Give me the reasons why you are a climate sceptic?

[malificent7]

I'm not by the way...but neither am i overly anxious about it.
Some of my friends are and are also very against Greta Thunberg etc. So is it possiblook e to be worried about climate change but anti Greta and/ or do you think climate change is baloney?

Given the recent bush fires in Australia i think we should all be aware that we are all at the mercy of our climate, even if we don't think change is man made.

Have not read whole thread but had enough. We are doomed. It’s appalling how much crap people will believe in order to avoid having to give up the smallest convenience.

We have changed the make-up of the atmosphere. We have done that over a very minute space of time geologically speaking. We have done that by taking the sum total of CO2 soaked up by plants over millennia and stored, and releasing it all at once over a short timeframe. How can anyone not think that that might possibly have effects on atmospheric conditions, ie weather and climate? Of course recent change is human made.

We also need to look at the wider picture of ecological change and the destruction of biodiversity. That we are causing.

But no, nothing to see, don’t you worry your little heads about entire islands being lost to the sea, or the risk to some of our most fertile farmlands here or losing the entire Low Countries of Europe. Cos your long haul flights for 2 week hols are so much more important.

As for the polar bears, if they try to migrate, they will have to go south into more densely inhabited places. Given that polar bears are very dangerous animals who view humans as prey, this is unlikely to end well for the polar bears.

This is causing problems already. This is a bit old in fact: www.bbc.com/news/amp/magazine-34490185

I always find knowledge, logic and common sense more applicable than stupid ideas that 'everyone knows', such as 'everyone knows' there are climate wobbles and cycles on earth, therefore humans are not causing the recent change. Did you know that the sun is not the ultimate arbiter of climate on planets for instance? If it were, Mercury would be the hottest planet. In fact it's Venus. Did you know that the farthest planet from the sun is not the coldest? Uranus is colder than Neptune, in fact Uranus is the only planet that does not radiate more heat than it receives from the sun.

Thankfully a recent paper going on about these 'everybody knows' kind of theories has been pulled so there's still hope off the internet's beaten paths. A reminder of that for everyone else who occasionally needs to remember that other people are sane too: arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/ . You might also notice mention in there about attempts to measure the amount of radiation received from the sun, and that it does not match the observed warming.

There is far far more money, and entire economic systems indeed, invested in keeping the myth of human incapability going that there is invested in checking that. Claiming otherwise is rather like telling us that violence from women is as big a problem as that from men each and every time the one woman is caught doing it.

I do not for a second think “we are doomed”.
I hope you are not teaching your children such a hopeless barren view of the future.

Oh, and if you are really worried about CO2, then you should not be on the internet at all because it causes more emissions than a long haul flight each year. So while you are sneering at people flying online, you are doing just as much (non)damage posting on mumsnet, watching Netflix, checking email, etc.

don’t you worry your little heads about entire islands being lost to the sea, or the risk to some of our most fertile farmlands here or losing the entire Low Countries of Europe. Cos your long haul flights for 2 week hols are so much more important

ODFOD it’s not a matter of taking long-haul holidays. All the comforts of life we take for granted are thanks to fossil fuels. Farming that feeds the world; heat during winter; transport that allows us to enjoy products made anywhere in the world.

100 years ago, nearly a quarter of children never lived to see their first birthday in the West. This doesn’t happen here anymore because of the life we’ve made for ourselves using fossil fuels.

People take this for granted. Imagine burying your children because of local crops failed or because you couldn’t heat your home properly or because you couldn’t get medicines transported. It was a reality for people just a few generations ago.

The fact we even have fucking forests these days is due to the shift in using coal instead of wood. Europe is one of the most deforested places with hardly any native forest left because people historically needed wood to heat their homes and cook their food.

No one wants to go back to how people lived in the early 20th century. Absolutely repulsive you think that our CO2 consumption is mostly due to frivolous activities like holidays. No, it is the foundation for everyday life.

Also, Europe’s low-lying countries are well equipped to handle sea rises, they’ve been doing this for centuries and have the technology to handle it

@MangoFeverDream but it is not just Europe that is affected. We already had one hunger march from Africa towards Europe. There are going to be more.

You are essentially saying "Well, my part of the boat is not sinking. In fact, my part of the boat is not even touching the surface, so I really don't see what the problem is".

