Saving the planet?

[cambsno]

Those people in crowded blocks of flats will be among the first to suffer .

Not from rising water levels!

 

[sphexx]

Not from rising water levels!

Not sure about that, if it raises the water table they might become unstable if not on granite

 

[sphexx]

Yes, because it was on the way to/from work.

Leave house at 830, drop at school, drive to work for 9 - on way back leave work at 3 arrive at 325, pick up at 330. If one of us was to walk to school and walk back we would be late for work or pick up (i.e. back home after 840 then at work after 9). Plus there were some after school activities like swimming so had to leave straight from school to get there in time.

It’s interesting how things have changed. My primary school was 1 mile from my home (just checked), I started there aged nearly 5 in 1941. I’m not sure what age I started walking there & back without any adults but certainly by 6 years old. No car or public transport on the route — very little traffic, except overhead in the skies, RAF Biggin Hill not far away ㋡

 

[wyx087]

But my post earlier highlights the NEED of a car if not in a town or city. Life can certainly NOT be just as easy where I live (and this is similar to millions of people across the country).

And for your last statement, try telling that to the average person, we would all like cheaper energy but not at any cost - and despite rising food prices, they are still 'cheap' compared to previous generations.

You are evaluating what's around right now. Based on many years of prior infrastructure focused on private transport ownerships. The world could be a completely different place if private transport ownership was never a thing to begin with.

Cheap energy is already here (I'm paying 7.5p/kWh to charge my EV), and the more people able to take advantage of this type of cheap clean energy, the cheaper overall energy will become. That's because current energy prices are based on averages. The more people able to make use of renewable by being flexible, the less money is required to pay renewable sources when demand isn't there and less demand during expensive peak times, thus the cheaper overall electricity prices will become for everyone.

So although it looks like another thing out-of-reach for the wealthy. The national grid connects us all, the cheaper energy incentives home/neighborhood battery install, but lowers overall energy cost for everyone. (in theory)

 

[Craig1912]

I get what you are saying and it looks bleak.

But that doesn't mean we, as a society, can just give up and return to the status quo. That seems to be the newest message in mass media funded by fossil fuel industries. It's too difficult so we'll keep doing what we do and worry about capturing those carbons in the future.

EV's are not the answer as a transport system, more because private car ownership model doesn't work on a large scale, it only benefits the more well-off. But it's 100% suitable direct replacement for private cars in the world we live today. It doesn't produce as much localised pollution and its lifetime CO2 emission is far less than comparable cars.

Heat pumps are still at early adopter stages and missing the final push into mainstream. What can we do now? Government help insulate the whole housing stock so that everyone can spend less on heating bills (or less impacted by rising costs). Then when the time is right, switch to heat pump will be a lot easier.

We can adopt as much as those as possible. Even though some percentage of its energy still comes from fossil fuel, this percentage is always decreasing. The same EV/heatpump next year will emit less CO2 thanks to the grid slowly getting greener. Same cannot be said about ICE cars or gas boilers. This adoption cannot wait and be expected to happen overnight, so some people buy early and some wait, this is all okay as long as this topic is kept at forefront and considered before every purchase.

Don’t disagree with much of this but as a country we are only responsible for 1% of global CO2 admissions so whatever we do it doesn’t make much difference even though people will argue that every little helps. I’ve no issue with helping but I do have an issue with us as a country, financially crippling ourselves (and disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged) by short deadlines to stop selling petrol/diesel cars and gas boilers.

 

[jerry12953]

Not my words but copied from an extinction rebellion page author D. McCarthy asked people to share
I wouldn’t normally post something like this but he has summarised nicely what is happening with government policy on climate change



IF YOU CARE ABOUT CLIMATE DESTRUCTION - THEN I PLEAD WITH YOU TO READ THIS ARTICLE - WHICH I FEEL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE I HAVE WRITTEN IN 30 YEARS OF ECOLOGICAL ACTIVISM and then please RT, as I could get no publication to print it.

IT GOES TO THE CORE OF WHO IS REALLY BLOCKING UK GOVERNMENTAL ACTION ON CLIMATE CRISIS

"IT IS THE MEDIA STUPID!

Who makes the key decisions on whether the UK government tackles the unfolding climate crisis now engulfing our civilisation?

With the UK supposedly being a liberal democracy, it should be the elected government led by the prime minister. But is it?

