Just Stop Oil Protesters

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Indeed, Darrel, it's not funny at all.

<"No, it isn't">.

I'm always amazed when I talk to older people and they are dubious. I mean we lived through the winters between 1978 and 1986 (and some of them through 1963 & 1947) as well, but I think it is sliding baseline to some degree. Personally I can remember February 1986, it remained below freezing for the entire month and <"December 1981 / January 1982"> were so cold it killed the Gorse (Ulex europaeus) bushes and the snow didn't melt until March. Purely selfishly I'm certainly hoping to never see that again.

I went on holiday to Cephalonia at the end of May (call me a hypocrite, I don't mind), it was already in the mid 30oC <"2024 European heatwaves - Wikipedia">, and they hadn't had any cold weather all winter.

cheers Darrel

 

[Guest]

For sure, the arguments for global warming are well established and very convincing. They’ve become culturally entrenched and accepted without question, and therefore dogmatic.

Accordingly, any dissent is usually met with incredulity and indignant rage, or both, and immediately shut down, along with any scientific enquiry in to alternative hypothesis. It means science has effectively been reduced to ideology.

Climate changes, it’s what it does, and it can change rapidly and has done many times in the past. I’m pretty convinced the main driver of climate change is not anthropogenic CO2. Either way, I doubt very much CO2 or climate change are existential threats to the planet and humanity. In fact I think quite the opposite.

For instance, the 3rd and final medieval Renaissance, coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was the first great age of civilisation. It was a time of plenty, crops flourished, leading to robust population growth. This in turn greatly benefited the economy and Western Europe became socially and politically organised. It was also a time of many other transformations and saw the intellectual revitalisation of science, art, literature and philosophy.

Neither do we need to invest trillions of dollars inventing new and interesting ways of reducing CO2. Nature already has the answer. Plant more trees. Invest the money in rewilding, nature recovery networks, and connectivity on a landscape scale.

This will secure all sorts of goods and services, clean air, clean water, flood alleviation, promote biodiversity, and climate resilience. And reduce levels of atmospheric CO2, if that’s important to you.

Further, rapid economic growth in developing nations and agricultural intensification are key to reducing all polluting emissions, and releasing land to secure the above goods and services for people throughout the world.

Rapid economic growth will in turn result in better health care, education, and freedom from war and oppression, poverty and famine. There will no longer be any need to have large families as insurance against ill health and old age, and the world popn. will fall and stabilise reducing our impact on the planet. It's a proven model, in developed western nations there is already a birth dearth.

But there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of political will to actually do this. Probably because it’s not a very good taxation or revenue stream.

So far I’ve read a lot of useless research based on climate models that do not work. Dates for the end of the world, economic meltdown and the end of humanity have come and gone and we’re still here.

Some climate scientists are realising the game is up and admitting that it ain't going to be so bad after all. That’s a step in the right direction. If you want to know more, read the article I posted above.

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

Hello all, I'll start by saying I've a masters in Environmental Management from a Russell Group University and have several years of post graduate ecological research under my belt, along with stints as an ecological consultant, conservation officer and lecturer and teacher. No doubt global warming is a thing, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it has anything to do with us.

For those that are interested, this is a decent summary of the alternative argument to the usual alarmist rhetoric...

Sun Rising Over Global Warming - Carbon Dioxide Debate

The apocalyptic predictions of anthropogenic global warming has been completely overblown, along with corresponding villainization of CO2.

www.volunteerlatinamerica.com

I don’t care about the reasons for global warming. I care about breathing clean air and the greater environment. Burning and spilling Oil has done incredible damage to our planet and shortened the lives of millions of people. Arguing about the reasons for Global Warming just plays into the hands of the multi Trillion Dollar Oil Industry.

 

[hypnogogia]

Could it be that we are facing a double whammy: a naturally warming period as climate is cyclical and we have had warmer periods before, compounded by increasing levels of CO2 which is a greenhouse gas? The latter point I don't think is in any way up for debate any more.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

a naturally warming period as climate is cyclical

That is still unanswered as a question, but this covers the science <"Before global warming, was the Earth cooling down or heating up?">.

cheers Darrel

 

[hypnogogia]

Cyclical in so far as we have historically had warmer and cooler periods...