(Grammarly just told me that my text here is optimistic. I think their algorithm is a bit off)

We already had one hunger march from Africa towards Europe. There are going to be more

Syrian war and collapse of Libya due to Western interventions had a lot more to do with that.

And to relieve suffering in the third world, we actually need to ensure more access to cheap fossil fuels (while the rich countries move to nuclear). China’s economic model should be replicated elsewhere if the political situation allows it.

Applauding your post Mango. Most people are completely clueless about how incredibly luxurious our lives are today in the West, and it’s completely due to fossil fuels and human adaptability and ingenuity.

Well, DeckTheHalls, what’s your plan for providing cheap, efficient energy to these desperately poor people then? These people would give anything to live the luxurious, comfortable lives we live here, mainly powered by fossil fuels, and I really don’t think a few solar powered batteries and a whole bunch of pontificating about stopping global warming is going to cut it.

Our whole way of life needs to change and we need to evaluate the biggest culprits. It isn't just individuals and infrastructure - it is companies and aspects such as the military - these are big polluters.
Also politicians under the thumb of lobbyiest who are only passionate about 'I'm alright Jack'.

Having people not needing to commute - making individual car ownership rare - sensible public transport plans for the future.
Shorter working weeks and a focus on doing things rather than buying stuff. Since when does a long car commute add anything postive to life.

Focus on preservation and upgrades of nature areas and urban oases. Nature areas with trails, lake beaches etc within towns so there are reasons to stay around in the summer as well as helping local wildlife.

Living in the Midlands is an unfunny joke most of the time unless you love concrete and hate the sea. No wonder most people get out of there in summer if they can.

Thing is, fundamental changes are needed but a low carbon life needed be unpleasent. But there has to be a will and it is worrying how some people with power/money/status want to 'other' those who do not. We need to create a society where those that make the laws get the last slice of the cake.
For instance, why does Australia still burn coal when it has solar and nuclear at its disposal?

fundamental changes are needed but a low carbon life needed be unpleasent

Oh, really. Tell that to impoverished people in the third world who are desperate to have the kind of access to the fossil fuels that power our daily lives.

it is worrying how some people with power/money/status want to ‘other’ those who do not

I entirely agree with you. Environmental activists - who are inevitably massively privileged, wealthy middle-class people with nice comfortably lives - want us to give up fossil fuels, which means slowing the growth that has lifted literally billions out of poverty over the last 100 years. If that’s not “othering” poor people, I don’t know what is.

Bjorn Lomberg argues that the research points to the fact that humanity will be much better off, especially in Africa, in a scenario of high fossil fuel usage than it would be if we succeeded in achieving a low CO2 world.

Be very careful before you start swallowing the narrative that continually demonises fossil fuels. At the very least, take the time to appreciate the incredible life they have given you - if nothing else, remember that without them, you certainly wouldn’t have the luxury of worrying about climate change. And remember that every action we take and decision we make - particularly at a policy level, let alone in our own lives - ALWAYS has unforeseen and unpredictable consequences.

Absolutely repulsive you think that our CO2 consumption is mostly due to frivolous activities like holidays. No, it is the foundation for everyday life.

But the first thing is to cut out the entirely frivolous things. The unnecessary, the luxuries and those things that can be done more easily with less, such as swapping giant Chelsea tractors for Citroens, and just driving less. Richer people need to lead the way on this, not continue with their conspicuous consumption.

I do agree that more will be needed, but all of this could be cut tomorrow. It should never have been allowed to grow in the first place, and the growth we've seen has largely been from people who simply want their luxuries no matter the cost to anyone else. And if you won't accept that then you can ODFOD yourself.

The thing is, we don't need fossil fuels to the same extent now that we have nuclear power and solar amongst the potential of fusion power. There is also the option of upgrading current coal-fired power stations to greater thermodynamic efficiency - higher temperature feeds, which would also make them compatible with future generator concepts like VHTR (very high temperature fusion reactors, or LFTR - liquid fuel thorium fission reactors to name a few.
Even disposal of high-level waste from fission needn't be so problematic - there is the fossil nuclear reactor at Oklo created by bacteria.

We have the science and technology to implement workable solutions worldwide - ideally developing contries could skip the dirtier aspects of developent, not to mention that they have other solutions that the West hasn't thought of. However, much of the current capitalist system relies on poverty and there always being poverty and people living in fear of poverty, whether it be in this country or the developing world. You can bet that Boris and his clique don't have much interest in making unemployment and poverty less stigmatizing and less depressing - they are happy with the existance of 'poor door' as long as it isn't them

Poverty is ultimately very expensive and also a significant contributor to environmental degredation. Ultimately, much of modern capitalism right not runs on fear, not reason. And while that is the case it will only spell our doom.