In extraordinary evidence given to the Science & Technology Parliamentary Select Committee in an oral hearing in May 2021, Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to Boris Johnson, claimed that in the prime minister’s office, the culture of governing was essentially a press-answering service, where everything is dedicated to the media.

He said the prime minister was 1,000 times more obsessed with the media, in a way that undermined his job.

So influential are the papers’ editors that in the mornings:
“He just gets up, reads the papers, says, “Right, what are they doing today?” and then cannons around.”

This rings true with previous accounts of how Major and Blair were subject to pressure, bullying and instructions from Rupert Murdoch and has huge implications for how climate decisions are made in the UK’s government.

The most consequential climate policy-making paper issued recently by Johnson’s government in relation to the climate emergency was the Energy Security Strategy, issued on the 7th of April. (1)

This covered proposals for North Sea oil and gas, on-shore and offshore wind, nuclear power and fracking, following the invasion of Ukraine.

In the light of Cummings testimony, I decided to look at which energy approaches that polling indicated the public supported, which approaches the Sun, Mail and Telegraph advocated and which of these the government then backed in the energy strategy.

Polls consistently show overwhelming public support for on and offshore wind, solar and insulation/energy efficiency.

Over three in five (63%) British adults support the UK government redirecting spending allocated to North Sea oil & gas extraction to renewable energy technologies such as wind/solar/storage and low carbon industries such as energy efficiency. (2)

The government’s own 2021 Public Attitudes Tracker showed 87% support for renewable energy, with only a tiny 1% opposing it. Onshore wind specifically had 80% support, with only 4% opposing.

By a majority of two to one, the public opposed fracking for natural gas. (3)

In a YouGov poll, 49% of people put investment in renewables at their top priority for government investment, compared to just 7% for nuclear power. (4)

In an ECIU survey about the 2022 energy price crisis, 51% saw renewables and insulation as the best way to reduce reliance on gas.

This compared to only 9% backing expansion of North Sea oil and gas exploration and 8% backing fracking, as the best long-term solutions. (5)

But what were the media oligarch tabloids advocating in the weeks prior to the launch of Johnson’s energy strategy?

In just the two weeks prior to the launch, research commissioned by the Climate Media Coalition from the journalist Elizabeth Mizon, identified 15 articles in the Telegraph, Sun, Express and Mail which variously supported North Sea oil and gas expansion, opposed onshore wind-turbines and advocated for the revival of fossil-fuel fracking on the mainland UK and expansion of nuclear power. (6)

The billionaire Barclay owned Telegraph declared we should not save petrol by driving at lower speeds in response to Putin’s invasion, but rather drill for more oil in the North Sea. (7)


A Daily Mail (whose editor-in-chief is Paul Dacre and who has virulently led opposition to climate action in the UK for decades) headline warned: “Rural Landowners Fear Push for Green Energy”.

It had a windfarm opponent saying that allowing onshore wind would upset “a very large number of voters” and an editorial declared that “Onshore wind turbines cause enormous damage to the countryside.” (8)

It urged the government to ignore “the shrieking eco-lobby” (i.e., a large majority of the UK public) and instead advocated for a return to fracking, more nuclear power and new oilfields. (9)

Another Mail headline ran “Energy woes can be tackled by extracting 'every last drop' of oil from the North Sea.” (10)

Rupert Murdoch’s Sun ran repeated articles advocating fracking, which the government had halted following earthquakes triggered by test wells.

The Telegraph carried a truly bizarre report warning that more onshore wind could “make us more reliant on gas,” whilst the same article called for more UK gas production and new gas power stations! (11)

It is crucial to note that the options backed by the public: solar, wind and home-insulation, all reduce costs for consumers, whereas those backed by the tabloid articles, are either more expensive than renewables or make no difference whatsoever to electricity and gas bills.

So, what did Johnson’s government include in the energy strategy after the blizzard of media pressure?

It backed almost exactly the agenda backed by the 3 media oligarchs (Murdoch/Barclay/Dacre):

• Expansion of nuclear power,
• Maximising new North Sea fossil fuels,
• Continued de facto ban on onshore wind,
• Reopened the possibility of fracking and
• No new major insulation programme to reduce energy bills for
poorer people.

The only major policy adopted by the government that had wide public support was the expansion of offshore wind. But this was a policy which the tabloids had not energetically opposed and to a certain extent supported!

