The advantages of using fossil fuels

mmmmikey

JKenH wrote: »

Whilst a 1-2 C rise in average temperature may have no obvious impact on how we go about our day to day lives in the UK (working, sleeping, eating and recreation) it will affect other parts of the world and that may impact us indirectly and there will be a rise in sea level which will directly impact on the UK. It may also affect our ecosystems. The predictions are though there will be more extreme weather events hence more heatwaves.

It's worse than that, Ken, if I'm folloiwng the argument, some poor sod is going to find themself living somewhere like Wales......


(Martyn - this is your chance to add a witty comment - I think this thread is somewhat beyond anything too serious now. BTW I've lost the plot a little bit, can you remind me which country was on fire?)

JKenH

mmmmikey wrote: »

It's worse than that, Ken, if I'm folloiwng the argument, some poor sod is going to find themself living somewhere like Wales......


(Martyn - this is your chance to add a witty comment - I think this thread is somewhat beyond anything too serious now. BTW I've lost the plot a little bit, can you remind me which country was on fire?)

It is Mart’s house that is on fire so one of us needs to offer him a home before the day is out. Any takers?

No chance of Mart moving in with me as my house will soon be under a metre of sea water. Maybe Mart can take me and Nick in once he has put his fire out. You coming along as well?😀

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Sorry, Mart, you are wrong about our house already being on fire. That is pure hyperbole. If temperatures suddenly stabilised at current levels everything would be ok. There is no intention to reduce temperatures below present levels. The fire is on its way but it is not here yet.

Nope, not hyperbole. Denial that AGW is already serious is just daft, plus of course, it will get much worse as we can't halt CO2 emissions today.

In fact, at 10.06am today, you've posted an article that climate change is now irreversible:

JKenH wrote: »

I originally posted this under the fossil fuels thread by mistake so have moved it here.

I can now see why you needed to move it.

Seems like you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.

JKenH wrote: »

You rail all the time about the US policy of Trump denying AGW -are you saying he is now on side?

You seem to be arguing against yourself? I've stressed the need for all to act, hiding behind the actions of one (soon to be impeached) President, is weak even by your standards.

Seems like you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.

JKenH wrote: »

You are obviously more confident that the big emitters like the US will fall in line and do their bit. My premise and I think that of Nick’s was that they might not do this hence the need for mitigation. (An article I posted today from the Telegraph suggests it may now be too late to prevent the dire consequences of AGW). Where this money comes from is a political matter. Either we pay more taxes (which actually depresses the economy and reduces the amount available) or we find the money from elsewhere.

Again you seem to be hiding behind a mix of spin and denial. Firstly that the US won't act, but they are, despite Trump, and secondly that everything we do, and what is done by all the other countries that are acting do, will make the issue less harmful going forward. Not fine, not nice, pretty flippin awful, but less flippin awful thanks to all and any action.

Also you now seem to be arguing against yourself (first para), since the issue is already clearly bad, and could get worse if 'bad actors' like Trump get their way. So more action is needed not less, since US emissions don't respect national boundaries.

Seems like you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.

JKenH wrote: »

You asked me to put some meat on the bones of the mitigation point and explain what we should do. I gave you an example of getting more PV powered cooling into hospitals and old people’s homes. I am not aware that you had proposed anything like this but then you include in your manifesto
‘and protection against current heatwaves ....emphasis on the already 'current' heatwaves, which will only get worse if we do less, just like I've been suggesting we do.’
I suggest that maybe we need to provide aircon for the vulnerable who are most at risk from the heatwaves we are getting and which will only get worse and suddenly you claim protection against current heatwaves has been part of your spending plan all along.

To be clear, your argument was to reduce current spending on policies and action, and put it instead towards mitigation:

JKenH wrote: »

Nick has been arguing that we need to also consider mitigation measures as we cannot rely on the rest of the world to deliver on its obligations even if we do but as that does not fit with the message it is derided.

So, let's reduce the amount of money we put towards emission reductions via the rollout of RE generation, and the efforts we are making to reduce emissions from transport and space heating, and instead, invest it in PV and ASHP's! :rotfl:

As I said, empty words, no meat on the bones, just a circular argument that actually supports what is already happening. It's almost like you panicked, it's almost as if you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

It's worse than that, Ken, if I'm folloiwng the argument, some poor sod is going to find themself living somewhere like Wales......


