Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
You're forgetting the posturing of the fossil fuel industries and the fact that they DID know that their products would lead to global warming and climate change. My earlier post explains that. I did some research on your claims and found the following.Redskin said:
You haven't answered the question...ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
The Earth's atmosphere is comprised of:
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.93%
CO2 - 0.04%
There are also trace gases present - Neon; Helium; Methane etc whose amounts are of miniscule proportions.
But despite its meagre contribution, CO2 is 'universally' touted as a profoundly influential force with regard to the Climate 'Emergency', and in particular, the anthropogenic impact of its output.
John Causer: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics sharing the award with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
Dr Dick Lindzen: served as a Lead Author for Chapter 7 ("Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks") of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report on climate change
Dr John Christie: accompanied by Dr Roy Spencer, was awardedNASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Noted for the first successful development of a Satellite Temperature Record.
Will Happer: both a Dr & Professor of Physics who was science advisor to three American presidents
All of the above are Climate 'Sceptics', and clearly not 'plain stupid' as the self-righteous Climate acolytes would have them...
They are all in agreement that CO2 is not a significant driver of the climate. They are also in agreement that - hold on to your hats - the Sun is the prime driver of the climate.
Who knew...?
I'm not a Climate 'denier', I'm a Climate sceptic: sceptical of the fear-mongering inculcation and pharisaic posturing of a trillion dollar Industry.John Clauser
True: John Clauser (note spelling) won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, shared with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
False: Clauser does not say “CO₂ is not a significant driver of climate.”He does criticise climate modelling and the IPCC, but his views are not supported by climate physics literature and are rejected by the scientific community.
Richard Lindzen
True: Lindzen was a Lead Author for Chapter 7 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. True: He is a well‑known climate contrarian.
False: Lindzen does not claim CO₂ has no significant effect. He accepts the greenhouse effect and CO₂ warming, but argues climate sensitivity is low. His “iris hypothesis” has been repeatedly tested and found unsupported.
John Christy & Roy Spencer
True: They received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for satellite temperature. datasets. True: They are climate contrarians.
False: Their satellite record has required multiple corrections after errors were found by other scientists.
After corrections, the satellite record shows warming consistent with surface measurements.
Will Happer
True: Happer is a physicist and served in advisory roles under U.S. presidents. True: He is a climate contrarian.
False: He does not claim CO₂ has no effect.
He accepts greenhouse physics but argues warming is beneficial—an opinion contradicted by the evidence.
2. Are they “in agreement that CO₂ is not a significant driver”?
No. Even these sceptics accept that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet. Their disagreement is about how much warming occurs, not whether CO₂ warms. This is a crucial distinction.
3. Are they “in agreement that the Sun is the prime driver of climate”?
This is misleading. What the evidence shows:
The Sun is the dominant energy source for Earth’s climate.
But solar output has been flat or slightly declining since the 1970s.
Meanwhile, global temperatures have risen sharply.
This is why solar variability cannot explain modern warming. Authoritative sources (NASA, NOAA, Met Office, IPCC) all show the same pattern.
4. Can the overall claim be refuted? Yes.
A. Solar output vs temperature
Solar irradiance: flat Global temperature: rising. This divergence is the strongest refutation.B. CO₂ physics is not in dispute
The greenhouse effect is: measurable in laboratory spectroscopy, measurable in satellite spectra, measurable in surface radiation measurements.
Even sceptics like Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, and Happer agree CO₂ warms the planet.
C. The consensus is not based on “acolytes”
It is based on:
radiative transfer physics, paleoclimate evidence, satellite observations, ocean heat content, atmospheric chemistry and energy balance models
The conclusion that CO₂ is the dominant driver of recent warming is supported by every major scientific body worldwide.
. Why citing a few contrarian scientists is not a valid argument
A handful of dissenters does not overturn, thousands of peer‑reviewed studies, multiple independent lines of evidence, decades of measurements, agreement among national academies of science in 80+ countries. Science is not decided by counting names; it is decided by evidence.
6. A more accurate summary
Yes, these individuals are accomplished scientists.
Yes, some are climate sceptics.
