8 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

The current geological age dominated by human influence is called the Anthropocene and scientists are more interested in charting temperature anomalies since industrialization - the "hockey stick". There has been temperature changes before but what is different today is the unprecedented speed of warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature

https://youtu.be/K_8xd0LCeRQ IPCC pressure tactics exposed: A Climategate Backgrounder and the origin of the hockey stick

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Renewable energy is defined as any energy source which is replenished at a rate equal to or more than the rate of consumption. That includes solar, wind, geothermal, tidal AND hydro.

Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium are not renewable energy sources, they are finite. No natural process is making more of them at a rate equivalent to their consumption.

OTOH, as long as rain and snow continue to fall in Norway, hydro is renewable and sustainable.

I am curious as to how much training in the sciences you have had. Your posts on force and energy indicate you have them confused.

He just redefines the terms as he sees fit.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I'm giving away this very short nonfiction book because I want as many people as possible to read it. I even state, in what is usually my copyright claim, that I claim no copyright and that sharing this information is not restricted but encouraged. I also give away copies of my first book, which is a memoir. I do that to introduce readers to my books, hoping they will buy some of the others, which are all fiction - mostly sci-fi.

And the copies I give away are all downloadable e-books, not paperbacks or hardcovers.

And I vehemently disagree with your last sentence. I'd change it to: Giving stuff away for free is not selling, it’s a form of sharing.

As a selfless gesture I have an old fridge , a broken Tv and a mattress that I would be willing to share with you, and there is even no need for you to return the favour with any of your books in fact , that's a condition of the deal no real need to rush, I will start burning them tomorrow, and it might take a few days to complete the task, especially the fridge

Knowing human nature, and how selfish it can be, especially at the corporate and country level, from the very moment they said a temperature tipping point would be reached without change, I knew we would reach it.

It's inevitable.

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Knowing human nature, and how selfish it can be, especially at the corporate and country level, from the very moment they said a temperature tipping point would be reached without change, I knew we would reach it.

It's inevitable.

There has been no change?

What could be done?

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Renewable energy is defined as any energy source which is replenished at a rate equal to or more than the rate of consumption. That includes solar, wind, geothermal, tidal AND hydro.

Coal, oil, natural gas and uranium are not renewable energy sources, they are finite. No natural process is making more of them at a rate equivalent to their consumption.

OTOH, as long as rain and snow continue to fall in Norway, hydro is renewable and sustainable.

I am curious as to how much training in the sciences you have had. Your posts on force and energy indicate you have them confused.

I define “renewable energy” as the belief that some energy sources are infinite, such as the Sun. No sources of energy are infinite, not even the Sun.
I understand that some people define "renewable energy" the way you do above, and limit it to, as you state, replenishment at a rate equivalent to their consumption. I think calling energy sources like that misleading, since their consumption rate changes over time and will likely continue to rise because of the three interrelated causes of our degradation of the Earth’s environment I mentioned earlier in this forum: our creation and use of technology, overpopulation, and human hubris.

I had to look up "OTOH," but yes, I agree, as long as rain and snow continue to fall, hydro is a useful technology. That doesn't mean hydro generates more energy than it took to create the physical properties needed to run it, the distribution of harvested energy, the pollution it causes, such as changes to the waterway's natural flow, and the cost to retire it. And, as you said in the beginning, it's dependent upon rain and snow, which might be adversely affected by the changes in the Earth's climate.

I have had no professional training in the sciences. I do have a BS in both English and Computer Science and an MBA, but no formal training in the sciences related to energy harvesting. And again, as I’ve said earlier in this forum, my focus isn’t so much on the scientific reasons for our ongoing degradation of the Earth’s biosphere. This forum is based on a scientific report that does that. My book focuses on the human aspect.

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Sorry, I misspelled shareadi.

Sorry, I can’t find a definition of that either.

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Sorry, I can’t find a definition of that either.

Just make one up.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Just make one up.

Oh, THAT shareadi! Shareadi is not a force that has no energy. It’s a force that has no direction - or existence,

There have been five ice ages where the climate made living difficult. I understand that science can see a trend towards a hotter climate but the actual date where the climate will make it difficult for humans to live is still flexible. It doesn't mean science is wrong but because the climate has no switch, just a trend, there may be some length of time before it really hurts us. Taking preventative measures, like not burning fossil fuels, is just common sense. I am reminded of Trump in New York in the winter saying he could use some of that global warming and thinking, well, like others, he has confused weather with climate change. I personally do not have the answer and hope that smarter people do.

