Yes, global warming was the worry until global cooling started 1940, according to leading academics, NASA, and the CIA - all of whom said we were on the brink of a disastrous ice age. Then...oops...global warming started in the 70's instead of an ice age. Who knows what they will be saying in a few years.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Yes, global warming was the worry until global cooling started 1940, according to leading academics, NASA, and the CIA - all of whom said we were on the brink of a disastrous ice age. Then...oops...global warming started in the 70's instead of an ice age. Who knows what they will be saying in a few years.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Another example of the ignorant voting with their biases and against their interests.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This is a popular denier myth that has been debunked many times. Of course, you probably are a true believer in the myth so I won't bother to post the facts. If you do want facts, you can googleit.
I read the article AND the study it was based on and thought it was interesting and relevant information (simple fact heat makes us tired and irritable), though I'm not sure I can share it to others I know because I'm not confident in the correlation of Southern states voting habits and these affect areas from the study. Now if I knew what percentages of these industries were being affected in the Southern states listed, I wouldn't mind connecting it to the "red" votes.
And
mspohr
Well-Known Member
'From coal to clean' – UK does not need to turn to gas, says WWF
'From coal to clean' – UK does not need to turn to gas, says WWF
WWF predicts that UK can skip gas and go directly to renewables as it shuts down coal. Need to add on shore wind and solar.
'From coal to clean' – UK does not need to turn to gas, says WWF
WWF predicts that UK can skip gas and go directly to renewables as it shuts down coal. Need to add on shore wind and solar.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The UK has such a tremendous off-shore wind resource, it makes sense to develop it in earnest. As for diversification, more links to the scandinavian (Norwegian) clean energy market is a much better idea than dirty, Russian controlled NG.
This
North Sea Offshore Grid - Wikipedia
is the way to go. Hopefully the UK's dalliance with trumpism does not scuttle the project.
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It is simply fascinating to read Norway's plans to use their massive hydro as an electricity storage mechanism for clean energy. It apparently is enough to facilitate the transition to clean energy for all of Northern Europe.
As someone else mentioned, the climate change denier myth is scientists were predicting cooling in the 1970s. The vast majority were predicting warming back in the 1970s, but the few cooling predictions were more interesting, so they got publicity.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
Found this article informative and concerning.
Someone, somewhere, is making a banned chemical that destroys the ozone layer, scientists suspect
I have not sensed this in the press/media since the seventies, that I recall.
Someone, somewhere, is making a banned chemical that destroys the ozone layer, scientists suspect
I have not sensed this in the press/media since the seventies, that I recall.
DragonWatch
Small FootPrint
From the depths of the frozen north ~ the "iceman cometh."
‘Impossible to Ignore’: Why Alaska Is Crafting a Plan to Fight Climate Change
Too little, too late or . . .
‘Impossible to Ignore’: Why Alaska Is Crafting a Plan to Fight Climate Change
Too little, too late or . . .
Merrill
Merrill
mspohr
Well-Known Member
UK’s new air pollution strategy ‘hugely disappointing’, says Labour
UK’s new air pollution strategy ‘hugely disappointing’, says Labour
UK government still has it's head in the sand.
Failure to control the main source, diesel.
UK’s new air pollution strategy ‘hugely disappointing’, says Labour
UK government still has it's head in the sand.
Failure to control the main source, diesel.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Carbon markets back from the brink of collapse, says World Bank
Carbon markets back from the brink of collapse, says World Bank
China and EU making progress on carbon trading.
Carbon markets back from the brink of collapse, says World Bank
China and EU making progress on carbon trading.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Whilst I don't doubt that they could do more, our Opposition party saying that our Government is not doing enough (pick any policy ...) is not news - particularly as it was the same Opposition Party, when last in Government, that was persuaded by German Auto makers that "Clean Diesel" was a Thing ...
The sale of Diesel cars has fallen dramatically in UK - not long ago Diesels had more than 50% of the market ...
.. also Cities (across EU not just UK) are banning Diesel at relatively short notice and introducing additional charges (a £21.50 charge, per day, is already in place if you drive into London in a dirty-Diesel) - all of which is contributing to the slump in sales which helps the situation, over time.
Copenhagen is banning new diesels (registered after 2018) from next year ... so presumably anyone wanting to drive into Copenhagen will cause a huge slump in diesel sales ... other EU cities by early 2020's
... I look forward to the time when German Auto comes to rue the day that they championed Diesel instead of embracing BEV
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The opposition party was duped ... and the current party in power was not, or opposed diesel ?
