Just Stop Oil Protesters

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I’ve posted two very recent examples, 2023 and 2024, below.

https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2024/24/e3sconf_aees2024_01024.pdf
Part of the conclusion to the above paper.

OK, from your paper "Global warming: Anthopogenic or natural factor? ", some alternative bits I've also cherry picked, but quoted verbatim.

....... We live in the period of the sixth mass extinction and this is facilitated by deforestation, especially in the Amazon, where populations have decreased by 94%, the loss of habitual habitats by animals caused by the expansion of food production for people, industrial pollution.......

... A key factor affecting climate change is greenhouse gas emissions, which continue to rise at this time. Temperature change, rising sea levels, droughts and fires, the extinction of plant and animal species are just some of the effects of climate change. It affects almost all aspects of human life - economy, economy, health. The Great Carbon Gap global study found that the world's richest 1% produce more CO2 emissions than the bottom two-thirds of the population - 1500 times the average person. Africa, home to about one in six inhabitants of the world, accounts for only 4% of emissions [4].

In November 2023, the average temperature on the planet for the first time exceeded the average pre-industrial level for this day by 2 0C [5].
A stable excess of + 2 0C will lead to the melting of most glaciers, a sharp rise in sea level, the death of all coral reefs and the unsuitability of many parts of the Earth, climatologists warn.

A special report prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the problem of global climate change can no longer be postponed until later, otherwise irreparable damage to the ecosystems of the planet can be done by 2030 [6]....

In agreement?

“But before taking action to address global warming and reduce the planet's average temperature, one must make sure that anthropogenic influences contribute greatly to global warming so that these measures do not rock the pendulum of climate change toward a new ice age.”

And this the rest of the conclusion:

...... Significantly increase the costs of developing green energy while reducing coal use to zero.
 It is necessary to increase the costs of adaptation to climate change, in particular for drought-resistant plants, as well as the study and use of genetically modified food and a radical reduction in the intake of animal protein. 7494 E3S Web of Conferences AEES2023 , 01024 (2024) Global warming: Anthopogenic or natural factor? | E3S Web of Conferences
 Develop radical technologies to capture CO2 and reflect solar radiation back into outer space.
 Switch to organic fertilizers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the use of environmental solid biofuels.
 Creation of carbon landfills for growing forests to absorb greenhouse gases. But before taking action to address global warming..........

cheers Darrel

 

[Malarky]

Tim, that last argument, 'let's wait until we have incontrovertible proof of anthropogenic climate change just in case our actions tip us over into a new ice age instead' is frankly laughable. Have you seen the most recent articles on the main Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC) or Gulf Stream reaching perilous tipping points? That event will certainly make it bloody chilly round here with no prior 'confident' proof required. There comes a point when if it looks like a duck you gotta call it and most of the world would heartily disagree with your pettifogging. This includes those having to flee the very circumstances you would choose to deny are a consequence of our actions.

 

[Guest]

Taken in context. The papers illustrate that climate science isn’t necessarily as “settled” as we have perhaps been lead to believe.

 

[Bradders]

Are we debating about whether humans or nature is the cause of detrimental climate change, or whether climate change is a real problem?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Taken in context. The papers illustrate that climate science isn’t necessarily as “settled” as we have perhaps been lead to believe

They don't. You are just trying to play us.

<"This is a playbook"> where you try and suggests that there is ambiguity, where there patently isn't - <"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide">.

"Taken in context", they tell you that:

• The link between anthropogenic CO2 production (from burning fossil fuels) <"National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850 - Scientific Data">* <"Man-made(anthropogenic) greenhouse gases | CCS | Climate change | Discovering Geology | British Geological Survey (BGS)">and <"Global Climatic Change"> is entirely settled,
• and the former causes the latter.

To believe anything else involves both

• a suspension of any rational thought processes and
• a belief that several generations of scientists, all around the world, are prepared to be involved in a global conspiracy.

