afcb_acklam
Well-known member
You talk a lot of sense
I think andy_w is probably the brainiest and without doubt, the most sensible, person I've ever known.... certainly on this forum..... which is quite a feat
Just Stop Oil protester punched and kicked
- Thread starter swordtrombonefish
- Start date
I think andy_w is probably the brainiest and without doubt, the most sensible, person I've ever known.... certainly on this forum..... which is quite a feat
Andy_W
Well-known member
I think andy_w is probably the brainiest and without doubt, the most sensible, person I've ever known.... certainly on this forum..... which is quite a feat
Thanks, that's an achievement on here, plenty would disagree though! I probably know quite a lot about quite a few important topics, but I know nothing about a lot more! I only really post on things I think I know a bit about mind, and I kind of obsess on them, until I find something else I feel is more important. Plenty of people on here know an awful lot about certain topics, it's what makes the forum great.
Always had a good grasp on numbers, stats and engineering though, which helps me understand a lot of things, or cut through a lot of the bull**** at least. Always try and offer some sort of reason, and provide detail etc.
Sensible is a different thing though, a lot would think the opposite! I just try and always look at what I think is the greater good, but try and be realistic that everything has a cost, as it does. Cost/ Benefit, Risk/ Benefit, problem-solving and efficiency are pretty much all I do for work, suppose it helps me understand the value in a lot of other things I take an interest in.
I think one thing which has really helped is that I don't really watch TV at all these days, probably not for 10 years, don't have the patience for it and get too distracted. Instead, I just read up about things and try and figure out how they work.
Muttley
Well-known member
You certainly have the patience of a really patient chap.
I would have lost it some time ago with Fridgey here so I stepped back. The point asking about his study of Science was not intended as personal (though I realise that it would seem so) it is just that we seem to have two conflicting attitudes to Scientists and their pronouncements
1. They are demigods who speak nothing but the sage truth
2. They are habitual liars whose forked tongues spew the devilment of our reptile overlords
If you have studied science to a reasonably advanced level you will know that neither is true. Scientists are human beings and they argue and debate about their findings and conclusions. What you must look for is a convergence of opinions where the majority of scientists agree. So Evolution for example is probably (made up number coming) agreed by 96%+ of scientists as a mechanism to explain what we observe in terms of animal diversity and specialisation. Finding some scientist who disagrees does not disprove evolution. It is the same with climate change and causes thereof. The consensus is that it is caused by increased levels of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Can you find scientists whose opinion differs of course and they will engender debate. Some will be outliers whose "research" either does not stand up to scrutiny or is perhaps funded by an interested body.
The development of scientific advice during the pandemic was a lesson in how science works. Science changes, things were got wrong at the start and the science changed. This is what science does. It challenges itself and when it is proven flawed it changes.
Anyway well done Andy again.
I would have lost it some time ago with Fridgey here so I stepped back. The point asking about his study of Science was not intended as personal (though I realise that it would seem so) it is just that we seem to have two conflicting attitudes to Scientists and their pronouncements
1. They are demigods who speak nothing but the sage truth
2. They are habitual liars whose forked tongues spew the devilment of our reptile overlords
If you have studied science to a reasonably advanced level you will know that neither is true. Scientists are human beings and they argue and debate about their findings and conclusions. What you must look for is a convergence of opinions where the majority of scientists agree. So Evolution for example is probably (made up number coming) agreed by 96%+ of scientists as a mechanism to explain what we observe in terms of animal diversity and specialisation. Finding some scientist who disagrees does not disprove evolution. It is the same with climate change and causes thereof. The consensus is that it is caused by increased levels of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Can you find scientists whose opinion differs of course and they will engender debate. Some will be outliers whose "research" either does not stand up to scrutiny or is perhaps funded by an interested body.
The development of scientific advice during the pandemic was a lesson in how science works. Science changes, things were got wrong at the start and the science changed. This is what science does. It challenges itself and when it is proven flawed it changes.
Anyway well done Andy again.
