Why should I care about Climate Change while China has 43 New Coal Fired Power Stations in the works

It has become impossible for any scientist to challenge what is now a religion, where contrarians are called 'deniers' - pejorative name calling that characterises centuries of persecution of millions with alternative views to Catholocism in Europe over centuries.

You now have scientists afraid for their jobs because several have been given the boot by universities for being 'deniers'. The climate priests conspire among themselves to hide data sets, deliberately and illegally avoid complying with FOI requests, conspire to have editors of science journals replaced or gotten rid of, and this cabal peer review each others papers and generally work to promote their own truth, while suppressing any that are contrary - hence the trying to get true believers into journal editorial positions.

The IPCC packs it's output with the signatures tea lady, the janitor, and all and sundry and then claim 10,000 scientists agree with this and have signed off on it, when only a fraction have any business doing so.

It's a religion, not science. There have been many calls for denial to be declared illegal and for any such people to be put in prison. We are close to hauling out guillotines, sharpening their blades and oiling the slides so climate deniers can be disposed of more efficiently.

And you talk of confirmation bias. Thanks, I only studied that back in the late 70's in reference to experiment design. Your religion is based on nothing but confirmation bias.

There is no longer any science, as it is literally impossible far anyone anywhere to gain funding for pursuing any line of research that isn't intended to confirm and reinforce the dogma. When dissenting voices can literally lose their jobs, science is dead.

Keeling reported the science back in the '50s. Mann isn't also banging on about the WEF or whatever like that loony you quoted. And his hockey stick hypotheses are continually being re-verified. Unlike anything the anti-science camp says.

Oh according to these guys? "Data Fudgers" indeed

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

Not really 'amassing more ice' it's a seasonal flux

2021 looked awful similar to 2017 by October.

Thanks. Sure, go ahead.

You shouldn't. Individual blame for climate change is something corporates manufactured to shift the spotlight away from themselves.

We should support carbon taxes on them, expect better practices, and not beat ourselves up over our minute insignificant luxury of 'living'

you shouldn't at all.

its the same reason no one knowns the global breakdown by country of emissions and further broken down by industry.

as an example, what % does ireland contribute to global emissions? what % of that is via agriculture or cars or home heating or whatever else?

the data aint there cos no one has done the research (if it is, please point me to it).

ireland represents about .0064% of the population (7.7bn vs 4.9m). i think if we ban all cars and flights to and from it'll be the best thing for the environment.

Climategate, this nothingburger? https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Mann was right, of course. Again and again his conclusions are supported. It's getting warmer at a much-faster-than-normal rate due to human activity. It's as obvious as the nose on your face. What's sad is, when Gore did his movie in 2000, there might have been a chance to do something about it. Now, it's rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic. Keep denying away though, it'll make you feel better when you're living in your oceanfront property in Alice Springs.

Your knowledge comes from Putin's propaganda. No surprise here. Mann achieved his ends, Ball is a lying discredited crank funded by the global warming denial industry. Are you getting your cut?

I think its fair to say we turned off our coal production too early but we were expecting to have cheap oil/gas for a little while longer. China is going to go nuclear in the long term but as they've got such a gigantic operation over there I suspect they needed coal as a stepping stone.

If we're going to go green, and avoid nuclear power, we were going to have to do it eventually. Having to import all our energy is going to get more expensive in the long run. Building the worlds largest Synchronous Conpensator at moneypoint is ambitious but should pay off in the long run much like Ardnacrusha did in the early days.

Even if you think the harm of carbon emissions is overblown (I'm sort of in that camp) in the long term it'd nice to be less exposed to the whims of international markets.

I believe that worldwide there are more than 1000 new coal fired power stations either planned or under contruction.

If we're looking at 30 to 40 years of operation for each of those, I'd suggest, anybody of us can forget thinking of electrical vehicles, wind generation and any new taxes the various EU governments are trying to impose on us.

Fact is, it's NOT aviation, it's coal. The world needs to move away from coal and that at the earliest convenience. Coal is more than half of the CO2 emissions.

If the EU can't even run the single currency, the Euro, how is the world supposed to police CO2 emissions especially coal in 3rd world countries?

China is currently planning to build more nuclear capacity than renewables, given their differing capacity factors. But they are still going to build out more coal plants than those combined. The synchronous compensator isn't something to be admired, it's just something necessary when you have awful variable energy sources. It's like praising a metal plate and screws in a leg holding and strengthening a badly shattered bone, when an unbroken healthy bone is what most people would rather have.

Renewables are vastly more variable than any market. Basing a grid wholely on their vagaries is a dire strategy, and vastly more expensive than the nuclear option. There was a 6 week lull in the wind last autumn. The amount of energy storage necessary to fill such gaps, apart from not existing in any country, is going to add enormous costs, so enormous that nobody can put a figure on them.

Well I figure offshore wind in the Atlantic, while eyewateringly expensive to construct, will be pretty continuous. Whether hydrogen storage of energy is still a little pie in the sky I'm not sure. Certainly onshore wind is variable enough that you've always got to have fossil fuel backup making further construction of it sort of unnecessary. I've always thought nuclear was the most sensible option but its got a bit of an image problem so its a non starter anywhere other than China where people don't get to have an opinion.

A certain minimum windspeed, and yes maximums to avoid catastrophic failures.

Nuclear's problem isn't just image. South Carolina for example, our politicians love to boast about our strong portfolio of nuclear energy, but they're not very proud of the waste and would love to keep exporting it to SRS Georgia or to the deep storage facility in Nevada. The politicians speaking to this love telling me how safe it is to store in Nevada - but when I asked them in a back and forth, would you support an equally safe storage facility here in our upstate, they didn't say a word. If it were truly safe, the answer should have been simple and fast. But the people who chair these energy committees apparently have a good idea how risky and dangerous the management of this stuff is, hench making it someone else's problem.

Offshore Atlantic wind turbines will not be continuous. Capacity factor varies hour by hour and starts at 0 and peaks vary with the weather fronts passing the country (look at the month data). The chart below is from this dataset (excel) it shows the average capacity factor over a year. The Wind energy Ireland lobby group will advertise higher capacity factors. Solar only has a capacity factor of 11% in Ireland and is non-existent in Winter months (short day lengths, cloud cover) That is why the system has to be backed up with gas generation plants that can rapidly respond to changing conditions.

For 2 hours on March 25th 2022 there was no wind in Ireland, the wind generators consumed power (-2 MW). This weather system affected much of North Western Europe, Britain and Denmark wind turbine generation was not doing much as the same time.