JJJ wrote:

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.

I think you mean hydrocarbon fuels. It doesn't need to be fossil fuels, it can be synfuels.

I'm watching a political debate on French TV between candidates of the Les Républicains party, they all want to build nuclear plants, it's a competition of who wants to build more reactors (of the EPR type) than the other one (and rip up wind turbines).

Actually maritime transport could convert to the use of Green Methanol made from biomass.
"Maersk announced the world's first methanol-powered shipping vessel in June, representing a steppingstone towards the industry's goals to reduce its environmental impact. The company said at the time that it believes that green methanol is the fuel of the future." Google Sept 2021

If we were to "nutshell" all of this speculative stuff, it comes down to HOW is the economy going to function if there is a heavy carbon tax on all net man-made CO2 and other net greenhouse gas emissions compared to a fully forested, pre-human Earth.

Step 1 is accounting. That requires a whole surveillance, academic and political system to agree what those emissions are.
Step 2 is every human activity will be adjusted to compensate for the emissions we identified in Step 1. So Maersk would only be allowed to run a ship if they pay a tax for the carbon emissions. This will force them to research propulsion with lower net emissions.

Anyway, this is all obvious. But my point is, it is not all speculation. We can do it today. It will just cause a huge burden for humanity that will be difficult to accept. For example, the buildings we heat across North America and Europe are probably too inefficient, and would need to be destroyed or rebuilt. Most agriculture on Earth, especially to feed livestock, would probably need to be stopped using military force.

the carbon tax is a very effective way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. One puts incentives where it should be, make your manufacturing process more efficient, right to the last step. Currently, the Europese Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is in place. It is a very effective tool, especially when goods imported to the EU are facing the same CO2 tax as within the EU, plus transport of course. The price per ton CO2-eq is 60,63EURO, which is still to cheap to make a real difference, so the number of CO2-eq 'rights' should be decreased at a much steeper way. Around the 100EURO/ton it is expected to make a real difference, the true cost of polluting one ton of CO2 is around 3.000USD, so there are a few steps to take to get to that level.

Where did you see USD 3,000 a ton, that’s about $30 a gallon, correct?

A ton, is a metric ton, or 1.000kg CO2-eq. Not sure how to make the transition to gallons. The imperial system is not much in use for this kind of measurements. But I am sure you can figure this out by yourself if you really want to know.

As for the 3.000USD, it is the high mark for the true pricing, the low mark is 1.160USD. True pricing is a difficult subject, but most important is that we know that the 60euro's per ton CO2-eq is not nearly enough to cover the true cost of pollution. It is balanced by the government and society at large in the form of the cost for climate adaptation, the cost for health care, the cost for sick days etc. etc. etc.
I am quite the advocate of the energy transition and getting to a true circular society - as you might have guessed -, but I can't be a specialist in everything, so I have to rely on others who are. The 3.000 figure was mentioned by someone who is really deep into these kinds of numbers, so I trust her judgement that these numbers are correct.

Still a big fan of this cartoon:



Not exactly sure who to credit for this one, but it is published here.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did you see USD 3,000 a ton, that’s about $30 a gallon, correct?

One gallon of gasoline creates 8.5kg of CO2
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... %20rows%20

Or (per my math) 117.6 gallons of gasoline creates one ton of CO2.

They better build a lot more mass transit before taxing the heck out of gasoline for at the numbers being proposed, if they charge $1000/ton then we're talking $1 per kg or adding a $8.5/gallon tax to gasoline which quickly brings the economy to a grinding halt. I would no longer go into work early, I'd wait for the buses to start and they had better get a faster bus... Actually, I might just retire as that wouldn't be worth my time.

For $3000 per ton, that is taxing gasoline at $25.50 per gallon. Ummm... that has huge social consequences that cannot be ignored.

Since electricity produces 1.9 billion tons of CO2 per year, we had better really think before turning on the TV... I'm serous.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php? ... 0per%20kWh.

Producing an hour of TV produces 8.2 tons of CO2... errr... yeah, I'm thinking that some lesser tax rate must apply or the only prosperous countries will be the ones who cheat.
http://www.carbonvisuals.com/projects/o ... e%20BBC%29.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did you see USD 3,000 a ton, that’s about $30 a gallon, correct?

One gallon of gasoline creates 8.5kg of CO2
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... %20rows%20

Or (per my math) 117.6 gallons of gasoline creates one ton of CO2.

That can't be right... a gallon of gas weighs 6 lbs so 117x6=702 lbs...

You are saying 702 lbs can turn into a ton of CO2?

I found the calculation: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-g ... references

Gallons of gasoline consumed

In the preamble to the joint EPA/Department of Transportation rulemaking on May 7, 2010 that established the initial National Program fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016, the agencies stated that they had agreed to use a common conversion factor of 8,887 grams of CO2 emissions per gallon of gasoline consumed (Federal Register 2010). For reference, to obtain the number of grams of CO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline combusted, the heat content of the fuel per gallon can be multiplied by the kg CO2 per heat content of the fuel.

This value assumes that all the carbon in the gasoline is converted to CO2 (IPCC 2006).
Calculation

8,887 grams of CO2/gallon of gasoline = 8.887 × 10-3 metric tons CO2/gallon of gasoline

It still does not make sense to me.

Here is the base conversion. Someone help me please.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/eoc/special_ ... oline.html

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Where did you see USD 3,000 a ton, that’s about $30 a gallon, correct?

One gallon of gasoline creates 8.5kg of CO2
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissio ... %20rows%20

Or (per my math) 117.6 gallons of gasoline creates one ton of CO2.

That can't be right... a gallon of gas weighs 6 lbs so 117x6=702 lbs...

You are saying 702 lbs can turn into a ton of CO2?

I don't think so.

Tugg

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-con ... on-EIA.pdf

About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol. About 22.38
pounds of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of diesel fuel.

Yes, it does .

