to think climete change is a pile of bollocks?

[moogy1a]

Summers in Britain to get colder and wetter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20758780

earlier this year," oh no, they're going to get hotter and drier"
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit.
If you start looking into reports, they are a huge mess of completely contradictory results.
I also like the way the term"global warming" has been quietly ditched in favour of climate change as it became increasingly obvious the world wasn't hotting up.

Wow- a climate change denier with a two week old baby! Let's hope you're right for his sake then, eh?

it's real, it's scary, lets solve it

I do love your posts and agree a more constructive attitude would be very helpful. It seems, however, that we can't agree on the likely cause or the likely consequences, therefore are unlikely to come up with an agreed solution!

I wish we could & would, though. Also what you said about economic flapping, cumfy. I know Himalaya and I would come to a similar agreed disagreement standoff over that, sadly

Wouldn't be so bad if it were limited to posters on a forum but, evidently, those with real power also disagree.

YABU op. The consensus amongst scientists who actually know what they're talking about and aren't being paid by oil companies to spread scepticism amongst people who like their science in nice soundbites from the daily mail is that climate change is happening, more quickly than anticipated and is very substantially manmade.

I would much prefer people started to tackle this generally anyway - to decrease the amount of energy required and up the renewables which could provide this with subsidies to help poorer families so that we can gradually start to adapt and hopefully avoid an 'On the Road' type situation. That could also have the side effect of actually encouraging green industries and helping people get into work.

I'm not optimistic.

Perhaps you could tell us the sources of information that make you sceptical Flicktheswitch. Just saying the climate has always changed tells us nothing we don't already know. I have watched videos by Lord Monckton and seen them thoroughly debunked by the likes of Prof. John Abraham and others like Peter Hadfield.

Do renewables actually reduce CO2 though?

Yes

Youngermother - no renewables don't reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere, but they reduce the amount emitted in future by substituting for coal, gas and oil. Unless and until carbon capture and storage becomes much more efficient, cheaper and safer fossil fuels have to stay underground if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. So other sources of energy are needed.

fossil fuels have to stay underground if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change
You are assuming the use of fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change, Himalaya. I suspect it isn't.

It's obviously a good idea to develop alternative energy sources anyway. But your statement above doesn't necessarily make logical sense. We might develop alternative sources and still undergo catastrophic climate change.

Actually, taking past events into view, I'd suggest it's almost inevitable.

Garlic -
I'm going with the IPCC on this one, not the tin foil hat brigade.

seeker -

Flickthelightswitch -

I grouped tobacco/cancer, evolution and manmade climate change in the same bucket because they are all issues where some people would tell you there is a scientific controversy where there isn't.

In the 1950s, 60s and 70s tobacco industry executives sought to cast doubt on the mounting evidence linking cancer and smoking. There are advocates of intelligent design who are calling for school science lessons to "teach the controversy" over evolution. They could both point to scientists whose views challenged the consensus.

Of course scientists should be free to research all avenues, submit to peer reviewed journals etc... But at some point policy makers and the public have to say "there is enough evidence to take action" rather than give into the delaying tactics of incumbent interests.

If the world were to use only nuclear power (OK, we'd have to give up combustion-driven transport, as well), would that then arrest climate change?

74% of carbon emissions are attributable to energy.

Therefore, switching from carbon-intensive fossil-fuel generated energy to zero-carbon renewables and nuclear power has the potential to make a big difference to carbon emissions. Of course, we all need to learn to use less energy as well.

Garlic . i think nuclear is part of the answer. But it is only one part.

A couple of scientists have set out a useful shopping list of options to reduce emission reduction over the next 50 years using existing technology.

They came up with 15 "wedges" each delivering 1 billion tonnes of avoided emissions by 2060. To get onto a safe emissions pathway we would need to fully exploit 9 of these wedges.

These are the wedges:

Improve energy generation efficiency x2

Double fuel efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg.

Increase Wind power by 10x = 200 million large windmills

Replace 1400 coal fired power stations with gas (still a fossil fuel but less emissions per watt)

Increase solar electricity generation x 100

Hydrogen powered cars (based on additional solar or wind power to split water)

Carbon Capture and Storage for 800 coal electric plants.

12x Increase in ethanol = 1/6th of world cropland to biofuels

Double global nuclear capacity.

Eliminate tropical deforestation.

Adopt conservation tillage in all agricultural soils worldwide.

Decrease the number of car miles traveled by half.

Boost efficiency in all residential and commercial buildings.

Produce hydrogen from coal at six times today's rate AND store the captured CO2.

Capture carbon from 180 coal-to-synfuels plants AND store the CO2.

None of them are easy. Some are no brainers and others have big issues, but it gives you an idea of the options and scale of ambition needed. You could also substitute other options in e.g. If people ate a lot less meat that could be one wedge.

www.climatecentral.org/blogs/wedges-reaffirmed

Why? If Himalaya's right, that climate change will stop if we stop using fossil fuels, surely we can use as much nuclear energy as we damn well like?

I should say I think the proposition itself is full of holes, but am honestly interested to learn how this thinking goes.

And I said nuclear rather than wind/solar/wave because the more 'natural' means of power generation can cause instant damage to climates & environments - and, on a big enough scale, probably to the global climate.

Last post was in reply to "Of course, we all need to learn to use less energy as well."

Am reading yours now, Himalaya.

There isn't an unlimited amount of the elements needed to create nuclear fuel, also the spent fuel has to be disposed of. Until they manage to harness fusion power (probably never) it is still a good idea to learn to use less energy.

the more 'natural' means of power generation can cause instant damage to climates & environments - and, on a big enough scale, probably to the global climate.

what is the source of your information on this, garlicbaubles?

Doesn't Fukushima show that the potential environmental damage from nuclear power is much greater?

The real lesson of Fukushima is that when multiple risk evaluations of your nuclear plant identify the back-up generators as being at high risk from flood in a tsunami:

Then.Move.The.Generators

They didn't.

Why do people jump on obvious typing errors here. Smug arseholes.

What Inde said re: nuclear, plus building new nuclear power stations takes time, while other options like energy efficiency can be done quicker and more cheaply.

So to all the people who believe amelioration is the answer - what is your annual fossil energy usage, because today it is possible to have all your energy as green (an expensive option, but possible) and not have a car (except an electric car) - so who has followed their comments here with action?