No, they do not claim CO₂ has no significant effect.
No, modern warming cannot be explained by solar changes.
Yes, their claims have been scientifically refuted many times.
3 -
Well its a great thing that they have experts and things like soil tests and yeild rates to decide this. And then various hoops to jump though and conditions to be met if land above that ranking is to be used.redman said:
some of my assertions may have been wrong it appears and I am particularly pleased if I got the lifespan and recycling comment wrong.cantersaddick said:
I actually think you just prooved my point. Prooving that you choose to believe the missinformation spouted by these people rather than think critically.redman said:
This is the whole point, which you seem to be reinforcing. You don't need to have 97 scientists to convince on climate change. We know (or most of us do) the reality. So straight away you think everybody who makes a single point against any of the remedies has to be struck down. For instance I am far from convinced that this massive move to solar panels on prime agricultural land has been properly analysed. Full account taken of what happens to it at the end of it's life (max 25 years). Mostly currently planned for landfill? It's not recylable. The full impact of it having to be manufacture, often by very un-enviromental means and of course transported. The impact of having to import the extra food (some by plane) which cannot be produced locally. Any debate on anything like this is constantly shut down. Any reports are all done by people with a vested interest.cantersaddick said:
Want to challenge 2 parts of this really.redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
What do you mean by "extreme green views"? As someone very immersed in this issue the only thing I have ever seen is the widely discredited eco-facist ideas of population reduction as the only way to avoid climate breakdown. But no one who suggests that is taken seriously.
Secondly your claim that the BBC "shuts down anti climate change arguments". I actually think its the opposite and various studies have shown this to be true. The BBC has rules about balanced panels, interviews and discussions on the news. A while back they genuinely had a NASA scientist, an astronaut and a bloke who YouTubes about the earth being flat. Similarly when there was a breakthrough in vaccine technology they had a scientist who worked on the research and an anti-vax Facebook mum. Its exactly the same with climate change the panel will be one scientist who has dedicated their life to studying the climate, some fossil fuel industry stooge who claims "climate change is not real, or if it is real its not caused by us, and if it is its too late anyway" and some politician who is paid by the fossil fuel industry and who uses things like net zero as a wedge issue.The constant platforming of these un-evidenced un-scientific "ideas" in the name of "balance" is the problem.The very act of putting these people on the same panel as each other legitimises those ideas in the eyes of those who lack critical thought. It makes them appear as though they are equally valid. When they are not.If they were to be truly balanced then in the case of climate change it would be for every 97 scientists we have on to talk about climate change we have 3 "I did my own research" types who don't believe it. And yet we have entire "news" (legally not news) channels paid for by the fossil fuel industry telling us it doesn't exist, or if it does it doesn't matter.
Your comment about BBC being balanc3ed is farcical. They have been hauled over the coals on several issues recently about the lack of it.You're right that healthy debate shouldn't be shut down - only when the arguments are factually incorrect. So lets put your clains to the test, because on several of these specific points the evidence simply doesn't hold up.
Firstly "Prime agricultural land" and food production
You and I had this exact conversation on a previous thread but I'll do you the curtesy of repeating it as seems it didnt go in.This isn't really up for debate anymore — it's regulated. Under the updated National Policy Statement EN-3 (2024), developers must prove that lower-quality land can't accommodate a project before they're allowed to use Best and Most Versatile (grade 1–3a) farmland, and any scheme over 20 hectares affecting that land has to go through Natural England consultation.
Nearly a quarter of solar farm applications are already being refused, with food production and landscape impact cited as the main reasons. On top of that, most large solar farms are dual-use by design: many developments now combine generation with sheep grazing or pollinator habitat, and this is increasingly a planning expectation rather than a bonus. The UK's largest agrivoltaic site, a 30MW project in Cambridgeshire, has been grazing sheep since 2024 as part of the site's operation since it opened. And on scale: even hitting government targets to quadruple solar capacity would take up roughly 0.5% of UK land — less than golf courses currently occupy.
