Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in  Having trouble logging in? Read our help guide
I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation
Roger Bryant
367 Posts

If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.

We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.

 

 

121 Replies

Here's my take.

Most young people, at least my peers (25-35-year-olds), agree that we need to do a lot more. I don’t think they identify CO2 as the main threat, but more the mindset of corporations/governments shackled to capitalism. Sure, we’re making positive changes, but we have a long way to go before we can say we’re making moderate gains. Most emissions are generated by industry (when I last checked); we need to make energy-intensive processes non-reliant on fossil fuels. We can't worry about who's to blame; we need to focus on the future and how we make it better for everyone. I think most humans suffer from a lack of altruism; instead, they live here and now without considering the whole. 

I highly recommend watching “Breaking Boundaries: The Science Of Our Planet,” narrated by David Attenborough; everyone needs to see it to consider what they can do; we all play a part! 

Simon Barker
978 Posts

The younger people are getting fed up with a reactionary old generation who want to keep things just the way they are, because it suits them to do nothing.

It's very easy to convince yourself that nothing is wrong, if you don't want to do anything.  And there will be a plentiful supply of wealthy vested interests, and their rent-a-scientists, who will keep feeding the message that any problems have been made up.

Aivar Usk
22 Posts

It may be calming to have a look at what Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder has found in the latest IPCC report:

"These conclusions of the IPCC, and presented in the language of the IPCC below, indicate that it is simply incorrect to claim that on climate time scales the frequency or intensity of extreme weather and climate events has increased for: flooding, drought (meteorological or hydrological), tropical cyclones, winter storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, lightning or extreme winds (so, storms of any type). "

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report-1e3

Having spent the early decades of my life in the Soviet Union, I can recognise the methodology used at forcing the "anthropogenic climate crisis" belief upon the global audiences these days: point at the self-evident moral virtue argument and play the scientific consensus card (I've heard of even 99%), keep any deviant opinions out of the mainstream media and ostrasize the carriers of any sceptical voice, indoctrinate the young as early as possible.

Humanity needs to replace fossil fuels one day, no doubt, but for the right reasons. Once the climate alarmism phase is over (before 2030, I hope), the west can perhaps understand why it took so long for the Soviet Union to collapse even after the fear of death for political thought digressions was long gone: fear of "being cancelled" and losing a good job can be as effective in establishing self-censorship. 

Andy Millar
1613 Posts

Or we could look at what IPCC themselves say, not how someone on a web forum has chosen to quote someone else's choice of how to interpret their report. The following are the IPCCs key findings, intended to presented as such:

A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.
Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere
have occurred. 

A.2 The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of
many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many
thousands of years.

A.3 Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes
in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as
heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their
attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5.

A.4 Improved knowledge of climate processes, paleoclimate evidence and the response of the
climate system to increasing radiative forcing gives a best estimate of equilibrium
climate sensitivity of 3°C with a narrower range compared to AR5.

Andy

Simon Barker
978 Posts

Whenever there is a general scientific consensus on something, there will always be someone somewhere who disagrees with it.

The problem here is that the naysayers are desperate not to believe in climate change and will latch on like limpets to anybody who supports their view, discounting every other scientist in the field who says it's real.

Jon Steward
123 Posts

Simon Barker: 
 

Whenever there is a general scientific consensus on something, there will always be someone somewhere who disagrees with it.

The problem here is that the naysayers are desperate not to believe in climate change and will latch on like limpets to anybody who supports their view, discounting every other scientist in the field who says it's real.

Con sensus. Clue is ‘con’

Science should only be fact based. Otherwise its just worthless pseudoscience.

CO2 is good 👍 

Roger Bryant
367 Posts

Andy,

Those are indeed the IPCC headline summaries. As you look into the details they are not quite so certain with significant amounts of ‘moderate confidence’ and ‘likely’. 

Even so they bear no resemblance to the predictions of destruction being promoted by the likes of XR. These are some quotes from the BBC article I linked:

- Nearly 60% of young people approached said they felt very worried or extremely worried.

