Well articulated. It benefits us to be more skeptical when reading things about climate, energy, electricity and the environment and do some research and applying some empirical data before forming an opinion.
The movie is a valuable summary of what is actually known about weather and climate and the complex variety of sciences that are useful in studying them.
It is beyond frustrating to discover that simply recommending the movie to all the people who are officially friends of mine on Facebook is blocked out by a self-designated oracle "fact checker"
Quite so. To be honest, the mere fact that instead of engaging with the arguments, opposition falls on it like a ton of bricks is in itself for me the first sign that something isn't quite right with the publicly promoted view.
Martin Durkin mentioned restrictions on meat consumption falling under this climate agenda. Hence the reason that the Vegan Society and much of the vegan movement support 'Net Zero' fundamentalism and the 'Climate Emergency' narrative, without considering that they will get caught in the growing backlash.
I noticed one major issue that he overlooked is that fossil fuels are a finite resource, for which many Western countries, Britain included (and he ought to know as he is British), are now heavily import-dependent, Britain having lost the self-sufficiency in oil that it had for about a quarter of a century, in 2003. Perhaps he should make a film about oil politics and the related wars in the Middle East.
And he ought to know that it was the 1973 'oil crisis' brought on by the Arab countries' oil embargo against the USA that provided the stimulus to finance research into renewable energy generation, bearing in mind that that oil embargo resulted in a quadrupling of the price of a barrel (ironically making Britain's North Sea oil reserves economically viable by later in that decade). Renewables have always been primarily an energy resources issues, the climate issue is a late addition.
Thanks a lot for sharing your insights and engaging with the article. I am frankly not an expert in the field to say if there is something missing, scientifically speaking, or if some of the arguments are not fully precise or could be complemented etc. I just thought that people in the film have enough scientific credit to at least consider what they’re saying. I do remember though, at least in the cultural circles, very fervent talks already some 20-25 years ago how we’re running out of fossil fuel and according to what was said back then, we should have run out of it already. Yet I see little change. In essence, of course, fossil fuels are finite, yet so also the precious metals etc used for batteries and other equipment, which in itself are also finite (or temporal) and the renewables can’t function without equipment either. In principle, I wouldn’t personally mind moving towards more renewables, but the price of it at the current moment on common people, where the profit goes, and the destruction much of it actually wreaks on nature landscapes, leaves me questioning. Hence I would rather begin ‘a green transition’ from raising awareness not so much about climate, but about nature and environment in general, which would certainly bring some improvement also on climate, were the really a threat on it. Currently I don’t really see our society and politics moving away from the ‘man is foremost a consumer’ (if not ‘man is a mere subject’) paradigm.
Thanks for replying. We may already be past Hubbert's Oil Peak, with what oil that can be recovered by drilling or otherwise extracted becoming more expensive, more energy intensive and/or more environmentally damaging to access. For example, even discounting the ecological and geological damage caused by fracking, it will still require more energy to extract and be of lower quality than Brent Crude from the North Sea.
Environmentalism does get back on track and move away from the false notions of 'climate action' and 'climate activism' as it is not within humanity's gift to alter solar cycles, the amount of cosmic rays, or volcanic activity. And although Martin Durkin did allude to urban traffic management planning issues (low-traffic neighbourhoods etc), again such initiatives have always existed without any 'climate' agenda being appended to them.
Anyway, here are some thoughts from almost six months ago. There was no local 'Climate Emergency' rally last November because those who would be expected to attend were most likely focusing instead on tangible issues that are going on in the real world. I've provided a reference to Henrik Svensmark's book, as well as one by Hubert Lamb, a copy of which is well worth tracking down.
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, water vapor, 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math & badder physics.
The kinetic heat transfer modes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render impossible a BB surface upwelling and looping “extra” LWIR energy for the GHE.
Consensus science has a well-documented history of being wrong & abusing those who dared to challenge it. (Bruno, drawn & quartered)
GHE & CAGW are wrong so alarmists resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship & violence.
Indeed, another issue with it is that many of those who claim to be the only ones in the right have clearly been wrong in the past in their former 'certainty', so it feels a little strange for anyone to presume to trust just them again. Thanks for your reflections.
How about a peer reviewed scientific paper that states CO2 absorption saturates at 300pm (as I believe Happer also claims) and so the warming effect of CO2 saturated some time ago, CO2 now being around 400ppm. It also claims to account for the historical observation that CO2 concentrations 'lag' the warming. Something all Greens I know conveniently ignore. (Like most other inconvenient truths they ignore.)
Net Zero is nothing to do with climate and everything to do with bringing down the wealthy so called first world countries. Those behind this agenda can, have and will use every tool at their disposal to achieve this. Climate change being only one of the many narratives currently being inflicted on us.
The UK is planning on mass solar arrays, trees are being cut down, birds and bats are sacrificed to wind turbines and somehow Net Zero and the accelerating population growth driven by a de facto Open Borders policy are presented as a Good Thing, even though overcrowding, struggling infrastructure, pressure on open farm and rural land and unreliable costly renewables-generously subsidised-are leading us towards a decidedly unstable future, with freedoms curtailed by vested interests and slippery politicians.
Well articulated. It benefits us to be more skeptical when reading things about climate, energy, electricity and the environment and do some research and applying some empirical data before forming an opinion.
indeed, Colette, thank you for your kind comment.
The movie is a valuable summary of what is actually known about weather and climate and the complex variety of sciences that are useful in studying them.
It is beyond frustrating to discover that simply recommending the movie to all the people who are officially friends of mine on Facebook is blocked out by a self-designated oracle "fact checker"
Quite so. To be honest, the mere fact that instead of engaging with the arguments, opposition falls on it like a ton of bricks is in itself for me the first sign that something isn't quite right with the publicly promoted view.
