Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I'm not sure why you responded like that. As I said, I don't really know much about net zero and I really don't know why it's regularly described as madness. I'll look it up myself instead if you are unable to give me a brief synopsis, that clearly shows how it's so dangerous to us all. 

Have given you a link above for you ,, when your done are you interested in answering the questions I asked you in the response you didn’t like

[Archied]

1 minute ago, ariotofmyown said:

Haha! I just read that myself, thanks! 

How you fixed for doe ?

you enough to buy an ev ? You got enough to scrap your boiler for a heat pump ? You got enough for your bills even without the green subsidies 20% ? Your paying , do you need me to go on ? Do you fully back the shifting of our carbon footprint to other countries pretence which does nothing to reduce whole planet carbon but does plenty to reduce our countries economy ,Shall we talk about the new target being tagged on regards the food chain ?

[ariotofmyown]

58 minutes ago, Archied said:

How you fixed for doe ?

you enough to buy an ev ? You got enough to scrap your boiler for a heat pump ? You got enough for your bills even without the green subsidies 20% ? Your paying , do you need me to go on ? Do you fully back the shifting of our carbon footprint to other countries pretence which does nothing to reduce whole planet carbon but does plenty to reduce our countries economy ,Shall we talk about the new target being tagged on regards the food chain ?

You have clearly studied this document more than I have. I mostly read the 4 principles at the start (as below) which seem to be contary to some of your post above. Is your main problem with the madness of Net Zero the content of this document, or that you don't believe this strategy will be delivered as the document lays out?

1. We will work with the grain of consumer choice: no one will be required to rip out their existing boiler or scrap their current car

2. We will ensure the biggest polluters pay the most for the transition through fair carbon pricing

3. We will ensure that the most vulnerable are protected through Government support in the form of energy bill discounts, energy efficiency upgrades, and more

4. We will work with businesses to continue delivering deep cost reductions in low carbon tech through support for the latest state of the art kit to bring down costs for consumers and deliver benefits for businesses.

 

[GboroRam]

40 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

You have clearly studied this document more than I have. I mostly read the 4 principles at the start (as below) which seem to be contary to some of your post above. Is your main problem with the madness of Net Zero the content of this document, or that you don't believe this strategy will be delivered as the document lays out?

1. We will work with the grain of consumer choice: no one will be required to rip out their existing boiler or scrap their current car

2. We will ensure the biggest polluters pay the most for the transition through fair carbon pricing

3. We will ensure that the most vulnerable are protected through Government support in the form of energy bill discounts, energy efficiency upgrades, and more

4. We will work with businesses to continue delivering deep cost reductions in low carbon tech through support for the latest state of the art kit to bring down costs for consumers and deliver benefits for businesses.

 

Madness. Absolute madness. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

You have clearly studied this document more than I have. I mostly read the 4 principles at the start (as below) which seem to be contary to some of your post above. Is your main problem with the madness of Net Zero the content of this document, or that you don't believe this strategy will be delivered as the document lays out?

1. We will work with the grain of consumer choice: no one will be required to rip out their existing boiler or scrap their current car

2. We will ensure the biggest polluters pay the most for the transition through fair carbon pricing

3. We will ensure that the most vulnerable are protected through Government support in the form of energy bill discounts, energy efficiency upgrades, and more

4. We will work with businesses to continue delivering deep cost reductions in low carbon tech through support for the latest state of the art kit to bring down costs for consumers and deliver benefits for businesses.

