"Green" policies are destroying this country

roosterman71

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/06/green-energy-offshore-wind-power-orsted-new-jersey/

Another opinion piece on the struggles of the transition. No new insights. I'm highlighting here the way these articles are more common lately. Luckily there are signs that the ECB may reduce rates next year (the cynic in me thinks that will coincide with the EU elections and politicians will claim credit for that)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335581#Comment_121335581

The Telegraph is a paid mouthpiece of big oil vested interests. They and the Sun have been running puff pieces against EV's for a year or so. It shows that Big Oil is starting to get really worried about their position at the top table defining energy policy.

The transition has real unstoppable momentum at this stage, oil subsidies are been redirected and all intelligent money is been invested in renewables. The current commodities crisis will not go on for ever and the cash flow crisis in the renewables sector will go away when it does.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121334259#Comment_121334259

It is easy to see how a 'basic physics explain climate change and Co2 influence' idea can be painted by creating a closed lab environment w known variables and leaving out essential parts in an open dynamic interactive system. It is indeed the same stupidity that Al Gore used in 2007 and which impressed the general ignorant public. Moreover, he and/or the politicised scientists behind it were simply lying and distorting real physics to make Co2 the culprit in global warming. Real scientists are actually well aware of the complexity involved in the climate even if you ignore their position. To dumb it down to a level a child can understand is a political manoeuvre aimed at influencing simple minded people. People HATE complexity because it takes brain power so they like a simplistic model w a single 'problem' (Co2) and a single 'solution' (less or no Co2).

You can make a case for or against the Co2 driving climate change hypothesis. These are still at the level of opinions (stated hypothesis), NOT at theory level. One side wants the arguments/ discussions to stop so push for 'consensus' ie, politics. In normal science circumstances the door is never fully closed.

It is dangerous for scientists working in the field to actually state their real opinions so they keep silent. Most 'journalists' are ignorant about climate and energy in general. Same for most people commenting on threads like this one.

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121332871#Comment_121332871

Co2 is clearly important in an actual greenhouse. The greenhouse 'effect' however in the atmosphere and climate is broadly supported by scientists but can actually be challenged by allowing overriding other factors involved in the system. There is a variety of opinions about its effect on the climate. It cannot be deduced/deducted to a small factor equation. That is the only certainty we can establish. Those who insist it can and SHOULD are the real delusional ones..or simply bad actors.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121331017#Comment_121331017

2005 called, they want their climate change denial arguments back

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335682#Comment_121335682

The last few posts have just gone the conspiracy theory route, it's pretty fascinating to watch.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335680#Comment_121335680

Show me a single peer reviewed paper that provides a credible alternative hypothesis that explains why the global average temperature is rising, and then explain why this paper is more convincing to you than the collective research and expertise of thousands of active climate scientists and the stated policy position of every single reputable scientific institution in the world.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335698#Comment_121335698

And in a day or two when the masks are reattached, they will be back on here saying 'nobody is denying anthropogenic climate change'

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335709#Comment_121335709

It good to flush out their real motivations once in a while.

It's a simple physical fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has been known as such for a century. There are arguments to be had about what that looks like on the bigger scale - but to deny this basic physics just looks foolish at this stage.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335699#Comment_121335699

I'm pretty sure most of the posters have rejected the very concept of peer review cause it doesn't align with their view.

ginger22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121333946#Comment_121333946

I presume you realize that CO2 is essential for all life on this planet. Without it we would not exist.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335846#Comment_121335846

What is that point meant to mean in this context ?

Water is essential to life but you can still drown in it. The point is fundamentally dumb.

roosterman71

I like to see the green chest thunpers here patting each other on the back after pissing all over someone elses points, without bothering their hole to back up their assertatins other than

• you're wrong
• Peer review is the bees knees, therefore, you are wrong
• That post is dumb
• <insert_something_here> is financed by "Big Oil", therefore, you are wrong
• Conspiracy theory member joined. Muhahahaha

Pathetic

When someone posted something that goes against the narrative, they are jumped on, or the post/article dsmissed. When they are challenged on their assertions, poster is a conspiracy theorist or something. When real world lived life experiences are shared, dismissed as some academic doesn't agree.

Pathetic

All the while, I bet none of the posters here are making much effort bar token gestures to fundamentally change how they live to help the required change. While some are (myself included BTW), it's the minority

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336010#Comment_121336010

This is about denying basic physics. Do you agree that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas ?

I think you are wrong in your assessment of contributors. I personally am changing every aspect of my life to reduce my carbon footprint. The changes are large and touch every decision I make.

m2_browning

With interest rates high almost all of the US offshore wind projects are being cancelled last month

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2023/11/05/is-us-offshore-wind-fundamentally-broken/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/01/rsted-cancels-two-us-offshore-windfarm-projects-at-33bn-cost

their plan was to have 30GW by 2030

that doesn’t bode well for Irelands (our economy is 53x smaller btw) plans of checks notes 37 GW by 2050 with 5GW of that by 2030

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336034#Comment_121336034

Of course co2 is a greenhouse gas. One of many. Are people denying that? I didn't think so. I read it as people questioning if its the leading one. That's valid as the ppm has been much higher and much lower previously. And the numbers being talked about for reductions is a very small percentage and we're to belive that very small percentage would lead to catastrophic consequences

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336073#Comment_121336073

That is not what people have said.