16 minutes ago, Purdey said:

There have been five ice ages where the climate made living difficult. I understand that science can see a trend towards a hotter climate but the actual date where the climate will make it difficult for humans to live is still flexible. It doesn't mean science is wrong but because the climate has no switch, just a trend, there may be some length of time before it really hurts us. Taking preventative measures, like not burning fossil fuels, is just common sense. I am reminded of Trump in New York in the winter saying he could use some of that global warming and thinking, well, like others, he has confused weather with climate change. I personally do not have the answer and hope that smarter people do.

How are we going to get China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia and Ethiopia to quit burning fossil fuel?

Europe the US have been making great progress with renewable, but still, every year, the volume of CO2 released into the atmosphere increases. More CO2 will be released into the atmosphere in 2026 than 2025.

I think most everyone believes the Earth is warming, I certainly do, and I believe man is responsible, at least in part, to that warming.

Who is ready to give up air conditioning?

If you look on X this is being celebrated. The end of dozens of scams for profit and control none of which do absolutely anything to cool the planet lol.

Economic reports see the lifting of innumerable laws and dicatats returning tens of not hundreds of billions to the economy.

The direct taxes on each of us probably the most insidious

Just another Left wing scam

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

great progress with renewable

Renewables are bullshl+

Electric cars effectively burn coal

Wind turbines are hugely damaging to the environment, are rendered useless very quickly and the byproducts can't I be recycled

Solar is hugely polluting as well. The panels don't last and become trash extremely quickly. Clearing enough land is environmentally damaging.

Batteries and storing electricity is a losing proposition. Extremely expensive and a poor return on investment to say the least.

Well there may come a day when electric vehicles are here to stay.. today is not that day especially in Thailand

2 hours ago, mordothailand said:

https://youtu.be/K_8xd0LCeRQ IPCC pressure tactics exposed: A Climategate Backgrounder and the origin of the hockey stick

So you sent me a link to a video made by a historian journalist not a climate scientist. His channel has only 125k subs

So I won't waste my time watching it.

1 hour ago, Nurf said:

Renewables are bullshl+

Electric cars effectively burn coal

Wind turbines are hugely damaging to the environment, are rendered useless very quickly and the byproducts can't I be recycled

Solar is hugely polluting as well. The panels don't last and become trash extremely quickly. Clearing enough land is environmentally damaging.

Batteries and storing electricity is a losing proposition. Extremely expensive and a poor return on investment to say the least.

Well there may come a day when electric vehicles are here to stay.. today is not that day especially in Thailand

Really? I was one of the first people in Australia to put solar panels on my roof. With a feed-in tariff of 66 cents per Kwhr, I got my investment back in 18 months. My electricity bills were a few dollars each quarter.

Your claims on the service lives of solar panels and wind turbines are absolute tosh. The average service lives on both are 25-30 years. After that, the choice is between refurbishment, or decommissioning.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Fossil fuels sit in the middle. Nuclear is the most expensive. That's according to a CSIRO study, what sources do you have to support your claim?

News flash - no-one gives a rat's rectum about solar panels placed on land which is useless for any other purpose.

Electric cars burn coal when they recharge from power stations burning coal. A householder who recharges their EV from their rooftop solar burns nothing.

What a rare combination - a poster who is environmentally and financially illiterate.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

There has been no change?

What could be done?

Nothing can be done, some nations will try, most won’t. Only the rich can afford it.

Disaster is inevitable, I won’t be alive to see it, maybe my kids won’t, but my grandkids probably will.

Painful chikungunya can now spread across much of Europe

An excruciating mosquito-borne disease once confined to the tropics can now be transmitted across most of Europe, according to a new scientific study. Researchers warn that chikungunya, a viral illness known for causing severe and long-lasting joint pain, is expanding northward as climate change raises temperatures and extends mosquito activity seasons.

The study shows that higher European temperatures now allow chikungunya transmission for more than six months a year in southern countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal. Alarmingly, parts of northern Europe — including south-east England — could face seasonal transmission for up to two months annually as global heating continues.

The research, led by scientists at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, is the first comprehensive assessment of how temperature affects virus incubation inside the invasive Asian tiger mosquito. The findings reveal that chikungunya can spread at temperatures as low as 13–14°C — around 2.5°C lower than previous estimates — significantly expanding the areas and months at risk.