Which brings us to today, when both parties are quite clearly informed. So what is the excuse of the current party in power ?
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Same as usual, sadly, that Election Funds and Influence and Lobbying are all inter-related. But I, for one, would appreciate a bold politician, rather than a Spin and How-Do-I-Look artist.
Certainly in part, but plenty of their own advisers were aware of NOX / particulate problems, but for whatever reason Government was "persuaded". Perhaps by German Auto that e.g. catalytic converters would solve the problem ... but in that case where's the Contract / comeback on those suppliers who failed, lied and cheated?
But on balance I think UK is doing OK on this front. Yes, definitely could do better, and whoever is on the other side in any political debate , e.g. Greens, will always complain "not enough", and I have plenty of "not enough" gripes, but short of a Bold Leader then medium-steps is the limit of my expectation and I am content with that whilst, personally, doing way more than the norm ... and, according to my wife, preventing us getting invited to dinner anywhere because I harang my hosts about using their Range Rovers for the school run
By by comparison I don't see USA being in a good place, failure to implement fuel prices as seen in the rest of the world means that energy use is profligate, and desire to e.g. insulate (or install PV / change to more frugal cars etc.), instead of just using more energy, is low compared to "over here". As I understand it Diesel was never a thing, for cars, in USA because refinery output was not readily available, so good thing for USA and, yes, our politicians got suckered by German Auto ... and have imposed NO Penalties over Dieselgate (another good job done by USA)
On Climate change my gripe with UK is that the requirements for Building regulations are woefully inadequate. We could make a huge dent on our oil imports by improving insulation of New Builds. Such standards are common on the continent (I don't know if enforced, or just "obvious"). Our house is Passive House standard, so needs virtually no heat in Winter (nor cooling in Summer, although [domestic] AirCon is not really a thing here); Why would we not build all houses that way? On average 7% additional capital cost, winter fuel reduced to close to nothing, and no boiler maintenance / renewal for the lifetime of the building ...
Retro-fit to Passive House standard is a nightmare, hence my gripe that New Builds are not required to be a much higher standard.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This is all very interesting, but let me clarify my point:
The excuse of the current party in power to do little because the prior opposition party in power did little ignores the obvious: time has passed, and the UK has changed. The diesel problem is better understood, the scope better defined, the solutions more evident. Acting in 2018 like the opposition in 2012 (?) is farcical, and as an excuse it is pathetic.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The Guardian view on Gove’s clean air plan: just hot air
The Guardian view on Gove’s clean air plan: just hot air | Editorial
Editorial in the Guardian is highly critical of Government.
The main contributor to the air quality crisis, one that sees thousands of lives ended prematurely, is road transport – a subject about which Mr Gove has strangely little to say. Instead, his plan envisages local authorities finding the cash, presumably by defunding libraries or other essential public goods, to pay for an army of local inspectors to check the dryness of the wood being sold on petrol station forecourts that is used as fuel for stoves. Given his policy’s impotence, it would be absurd to say Mr Gove is taking the issue seriously. As lives are at stake, it is actually offensive.
It is also audacious to argue, as the environment secretary did, that “Brexit will allow us to clean up Britain’s air” when his government’s air pollution plan has been rejected by the courts three times because it failed to meet legal limits set by the EU eight years ago. It becomes outrageous when one knows that Mr Gove’s strategy is a response to an EU air quality law that set legally binding emission reduction targets for five pollutants.
The Guardian view on Gove’s clean air plan: just hot air | Editorial
Editorial in the Guardian is highly critical of Government.
The main contributor to the air quality crisis, one that sees thousands of lives ended prematurely, is road transport – a subject about which Mr Gove has strangely little to say. Instead, his plan envisages local authorities finding the cash, presumably by defunding libraries or other essential public goods, to pay for an army of local inspectors to check the dryness of the wood being sold on petrol station forecourts that is used as fuel for stoves. Given his policy’s impotence, it would be absurd to say Mr Gove is taking the issue seriously. As lives are at stake, it is actually offensive.
It is also audacious to argue, as the environment secretary did, that “Brexit will allow us to clean up Britain’s air” when his government’s air pollution plan has been rejected by the courts three times because it failed to meet legal limits set by the EU eight years ago. It becomes outrageous when one knows that Mr Gove’s strategy is a response to an EU air quality law that set legally binding emission reduction targets for five pollutants.
Merrill
Merrill
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
