The Triumph of Science

[Guided Missile]

So, the dust is settling on arguably the greatest challenge to mankind since the Second World War. As then, we have been saved by ordinary people on the frontline.  It was the scientists, working night and day, to develop the vaccines in record time. Some of them worked for companies motivated by profit, others underpaid and in academia, were motivated by the intellectual challenge and the global societal benefit.

Sitting on the side lines were the navel gazers, the politicians and the forecasters, not a lab coat in sight, but clothed in an attitude of "we know best" and a position of power over our freedoms. So, a quick look at their recent forecasts provides the many reasons they should be ignored.

Quote

As the Prime Minister announced his winter plan two weeks ago, they said pressure on the NHS would continue to build, with hospitalisations likely to fall within an “envelope” of between 1,000 and 3,800 a day by the end of the month. In October, the number would climb higher still – perhaps topping 7,000 admissions a day. In fact, things have turned out much better than expected. For a second month running, Sars-Cov-2 has confounded the modellers. Hospital admissions never really took off in September, bumping along a plateau of around 600 a day. In recent days, they have started falling.

It make you wonder about the climate change alarmists, with 1,000x the forecasters and all the "soft science" data analysts that covid 19 spawned. 

Still, I for one will be applauding the scientists, every Thursday evening at 6 o'clock, for giving us our freedom back. It'll be great to have only the flu and my loft insulation to worry about.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[badgerx16]

Somewhere in there is a decent post, but your usual drivel, in this case climate scepticism, always has to bubble to the surface and spoil things unnecessarily. You are so embedded in your scorn that it is impossible for you to escape.

[skintsaint]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Somewhere in there is a decent post,

makes a change .

[CB Fry]

22 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

So, the dust is settling on arguably the greatest challenge to mankind since the Second World War. As then, we have been saved by ordinary people on the frontline.  It was the scientists, working night and day, to develop the vaccines in record time. Some of them worked for companies motivated by profit, others underpaid and in academia, were motivated by the intellectual challenge and the global societal benefit.

Sitting on the side lines were the navel gazers, the politicians and the forecasters, not a lab coat in sight, but clothed in an attitude of "we know best" and a position of power over our freedoms. So, a quick look at their recent forecasts provides the many reasons they should be ignored.

It make you wonder about the climate change alarmists, with 1,000x the forecasters and all the "soft science" data analysts that covid 19 spawned. 

Still, I for one will be applauding the scientists, every Thursday evening at 6 o'clock, for giving us our freedom back. It'll be great to have only the flu and my loft insulation to worry about.

Except all the data on climate change is also coming from scientists.

Fuck knows what point you're trying to make. Just go back to wanking over your hero Donald.

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

makes a change .

Sometimes his medication kicks in, if only for a few lucid moments.

[LGTL]

A scientific post from the biggest non-scientist on this forum. Pompey Poly FFS. Moron. 

Edited 2 October, 2021 by LGTL

[LGTL]

.

Edited 4 October, 2021 by LGTL

[Matthew Le God]

8 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

It make you wonder about the climate change alarmists

Can you talk us through your views on climate change please?

 

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Guided Missile]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Can you talk us through your views on climate change please?

 

I believe in climate change, totally. I just have a problem understanding how an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300-400 ppm is causing warming.

[Tamesaint]

Imagine working with this chump making poisons. 

[Guided Missile]

The fundamental question I have is whether any increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by warming, which releases dissolved CO2 from the ocean or the increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the warming. I'd be very interested in a rational explanation for this, because the zero carbon objective of this government is going to be mind bogglingly expensive and push many people into poverty.

[Guided Missile]

So, is climate change driving CO2 change or is CO2 change driving climate change. I must admit, it's a complicated "science" but I'm sure there are posters on this board that can help me. 

[Matthew Le God]

27 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

the zero carbon objective of this government is going to be mind bogglingly expensive and push many people into poverty.

How does a zero carbon objective lead to poverty?

[Guided Missile]

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

How does a zero carbon objective lead to poverty?

I'll give you a detailed answer to that question when you answer mine:

Quote

The fundamental question I have is whether any increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by warming, which releases dissolved CO2 from the ocean or the increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the warming.

