Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

it is completely iniquitous to prevent other countries developing by restricting their use of technologies we have benefited from without assisting them to develop cleaner or improved standards.

Hello; Lets analyze this comment for a bit. I see the concept of equity has made it into the discussion. So I live in a modern developed country with basically western living conditions. A country just short of it's 250th birthday. We in my country are expected to soon adopt drastic changes in personal and societal lifestyles in order to combat CO2 and in doing so just might start to slow warming in 50 years maybe. { 50 years minimum according to the computer models, not my predictions}

In some countries considered underdeveloped or undeveloped they should be allowed to use methods which will continue to release CO2 unabated during the same time period on into the future. Some of these countries may be well over 250 years old, some may not. To be equitable they should get to continue to release CO2 without reduction in volume because my country did in the past. New rules for me but not for thee sort of thing.

Now, according to the facts, we all share the planet's air equally so we all have a stake in the quality of that air. I have been led to believe this is a reason why the climate champions want this to be a world wide issue.

So I will have to live a severely CO2 reduced life style while some select others get to continue releasing CO2 so as to not be iniquitous. I get it. I do not like it, but I get it.

I have not directly found it yet but do imagine somewhere in the trillions to be spent there will be money going into those undeveloped countries to help them build to a new CO2 standard. I also have an idea who will get to help pay for that in addition to the new costs in their own country.

Now if one of the underdeveloped countries for which this equity standard applies turns out to be China, then I will sorely pissed off. I will not be surprised, but I will be very pissed. China already is being given a pass on building coal fired power plants.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

In a nut shell climate change policies are to punish western nations for being prosperous.

 

[sk47]

In a nut shell climate change policies are to punish western nations for being prosperous.

Hello; I am sure the champions will contest this view point.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Lets analyze this comment for a bit. I see the concept of equity has made it into the discussion. So I live in a modern developed country with basically western living conditions. A country just short of it's 250th birthday. We in my country are expected to soon adopt drastic changes in personal and societal lifestyles in order to combat CO2 and in doing so just might start to slow warming in 50 years maybe. { 50 years minimum according to the computer models, not my predictions}

In some countries considered underdeveloped or undeveloped they should be allowed to use methods which will continue to release CO2 unabated during the same time period on into the future. Some of these countries may be well over 250 years old, some may not. To be equitable they should get to continue to release CO2 without reduction in volume because my country did in the past. New rules for me but not for thee sort of thing.

Now, according to the facts, we all share the planet's air equally so we all have a stake in the quality of that air. I have been led to believe this is a reason why the climate champions want this to be a world wide issue.

So I will have to live a severely CO2 reduced life style while some select others get to continue releasing CO2 so as to not be iniquitous. I get it. I do not like it, but I get it.

I have not directly found it yet but do imagine somewhere in the trillions to be spent there will be money going into those undeveloped countries to help them build to a new CO2 standard. I also have an idea who will get to help pay for that in addition to the new costs in their own country.

Now if one of the underdeveloped countries for which this equity standard applies turns out to be China, then I will sorely pissed off. I will not be surprised, but I will be very pissed. China already is being given a pass on building coal fired power plants.

No my point was that more developed nations should share and help lesser developed nations to allow them to advance without CO2 / pollution. I realise I may not have made that clear. It is indeed pointless to convert to renewables ourselves and then have developing nations pump out pollutants from oil and coal etc.

 

[Gregs24]

In a nut shell climate change policies are to punish western nations for being prosperous.

No. As I clarified that is not the point. We must help less developed nations progress without them adding to the problems we already have

 

[Gregs24]

Ahh so your solution is do nothing - well done.

If you can't even understand the problem I suppose it is a bit much for you to come up with a solution.

Your health comment is incorrect (another one of your 'statements')

Causes of death are changing and those related to outdoor air pollution are increasing.

Air Pollution - Our World in Data

 

[Gregs24]

OK lets try a really simple question. Do you accept that PM2.5 and PM10 causes health issues directly related to pollution? To help the answer is below.

Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10) | California Air Resources Board

Now lets try again - what are you proposing to reduce atmospheric pollution in your own cities ?

 

[sk47]

No my point was that more developed nations should share and help lesser developed nations to allow them to advance without CO2 / pollution. I realise I may not have made that clear. It is indeed pointless to convert to renewables ourselves and then have developing nations pump out pollutants from oil and coal etc.