This research backs the allegations made by Cummings.

It is these newspaper editors (and the 3 right-wing media owners who appoint them) who are the key decision makers in relation to the UK’s dismal governmental record on climate action.

This has profound implications for the climate movement’s targeting.

What is the point of lobbying the government or targeting it with disruptive protests, if it is these editors and their 3 billionaire oligarch bosses, who are the key decision makers?

With the terrifying news that the Arctic is now heating at a rate of +2.7C per decade (!!), wildfires engulfing forests, droughts devasting crops and the horror of the UK passing 40C (!) for the first time in human history, the climate movement cannot afford wasting another day focusing on the wrong targets. (12)

# It's The Media Stupid ! "

Love n courage
Donnachadh x

www.TheProstituteState.co.uk
@DonnachadhMc

Notes:

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-energy-security-strategy

2. https://home.38degrees.org.uk/2022/04/04/new-poll-results-huge-public-support-for-onshore-wind/
https://www.icmunlimited.com/our-work/uplift-north-sea-oil-and-gas-extraction-poll/

3. https://assets.publishing.service.g..._Energy_Infrastructure_and_Energy_Sources.pdf

4. https://www.renewableuk.com/news/56...top-of-Governments-plans-for-green-growth.htm

5. https://eciu.net/insights/2022/brit...sis-are-profiteering-russia-and-global-demand

6. http://climatemediacoalition.org/

7. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/18/dont-cut-speed-limits-beat-putin-just-drill-oil/

8. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ng-rules-set-relaxed-wake-Ukraine-crisis.html

9. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...NT-Opportunity-missed-vital-energy-reset.html

10. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...NT-Opportunity-missed-vital-energy-reset.html

11. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ould-blow-britain-towards-using/?fr=operanews

12. https://www.independent.co.uk/clima...ming-faster-global-average-rate-b2102375.html

Thanks VERY much for posting this. It's a long post but everyone should read it.

 

[cambsno]

It’s interesting how things have changed. My primary school was 1 mile from my home (just checked), I started there aged nearly 5 in 1941. I’m not sure what age I started walking there & back without any adults but certainly by 6 years old. No car or public transport on the route — very little traffic, except overhead in the skies, RAF Biggin Hill not far away ㋡

Think its the 2nd to last or last year at primary school when they let them out without an adult

 

[cambsno]

You are evaluating what's around right now. Based on many years of prior infrastructure focused on private transport ownerships. The world could be a completely different place if private transport ownership was never a thing to begin with.

Cheap energy is already here (I'm paying 7.5p/kWh to charge my EV), and the more people able to take advantage of this type of cheap clean energy, the cheaper overall energy will become. That's because current energy prices are based on averages. The more people able to make use of renewable by being flexible, the less money is required to pay renewable sources when demand isn't there and less demand during expensive peak times, thus the cheaper overall electricity prices will become for everyone.

So although it looks like another thing out-of-reach for the wealthy. The national grid connects us all, the cheaper energy incentives home/neighborhood battery install, but lowers overall energy cost for everyone. (in theory)

But we cant change the past - we may have got things wrong with hindsight but it is what it is.

Its the cost of new ev cars which is a blocker for many, plus the expectation that we will then lose any savings as a result (if we all had EV next year the government would need to get the missing fuel duty back in other taxes, so EV cars need to be the same price as normal cars).

It all sounds great in theory but in the real world people are concerned about the short & medium term - rising prices, jobs, finance, housing...

 

[cambsno]

Don’t disagree with much of this but as a country we are only responsible for 1% of global CO2 admissions so whatever we do it doesn’t make much difference even though people will argue that every little helps. I’ve no issue with helping but I do have an issue with us as a country, financially crippling ourselves (and disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged) by short deadlines to stop selling petrol/diesel cars and gas boilers.

Spot on. Of course if no-one starts no-one will follow but even if the UK did everything perfectly tomorrow it would barely make a dent in the world.

 

[jerry12953]

It all sounds great in theory but in the real world people are concerned about the short & medium term - rising prices, jobs, finance, housing...

People ARE concerned first and foremost about their own immediate futures; that is why we need leaders who will spread the message that climate change is a real threat consistently and powerfully. And we need media that will take that message out to everybody, not fill the airwaves (and the newspapers) with trivialities and fripperies.