Remember, I'm the guy wearing the tin foil hat, so keep it simple.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

I'll give you a detailed answer to that question when you answer mine:

Remember, I'm the guy wearing the tin foil hat, so keep it simple.

There is an element of a snowball effect. For example the melting of permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane.

Now for my question...?

[Guided Missile]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

There is an element of a snowball effect. For example the melting of permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane.

Now for my question...?

Errr...that wasn't the question I asked, but I assume what you're saying is that like methane, CO2 is released by warming. BTW there are very small concentrations of methane in permafrost, less than trapped CO2. So if you are contending that CO2 is released by warming, how does controlling the release of CO2 reduce climate warming?

[Guided Missile]

...Oh and let me answer your question with this. How many poor people do you know who own electric cars and use a heat pump to warm their houses?

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

...Oh and let me answer your question with this. How many poor people do you know who own electric cars and use a heat pump to warm their houses?

The government is not forcing the poor to buy electric cars in 2021. What the are doing is making all new cars sold after 2030 to be electric. That does not mean there won't be petrol or diesel cars in 2030 or even 2040 or 2045. Eventually poor people will buy second hand electric cars. Plus in any case electric cars will reduce in price year on year as they already are doing.

Nor is the government going to force people to buy a heat pump.

So where is the poverty you talk about?

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

So if you are contending that CO2 is released by warming, how does controlling the release of CO2 reduce climate warming?

Do you not agree less CO2 being released than currently is being released would be helpful? 

[Guided Missile]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

The government is not forcing the poor to buy electric cars in 2021. What the are doing is making all new cars sold after 2030 to be electric. That does not mean there won't be petrol or diesel cars in 2030 or even 2040 or 2045. Eventually poor people will buy second hand electric cars. Plus in any case electric cars will reduce in price year on year as they already are doing.

Nor is the government going to force people to buy a heat pump.

So where is the poverty you talk about?

Poverty will come with zero carbon, in my opinion, but the bigger question is that with a conservative estimate of $33trn to reach net zero by 2050, who will pay? A bigger question is will zero carbon stop global warming? You may now understand the point of my first question, which you have failed to answer.

[Turkish]

I prayed everyday for vaccine and my prayers were answered. Thank you lord. 

[Guided Missile]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you not agree less CO2 being released than currently is being released would be helpful? 

Not if warming is the cause of any increase in CO2 in the environment.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Guided Missile said:

Poverty will come with zero carbon, in my opinion, but the bigger question is that with a conservative estimate of $33trn to reach net zero by 2050, who will pay? 

1) The global cost of a significant rise in temperatures is predicted to be significantly higher. A higher frequency of extreme weather events, droughts etc will cause poverty. 

2) You failed to address my rebuttal about electric cars and heat pumps. 

 

[badgerx16]

52 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

So, is climate change driving CO2 change or is CO2 change driving climate change. I must admit, it's a complicated "science" but I'm sure there are posters on this board that can help me. 

Chicken and egg ? Analysis of historical data and archaeological / geological investigation shows a fairly consistant Global temperature range for the nearly 2000 years from 0AD to the 1930s. The subsequent years, to the present day, are the years of greatest increase in atmospheric CO2, and the years of greatest rate of increase of Global temperatures. This increase in CO2 can be attributed to direct action, such as the consumption of fossil fuels that generates CO2, to lesser direct factors such as the manufacturing of concrete, and to indirect actions, such as deforestation, reduction of 'green' environments, and pollution of the seas. which all reduce the amount of CO2 being extracted from the atmosphere naturally by plant and marine life.

You then end up in a feedback loop where the warming attributed to icreased CO2 causes environmental changes that in turn serve to further reduce the ability of the Global environment to naturally balance CO2 levels. So to answer your question, human production of CO2 started the process but the rate of change is now being exacerbated by natural events. The trick now is to find a new point of balance, the genie is too far out of the bottle to be put back in and permit things to settle back to the measurements from 200 years ago.

 

[Guided Missile]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) The global cost of a significant rise in temperatures is predicted to be significantly higher. A higher frequency of extreme weather events, droughts etc will cause poverty. 