- More than 45% of those questioned said feelings about the climate affected their daily lives.

- Three-quarters of them said they thought the future was frightening. Over half (56%) say they think humanity is doomed.

- Two-thirds reported feeling sad, afraid and anxious. Many felt fear, anger, despair, grief and shame - as well as hope.

The younger generation will see little if any significant changes in their lifetimes. Take the ECS of 3°C look at the various projections for CO2 level increases and see when we are likely to have a problem. What temperature rise will cause a significant problem? The 1.5°C appears to have come out of the Paris Conference. The IPCC produced a special report on 1.5°C:

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

It seems remarkably woolly for a concept that is demanding enormous expenditure and enormous use of natural resources. Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries heat pumps and EVs all require materials and large amounts of energy to make. The current demands for stopping the use of fossil fuels by 2035-2050 will make matters worse in the short to medium term.

What, as ever is, missing is an actual engineering style project plan with costs, resources and time scales. There is a lot of rhetoric, lots of demands for government expenditure (even though governments don’t have money, taxpayers do) and lots of scary, unjustified predictions.

Will FLOP26 do any better? St Greta doesn’t think so. 10’s of thousands of the not so good and the not so great will fly into Scotland during a pandemic and indulge in posturing and virtue signalling for what?

 

Roger Bryant
367 Posts

Simon,

‚Consensus’ and ‘Belief’ are not words to do with science, they are words to do with politics and religion.

I am quite happy with the concept of climate change, there is sufficient data to back it up. I support reducing our impact on our planet, reducing the consumption of finite natural resources and improving our use of land and oceans. What I do not support is the scaremongering rubbish and wild demands of the climate activists.

With some joined up thinking we can steadily work on improvements.

We can of course also do it the green way. Let’s shut down the nuclear power plants in Germany so they can burn lots more brown coal. Let’s protest against a coking coal mine in the UK so we can buy the steel for our wind turbines from China with all the added emissions that involves. (The heat for some of the steel making processes can come from electricity or hydrogen but the fundamental process requires carbon).

I always thought that climate change was part based upon the release of bovine methane due to the overproduction of cow products.  

I maybe wrong!  But that is the point, its the maybe, the willingness to believe that the evidence on climate change is related soley to human activity. 

It doesn't help when ‘activists’ use pictures of cooling towers to advertise examples of climate change.

Legh

Aivar Usk
22 Posts

Andy,
In general, I would agree with your comment - to check the original report -, but with the thousands of pages of the full IPCC reports, its is too time consuming. Knowing that the Summary for Policymakers is politically motivated and often contains claims contradicting with the contents of technical reports, I find independent summaries made by not just "someone" but independent climate scientists with earlier IPCC connections like Dr. Pielke helpful.

I know personally only a few people with engineering background who are true believers in the CO2-related CAGW hypothesis. All of them are characterized by a blind faith in IPCC authority and findings, refusing to look at any other data sources or critical commentaries. I would think that after having a look at CO2/temperature relationship records and El Nino/temperature upswing correlation, any person with analytical mindset would realize that arguments supporting the "climate control knob" functionality of CO2 at current atmospheric concentrations are weak. We should be grateful that scientists like Dr. Ole Humlum are willing to apply their efforts to analyzing and aggregating public sources of globally available climate data on the monthly basis, offering a wealth of consolidated reports for those willing to learn to understand at least some of the climate trends and processes:

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_August_2021.pdf

A good starting point for the open-minded would be the video recording of US Senate Climate Change Hearing of March 2013 where Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology, presented the facts why CO2 cannot have caused the current mild global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk

MrFox
30 Posts

Meanwhile, I had my flu jab last week. I'm hoping it's the one certified by Microsoft so that my PC will work better.

Alex Barrett
707 Posts

CO2 is a distraction, but the one message that is highlighted is that we need to do better at looking after this one planet that we have to live on. The pace of destruction and pollution is growing wildly, driven by short sighted & selfish greed. I'm glad the young are standing up for their futures. 

