net zero

[rugbyken]

 

[marchie]

View attachment 72188

BUT, how much of China's almost 31% arises from the West's seemingly insatiable appetite for cheap Chinese crap (excluding lithium Motorhome batteries, obviously ...)

Steve

 

[rugbyken]

i just copied and pasted didn’t realise i’d missed out the comment it originally came with which was along the lines of if the
uk population is 67 million so if you go electric you are saving 1/67m of 9%

 

[runnach]

BUT, how much of China's almost 31% arises from the West's seemingly insatiable appetite for cheap Chinese crap (excluding lithium Motorhome batteries, obviously ...)

Steve

While you mention “appetite” Steve, I really do wonder why the Ying Yangs eat bats ?

 

[GeoffL]

If we look at the basic mathematics behind the greenhouse effect, we can show that significant global warming from humanity's CO2 emissions is impossible (and sorry for the maths!):-
Consider the relationship between atmospheric concentration (C) of a greenhouse gas (GHG) and the warming (W) it is alleged to cause. This is logarithmic; i.e. of the form W = k*log(C) for some constant k. If we take logs to base 2, k is the sensitivity (the temperature rise that results from doubling the concentration). Using the current state for CO2, we know from Schönweise that W = 7.2°C and from the IPCC that C = 417ppm. So:
W = k * log2(417)
Thus k = W/(log2(417)) = 0.83 °C/doubling
We can use this to calculate the warming (Wn) that would arise if every molecule of humanity's CO2 were removed from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, 4.5% of CO2 input is from human emissions, so 95.5% (i.e. 398ppm) is natural.
Wn = k * log2(C) = 0.83 * log2(398) = 7.145°C
The amount of warming from humanity's CO2 cannot exceed W - Wn = 7.2 - 7.145 = 0.055°C, which is below the threshold for measurement error and hence insignificant.

Further, the above calculations assume the greenhouse effect to be the only atmospheric insulation mechanism. However, there are at least two other major mechanisms, and so even the tiny warming calculated here must be an overestimate. The same can be shown for methane... Possibly the only greenhouse gas for which this isn't so is sulphur hexafluoride, where the anthropogenic atmospheric amount is approx 100 times greater than occurs naturally. Sulphur hexafluoride has also about 23,000 times the greenhouse potential of carbon dioxide and is used mainly in high-power electrical applications. IOW, the biggest potential man-made contribution to the greenhouse effect comes not from 'carbon emissions', but from the very technologies being used to allegedly 'combat climate change'. Unfortunately, ISTM that so much of what is being done today in the name of saving something in actuality harms the very thing claimed to be saved, and so much of this madness is being pushed by those who are supposed to be among the most intelligent! For me, the linked video helps explain how and why this is happening, but please don't take it at face value and do your own research...

 

[andromeda]

Stepping out of our own or peer group world view may have costs. Curiosity can also reinforce our biases as we seek unwittingly perhaps to reinforce our world view. That world view can be influenced by where we stand in the world and sometimes for those with less social standing it is hard to step away from the peer group opinion as it can affect our very livelihood and existence. I cannot remember names of the written papers but I'm sure there is a whole wealth of literatuture on bias in thought that does not just come down to justifying why one area (wokeism) is about maintaining appearance and status in certain echelons of society. Being humble and curious may also belong in the nature nurture debate which is also a very large area of debate alongside empathy for our fellow creatures.

 

[andromeda]

View attachment 72188

The saying 'lies, dammed lies and statistics' spring to mind when a simple representaion of statistics is given with no background. Perhaps in this case to reinforce a picture of the 'bad guys' of China. What are the basis for the figures? Where did they come from? On what basis where they collected. If this was superimposed onto to the industrial economic base of a different countries would a different picture emerge and explain why?

 

[marchie]

On a lighter note, my own research has shown a similarity between acid rain and chimpanzees; they both feck up trees ...

Steve

 

[GeoffL]

The saying 'lies, dammed lies and statistics' spring to mind when a simple representaion of statistics is given with no background. Perhaps in this case to reinforce a picture of the 'bad guys' of China. What are the basis for the figures? Where did they come from? On what basis where they collected. If this was superimposed onto to the industrial economic base of a different countries would a different picture emerge and explain why?

