"Green" policies are destroying this country

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120106311#Comment_120106311

Its gas. If I quote the Summary it's 'political' if I quote the actual report it's 'bullshit'. If you want extraordinary evidence, it's in the reports. Thousands of peer reviewed papers by thousands of scientists independent reviewed by fully qualified experts in their fields from almost every country in the world...

It's difficult to imagine how there could be more evidence to support the claim that humans are causing the observed warming. What evidence do you think is necessary?

You should read the report. The modelling is extremely comprehensive and there are whole chapters devoted to the uncertainties and the known unknowns.

There are multiple competing models all using independently calculated variables and constants from different data sources

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120106619#Comment_120106619

I tinker about with old watches and recently got an Apple watch for free(always good), but in need of a battery. So I dove in. Well jaysus, talk about designed to be throwaway. Getting it apart was like getting into Fort Knox. I fixed it in the end and a mate got a Christmas pressie. Compared to my other watches that were designed to be serviced and repaired "for life", if not a few lives. Now granted a watch is a single utility item. It tells the time/date/whatever, that's it. There is no upgrade path, nor a need for one and an Apple watch is an IT device and by virtue of that has a finite useful life.

However there is surely a middle ground. EG Cars could be made to last decades and be somewhat upgradeable. This goes triple for EV's. We can build airliners that are under constant stresses last for decades with updates along the way, yet cars maybe hit a decade before the scrapheap? Then there's the false promise of recycling. A 1930's car was made of various metals, glass, rubber, leather, wood, pretty much all of which could either be recycled, or would rot into the ground with saplings growing through it. A modern car on the other hand is chock full of stuff that can't be recycled, or only recycled once in a degraded form(the case for the majority of plastics) and I would be interested to timelapse an EV rotting away. I doubt it would be nearly so "green".

The main problem imho is consumerism itself and its exponential growth. Unsustainable growth too. We're ever more addicted to the new, the shiny, the upgrade and so long as somewhere on it there's a recycling or "green" sticker we can figure we're doing our bit, while we're throwing away the placcy packaging into the correct bins that goes to landfill or is burnt in an incinerator.

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120106822#Comment_120106822

First up, the summary for policymakers is a political statement.

Second, I work with actual CFD software and analysis. Those papers look great but peer reviewed doesn't make them a fact. The reality is that modeling is unbelievably complex for small projects. The industry leaders in the field would laugh at you if you asked them to try model anything near the scale of our planet. The reason being a tiny variation on one variable has huge knock-on effects in the modelled system. If you were to get a "working" model the results would need to be taken with a salt mine of a pinch.

Here's the thing though. I can agree that the climate is changing and I can also rightly question political decision that are going to significantly alter our way of life and drive down standards of living.

patnor1011

Its gas isn't it?

Oh no, its coal actually...

https://mishtalk.com/economics/a-big-green-mess-in-germany-with-coal-a-stunning-31-percent-of-electricity

Danno

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120102316#Comment_120102316

Anyone who questions Climate Change is blacklisted and labelled - you only have to go back a few pages to see "Climate Change Denier" being tossed around.

Danno

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120106823#Comment_120106823

I thought these guys: https://www.weeeireland.ie/ were on top of electrical recycling ensuring components get used again? Or is it another thing to be added to the list of green failures?

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120105996#Comment_120105996

You can stand on the route between Bray and Sandyford and observe it for yourself. N11 will do.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107491#Comment_120107491

Oh it looks great on the surface Danno, but note how short on actual details they are. 80% are recycled/reused. I'd like to see breakdowns on that. Since China stopped "recycling" electronic waste from overseas the picture is not so clear. I have found in the past when I did more digging the less confident I was in the claims. Same with plastic recycling.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/15/most-plastic-will-never-be-recycled-and-the-manufacturers-couldnt-care-less Only 9% of all plastics have ever been recycled. It's a marketing smokescreen by the producers. Far more cash in selling you new "virgin" plastics. Plus a lot of the plastics we use can't be recyled anyway and many of those that can be it's only a one time thing and in a downgraded form or as filler in new plastics. They're not like metals and glass. PET, HDPE and PP can be(though again as a one off downgraded materal for the most part), stuff like polystyrene, bioplastics, composite plastic, polycarbonate and plastic coated paper(which is a LOT of the packaging we throw out) can't be, or it's very difficult and/or toxic to do so.