You can choose to believe <"who you like">, but I'm going to stick with people with some honesty and integrity <"Nature (journal) - Wikipedia">

*Jones, M.W., Peters, G.P., Gasser, T. et al. National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Sci Data 10, 155 (2023). National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850 - Scientific Data <https://rdcu.be/d1xNa>

cheers Darrel

 

[Guest]

I’m not involved in the economics of energy transition. I leave that for people much more qualified than me in that field. That’s why I didn’t mention it.

I only addressed the fallacy in your post regarding the “damaging emissions given off during their manufacturing and installation”. Considering a full lifecycle analysis of wind turbines purely on the environmental impact compared with a coal fired power plant for example, it has a substantially lower carbon emissions per MWh generated.

I am involved in the economics of the energy transition and I had to produce written reports for the scottish government on exactly these "full lifecycle" analyses and I can absolutely guarantee you that they can be, and definitely routinely are, heavily manipulated to give whatever result is desired. If a " whole lifecycle" carbon impact analysis produces a result that isn't convenient, someone else will produce one that says the exact opposite. For any project you can imagine you can easily obtain a "full lifecycle" carbon impact analysis that says whatever you need it to say and I have seen this first hand.
Even just actually reading through various "full lifecycle" carbon reports you'll quickly get a sense for how the methodologies are manipulated to produce whatever the desired result is.
There's no standardisation and an awful lot of green grifting where 'compliance' amounts to nothing more than someone bright being paid to write a few pages of waffle that give the impression to anyone not sincerely interested that they've taken environmental concerns under consideration.
And I promise you that the scottish government are paradoxically both particularly guilty of and complicit in this kind of greenwashing while also being staggeringly naive and ignorant about it. I honestly can't imagine an institution less competent or trustworthy to deal with these challenges than the scottish government.

 

[Guest]

To believe anything else involves both a suspension of any rational thought processes and a belief that scientists all over the world are prepared to involve in a global conspiracy.

I'm not taking one side or the other here but does it really? a global conspiracy? Isn't it just possible for the concensus to be wrong? Or for perverse incentives to exist?
I don't think even a majority of scientists agreeing on something that subsequently turns out to be wrong requires a global conspiracy.
And this overlaps with what we touched on briefly before about ideological capture of institutions - I know quaified teaching professors that don't feel they are able to state what they believe to be objectively true within their field in certain educational institutions and are forced to self censor just by "campus culture". It doesn't relate directly to climate research but hearing that from them has given me some pause for thought about the way concensus is established and maintained within some of these institutions.

During the 1920s, Lucky Strike was the dominant cigarette brand. Thisbrand, made by American Tobacco Company, was the first to use the image of aphysician in its advertisements. “20,679 physicians say ‘Luckies areless irritating,” its advertisements proclaimed. The advertising firm thatpromoted Lucky Strikes had sent physicians free cartons of the cigarettes andasked them whether Lucky Strikes were less irritating to ‘sensitive andtender’ throats. The company claimed that its toasting process made itscigarettes a smoother smoke.


By the mid-1930s, Lucky Strike had some competition. A new advertisingcampaign for Philip Morris referred to research conducted by physicians. One adclaimed that after prescribing Philip Morris brand cigarettes to patients withirritated throats, “every case of irritation cleared completely ordefinitely improved.” This series of advertisements, along with othersreferring to “proof” of superiority, made Philip Morris a majorcigarette brand for the first time in its history.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Isn't it just possible for the concensus to be wrong? Or for perverse incentives to exist?

Yes and yes, but we aren't talking about opinions. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence and more is accumulating all the time. You can be of the opinion that chlorophyll isn't involved in plant growth, but it is just an opinion and equally unlikely.

I don't think even a majority of scientists agreeing on something that subsequently turns out to be wrong requires a global conspiracy.

But it does, it would require thousands of scientists all over the world to falsify their data, much of which data are publically available as it is collected in real time by remote sensing.

