TOT wind

Well, it /would/ have been...

Sadly, of course you are correct.

Why people want to pay vast sums of money to live in a third world shithole is beyond me.

On 22/01/2025 19:26, Tim Streater wrote: [...]

Actually it isn't my job to do that, but luckily we have a government that takes its obligations seriously and here is a recent HofC research Briefing on progress and plans:

tw

"We (the UN/IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy..."

Dr Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC went on to say: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more..."

I am really unimpressed that you should copy-paste some out of context meme-quotes without having the faintest clue what Endenhofer was saying, why and to who. I guess you don't have the intellectual curiosity to find out? Or maybe you have an autistic inability to understand subtlety and intention of meaning, or maybe you just don't care and think it looks edgy and clever to chant the phrases you learned from Breitbart.

His point was that we need to understand that even if everybody understands the need to cut emissions it will always be hard to get international agreement because the countries that produce fossil fuels will find that their bonanza years are over when we de-carbon. A point so simple and so obviously true that it's difficult to know what the problem is.

Oh, maybe you are triggered by the truth stated plainly?

TW

You seem somewhat touchy about mentions of declarations of wealth redistribution disguised as climate policy which are in turn based on false science. The last I heard, from the 65,000-attendee COP29, was that ‘affected countries’ were demanding well over a trillion dollars annually. That’s a hefty amount of wealth redistribution. And none of it will affect the planet’s orbital parameters, cosmic ray flux, or variability of the Sun’s output.

It's also demanding money with menaces - just as we see with the slavery reparations bollocks.

Or make a wind turbine turn in a flat calm or solar panel work at midnight.

Its all about the technocrats controlling energy. For all the money spend the rate of rise of CO2 hasn't changed at all.

It will end up at 500ppm probably with very little alteration in global climate.

Yes I think so but it's one of those things I will never know

That I doubt and it is yet another.

Its been higher than that - way higher, and the earth survived. Geologically it has never been lower than post the last ice age.

Ice cores reveal that CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by global warming and usually happens a couple of hundred years later. A couple of hundred years ago the 'Little Ice Age' ended....

Not something I am prepared to argue over on this forum, I accept our views differ, and the two statements are not linked.

The british antartic survey cores show that 300ppm was not exceeded in the last 800,000 years, (about when modern humans evolved from earlier hominids), till about the iron age when humans gained the ability to cut down forest for agriculture.

Its not 'views'. Its *facts*

A mere snap of the 4 billion years the planet has been around of which multicellular life occupies the last 600million...

In fact the 800,000 is cherry picked to the exact time at which falling CO2 stabilised to a level so low that plants could barely survive.

It isn't nothing, it's already been explained to you. Pointing to CO2 levels back in geological time and saying 'the earth survived' is about as stupid as it gets. The earth will survive, but our fragile economies and ecosystems? unlikely. You may as well point at Mars and say look! loads of CO2 there, what's the problem?

TW

That article concludes with this message:

The questions to ask here are ‘What damage did the temperatures of the Pliocene era do, some 3 million years ago?’, and ‘How was such damage determined?’

Well exactly. The data is reasonably factual, but the OneTrueMessage™ has to be mentioned so that stupid people who cant understand the data will get all panicked over climate change

Wiki: "The world continued to get cooler and drier in the Pliocene. Tropical rain forests and deciduous forests shrank. Grasslands grew, and many herbivorous mammals became grazers instead of browsers. Of this we are certain, because their teeth tell us what kind of food they ate. Browsers eat leaves and small branches, and grazers eat grass. The concept of mesowear deals with this. Mesowear is a method based on animals' tooth wear fingerprints. Each animal has special feeding habits, which cause unique tooth wear. Rough feeds cause serious tooth abrasion, while smooth one triggers moderate abrasion. So browsers have teeth with moderate abrasion and grazers have teeth with rough abrasion.[2] Seeing the teeth of browsers next to those of grazers is convincing."

So CO2 was higher but temperature actually fell and so did rainfall.