Martin Durkin mentioned restrictions on meat consumption falling under this climate agenda. Hence the reason that the Vegan Society and much of the vegan movement support 'Net Zero' fundamentalism and the 'Climate Emergency' narrative, without considering that they will get caught in the growing backlash.
I noticed one major issue that he overlooked is that fossil fuels are a finite resource, for which many Western countries, Britain included (and he ought to know as he is British), are now heavily import-dependent, Britain having lost the self-sufficiency in oil that it had for about a quarter of a century, in 2003. Perhaps he should make a film about oil politics and the related wars in the Middle East.
And he ought to know that it was the 1973 'oil crisis' brought on by the Arab countries' oil embargo against the USA that provided the stimulus to finance research into renewable energy generation, bearing in mind that that oil embargo resulted in a quadrupling of the price of a barrel (ironically making Britain's North Sea oil reserves economically viable by later in that decade). Renewables have always been primarily an energy resources issues, the climate issue is a late addition.
Thanks a lot for sharing your insights and engaging with the article. I am frankly not an expert in the field to say if there is something missing, scientifically speaking, or if some of the arguments are not fully precise or could be complemented etc. I just thought that people in the film have enough scientific credit to at least consider what they’re saying. I do remember though, at least in the cultural circles, very fervent talks already some 20-25 years ago how we’re running out of fossil fuel and according to what was said back then, we should have run out of it already. Yet I see little change. In essence, of course, fossil fuels are finite, yet so also the precious metals etc used for batteries and other equipment, which in itself are also finite (or temporal) and the renewables can’t function without equipment either. In principle, I wouldn’t personally mind moving towards more renewables, but the price of it at the current moment on common people, where the profit goes, and the destruction much of it actually wreaks on nature landscapes, leaves me questioning. Hence I would rather begin ‘a green transition’ from raising awareness not so much about climate, but about nature and environment in general, which would certainly bring some improvement also on climate, were the really a threat on it. Currently I don’t really see our society and politics moving away from the ‘man is foremost a consumer’ (if not ‘man is a mere subject’) paradigm.
Thanks for replying. We may already be past Hubbert's Oil Peak, with what oil that can be recovered by drilling or otherwise extracted becoming more expensive, more energy intensive and/or more environmentally damaging to access. For example, even discounting the ecological and geological damage caused by fracking, it will still require more energy to extract and be of lower quality than Brent Crude from the North Sea.
Environmentalism does get back on track and move away from the false notions of 'climate action' and 'climate activism' as it is not within humanity's gift to alter solar cycles, the amount of cosmic rays, or volcanic activity. And although Martin Durkin did allude to urban traffic management planning issues (low-traffic neighbourhoods etc), again such initiatives have always existed without any 'climate' agenda being appended to them.
Anyway, here are some thoughts from almost six months ago. There was no local 'Climate Emergency' rally last November because those who would be expected to attend were most likely focusing instead on tangible issues that are going on in the real world. I've provided a reference to Henrik Svensmark's book, as well as one by Hubert Lamb, a copy of which is well worth tracking down.
https://warwickvegan.substack.com/p/year-zero
Official global warming is +1.0 to 1.5 C in the GMST anomaly over 140 to 170 years depending on the "expert" and database.
The current GMST trend is 0.013 C PER YEAR!!! (UAH data)
Insignificant, impossible to actually measure & NOT a “heat wave.”
Earth is cooler with the atmosphere, water vapor, 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics use bad math & badder physics.
The kinetic heat transfer modes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render impossible a BB surface upwelling and looping “extra” LWIR energy for the GHE.
Consensus science has a well-documented history of being wrong & abusing those who dared to challenge it. (Bruno, drawn & quartered)
GHE & CAGW are wrong so alarmists resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship & violence.
Indeed, another issue with it is that many of those who claim to be the only ones in the right have clearly been wrong in the past in their former 'certainty', so it feels a little strange for anyone to presume to trust just them again. Thanks for your reflections.
How about a peer reviewed scientific paper that states CO2 absorption saturates at 300pm (as I believe Happer also claims) and so the warming effect of CO2 saturated some time ago, CO2 now being around 400ppm. It also claims to account for the historical observation that CO2 concentrations 'lag' the warming. Something all Greens I know conveniently ignore. (Like most other inconvenient truths they ignore.)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Net Zero is nothing to do with climate and everything to do with bringing down the wealthy so called first world countries. Those behind this agenda can, have and will use every tool at their disposal to achieve this. Climate change being only one of the many narratives currently being inflicted on us.
Freedom of speech, allowing all points of view, is needed.
Greed not Green, is driving this movement now, as the big guns pocket the subsidies and become increasingly wealthy and influential.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/18/lets-spare-the-environment-from-the-greens/
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/18/climate-change-is-class-warfare/
The UK is planning on mass solar arrays, trees are being cut down, birds and bats are sacrificed to wind turbines and somehow Net Zero and the accelerating population growth driven by a de facto Open Borders policy are presented as a Good Thing, even though overcrowding, struggling infrastructure, pressure on open farm and rural land and unreliable costly renewables-generously subsidised-are leading us towards a decidedly unstable future, with freedoms curtailed by vested interests and slippery politicians.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/uk-government-admits-that-net-zero-drive-risks-blackouts/
"Greed not green", quite, it does feel like that.
https://northdakotamonitor.com/2024/04/22/summit-highlights-economic-benefits-of-carbon-pipeline-in-second-chance-at-permit/
CO2 pipelines are a hoax, money and land grab not an economic benefit.