Muttley if I have offended you I am sorry I don’t pretend that I know all about climate change that’s why most of my posts have been asking questions, I don’t disagree that the science is backing man made climate change or that CO2 is a contributing factor my curiosity comes from a different angle that you may be missing or I am misinterpreting, a few scientists are skeptics not even on climate change but on climate modelling or the level of climate catastrophe that awaits with this and the obvious costs both echo logically and prosperity as well the most switched on scientists knowing almost every thing but not 100% of climate change as there are still unknowns I am just trying to gather as much information as I can, please don’t take this personal I have gained a lot of understanding and perspective most of which has been constructive, I do hope this makes some sort of sense so you can maybe have a little more patience with me
Laughing
Well-known member
Well this thread took a dark turn. Let's nuke somewhere to stop global warming! Eek!
I did read a couple of years ago an article on how particulates create bright clouds, particularly if there is sulphur present in the emission. The bright cloud is what stops the sun heating up, in the studies case, seawater. It isn't that the sky is darker but that the cloud is brighter.
So... Instead of nuking the isle of white, we could achieve the same by spraying clouds with sulphur. Unfortunately sulphur isn't very good for us and it's oxides can be deadly.
I am sure there are other things we can put into the atmosphere that have the same effect. Whilst this isn't meant to be taken seriously, something along these lines will probably be required at some point.
I did read a couple of years ago an article on how particulates create bright clouds, particularly if there is sulphur present in the emission. The bright cloud is what stops the sun heating up, in the studies case, seawater. It isn't that the sky is darker but that the cloud is brighter.
So... Instead of nuking the isle of white, we could achieve the same by spraying clouds with sulphur. Unfortunately sulphur isn't very good for us and it's oxides can be deadly.
I am sure there are other things we can put into the atmosphere that have the same effect. Whilst this isn't meant to be taken seriously, something along these lines will probably be required at some point.
Andy_W
Well-known member
No, wind is already far cheaper than gas, and solar is much cheaper than that. It's already better, much better, no point waiting for 5% gains as you lose out more whilst you're waiting. It's the same with investing, timing the market doesn't work, it's time in the market that wins most of the time, regardless of when that is.
A massive amount of the cost is in the grid connections, but even when you upgrade the panels, blades or motors you cans till use the existing cables for 200 years, probably even longer. Anywhere were the digging is complex they install ducts, and oversize them, so you pull out one old knackered cable and install a new better cable, it's super easy.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah the nuke thing or something similar is a daft desperate semi-solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist.
The problem seems to be coming though, it's just a case of how big that problem is. To reverse engineer that is going to take some seriously drastic options, which would not be anywhere near as bad if we accelerated our good options now.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I don't mind, the way I see it, I'm not just replying to him, it's more of an explanation to anyone else who may read what he wrote unchallenged and think it's a fair argument.
I'm just pointing out that massive scientific consensus doesn't agree with him, and I always go with the consensus when it's so overwheming, which is what you also explain very well.
Yeah the covid one was a good example, there were some really clued up folk on twitter who made that very easy to understand.
Laughing
Well-known member
Reaching net zero, whenever we do, as a species, probably isn't going to help all that much, I suspect.
We probably need to drastically reduce the world population, stop raping our home and make do with what we have if we want any kind of future.
The primary issue isn't global warming but the destruction of our eco-system. We simply have no respect for the planet that we live in nor understand how to live in harmony with it.
We probably need to drastically reduce the world population, stop raping our home and make do with what we have if we want any kind of future.
The primary issue isn't global warming but the destruction of our eco-system. We simply have no respect for the planet that we live in nor understand how to live in harmony with it.
Muttley
Well-known member
Indeed, it's just that I have seen more than a few trolls use this "just asking questions" tactic. Perhaps Fridgey is a straight up guy. Perhaps not. But as I said well done on taking the time to answer him exhaustively.
Straight up I would like to think so, curious absolutely, naive yes but willing to listen and learn as a person I would hope that although the above may detract in some way I am well grounded strong minded which may come across the wrong way an example would be that I came from a meat eating family at about the age of five or six when I understood where meat came from I refused to eat it and haven’t for the last 47 years.