"max 25-year" lifespan
Wrong again. This figure if quoted is the warranty period, not the lifespan. Real-world degradation data tells a different story: field studies show efficiency typically drops by only 6-8% after 25 years, not the steep cliff people assume, and manufacturers now routinely guarantee well above 80% of original output after 30 or even 40 years. So the "max 25 years" framing understates real panel life by a decade or more.https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2017/10/the-opportunities-of-solar-panel-recycling
https://www.sunsave.energy/solar-panels-advice/maintenance/recycling
Landfill / "not recyclable"
This is just factually wrong. Under the WEEE Regulations, solar panels are classed as electrical waste and cannot legally be sent to landfill in the UK. On recyclability, advanced separation techniques now achieve up to 98% recovery rates for critical materials, with thermal decomposition recovering 95% of glass and 85% of silicon. The UK is actually building a competitive edge here: firms like Solar Recycling Solutions and Waste Experts (via its ROSI partnership) already recover up to 95% of the silver, silicon and glass inside every panel, at purity high enough to go straight back into solar manufacturing. Industry estimates put UK panel waste at around 30,000 tonnes over the next decade, a genuine and growing recycling sector, not a landfill problem.https://solarrecyclingsolutions.co.uk/solar-panel-recycling/
https://wasteexperts.co.uk/products-services/solar-panel-recycling
Manufacturing and transport emissions
Again this sunds like a valid point on the surface but as soon as you dig into it a little bit it simply doesnt hold up to scrutiny. It's already factored into the life-cycle assessments used by regulators and researchers, not being ignored. It's the standard metric solar is judged against (carbon payback for UK-sited panels is typically 1–3 years out of a 30–40 year life). If you think a specific study underweights manufacturing impact, that's a fair thing to interrogate but it's an argument for better analysis, not for dismissing solar's net benefit.Imported food replacing UK production
Given the planning protections above, this is largely a hypothetical rather than what's actually happening, solar is being pushed toward lower-grade and brownfield land precisely to avoid this trade-off, and grazing continues on much of the land that does go to solar.None of this means every solar project is well-sited or that concerns about specific developments are illegitimate plenty get refused for good reason. But "not recyclable," "max 25 years," and "prime farmland lost for good" aren't accurate descriptions of current UK policy or the technology as it now stands.
In summary - a series of hypothetical arguments that are either factually incorrect or already fully taken into account in the decision making. Hence prooving that the people spouting these arugments should be subject to more challenge not less.
Your point on planning though doesn't stand up. Kent simply doesn't have what I would call "lower-quality land" with the result that agricultural land is being used. A full enviromental cost/benefit unlikely to have been done.
And yes solar energy is generally very effecient but I am still not convinced that the cost from point of sourcing materials/production/recycling is taken into full account.
Perhaps if we were allowed to have debates like this on TV and in media then I would not be so ignorant, as you seem to think I am
On your last point: Hang on a sec you started by claiming the media is biased against "anti-climate change arguments" - which is bonkers because we have two entire "news" (legally not news) channels directly paid for by the fossil fuel industry to spout those arguments - and now I've taken down those arguments you're claiming these points should be made on TV! You cant have it both ways! Cognitive dissonance much.1 -
Without any intention of broadening the argument. I find it fascinating that pretty much to a man it’s the same crowd that is climate change doubters that are the same people that to this day still support the unequivocal disaster that is Brexit. I understand why people like Farage and Tice are so vociferous that Climate Change is a con. They’re up to their eyeballs in money from those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry. In the same way that they still get money from those that despise the regulated EU. As to why anyone else with half a brain still has doubts that climate change is real and manmade is beyond me. Perhaps they’re still fed up with experts.Garrymanilow said:It's fascinating that now Europe is burning all over it makes it very difficult for the old crowd to deny climate change is real anymore, so instead of putting their hands up and admitting that they got it wrong before they're now just moving the argument elsewhere; I don't like the way the coverage is phrased, if you love the environment so much why do you keep breathing carbon dioxide into it hypocrite, the BBC are biased, it was warm once in medieval times too you know, why don't you talk about trees enough etc. It's intellectual cowardice presented as whataboutery and 'just asking questions'. It's weird to watch5 -