 

Mission creep for 1

yes how it s carried out too , you won’t need to scrap your car under law but we will make it totally beyond financial reach of the masses by taxing you off the road, currently I pay the thick end of £600 to tax my car ,,,whilst ev owner is charged ? Hmmmm NET ZERO ,silly me I thought road tax was for the upkeep of roads, I bought a new van a short few years ago under pressure and advise from gov so I could carry on earning a living round london ,diesel as recommended, now that van is being made hugely expensive to take on the roads , ulez charging, them goalpost s moved quicksmart , shall I just nip upstairs for thousands under the bed for another ? Even if I could , millions can’t 

gas boilers will see exactly the same treatment 

I could go on but I’m sure you get my drift , 

I see nothing in the above you’ve posted that is not just vague , no figures set out , no promises to be held to and yet you have faith in politicians to do the right thing without set out policies and figures let alone with ??????

let’s move to keeping the lights on , we do not and will not have the tech and infrastructure to meet these targets,

we currently import colossal amounts of coal and gas when it’s under our feet and claim our green credentials from this slight of hand which leaves us not only at the mercy of others regards price but vital supply too , now I know you envisage a hairy fairy world where’s there’s a gentle breeze all day every day, the sun shines and the power stays on but I don’t as many others don’t,

we can go into more if you wish but being as I’ve played ball you do the same

tell me what amount of degrees or percentage of a degree the U.K. hitting those targets will reduce climate warming at a cost of trillions, energy security and off spin pollution from replacement s please

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[Archied]

38 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Madness. Absolute madness. 

Wonder ,, what do you and the main disciples of this religion on here do for a living as I’ve got an idea it may have quite a bearing on how you are affected and your views

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

Mission creep for 1

yes how it s carried out too , you won’t need to scrap your car under law but we will make it totally beyond financial reach of the masses by taxing you off the road, currently I pay the thick end of £600 to tax my car ,,,whilst ev owner is charged ? Hmmmm NET ZERO ,silly me I thought road tax was for the upkeep of roads, I bought a new van a short few years ago under pressure and advise from gov so I could carry on earning a living round london ,diesel as recommended, now that van is being made hugely expensive to take on the roads , ulez charging, them goalpost s moved quicksmart , shall I just nip upstairs for thousands under the bed for another ? Even if I could , millions can’t 

gas boilers will see exactly the same treatment 

I could go on but I’m sure you get my drift , 

I see nothing in the above you’ve posted that is not just vague , no figures set out , no promises to be held to and yet you have faith in politicians to do the right thing without set out policies and figures let alone with ??????

let’s move to keeping the lights on , we do not and will not have the tech and infrastructure to meet these targets,

we currently import colossal amounts of coal and gas when it’s under our feet and claim our green credentials from this slight of hand which leaves us not only at the mercy of others regards price but vital supply too , now I know you envisage a hairy fairy world where’s there’s a gentle breeze all day every day, the sun shines and the power stays on but I don’t as many others don’t,

we can go into more if you wish but being as I’ve played ball you do the same

tell me what amount of degrees or percentage of a degree the U.K. hitting those targets will reduce climate warming at a cost of trillions, energy security and off spin pollution from replacement s please

You raise valid points there and there are obvious questions and problems in moving people towards a different way of using energy.

I wish the conversation could be around these debates though, rather than net zero is absolute madness vs pouring brown liquid over pieces of art. Just maybe, there is some middle ground.

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

You raise valid points there and there are obvious questions and problems in moving people towards a different way of using energy.

I wish the conversation could be around these debates though, rather than net zero is absolute madness vs pouring brown liquid over pieces of art. Just maybe, there is some middle ground.

I’m with you 100% but I’m afraid that it won’t / can’t happen as more and more people like myself are sick to death of extremist behaviour, extremist language , people forcing they’re will on us to cause whatever disruption to our lives as they wish ,empty our wallets, make policies without so much as a question or debate that the reaction is and has to be to fight back , give it back in spades , point out the hypocrisy s and wholes in demands and plans ,, and to top it all the same old same old we are of superior intellect and virtue to those who won’t buckle under without question is used ,

god how refreshing would it be if we had a group come along who said right let’s sit down and look at how we can move the planet to a better place in a sensible workable way without the tunnel vision and obsession with single issues 

was the same with covid , no matter your view on the reaction only a fool could deny that the failure/ refusal to look at ALL aspects and harms that policies could / would bring was a best a mistake , all lives matter and by extension all deaths / harms 

[GboroRam]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Wonder ,, what do you and the main disciples of this religion on here do for a living as I’ve got an idea it may have quite a bearing on how you are affected and your views

I work in a chicken factory. 