A while back I saw one of our Green party eejits holding a sign up that said something like "No to single use plastics!". The sign was laminated. 🤦‍♂️Moron. Actually the sheer volume of waste from the printing industry alone is truly horrific and we don't really think about that. All those signs and displays you see in shops, promotional stuff etc? the bulk of it is laminated with plastic. Landfill basically. Next time you buy a new gadget check the packaging. That shiny smooth to the touch box? Plastic coated. Never mind the inner packaging. Mostly plastic.

ps200306

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120105097#Comment_120105097

The whole "Exxon knew" thing is ludicrous. Are we going to sue Panda and all the other waste recyclers because they knew that while we were clocking up greenie points for sorting our waste, all the plastics were going to third world countries and ending up in rivers and oceans?

As it happens, the Exxon scientists were publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Exxon employees were contributing to IPCC reports. They knew neither more nor less than other academics of the time:

A relevant twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1613655211725455361?s=20&t=_PIq07ntZh7A282dG_nbrg

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107914#Comment_120107914

So no data to back up your bold claim then? Guess I was correct

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120108170#Comment_120108170

Interesting to hear him talk about the garden of forked paths. It's every modelers worst nightmare and makes convergence extremely difficult without massive manipulation of the assumptions and variables the model is based on.

Honestly, I don't know how some can claim with a straight face they can determine with high levels of confidence that climate models are in any way accurate. We are many years away from even understanding the assumptions required to make a workable model, nevermind the computer power to actually do it at a scale that's usable.

GIGO, as they say in the trade.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120106929#Comment_120106929

Just another reminder that true cost is the price of the electricity , not what your exaggerated claims.

The reality is that the UK's new nuclear power pant with a strike price of £92.50/MWh keeps getting delayed. In the meantime offshore wind contracted prices per MWh have collapsed from £140 to £57.50 to £37.35

Nuclear can't compete with solar or onshore wind on price. It can't compete with offshore wind on price.

Nuclear could just about match the peak costs of hydrogen storage which is probably the most expensive and inefficient grid scale storage solution but that allows months of storage so there is no reason to wait for when/if nuclear arrives. And there are more efficient shorter term storage options. Nuclear simply can't compete with storage that's subsidised by the low strike price of renewables and deliverable sooner.

And that's if nuclear could actually be delivered on time instead of being cancelled which a significant proportion of nuclear projects are. It's a massive risk.

Even with your scaremongering costs (in reality strike prices have fallen drastically and refurbs are a fraction of initial cost as only a fraction of the original installation needs to be replaced) nuclear is still more expensive. In 2017 the excess subsidises for the 3.2GW Hinkley-C plant were projected to exceed £50Bn, that's not the cost , it's the cost increase. Construction costs had increased by at least £8bn to may last year which was before recent inflation and subsequent cost increases. And it could be 2036 before the plant is operational. (Seriously it still would be cheaper to walk away at this stage, but for reasons unknown the UK have extended the cut off clause to beyond 2030)

Global experience shows just 3% cost improvement over a series of reactors. The actual experience of EDF and Westinghouse this century shows no price drop but rather the reverse due to delays. The price gap between nuclear electricity and renewables can't but continue to increase.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107004#Comment_120107004

CFDs. You haven't defined these, but I'm guessing it means Contracts For Difference

If that's true, then you're committing the same mistake that others make by confusing weather predictions with climate predicitons

A CFD is related to a specific contract (stock or commododity) this is like a specific weather prediction

Climate models are related to long term averages. Your CFD models are not comparable to Climate models

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120106929#Comment_120106929

1.5 gw offshore wind is being built off the east cost or ireland for 2gb

30Gw should cost 45billion

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107491#Comment_120107491

The amount we're being charged for WEEE is ludicrously small.