2) You failed to address my rebuttal about electric cars and heat pumps. 

 

Sorry, you're just making assertions with no science that I can understand. The central point is what proof is there that an increase in CO2 causes a significant rise in global temperatures? I guess I'm just thick. I know I'm tired. Goodnight.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Not if warming is the cause of any increase in CO2 in the environment.

Why do you think turning off one source of CO2 emissions wouldn't help? If you run a bath with the taps and also have a hosepipe filling it up the the bath fills up quickly, turn the hose off and it fills up less quickly.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Sorry, you're just making assertions with no science that I can understand. The central point is what proof is there that an increase in CO2 causes a significant rise in global temperatures? I guess I'm just thick. I know I'm tired. Goodnight.

1) What assertion without science do you think I've made?

2) You failed to address my rebuttal about electric cars and heat pumps. 

[Guided Missile]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why do you think turning off one source of CO2 emissions wouldn't help? If you run a bath with the taps and also have a hosepipe filling it up the the bath fills up quickly, turn the hose off and it fills up less quickly.

Jesus Christ, we're talking about spending 35 trillion and you're justifying it with that analogy. 

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Poverty will come with zero carbon, in my opinion, but the bigger question is that with a conservative estimate of $33trn to reach net zero by 2050, who will pay? A bigger question is will zero carbon stop global warming? You may now understand the point of my first question, which you have failed to answer.

Humanity may well have to come collectively to a way of living that is far less consumerist and resource hungry. The World struggles to support the current population, and this will be especially so if the vast majority around the globe, who lack so much that the West considers 'normal', continue to desire the goods and lifestyle that the developed countries have in abundance. ( Let alone the environmental damage that mining for rare earth metals entails, and the polluting aspects of an increasing dependance on battey technologies for power and transport ).

Edited 2 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Jesus Christ, we're talking about spending 35 trillion and you're justifying it with that analogy. 

35 trillion today or no Earth tomorrow. Tough choice.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Jesus Christ, we're talking about spending 35 trillion and you're justifying it with that analogy. 

Global sea level rise that wipes out huge areas of the world and an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events will cost significantly more than the 35 trillion used to try and prevent it.

(Don't bring Jesus into this 😉)

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Guided Missile]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) What assertion without science do you think I've made?

2) You failed to address my rebuttal about electric cars and heat pumps. 

You're asserting that attaining zero carbon will stop global warming, and extreme weather events that may be associated with that. I'm asking for the science that supports that assertion. You have provided no scientific basis for that assertion. Mate, you're the one that needs the tin foil hat....

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Global sea level rise .......

(Don't bring Jesus into this 😉)

He would be OK, he can walk on water.

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

You're asserting that attaining zero carbon will stop global warming, and extreme weather events that may be associated with that. I'm asking for the science that supports that assertion. You have provided no scientific basis for that assertion. Mate, you're the one that needs the tin foil hat....

I didn't. It'll slow it down, not stop it completely. Climate change occurs with or without humans, but the last 200 years has seen our species significantly increase the rate of it.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Guided Missile]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I didn't. It'll slow it down, not stop it completely. 

Alright, I'll try one last time. Provide me with scientific evidence that lowering the concentration of CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to say 300ppm (0.04% to 0.03%) will slow the rate of any increase in global temperatures.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Alright, I'll try one last time. Provide me with scientific evidence that lowering the concentration of CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to say 300ppm (0.04% to 0.03%) will slow the rate of any increase in global temperatures.

1) Bedtime reading for you...

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

2) You failed to address my rebuttal about electric cars and heat pumps. 

[Guided Missile]

21 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Bedtime reading for you...

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

2) You failed to address my rebuttal about electric cars and heat pumps. 

Alright, I'll try one last time. Provide me with scientific evidence that lowering the concentration of CO2 from the current level of 400 ppm to say 300ppm (0.04% to 0.03%) will slow the rate of any increase in global temperatures.

[Guided Missile]

25 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Bedtime reading for you...

