Sure. Your consistent inability to maintain an adult's emotional capacity is a laugh.

Keep crying little girl. It’s risible.

Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it.
— unenlightened

Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.

The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.

Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.

He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.

Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions? — Agree-to-Disagree

Ah, happy days are here again!

Everything he says about the lack of a realistic plan and the vast expense that government commitments imply is pretty much true. Those commitments are not going to be met. I knew you'd like it!

But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change. Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career - because no one ever wants to hear unalloyed bad news. :cool:

Why do you imagine I post videos I haven't watched? Or that I haven't somewhat comprehended?

Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source. — Agree-to-Disagree

I have already explained that global temperature and sea level rise are lagging indicators to atmospheric CO2 levels, because CO2 acts as an insulator not a direct heat source. The rapid increase in CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning is only now beginning to have an effect. the radiative balance of the Earth has changed and the planet surface will continue to warm until a new balance is achieved. meanwhile, as we begin to overheat, we continue to add another duvet or two.

Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career — unenlightened

According to Wikipedia:

Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
He is 75 YEARS OLD

I don't think that he is very interested in "furthering his own career".

You have jumped to another incorrect conclusion. :scream:

But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change. — unenlightened

You might be interested in some of the highlights of Professor Michael Kelly's career.

- He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993 and won its Hughes Medal in 2006

- He was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government

- He was elected in 1998 as a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering

- In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy). The panel concluded that there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET is highly qualified in science and engineering.

FRS = Fellow of the Royal Society
FREng = Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
FIET = Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology

How many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly?

How many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly? — Agree-to-Disagree

I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer.

...
There are many problems that will occur if we try to shift away from fossil fuels too quickly. The change to renewable energy will continue, but it also has many risks associated with it. — Agree-to-Disagree

Is this pretty much what your position is that you're advocating for?

Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them -- you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change"

?

And there it is again :)

Risible.

Is this pretty much what your position is that you're advocating for? — Moliere

Yes

Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them — Moliere

I don't think that I have ever said that the people who like EV's are not intelligent. In certain circumstances they are a good thing. But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent.

you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change" — Moliere

Yes, that more or less is my thesis. There are many areas where gasoline vehicles are currently better than EV's. Some examples of problems with moving to EV's too quickly are:
- power grid capacity
- need to upgrade power infrastructure
- need to have more EV charging stations (owning EV charging stations is not a very profitable business)
- lithium battery fires
- many EV's have poor performance in real world conditions (e.g. range, using the heater, length of time to charge, queuing at charging stations, slower changing in cold weather)
- EV batteries have poor performance when too hot or too cold
- can be a problem in emergencies (e.g. getting away from wildfires)
- traditional automakers being closed down (the loss of many jobs, not just direct jobs but also many third party businesses)
-
There are many other problems but that is enough for now.

I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer. — unenlightened

I repeat again, he was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy).

Why do you think he was chosen to do an independent scientific assessment of "climategate"?

Investigating "climategate" must have given him a lot of insight into the world of climate models and how reliable or unreliable they are.

Climate models primarily use physics, chemistry, and fluid dynamics to represent the Earth's climate system through mathematical equations, essentially applying the fundamental laws of these sciences to simulate how energy and matter interact within the atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces.

Professor Kelly is a physicist.

And the icing on the cake, Professor Kelly has engineering skills which no climate scientist has. If you need an engineer, don't consult with a climate scientist.

But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent....

There are many other problems but that is enough for now. — Agree-to-Disagree

Which governments are using force to get people into EV's?

It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things?

At present people are able to allowed to make their own decisions about what type of vehicle is best for them.

But note how it's not addressing the issue: CO2 levels continue to rise, and the various predictions linked to that continue to be true.

I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt.

This need not be read too literally. In a way what we are to the industrial revolution this future generation will be to us -- the industrial revolution inherited the benefits of "free" energy because it was later generations who pay the price of trying to figure out how to support billions of people with a resource that is finite, and which is continuing to warm the planet.

In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal.

Which governments are using force to get people into EV's? — Moliere

If you ask ChatGPT the question "which countries have electric vehicle ev mandates, it lists the following:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. European Union
4. United Kingdom
5. China
6. India
7. Japan
8. South Korea

It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things? — Moliere

Probably the best known mandate is the UK's. The UK government has now enacted the ZEV Mandate into law, which officially came into force from 3rd January 2024.
This has brought the UK to be more in line with EU countries and Canada.

Here is a summary:
- There is an imposition on car manufacturers to sell a percentage of ZEVs every year. This percentage is set to increase over time, until by the year 2035 it should be at 100%.
- ZEV sales made by car manufacturers will be converted into certificates. The sellers will need to hold a certain number of certificates by the end of each year to avoid fines.
- For car manufacturers who fail to reach the set target, there is the possibility of either trading certificates with other car manufacturers who managed to exceed the target, or else be fined £15,000 per car.
- There are separate targets for CO2 emissions in order to help in regulating non-ZEVs.

At present people are able to allowed to make their own decisions about what type of vehicle is best for them. — Moliere

Yes, at present. But in future years the rules are getting stricter.

I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt. — Moliere

Many people, including me, can't afford to buy an EV. Will you give me one for free? My current gasoline car, which is 14 years old, will probably last me until I die.

In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal. — Moliere

Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us? Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid? Won't technology become better with time?

Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us? — Agree-to-Disagree

No.

Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid?

It wouldn't matter either way; we're clever enough to see a problem, but stupid enough to want to keep it.

Won't technology become better with time?

No.

The issue of climate change is a political, not an engineering, problem. We already have the means to address it in terms of the science -- we just don't want to because we like the way things are, so we imagine that there's going to be a future invention that will save us.

