COP26 - the Glasgow Climate Summit

[LakeSuperior]

According to the BBC 25,000 people will be coming from every corner of the world to attend COP26.

[LakeSuperior]

Here is a sneak peek through the window of our future that will be refined at COP26.

Bloomberg News: The next several decades could see more periods of energy-driven inflation, fuel shortages and lost economic growth as electricity supplies are left vulnerable to shocks...

The world is living through the first major energy crisis of the clean-power transition. It won’t be the last. ...

At the same time, two other sources of power -- wind and water -- have had unusually low output, thanks to unexpectedly slower wind speeds and low rainfall in areas including Norway.

In other words: A strained global gas market triggered Europe’s record-setting spike for electricity prices -- and the transition amplified it. ...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Here is a sneak peek through the window of our future that will be refined at COP26.

Bloomberg News: The next several decades could see more periods of energy-driven inflation, fuel shortages and lost economic growth as electricity supplies are left vulnerable to shocks...

The world is living through the first major energy crisis of the clean-power transition. It won’t be the last. ...

At the same time, two other sources of power -- wind and water -- have had unusually low output, thanks to unexpectedly slower wind speeds and low rainfall in areas including Norway.

In other words: A strained global gas market triggered Europe’s record-setting spike for electricity prices -- and the transition amplified it. ...

What's going on right now is a pandemic-fuelled glitch plus some geopolitics. This is not the new normal.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What's going on right now is a pandemic-fuelled glitch plus some geopolitics. This is not the new normal.

I'm afraid that you are living in a parallel universe

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I'm afraid that you are living in a parallel universe

I read the business press too, and I don't think that one column in Bloomberg is the last word on the subject. Seek out the actual reasons why there are currently some supply shortages in most everything, including in energy.

[LakeSuperior]

I cannot believe we are having this discussion. Current power cost spikes and shortages have nothing to do with supply chain issues. You know that full well.

Extrapolate, using logic and reason, the impact of meeting zero carbon goals by going to wind and solar without the technology for affordable storage. Then factor in the non-existence of zero carbon alternatives.

There is only one future and that is regression to a third world lifestyle, run-a-way inflation, social revolution, massive power costs, and intermittent supply. An lifestyle apocalypse if you will.

Let's solve the generation side first before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I cannot believe we are having this discussion. Current power cost spikes and shortages have nothing to do with supply chain issues. You know that full well.

I'm similarly in disbelief. So COVID didn't happen, the Russians aren't playing games with nat gas to Europe, LNG shipping isn't strained, the UK doesn't have driver shortages, Hurricane ida didn't affect Gulf coast refining capability... Have they repealed the forces of supply and demand? Your world sounds nice...

Extrapolate, using logic and reason, the impact of meeting zero carbon goals by going to wind and solar without the technology for affordable storage. Then factor in the non-existence of zero carbon alternatives.

The big story at COP26 is that very few of those goals have been met, or are likely to be met.

There is only one future and that is regression to a third world lifestyle, run-a-way inflation, social revolution, massive power costs, and intermittent supply. An lifestyle apocalypse if you will.

Let's solve the generation side first before we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

No question that generation solutions must be there. At the same time, replacing fossil fuel watt for watt with something else is not the answer; moderation and conservation have to be part of the solution as well. Global warming is not the only bad effect of overconsumption and depletion of resources.

There are many ways to preserve or improve our first-world lifestyles, without consuming so much, so fast.

[Bycrick]

Lake effect. You seem to be saying that we should judge the veracity and accuracy of the statement on the bearded-weirdos sandwich board by counting the number of people that are following him. "Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong" "All my Facebook friends agree with me, so it must be right." Sorry, but that isn’t what I was taught in science class.

Remember that only 50 years ago, the "scientific consensus" was that continents never moved and that the idea that a meteor killed off the dinosaurs was the rankest kind of science fiction. The difference is that the "consensus" didn’t waste trillions of dollars before they found out they were wrong.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lake effect. You seem to be saying that we should judge the veracity and accuracy of the statement on the bearded-weirdos sandwich board by counting the number of people that are following him.

That's silly. Can you not differentiate between subject-matter experts and "followers?

Remember that only 50 years ago, the "scientific consensus" was that continents never moved and that the idea that a meteor killed off the dinosaurs was the rankest kind of science fiction. The difference is that the "consensus" didn’t waste trillions of dollars before they found out they were wrong.

So, prove that the conclusions and predictions of the majority of climate scientists are wrong, already. That's all that's required.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's silly. Can you not differentiate between subject-matter experts and "followers?


So, prove that the conclusions and predictions of the majority of climate scientists are wrong, already. That's all that's required.

Prove they are right..

[Bycrick]

In the cases I referenced, all the subject-matter experts were uniformly wrong. It took decades before the "new consensus" was accepted by the experts. So why should I believe that this is any different? As long as the "experts" keep talking to each other, telling each other that they’ve got all the answers and using their "theory" as a justification to turn the world upside down, I reserve the right to be skeptical. And to point out the fallacies that are presented as incontrovertible fact. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want. Like the "correlation is causation" nonsense.

[Lake-Effect]

trying a different tack, I see...

Originally Posted by Bycrick

In the cases I referenced, all the subject-matter experts were uniformly wrong. It took decades before the "new consensus" was accepted by the experts.

This happens a lot, does it?

[Bycrick]

Yes it does. Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Michaelson-Moreley's proof that there was no luminiferous ether. Einstein’s Soecial and General Theories of Relativity, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, the various theories of quantum mechanics, plus the two I previously mentioned. All of those destroyed the previous world views deeply held by all the experts. The experts are often wrong. That’s what science is supposed to be about.

[Bycrick]

The comment above on OPEC catering only to the people who produce fossil fuels is exactly my point. They’re in the business of selling fossil fuels and making money. So they’re rightly suspected of being money grubbing hustlers on looking to improve their bottom line.

But I get tired of their opposition claiming some moral high ground about saving the world for the greater good of humanity. Especially when their own press release talks about attending or sponsoring because it will help market their prospective brand. Or influencing government officials in the side or back rooms.

One side is as bad as the other.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Yes it does. Newton's Theory of Gravitation. Michaelson-Moreley's proof that there was no luminiferous ether. Einstein’s Soecial and General Theories of Relativity, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, the various theories of quantum mechanics, plus the two I previously mentioned. All of those destroyed the previous world views deeply held by all the experts. The experts are often wrong. That’s what science is supposed to be about.

None of which represented an existential threat to us or to the overall continued health of the planet. You don't think the climate problem has been studied extensively, exhaustively, sufficiently?

No-one has explained to me why so many different governments, from China to the UK, have acknowledged the climate problem and want to act on it (or claim to, anyway), if it's not real. The US seems seems unique among the major countries in how its response to climate change depends almost entirely on which party is in power.

And no, I do not think there is any equivalance (moral or otherwise) between climate science and the fossil-fuel lobby. How could anyone make that claim?