I know quaified teaching professors that don't feel they are able to state what they believe to be objectively true within their field in certain educational institutions and are forced to self censor just by "campus culture".

That may well be true (particularly in the social sciences), but to suggest that is the case at all these Universities and Government bodies just isn't credible.

I'm interested in probability (only as an amateur) and probability tells me both that:

• I won't win the lottery and
• that anthropogenic CO2 emiisions cause global warming.

cheers Darrel

 

[Bradders]

Are we debating about whether humans or nature is the cause of detrimental climate change, or whether climate change is a real problem?

Just to bring this question back into the fold.

If we intend to debate climate change on UKAPS (!?), we must surely understand the problem. And that means some form of consensus around a) is climate change occurring and b) is climate change a problem for the planet as a whole.

I know that is infuriating for the educated, opinionated and experienced - but start somewhere and get a base to move onto!

 

[Guest]

But it does, it would require thousands of scientists all over the world to falsify their data, much of which data are publically available as it is collected in real time by remote sensing.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records - committee on science and space technology press release
This is essentially the claim that underpins most climate denialism - that the quality of the data is insufficient to justify such dramatic responses. People should focus more I think on arguing why that's not the case. There are both very good and very bad rebuttals available to some of the material that was published about the NOAA data and the Karl study.

That may well be true (particularly in the social sciences), but to suggest that is the case at all these Universities and Government bodies just isn't credible.

I should be clear that I'm not suggesting it's the case in all universities or government bodies but the fact that it happens at all within educational institutions is troubling to me. And makes me much more wary of accepting "the concensus" full stop. I'm certain it does for other people too.

 

[hypnogogia]

Are we debating about whether humans or nature is the cause of detrimental climate change, or whether climate change is a real problem?

I’ve lost track, especially as the OP was about ‘Just stop oil’ protestors.

 

[Little]

(Edit: removed a line.)
This is more off putting than off topic for a plant forum.

 

[Bradders]

This thread is bonkers , O best beloveds.

It has touched upon oil, politics, environmental destruction (all integrated) and more. If you have a trigger point, it hits it. Personally, I am somewhat tired of refreshing my screen to see the top discussion on UKAPS is this. Just close the thread, love each other and move on. It's a tremendously broad debate, but without any structure and purpose, it is literally a place to breed resentment and 'what I think is more right than what you think, and here is the evidence to support what I think'.

This whole thread is basically an argument for 'remove man, and the earth survives'. Or, at a minimum, 'if man can contain himself, then the earth will survive'. You have seen 'Man' right?

 

[simon_the_plant_nerd]

I am involved in the economics of the energy transition and I had to produce written reports for the scottish government on exactly these "full lifecycle" analyses

Interesting. We may well cross paths in our professional lives at some point. 👍🏻

heavily manipulated to give whatever result is desired

Substantially. You really do need to be able to read between the lines and identify when someone is having your pants down.

Even just actually reading through various "full lifecycle" carbon reports you'll quickly get a sense for how the methodologies are manipulated to produce whatever the desired result is.

Yep. Anyone reading through some of the linked articles in this forum thread will have noticed a common theme.

I promise you that the scottish government are paradoxically both particularly guilty of and complicit in this kind of greenwashing while also being staggeringly naive and ignorant about it

I shall take your word for it. Greenwashing is certainly a problem and a topic relevant to my day job.

I’m not interested in picking fights on a forum. I just happen to know something or other about wind farms and new energy transition in general and found this off-off-topic discussion interesting. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, I know a little about a lot which is perfect for my work.

I shall go back to listening to vinyl records and watching people play classic computer games fast on YouTube and leave this discussion to those people who know better.

 

[Bradders]

I shall go back to listening to vinyl records and watching people play classic computer games fast on YouTube and leave this discussion to those people who know better.

No you won't.

 

[simon_the_plant_nerd]

No you won't.

