Fracking is back

Namsnanny I don't need to buy cheap books off Ebay because this is my thing. I understand that actually having knowledge rather than opinions is not de rigeur on GN sometimes, but this time, what I know trumps what anyone has written in a 20 year old book.

Nuclear will ruin the planet even more than fossil fuels will. Renewables are the only answer and the experiment has indeed reached its conclusion. And the fossil fuel and nuclear people are in the wrong.

Not an opinion, a scientific truth. Inconvenient though it may be.

Renewables seems the obvious way to go. A new windfarm is to be built off Dogger Bank that will provide electricity for 3.4 million homes. A local (very big) hospital is completely powered by its own small solar farm. The field isn't wasted because the farmer also uses it to grow crops. I don't see why we need dirty or dangerous electricity when we have the technology for clean energy.

Renewables are the answer, the problem is that consumption and population needs to reduced by 90% then it becomes realistic. That’s not going to happen so nuclear is going to be needed to bridge the gap.

No. Just no. Does nobody actually know what nuclear is?

You can't quote figures like reducing the population by 10% and then not justify it.

Actually I thought you meant 10%. Surely you are not talking about reducing the population by 90%?

volver

Namsnanny I don't need to buy cheap books off Ebay because this is my thing. I understand that actually having knowledge rather than opinions is not de rigeur on GN sometimes, but this time, what I know trumps what anyone has written in a 20 year old book.

Nuclear will ruin the planet even more than fossil fuels will. Renewables are the only answer and the experiment has indeed reached its conclusion. And the fossil fuel and nuclear people are in the wrong.

Not an opinion, a scientific truth. Inconvenient though it may be.

??Clearly you dont know as much as you think.
Or you wouldnt dismiss Bjorn Longberg and other scientists so easily.

But no matter. I'm happy to keep learning until the day I die.

Or you wouldnt dismiss Bjorn Longberg and other scientists so easily.

Other scientists? Do you include me in that grouping? Can one dismiss themselves? Scientists aren't a group apart. They walk among us you.

You want a scientific argument, I'm up for it. But just saying Longberg thinks differently isn't a scientific argument.

Oh, missed a bit. Longberg isn't a scientist. He's a political scientist.

Why would I include you without specifically naming you volver?

Scientists aren't mythical beings who hand down observations from on high. Sometimes they post on Gransnet.

That's what I do. I post and I know things... ?

(Game of Thrones again)

I suspect that there are posters here who recycle their cereal boxes yet think that fracking is great. We need to be reducing fossil fuels for the sake of those who come after us. The issue here is that the government has no mandate. I thought that it was a joke when I read that Johnson wouldn't hold the title of the worst PM for long. The Tories have now saddled the country with an unelected ultra right wing cohort who are just puppets.

other scientist, are you including me in that grouping?

I dont understand volver why?

Anyway, as I said for anyone else who is interested Bjorn Longberg's latest book, (which isnt 20 years old) it's a very interesting read.
All about how to fund energy, feed the poor, decrease the mortality of children and other serious problems we face.
He advises governments around the world.

Reading for ones self is far better that some potted rehash or mis quote (from me!).

Of course other authors are available?

I don't understand volver why?

Because I'm a scientist who specialised in Solar Power and alternative energy systems. Not a Political Scientist with dubious views. I read quite a lot. I wrote some of it. ??

volver

Actually I thought you meant 10%. Surely you are not talking about reducing the population by 90%?

The planet was self sustaining when the human population was only 10% of current levels, since then we have been using the earths resources at an increasing rate.
Climate change emissions are still increasing there is no way we are going to achieve any global targets, the UK is on target, but only by exporting our pollution to other countries.

The UK is far from target and any suggestion that we reduce the world's population to 10% of what is is now is very worrying indeed.

Are we living in Logan's Run?

For those interested the global population has increased 10 fold since 1750, the start of industrialization. We are playing lip service to climate change all we are doing is retaining our present lifestyle until we take it seriously nothing will change.

So, what's your solution Katie59?

Namsnanny

^other scientist, are you including me in that grouping?^

I dont understand volver why?

Anyway, as I said for anyone else who is interested Bjorn Longberg's latest book, (which isnt 20 years old) it's a very interesting read.
All about how to fund energy, feed the poor, decrease the mortality of children and other serious problems we face.
He advises governments around the world.

Reading for ones self is far better that some potted rehash or mis quote (from me!).

Of course other authors are available?

Bjorn Longberg is also a well-known global warming sceptic, so it would be advisable not to rely on his writing for a balanced view.

No your wrong growstuff but I dont see the need to explain why and where.
Far better use of time and energy for both of us to read outside of our comfort zone and challenge our own conceptions.
Well, that is how I cope when coming across opinions that counter mine.

Katie59

For those interested the global population has increased 10 fold since 1750, the start of industrialization. We are playing lip service to climate change all we are doing is retaining our present lifestyle until we take it seriously nothing will change.

Global population is now in decline.
In some cases beyond the tipping point.

Namsnanny

No your wrong growstuff but I dont see the need to explain why and where.
Far better use of time and energy for both of us to read outside of our comfort zone and challenge our own conceptions.
Well, that is how I cope when coming across opinions that counter mine.

What am I wrong about?

Just look at Lomberg's Wiki entry. He's not even a scientist. He's even been voted as one of the ten most "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".

Relying on his book (or anything else he's written) would not give a balanced view.

Namsnanny

Katie59

For those interested the global population has increased 10 fold since 1750, the start of industrialization. We are playing lip service to climate change all we are doing is retaining our present lifestyle until we take it seriously nothing will change.

Global population is now in decline.
In some cases beyond the tipping point.

No, the global population growth rate is declining, which is something different.

growstuff

Namsnanny

Katie59

For those interested the global population has increased 10 fold since 1750, the start of industrialization. We are playing lip service to climate change all we are doing is retaining our present lifestyle until we take it seriously nothing will change.

Global population is now in decline.
In some cases beyond the tipping point.

No, the global population growth rate is declining, which is something different.

Correct the global population is predicted to stabilize around 2100.

volver

So, what's your solution Katie59?

There isn’t one, global warming will continue until it ends, because the global population will not accept the changes needed to reverse emissions.
Renewables on their own are not enough because a wind turbines or Solar panels have a finite lifespan then have to be replaced, as do batteries.

I don't know enough about Fracking but instinct tells me that it is unlikely to be completely environmentally sound.