 

[Guest]

I don’t care about the reasons for global warming. I care about breathing clean air and the greater environment. Burning and spilling Oil has done incredible damage to our planet and shortened the lives of millions of people. Arguing about the reasons for Global Warming just plays into the hands of the multi Trillion Dollar Oil Industry.

What’s the alternative to hydrocarbons?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

It means science has effectively been reduced to ideology.

You just can't say that. Speaking as a scientist (although <"not a very good one">), science is founded on attempting to <"falsify the accepted view">.

It was <"J. B. S Haldane"> who, when asked "what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution " replied <"Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian">.

Which would be good enough for me as well, at that point you've "shown me the money". It is back to <"Karl Popper">

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

<"Tim Hovanec"> reviews both his research and later advances in <"https://www.drtimsaquatics.com/wp-c...ification-in-Marine-Aquaria-3-parts-CORAL.pdf"> and he acknowledges that the past is a different country.

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Cyclical in so far as we have historically had warmer and cooler periods...

This get a run-out here: <"Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming - NASA Science"> & <"Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate - NASA Science">.

cheers Darrel

 

[Little]

Regarding alternatives….

Those of us with privilege have solar thermal and photovoltaic, one day wind (I have my eye on a roof turbine) and buying from energy providers using nuclear. I hear some biofuels made from recycling plants are starting to roll out. I hate waste so that makes sense to me.

Also I swapped the use of my car for the bicycle (I have the privilege of being physically able and safe cycle paths in my town).

I’m not defending the JSO people or disparaging anyone with alternative views…. I just personally love nature and no matter how minor, would like to try and do a little less harm to it. I’m really aware that these alternatives are not accessible to most of humanity.

 

[Maf 2500]

Everything is subject to change
We could builds Utopias if individuals were taught to use their brains
But if we teach kids in schools to always be sheep
And put themselves before the herd if there’s more money for me

Then there’s no future I see, where the humans survive
We're parasites inside a petri dish with cannibal minds
Mould will grow upon a surface, then consumes till it dies
And our fate could be the same without this story to the wise

Ren - Money Game Part 3

 

[Guest]

You just can't say that. Speaking as a scientist (although <"not a very good one">), science is founded on attempting to <"falsify the accepted view">.

I can, and I have. That’s because it’s fundamentally true. It’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Also, from a post a few years ago…

Nice article, and I agree with much of it, although I think there is more than enough hubris on both sides to go around. But, I guess for me it’s not really that simple. The demarkation problem, or where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience, is a philosophical debate that has gone on for millennia and still continues despite Karl Pooper’s contribution.

I’m of the view that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it’s a political, economic and cultural artefact. As such I don’t really blame science or scientists per se. And, I think that on the whole current scientific method still serves us well but it’s often exploited for political gain or other vested interests, sometimes by scientists themselves.

Scientist, particularly those eminent in their field of endeavour, can exhibit dogmatic devotion to paradigms, often those they have invested heavily in throughout their careers. They act as gate keepers and tellingly well overdue paradigm shifts sometimes don’t occur until after they have died.

In that sense, at least, current scientific method doesn’t necessarily follow Popper’s philosophy. In that successful attempts to falsify an existing paradigm can be and are swept under the carpet, or are often brutally attacked.

And to quote German physicist, Max Planck, ‘science advances one funeral at a time’…

 

[greenbliss]

Let's say climate change is false

If we restored nature, restored our food supply, our air, our water, would that really be a bad thing in the end either way? It wouldn't be all for nothing because we'd have a better world either way.

 

[greenbliss]

For sure, the arguments for global warming are well established and very convincing. They’ve become culturally entrenched and accepted without question, and therefore dogmatic.

Accordingly, any dissent is usually met with incredulity and indignant rage, or both, and immediately shut down, along with any scientific enquiry in to alternative hypothesis. It means science has effectively been reduced to ideology.

Climate changes, it’s what it does, and it can change rapidly and has done many times in the past. I’m pretty convinced the main driver of climate change is not anthropogenic CO2. Either way, I doubt very much CO2 or climate change are existential threats to the planet and humanity. In fact I think quite the opposite.

For instance, the 3rd and final medieval Renaissance, coincided with the Medieval Warm Period. It was the first great age of civilisation. It was a time of plenty, crops flourished, leading to robust population growth. This in turn greatly benefited the economy and Western Europe became socially and politically organised. It was also a time of many other transformations and saw the intellectual revitalisation of science, art, literature and philosophy.