Remember when you burn gas, you are replacing relatively light C-H-C bonds with CO2 bonds which are a lot heavier. That oxygen has weight, and it is higher than the carbon hydrogen bonds that it replaces.

lightsaber wrote:

For $3000 per ton, that is taxing gasoline at $25.50 per gallon. Ummm... that has huge social consequences that cannot be ignored.

Lightsaber, those costs are there and are being paid, just not by the person who uses it. Those costs are being paid by society at large in the form of climate adaptation, health care, lost working days, etc. etc. but also loss of nature in countries where you get those natural resources, underpaid workers etc. etc. etc.

So in essence people with the lowest income pay for people who use the most resources. So the single mum on wealth fare pays for the CEO flying from Amsterdam to New York.

Realizing this injustice and the mechanism which keeps this in place, I agree, the social consequences can't be ignored.

Political realities imply that all of this is simply not going to happen. Sure, Democrats can ram through any green bill, which will then be annulled when the Republicans take over.
I can imagine that, if one side or the other pushes even more extremist ideas, the US and even Europe may violently break up. Hatred is already growing on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/op ... ar-544700/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... icans.html

Dieuwer wrote:

Political realities imply that all of this is simply not going to happen. Sure, Democrats can ram through any green bill, which will then be annulled when the Republicans take over.
I can imagine that, if one side or the other pushes even more extremist ideas, the US and even Europe may violently break up. Hatred is already growing on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/op ... ar-544700/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... icans.html

ETS system is already in place, sure it doesn't really reflect the prices it should have for true pricing, but there is already some effect. There will be tarrifs to make the balance if other countries do not have a simiilar system in place. This is all part of the green deal in the EU. China has expreessed interest in such a global system. If America wants to be laggers, it is a political choice.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Political realities imply that all of this is simply not going to happen. Sure, Democrats can ram through any green bill, which will then be annulled when the Republicans take over.
I can imagine that, if one side or the other pushes even more extremist ideas, the US and even Europe may violently break up. Hatred is already growing on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/op ... ar-544700/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... icans.html

ETS system is already in place, sure it doesn't really reflect the prices it should have for true pricing, but there is already some effect. There will be tariffs to make the balance if other countries do not have a similar system in place. This is all part of the green deal in the EU. China has expressed interest in such a global system. If America wants to be lagers, it is a political choice.

The Green Deal ("Green Fantasy" would be a better choice of words) of Europe will simply mean: 1) Increased dependency on the goodwill of Putin, 2) Losing key industries to global locations with a better and more reliable power infrastructure, and 3) Impoverishment of large swaths of the population.

China always expresses "interest" in anything. That is their way of being polite. But in the end, only when it benefits them directly wil they do anything different from what they currently do. Another advantage that China has is that they don't need to pander to extremist protesters who bully politicians into obedience. In fact, had those extremist protesters show up in China, they would linea recta be send off to a reeducation camp.

Dieuwer wrote:

The Green Deal ("Green Fantasy" would be a better choice of words) of Europe will simply mean: 1) Increased dependency on the goodwill of Putin, 2) Losing key industries to global locations with a better and more reliable power infrastructure, and 3) Impoverishment of large swaths of the population.

perhaps you still haven't grasped the situation where we all put the earth in.

Your fascination of "but what if it really works this other way, and not the way they say", combined with a very shallow analysis clouds the real fact:
We have to.

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Political realities imply that all of this is simply not going to happen. Sure, Democrats can ram through any green bill, which will then be annulled when the Republicans take over.
I can imagine that, if one side or the other pushes even more extremist ideas, the US and even Europe may violently break up. Hatred is already growing on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/op ... ar-544700/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... icans.html

ETS system is already in place, sure it doesn't really reflect the prices it should have for true pricing, but there is already some effect. There will be tariffs to make the balance if other countries do not have a similar system in place. This is all part of the green deal in the EU. China has expressed interest in such a global system. If America wants to be lagers, it is a political choice.

The Green Deal ("Green Fantasy" would be a better choice of words) of Europe will simply mean: 1) Increased dependency on the goodwill of Putin, 2) Losing key industries to global locations with a better and more reliable power infrastructure, and 3) Impoverishment of large swaths of the population.

China always expresses "interest" in anything. That is their way of being polite. But in the end, only when it benefits them directly wil they do anything different from what they currently do. Another advantage that China has is that they don't need to pander to extremist protesters who bully politicians into obedience. In fact, had those extremist protesters show up in China, they would linea recta be send off to a reeducation camp.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

The Green Deal ("Green Fantasy" would be a better choice of words) of Europe will simply mean: 1) Increased dependency on the goodwill of Putin, 2) Losing key industries to global locations with a better and more reliable power infrastructure, and 3) Impoverishment of large swaths of the population.

perhaps you still haven't grasped the situation where we all put the earth in.

Please refrains from attacking people and accusing them of "not grasping". We are talking about political realities here.
If Europe is so concerned about fossil fuels, then they can cancel the natural gas contract with Russia right now and heat their home another way.

M564038 wrote:

Your fascination of "but what if it really works this other way, and not the way they say", combined with a very shallow analysis clouds the real fact:
We have to.

It is not about "fascinations". It is about political realities.

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Political realities imply that all of this is simply not going to happen. Sure, Democrats can ram through any green bill, which will then be annulled when the Republicans take over.
I can imagine that, if one side or the other pushes even more extremist ideas, the US and even Europe may violently break up. Hatred is already growing on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/op ... ar-544700/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... icans.html

ETS system is already in place, sure it doesn't really reflect the prices it should have for true pricing, but there is already some effect. There will be tariffs to make the balance if other countries do not have a similar system in place. This is all part of the green deal in the EU. China has expressed interest in such a global system. If America wants to be lagers, it is a political choice.

The Green Deal ("Green Fantasy" would be a better choice of words) of Europe will simply mean: 1) Increased dependency on the goodwill of Putin, 2) Losing key industries to global locations with a better and more reliable power infrastructure, and 3) Impoverishment of large swaths of the population.