Just to confuse matters, the reduction in the supply of gas, we now appear to be desparate for CO2 to package and fast freeze our fruit and veg.

Can't live with it and can't live without it…what a climatic pickle we've got ourselves in!

Legh  😄

Andy C
50 Posts

Legh Richardson: 
 

Just to confuse matters, the reduction in the supply of gas, we now appear to be desparate for CO2 to package and fast freeze our fruit and veg.

Can't live with it and can't live without it…what a climatic pickle we've got ourselves in!

Legh  😄

 

There's billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere we don't want, let's suck it out and use that. Also reduces global warming, simples!! Nobel Prize please! 😁

Climate change is real. If you lived in California, or British Columbia, it has been happening to you monstrously over in particular the last couple of years. I lived in California for 18 years, know about and have experienced wildfires. It has been recently massively exacerbated, to a level that has not occurred within the many-thousand-year history of some of the trees that burned. That a place in BC this summer came within a few degrees of having the highest temperature ever recorded on this planet, and then burned up a couple of days later, is hard to believe. But it happened.  The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation has been losing stability over the course of the last century, and could well collapse in the next decades. That is likely to affect Northern European weather enormously. 

Let us not pretend that none of this has happened and is happening. 

Global warming during the anthropocene has been confirmed, in many ways, over thousands of studies over decades. Global warming is bound to affect climate, in certain well-studied ways, as well as those less well studied (the “heat dome” over the Western US in July was not specifically foreseen, as far as I know).

Let us not pretend that this is not happening.

Whatever might be causing all this, it is all - obviously - real. The question is: what to do about it. If you live in a small town in one of the large areas of California that has become newly dangerous in the last two decades, you might seriously think about upping sticks and moving to some place less dangerous, which is likely to be far more expensive to live in and you may not be able to do it. If you live in some place moderately less dangerous, you might well want to be out on the streets demonstrating for your government to do something about it, because not everyone can move. 

Then there are people trying to determine the causes of global warming, of Arctic warming, of heat domes over the Western US, of massive concentrations of water vapour over the Eifel in mid-summer, of ……… Be sceptical if you like, but these recent massive changes have causes. Whatever those causes might be, they might not necessarily be anthropogenic greenhouse gases, although the evidence is pretty overwhelming that (a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years, and (b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere (that is how they get their name, unsurprisingly), and (c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present. But if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed. 

Younger people, with little or no political power, have noticed for a long time that older people with lots of political power seem to be unable to get their act together to do much about any of these causes. (Let's start small, say with pervasive wildfire danger in California and what politics can do to avoid your family home burning down in the next ten years.) If I were 20, I would be pretty p'd off about this, and I can hardly blame those 20-year-olds (or younger) who are. 

whjohnson
569 Posts

Well for starters, the wokes in California put a stop to all previous woodland management which has now enabled the build-up of dry brush, an eminently flammable substance just waiting for some whacky-baccy smoking hipster to come along and set it alight with a carelessly discarded butt. Then, you have too many people settling in an ever decreasing area of wilderness. Higher the population density the higher the risk of fire.

If there really is a shortage of C02 then we need to get some coal dug and burnt quickly at some newly built powers stations. We are sitting upon vast reserves of the black stuff, and we can create our own power and our power and C02 whilst we are at it. What's not to like?

The Prime Minister estimates that there is a “six out of 10” chance of getting other countries to sign up to financial and environmental targets ahead of November’s Cop26 climate change meeting.

In reality, it must be zero out of 10. Does the Prime Minister seriously think any government would sign up to a policy that is causing an energy crisis in Britain? Carbon taxes are designed to eliminate coal and gas; renewables are useless when the wind doesn’t blow.

This crisis is self-inflicted. In the past 10 years Britain has decommissioned reliable power stations producing half our peak energy needs, closed valuable gas storage facilities and now relies on other countries to provide substantial amounts of electricity.

The Prime Minister should abandon the unattainable net-zero policies until we have a reliable source of electricity.

All Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, can come up with is yet more renewables. These already add over £440 to everyone’s electricity bill just to pay for the billions in subsidies. Goodness knows what our bills will be when Ofgem increases the cap.

