bit curious to be honest, I never normally go that young, mostly because they must be annoying as <deleted> to talk to on a date. But, physically, yes, they are attractive. 

"If the price for enjoying them physically is having to endure them socially, then I pass." 

I can't remember where I read that, but I've always thought it to be rather well expressed.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

First you take outlier positions and apparently want to present them as a consensus.

I didn't say anything of the sort. You just made that up.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Personal evidence free attacks. You don't have much use for evidence, do you? Because you've got none.

The evidence is perfectly clear. She talks nonsense in public, or at the very least, completely unsupported catastrophe stories. There's no secret about it, it's well documented.

She is a puppet reciting fables which she has been taught to repeat, as the recent 'toolkit' scandal in India clearly demonstrated.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/delhi-police-arrest-climate-activist-from-bangalore-in-toolkit-probe/articleshow/80906282.cms

As for failed predictions, nobody has produced more of them than the 'consensus' global warming lobby. They produce so many of these that it is hard to imagine they find the time to do anything else.

Here's their litany of failure related to one narrow topic, the Arctic ice melt:

Xinhua News Agency – 1 March 2008
“If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim - Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________

Canada.com – 16 November 2007
“According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

“And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” said Fortier.
[Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
__________________

National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” 

[Dr. Jay Zwally - NASA]
__________________

BBC – 12 December 2007
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 – May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
“…..one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover…..”
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Yale Environment360 – 30 August 2012
“If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is potentially free of sea ice within this decade,”
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
__________________

Guardian – 17 September 2012
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-time professor]
__________________

Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]

The Arctic is doing just fine, as of 2020. The predictions are the usual sorry tale of bad science repackaged as scare stories for the media to advertise.

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Except that Greta doesn't do her own predictions, she says 'listen to science'.

Yes, she knows nothing about the climate whatsoever and has to rely on what she is told.

"Listen to science" is a typically meaningless phrase promoted by the Green/Left.  It is simply code for "Listen to the science that agrees with what I want to promote, and ignore any science to the contrary."

Without wishing to go off topic, the number of times we have heard governments pronounce "Listen to science" in relation to the Covid situation, as they make a total mess of the whole thing, is indicative of how meaningless the phrase is.

26 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A warning by the government, not a prediction, let alone a scientific prediction.

In other words, exactly the same level of analysis that we are obliged to listen to incessantly from Greta Thunberg as she advises the Pope, and then harangues the UN Climate Action Summit, the US Congress, the European Parliament and the UK Parliament.

Except she doesn't have any data to back her up; the Maldives researchers have 30 years of it.

21 hours ago, Megasin1 said:

I think its something to do with profits as AZ is running at zero profit, hence the constant dissing of it.

AZ has already said that it will never again do something so dumb as to try to help people by running at zero profit.

15 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Is it just me or is the headline statement “ahead  of schedule” seem a bit of an overstatement in view of the current status?

Not really.

They planned to set a schedule for a potential scheme to consider taking action next year, but have tentatively thought about perhaps bringing it forward an unspecified amount of time.

All clear now?

59 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They were explaining a report from M.I.T.

Then why not link to the report itself?

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

As for solar polar

I assume you mean 'polar solar', in which case, that strikes me as a sub-optimal solution. It is generally better to site solar energy factories near the equator, where the ambient energy is more abundant.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

do you understand what geometric growth is?

Very well. What does that have to do with renewable energy?

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And of course, the very cheap price of solar is not going to be an inducement for capitalists to add a lot more of it.

I'm not sure that's the case. Capitalists will invest in anything they think they can make a dollar out of.

I have no desire to bust your delusions, but whatever those climate experts over at Vox say, the fact is that there is no major economy in the world that is anywhere near making solar power a core element of its energy strategy.

In fact, I doubt there is any major economy where solar makes up more than 10% of the the overall power consumption. It is boutique power; nice to talk about but fairly trivial.

I know the Green/Left likes easy solutions, but the real world requires addressing real problems, and the way things are going, solar just ain't making it.

I hope that somebody cracks the problem before we all start to go extinct in 2030, but I'm not optimistic.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

What made that statement so ridiculous is that they do support an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source. What do you think solar power is? It's you who has such a low and disparaging opinion of it.

Come on, solar energy is not free. If it were, it wouldn't require such huge subsidies. Just because the energy source is free, that doesn't mean the energy we can make from it is free. I think most people grasped that one quite a while ago.

Nor is it clean; the manufacture of solar panels is a thoroughly dirty process, and the panels themselves degrade quickly.

I have a very high opinion of solar power; if it were economic to do it on my own property, I would invest in it immediately.

But as a practical alternative to fossil fuels as a stable, reliable, large-scale and cost-effective energy source to power an advanced economy, it is a non-starter.

Technology improves rapidly, and maybe one day we will figure out how to make it work. If that happens, I'll be the first to cheer, as a good "socialist denialist".

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're the one who claimed activists hate energy. Maybe you shouldn't propose silly formulations without understanding what they mean?

The meaning was quite clear when I wrote this: "The underlying problem is that Green zealots actively dislike energy; if someone invented an inexhaustible, clean, free energy source tomorrow, they would oppose it."

Nothing about sunbeams; they exist only in your imagination. I see I have given you far too much credit to being interested in an worthwhile conversation about this subject. 

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Activists who recoil at the touch of a sunbeam?

Now you're just being silly.

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A word dropped out. It was meant to be written:

This coming from someone who has apparently discovered a new psychological condition: energy hatred.

OK, got it.

It certainly is annoying when words drop out like that - I think the forum software must be getting old, or perhaps the Internet is faulty.

But I can't claim to have discovered the idea of energy hatred; many commentators have come to the same conclusion after seeing how the Green/Left violently opposes the use of the proven technology of nuclear power, the densest and safest form of power ever invented, in favor of unproven, subsidy-gobbling diffuse and unreliable 'green' energy sources which are very hard to scale.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Right, I'm the one who's blathering. This coming from someone who has apparently a new psychological condition: energy hatred.

I don't have "energy hatred". I love the stuff.

And the fact remains that no matter what renewable energy technologies may be feasible in the future, all of them are unproven, long-term projects which don't measure up to the demands of the climate activists. Even the Vox article concedes that much.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, when someone writes "As you well know" it's most likely it's not something you know." It's just more of the same kind of nonsense like casting aspersions on the motives your opponents. You know, like hatred of energy. How ridiculous can you get? Will you ever top that one? It's something to shoot for in a negative kind of way.

Ignoring the above blather, I ask again if you actually have any concrete suggestions as to how to fix the climate problem, given that switching to renewables cannot achieve that in time, as many activists have noted?