China always expresses "interest" in anything. That is their way of being polite. But in the end, only when it benefits them directly wil they do anything different from what they currently do. Another advantage that China has is that they don't need to pander to extremist protesters who bully politicians into obedience. In fact, had those extremist protesters show up in China, they would linea recta be send off to a reeducation camp.

100% agreee

Not really green if you just pull it out of the ground somewhere else

Same as Australia, not matter if they went to zero today, what they produce will not effect the outcome at all

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

The Green Deal ("Green Fantasy" would be a better choice of words) of Europe will simply mean: 1) Increased dependency on the goodwill of Putin, 2) Losing key industries to global locations with a better and more reliable power infrastructure, and 3) Impoverishment of large swaths of the population.

perhaps you still haven't grasped the situation where we all put the earth in.

Please refrains from attacking people and accusing them of "not grasping". We are talking about political realities here.
If Europe is so concerned about fossil fuels, then they can cancel the natural gas contract with Russia right now and heat their home another way.

You might be talking about your political realities, I am talking about real-life and real-world consequences.

EU is in transition and we will cancel it in due time. Fossil fuel is on its way out.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

perhaps you still haven't grasped the situation where we all put the earth in.

Please refrains from attacking people and accusing them of "not grasping". We are talking about political realities here.
If Europe is so concerned about fossil fuels, then they can cancel the natural gas contract with Russia right now and heat their home another way.

You might be talking about your political realities, I am talking about real-life and real-world consequences.

EU is in transition and we will cancel it in due time. Fossil fuel is on its way out.

Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u ... or-europe/

And don't import nuclear energy from France as that would be hypocritical as well. Turn on the solar panels and wind mills and see how far you get. Have the courage to tell European citizens to "shut up and wear warm clothing" if it gets cold.

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Please refrains from attacking people and accusing them of "not grasping". We are talking about political realities here.
If Europe is so concerned about fossil fuels, then they can cancel the natural gas contract with Russia right now and heat their home another way.

You might be talking about your political realities, I am talking about real-life and real-world consequences.

EU is in transition and we will cancel it in due time. Fossil fuel is on its way out.

Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u ... or-europe/

And don't import nuclear energy from France as that would be hypocritical as well. Turn on the solar panels and wind mills and see how far you get. Have the courage to tell European citizens to "shut up and wear warm clothing" if it gets cold.

Where the like button?

Dear oh dear,

This doesn’t make any sense at all.

We are all this together!
We need to solve this problem fast!

What is all this about demanding 10x more of people that are trying to engage themselves innpositive change?
They aren’t catholic priests preaching celibacy, then being caught with a prostitute. We are all actual fallable human beings, but some of us see that we must try to work very fast towards sustainability! Warts and all.
Changing the energy supply and replacing fossils isn’t happening over night, but our species existence actually depends on things starting to be done. If we let this spiral further, there is a real chance this might end really, really bad within a few generations.
It also needs to start happening faster than large political processes usually changes things, so things are being tried that haven’t been tried before. So yes, there will be some clumsyness and failed attempts being made. So what?

Are you denying climate change? Is that it? Or are you just not thinking it is urgent? Why are you demanding everyone else do the job?

There are several historical examples of production, supply and effectiveness being drastically changed, and societies adapting very quickly, why do you see all of these changes as only doom and gloom? No possibilites that people will step up and make it work?

Dieuwer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Please refrains from attacking people and accusing them of "not grasping". We are talking about political realities here.
If Europe is so concerned about fossil fuels, then they can cancel the natural gas contract with Russia right now and heat their home another way.

You might be talking about your political realities, I am talking about real-life and real-world consequences.

EU is in transition and we will cancel it in due time. Fossil fuel is on its way out.

Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u ... or-europe/

And don't import nuclear energy from France as that would be hypocritical as well. Turn on the solar panels and wind mills and see how far you get. Have the courage to tell European citizens to "shut up and wear warm clothing" if it gets cold.

Dieuwer wrote:

Don't deflect. Cancel the gast contract now, unless Europe wants to be labeled as "hypocrites". The Climate Change activist, Greta Thunberg demands it: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/statu ... 8664032257

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u ... or-europe/

And don't import nuclear energy from France as that would be hypocritical as well. Turn on the solar panels and wind mills and see how far you get. Have the courage to tell European citizens to "shut up and wear warm clothing" if it gets cold.

Ah yes, how do you expect me to respond? It is all quite ridiculous. The path is clear, it doesn't have to happen overnight, but we need to act now. Ridicule the matter is the same as denying the problem. If you want to deny it, fine, but then you deny reality itself and we have nothing to discuss.

A101 wrote:

Where the like button?

Same goes for you of course.

Dutchy wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

For $3000 per ton, that is taxing gasoline at $25.50 per gallon. Ummm... that has huge social consequences that cannot be ignored.

Lightsaber, those costs are there and are being paid, just not by the person who uses it. Those costs are being paid by society at large in the form of climate adaptation, health care, lost working days, etc. etc. but also loss of nature in countries where you get those natural resources, underpaid workers etc. etc. etc.

So in essence people with the lowest income pay for people who use the most resources. So the single mum on wealth fare pays for the CEO flying from Amsterdam to New York.

Realizing this injustice and the mechanism which keeps this in place, I agree, the social consequences can't be ignored.

I'm not saying do nothing.

But think, this is an aviation blog. At the proposed tax rates, only the CEOs may fly.

It means rationing electricity and heating, unless we all go nuclear power.

Too fast is just job destruction. We need a plan to grown fuel. A plan away from coal.

I'm thinking the price of gas this winter, for heating and electricity, will show the point. Same with in a year the fertilizer shortage that seems to be happening:
https://www.agweek.com/business/agricul ... r-shortage

It won't be the wealthy going hungry. I'm not arguing against a need for change, but rather the proposed costs will collapse the system that supplies us with needs.

The proposed cost changes will change the jobs available. This generation hasn't lived through a really bad recession yet. I think we're going to learn why the economy has to be motivated.