In terms of science that's about as good as praying to Jesus Christ. It makes sense to believe in it, but there's no reason to do so.

Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us?
— Agree-to-Disagree

No. — Moliere

Won't technology become better with time?

No. — Moliere

You have a very pessimistic view of the world. Pessimism can lead to a lack of action and/or depression.

The issue of climate change is a political, not an engineering, problem — Moliere

I disagree. It is a political AND an engineering problem.

We already have the means to address it in terms of the science — Moliere

There are many problems with the proposed solutions. Many of those problems are financial and engineering type problems. Science has not solved those problems.

My view of the situation is an honest appraisal based upon what we are doing, what we know, and what we are able to do.

What we are doing is hoping the future figures it out, when we have the means to address climate change in terms of our engineering and scientific knowledge.

Or, really, that the future is the one who pulls the lever.

What I see is a bunch of adults hoping that the children of tomorrow are bigger adults than they are after they die; leaving very little of an example for our children to learn from.

Or, in the worst of cases, saying that the future will birth a bright genius who will save the world. That's a familiar story that's told in more than scientific lingo. That's asking for Jesus Christ to solve the problem: It may stave off pessimism, but it's still scientifically false.

This is getting fun again Mikie! Repeat yourself MORE! :D

Sure! You’re a risible, triggered little imbecile you can’t stop commenting or following me around. You’re right, it is fun! We know you lack the maturity or emotional regulation to move along, so I look forward to continuing. :grin:

Oh, this one was deep. Say more!

Case in point. No wonder no one takes your boring lectures on character seriously. :lol: Just another troll.

You are obviously not on Mikie's ignore list. He must want to continue talking to you.

I suggest that you put Mikie on your ignore list. I have put him on my ignore list and I no longer see his vacuous posts. . :rofl:

I don't have one, because I am adult. It seems Mikie not only needs an ignore list, he chooses, instead, to lean into everything that could show his childish side. Not my circus :P

I'm waiting for something a bit more on the nose...

I am adult. — AmadeusD

Not my circus — AmadeusD

Yeah, you’re just a happy-go-lucky guy, never missing an opportunity to demonstrate your maturity and wisdom (and to lecture others about it).

Oh wait…

You're a dick. — AmadeusD

LOL. What a thread. — AmadeusD

What a model of self control and polite conversation. Like most sanctimonious twits.

But keep following me around, by all means. I don’t know who you are or why you have a beef, but so be it. Whatever I said in the past must have really triggered you —very glad to see it demonstrated again and again. :up: (And glad to have the opportunity to embarrass you repeatedly for the posturing runt you are.)

And since risible guy is also a huge hypocrite, I’ll eagerly await his next witty remark (which is really simply the ability to move on and the compulsion to get the all important “last word”) while pretending to be above it all.

Again — no wonder he’s a laughingstock here. Glad that I can contribute in displaying it publicly.

I don't have one, because I am adult. — AmadeusD

I was only joking about me having an ignore list. I don't want to miss out on Mikie's pearls of wisdom (wink, wink. :rofl: )

One of the things that I like about Mikie is that I don't have to spend any time making Mikie look foolish and immature. He does a great job of that himself. . :scream:

This is somewhat off topic, because it doesn't deny fossil fuel effects, but merely ignores them. But we all love Milankovitch Cycles don't we?

I first learned about milankivitch cycles from a library book that was published in 1970. It's ok to talk about the Earth's wobble without mentioning climate change. It's just one of many factors in natural climate change that goes all the way from the water at the equator being close to a boil (thermal maximum at the time primates first evolved) to the entire oceanic surface freezing so that they really aren't sure how life made it through that (that was caused by too little CO2.) That was a real mass extinction. We are not having a mass extinction right now. Not even close. A scientist who specializes in mass extinctions says that people who think we're having a mass extinction just don't understand the term. How's that from climate denial? :joke:

Reducing pollution accelerates global warming. How do we solve this catch-22?

This article was published on 02 November 2023
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/02/reducing-pollution-accelerates-global-warming-how-do-we-solve-this-catch-22

Air pollution, a global scourge that kills millions of people a year, is shielding us from the full force of the sun.

Stripped of its toxic shield, which scatters and reflects solar radiation, China's average temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 2014 (note - this is since 2014, not since pre-industrial times).

This has triggered fiercer heatwaves, according to a review of meteorological data by news agency Reuters and confirmed by six leading climate experts.

The removal of the air pollution - a term scientists call 'unmasking' - may have had a greater effect on temperatures in some industrial Chinese cities over the last decade than the warming from greenhouse gases themselves, the scientists say.

They say efforts to improve air quality could actually push the world into catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts.

"Aerosols are masking one-third of the heating of the planet," says Paulo Artaxo, an environmental physicist and lead author of the chapter on short-lived climate pollutants in the most recent round of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed this year.

"If you implement technologies to reduce air pollution, this will accelerate - very significantly - global warming in the short term."

During heatwaves, the unmasking effect can be even more pronounced. Laura Wilcox, a climate scientist who studies the effects of aerosols at the UK's University of Reading, says a computer simulation showed that the rapid decline in SO2 in China could raise temperatures on extreme-heat days by as much as 2C.

Which scenario do you prefer?

1) - have air pollution and lower temperatures and kill millions of people a year

2) - have improved air quality and higher temperatures and potentially catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts and possibly kill billions of people

Climate change is not a scam.

It is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train.

Do you think we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels for 150+ years and not have a catastrophic effect on the climate? Isn't that something a child would believe? Even if you knew nothing of atmospheric science and someone said, "hey, let's dig up all this coal and oil and natural gas and burn it year after year" wouldn't you think maybe that's not a good idea?