It’s become obvious that my own naivety has ruffled a few feathers to those I apologise, I have enjoyed the thread but I didn’t feel like I was trying in any way shape or form to belittle the discussion, for those posting long thought out responses thank you, I have buried my head somewhat around climate change and I did post with good intention’s trying to gain more understanding and I think I have, the world as I see it is bad enough I have no desire to make it worse in any way shape or form.
It’s become obvious that my own naivety has ruffled a few feathers to those I apologise, I have enjoyed the thread but I didn’t feel like I was trying in any way shape or form to belittle the discussion, for those posting long thought out responses thank you, I have buried my head somewhat around climate change and I did post with good intention’s trying to gain more understanding and I think I have, the world as I see it is bad enough I have no desire to make it worse in any way shape or form.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
I am asking a question, but its not to troll.
Anyone - What is the impact of the 100 new licences for example does this replace the fields that are closing down over the next say 10 years?
I got the impression UK oil/gas production was decreasing in the North Sea, even with the new licences. Figures I have seen show a 75% drop in the last 22 years. The same for gas. We have to import a lot of our oil and gas now.
I fully support reductions in carbon emissions, but we will certainly need some oil and gas in 15 years time and probably in 20 years time. People will be installing gas boilers until 2035 and probably using them until 2050. Heat Pumps are also not possible for every property. I imagine we need some oil for plastics and fibres, some of which are used in the renewables sector. I can't see electric jets in the next 20 years and I can only see demand for air travel increasing.
I would tax air travel more and use the money to insulate more homes we have to significantly reduce energy consumption.
My objective is to reduce oil/gas consumption, but not eradicate it.
We need to increase tree planting - I see opportunities for the planting of millions more trees in the UK, just look around the Riverside.
Anyone - What is the impact of the 100 new licences for example does this replace the fields that are closing down over the next say 10 years?
I got the impression UK oil/gas production was decreasing in the North Sea, even with the new licences. Figures I have seen show a 75% drop in the last 22 years. The same for gas. We have to import a lot of our oil and gas now.
I fully support reductions in carbon emissions, but we will certainly need some oil and gas in 15 years time and probably in 20 years time. People will be installing gas boilers until 2035 and probably using them until 2050. Heat Pumps are also not possible for every property. I imagine we need some oil for plastics and fibres, some of which are used in the renewables sector. I can't see electric jets in the next 20 years and I can only see demand for air travel increasing.
I would tax air travel more and use the money to insulate more homes we have to significantly reduce energy consumption.
My objective is to reduce oil/gas consumption, but not eradicate it.
We need to increase tree planting - I see opportunities for the planting of millions more trees in the UK, just look around the Riverside.
I do believe I have been misunderstood I have also questioned the need for political leader’s flying to conventions rather than having them online and question why we are cutting down trees as they are our best natural line of defence, I would personally go a little further and put and end to deforestation in the uk, spending time on the top of Guisborough forest is something I will cherish but it’s been rapidly changing for the worst with all the logging going on.
Will_Graham
Well-known member
Probably too late for that, though contraception has been generally successful.From some of what written on various posts above.
There`s an obvious answer to the problem of global warming and climate destruction:
View attachment 61512
Global population will peak in 2050.Then probably start falling.
Problem is it isn't consistent across all countries. Some will be falling, others not. Countries with declining populations will have a whole new set of problems.
r00fie1
Well-known member
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
This sort of sums up how we got in this mess.
That nuking the planet to make it better even comes into our thinking is very telling.
I even thought hmmm, that kind of makes sense a bit so I'm obviously part of the problem.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Not had chance to read the article, but think it’s about something I’ve looked at previous.
It’s just a ransom stop, the govt will agree a higher strike price which is fair enough, as the one prev agreed was very low. £44 is 4.4p per kWh, and they’re paying double that for gas. Will just go to £60 or whatever and they’ll resume work.