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

I'm familiar with the report, but I don't think you are. It is simply a report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. I am sure that there will be an impact if global temperatures increase by this amount. My question was where the evidence is for any increase in CO2 causing this. I must have missed the scientific explanation in the report. Still, I've had a fucking electric car for a couple of years and never again and there is nothing driving me do have one again, whatever the IPCC says. I am assuming that as you are worried about global warming, you have one. Do tell....

[Matthew Le God]

16 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Still, I've had a fucking electric car for a couple of years and never again and there is nothing driving me do have one again, whatever the IPCC says. I am assuming that as you are worried about global warming, you have one. Do tell....

1) Why would you never have one again?

2) So in 2040 you'd rather have a 10+ year old petrol/diesel car than an electric car?

3) I have never have had an electric car. But when the national  infrastructure improves and prices come down I will.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

35 trillion today or no Earth tomorrow. Tough choice.

The two are not connected. If we spend £35tr it will make no difference to the earth tomorrow. If only it were that simple.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The two are not connected. If we spend £35tr it will make no difference to the earth tomorrow. If only it were that simple.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Au contraire. Mankind will adapt and survive but the UK is not going to save the world by its actions or inactions.

Regarding the OP, there is a lot of evidence that CO2 is a lagging indicator.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Au contraire. Mankind will adapt and survive but the UK is not going to save the world by its actions or inactions.

It'll be a very different world and UK after sea level rises...

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Nothing new there. Sea levels have been rising ever since the last ice age. 
 

Speaking of which, when do the scientists predict the next one? They can’t even predict the last ones.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Whitey Grandad

[Matthew Le God]

21 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Nothing new there. Sea levels have been rising ever since the last ice age. 
 

Speaking of which, when do the scientists predict the next one? They can’t even predict the last ones.

You are confusing terms.

We are currently in an ice age and have been for the last 2.6 million years. It is currently an interglacial period of an ice age, rather than a glacial period of an ice age.

Edited 2 October, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why do you think turning off one source of CO2 emissions wouldn't help? If you run a bath with the taps and also have a hosepipe filling it up the the bath fills up quickly, turn the hose off and it fills up less quickly.

But it still fills up....

One question, 33 million years ago, the Antarctic ice cap (as we know it now), was largely green forests.  3 million years ago there was no Arctic ice cap.

Could it be argued that the current warming is just returning the Earth to its natural state and isn't it a bit melodramatic to claim there will be "no Earth tomorrow unless we spend £35tr today"?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

But it still fills up....

One question, 33 million years ago, the Antarctic ice cap (as we know it now), was largely green forests.  3 million years ago there was no Arctic ice cap.

Could it be argued that the current warming is just returning the Earth to its natural state and isn't it a bit melodramatic to claim there will be "no Earth tomorrow unless we spend £35tr today"?

The Earth will survive, but will mankind ? Certainly with higher sea levels there will be less available land mass for us to over populate.

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

But it still fills up....

One question, 33 million years ago, the Antarctic ice cap (as we know it now), was largely green forests.  3 million years ago there was no Arctic ice cap.

Could it be argued that the current warming is just returning the Earth to its natural state and isn't it a bit melodramatic to claim there will be "no Earth tomorrow unless we spend £35tr today"?

 

• I would like to know who will pay for zero carbon?
• Are the cost estimates shown below going to be accurate or like HS2?
• Exactly what will we achieve if and when the UK reach net zero?

My guess is that public support will evaporate if the public finally work out that they are going to have to pay, just as the high minded MLG admitted in the post above. Everyone like to think that an electric car means cheaper fuel bills, but what will replace fuel duty?  

These are all very large amounts of money and I still resent paying the fucking toll charge on the Itchen Bridge. I'll be just as pissed off if the fuel duty I am paying goes to some smug twat driving a Tesla, telling me how much money he is saving on petrol.

 

 

Edited 3 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

The Earth will survive, but will mankind ? Certainly with higher sea levels there will be less available land mass for us to over populate.

Mankind will survive - just lots less people, which isn't a bad thing.

[Verbal]

15 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Remember, I'm the guy wearing the tin foil hat, so keep it simple.

I tried, but realised it would mean inventing a new language, like the one my two-year-old niece uses