Perhaps surprisingly, I thought the graphic in the OP presented China in better light as instinct/bias/"the narrative" suggested well over 50%. However, that's pretty irrelevant IMO because my independent calculations at least suggest that CO2 is not the 'villain' it's being portrayed as! Perhaps we should take a look at the industrial economic base of different countries as I'm fairly sure that will show that China, India, etc. are forging ahead and now are the production powerhouse while factories of the 'old guard' (Europe, US, etc.) are being shut down almost as fast as China etc. are growing. Also, looking at the emissions per capita tells yet another story where China (7.4 tonnes per capita) is well below those "massive emitters" Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands (with 17.6 t/c and 13.8 t/c respectively in 2016)!

{-- section deleted because it could be construed as political, which this forum does not permit --}

Anyway, it's fairly easy to corroborate the figures given in the OP, and the corroborating material doesn't agree closely enough to have all come from a single source. One example is https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ (which is where I got my above figures)

 

[trevskoda]

I wont be here in 20 years so dont give a flying fart.

 

[TJBi]

I wont be here in 20 years so dont give a flying fart.

Just as well; we don't want more methane emissions.

 

[GeoffL]

Stepping out of our own or peer group world view may have costs. Curiosity can also reinforce our biases as we seek unwittingly perhaps to reinforce our world view. That world view can be influenced by where we stand in the world and sometimes for those with less social standing it is hard to step away from the peer group opinion as it can affect our very livelihood and existence. I cannot remember names of the written papers but I'm sure there is a whole wealth of literatuture on bias in thought that does not just come down to justifying why one area (wokeism) is about maintaining appearance and status in certain echelons of society. [...]

Stepping our of our own or peer group can have costs, as we can see from those who have been "cancelled" (e.g. David Bellamy, Susan Crockford and Peter Ridd) or are being actively attacked for their views (e.g. J.K. Rowling and Katie Hopkins). I suspect that those with less to lose can find it easier to be honest/not follow the narrative. For example, people whose income is less likely to be affected (e.g. retirees and 'those of independent means) probably have fewer obstacles than those in academia, politics, entertainment etc. whose life can 'collapse' as the result of one "ill-chosen" sentence.
I suspect that video didn't attempt to justify (or even claim) that 'wokeism' is just about maintaining appearance and status in certain echelons of society. Rather, it uses 'wokeism' as an example of how people avoid cognitive dissonance and retain social belonging by convincing themselves of something that may not withstand robust scrutiny and hence are reinforcing the relevant FIBs. WRT "curiosity" and "humility"; I suspect that "curiosity" here is an antonym of "closed-mindedness" and "humility" the attempt to avoid confirmation bias and a willingness to accept that a previous view might be incorrect.
FWIW, I've spent some time researching how badly academia is broken and I'm appalled by what I've found. Even the peer review process is broken and subject to de-facto abuse. Publication and selection biases abound. Academics seem to have closed ranks (from fear of losing their livelihoods were they to be completely honest?) but there are some who are prepared to speak out. Mostly, these people seem to have retired and so aren't risking their livelihood...

 

[St3v3]

Stepping our of our own or peer group can have costs, as we can see from those who have been "cancelled" (e.g. David Bellamy, Susan Crockford and Peter Ridd) or are being actively attacked for their views (e.g. J.K. Rowling and Katie Hopkins). I suspect that those with less to lose can find it easier to be honest/not follow the narrative. For example, people whose income is less likely to be affected (e.g. retirees and 'those of independent means) probably have fewer obstacles than those in academia, politics, entertainment etc. whose life can 'collapse' as the result of one "ill-chosen" sentence.
I suspect that video didn't attempt to justify (or even claim) that 'wokeism' is just about maintaining appearance and status in certain echelons of society. Rather, it uses 'wokeism' as an example of how people avoid cognitive dissonance and retain social belonging by convincing themselves of something that may not withstand robust scrutiny and hence are reinforcing the relevant FIBs. WRT "curiosity" and "humility"; I suspect that "curiosity" here is an antonym of "closed-mindedness" and "humility" the attempt to avoid confirmation bias and a willingness to accept that a previous view might be incorrect.
FWIW, I've spent some time researching how badly academia is broken and I'm appalled by what I've found. Even the peer review process is broken and subject to de-facto abuse. Publication and selection biases abound. Academics seem to have closed ranks (from fear of losing their livelihoods were they to be completely honest?) but there are some who are prepared to speak out. Mostly, these people seem to have retired and so aren't risking their livelihood...