The change in CO2 levels is 1/3 increase, not insignificant.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336079#Comment_121336079

OK. My recollection was wrong. I thought it was much less of a change in the ppm

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335846#Comment_121335846

Of course. (well, if you ignore the very early life, abiogenesis where primitive life probably fed on proton gradients on hydrothermal vents which may or may not have needed gaseous CO2 to survive)

If it wasn't for CO2, the earth would be a frozen planet with an average temperature of about minus 13c. Complex life on land would likely not be viable without CO2 being at least a hundred PPM in our atmosphere

But the fact that it's essential for our species to survive, doesn't mean more CO2 is better.

Humans start to suffer from CO2 toxicity at around 800ppm, which degrades our ability to concentrate and stay alert and can lead to organ degradation. The last thing the world needs is for the population to get dumber on average.

at 950ppm, complex decision making ability degrades by 15% according to some studies. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the concentration of CO2 indoors, and in urban environments increases even higher.

Cutting fossil fuels out of the energy system is important, not just to 'save the planet' but for human health and well being

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336010#Comment_121336010

Not all sources are equal. If you want to criticise peer review for being flawed, and then support blog posts or hatchet job articles from the Telegraph then you should be prepared to defend those sources instead of playing the victim card and pretending that the greens are being mean and hurting your feelings.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336179#Comment_121336179

No feelings hurt here. Sources on both sides are full of ****. You get peer reviewed stuff pro climate change, and you get peer reviewed stuff against it. What's going on here is the pro stuff is seen as gospel and the papers/comments against it are seen as worthless. The discussion isn't balanced and there's no back and forth. It's either you agree with it, or you are wrong on every level. Pathetic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336244#Comment_121336244

You really don't get peer review papers against climate change. There have been a handful published and they all crumble when subjected to the general peer review of the academic readers. There are literally no credible peer reviewed papers against AGW in circulation.

There are 10s of thousands of papers supporting the science of AGW, and even more who implicitly accept it.

You have fallen for the equality fallacy which the fossil fuel industry has been pushing for decades. You cannot have a meaningful discussion with someone who proceeds from a fundamentally wrong axiom - you are offering them that false equivilance and credibility for the axiomatic error

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336147#Comment_121336147

Preindustrial CO2 was about 280ppm

We're at around 420ppm at the moment, with concentrations increasing at about 2.7ppm per year

Climate sensitivity is a specific term that refers to how much the global climate will warm from a doubling of C02 concentration in the atmosphere. The current best estimates of Climate sensitivity is between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius with a potential for higher in the worst case scenario

On our current pathway, we'll reach a doubling of CO2 by about 2070, but there are also the potential of feedbacks causing us to reach this earlier, eg, if the Amazon becomes a net emitter instead of a net sink, or if the permafrost continues to melt and the tundra releases vast amounts of CO2 and Methane from respiration, and wildfires

CO2 concentrations have greater effect lower down in the concentration range, so what we do now matters enormously. 50ppm increase between 420 and 470ppm will have a bigger influence on global climate than the 50ppm between 470 and 520ppm. But this doesn't mean global warming is self limiting, because warmer air holds more water vapour, which is another powerful greenhouse gas, and rapid warming destabilises biomes, which can lead to rapid emissions of other powerful greenhouse gasses such as Methane.

Eventually those gases would balance out in the atmosphere, but not for hundreds or thousands of years, so the changes we are making now, will continue to have huge consequences well beyond the end of this century, and if we fail to stabilize the climate, it will continue to get worse and worse for future generations

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336272#Comment_121336272

Just so we are clear, I've fallen for **** all

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121333360#Comment_121333360

In the UK, the number of cars sold with an ICE engine has grown. In 2023 to date, there are 195,786 more vehicles with ICE engines sold when compared to 2022. The BEV raise is 66,940, or roughly a growth of 33% of those vehicles with ICE. Good news that BEV is growing, but thinking it's the bees knees when ICE still sells by a factor of 3 can't be discounted.

cO2 emissions from manufacturing is on the rise

https://www.acea.auto/figure/co2-emissions-from-car-production-in-eu/

Yet energy consumption for building the cars is down. How can that be down and emissions be up?

https://www.acea.auto/figure/energy-consumption-during-car-production-in-eu/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336453#Comment_121336453

You stated there is an ongoing academic debate about the origins of climate change, which there isn't.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336592#Comment_121336592

Where did I say that?

deholleboom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121335843#Comment_121335843

Peers can be as smart or as stupid as the people who write the papers. High bias cannot be a priori excluded.

Ergo, to default to a position in which 'peer review' is stated as an important factor is already a form of stupidity. But then, i am biased.

Anyone who denies he/she has no bias is by definition a liar..

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336618#Comment_121336618

some peer reviewed work on climate change matters is exceptional, but some is truly awful, and frankly dangerous.....

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121336618#Comment_121336618

And it's the best system we have and there's plenty of evidence within those studies that confirm climate change as man made. People who claim that it is not man made are free to utilise the exact same process. The fact they are not is reminiscent of the people who pushed bs during COVID-19, they never used that process cause it simply didn't stand up to scrutiny.