A post EV era

[Greg Locock]

"At the moment there is this sort of phoney war on climate action where we continue to say that 1.5 [degrees Celsius] is still alive and that, with one great leap in ambition, we can still do it, whilst knowing that that's just not going to happen."

Humankind needs to stop gambling on the future, he argues, and start asking ourselves the difficult questions.

OK Dr Dyke, what are you going to do about China's ever increasing coal usage for the next few decades and ditto India and Indonesia?

Honest answer: Nothing.

So difficult question asked and answered.

[Tommy Cookers]

I would consider the extreme weather, periods of draught, torrential rain, heat and snow quite the proof. Reading this I seriously wonder what you would consider proof, as scientists have proven time and time again that the amount of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere are increasing at a significant rate, scientists have also shown the global warming, melting of ice caps et cetera.
I genuinely do not know what you would consider proof.
And it has nothing to do with being American or whatever, this is just being ignorant and hard headed at this point

'ignorant and hard-headed' ?
science knows that .....
CO2 etc is the minor contributor to greenhousing - water vapour is the major contributor
man-increased CO2 was known for centuries - we were taught there was manmade global cooling
ice caps empty at the bottom (melting from pressure not temperature - that's the reason they are all c.3 km thick)
NW Europe 'will have' global cooling due to the weakening of the North Atlantic Gyre aka 'gulf stream')
the 3 million year ongoing Ice Age is due to continental drift closing the passage for water from the Gulf to the Pacific

but science NASA NOAA etc present distorted ie false data as if it wasn't false - eg uncorrected surface temperatures
they have dismantled traceability and deleted history

I am in a bad mood as my village is to be ruined by a solar farm that will please self-referential metropolitan elites
most of the electricity is used in the populous SE but mustn't be made there - hooray ! they can send it by wire !

[Andres125sx]

I would consider the extreme weather, periods of draught, torrential rain, heat and snow quite the proof. Reading this I seriously wonder what you would consider proof, as scientists have proven time and time again that the amount of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere are increasing at a significant rate, scientists have also shown the global warming, melting of ice caps et cetera.
I genuinely do not know what you would consider proof.
And it has nothing to do with being American or whatever, this is just being ignorant and hard headed at this point

'ignorant and hard-headed' ?
science knows that .....
CO2 etc is the minor contributor to greenhousing - water vapour is the major contributor
man-increased CO2 was known for centuries - we were taught there was manmade global cooling
ice caps empty at the bottom (melting from pressure not temperature - that's the reason they are all c.3 km thick)
NW Europe 'will have' global cooling due to the weakening of the North Atlantic Gyre aka 'gulf stream')
the 3 million year ongoing Ice Age is due to continental drift closing the passage for water from the Gulf to the Pacific

but science NASA NOAA etc present distorted ie false data as if it wasn't false - eg uncorrected surface temperatures
they have dismantled traceability and deleted history

I am in a bad mood as my village is to be ruined by a solar farm that will please self-referential metropolitan elites
most of the electricity is used in the populous SE but mustn't be made there - hooray ! they can send it by wire !

So NASA present distorted and false data? That is a bold claim you´d have to clarify. Sorry to say this, but NASA credibility is several orders of magnitude higher than yours, so such a big claim need some source, explanation or data to be taken seriously

I´ll remember NASA is paid by USA government, who is one of the few big governments who refuse to do any effort to fight CC. So maybe they´re biased, but if they are, it´s in the opposite way you´re suggesting

[Andres125sx]

The hubris is nauseating.

The world was here before us, and will be here long after we are all gone. It's never been about "Saving the Earth", it's about controlling people under ANY crisis banner that can be imagined.

If you are fine with dying from a perfectly salvageable scenario that's all great on you, but I really don't get why you need to take the rest with you.

Meh. It's still all opinion, and zero actual proof. For a science like weather prediction, that is at best only correct 50% of the time, to base your beliefs on their doctored and modified results is an exercise in idiocy.

I have an intrinsic suspicion of any human that "requires" me to modify my lifestyle or thinking. Call it the American in me...

Oh my god...

If science is ignored, even in F1T, we´re doomed

So CO2 increase is opinion? Sea temperatures increase is opinion? Sea reefs decrease is opinion? Weather becoming more extreme (actual, not predictions) is opinion? Glaciers decrease is opinion? Thousands species extinguishing both vegetal and animal is opinion?

There are thousands proofs at any field you want to look at. But you need the will to look at actual data. But ignoring scientific reports wich provide thousands proofs, and providing more credibility to populists speeches, you could also affirm Earth is flat!

[vorticism]

Our ancestors of course survived far more drastic weather changes--the Pleistocene ended.

False again If you need to invent data to support your pov (three times in same post), you should surely reconsider your pov

Claiming the last ice age did not end does not bolster your reputation of being a science-truster.

[DChemTech]

You can show all the papers you want, it literally is only opinions and doctored data.

I can see the obvious need to not be wasteful of energy, and even intelligent design leading to energy conservation. Those are the largest impacts we can make as humans by paying attention to our own usage.