 

[the black fox]

Why worry putin a.k.a. Rasputin a.k.a the antichrist will eventually with the help of China push us into WW3 .. if you Can’t see that coming then read the news more carefully .
The u.s.a is on the brink of a civil war due to a doddery president . Iran and Korea are threatening everyone . I sometimes wonder if the planet is a living organism that is trying very hard to get rid of a virus ..called mankind so it can start over ..

 

[Pound Coin]

But we cant change the past - we may have got things wrong with hindsight but it is what it is.

Its the cost of new ev cars which is a blocker for many, plus the expectation that we will then lose any savings as a result (if we all had EV next year the government would need to get the missing fuel duty back in other taxes, so EV cars need to be the same price as normal cars).

It all sounds great in theory but in the real world people are concerned about the short & medium term - rising prices, jobs, finance, housing...

Er, that's not really right.

In the past we had no cars. Now we have built our lives around the lie that is fossil fuels.

If what you say is right, then we would have looked at private transport and said we don't want it because it changes so much in our life.

 

[wyx087]

Don’t disagree with much of this but as a country we are only responsible for 1% of global CO2 admissions so whatever we do it doesn’t make much difference even though people will argue that every little helps. I’ve no issue with helping but I do have an issue with us as a country, financially crippling ourselves (and disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged) by short deadlines to stop selling petrol/diesel cars and gas boilers.

Is it financially crippling though?

Look at Norway, their huge forward thinking government policies have made a real impact on EV adoption without crippling their economy, in fact, it has been the opposite: creating jobs and opportunities. Creating opportunities is exactly what we need right now heading towards possible economic trouble.

As long as more "carrot" (eg. new and used EV purchase grants) are used more than the "stick" (ULEZ, zone restrictions), the disadvantaged will not be any worse off in the process.

 

[Craig1912]

Is it financially crippling though?

Look at Norway, their huge forward thinking government policies have made a real impact on EV adoption without crippling their economy, in fact, it has been the opposite: creating jobs and opportunities. Creating opportunities is exactly what we need right now heading towards possible economic trouble.

As long as more "carrot" (eg. new and used EV purchase grants) are used more than the "stick" (ULEZ, zone restrictions), the disadvantaged will not be any worse off in the process.

But 99% of Norways energy is from renewables, their electricity costs are cheap, EVs make absolute sense, their homes are heated by heat pumps.
Please explain how EV adoption has created jobs and opportunities because as far as I’m aware Norway don’t make cars. In fact Norway dont manufacture an awful lot but, their biggest source of income is from oil and gas exports and with the world wanting to use less of these, it may well lead to problems further on down the line, with loss of jobs and opportunities.

 

[wyx087]

But 99% of Norways energy is from renewables, their electricity costs are cheap, EVs make absolute sense, their homes are heated by heat pumps.
Please explain how EV adoption has created jobs and opportunities because as far as I’m aware Norway don’t make cars. In fact Norway dont manufacture an awful lot but, their biggest source of income is from oil and gas exports and with the world wanting to use less of these, it may well lead to problems further on down the line, with loss of jobs and opportunities.

Public charging network installs. private charger installs. battery research, mining, production (eg. Freyr Batteries, Morrow Batteries, Beyonder) and recycling, national grid expansions. Being the first also means car industry pour money and resource into this market serving as a testbed.

Just because there are industries that are at sunset period, doesn't mean we need to shun rising opportunities.

 

[Pound Coin]

But 99% of Norways energy is from renewables, their electricity costs are cheap, EVs make absolute sense, their homes are heated by heat pumps.
Please explain how EV adoption has created jobs and opportunities because as far as I’m aware Norway don’t make cars. In fact Norway dont manufacture an awful lot but, their biggest source of income is from oil and gas exports and with the world wanting to use less of these, it may well lead to problems further on down the line, with loss of jobs and opportunities.

99% from renewables?

Has anyone told Paul Dacre, or the harbingers of doom that own our Tabloids?

Surely the future of the planet rests burning more fossil fuels

 

[cambsno]

Er, that's not really right.

In the past we had no cars. Now we have built our lives around the lie that is fossil fuels.

If what you say is right, then we would have looked at private transport and said we don't want it because it changes so much in our life.

And that took decades to achieve - private transport achieves so much so it was obvious it will change, in the same way that in say 60 years time, aside from museums, there will be no petrol cars around. Its the pace that cannot be agreed upon, it will of course evolve that way but not at the speed some want.