Hello; Ok, I get that you do not want any nation to escape the new climate CO2 rules. Every one must give up currently working energy production methods if they emit CO2. OK, so that is not the sort of equity you had in mind. We can perhaps get into the hows and enforcement another time.

I was correct in that you want me to help pay for my own countries new climate infrastructure and also help pay for the same in other countries. ( I use me in the sense of any person from a developed country.) ( I will also imagine that a developed country with a crushing national debt will not get a pass because of that debt.)

May I conclude you used the term "iniquity" a few posts ago in the sense that because some in developed countries had a better lifestyle in the past, they now should pony up? A sort of climate guilt we ought to be ashamed of, perhaps in a similar sense of those who have been apologizing for being born a certain way. At any rate that is how the term equity is playing out in some other aspects of current times.

Let me close in this way. I will have to see the details of how it will work before I agree to footing the bill outside my country. Already too much foreign aid is known to be misused.

 

[K4fxd]

You think particulate pollution is bad now, wait till people can't afford electricity and start burning wood and coal for home heat.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Ok, I get that you do not want any nation to escape the new climate CO2 rules. Every one must give up currently working energy production methods if they emit CO2. OK, so that is not the sort of equity you had in mind. We can perhaps get into the hows and enforcement another time.

I was correct in that you want me to help pay for my own countries new climate infrastructure and also help pay for the same in other countries. ( I use me in the sense of any person from a developed country.) ( I will also imagine that a developed country with a crushing national debt will not get a pass because of that debt.)

May I conclude you used the term "iniquity" a few posts ago in the sense that because some in developed countries had a better lifestyle in the past, they now should pony up? A sort of climate guilt we ought to be ashamed of, perhaps in a similar sense of those who have been apologizing for being born a certain way. At any rate that is how the term equity is playing out in some other aspects of current times.

Let me close in this way. I will have to see the details of how it will work before I agree to footing the bill outside my country. Already too much foreign aid is known to be misused.

I get what you are saying and yes we have benefitted from huge consumption of fossil fuels, not just for fuel but for all manner of things. So we have had the huge benefit and it would indeed be iniquitous to then turn around to other developing countries and just say, no you can't have coal or oil to burn without us providing alternatives solutions. This isn't a 'proposal' incidentally, because it is what is happening, through direct finance, but also provision of expertise and knowledge to other countries.

There is no reason for a poorly developed country to build a coal powered power station when solar or wind power can be built and run more cheaply, as is the case now. I accept that those countries are on the coat tails of our own development costs that has got renewable production down to competitive levels, but it is for everybody's benefit.

PS iniquity and inequity are not the same thing.

 

[Gregs24]

You think particulate pollution is bad now, wait till people can't afford electricity and start burning wood and coal for home heat.

Once again cave man we have already discussed this at length, both are largely banned in the UK now anyway (coal and wet wood) for that very reason

I take it from that you don't have a plan either - not that you care living in your leafy suburb keeping the peons at arms length

 

[sk47]

Satellites may have underestimated global warming for decades (msn.com)
Hello; I am going to attempt a point again that I made earlier in this thread. First time it was about a comment in a link I provided that the computer model used had predicted an event to happen in 50 years was happening currently. The point is not one of "oh dear, things are worse than expected." The point was how can a tool ( computer model) be given confidence if it makes such a basic mistake. Such errors ought to have been worked out in the alpha and beta testing and not be discovered when the tool had already been used to support legislation.

Here is an underlined quote from the above link.
"The research, looked at the basic properties of tropical climate change; when combined with the equations that show the correlation between temperature and moisture, the experts found there were significant disparities."

That the satellites have been giving the wrong correlations for decades ought to be cause for pause about using those "tools", or at least the faulty aspects of the tools. Again I can see an "oh dear, things are worse than expected." reaction and ignore the flaw in the tool.

 

[sk47]

Hello: I had looked up iniquity.

immoral or grossly unfair
iniquity - Bing

 

[K4fxd]

both are largely banned in the UK

So people who cannot afford electricity will have to do without heat?

Great solution.

 

[Dr. Norts]

Climate change isn't whether you believe in it or not. It's happening...

It's science not Santa claus. Whether you believe in it or not doesn't matter or change that fact.

Sponsored