[Highgate]

2 hours ago, I am Ram said:

I'm not several decades behind at all (respect lol), sorry for not 'believing all science', sorry i had an opinion that differs from yours. I am not a denier, i know we contribute ghg\fossil fuels etc, but the earth has been warming for 11,700 years we are in an interglacial period. Truly with respect, there are many different theories and scientific studies out there, yours is the mainstream narrative at this present time, but it comes with a political undertone, hence a slight skepticism. I will leave you peacefully to debate on.

I don't know exactly how skeptical you are of science, but I'll assume that you understand and agree that GHGs in the atmosphere warm up the planet. I mean that is established well beyond any reasonable doubt and the effect can be demonstrated by any competent school science teacher so I don't see how there is any room for debate on that point.  

Given that that is the case and given that what is depicted in the graph below is also the case, then the extrapolation isn't too difficult.  I've not mentioned politics at all as it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether anthropogenic climate change is true or false.  Only science can tell us that. 

 

[Archied]

22 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I work in a chicken factory. 

Doing what? 

[Archied]

8 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't know exactly how skeptical you are of science, but I'll assume that you understand and agree that GHGs in the atmosphere warm up the planet. I mean that is established well beyond any reasonable doubt and the effect can be demonstrated by any competent school science teacher so I don't see how there is any room for debate on that point.  

Given that that is the case and given that what is depicted in the graph below is also the case, then the extrapolation isn't too difficult.  I've not mentioned politics at all as it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether anthropogenic climate change is true or false.  Only science can tell us that. 

 

Oh come on , tell us what degree s or fraction of a degree the U.K. reaching net zero will bring the global temp down , you must have a graph or figure for that question, what is the result , what does it achieve in real quantifiable terms after all it will cost in the trillions and be massively problematic for the British people and its economy 

[I am Ram]

57 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't know exactly how skeptical you are of science, but I'll assume that you understand and agree that GHGs in the atmosphere warm up the planet. I mean that is established well beyond any reasonable doubt and the effect can be demonstrated by any competent school science teacher so I don't see how there is any room for debate on that point.  

Given that that is the case and given that what is depicted in the graph below is also the case, then the extrapolation isn't too difficult.  I've not mentioned politics at all as it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether anthropogenic climate change is true or false.  Only science can tell us that. 

 

Why do you fail to acknowledge other causes and\or reasons that contribute to global warming, other than human consumptions. Has you keep telling me, the science is out there. You just don't like a different narrative it appears, if we can't debate, it turns into a one sided lecture.

[Archied]

11 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

Why do you fail to acknowledge other causes and\or reasons that contribute to global warming, other than human consumptions. Has you keep telling me, the science is out there. You just don't like a different narrative it appears, if we can't debate, it turns into a one sided lecture.

Yep and the reason he won’t answer the all important question on the real quantifiable effect on planet temp of the U.K. spending trillions , wrecking its economy and energy self reliance whilst putting its citizens through real hardship and misery is because it’s about roughly NET ZERO, wonder if you put that to the vote in this country how it would go??‍♂️

[GboroRam]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Doing what? 

It support 

[Archied]

Seems nobody wants to answer the trillions dollar question, surely with all the undeniable science that even a lowly secondary school science teacher can see and the 97% settled science it’s a readily at hand figure , something that’s undeniably beneficial to the people of this country and the planet???????

after all we have loads on here telling me they have the answers skeptics like me are just to dumb to grasp

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[GboroRam]

27 minutes ago, Archied said:

Seems nobody wants to answer the trillions dollar question, surely with all the undeniable science that even a lowly secondary school science teacher can see and the 97% settled science it’s a readily at hand figure , something that’s undeniably beneficial to the people of this country and the planet???????

after all we have loads on here telling me they have the answers skeptics like me are just to dumb to grasp

I think plenty of people have tried but they don't know how to write it in a way that you can understand. I think they've stopped trying. I certainly have. 