Simon Barker
978 Posts

If there really is a shortage of C02 then we need to get some coal dug and burnt quickly at some newly built powers stations. We are sitting upon vast reserves of the black stuff, and we can create our own power and our power and C02 whilst we are at it. What's not to like?

Soot, acid rain, mercury vapour and all the other nasties that come from burning coal.  And we don't yet have any cost-effective way to collect the CO2.

kfh
216 Posts

I do not wish to be cancelled so will not get into a debate on the causes of global warming. However:

We are consuming the raw materials of the planet at an eve increasing rate to satisfy our demands for growth and having to have the latest thing. Phones, computers, TVs etc are replaced every one or two years. products are designed to last the warranty period and not much longer. Products are designed to be cheap to build and non maintainable.

We have politicians and a population who consider it reasonable to offshore our production to low cost countries with high CO2 output while making production uneconomic in our country with high “green” taxes. We pretend we are a knowledge economy while our education system slips down the world rankings and then any home grown knowledge company that succeeds is sold off to foreign owners who can asset strip it. 

And to make it worse we are censored by the woke brigade. The BBC had too apologise for letting a government minister, who has no climate qualifications, make anti manmade climate change comments without a corresponding balancing comment. But we have an unqualified Saint Greta who's every pronouncement is reported without any corresponding counter argument. 

To quote Private Frazer “ We're doomed”

whjohnson
569 Posts

With regard to coal, about a decade ago the Govt gave away big tax breaks for the R&D of ‘Scrubbers’ to take out the solids and other nasties from the exhausted by-products created by burning coal and other fossil fuels. It was mysteriously withdrawn once the Govt had bought into the climate change brigade's nonsense.

If we truly wished to go green, there is still plenty of low hanging fruit to pluck which would make a larger and more meaningful reduction of waste in all its forms. It just takes the political will to do it, and we wouldn't have stock up on logs and candles every winter as a consequence. Wasteful packaging is one such. Pollution of our water courses is another, and there are many more which would benefit from reform.

As for the greens, how do they reconcile the extraction of rare metals used in the construction of electric car batteries? And what of the disposal of spent batteries which will be full of some of the most poisonous materials known to man?

A timely release of a video by one of my favourite youtube channels on this subject! 

https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc

Aivar Usk
22 Posts
Peter Bernard Ladkin,
Climate change is real indeed; it has been fluctuating for billions of years. Personally, I have no doubt that humans have influenced it somewhat during recent hundreds of years, but having looked at the research results of scientists in opposition with IPCC "findings" I seriously doubt that arriving at CO2 neutrality would have any significant impact on the ongoing climate change.

Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. It should be  enough to point out the faults in a hypothesis showing why it can not be true; as Einstein has said, a single proof of a fault is sufficient for invalidating a theory, no need for unanimous herds of scholars.

Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; one should look into upgoing thermal radiation, water vapor and saturation topics as well, Planck and Schwarzschild curves.

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, but the magnitude seems to be greatly exaggerated by some scientists, and in particular by many well-meaning but ignorant activists these days.

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. I downloaded the UK Metoffice forecast for monthly average CO2 concentrations at NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa over 2020 that was made long before the COVID-19 effect was anticipated, and compared these figures to actual 2020 measurement data from the Mauna Loa lab. Surprising or not, but the differences between forecasted and measured values were similar to previous years, and the measurement results also correlated well with previous year. To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; since carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas with seasonal fluctuations in the atmosphere observable in real time, there seems to be no logic in claims that COVID-induced reduction shall be observable in the distant future. Anyone can repeat such tests.

Bringing in some ageism does not remove the fact that an emeritus with 40+ years of professional experience should understand climate processes better than an agitated teenager.
Simon Barker
978 Posts

Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

The global weather is really complex, with many confounding factors.  There isn't a simple mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature.  Nobody should expect there to be one.

Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; one should look into upgoing thermal radiation, water vapor and saturation topics as well, Planck and Schwarzschild curves.