BINGO!ShootersHillGuru said:
Without any intention of broadening the argument. I find it fascinating that pretty much to a man it’s the same crowd that is climate change doubters that are the same people that to this day still support the unequivocal disaster that is Brexit. I understand why people like Farage and Tice are so vociferous that Climate Change is a con. They’re up to their eyeballs in money from those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry. In the same way that they still get money from those that despise the regulated EU. As to why anyone else with half a brain still has doubts that climate change is real and manmade is beyond me. Perhaps they’re still fed up with experts.Garrymanilow said:It's fascinating that now Europe is burning all over it makes it very difficult for the old crowd to deny climate change is real anymore, so instead of putting their hands up and admitting that they got it wrong before they're now just moving the argument elsewhere; I don't like the way the coverage is phrased, if you love the environment so much why do you keep breathing carbon dioxide into it hypocrite, the BBC are biased, it was warm once in medieval times too you know, why don't you talk about trees enough etc. It's intellectual cowardice presented as whataboutery and 'just asking questions'. It's weird to watch
4 -
Do give over. It’s still the snouts in the trough mentality where undeserved and unearned bonuses have been the norm.bobmunro said:ME14addick said:
I don't but Thames Water is a badly failing company, a paying out £1 million pounds is way over the top.redman said:
Let me assure you, that when a company is in financial trouble, you have to pay even more than a successful company.ME14addick said:
When a company is heavily in debt it is not a good look to give a signing on bonus of such magnitude. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could do just as good job on far less. Water should never have been privatised and the results of that are only too evident now.redman said:
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future
Why are you sure? How much relevant experience do you have?The payment would comes on top of total pay for Buck of £591,000 in the financial year to 31 March. That included a £491,000 base salary, as well as a £25,000 discretionary payment to “support" his appointment.
Buck’s base salary was also increased to £630,000 in April.
The point @redman was making is that to rescue a badly failing company you need a heavyweight - and they cost money! Maybe they should have given the job to a cheaper alternative - then we could have really seen how much lower a badly failing company could go!2 -
Ok, I'll bite on this specific thing.Redskin said:
You haven't answered the question...ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
The Earth's atmosphere is comprised of:
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.93%
CO2 - 0.04%
There are also trace gases present - Neon; Helium; Methane etc whose amounts are of miniscule proportions.
But despite its meagre contribution, CO2 is 'universally' touted as a profoundly influential force with regard to the Climate 'Emergency', and in particular, the anthropogenic impact of its output.
John Causer: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics sharing the award with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
Dr Dick Lindzen: served as a Lead Author for Chapter 7 ("Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks") of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report on climate change
Dr John Christie: accompanied by Dr Roy Spencer, was awardedNASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Noted for the first successful development of a Satellite Temperature Record.
Will Happer: both a Dr & Professor of Physics who was science advisor to three American presidents
All of the above are Climate 'Sceptics', and clearly not 'plain stupid' as the self-righteous Climate acolytes would have them...
They are all in agreement that CO2 is not a significant driver of the climate. They are also in agreement that - hold on to your hats - the Sun is the prime driver of the climate.
Who knew...?
I'm not a Climate 'denier', I'm a Climate sceptic: sceptical of the fear-mongering inculcation and pharisaic posturing of a trillion dollar Industry.
The percentage of the atmosphere made up of CO2 is just irrelevant. The contribution (which you said is 'meagre') is on the effect it has, not how much of it there is.
For example, fentanyl could make up a meagre 0.000001% of your bloodstream and it'd still kill you.9 -
Redskin said:
You haven't answered the question...ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
The Earth's atmosphere is comprised of:
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.93%
CO2 - 0.04%
There are also trace gases present - Neon; Helium; Methane etc whose amounts are of miniscule proportions.
But despite its meagre contribution, CO2 is 'universally' touted as a profoundly influential force with regard to the Climate 'Emergency', and in particular, the anthropogenic impact of its output.