There are solutions. e.g., replace coal with nuclear, more solar, at home energy storage. Standard of living is proportional to energy consumption.

I'm just pointing out at the prices proposed, it isn't worth shipping food...

Lightsaber

It do not seem like you understand the graveness of the situation. I am not really sure any of us do. It is hard to take it all in. The challenges you mention are actually quite «trivial» compared to doing nothing.

It is very mentally challenging to make that leap in thought, but we really do have to.
It is not made easier by both politicians and media in many countries not giving this the attention it should.
The US being one notable example.

lightsaber wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

For $3000 per ton, that is taxing gasoline at $25.50 per gallon. Ummm... that has huge social consequences that cannot be ignored.

Lightsaber, those costs are there and are being paid, just not by the person who uses it. Those costs are being paid by society at large in the form of climate adaptation, health care, lost working days, etc. etc. but also loss of nature in countries where you get those natural resources, underpaid workers etc. etc. etc.

So in essence people with the lowest income pay for people who use the most resources. So the single mum on wealth fare pays for the CEO flying from Amsterdam to New York.

Realizing this injustice and the mechanism which keeps this in place, I agree, the social consequences can't be ignored.

I'm not saying do nothing.

But think, this is an aviation blog. At the proposed tax rates, only the CEOs may fly.

It means rationing electricity and heating, unless we all go nuclear power.

Too fast is just job destruction. We need a plan to grown fuel. A plan away from coal.

I'm thinking the price of gas this winter, for heating and electricity, will show the point. Same with in a year the fertilizer shortage that seems to be happening:
https://www.agweek.com/business/agricul ... r-shortage

It won't be the wealthy going hungry. I'm not arguing against a need for change, but rather the proposed costs will collapse the system that supplies us with needs.

The proposed cost changes will change the jobs available. This generation hasn't lived through a really bad recession yet. I think we're going to learn why the economy has to be motivated.

There are solutions. e.g., replace coal with nuclear, more solar, at home energy storage. Standard of living is proportional to energy consumption.

I'm just pointing out at the prices proposed, it isn't worth shipping food...

Lightsaber

Crude oil and natural gas are not only fuel, but also very valuable input materials in chemical processes, e.g. in manufacturing fertilizer and plastics. This material does not lose its value, no matter how heavily fossil fuels will be taxed.

Standard of living is proportional to energy consumption

I think that is not so true as it was 50 years ago. There is an interesting way these things can play out. Old refrigerators were a major user of energy, and much smaller than what we are buying these days. But that refrigerator now only needs 750 watts maximum. So we save energy and have a much better and bigger freezer/refrigerator. The same thing with building HVAC, using less energy and providing a much better product. Likewise with the coming EV revolution. Air travel - it is a problem, but solvable. A carbon tax used as an offset seems to me the best economics. with those funds being used only for improving the energy efficiency of the rest of our travel or HVAC. Industry is becoming ever more energy efficient. GDPs are showing us getting more out of the ever less amounts of energy.

I am of the school that if we do it right we can have more, travel more and use less energy. The down side: as ever, from an evolutionary evaluation a lot of people will reject those changes and solutions. At this point I think the conservative Luddites have a good chance of winning. It will not be pretty.

flyingturtle wrote:

Crude oil and natural gas are not only fuel, but also very valuable input materials in chemical processes, e.g. in manufacturing fertilizer and plastics. This material does not lose its value, no matter how heavily fossil fuels will be taxed.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the tread, that its is impossible to stop our reliance on fossil fuels. It still has to be mined it still has to be used in a way the produces these gases. the genie is out of the bottle now its not going back.

Climate change is a natural occurring phenomena it was was happening before industrialization and is going to happen if we stopped 100%

The biggest hypocrites i see are those activist who gladly tell us the evils of climate change but also do not give up those same luxuries to which they say contributes to it all

I bet that even with all this new net zero campaign what we will find is the rebound effect, most people who think technology will save them will just be thinking im not producing anymore greenhouse gases as it is more increased efficiency what generally happens because its more efficient people will use it more thus actually does little in the long run

All these electric vehicles will need power thus will need to increase the size of the base load power, Dont eat red meat because of the methane gases cattle produce, what about the dairy cows and the dairy products, haven't heard anyone saying we should eat less dairy foods

But its OK for the EU and biomass as fuel (trees,plants) after all cows are a natural biomass culling device they eat grass that regrows waste products from large farms make natural organic fertilizers, are we going to stop eating rice too, rice paddies produce high amounts of methane and are water intensive industries

As the world population expands the so called climate problems have escalated, never hear about needing to cull the worlds population but we always hear about needing to produce to keep the worlds economies going with young and able bodies which in turn creates its own extra consumption of the worlds fossil fuels and greater food production

You have got everything you are saying just a little bit wrong.
Sorry.

First of all.
That there are man made climate change, and the consequences og such is not up for debate.
Denying it at this point is something that should be diagnosed, not listened to.

We are 100% commited to quit our reliance on fossils, all of us, the alternative is very, very dark. So dark it is not an alternative. You might yhink it impossible.
The scientists and the politicians do not agree.

Pointing at some activist driving an old diesel and using it as an excuse to continue in your old ways is not a valid reason for not doing your bit.

A101 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Crude oil and natural gas are not only fuel, but also very valuable input materials in chemical processes, e.g. in manufacturing fertilizer and plastics. This material does not lose its value, no matter how heavily fossil fuels will be taxed.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the tread, that its is impossible to stop our reliance on fossil fuels. It still has to be mined it still has to be used in a way the produces these gases. the genie is out of the bottle now its not going back.