It should never have been allowed to grow in the first place, and the growth we've seen has largely been from people who simply want their luxuries no matter the cost to anyone else

What should never have been allowed?

I lived and worked in China during their dramatic economic boom fueled by Shanxi coal; I have seen living standards rise in some of the poorest regions. Why do you think this is fueled solely by people who want their luxuries? China and India are #1 and #3 in total carbon emissions.

They have to industrialise in order to raise living standards and green power just doesn’t cut it.

Also $5.4Bn isn't that much money compared to a military budget in a mid-sized developing country. Not much when compared to ~$780Bn for the annual US military not to mention the $100Bn the Mormon Church has squirreled away from the IRS.

That and the fact that research funding is often highly specific and siloized - it is not that simple to access funding even as part of an institute.

I was talking about here in Britain and the West and I think you know it. Fortunately the drive to increase energy efficiency here has yielded dividends already, but there is plenty that could be cut out easily. I do not have solutions for everywhere else in the world, but I have seen that China is embracing renewable energy as fast as anywhere, if not faster than most. I dislike seeing poorer groups and countries constantly criticised for not doing more when it is, as pp's have said, the middle classes and richer groups in the West who could so easily make a big difference and lead, and have instead consistently put their own convenience and luxury ahead of everything else.

The US in particular needs a long, hard look at its car culture - it's part of life but simultaneously a factor in slowly killing swathes of its society and the planet.

They need to worry more about taking their cars away rather than their guns!

I was talking about here in Britain and the West and I think you know it

And yet, countries like China and India emit so much more than the West. In two weeks, China releases more CO2 than Britain does in an entire year.

I have seen that China is embracing renewable energy as fast as anywhere, if not faster than most

They are adding all sorts of energy to the mix. They are building 100+ coal plants, which is more than the entire EU fleet. That’s in addition to what they already have.

The vast majority of their renewable fleet is hydro, which has limits wrt expansion. They produce loads of solar panels, mostly to sell foolish Westerners (very toxic business, btw) but keep the big guns for themselves. As any sensible country would.

Don’t get me wrong. Coal is awful, polluting stuff. But in a bleak Hebei winter, I’ll take it.

Also, the tricky thing about renewables is that it is additive and very rarely replaces fossil fuels. This is important to keep in mind

also a significant contributor to environmental degredation That's an interesting statement, is that aimed more at West or other countries? I link degradation with wealth and luxury more: car culture, as you say. China's need for power is largely to produce more things for the West.

Also, Europe’s low-lying countries are well equipped to handle sea rises, they’ve been doing this for centuries and have the technology to handle it. Err no. Not rises of metres they don't. They know it better than anyone.
www.uu.nl/en/news/the-question-is-not-if-the-netherlands-will-disappear-below-sea-level-but-when
www.vn.nl/rising-sea-levels-netherlands/

the first thing is to cut out the entirely frivolous things

Frivolous in your opinion, of course. I’m sure that many people in the third world would consider many of the normal things we buy in daily life incredibly frivolous. And our frivolous purchases fuel large portions of the global economy.

Richer people need to lead the way on this, not continue with their conspicuous consumption.

Yes, it’s always the fault of “richer people”, I’ve noticed. But richer than whom? By global standards we are all incredibly well-off.

Here are my reasons for being a climate sceptic ...... ....

China's need for power is largely to produce more things for the West

What if I told you that China exports a larger proportion to Asia? Does that make it okay now? (Because they do)

Also, manufacturing is but one sector. They also have robust agricultural and construction sectors.

Don’t imagine that if the West started to produce its own stuff that China would be able to significantly lower their emissions ...

We could paraphrase Beyone's Single Ladies....

'If you want to save the planet put a ring on it'

An orbital ring that is - thing is politicians often seem to think that 5 years is a long time. We need the will for megaprojects and this is where we the voter come in. Think about an MP's typical number of constituents and how many of them actually write to them...

And to relieve suffering in the third world, we actually need to ensure more access to cheap fossil fuels

Maybe tell that to the many vocal young climate activists from developing countries, like Vanessa Nakate, Licypriya Kangujam and Leah Namugerwa to name but a few?