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I think plenty of people have tried but they don't know how to write it in a way that you can understand. I think they've stopped trying. I certainly have. 

Just read the question and write the figure down ,,, but you or any of the disciples won’t do that because you know you will have to say it’s zero or bluster a bit about not knowing which doesn’t sit well with the undeniable settled science stuff ,

come on give me your figure ( or any of you ) surely you are not demanding all this stuff without knowing the reduction in climate change it will produce?

[Highgate]

Just now, I am Ram said:

Why do you fail to acknowledge other causes and\or reasons that contribute to global warming, other than human consumptions. Has you keep telling me, the science is out there. You just don't like a different narrative it appears, if we can't debate, it turns into a one sided lecture.

If you read through this thread, or the Global Warming thread before it, you would see it pointed out repeatedly, including by me, that it's well understood that the climate will vary naturally on it's own, with temperature increasing and decreasing in a complicated pattern over time.  It does this in response to a variety of factors, most notably variations in Earth's orbit and rotation, as well other factors such as vegetation and landmass distribution.  These in turn trigger positive and negative feedback loops such as global albedo and atmospheric GHG concentration.  I don't think you'll find anyone denying that such natural cycles exist.  

Even the graph that I posted earlier clearly shows continuous variation in CO2 levels long before humans starting burning fossil fuels, so obviously such background fluctuations are entirely natural. Therefore your claim that I'm failing to acknowledge other causes of climate change is well wide of the mark.  

The salient point is that humans are now altering GHG levels at an unprecedent rate, far more rapid that than any background natural variation. Over human time scales the natural variations are miniscule compared to the effect we are having due to fossil fuel burning. We've increased atmospheric CO2 levels alone from 280ppm to 415ppm in less than too centuries.  That's dramatic...and that's down to humans. 

[Highgate]

Just now, Archied said:

Oh come on , tell us what degree s or fraction of a degree the U.K. reaching net zero will bring the global temp down , you must have a graph or figure for that question, what is the result , what does it achieve in real quantifiable terms after all it will cost in the trillions and be massively problematic for the British people and its economy 

Well, first of all it's a bit ironic that you are demanding an answer to your questions, immediately after refusing to answer the question I posed you.  It would be understandable I think if I were to just answer 'go research it if you are serious' or something to that effect, just as you did. 

But in the spirit of at least attempting a meaningful dialogue, I'll first point out the difference in the graph I posted and the one your are requesting. The one I posted relates to the past, measured quantities of one single variable, atmospheric CO2.  What you are requesting pertains to a hypothetical future, and that's complicated to say the least.  The CO2 that the UK has already emitted will continue to contribute to warming for some time, that is already locked-in as they say. Therefore predicting exactly how much of a contribution the UK going net zero by 2050, and over what time scale that contribution would take effect, would be tricky even for an experienced climate modeler and their software.  So you won't be getting any graph here.

As I'm sure you know very well, the contribution of one moderately sized country (the UK in this case), if everyone else were to do nothing would be tiny.  I'm guessing it would certainly be less than a 0.1C reduction in global temperature over time, compared to business as usual.  As everyone agrees, this has to be a global effort for us to achieve anything. The contributions of any solitary country with the possible exception of China or the US, will be almost negligible. To use that fact, as a excuse for inaction would be dreadful mistake in my opinion.  

Other effects of achieving net zero are also beneficial.  In all honesty it's a good idea without the spectre of global warming (although because of it, the situation is far more urgent).  Think of air quality...how many lives would eliminating the burning of fossil fuels save each year?  Just look at your national or global figures for deaths due to air pollution and particulates if you remain unconvinced on that point.  Then there is the fact that you would have a energy security (no more depending on Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran for your energy needs) as well as a robust domestic energy production industry at home, creating jobs and wealth and not exporting them.  

Yes, the cost will be big, but the benefits will be wide-ranging and life preserving.