Chikungunya was first identified in Tanzania in 1952 and infects millions annually in tropical regions. While Europe historically recorded only sporadic cases, major outbreaks occurred in France and Italy in 2025, with hundreds of locally transmitted infections. Scientists link this surge to climate change and the rapid spread of the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), which is now established across much of continental Europe.

Experts warn that warming winters may eliminate Europe’s traditional “firebreak,” where cold weather once halted mosquito activity and virus transmission. This raises the risk of larger and more persistent outbreaks.

The World Health Organization says the findings highlight the urgent need for mosquito surveillance, public education, and prevention measures. While vaccines exist, they are costly, making mosquito control and bite prevention the most effective defences.

Key Takeaways

• Climate change now allows chikungunya transmission across most of Europe.

• The virus spreads at lower temperatures than previously believed.

• Experts warn outbreaks will worsen without mosquito control efforts.

Excruciating tropical disease can now be transmitted in most of Europe, study finds

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

As a selfless gesture I have an old fridge , a broken Tv and a mattress that I would be willing to share with you, and there is even no need for you to return the favour with any of your books in fact , that's a condition of the deal no real need to rush, I will start burning them tomorrow, and it might take a few days to complete the task, especially the fridge

Make no mistake the book has been sold for money as well. Easy for some to talk about change after a life of reaping the privilege a capitalist society provided to them. Its called guilt but wrapped in virtue.

3 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

So you sent me a link to a video made by a historian journalist not a climate scientist. His channel has only 125k subs

So I won't waste my time watching it.

climategate is history

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" -climategate

6 hours ago, mordothailand said:

climategate is history

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" -climategate

I'm going to stick the science - you can keep your anti-science conspiracy videos

15 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Yellowtail WDSmart would indeed be wrong. I am not aware of any consistent approach that equates force and energy.

Is there some form of "woke" physics that allows anyone to define anything according to how they're feeling (perhaps cornered and unwilling to admit they're wrong) and requires everyone else to accept it?

Maga

In terms of solar energy, this is what has happened in China in just over 15 years.

Meantime, it's drill baby drill in America.

One can accuse the Chinese of many things, dumb is not one of them.

The BBC have an article about how China is becoming a green superpower as Trump retreats from Climate goals.

China is becoming a green superpower as Trump retreats from climate goals - BBC News

7 hours ago, Bandersnatch said:

I'm going to stick the science - you can keep your anti-science conspiracy videos

that video exposes both IPCC & climate "scientists" as being pure anti-science, where "sending the message" takes priority over science

52 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

that video exposes both IPCC & climate "scientists" as being pure anti-science, where "sending the message" takes priority over science

You think the IPCC, the UN body for assessing science related to climate change and 97% of all climate scientists are "anti-science"

but your journalist conspiracy YouTuber knows better

1 minute ago, Bandersnatch said:

You think the IPCC, the UN body for assessing science related to climate change and 97% of all climate scientists are "anti-science"

but your journalist conspiracy YouTuber knows better

climategate knows better

 scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

Yet it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

1 hour ago, mordothailand said:

 scholar Bjorn Lomborg recently calculated that across the globe, governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex.

And for what?

Arguably, not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.

Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.

In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.

Yet it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?

In answer to your question:

International bodies and many economists argue that climate spending is a vital investment that prevents far greater future economic losses.

• Cost of Inaction: The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the United Nations note that inaction could result in global economic losses of up to 15% of GDP by 2050 and 30% by 2100.

• Economic Opportunity: Many governments view the transition as a "massive social and economic opportunity" that can deliver cheaper energy bills, warmer homes, and millions of "green jobs".

• Investment Gap: Despite the trillions spent, reports indicate that current investment is still roughly three times lower than the $8.6 trillion needed annually from 2024 through 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

• governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex. Wasted money or not? - Google Search

Time will tell.

1 minute ago, bannork said:

In answer to your question:

International bodies and many economists argue that climate spending is a vital investment that prevents far greater future economic losses.

• Cost of Inaction: The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the United Nations note that inaction could result in global economic losses of up to 15% of GDP by 2050 and 30% by 2100.

• Economic Opportunity: Many governments view the transition as a "massive social and economic opportunity" that can deliver cheaper energy bills, warmer homes, and millions of "green jobs".

• Investment Gap: Despite the trillions spent, reports indicate that current investment is still roughly three times lower than the $8.6 trillion needed annually from 2024 through 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

• governments have spent at least $16 trillion feeding the climate change industrial complex. Wasted money or not? - Google Search

Time will tell.

"International bodies and many economists"

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"International bodies and many economists"

Under the control of the New World Order.