(Martyn - this is your chance to add a witty comment - I think this thread is somewhat beyond anything too serious now. BTW I've lost the plot a little bit, can you remind me which country was on fire?)

Brazil and Siberia and the US (California) off the top of my head. But obviously the fire reference was just a metaphor.

BTW, lots of hills in Wales, so you are all welcome, but the Cardiff bowl is going to struggle. In fact where I walk the dog(s), most of it is below spring tide height. It's slightly odd to walk around a lake, with flood defences a short way away's that are a good 3m higher. :eek:

Yep thread comical, but what would most rational science followers expect when it starts off with such a big joke?

Martyn1981

Just a thought, regarding the US, and the somewhat desperate conclusion that makes it OK for us to do less. We should look to the States, or to some of the States, Cities and Mayors, whose immediate reaction to Trump's announcement that he was going to pull the US out of the Paris Accord (and his subsequent work to undermine FF reductions), was to raise their game and up their reductions.

Basically, when they saw that everyone, including themselves, would suffer more, they didn't take the attitude 'well why should I bother then', but instead started to work towards fixing the problem, or at least helping.

'Helping' - I wonder if deniers even know how to do that, or what it even means?

A year after Trump exited the Paris Climate Accord, here's how states are going even further

• The Trump Administration exited the Paris Climate Agreement exactly one year ago.
  
• This short-sighted decision was opposed by more than 550 state legislators from 45 states with a total population of over 298 million constituents.
  
• Here's how states are taking action in lieu of the federal government.

GreatApe

JKenH wrote: »

Whilst a 1-2 C rise in average temperature may have no obvious impact on how we go about our day to day lives in the UK (working, sleeping, eating and recreation) it will affect other parts of the world and that may impact us indirectly and there will be a rise in sea level which will directly impact on the UK. It may also affect our ecosystems. The predictions are though there will be more extreme weather events hence more heatwaves.

There is no reason to believe there will be more extreme weather events

Also thanks to the wealth enabled by fossil fuels and free market capatilism, nature's negative events are much much less destructive. Deaths due to famine flood epidemics etc are down something like 99% comparing today to 100 years ago

Likewise thanks to the continued use of fossil fuels humanity is developing at an amazing rate which will means nature's negatives will be even less of a problem in the future.

Economic development is a million times more important than the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And fossil fuels have been and are still today and at least for a couple more decades, economic enablers

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope, not hyperbole. Denial that AGW is already serious is just daft, plus of course, it will get much worse as we can't halt CO2 emissions today.

In fact, at 10.06am today, you've posted an article that climate change is now irreversible:



I can now see why you needed to move it.

Seems like you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.




You seem to be arguing against yourself? I've stressed the need for all to act, hiding behind the actions of one (soon to be impeached) President, is weak even by your standards.

Seems like you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.




Again you seem to be hiding behind a mix of spin and denial. Firstly that the US won't act, but they are, despite Trump, and secondly that everything we do, and what is done by all the other countries that are acting do, will make the issue less harmful going forward. Not fine, not nice, pretty flippin awful, but less flippin awful thanks to all and any action.

Also you now seem to be arguing against yourself (first para), since the issue is already clearly bad, and could get worse if 'bad actors' like Trump get their way. So more action is needed not less, since US emissions don't respect national boundaries.

Seems like you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.




To be clear, your argument was to reduce current spending on policies and action, and put it instead towards mitigation:

So, let's reduce the amount of money we put towards emission reductions via the rollout of RE generation, and the efforts we are making to reduce emissions from transport and space heating, and instead, invest it in PV and ASHP's! :rotfl:

As I said, empty words, no meat on the bones, just a circular argument that actually supports what is already happening. It's almost like you panicked, it's almost as if you are trying to argue both sides at the same time, or to put it another way, just argue.

No substance at all in that response Mart, just bluster and trying to twist round what I had posted as usual, dragging in quotes from earlier posts.

The whole argument was that you had asked me to put some meat on the bones of how we might mitigate. I put forward a policy which might save thousands of lives by targeting roll out of aircon units powered by solar PV to the elderly, old people’s homes and hospitals. Instead of acknowledging that might be a positive thing you claim it is already happening - really? No what happened was the government encouraged, on the whole wealthier, people to buy solar panels and gave them a big chunk of money that (with hindsight) might have been better targeted. I am not aware of any initiative to get aircon units with PV in to the homes of the elderly, care homes or hospitals so don’t claim it is already happening.

