Scientist Rebellion
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
Is nothing sacred anymore?
In a statement, JSO said it was time for “megalithic action” and called for the next UK government to agree a plan to stop the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.
In a statement, JSO said it was time for “megalithic action” and called for the next UK government to agree a plan to stop the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030.
Their biggest mistake was making predictions of coming disaster on too short a time frame. Hundreds of scientific predictions of disaster that didn't happen, made over decades. Thing is you can't prove the future but you can see when predictions were wrong. They need to predict disaster a few generations ahead. Problem then is, no-one about now gives a crap.All one big scam from the start
Which are those?
What do you mean here? Are you saying that CO2 levels in the atmosphere aren't increasing? Or that human activity isn't the cause of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Or that the level is increasing, but it won't have any negative effects?
Apparently the dickheads on here need to be worried...
Something to do with micro plastics (oil based) and their failure to get their tiny things erected...
"Microplastics have been found in penises for the first time, with scientists raising questions about their impact on sexual health.
A study, published in the science journal Nature, assessed the tissue from six men* who had undergone surgery treating erectile dysfunction"
*six 'men' from GD that were sampled?
Something to do with micro plastics (oil based) and their failure to get their tiny things erected...
"Microplastics have been found in penises for the first time, with scientists raising questions about their impact on sexual health.
A study, published in the science journal Nature, assessed the tissue from six men* who had undergone surgery treating erectile dysfunction"
*six 'men' from GD that were sampled?
Most people in the world’s biggest fossil fuel producing countries want their countries to transition quickly to clean energy to fight the climate crisis, according to the largest ever climate opinion poll, conducted by the UN. In the US, the world’s biggest oil and gas producer...
The poll questioned 75,000 people in countries representing almost 90% of the global population. It found a large majority (80%) wanted their countries to strengthen their climate change commitments, with only 5% saying their country should weaken its action; 54% of people want a fast transition, as do 75% of those in Saudi Arabia, the second biggest oil producer. The poll also found 69% of Australians want a quick transition away from its large coal and gas sector. Even more – 86% – wanted to see their countries set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change. Steiner said this level of consensus was “stunning”, given the increase in conflict and the rise of nationalism around the world.
The People’s Climate Vote contacted participants via randomly generated telephone numbers, with results weighted to ensure they represented national populations, and special effort was made to reach those sometimes overlooked by polling, such as older women without any formal education. Globally, the poll found 72% of people wanted their country to transition quickly away from fossil fuels to clean energy, with majorities in nine out of 10 countries. Only 7% of people said there should be no transition at all.
Cop29, the UN’s annual international climate summit in December, is set to be dominated by the issue of climate finance and the poll showed 79% of people wanted rich countries to give more support to poorer countries. “The social and justice dimensions of the climate transition have become perhaps the most central variables in the way the politics will play out in the years to come,” said Steiner. “One of the lessons everyone has learned in recent years is do not underestimate the concern people have for their livelihoods and their ability to pay their energy bills.”
G0 Gr33n@The Guardian
The poll questioned 75,000 people in countries representing almost 90% of the global population. It found a large majority (80%) wanted their countries to strengthen their climate change commitments, with only 5% saying their country should weaken its action; 54% of people want a fast transition, as do 75% of those in Saudi Arabia, the second biggest oil producer. The poll also found 69% of Australians want a quick transition away from its large coal and gas sector. Even more – 86% – wanted to see their countries set aside geopolitical differences and work together on climate change. Steiner said this level of consensus was “stunning”, given the increase in conflict and the rise of nationalism around the world.
The People’s Climate Vote contacted participants via randomly generated telephone numbers, with results weighted to ensure they represented national populations, and special effort was made to reach those sometimes overlooked by polling, such as older women without any formal education. Globally, the poll found 72% of people wanted their country to transition quickly away from fossil fuels to clean energy, with majorities in nine out of 10 countries. Only 7% of people said there should be no transition at all.
Cop29, the UN’s annual international climate summit in December, is set to be dominated by the issue of climate finance and the poll showed 79% of people wanted rich countries to give more support to poorer countries. “The social and justice dimensions of the climate transition have become perhaps the most central variables in the way the politics will play out in the years to come,” said Steiner. “One of the lessons everyone has learned in recent years is do not underestimate the concern people have for their livelihoods and their ability to pay their energy bills.”
G0 Gr33n@The Guardian
Apparently the dickheads on here need to be worried...
Something to do with micro plastics (oil based) and their failure to get their tiny things erected...
"Microplastics have been found in penises for the first time, with scientists raising questions about their impact on sexual health.
A study, published in the science journal Nature, assessed the tissue from six men* who had undergone surgery treating erectile dysfunction"
*six 'men' from GD that were sampled?
Best advised you get an appointment with yer quack than
For either yer self or yer partner ???
...about half of all planned oil and gas developments between now and 2050 will be sanctioned by wealthy governments that position themselves as climate leaders: the US, Canada, Australia, Norway and the UK.,,the industry has fought tooth and nail to delay measures that would reduce demand for their product. They say that oil and gas profits are needed to fund the transition to clean energy, all the while knowing that oil and gas companies account for only 1% of clean energy investment globally.