 

[cambsno]

Is it financially crippling though?

Look at Norway, their huge forward thinking government policies have made a real impact on EV adoption without crippling their economy, in fact, it has been the opposite: creating jobs and opportunities. Creating opportunities is exactly what we need right now heading towards possible economic trouble.

As long as more "carrot" (eg. new and used EV purchase grants) are used more than the "stick" (ULEZ, zone restrictions), the disadvantaged will not be any worse off in the process.

And if we had the same ideas and policies it would be an easy switch. While the cost to change is greater than now, people in the main will not adapt to EV.

Aside from economies of scale. are EV cars more expensive and complex than petrol cars to produce? If not then the cost of the EV car should be comparable.

 

[Mr Bump]

Don’t disagree with much of this but as a country we are only responsible for 1% of global CO2 admissions so whatever we do it doesn’t make much difference even though people will argue that every little helps. I’ve no issue with helping but I do have an issue with us as a country, financially crippling ourselves (and disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged) by short deadlines to stop selling petrol/diesel cars and gas boilers.

because like most people you are confusing the GLOBAL problem with the LOCAL problem, yes we are a small polluter in the bigger world issue and that is something that is disappointing, especially the Chinese and Americans addiction to pollution.

The bit you are missing is how stinky and filthy our towns and cities are with our love of the car and especially our love of diesel to the point that many of our cities are more polluted than many third world countries that we look down on but we think ourselves so terribly upmarket in our germen diesel 4x4s that meet euro 6 blah blah blah which we use to drop our kids of at school etc etc.

 

[Pound Coin]

because like most people you are confusing the GLOBAL problem with the LOCAL problem, yes we are a small polluter in the bigger world issue and that is something that is disappointing, especially the Chinese and Americans addiction to pollution.

The bit you are missing is how stinky and filthy our towns and cities are with our love of the car and especially our love of diesel to the point that many of our cities are more polluted than many third world countries that we look down on but we think ourselves so terribly upmarket in our germen diesel 4x4s that meet euro 6 blah blah blah which we use to drop our kids of at school etc etc.

There's also the point that we've been pouring out bad stuff for 150 years.

Now there are people saying "oh, we are clean, look at the dirty people over there*!" Not very edifying.

*whilst being loads of stuff from the dirty people...

 

[Craig1912]

because like most people you are confusing the GLOBAL problem with the LOCAL problem, yes we are a small polluter in the bigger world issue and that is something that is disappointing, especially the Chinese and Americans addiction to pollution.

The bit you are missing is how stinky and filthy our towns and cities are with our love of the car and especially our love of diesel to the point that many of our cities are more polluted than many third world countries that we look down on but we think ourselves so terribly upmarket in our germen diesel 4x4s that meet euro 6 blah blah blah which we use to drop our kids of at school etc etc.

I’m not confusing anything. The thread title is “Saving the Planet” not ”How can we make the air cleaner in our cities” We as a country can do little to save the planet when elsewhere they are building more coal power stations to produce goods for us and using more and more diesel powered trucks, diggers, ships to get the stuff out of the ground to build our ”environmentally friendly“ EV’s. I’m not sure most people “love” their car, they see it as a means to carry out the daily stuff they need to do. Unless billions are spent on public transport then there will not be any reduction in the use of cars (EV, petrol, diesel or anything else).

 

[Pound Coin]

Some happy reading about the planet

Revealed: how climate breakdown is supercharging toll of extreme weather

Guardian analysis shows human-caused global heating is driving more frequent and deadly disasters across the planet, in most comprehensive compilation to date

www.theguardian.com

 

[sphexx]

Some happy reading about the planet

Revealed: how climate breakdown is supercharging toll of extreme weather

Guardian analysis shows human-caused global heating is driving more frequent and deadly disasters across the planet, in most comprehensive compilation to date

www.theguardian.com

Nothing will be done until it’s too late — COVID showed that on a smaller scale.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I’m not confusing anything.

Agreed.

The first question that doesn't seem to be asked, because it's against the fundamental tenets of the religion, is: "what are the realities of the climate?" How do humans actually affect a volume of water estimated at 1,386 trillion liters and a volume of gas estimated at 51,500 trillion kilogrammes? What evidence is there that, even given we accept that human generated carbon triggered the climate change, our prayers (sorry) changing the level of carbon emissions, will have any effect whatsoever on this enormous system?