John Causer: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics sharing the award with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
Dr Dick Lindzen: served as a Lead Author for Chapter 7 ("Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks") of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report on climate change
Dr John Christie: accompanied by Dr Roy Spencer, was awardedNASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Noted for the first successful development of a Satellite Temperature Record.
Will Happer: both a Dr & Professor of Physics who was science advisor to three American presidents
All of the above are Climate 'Sceptics', and clearly not 'plain stupid' as the self-righteous Climate acolytes would have them...
They are all in agreement that CO2 is not a significant driver of the climate. They are also in agreement that - hold on to your hats - the Sun is the prime driver of the climate.
Who knew...?
I'm not a Climate 'denier', I'm a Climate sceptic: sceptical of the fear-mongering inculcation and pharisaic posturing of a trillion dollar Industry.The make up of the earth's atmosphere is finely balanced and I would imagine small changes would have a disproportionate effect on global temperature. Small percentages changing doesn't necessarily result in small effects.I would agree that the focus is, and always has been, on the effect burning fossil fuels has on carbon dioxide emissions and consequently global warming. The loss of rain forests and probably more importantly mangroves, salt marshes and sea grasses (all of which sink CO2 about 3 or 4 times more than trees) - they are down between 30-50% in the last 200 years, primarily due to coastal development.Fossil fuels are a finite resource - yes there's plenty left but will increasingly become cost prohibitive to extract. I don't believe that, for example, ceasing all fossil fuel burning right now would resolve the global warming issue. But ignoring that, it seems to me to be common sense to exploit the use of renewables to provide energy - wind, solar, tide, nuclear and so on. Coal, oil and gas will keep us warm and drive our cars for perhaps a couple of generations but Christ on a bike we should be thinking longer term for the sake of humanity. We'll be alright Jack, fuck the future, is not a sensible way of seeing things - it's a selfish way of seeing things.If Canute like we can't hold back the sea of global warming then mitigating it's impact is also where we should be spending much more money - low lying countries specifically, particularly south east Asia, will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels.Just musing - there is no one answer.4 -
Fear mongering being largely replaced by fear nowadays. I only need to look out of the window here to see the effect of drought, how tinder dry it is, and how I fear some prat will carelessly dispose of a BBQ to spark it off. Some big fires in my neck of the woods lately, not all climate related I should stress, but it helps them spread faster and further.Redskin said:
You haven't answered the question...ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
The Earth's atmosphere is comprised of:
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.93%
CO2 - 0.04%
There are also trace gases present - Neon; Helium; Methane etc whose amounts are of miniscule proportions.
But despite its meagre contribution, CO2 is 'universally' touted as a profoundly influential force with regard to the Climate 'Emergency', and in particular, the anthropogenic impact of its output.
John Causer: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics sharing the award with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
Dr Dick Lindzen: served as a Lead Author for Chapter 7 ("Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks") of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report on climate change
Dr John Christie: accompanied by Dr Roy Spencer, was awardedNASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Noted for the first successful development of a Satellite Temperature Record.
Will Happer: both a Dr & Professor of Physics who was science advisor to three American presidents
All of the above are Climate 'Sceptics', and clearly not 'plain stupid' as the self-righteous Climate acolytes would have them...
They are all in agreement that CO2 is not a significant driver of the climate. They are also in agreement that - hold on to your hats - the Sun is the prime driver of the climate.
Who knew...?
I'm not a Climate 'denier', I'm a Climate sceptic: sceptical of the fear-mongering inculcation and pharisaic posturing of a trillion dollar Industry.2 -
@Redskin even a small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect.
Did you not learn about how greenhouse gases work when you were at school?
My A level subjects were Geology, Geography and Biology, so I might have a better understanding, as I was taught about the 'blanket' effect of greenhouse gases. At that time I was taught that without greenhouse gases, the earth would be too cold to live, as heat from the sun would be able to escape back into space. It was later that I learnt that too much would have a greater warming effect.
Scientists first became aware that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas in the 1820s–1850s, with the earliest conceptual insight coming from Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier and the first experimental proof from John Tyndall.
The science for CO2 & Methane being greenhouse gases is unequivocal.
