El Cid Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 What affect human activity is having should be very much open to debate. On the basis of the precautionary principle regarding CAGW, I'll pay the extra to switch from fossil to nuclear. I don't see what the point is in forking out for renewables on top of that. However that seems to be the plan: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/68816/216-2050-pathways-analysis-report.pdf Debate all you want, most scientists believe in climate change, most politicians believe in climate change, most people believe in climate change; all the major political parties believe in climate change. The present Government believe in climate change, I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Debate all you want, most scientists believe in climate change, most politicians believe in climate change, most people believe in climate change; all the major political parties believe in climate change. The present Government believe in climate change, I think Not quite. The vast majority of scientists believe in AGW. I'm one of them. The consensus regarding CAGW is a great deal weaker, if it exists at all. The primary difference between the two is the question of the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. The basic science says 1C/doubling of CO2. The climate modellers say 1.5-4.5C/doubling. Usually it's the 4.5C which makes the headlines. I find this highly dubious and rushing headlong into rebuilding our energy systems around the 4.5C hypothesis is extremely expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The consensus regarding CAGW is a great deal weaker, if it exists at all. According to google, CAGW stands for Citizens Against Government Waste, so I guess its not that widely used. Is it a term that you have picked up from a particular place? I have never heard of it before, so I am guessing its not a mainstream term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Debate all you want, most scientists believe in climate change, most politicians believe in climate change, most people believe in climate change; all the major political parties believe in climate change. The present Government believe in climate change, I think Well, I already agreed that climate change is an established fact. So giving a list of groups that agree with me is a fairly pointless reference to authority isn't it. It's also entirely irrelevant to this discussion, which is primarily about economics. You're trying to alter the terms of the discussion having had the economic case for renewables disproven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I find this highly dubious and rushing headlong into rebuilding our energy systems around the 4.5C hypothesis is extremely expensive. The human impact factor is used as a means to facilitate this investment. But the actual investment is more than needed, not only for the global energy situation, but in particular because of the politics of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Originally Posted by unbeliever View Post I find this highly dubious and rushing headlong into rebuilding our energy systems around the 4.5C hypothesis is extremely expensive. Subsidies are just another Government benefit. As a believer in climate change, I personally dont think that we can reduce our carbon consumption, not until the likes of the 'unbeliever' has suffered due to climate change, when it will be too late. So all these solar panels are a waste of time, but they wont harm society as much as electing a Tory government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The human impact factor is used as a means to facilitate this investment. But the actual investment is more than needed, not only for the global energy situation, but in particular because of the politics of energy. Wind farms have an adverse impact on people though. Many people find that they are a problem if situated within kilometres of residential areas. They cast flickering shadows when the sun is at the right angle, and they cause low level noise pollution that people find very disturbing. And due to the lower power output, we need huge amounts of the things in order to generate anything meaningful. Unlike nuclear, where we need just a handful of power stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The human impact factor is used as a means to facilitate this investment. But the actual investment is more than needed, not only for the global energy situation, but in particular because of the politics of energy. Please explain. The politics of energy is usually only an issue for oil. Oil is rarely used to generate electricity. Now battery cars, they're cool. But we need to wait for a new battery technology, maybe Na-O, before it becomes affordable for most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Subsidies are just another Government benefit. As a believer in climate change, I personally dont think that we can reduce our carbon consumption, not until the likes of the 'unbeliever' has suffered due to climate change, when it will be too late. So all these solar panels are a waste of time, but they wont harm society as much as electing a Tory government. We can reduce our carbon footprint by shifting as rapidly as possible towards nuclear power. It's the best environmental and economical solution. It's just not as trendy or popular with people who don't really understand the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Subsidies are just another Government benefit. As a believer in climate change, I personally dont think that we can reduce our carbon consumption, not until the likes of the 'unbeliever' has suffered due to climate change, when it will be too late. So all these solar panels are a waste of time, but they wont harm society as much as electing a Tory government. Where is the money supposed to come from? The government 2050 plan, which I linked to, of pretending to use renewables whilst actually depending on nuclear is going to cost about £1trillion. Your home gas will be cut off and you'll be required to drive an electric vehicle. Your electricity bill will go through the roof. You'll be spending more on electricity than rent. The state will also have to borrow heavily to fund it and cut back on everything not absolutely essential. Benefits, tax credits, a half-decent NHS, good schools. None of these things will be affordable with the enormous spending required for de-carbonisation. Won't you miss those things? You describe yourself as a believer in climate change. What does that mean? What do you think the climate sensitivity to CO2 is? Who are you suggesting has already suffered because of climate change? The only thing that anybody seems to have suffered so far is a big hike in energy prices due to the "belief" in climate change. P.S. There are links to climate change matters on the first page of results if you google CAGW, so it's not just me. Edited July 30, 2015 by unbeliever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now