A tenner to recycle a TV or Washing machine for example.

Its clear that the lobbiests got their mits in there somewhere

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120107464#Comment_120107464

give me an example of a climate scientist who is being blacklisted?

I 'tossed around' the 'label' of climate change denier to someone who denied that humans are causing climate change.

What should that poster be labelled as?

JRant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109485#Comment_120109485

Apologies, I should have stated what the TLA was, it's a bad habit from work. It's actually computational fluid dynamics and is incredibly interesting. It looks at the flow and interaction of fluids or gases or both using mathematical models and boundary conditions in software tools.

A tiny deviation in boundary conditions or model inputs can have a huge impact. That's why I'm so sceptical of anyone claiming a high confidence in climate models and that we should be basing global policy in part based on their results.

Danno

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109517#Comment_120109517

What is it with the greens, eh?

Never enough money from the plebs to fund their "great idea" is there?

WEEE charges have been reduced at least once if not twice since they were introduced well over a decade ago. Giving the current cost of living, increasing such charges again would ensure washing machines and TVs, etc... are fooked into the nearest bog hole - and rightly so.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109541#Comment_120109541

This seems to be a highly chaotic model. Anything relating to fluid dynamics, turbulance etc is extremely difficult to forecast/model

Climate models are not so chaotic.

Think of it like this

I pour a cup of cold water into a pint of boiling water

The TLA model has to work out where each molecule of water goes while the temperature equalises

The climate model only needs to work out the new average temperature of the pint glass

Climate models don't look at the chaotic parts of weather and atmospheric physics

They look at the high level outcomes averaged over time.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109513#Comment_120109513

Op costs are ludicrously small for renewables compared with any Fossil fuel or Nuclear generation technology

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109523#Comment_120109523

A realist ?

paddyisreal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109494#Comment_120109494

Children's hospital lol, should cost 45 billion lmao

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109578#Comment_120109578

A realist accepts evidence

I don't know any climate scientists who's first name starts with A and last name is 'Realist'

Do you have any actual examples?

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109543#Comment_120109543

You think it's right for people to dump old appliances into a bog hole?

How may have you personally dumped?

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109583#Comment_120109583

We're not talking about hospitals here. What relevance does a childrens hospital have?

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109578#Comment_120109578

The poster who liked this thread only liked it to bookmark their place on the thread.

Not because they agreed with it. Obviously

Pa ElGrande

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109523#Comment_120109523

You already know about the climate smear site, desmog, that has its list of targets. Here is another. Not to mention the hit job led by Kert Davies, then of Greenpeace, in the run up to the 2015 Paris conference that targeted several prominent skeptical scientists and affected their careers, people like Roger Pielke Jr & Judith Curry. Don't forget the activities of the scientists in climategate. Peer review on the subject of climate has become peer pressure to confirm. Richard Lindzen mentioned in the recent interview with Jordan Peterson how editors that allowed his papers to be published were fired, papers from skeptical scientists are now slow walked though review before being send back the authors for clarification and re-submission before being put through the same slow walk process again.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109671#Comment_120109671

So... you're angry that scientists who try to publish nonsense don't get through peer review easily....

Danno

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109598#Comment_120109598

Oh its perfectly fine 🙄

My point, which obviously went over your head, is that taxes such as WEEE should be at a minimum, an absolute minimum to encourage recycling of such goods.

When short-sighted ideologues like yourself say "these taxes are ludicrously small" you are blind to the fact that people will forego recycling and dump shít anywhere to avoid these charges. In the current cost-of-living crisis (a sizable proportion of which can be blamed upon green policies) people, having no alternative (i.e. spare cash), will seek out the most cost-efficient route to get rid of waste.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120109719#Comment_120109719

You've completely missed the point of the WEEE charges. It is free to dispose of electronics. You don't have to dump them in bogholes anymore

Maybe you should tell your friends

The WEEE cost is incurred when you buy the product. Not when you dispose of it