Wouldn't it be far better to assess what changes will affect which areas and how can we respond now, in practical ways, to cope with those changes?

Instead, the faithfull jet around the world attending climate change conferences, which come down to demands to penalise the people who can do the least to affect things.

 

[Pound Coin]

Agreed.

The first question that doesn't seem to be asked, because it's against the fundamental tenets of the religion, is: "what are the realities of the climate?" How do humans actually affect a volume of water estimated at 1,386 trillion liters and a volume of gas estimated at 51,500 trillion kilogrammes? What evidence is there that, even given we accept that human generated carbon triggered the climate change, our prayers (sorry) changing the level of carbon emissions, will have any effect whatsoever on this enormous system?

Wouldn't it be far better to assess what changes will affect which areas and how can we respond now, in practical ways, to cope with those changes?

Instead, the faithfull jet around the world attending climate change conferences, which come down to demands to penalise the people who can do the least to affect things.

Unfortunately, the huge spending on disinformation by the oil industry appears to work well.

 

[Pound Coin]

Wouldn't it be far better to assess what changes will affect which areas and how can we respond now, in practical ways, to cope with those changes?

Hey we could build a Thames Barrier!

 

[Mr Bump]

There's also the point that we've been pouring out bad stuff for 150 years.

Now there are people saying "oh, we are clean, look at the dirty people over there*!" Not very edifying.

*whilst being loads of stuff from the dirty people...

yup all those things its a massive problem not just physically but mentally
getting people to take ownership of the individual problems that they are causing
over consuming , bad car choices leading to higher pollution. obesity , bad food choices
all these things are part of the bigger picture , yes china and America are big polluters even Australia is a massive coal user.

The point is we as a country need to forge onwards to create a lower carbon and cleaner UK we also make jobs and create better technology which pushes us up
the wealth and progress scale in the world, wind turbines, solar arrays , wave power all these things bring investment to the UK

while out there some people are making short lived fortunes betting on oil and gas the long term money is all in renewables and electric vehicles and a low carbon world.

In years to come the Chinese will desperately need to move on , there just making it much harder for themselves now the people will cry for change in decades when there cities become so polluted they are barely able to be lived in.

 

[sphexx]

Agreed.

The first question that doesn't seem to be asked, because it's against the fundamental tenets of the religion, is: "what are the realities of the climate?" How do humans actually affect a volume of water estimated at 1,386 trillion liters and a volume of gas estimated at 51,500 trillion kilogrammes? What evidence is there that, even given we accept that human generated carbon triggered the climate change, our prayers (sorry) changing the level of carbon emissions, will have any effect whatsoever on this enormous system?

Wouldn't it be far better to assess what changes will affect which areas and how can we respond now, in practical ways, to cope with those changes?

Instead, the faithfull jet around the world attending climate change conferences, which come down to demands to penalise the people who can do the least to affect things.

Earlier in the thread you said words to the effect “the climate has always been changing in the past”.

What leads you to think that?

 

[sphexx]

Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, fighting regulations that would make clear the economic risks posed by a warming world, lobbying against climate-minded nominees to key federal posts and using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past year, treasurers in nearly half the United States have been coordinating tactics and talking points, meeting in private and cheering each other in public as part of a well-funded campaign to protect the fossil fuel companies that bolster their local economies.
Last week, Riley Moore, the treasurer of West Virginia, announced that several major banks — including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo — would be barred from government contractswith his state because they are reducing their investments in coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.
Mr. Moore and the treasurers of Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled more than $700 million out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, over objections that the firm is too focused on environmental issues. At the same time, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are pressuring the private sector to drop climate action and other causes they label as “woke.”

And treasurers from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma joined a larger campaign to thwart the nominations of federal regulators who wanted to require that banks, funds and companies disclose the financial risks posed by a warming planet.

How Republicans Are ‘Weaponizing’ Public Office Against Climate Action

A Times investigation revealed a coordinated effort by state treasurers to use government muscle and public funds to punish companies trying to reduce greenhouse gases.

www.nytimes.com

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

What leads you to think that?

Everything I've read on the subject, which is quite a lot. You know, of course, that geology and other studies suggest the planet has had three major changes of atmosphere...