Climate change is a natural occurring phenomena it was was happening before industrialization and is going to happen if we stopped 100%

The biggest hypocrites i see are those activist who gladly tell us the evils of climate change but also do not give up those same luxuries to which they say contributes to it all

I bet that even with all this new net zero campaign what we will find is the rebound effect, most people who think technology will save them will just be thinking im not producing anymore greenhouse gases as it is more increased efficiency what generally happens because its more efficient people will use it more thus actually does little in the long run

All these electric vehicles will need power thus will need to increase the size of the base load power, Dont eat red meat because of the methane gases cattle produce, what about the dairy cows and the dairy products, haven't heard anyone saying we should eat less dairy foods

But its OK for the EU and biomass as fuel (trees,plants) after all cows are a natural biomass culling device they eat grass that regrows waste products from large farms make natural organic fertilizers, are we going to stop eating rice too, rice paddies produce high amounts of methane and are water intensive industries

As the world population expands the so called climate problems have escalated, never hear about needing to cull the worlds population but we always hear about needing to produce to keep the worlds economies going with young and able bodies which in turn creates its own extra consumption of the worlds fossil fuels and greater food production

M564038 wrote:

You have got everything you are saying just a little bit wrong.
Sorry.

First of all.
That there are man made climate change, and the consequences og such is not up for debate.
Denying it at this point is something that should be diagnosed, not listened to.

Everything thing is up for debate, just because we do not agree does not rule it out

M564038 wrote:

We are 100% commited to quit our reliance on fossils, all of us, the alternative is very, very dark. So dark it is not an alternative. You might yhink it impossible.
The scientists and the politicians do not agree.

Sorry to burst your bubble not all scientists and politicians agree.

If that is so then turn off the tap now, turning it of in 25 years is not going to make a difference for the use of fossil fuels will still need to happen just to make a wind turbine to happen which indecently needs a crap load of coal/hydrocarbons

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you’d need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal.

A 5-MW turbine has three roughly 60-meter-long airfoils, each weighing about 15 metric tons. They have light balsa or foam cores and outer laminations made mostly from glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy or polyester resins. The glass is made by melting silicon dioxide and other mineral oxides in furnaces fired by natural gas. The resins begin with ethylene derived from light hydrocarbons, most commonly the products of naphtha cracking, liquefied petroleum gas, or the ethane in natural gas.

The final fiber-reinforced composite embodies on the order of 170 GJ/t. Therefore, to get 2.5 TW of installed wind power by 2030, we would need an aggregate rotor mass of about 23 million metric tons, incorporating the equivalent of about 90 million metric tons of crude oil. And when all is in place, the entire structure must be waterproofed with resins whose synthesis starts with ethylene. Another required oil product is lubricant, for the turbine gearboxes, which has to be changed periodically during the machine’s two-decade lifetime.

M564038 wrote:

Pointing at some activist driving an old diesel and using it as an excuse to continue in your old ways is not a valid reason for not doing your bit.

its a lot more than that, everything thing from mobile phones to lap tops to buying a new fridge will need fossil fuels mined and used its a fact that it is impossablie to move away from

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You have got everything you are saying just a little bit wrong.
Sorry.

First of all.
That there are man made climate change, and the consequences og such is not up for debate.
Denying it at this point is something that should be diagnosed, not listened to.

Everything thing is up for debate, just because we do not agree does not rule it out

Facts aren't up for debate, they are facts. And man-made climate change is such a fact. If you want to deny facts, fine, but than there is nothing to talk about anymore.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You have got everything you are saying just a little bit wrong.
Sorry.

First of all.
That there are man made climate change, and the consequences og such is not up for debate.
Denying it at this point is something that should be diagnosed, not listened to.

Everything thing is up for debate, just because we do not agree does not rule it out

Facts aren't up for debate, they are facts. And man-made climate change is such a fact. If you want to deny facts, fine, but than there is nothing to talk about anymore.

The fact is not every scientist agrees with your so called facts, and that is a fact

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Everything thing is up for debate, just because we do not agree does not rule it out

Facts aren't up for debate, they are facts. And man-made climate change is such a fact. If you want to deny facts, fine, but than there is nothing to talk about anymore.

The fact is not every scientist agrees with your so called facts, and that is a fact

As I have said, we have nothing to discuss as long as facts are denied. It is truly as simple as that. It is utterly pointless to discuss how to combat climate change if you deny facts. If you want to change the consensus among climate experts, fine, do it in a scientific way, write a paper with your conclusions and get it published in a peer-reviewed magazine with a high impact number. Looking forward to your paper in Nature. Then we can discuss facts, until then I won't discuss facts with anyone.

And please don't come up with your own 'scientists'. It is well known that the same campaigners behind the pro-smoking lobby, are behind the pro-fossil fuel lobby. If you actually want to learn something, read the IPCC report, which is the report with the latest on climate change, not the rabbit hole of youtube.

flyingturtle wrote:

Crude oil and natural gas are not only fuel, but also very valuable input materials in chemical processes, e.g. in manufacturing fertilizer and plastics. This material does not lose its value, no matter how heavily fossil fuels will be taxed.

I’m actually sat watching the feeds from an APOX reactor at this very moment (well kinda, I have a sore head from last night to I am avoiding work as much as possible) – The APOX burns methane in a low oxygen environment producing vast amounts of CO, which we then pipe over to our Acid side where it is used to pressurise its reactor in to produce Acetic Acid, and Acetic Anhydride.

Both of those products we sell, as they are used in everything from plastics, soap powders to Herion. But that we also pipe a significant quantity over to another onsite plant which uses Acetic to then produce ETaC (Ethyl Acetate), which is used in glue, nail polish, paints….and it also provides feed stock for its sister plant to produce VAM (Vinyl acetate Monomer) which is used in the production of everything from PVA to long complex polymer plastics.

I could quite easily go on for pages with the amount of organic chemistry we derive from just methane as a feed stock and how I can pretty much guarantee that you are either looking at, or even wearing something which ultimately came from fossil fuels. And this is without even going into how critical they are in the production of fertilizers to allow us to feed our self’s or the by products of oil and gas exploration such as Helium.

