COP26 - the Glasgow Climate Summit

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

... The people in Ithaca ...... promise to "attack climate change" by "decarbonizing" as soon as they figure out specifically what that means ...
... and making the delivery so far down the road that nobody will remember this puff piece when/if they achieve it or don’t ...

This is the problem in a nutshell.

Perhaps, you should have read the article, I linked.

...the city is ready to begin going into buildings and start the work on Thursday.“
We are ready to go, Day One" ...

And, they know exactly how they are going to go about it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by mat jam

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/...-level-claims/
History falsifies climate alarmist sea level claims

By Robert W. Endlich

No part of that article acknowledges the unprecedented warming that's been going on in the last century. Sea level change is just one aspect of the potential impact of this warming. There are others.

So I don't much care that sea level has been changing in the past for other reasons; I care that the unprecedented warming we are currently creating may cause a bunch of negative effects NOW, one of which is sea level changes.

By removing cheap fuel you are asking for - not possibly but defintely - a population die off. The same fuel that created the population explosion.

Our relationship with fossil fuels is much more complex than that, and so are the required solutions.

It's still the case that in the first-world we are overconsumers of energy and other resources, and that we subsidize and otherwise encourage continued unchecked consumption. There's no excuse for not reducing waste and frivolous consumption, regardless of your position on climate change. If only to make fossil fuels last more than the next 100 years.

Of course we can't end fossil-fuel tomorrow. There must be affordable alternatives in place to meet energy needs. Why shouldn't we push harder now for those alternatives, instead of ridiculing and dismissing the tangible progress that's been made?

By the way, my life has been devoted to this eco thing in that one of the four research areas but the main one is designing buildings that live in symbiosis with its surroundings - naturally cooling and heating. My published research is now a direction for many of the best research schools. My ideas, like many come from the past ancient ways of india, middle east, etc. who lived at peace with their surroundings.

Marvelous. Keep spreading the word, and maybe help push for lower ecological impact and higher efficiency standards in buildings.

[Bycrick]

Sea level is rising. So what? It’s up 360 feet in the last 20000 years. The difference is that we don’t remember that except maybe in myths (like Noah’s boat). 5000 years ago when the sea rose, you abandoned your thatched hut or skin tent and moved inland. No big deal.

Now, you have trillions of dollars of development and billions of people living in these areas. From the earth's perspective, that’s just too bad. Things change. Business as usual.

The ultimate answer is we’re going to have to adapt, that means change with it. Most of the changes will be difficult and expensive.

Nobody is willing to give up their lifestyle without having an unavoidable reason for doing so. Not the rich, overfed first-worlders who will pay $100/year to save the world, nor the poor Indonesians who will continue to cut down the forest to plant palm oil plantations so they can send their kids to school, put food on the table and provide soap for the Canadians.

See this story. Lots of promises and pledges. Little concrete action.

https://apple.news/ALVuQMQjgSQOsj0qRlHorQg

.

[Bycrick]

As usual, Gord, you just don’t like me deconstructing your posts..

"Begin operation on a plan" means that they think they’ll have a plan to do something, someday.

“Obtaining private financing" means that they don’t have the money yet, don’t want to raise taxes to get it, and are looking for some gullible private investors.

You can spin it your way, but so can I.

[mat jam]

If you read the comments it all gets addressed by people who know what they are talking about. If you can not bother then you might as well just jump now unless this entire exercise is about entertainment cause there is no science here.

There is no unusual warming! You are only parroting the talking points spoon fed you!!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by mat jam

If you read the comments it all gets addressed by people who know what they are talking about. If you can not bother then you might as well just jump now unless this entire exercise is about entertainment cause there is no science here.

There is no unusual warming! You are only parroting the talking points spoon fed you!!

What spoon are you being fed with?

Wattsupwiththat is a site with an agenda. Good for reading alternative viewpoints; hardly an objective source of scientific reporting.

[Bycrick]

LE's last post is one I can largely agree with. Where we differ significantly is the path. But that’s what makes horse races.

"There's no excuse for not reducing waste and frivolous consumption, regardless of your position on climate change." That theory is lovely. I agree with it in principle. That’s also the kind of "sky is blue" statement that MOR was accusing me of uttering. But the difference between what’s wasteful and frivolous is wildly different among different people. Hence the nasty problem of getting different people to buy in.

[GordMay]

QUOTE=Lake-Effect;3514859]... Of course we can't end fossil-fuel tomorrow. There must be affordable alternatives in place to meet energy needs. Why shouldn't we push harder now for those alternatives, instead of ridiculing and dismissing the tangible progress that's been made?
Marvelous. Keep spreading the word, and maybe help push for lower ecological impact and higher efficiency standards in buildings. [/QUOTE]
It remains to be seen, just how tangible any progress, being made, at COP26, becomes, as governments [and others] effectively implement, or don’t, some of the many commitments they are making.
My purpose, in starting of this thread, was to inform us as to what negotiations were taking place, what commitment were being made, and what, if any, actions were being planned, to realize them.

As others have noted, the conference is merely an early, small & necessary step, towards the goals of limiting the damage, and mitigating the effects of climate change, on us, and our planet.

Of course, the ‘Walters’, of the world, can always be counted on, to make the worst, of a good situation.