Sorry mate, I’m watching a particularly spicy speed run of Super Mario.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing your experience @louis_last. It’s similar to that of my own. Climate science has become highly emotive and polarised. Trying to find middle ground is very difficult. Accordingly, discussion usually degenerates in to a slanging match fairly rapidly.

Darrel @dw1305, I’m not trying to play anyone. Throughout this entire discussion I’ve tried to lay out the alternative argument as logically and coherently and politely as possible. I may have mentioned before science doesn’t exist in a vacuum, least of all climate research. By its very nature it is ideologically bias. Accordingly, I have nothing left to offer other than philosophy.

You yourself obviously have very strongly held beliefs based on what you consider to be sound science. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what you’ve been saying all along is that science in support of anthropogenic climate change is sound and to be believed without question. Whilst science that prescribes to an alternative hypothesis is politically motivated and therefore junk, despite rigorous peer review.

Surely you can’t have it both ways. Scientific rigour either works for all or it works for no one. Scientific double standards lead to inconsistencies and unfair treatment of non-dominant groups, and marginalisation of research that does not conform to the official narrative.

Scientists must be skeptical of their own work and that of others. It’s essential if they are to remain objective and consider all possibilities fairly. However. I’m sure you’ll agree it’s a fine line between healthy scepticism and bias. Being sceptical of everything that speaks to an alternative hypothesis, despite rigour, could be interpreted as a sign of bias. And before that’s thrown right back at me, I can see both sides, including shades of grey in between.

 

[Guest]

Yep. Anyone reading through some of the linked articles in this forum thread will have noticed a common theme.

I think there are several.

I’m not interested in picking fights on a forum. I just happen to know something or other about wind farms and new energy transition in general and found this off-off-topic discussion interesting. I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, I know a little about a lot which is perfect for my work.

I shall go back to listening to vinyl records and watching people play classic computer games fast on YouTube and leave this discussion to those people who know better.

I hope you didn't interpret my message as trying to pick a fight with you or shut you down? It seems like we agree about how vulnerable the full lifecycle analyses are to manipulation. I just have too much experience with 'whole/full lifecyce" carbon analysis to give any comparisons based on it much credibility without seeing the analysis myself. I don't know what your experience with the scottish government is but please do take my word for it that I could produce two full lifecycle carbon impact reports with directly opposite conclusions for the same project and as long as I used the correct buzzwords the scottish government would accept either result uncritically and celebrate me as a climate hero.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing your experience @louis_last. It’s similar to that of my own. Climate science has become highly emotive and polarised. Trying to find middle ground is very difficult. Accordingly, discussion usually degenerates in to a slanging match fairly rapidly.

I don't know why people are aften so uncomfortable having these discussions. They're necessary and important regardless of which side of the fence you're coming down on and people need to realise that "it's settled science!" just isn't cutting it any more - or that even if the science is "settled" that just doesn't cut it for winning hearts and minds.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Just close the thread, love each other and move on.

Point taken and this really is my last post, much more in sorrow than in anger.

Darrel @dw1305, I’m not trying to play anyone.

All you have to do is "show us the money". Produce a single reference, in a reputable peer reviewed journal, from the 2020's which <"doesn't show a link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global climatic change">. Either you can, or you can't.

Throughout this entire discussion I’ve tried to lay out the alternative argument as logically and coherently and politely as possible.

You haven't, you've obfuscated, you've produced data from <"totally discredited sources">, you've implied that this is part of the <"culture wars">, not science. There are no alternative facts, just truth and lies.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what you’ve been saying all along is that science in support of anthropogenic climate change is sound

You are right, it is sound and <"more data"> is accumulating all the time. <"CO2 levels are rising">, <"sea level is rising">, <"glaciers are melting">, <"global temperatures are rising"> .......

and to be believed without question.

Science moves forward by trying to <"falsify the present theory">, "believe without question" is exactly what it doesn't do - <"Karl Popper: The Line Between Science and Pseudoscience">.

cheers Darrel