You said a lot of words lol.

I've had to read a few times as I've been drinking but I suspect there is some truth in your words

 

[maingate]

Stepping our of our own or peer group can have costs, as we can see from those who have been "cancelled" (e.g. David Bellamy, Susan Crockford and Peter Ridd) or are being actively attacked for their views (e.g. J.K. Rowling and Katie Hopkins). I suspect that those with less to lose can find it easier to be honest/not follow the narrative. For example, people whose income is less likely to be affected (e.g. retirees and 'those of independent means) probably have fewer obstacles than those in academia, politics, entertainment etc. whose life can 'collapse' as the result of one "ill-chosen" sentence.
I suspect that video didn't attempt to justify (or even claim) that 'wokeism' is just about maintaining appearance and status in certain echelons of society. Rather, it uses 'wokeism' as an example of how people avoid cognitive dissonance and retain social belonging by convincing themselves of something that may not withstand robust scrutiny and hence are reinforcing the relevant FIBs. WRT "curiosity" and "humility"; I suspect that "curiosity" here is an antonym of "closed-mindedness" and "humility" the attempt to avoid confirmation bias and a willingness to accept that a previous view might be incorrect.
FWIW, I've spent some time researching how badly academia is broken and I'm appalled by what I've found. Even the peer review process is broken and subject to de-facto abuse. Publication and selection biases abound. Academics seem to have closed ranks (from fear of losing their livelihoods were they to be completely honest?) but there are some who are prepared to speak out. Mostly, these people seem to have retired and so aren't risking their livelihood...

The extreme reaction to someone of a different opinion is becoming the norm now. The obvious example is the recent referendum result. There are various reasons put forward for this phenomenon, whatever the reason, it seems to me that suddenly a lot of people have grown a strong sense of entitlement. They don't seem to act like this in a face to face situation, more at a distance via social media etc. What a strange breed we are.

 

[Owlhouse]

To those who can have an open mind on this subject it is worth watching this - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/20/climate-the-movie-watch-here/
If the link doesn’t work try searching for “Climate - The Movie “ (not using Google as they are trying to sensor it!)

 

[wildebus]

I think the value of 1.1% in Mexico quite interesting. Mexico has a reasonably sized industrial base and a large population and would have thought be a fair bit higher? Maybe they have a large Solar Harvesting setup to provide grid electricity? Must have the right climate for it?

 

[maingate]

To those who can have an open mind on this subject it is worth watching this - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/20/climate-the-movie-watch-here/
If the link doesn’t work try searching for “Climate - The Movie “ (not using Google as they are trying to sensor it!)

Malwarebytes warning me that it is a dodgy website. Maybe a trick by Google?

 

[GeoffL]

Malwarebytes warning me that it is a dodgy website. Maybe a trick by Google?

Almost certainly since neither Avast nor Eset flag it. There is concerted effort by mainstream social media platforms to cancel anything that falsifies the narrative that supports "Net Zero(tm)", and hence suggest the single factor underpinning the way 'they' are shifting the world might be a fraud. Several channels that shared that video seem to have been deleted and searching for "Climate the Movie" on YouTube returns just about everything but the movie. However, it's still available on other platforms (though Watt's Up With That is now the 'official' host). You can, for example, find it on several Rumble channels: e.g. https://rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html

 

[Sonar]

The very last time Net zero was mentioned to me was when I used to go fresh water fish many many years ago
And it was mentioned at the time I forgot to bring the net so in fact I may at that time been accused as being. Net zero.

 

[davef]

The excuse of the need to go to Net Zero is going to increasingly restrict our freedoms in all sorts of ways. ( Especially motorhoming.) It is merely a means of complete social control of the masses.
Our lunatic Scottish government has just passed an act to forbid the use of any means of heating new build homes that causes any emissions. So no wood burners or coal, oil or gas boilers. There is maybe an opt out for emergency use only with lots of caveats. Totally nuts, total control. No-one voted for this.
How long before they decide not only IC engines need to be banned for their miniscule emissions, but EVs too for their build and tyre/brake emissions. Welcome to your 15minute city.....
The only party against this lunacy is Reform.