To pretend that forcing people to buy EVs and convert to renewables by the sword is anything BUT taking us to a society that is "better". Just because a few folks that stand to gain fame and fortune from that scenario intelligently implant false notions into our minds through NLP strategies and data mining to sway the opinion-as-fact echo chamber towards their goals.

Until I can ask God the question directly, I'll remain a skeptic of all things human.

Asserting that there is no evidence for climate change, then moving on to say data is doctored without evidence. Absolutely disgusting.

But hey, it must be really convenient if you can dismiss everything you don't like as being a conspiracy.

There is plenty of evidence of revisions to historic data (they modify data like they modify word definitions) , and whistle blowers in the NOAA that have come forward. Try a duckduckgo search instead of Google for unsuppressed results.

And any time there is hysteria backed by mega money and leading towards a kind of financial or governmental obligation, I will intrinsically push back.

You have zero privileges that give you authority to tell others how to live, and you vent that frustration by pressuring the government to so it for you.

That is a personal problem that needs a psychiatrist, not a crusade of the unprovable.

And all that 'doctoring' - which is actually just regular data processing - has been widely addressed and explained in both scientific publications and popular scientific discourse. Most of the rest is just quotes by scientists that are widely pulled out of context (on which ample information can be found). There is nothing mysterious there, nothing held back, nothing conspiratorial. And google/duckduckgo will get you ample support for anything. Be it a flat earth, 911 was an inside job, or denialism of general relativity or so. Such things have nothing to do with scepticism; scepticism means considering alternatives rather than mindless assertion, and checking where the evidence leads. It does not mean blatantly opposing whatever is the popular opinion and digging for 'evidence' to support that opposition. And it is no wonder the true sceptics, being scientists, overwhelmingly back anthropogenic climate change.
Pushing this back as me 'being upset' is just delusional, but considering the statements you are making that is not surprising (yes, ad hominem. After nearly 20 years of politely addressing such regurgutated bogus, I really don't care anymore. What sensible discourse can honestly be held if one party simply denies reality without rational proof?)

And remember, accepting science is not the same as 'being told how to live'. Living is about how act given the boudary conditions of reality. And sure, within that scope you can decide to pollute all you want, and don't give a single thought to the impact on fellow humans and next generations. But if you do so, I am well within my right to think you are an egocentric b..thole.

Also, a CO2 tax does not limit your right to live as you wish. You can chose to act as you want, it just forces you to take responsibility for your actions (through buying off the damages). And yes, freedom of choice comes with responsibility for consequences. Libertarians like to forget that second part.

[vorticism]

"Doing what I say does not limit your right to live as you wish."

[DChemTech]

"Doing what I say does not limit your right to live as you wish."

If you allow people to act without taking responsibility for their actions, you are actively limiting the freedom of others and thus undermine the entire concept of freedom of choice. How hard is that to understand really? It does not have to be a co2 tax per se, but freedom of choice without responsibility of consequence is an impossibility.

[vorticism]

"Doing what I say does not limit your right to live as you wish."

If you allow people to act without taking responsibility for their actions, you are actively limiting the freedom of others and thus undermine the entire concept of freedom of choice.

Agreed, which is why the capital flight out of the West across the 20th c. should be punished. It created our present CO2 problem. I'd rather the imperialists and industrialists who fled the West to exploit the East be expected to feel the sting of agency, rather than the countrymen whom they abandoned in search of reduced labor costs. If we don't hold the perpetrators accountable "for their actions, [we] are actively limiting the freedom of others and thus undermine the entire concept of freedom of choice. How hard is that to understand really?"

[DChemTech]

"Doing what I say does not limit your right to live as you wish."

If you allow people to act without taking responsibility for their actions, you are actively limiting the freedom of others and thus undermine the entire concept of freedom of choice.

Agreed, which is why the capital flight out of the West across the 20th c. should be punished. It created our present CO2 problem. I'd rather the imperialists and industrialists who fled the West to exploit the East be expected to feel the sting of agency, rather than the countrymen whom they abandoned in search of reduced labor costs. If we don't hold the perpetrators accountable "for their actions, [we] are actively limiting the freedom of others and thus undermine the entire concept of freedom of choice. How hard is that to understand really?"

I agree in principle; on short term, much harder to materialze backward responsibility than forward though. So as has been argued by others, for now (in my view) the measures should focus on forward responsibility (for current emissions from now on) and avoiding that developing countries get larger footprints, without limiting them in their development (as, IIRC, JAF was arguing - leading by example). When the urgent current issues have been addressed, we can and should look at historic responsibility, perhaps in the form of active atmospheric co2 reduction. That always comes with a balancing act (how far can you hold current individuals responible for deeds of previous generations/others happening to live in the same country), but it is an issue that must be explored.

[vorticism]

I agree in principle; on short term, much harder to materialze backward responsibility than forward though. So as has been argued by others, for now (in my view) the measures should focus on forward responsibility (for current emissions from now on) and avoiding that developing countries get larger footprints, without limiting them in their development (as, IIRC, JAF was arguing - leading by example). When the urgent current issues have been addressed, we can and should look at historic responsibility, perhaps in the form of active atmospheric co2 reduction. That always comes with a balancing act (how far can you hold current individuals responible for deeds of previous generations/others happening to live in the same country), but it is an issue that must be explored.