The point I am trying to make is yes I agree and support a net zero future, as burning such fuels to get from A to B or to cook a steak seems like a complete waste to me. But make no mistake fossil fuels are going nowhere anytime soon as they are critical to modern life and infrastructure.

Another point regarding electricity generation, we have a 500MW CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) station on site which feeds directly into the national grid and supports our plants. At the moment its on “tick over” due to the high price of natural gas, but, and here is the critical point, at a moment’s notice the operators can open the taps and have it at 100% generation within seconds. This ability to ramp up almost immediately to meet demand is critical to operating a stable power grid and with the exception of some hydro plants there isn’t really a viable alternative at this time.

And no, I don’t think Tesla’s “mega packs” are an alternative. In fact although I have not done the maths I would be willing to bet that their production releases more carbon and does more environmental damage than keeping a CCGT on tick over with the occasion ramp up to meet demand.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Facts aren't up for debate, they are facts. And man-made climate change is such a fact. If you want to deny facts, fine, but than there is nothing to talk about anymore.

The fact is not every scientist agrees with your so called facts, and that is a fact

As I have said, we have nothing to discuss as long as facts are denied. It is truly as simple as that. It is utterly pointless to discuss how to combat climate change if you deny facts. If you want to change the consensus among climate experts, fine, do it in a scientific way, write a paper with your conclusions and get it published in a peer-reviewed magazine with a high impact number. Looking forward to your paper in Nature. Then we can discuss facts, until then I won't discuss facts with anyone.

And please don't come up with your own 'scientists'. It is well known that the same campaigners behind the pro-smoking lobby, are behind the pro-fossil fuel lobby. If you actually want to learn something, read the IPCC report, which is the report with the latest on climate change, not the rabbit hole of youtube.

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

A101 wrote:

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

I don't have to, I am not the one arguing against scientific consensus. If you catch me on something which is against scientific consensus, you can pull that argument, not now.

But that's it, I have made my point clear enough, do with it what you want.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

I don't have to, I am not the one arguing against scientific consensus. If you catch me on something which is against scientific consensus, you can pull that argument, not now.

But that's it, I have made my point clear enough, do with it what you want.

The problem is you have not made a point, not even all the scientific community agree on what you say

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

I don't have to, I am not the one arguing against scientific consensus. If you catch me on something which is against scientific consensus, you can pull that argument, not now.

But that's it, I have made my point clear enough, do with it what you want.

The problem is you have not made a point, not even all the scientific community agree on what you say

What we all agree on is that it is pointless to debate you on this matter. So good luck.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The fact is not every scientist agrees with your so called facts, and that is a fact

As I have said, we have nothing to discuss as long as facts are denied. It is truly as simple as that. It is utterly pointless to discuss how to combat climate change if you deny facts. If you want to change the consensus among climate experts, fine, do it in a scientific way, write a paper with your conclusions and get it published in a peer-reviewed magazine with a high impact number. Looking forward to your paper in Nature. Then we can discuss facts, until then I won't discuss facts with anyone.

And please don't come up with your own 'scientists'. It is well known that the same campaigners behind the pro-smoking lobby, are behind the pro-fossil fuel lobby. If you actually want to learn something, read the IPCC report, which is the report with the latest on climate change, not the rabbit hole of youtube.

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

Flat Earthers have an opinion to. It's wrong.

As stated by Dutchy, to have a scientific theory accepted, then it has to be validated and peer reviewed.
Climate change is happening. Anyone that denies it is on the same mental wavelength as Flat Earthers, IMO.

TankEngine wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As I have said, we have nothing to discuss as long as facts are denied. It is truly as simple as that. It is utterly pointless to discuss how to combat climate change if you deny facts. If you want to change the consensus among climate experts, fine, do it in a scientific way, write a paper with your conclusions and get it published in a peer-reviewed magazine with a high impact number. Looking forward to your paper in Nature. Then we can discuss facts, until then I won't discuss facts with anyone.

And please don't come up with your own 'scientists'. It is well known that the same campaigners behind the pro-smoking lobby, are behind the pro-fossil fuel lobby. If you actually want to learn something, read the IPCC report, which is the report with the latest on climate change, not the rabbit hole of youtube.

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

Flat Earthers have an opinion to. It's wrong.

As stated by Dutchy, to have a scientific theory accepted, then it has to be validated and peer reviewed.
Climate change is happening. Anyone that denies it is on the same mental wavelength as Flat Earthers, IMO.

With papers that are peer reviewed dose not mean everyone accepts the premise of the paper or the modeling used. It’s a all very subjective

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

The fact is not every scientist agrees with your so called facts, and that is a fact

As I have said, we have nothing to discuss as long as facts are denied. It is truly as simple as that. It is utterly pointless to discuss how to combat climate change if you deny facts. If you want to change the consensus among climate experts, fine, do it in a scientific way, write a paper with your conclusions and get it published in a peer-reviewed magazine with a high impact number. Looking forward to your paper in Nature. Then we can discuss facts, until then I won't discuss facts with anyone.

And please don't come up with your own 'scientists'. It is well known that the same campaigners behind the pro-smoking lobby, are behind the pro-fossil fuel lobby. If you actually want to learn something, read the IPCC report, which is the report with the latest on climate change, not the rabbit hole of youtube.

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

Dude, as you may gather from my post above I work within the Petrochemical industry and yes, I do indeed have a Msc – Although I would never refer to myself as a scientist. My employer for almost 25 years has paid for my ENITRE education, and they are one of the largest Oil\Chemical producers in the world. So you could say I have a vested interest in them being able to continue to extracting oil and producing chemicals.

In my entire career I have never met another similarly qualified person who denies human impact upon the climate. And the vast majority of those people many more qualified than me, with PHd’s all work WITHIN the oil industry.

Here the thing, climate change is costing us as an industry an absolute fortune. From freak weather events knocking out feed lines, increased storm activity shutting down rigs, costal erosion destroying on-shore processing plants. The list is simply endless and the increase in such destructive events over the last 2 decades massive.