Neither do we need to invest trillions of dollars inventing new and interesting ways of reducing CO2. Nature already has the answer. Plant more trees. Invest the money in rewilding, nature recovery networks, and connectivity on a landscape scale.

This will secure all sorts of goods and services, clean air, clean water, flood alleviation, promote biodiversity, and climate resilience. And reduce levels of atmospheric CO2, if that’s important to you.

Further, rapid economic growth in developing nations and agricultural intensification are key to reducing all polluting emissions, and releasing land to secure the above goods and services for people throughout the world.

Rapid economic growth will in turn result in better health care, education, and freedom from war and oppression, poverty and famine. There will no longer be any need to have large families as insurance against ill health and old age, and the world popn. will fall and stabilise reducing our impact on the planet. It's a proven model, in developed western nations there is already a birth dearth.

But there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of political will to actually do this. Probably because it’s not a very good taxation or revenue stream.

So far I’ve read a lot of useless research based on climate models that do not work. Dates for the end of the world, economic meltdown and the end of humanity have come and gone and we’re still here.

Some climate scientists are realising the game is up and admitting that it ain't going to be so bad after all. That’s a step in the right direction. If you want to know more, read the article I posted above.

Talking about Agriculture I made a post about some bread growing collective recently that found out they can get away with only nitrogen (Haber bosch, nitrogen pulled from air?) and have the P and K come from natural soil processes. Its really quite interesting because it combines both the hippy dippy approach and the more modern scientific approach? Best of both worlds? Makes sense since P and K fertilisers literally are made from rocks that don't grow back... Meanwhile haber bosch can continue forever if we have the energy grid.

I wonder if we can apply a best of both worlds approach to other things in life. I mean fossils fuels are literally a finite resource no? You are literally a part of nature, a biological machine, how can we expect to keep living in a synthetic world. Doesn't make sense does it.

Its like the world needs politician scientists... hmmm

 

[Guest]

Nuclear energy.

 

[AlecF]

A visit to Orkney is always instructive. They produce over 100% of their own energy, and yet Westminster refused them a new undersea cable to export. Or the Isle of Eigg, which has its own energy network, of necessity. And Tim, the good thing is you aren't being shut down, just gently disagreed with, by most comments, and almost all the science. Personally when I see the politicians who query global warning it would give me pause for thought.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

That’s because it’s fundamentally true.

I'd stand by what I wrote in 2020 - <"Climate change (Why do PFK bother with blogs?)">, if anything <"alternative facts"> are a bigger issue now than they were in 2020.

People can choose to believe what they like, but I think it is fairly unlikely there is a global conspiracy amongst scientists to falsify the role of CO2 in global warming, although there maybe other operators attempting to muddy the water - <"AI could create a perfect storm of climate misinformation">.

I appreciate that correlation isn't causation, but the correlation of <"global CO2 levels and global temperature"> looks a pretty good one to me.

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

out they can get away with only nitrogen (Haber bosch, nitrogen pulled from air?)

The Haber (Bosch) process was originally developed <"not for agriculture">, but to provide the feed stock for explosive manufacture.

Before that we had to get by with the <"fixed nitrogen"> from natural processes (mainly fixation by legumes (via their <"symbiotic microbes">) & lightning strikes).

and have the P and K come from natural soil processes

They do, phosphorus (P) is simultaneously a <"rare and declining resource"> and the major cause of eutrophication in both aquatic and terrestrial situations.

You would eventually run-out of phosphate PO4---, but it is estimated that in the UK, it would <"take a thousand years"> for the phosphate reserve to be be depleted back to background levels. There is no atmospheric component to either global phosphorus, or potassium (K), cycles.

Potassium will deplete more rapidly, just due to its valency (K+) as an ion, meaning it isn't strongly bound via CEC and the solubility of potassium compounds.

There are caveats to this, 2:1 clay minerals (the ones that <"make your house subside">) behave as a huge, renewable potassium reservoir.

cheers Darrel

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

What’s the alternative to hydrocarbons?

Do we need one? Or could we just do a better job with those we currently use. You need to be more specific.

 

[Aqua sobriquet]

Let's say climate change is false

If we restored nature, restored our food supply, our air, our water, would that really be a bad thing in the end either way? It wouldn't be all for nothing because we'd have a better world either way.