The Alternative Green Energy Thread

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I did see a study that has shown it is now at 99% consensus...

Apparently it was 100% consensus in 2004.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

I think the 97% quoted by NASA is from the Cook/Oreskes et al report.

That report is one of several in the links.

I dunno Ken, you say "I don’t know the future so I am reliant on what the scientists predict" yet you seem to refuse to read any.

You say "My own view is that we have theories about the future but no hard facts as to what our world will be like in 30 years time so keep an open mind which lets me change my view as I learn more."

Yet studies have shown that the various climate predictions made in the past have been very accurate. To be fair, perhaps you haven't seen that one, though it was big news? Here is a NASA link:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Some people seem to revel in their ignorance, I guess they would say that they are just not interested. However, in your case you have installed various green technologies are you are contributing regularly on a Green/Sustainabilty forum, so I have to assume you're interested enough in the subject matter to educate yourself? So ignore the trash on youtube (from both sides of the argument) and look at reputable science sites like NASA.

Or don't, if you're not interested.

JKenH

They are getting better at the modelling.

ABrass

JKenH wrote: »

Not pretending that at all. The link you provided also just refers to her as Naomi Oreskes. I was just going with the convention on here to refer to important people such as the POTUS by their surnames.

Except where you use 'Ms'. Which you do frequently. If you just used her surname that's different.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

.....you are contributing regularly on a Green/Sustainabilty forum, so I have to assume you're interested enough in the subject matter to educate yourself?

Or don't, if you're not interested.

I see it more as a forum for those interested in saving money using green technology.

As I stated when starting this thread
“The intention of the thread is that green energy issues can be discussed in an open and less prescriptive manner.”

I also added

“ To avoid some of the acrimony that has arisen on the original thread could I request please that contributors endeavour to be courteous in their posts and their language and avoid pejorative comments”.

I’m just a little concerned that some of the comments are veering away from the issues and becoming a little more personal, perhaps judgemental or critical. Please forgive me if I don’t respond to comments such as those, for instance about what I should and shouldn’t look at on the internet.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone posting a view that conflicts with my own but I would ask, please, that contributors, if disagreeing, try not to make it personal or judgemental of me or any other individual and remain courteous and respectful to each other.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

I see it more as a forum for those interested in saving money using green technology.

Oh come now Ken. If that were true then you would just confine yourself to offering advice to newbies about solar panels, EV cars and heat pumps. Not many MSE forum members can afford nuclear power stations, whether or not they could be money saving. You also wouldn’t involve yourself with climate change discussions, etc.

joefizz

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Our current project is turning our back garden into an 'edible garden', inspired by a BBC program of the same name where the presenter grew food in her London garden. It's amazing how much you can grow when you're there every day to coddle the plants with weeding and pest removal. You don't have to turn your garden into an ugly allotment either, a lot of edible plants have attractive foliage or flowers. A favourite of mine is the Jerusalem Artichoke (see picture below) which looks great, tastes nice and is really good for your gut health.

Funnily enough I started doing the same thing late last year but too late to make a difference, although saying that all my mint tea since then has been made with my own mint and all my champ/colcannon has been with my own scallions/kale and all the champ/mash in my freezer is from my own crop of spuds.
Ive never tasted rocket like the stuff I grow in the garden! Havent bought bagged salad since last year!

Ive apple cakes frozen (and apple/halloween beer) made from my own apples and I have to give kg of raspberries away every year. The birds get most of the blackcurrants/redcurrants but theres certainly enough produced for me never to buy jam ever again (ok maybe the sugar but Ireland has just started producing sugar beet again so at least in future that should be from the same island).
Planted gooseberry and blueberry bushes last year as well.


Other than the spuds and the elder trees most of that is done in only 5m2 which Im going to double this year and bought one of those larger plastic greenhouses late last year but too late to get the tomatoes and peppers past slug eating stage. Will probably expand that this year.


All of it fertilised with gardeners tea ;-) and instead of putting the kitchen/garden waste in the brown bin its going into a compost heap so may not have to buy that this year.


Of course all of this takes space but I agree with you, its certainly doable in a smallish garden.

joefizz

JKenH wrote: »

What if the ‘deniers’ are right and more CO2 might really be not so bad after all?

To slightly turn that point, this is my real concern and why Im of the mind that weve gone well past the point of no return.
There is evidence that the CO2 levels have been mitigating climate change in that we should be in/entering a cooling cycle but the CO2 effect (and others) has been mitigating it.
Im afraid Obi Wan or Dr Zharkov wont be able to help us when it turns back to a warming cycle.


Either way I personally think weve done too much damage already and notice that the press is turning more towards reporting mitigation measures rather than reversal.

GreatApe

ABrass wrote: »

repeated studies.

You need repeated experiments not studies. Studies are mostly nonsense propaganda

Many studies show the massive harm and cost of coal power generation

Yet when you do the actual experiment, shut down almost all your coal useage, eg UK, guess how much the coal savings were for the NHS......... somewhere between zero and negligible

EVandPV

GreatApe wrote: »

Studies are mostly nonsense propaganda

You must study really hard !