But yes, you are entitled to your own opinion on such things and no you don’t need higher education in order to form one. What you do need though is data, proof of why you have formed the opinion you have and why the rest of us are wrong. And as an ever-curious individual I personally would love to see such data. You don’t have to write a paper, just provide us with the data.

Daysleeper wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As I have said, we have nothing to discuss as long as facts are denied. It is truly as simple as that. It is utterly pointless to discuss how to combat climate change if you deny facts. If you want to change the consensus among climate experts, fine, do it in a scientific way, write a paper with your conclusions and get it published in a peer-reviewed magazine with a high impact number. Looking forward to your paper in Nature. Then we can discuss facts, until then I won't discuss facts with anyone.

And please don't come up with your own 'scientists'. It is well known that the same campaigners behind the pro-smoking lobby, are behind the pro-fossil fuel lobby. If you actually want to learn something, read the IPCC report, which is the report with the latest on climate change, not the rabbit hole of youtube.

By gosh so now can I not only form my own opinion from people that do have expertise in their field but the only way to have a debate with you is to go to university and get masters degree and write a paper that is peer reviewed.

Have you done any of those things you ask of me or have you read up and formed your own opinion?

Dude, as you may gather from my post above I work within the Petrochemical industry and yes, I do indeed have a Msc – Although I would never refer to myself as a scientist. My employer for almost 25 years has paid for my ENITRE education, and they are one of the largest Oil\Chemical producers in the world. So you could say I have a vested interest in them being able to continue to extracting oil and producing chemicals.

In my entire career I have never met another similarly qualified person who denies human impact upon the climate. And the vast majority of those people many more qualified than me, with PHd’s all work WITHIN the oil industry.

Here the thing, climate change is costing us as an industry an absolute fortune. From freak weather events knocking out feed lines, increased storm activity shutting down rigs, costal erosion destroying on-shore processing plants. The list is simply endless and the increase in such destructive events over the last 2 decades massive.

But yes, you are entitled to your own opinion on such things and no you don’t need higher education in order to form one. What you do need though is data, proof of why you have formed the opinion you have and why the rest of us are wrong. And as an ever-curious individual I personally would love to see such data. You don’t have to write a paper, just provide us with the data.

No need for me to provide data, nor do I have too I’m not in the industry. I read various articles and reports and formed an opinion over time

Do I think we produce pollution yes I do, do I think it’s as dire a problem or climate emergency no I don’t. The thing is they have convinced me that it’s not a big as problem as being made out, it’s up to others to convince me otherwise.

But I’m also a realist to know we cannot eliminate the use of fossil fuels or other forms of greenhouse gases. Even if we went back to the very basics man will still produce greenhouse gases

A101 wrote:

Do I think we produce pollution yes I do, do I think it’s as dire a problem or climate emergency no I don’t. The thing is they have convinced me that it’s not a big as problem as being made out, it’s up to others to convince me otherwise.

Do you know the thing is, data doesn't care about your opinion, data is data and fact is fact. If you have an opinion, fine, have your opinion, nobody cares if you do and nobody will take you seriously if your opinion goes against science without even a train of thought. That's why I wrote, do your due diligence, collect your data, put them in a model and then convince the rest of us. It is not up to us to convince you, but the other way around. You go against the data, so convince us.

This is a weird discussion on reality itself. That's why I said, I have nothing to discuss with you if you do not accept reality. For peet sake, there is a scientific article from the beginning of the 20th century which already warned us all for burning fossil fuel. But we have had our little differences on other points of reality and facts as well. So no surprise there.

So let's move on and go back to topic itself: Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net-zero transition. That is a reality for the financial sector and the rest of us. What one individual or about 10% of the western population think of it, is irrelevant.

Dutchy wrote:

Do you know the thing is, data doesn't care about your opinion, data is data and fact is fact. If you have an opinion, fine, have your opinion, nobody cares if you do and nobody will take you seriously if your opinion goes against science without even a train of thought. That's why I wrote, do your due diligence, collect your data, put them in a model and then convince the rest of us. It is not up to us to convince you, but the other way around. You go against the data, so convince us.

Such an inconvenient truth, I’m not here to convince you are wrong and am not going to try to was never my intention too.

Just that not everyone agrees with the data presented as facts as you put it, and what has been pointed out the hypocrisy involved in the continued usage in large quantities of fossil fuels that will continue for decades into the future

But if you want to continue being like lambs to the slaughter without a second thought that’s your prerogative

A101 wrote:

Just that not everyone agrees with the data presented as facts as you put it

You are correct on that one, you don't agree, so not everyone agrees. Everyone that matters in this debate does agree. As pointed out, people who actually do the research agree, I believe them, rather than some random people without any credentials in the field.

I will leave it at this, this is utterly pointless, or perhaps you are just hoping this thread will be locked because it is a discussion on what reality actually is, rather than what is actually the point of this discussion: research done by Jean-Francois Mercure of the University of Exeter. Perhaps you could drop him an e-mail and continue your debate with him. Good luck.

Dutchy wrote:

You are correct on that one, you don't agree, so not everyone agrees

You are finally able to grasp the concept not everyone agrees.

Dutchy wrote:

Everyone that matters in this debate does agree.

Only because it conforms to your own POV

Dutchy wrote:

As pointed out, people who actually do the research agree, I believe them, rather than some random people without any credentials in the field.

Random people work on both sides of the fence.

There are a number of people whom have the required expertise to question the data across who are climatologist, astrophysicist, hydrogeologist,geophysicist, meteorologist, biologist,,associate professor of geography and professor of atmospheric science whom disagree with the data

And are just some of the part of numerous departments across different countries different work backgrounds such as Russian Academy of Sciences, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, University of Winnipeg, French Academy of Sciences, University of Rochester, University of Stockholm, University of Adelaide.