I can agree on some of that althoug I would not take some of those statements statements as a given. "Much harder to materialze backward responsibility than forward though." Not really, this is the basic function of common and civil law which occurs daily for regular people. Just apply it to the overclass. "So as has been argued by others, for now (in my view) the measures should focus on forward responsibility (for current emissions from now on) and avoiding that developing countries get larger footprints, without limiting them in their development." Considering that they were fine for the 100k years prior to the past fifty years of 'development' leads me to believe they will not notice nor care if some Europeans think they are continuing on such a path or not. There is a chauvinism present in your framing of so-called developing and third-world cultures. Not everyone is Western, White, nor European, nor will they ever be, thus 'development' can only exist into the future as a poorly defined goal with no tangible deliverables. "When the urgent current issues have been addressed, we can and should look at historic responsibility, perhaps in the form of active atmospheric co2 reduction." Easy enough to flip this around: you are being told by the perpetrators and their media and acolytes that you should prioritize fixing their mistakes before you seek to punish them. *insert laughter* Just as easy to correct the decision makers in-situ. If we don't fix the head/brain of our societies, they will keep making the same mistakes with perhaps some trivial differences such as more involvement of lithium and silicon. Not much of a victory.

[DChemTech]

I agree in principle; on short term, much harder to materialze backward responsibility than forward though. So as has been argued by others, for now (in my view) the measures should focus on forward responsibility (for current emissions from now on) and avoiding that developing countries get larger footprints, without limiting them in their development (as, IIRC, JAF was arguing - leading by example). When the urgent current issues have been addressed, we can and should look at historic responsibility, perhaps in the form of active atmospheric co2 reduction. That always comes with a balancing act (how far can you hold current individuals responible for deeds of previous generations/others happening to live in the same country), but it is an issue that must be explored.

I can agree on some of that althoug I would not take some of those statements statements as a given. "Much harder to materialze backward responsibility than forward though." Not really, this is the basic function of common and civil law which occurs daily for regular people. Just apply it to the overclass. "So as has been argued by others, for now (in my view) the measures should focus on forward responsibility (for current emissions from now on) and avoiding that developing countries get larger footprints, without limiting them in their development." Considering that they were fine for the 100k years prior to the past fifty years of 'development' leads me to believe they will not notice nor care if some Europeans think they are continuing on such a path or not. There is a chauvinism present in your framing of so-called developing and third-world cultures. Not everyone is Western, White, nor European, nor will they ever be, thus 'development' can only exist into the future as a poorly defined goal with no tangible deliverables. "When the urgent current issues have been addressed, we can and should look at historic responsibility, perhaps in the form of active atmospheric co2 reduction." Easy enough to flip this around: you are being told by the perpetrators and their media and acolytes that you should prioritize fixing their mistakes before you seek to punish them. *insert laughter* Just as easy to correct the decision makers in-situ. If we don't fix the head/brain of our societies, they will keep making the same mistakes with perhaps some trivial differences such as more involvement of lithium and silicon. Not much of a victory.

I can understand those sentiments. And surely I do not see the developing countries as perpetrators (as many unfortunately do), but I do see that, geographically, they will be hit hardest and have most to lose. In that sense, I hope for willingness to take action also to avoid a classic tragedy of the commons; and there the 'leading by example' to show a 'western lifestyle' without the current footprint is possible, and probably some support of 'the west' to achieve that. Not support in the 'you can't do it without us' way, but support in parr because the west owes it historically, in part because we are all affected by the problem and better off helping eachother where possible.

By the way, apologies if my tone towards you was condescending at first. I carried over my frustration that there are still people that flat out deny climate change to our conversation, and shouldn't have.

[Big Tea]

This overlaps a few themes here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVYNl6Z6Eho


Did you know Vietnam produce electric cars?

[vorticism]

I can understand those sentiments. And surely I do not see the developing countries as perpetrators (as many unfortunately do), but I do see that, geographically, they will be hit hardest and have most to lose. In that sense, I hope for willingness to take action also to avoid a classic tragedy of the commons; and there the 'leading by example' to show a 'western lifestyle' without the current footprint is possible, and probably some support of 'the west' to achieve that. Not support in the 'you can't do it without us' way, but support in parr because the west owes it historically, in part because we are all affected by the problem and better off helping eachother where possible.

By the way, apologies if my tone towards you was condescending at first. I carried over my frustration that there are still people that flat out deny climate change to our conversation, and shouldn't have.

No problem, it's easy to paint with a broad brush these day. I get accused of being left wing and right wing although I claim neither. Binary politics is partly to blame and serves a great utility to our rulers, which is a conversation for another time and place, although very interesting to consider in terms of how it relates to managing democracy. CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas; just look to Venus. However I know that climate science attempts to define an incredibly complex system, while being, not of its own fault, currently of extreme political and financial interest. Thus it is currently and unfortunately removed from the realm of pure empiricism. Many ''big science'' projects suffer the same condition. Even in small science, conflicting interests can prevail. J Harlen Bretz is a case study. And Copernicus.

[johnny comelately]

Just a little circuit breaker