[genaea]

Originally Posted by mat jam

I also have been driving a lpg car for the past twenty yesrs which i recently gave away when i moved onto the boat. Everyone thought it was new as i rarely used it since i always ponied up to pay the ridiculous prices to live within walking distance to everything in large expensive cities. And can not remember the last time i took garbage out as i recycle everything, even food waste which gets fed to the local pigs. I grew up in the pnw and have been into green living for as long as i can remember, ...

Matjam, thank you for sharing and also for living your life as part of the solution.

So far, we have Matjam, Bycrick, myself, Taichungman, and MikeO spending time to let others know how they approach 'doing their part' in solving this equation. Thank you to all that have done so. As previously pointed out, we can all learn by sharing how others are doing this (not talking, doing).

Now that we have a small sample, I find it interesting that Matjam, myself, Taichungman, and Bycrick (4/5 of the list above) are also moderately or heavily criticized (or dismissed from being objective) for the opinions given on this subject matter, mainly because these opinions do not coincide with some other opinions put forth.

I am wondering if this is something worth pondering, or will this observation be dismissed as being too subversive and non-objective?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

As usual, Gord, you just don’t like me deconstructing your posts..
[1] "Begin operation on a plan" means that they think they’ll have a plan to do something, someday.
[2] “Obtaining private financing" means that they don’t have the money yet, don’t want to raise taxes to get it, and are looking for some gullible private investors.
You can spin it your way, but so can I.

Again, from the news article:
“... Ithaca had already lined up $100 million in private financing [2] over the summer to support the effort from private equity partner Alturus. Its building energy efficiency partner BlocPower is in place and the city is ready to begin going into buildings and start the work on Thursday [1]...”
You’ve no need to ‘spin’ the facts, just learn to read with comprehension.
I'd respect your contributions a little more, despite your flawed conclusions, if you got, at least, some of the basic facts right.
I'd like them more, if your conclusions agreed with mine.

[Bycrick]

LE — I’d assert that there ain’t no such thing as an "objective" source. This is an ancient philosophical argument. Ever publisher with an IQ higher than room temperature has a point of view. That can be expressed by what they do or don’t publish. "All the news that’s fit to print." Define that in a manner devoid of all subjectivism. Almost any adjective has a subjective bias: fair, reasonable, affordable, wasteful, tangible, reasonable, rational, etc. All of those depend for meaning on what the author internally thinks.

That’s one of the reasons that when I take issue with a point of view, I try to use source material that the reader would normally expect to confirm their natural and normal bias. People are (slightly) more likely to believe a story they don’t agree with from a source that they largely do agree with.

When Gord publishes puff pieces from the UN press office, I don’t trust them. Any more than you would trust a story from Fox News on the joys and successes of the Trump administration.

A dose of critical skepticism when reading anything, from anybody, is, I think, a necessary ingredient.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

LE — I’d assert that there ain’t no such thing as an "objective" source.

I find it fairly easy to differentiate between a source with journalistic integrity, regardless of their lean, and one that was set up from the get-go to push a specific viewpoint or to target a specific audience. For example, Faux News has clearly skewed to the latter category in much of their coverage. In their favour, they also run The Simpsons, so there's a bit of redemption there.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by genaea

So far, we have Matjam, Bycrick, myself, Taichungman, and MikeO spending time to let others know how they approach 'doing their part' in solving this equation. Thank you to all that have done so. As previously pointed out, we can all learn by sharing how others are doing this (not talking, doing).

Now that we have a small sample, I find it interesting that Matjam, myself, Taichungman, and Bycrick (4/5 of the list above) are also moderately or heavily criticized (or dismissed from being objective) for the opinions given on this subject matter, mainly because these opinions do not coincide with some other opinions put forth.

I am wondering if this is something worth pondering, or will this observation be dismissed as being too subversive and non-objective?

I think that's called "virtue signalling" - something that's openly derided if it's a left-leaning person doing the humble-brag, but just fine if someone right-leaning is doing the chest-thumping.

Pro-tip: the discretionary acts of a noble few aren't much help with systemic problems.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by mat jam

If you read the comments it all gets addressed by people who know what they are talking about. If you can not bother then you might as well just jump now unless this entire exercise is about entertainment cause there is no science here.

There is no unusual warming! You are only parroting the talking points spoon fed you!!

I read it. He cherry picks the ports to examine. I have been to Bodrum, Marmaris, Fethiye, and other Turkish ports. None are 5 kilometers from the sea, they are all operating ports. Ephesus silted in; it is at the mouth of a river.

The current warming is unusual.

"Furthermore, our reconstructions demonstrate that the modern global temperature has exceeded annual levels over the past 12,000 years and probably approaches the warmth of the last interglacial period (128,000 to 115,000 years ago)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by genaea

Now that we have a small sample, I find it interesting that Matjam, myself, Taichungman, and Bycrick (4/5 of the list above) are also moderately or heavily criticized (or dismissed from being objective) for the opinions given on this subject matter, mainly because these opinions do not coincide with some other opinions put forth.

I am wondering if this is something worth pondering, or will this observation be dismissed as being too subversive and non-objective?

Those opinions are dismissed because science does not support them.