Here in the UK, a movement has sprung up to loudly defend the public interest and weaken the power of the oil and gas industry. Supported by calls from scientists, health experts, MPs and even ex-oil and gas CEOs, this movement is challenging the dominance of the industry and its reheated arguments. It successfully halted the Cambo oilfield in 2021; framed the terms of the debate in Westminster and put pressure on politicians over new oil and gas licensing rounds; and is now focused on stopping the biggest undeveloped oilfield in the North Sea at Rosebank.
The flawed environmental calculus that enables governments to approve new oil and gas fields has recently been corrected by courts in the UK and Norway. Governments must now consider the emissions caused by burning the oil and gas extracted from fields when they assess a project’s environmental impacts, not just the much smaller emissions created by the extraction process.
Together with its commitment to end new exploration licensing, our new government is starting to grasp the urgent imperative to curb new production, as well as the huge opportunities presented by the transition to renewable energy. Unlocking these opportunities will require a properly funded and comprehensive just transition, and an industrial strategy designed with the interest of workers and ordinary people at its heart. But the reward for getting it right is thousands of good, long-term jobs; new sources of prosperity in parts of the country that need it most; and more affordable energy for all. And the biggest prize of all: averting climate disaster.
Tessa Khan@the Jolly Greeen Guardian
Here in the UK, a movement has sprung up to loudly defend the public interest and weaken the power of the oil and gas industry. Supported by calls from scientists, health experts, MPs and even ex-oil and gas CEOs, this movement is challenging the dominance of the industry and its reheated arguments. It successfully halted the Cambo oilfield in 2021; framed the terms of the debate in Westminster and put pressure on politicians over new oil and gas licensing rounds; and is now focused on stopping the biggest undeveloped oilfield in the North Sea at Rosebank.
The flawed environmental calculus that enables governments to approve new oil and gas fields has recently been corrected by courts in the UK and Norway. Governments must now consider the emissions caused by burning the oil and gas extracted from fields when they assess a project’s environmental impacts, not just the much smaller emissions created by the extraction process.
Together with its commitment to end new exploration licensing, our new government is starting to grasp the urgent imperative to curb new production, as well as the huge opportunities presented by the transition to renewable energy. Unlocking these opportunities will require a properly funded and comprehensive just transition, and an industrial strategy designed with the interest of workers and ordinary people at its heart. But the reward for getting it right is thousands of good, long-term jobs; new sources of prosperity in parts of the country that need it most; and more affordable energy for all. And the biggest prize of all: averting climate disaster.
Tessa Khan@the Jolly Greeen Guardian
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
Norway has a kind of National guilt feeling due to its oil reserves.
Norway's oil brings wealth but for some a sense of guilt
Norway's oil wealth has made it one of the world's richest countries, but some feel bad about it.
www.bbc.co.uk
Well done you! A post not attacking another poster. Utter load of ill thought out garbage though.
Norwegians shouldn't feel as guilty as the oil and gas companies - they knew. They lied - for over fifty years they've tried to cover up the truth about their contributions to Climate Change, and continue to promote a narrative which twists the truth to suit their agenda.Norway has a kind of National guilt feeling due to its oil reserves.
Norway's oil brings wealth but for some a sense of guilt
Norway's oil wealth has made it one of the world's richest countries, but some feel bad about it.www.bbc.co.uk
i think you will find Norway's electricity is extremely green.
One of the reasons for an increase in CO2 emissions is the anti nuclear power brigade. Some countries ignored that. Sweden surprisingly is an example. Germany on the other hand finished up with a situation that resulted in continuing the burning of brown coal. The nuc aspect influenced many developed countries.
Public pressure. Take more gas from the N sea. I assume we are still using some but we are also importing liquefied. Energy is needed to do that - what currently produces it? Loads of N sea gas has been used to produce electricity. Quickish switch from oil. Gas is the UK standard way of heating homes. How soon can that end? The entire N sea aspect was only possible when prices reached a level that suited the economics. Gas also attractive as no more coking coal. So what currently is the best option concerning the N sea?
The immediate halt brigade. They don't seem to realise that life as we know it would end immediately. Even food would be effected and a number of other aspects of life..
Politics in general appear to be well aware that going green will be expensive for the public. Cars can be an example. An explosion of ownership that started ~ mid 60's. Little thought about emissions other than smog for rather a long time. The same sort of approach was used with diesels as they became popular. Cars produce significant levels of CO2. Some EU figures
Passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (vans) are respectively responsible for around 16% and 3% of total EU emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas driving climate change .
The % is way way higher in the UK. Google suggests ~90% but there is need to wonder about the source. The gov reckons 28%. Energy 20%, residential 11%. Our total footprint needs to consider imports as well. Steel and all sorts.
The stated intent with cars. Makers only produce electric. Any powered conventionally a tariff that equalises prices / or maybe makes them more expensive.
On top of this I find it utterly amazing that some people do not seem to have noticed that the climate has changed.
- Joined
- 10 Jul 2024
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 27
- Country
Yes, it's hot today.
Not just that aspect more that hot periods get more extreme and are often followed by a period that could well be a bit cooler than it should be. In the UK's case his relates to the behaviour of the jet stream.
Another is a change in the southern oceans flow direction in a certain area that boosts sea temperatures. Net effect more evaporation and rain. We are near the end of one of these and effects seem to be more extreme. There is nothing new about this particular change in flow- it's always happened.
Then of course increased temperature peaks in many areas over the globe.