So it can't be described that simply.  What's the problem?

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, but the magnitude seems to be greatly exaggerated by some scientists, and in particular by many well-meaning but ignorant activists these days.

I don't see an ad-hominem attack gets you anywhere.  The climate has certainly warmed in the last few decades.  All the predictions had huge error margins on them.  Nobody predicted exact values for warming.

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. I downloaded the UK Metoffice forecast for monthly average CO2 concentrations at NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa over 2020 that was made long before the COVID-19 effect was anticipated, and compared these figures to actual 2020 measurement data from the Mauna Loa lab. Surprising or not, but the differences between forecasted and measured values were similar to previous years, and the measurement results also correlated well with previous year. To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; since carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas with seasonal fluctuations in the atmosphere observable in real time, there seems to be no logic in claims that COVID-induced reduction shall be observable in the distant future. Anyone can repeat such tests.

Or maybe your unstated assumptions about how much COVID-19 would affect global emissions are wrong.

Aivar Usk: 


Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. 

One needs to distinguish science, knowledge of natural matters, from action to address phenomena.

Say, there is a big ozone hole over Antarctica, and it is getting bigger and starting to affect some inhabited parts of the planet in South America because of the intensity of the ultraviolet radiation. We know CFCs affect ozone. We don't actually know that anthropogenic CFCs are causing the ozone hole, but we do know that whatever CFCs are up there won't be helping close it.

We can wait until we know. The hole will likely carry on getting bigger and bigger in the meantime. Or we can agree not to emit CFCs into the atmosphere any more. No more Freon in fridges.

The hole starts reducing. And still is. 

The trick is to devise the interventions and put them into practice.

Say, someone presented to our 19thc medical practice with a growing lump in his belly. We can say “well, we don't really know what causes such lumps; let's wait until science tells us a bit more.” Or we can cut it out. If we did the latter, with appropriate antiseptic practices, the patient would have had a greater chance of surviving for longer. 

I'm glad you agree that global warming is real and some of it is likely to be anthropogenic. What do you propose to do about it? We are already a few decades down the line. We can carry on dithering until we “know” enough scientifically to please all those who want certainty. Or we can do straightforward stuff now. As we did with the ozone hole. It is perfectly “fair” to ask people for their best guesses. 


Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

First, not all greenhouse gases are CO2. Second, what “temperature” are you talking about? There are lots of them. Third, missing correlation does not necessarily exclude causation; an effect might well be lost in the noise generated by confounding factors. 



Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; 

Um, are you saying that greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat in the biosphere? 
 

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, 

I am glad we agree that the issue is real.

What would you actually propose to do about it, and why?

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. 

…….

 

 To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; 

Don't you need to know the reduction in burned fossil fuels in 2020? Where did you find that figure, and is it trustworthy? Do you know, for example, how much China burned? 

 

 

You lot can argue as much as you like, but it will not change the likelihood that the Earth is probably entering one of its 10,000 year climate change cycles. Panic on this scale is also likely to be fruitless and lead to premature death through coronaries beside the possible drowning, burning, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions, frostbite, CO2 poisioning, civil unrest … have I missed anything?

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a certain amount of evidence of likely changes buried in the fossil fuels.

Then this is conjecture, a bit like the chap up in Scotland who has built his own Ark…. it won't float because he hasn't nailed any panels on it! but it has aroused the interest of his local council.

Legh

Simon Barker
978 Posts

Something I realised a while back is that attempting to persuade somebody that they are wrong on something that matters to them is utterly futile.  It's not even worth trying.

It's one of those oddities of human psychology.  The more evidence you present to somebody to show that they are wrong, the more strongly they hold onto their belief.  The evidence that you are producing is obviously false, and is part of the conspiracy to decieve them.  And because you have to make up false information to support your case, it follows that their belief must be the right one.

That's how conspiracy theories keep going, no matter how much evidence there is against them, or how absurd they seem to everybody who isn't in on the conspiracy.

So I think it's time I abandoned this whole thread.

Share:

Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in  Having trouble logging in? Read our help guide