Topic: Climate change: Ban gas grid for new homes 'in six years'

[Bob-A-Job]

I meant to post this a couple of days ago... I guess the next generation of 'would be' chefs might have to invest in tandoor's and proper BBQ's ? (mine is an uncovered, single shelf, charcoal burner type - no good for windy, wet or colder days).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47306766

It seems to go against what fracking is trying to achieve by producing more emissions.

BAJ

[livo]

At the risk of being slammed by leftist sheep, anthropogenic emissions are an insignificant factor in climate change, if it exists. CO2 is not a poisonous gas and human contribution of it to the atmosphere is minuscule by comparison to naturally occuring anyway. We are being told out here that we can't burn coal any more, but we keep digging it up and loading it on ships to China and India and elsewhere. As far as I know the atmosphere doesn't have country or continental borders. Where did Chernobyl end up? While this is going on we are paying more for energy from subsidised "green" technology and renewables. Subsidised meaning we, the tax payers and consumers, are paying twice. Someone is getting money in their pockets from this.

We are now "educating" our young to believe in climate change and blindly accept the fact that energy lines pockets. Bend the sapling to shape the tree.

Are humans bad for the planet? You bet. Is climate change the biggest issue? Nope. Over- population, clearing forests, depleting and poluting oceans, poisonous contamination of entire ecosystems, draining rivers, causing extinction of species. Take your pick.

[martinvic]

Wow, so if anyone doesn't agree with your simple views they are Leftist sheep?

Do you work for Donald Trump by any chance?

Before you ask, I'm not gonna get into an argument on climate change with you, from past experience it's a waste of time.
I'll stick with the scientists views, who are actually educated in such matters.

[Peripatetic Phil]

Are humans bad for the planet? You bet. Is climate change the biggest issue? Nope. Over- population, clearing forests, depleting and poluting oceans, poisonous contamination of entire ecosystems, draining rivers, causing extinction of species. Take your pick.

                                                                                                                                                                           ba-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
The sound of a rightist sheep, who agrees with your final paragraph but who is not so stupid as to be a climate-change denier.
** Phil.

[livo]

Not all are climate change believers are leftist sheep but some are.  You don't have to agree with my views just as I don't have to agree with yours.  Some believe in a god. Others don't. Who's right and who's wrong?  People feel threatened when their baseless beliefs are questioned.  As you may or may not be aware, this planet has gone through many instances of climate change long before humans were in the present technologically advanced state and will likely do so again after we are gone.

A few years ago we had a Carbon Tax over here.  Carbon Tax, Emissions Trading Scheme.  Call it what you like, it was the perfect way to tax the air we breath. It was always said if they could find a way to do it they would.  Well this was it.  Fortunately we had a change of Government and it was abolished.  At the time it was in place I made several contacts with the then Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, who was unable to provide any definitive argument convincing of the then Labour Government's ideology on the matter.  He had no answers to the scientific numbers backing the actual amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans,  Look it up yourself and keep reminding yourself that CO2 is not a poisonous gas.  In fact it is required to sustain carbon based life on this planet.

Cleverly marketed by the use of black balloons and photographs and videos of water vapor emitted from power station cleaning stacks, this colourless, odorless, essential inert gas was demonized and entrenched into the mindset of millions of easily duped, gullible individuals as a dangerous world threatening byproduct of modern human existence.  I don't count myself among them.

[martinvic]

Baseless beliefs?
Fine, I think everyone should forget the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, that climate change is happening then and take your simple laymans views on it.

I shall look forward to reading your peer reviewed scientific paper on this.

Are you a anti-vaxxing, creationist, flat earther too by any chance?

Damn I said I wasn't gonna argue on this, but I am an easily duped, gullible individual.

[Bob-A-Job]

I posted the topic and so I feel I should comment, since I have an opinion.

Would the planet be better off with less humans (half or a third), yes.
Can I define "sustainable" energies, not really, (I have a problem with describing anything that is not solar/wind/wave/organic related as sustainable).
Until the whole planet is subjected to the same restrictions, such as an EMP burst, there is IMHO little hope.

We all know the dinosaurs died, they are not producing any more fossil fuels.

We can be as conservative as we like but where is our next Fuel Revolution coming from?

BAJ

[livo]

I shall look forward to reading your peer reviewed scientific paper on this.

A peer reviewed paper means nothing if the peers are all pushing the same barrow. Not all scientists agree and I'm tired of hearing "the science is in" from people who haven't actually read up on the science.  The science paid for by vested interest "is in" perhaps. Not all scientists can say that there is a definite correlation between human output and CO2 in the atmosphere as there are too many other contributing factors and inconsistencies in actually gathering the data. They just don't know what is happening and true science does not jump to premature acceptance of unproven theory.  I think the Max Planck Institute is a fairly reputable scientific opinion to observe.

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-growth-atmospheric-co2-stable-anthropogenic.html

Can you tell me the percentage of anthropogenic CO2 in relation to total amount released in the atmosphere?  If you've read the science, what is the number?  Where exactly on the planet are these precise scientific measurements being made and by what method?  What other factors might be affecting these results?  Measurements made in Hawaii next to active volcanoes?  Do you know that reducing Carbon emissions by 20 % here in Australia by 2020 in terms of reducing this amount will be the equivalent of removing 1 single grain of builders sand from a 13 tonne pile?  These are the same questions I asked our then Minister of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and he couldn't answer them.

Along the way, keep reminding yourself that CO2 is not a poisonous gas and the fact that a single volcanic eruption like Iceland in 2010, Chile in 2011 or Indonesia last year will add more CO2 into the atmosphere in a couple of days than the entire population of the planet does.  How do you propose we stop volcanoes from erupting?  There have been 17 VEI 4 and 1 VEI 5 eruption this century along with other lesser magnitude ones.  That's 1 per year.

Are you a anti-vaxxing, creationist, flat earther too by any chance?

No. Definitely not.  Your joking aren't you? 

Damn I said I wasn't gonna argue on this, but I am an easily duped, gullible individual.

Don't be afraid to argue your case martinvic.

If your happy to pay extra and line somebody else's pocket for your energy go right ahead. I'd rather not but thanks to this warm and fuzzy feeling that we are all going to save the planet, I now have no choice.  How many climate change advocates have gone off-grid?

Having had the benefit of living sea-side for over 50 years I can assure you that the sea-level hasn't risen as we are led to believe should have happened by now.

[Donald Brasco]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/volcano-carbon-emissions/

Science is the right approach, but science is not about believing and repeating things you

[livo]

I wish I did. But then again not all involved in coal end up happy miners.

Bob-a-Job suggests a uniform global mandate.  This is not going to happen. There are certainly 1 or 2, but probably 4 or 5, places in the world that can significantly influence the human impact of CO2 on the atmosphere if you think it is going to make a difference.  China, USA, The EU, India and Russia.  60 - 70 % of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions emanate from these 5 areas. Australia contributes only about 1.3 % of the total but apparently, with our relatively small population, we rate pretty high in per capita figures.

If I'm wrong, (and I hope I'm not) good luck getting these regions to reduce their emissions. 
If I am wrong, (and I hope I'm not) then the planet is on it's knees and there is little chance of stopping the disease. 
If I'm right, (as I hope to be) then all of this argument is irrelevant, the planet is fine and we are just making someone very rich.