You seem completely unable to grasp that your «opinion»hasn’t got anything on scientific consensus.
That somehow your opinion deserves to be heard?
Who told you that?
Yes, you are entitled to have one, I think it is silly to have one, but you can have an opinion. But doesn’t make that opinion count! Don’t you see that?
And yes, there is a consensus. There is no real opposition to the scientific consensus in the field.
There hasn’t been for a long, long time.
Yet you seem to think that you can just ignore the facts, invent your own truth, and someohow expect to be taken seriously, that for some reason your completely unqualified opinion counts against world wide scientific consensus.

What do you base this on? What makes you so supremely qualified as to take a difference stance than almost 100% of people with actual knowledge, and somehow expect to be heard?

And why don’t you just listen to the people that know what they are talking about in the first place?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You are correct on that one, you don't agree, so not everyone agrees

You are finally able to grasp the concept not everyone agrees.

Dutchy wrote:

Everyone that matters in this debate does agree.

Only because it conforms to your own POV

Dutchy wrote:

As pointed out, people who actually do the research agree, I believe them, rather than some random people without any credentials in the field.

Random people work on both sides of the fence.

There are a number of people whom have the required expertise to question the data across who are climatologist, astrophysicist, hydrogeologist,geophysicist, meteorologist, biologist,,associate professor of geography and professor of atmospheric science whom disagree with the data

And are just some of the part of numerous departments across different countries different work backgrounds such as Russian Academy of Sciences, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, University of Winnipeg, French Academy of Sciences, University of Rochester, University of Stockholm, University of Adelaide.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Do you know the thing is, data doesn't care about your opinion, data is data and fact is fact. If you have an opinion, fine, have your opinion, nobody cares if you do and nobody will take you seriously if your opinion goes against science without even a train of thought. That's why I wrote, do your due diligence, collect your data, put them in a model and then convince the rest of us. It is not up to us to convince you, but the other way around. You go against the data, so convince us.

Such an inconvenient truth, I’m not here to convince you are wrong and am not going to try to was never my intention too.

Just that not everyone agrees with the data presented as facts as you put it, and what has been pointed out the hypocrisy involved in the continued usage in large quantities of fossil fuels that will continue for decades into the future

But if you want to continue being like lambs to the slaughter without a second thought that’s your prerogative

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding how science works, with regards to research, publishing papers and peer review. It’s been a long time since I have worked on a paper, as I prominently work in analytics and operations now. But I have in the past been part of research teams and worked on research papers.

When we publish a paper for peer review, what we want more than anything is a response proving us wrong or casting doubt on our results – should that happen we will be more than happy to start again, address whatever concerns may have been raised and publish again. This process can go on for years as we refine our methodology and hopefully, eventually, prove our results beyond a reasonable doubt. The process is messy, and for most published papers you will indeed find another paper countering the arguments made by the first. There is an old adage within science, if you want to make name for yourself you don’t have to discover anything new, just prove another researcher wrong.

The point is, if you actually want to do you own research into any given topic you cannot just simply read one published paper and accept it as fact. You have to look at the bigger picture and consider how many other papers or studies confirm those results and how many counter them. Perhaps then you could actually draw some meaningful conclusions.

Should you actually do this for climate change, you should come to the same conclusion as the rest of us – but I suspect that’s not your objective. I genuinely do not understand why you won’t share data or the studies you have read to draw your conclusions, but should you take the effort to do so, then I will happily spend the time searching and posting more studies that either counter of confirm them.

Incidentally, you do make one valid point. I believe a few years go there was a tendency to over-state how devastating climate change would be. I think this was done in the hopes that the world would take the threat seriously and just like with CFC’s and the Ozone layer a concerted global effort to counter its effects would be undertaken. I don’t think anyone thought that we would just ignore it, and since we did, well it turns out the predictions of a few years ago might have actually under-stated how devastating it will be.

Edited to add: The conversation in here, either rightly or wrongly has gotten a little confrontational. I am not trying to insult you or your intelligence, I’m just trying to understand why you have reached the conclusions you have, as I know your not alone in your views. And if the world is going to fix this issue we need to work out where and why the there has been a misunderstanding.

M564038 wrote:

You seem completely unable to grasp that your «opinion»hasn’t got anything on scientific consensus.
That somehow your opinion deserves to be heard?
Who told you that?
Yes, you are entitled to have one, I think it is silly to have one, but you can have an opinion. But doesn’t make that opinion count! Don’t you see that?
And yes, there is a consensus. There is no real opposition to the scientific consensus in the field.
There hasn’t been for a long, long time.
Yet you seem to think that you can just ignore the facts, invent your own truth, and someohow expect to be taken seriously, that for some reason your completely unqualified opinion counts against world wide scientific consensus.

What do you base this on? What makes you so supremely qualified as to take a difference stance than almost 100% of people with actual knowledge, and somehow expect to be heard?

And why don’t you just listen to the people that know what they are talking about in the first place?

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You are correct on that one, you don't agree, so not everyone agrees

You are finally able to grasp the concept not everyone agrees.

Dutchy wrote:

Everyone that matters in this debate does agree.

Only because it conforms to your own POV

Dutchy wrote:

As pointed out, people who actually do the research agree, I believe them, rather than some random people without any credentials in the field.

Random people work on both sides of the fence.

There are a number of people whom have the required expertise to question the data across who are climatologist, astrophysicist, hydrogeologist,geophysicist, meteorologist, biologist,,associate professor of geography and professor of atmospheric science whom disagree with the data

And are just some of the part of numerous departments across different countries different work backgrounds such as Russian Academy of Sciences, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, University of Winnipeg, French Academy of Sciences, University of Rochester, University of Stockholm, University of Adelaide.

I seems you do not practice what you preach, your own post agrees with what I am saying “almost 100%”

The matter is very subjective if 99 people agree on something that dose not make it correct that 1 lone dissenting voice could be correct

You seem to be inflicted with the new wave of cancel culture, If you do not agree with it others should be howled down and dismissed


Like I said earlier I agree that pollution should be minimised, but I do not agree that we are in a climate emergency either and it is fact in this modern industrial times that fossil fuels will still need to be made available