Instead of RE -really did I say that? No

To be clear, your argument was to reduce current spending on policies and action, and put it instead towards mitigation: - no I didn’t say that either.

I moved the post about climate change being irreversible to the news thread because that is what it was. I had forgotten I was in the fossil fuels thread when I posted it. To read anything in to that just shows how suspicious you are. ( I almost used another adjective).

Three times you say that I am arguing both sides at the same time. For me it isn’t about choosing sides so I have no trouble making both sides of an argument. I can post an article that says climate change is irreversible and another one that suggests we still need some FF in our grid. I have an open mind and am receptive to both sides of an argument. That sadly is a concept I don’t think you will ever understand.

What did you say about one of my posts?

And yet another rude, insulting, mocking and untrue post

Well that just about sums up your response.

Edit: hopefully, Mart, we can leave it there as we have both made our points and anything else is just arguing. Ken

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

No substance at all in that response Mart, just bluster and trying to twist round what I had posted as usual, dragging in quotes from earlier posts.

The whole argument was that you had asked me to put some meat on the bones of how we might mitigate. I put forward a policy which might save thousands of lives by targeting roll out of aircon units powered by solar PV to the elderly, old people’s homes and hospitals. Instead of acknowledging that might be a positive thing you claim it is already happening - really? No what happened was the government encouraged, on the whole wealthier, people to buy solar panels and gave them a big chunk of money that (with hindsight) might have been better targeted. I am not aware of any initiative to get aircon units with PV in to the homes of the elderly, care homes or hospitals so don’t claim it is already happening.

Instead of RE -really did I say that? No

To be clear, your argument was to reduce current spending on policies and action, and put it instead towards mitigation: - no I didn’t say that either.

I moved the post about climate change being irreversible to the news thread because that is what it was. I had forgotten I was in the fossil fuels thread when I posted it. To read anything in to that just shows how suspicious you are. ( I almost used another adjective).

Three times you say that I am arguing both sides at the same time. For me it isn’t about choosing sides so I have no trouble making both sides of an argument. I can post an article that says climate change is irreversible and another one that suggests we still need some FF in our grid. I have an open mind and am receptive to both sides of an argument. That sadly is a concept I don’t think you will ever understand.

What did you say about one of my posts?

And yet another rude, insulting, mocking and untrue post

Well that just about sums up your response.

Edit: hopefully, Mart, we can leave it there as we have both made our points and anything else is just arguing. Ken

The best you come up with to maintain yet another one of your pointless arguments was to suggest we change from what we are doing today, and instead do what we are doing today.

Seems like a load of ducking, diving and spin just to argue.

Also, are you sure you mean we should do mitigation 'instead', as it's mitigation that we are doing? Perhaps you mean adaptation, but I suspect you don't know what you are arguing about, you just need to argue, as always.

Your attempts to hide behind actions by Trump seem to support the claims by many other posters challenging your morality and/or suggesting you are trolling. Add on the fact that you yourself admit that you have been trawling me all across MSE, and I'm left wondering why you can't find a better hobby, and stop spoiling the G&E threads for all.

1961Nick

Ken does have a point Mart, you do have a habit of attacking the person rather than the bones of their argument when you don't agree with the points being mooted. It's not just candid digs either, it's usually a full on frontal assault which totally skews the thread away from the topic.

I fully understand your passion for renewables, but often your method does end up undermining your cause. Putting Ken in the same 'box' as say Trump is frankly ridiculous, in reality he's only slightly less signed up to the cause than you are ... as are many of the contributors that you casually tag as "deniers".

Being personal, but in positive way, Ken probably has 'greener' credentials than anyone else on this board. I'd wager than his personal carbon emissions are net negative & that should be a reason for celebration not derision.

GreatApe

Another thread going down the shutter because of Marty holy crusade

Can you stick to the topic

I'm sure you can think of many reasons for why fossil fuels are still dominant useful and necessary you yourself drive an oil car l, use a gas boiler, are reliant on a national grid which can't work without CCGTs, use plastics and other oil derivatives.

The modern world exists thanks to fossil fuels
Fossil fuels and the real industrial revolution that happened post 1945 thanks to coal power stations and the electric motor enabling mass manufacturing

Fossil fuels were a blessing are a blessing and will continue to be a blessing for a long time

To deny this is to deny reality