1. After formation, no stable atmosphere to speak of.
2. An atmosphere composed mainly of Hydrogen and Helium captured from gas clouds, and lost through the action of the solar wind.
3. An atmosphere created partly from volcanic outgassing and parlly from impact degassing of meteors.
4. An atmosphere with appreciable amounts of Oxygen created initially by bacteria but later sustained by plant photosynthesis.

During the fourth atmospheric epoch, the planet has swung several times between very cold and very warm periods, according to the research by those interested in such things. Even within these periods, quite dramatic planetary temperature swings occurred.

 

[Pound Coin]

Everything I've read on the subject, which is quite a lot. You know, of course, that geology and other studies suggest the planet has had three major changes of atmosphere...

1. After formation, no stable atmosphere to speak of.
2. An atmosphere composed mainly of Hydrogen and Helium captured from gas clouds, and lost through the action of the solar wind.
3. An atmosphere created partly from volcanic outgassing and parlly from impact degassing of meteors.
4. An atmosphere with appreciable amounts of Oxygen created initially by bacteria but later sustained by plant photosynthesis.

During the fourth atmospheric epoch, the planet has swung several times between very cold and very warm periods, according to the research by those interested in such things. Even within these periods, quite dramatic planetary temperature swings occurred.

Except what is going on at the moment is not natural, it is manmade.

Those four changes you mention - did any of them take place over 150 years? No, I didn't think so.

 

[Pound Coin]

For those who might be thinking that ”climate has always changed” is a reasonable approach to answering why the earth is warming up, here is some reading.

Skeptic Arguments: Fixed Numbers

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

 

[Nod]

Those four changes you mention - did any of them take place over 150 years? No, I didn't think so.

To be fair, we can't know for sure - none of us were there to time them...

 

[sphexx]

To be fair, we can't know for sure - none of us were there to time them...

Though you not entirely wrong there are some remarkably precise timings such as the geological layer that contains creatures that did* the day “the” meteorite crashed — I think even naing* it am or pm.


* Edit, no idea what “naing” was supposed to be, naming? Nailing? And “did” should be died!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The important thing to remember about the United Church of St Thunberg, is that it permits no deviation from its orthodoxy.

To this end the hierarchy is in the process of reviving the Spanish Inquisition. So doing will ensure that blasphemers and unbelievers are brought to their senses and learn to accept all the miracles, portents and signs in full, as interpreted by the church elders. Any departure from the authorised texts will be dealt with suitable severity (although all burnings at the stake will be Carbon Neutral).

 

[Pound Coin]

The important thing to remember about the United Church of St Thunberg, is that it permits no deviation from its orthodoxy.

To this end the hierarchy is in the process of reviving the Spanish Inquisition. So doing will ensure that blasphemers and unbelievers are brought to their senses and learn to accept all the miracles, portents and signs in full, as interpreted by the church elders. Any departure from the authorised texts will be dealt with suitable severity (although all burnings at the stake will be Carbon Neutral).

Are you serious?

This is as close to bat-s*** crazy as can be.

 

[sphexx]

Are you serious?

This is as close to bat-s*** crazy as can be.

Severe case of pedophobia I think.

 

[Nod]

Though you not entirely wrong there are some remarkably precise timings such as the geological layer that contains creatures that did the day “the” meteorite crashed — I think even naing it am or pm.

IIRC they think they know the season and, as you say, the time of day but the year can only be guestimated at around 66 million years ago (give or take a few thousand years, apparently!) Fairly sure that the climate change(s) that occurred at that time were faster than today's (possibly/probably man exacerbated) change.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Are you serious?

To quote Bob Dylan...

Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours”
I said that​

 

[woof woof]

The important thing to remember about the United Church of St Thunberg, is that it permits no deviation from its orthodoxy.

To this end the hierarchy is in the process of reviving the Spanish Inquisition. So doing will ensure that blasphemers and unbelievers are brought to their senses and learn to accept all the miracles, portents and signs in full, as interpreted by the church elders. Any departure from the authorised texts will be dealt with suitable severity (although all burnings at the stake will be Carbon Neutral).

This is one worrying aspect and brings into question the impartiality of science. Science isn't even the right word as some of those who are very vocal on this have no background in any related science.

Mentioning growing coral reefs, forming glaciers. historically explainable fluctuations in temperatures, no unusual rise in sea levels or electric cars possibly causing impending disaster won't get you funding or likes and keep the money rolling in but The End Is Neigh does.