1 -
ShootersHillGuru said:
Do give over. It’s still the snouts in the trough mentality where undeserved and unearned bonuses have been the norm.bobmunro said:ME14addick said:
I don't but Thames Water is a badly failing company, a paying out £1 million pounds is way over the top.redman said:
Let me assure you, that when a company is in financial trouble, you have to pay even more than a successful company.ME14addick said:
When a company is heavily in debt it is not a good look to give a signing on bonus of such magnitude. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could do just as good job on far less. Water should never have been privatised and the results of that are only too evident now.redman said:
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future
Why are you sure? How much relevant experience do you have?The payment would comes on top of total pay for Buck of £591,000 in the financial year to 31 March. That included a £491,000 base salary, as well as a £25,000 discretionary payment to “support" his appointment.
Buck’s base salary was also increased to £630,000 in April.
The point @redman was making is that to rescue a badly failing company you need a heavyweight - and they cost money! Maybe they should have given the job to a cheaper alternative - then we could have really seen how much lower a badly failing company could go!
There are plenty of snouts in the rough, I agree - my point was that you don't turn around a failing company with lightweights. I don't know whether or not this guy is capable of turning Thames Water around, and maybe taking water back into public ownership is the solution.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I suspect there are a lot of people in authority that are currently shitting themselves. We had a dry summer in 2025 when the reservoirs were at record low levels. Fortunately this was followed by a very wet winter which fully replenished them. The summer of 2026 is going to be the hottest and driest on record but what happens if this winter is a dry one rather than wet. Starting spring / Summer 2027 with reservoirs less than full could turn into a national disaster. We’re now at the point where our seasons and associated weather is no longer as predictable as it was just a few short years ago. We’ve been warned and yet we still do nothing substantial to rectify it.4
-
This 10,000 times overGarrymanilow said:It's fascinating that now Europe is burning all over it makes it very difficult for the old crowd to deny climate change is real anymore, so instead of putting their hands up and admitting that they got it wrong before they're now just moving the argument elsewhere; I don't like the way the coverage is phrased, if you love the environment so much why do you keep breathing carbon dioxide into it hypocrite, the BBC are biased, it was warm once in medieval times too you know, why don't you talk about trees enough etc. It's intellectual cowardice presented as whataboutery and 'just asking questions'. It's weird to watch4 -
Too busy worrying about shareholder dividendsShootersHillGuru said:I suspect there are a lot of people in authority that are currently shitting themselves. We had a dry summer in 2025 when the reservoirs were at record low levels. Fortunately this was followed by a very wet winter which fully replenished them. The summer of 2026 is going to be the hottest and driest on record but what happens if this winter is a dry one rather than wet. Starting spring / Summer 2027 with reservoirs less than full could turn into a national disaster. We’re now at the point where our seasons and associated weather is no longer as predictable as it was just a few short years ago. We’ve been warned and yet we still do nothing substantial to rectify it.7 -
This paragraph is nail on the head for me. So many arguments aginst progress on this issue are becuase we cant (yet) perfectly solve the whole problem therefore they conclude we shouldn't try.bobmunro said:Redskin said:
You haven't answered the question...ME14addick said:
Atmospheric CO₂ has increased by roughly 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, rising from about 280 ppm in the mid‑18th century to 422–431 ppm today.Redskin said:
And what is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?ME14addick said:
A very small part I understand, but the main driver is an increase in greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 50% since the Industrial RevolutionDansk_Red said:I read an interesting article which quoted the that the UK & Spanish Met Offices stating that part of the cause of the excess heat is down to cleaner air.
.
This rise is extremely rapid compared with natural historical changes. Ice‑core records show that past CO₂ increases of similar magnitude took thousands of years, whereas the modern increase happened in just ~275 years, with most of the acceleration occurring after 1950.CO₂ is the most abundant long‑lived greenhouse gas.
The current concentration is the highest in at least 800,000 years (based on ice‑core data).
The rate of increase over the past 60 years is about 100× faster than natural post‑ice‑age rises.
The Earth's atmosphere is comprised of:
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.93%
CO2 - 0.04%
There are also trace gases present - Neon; Helium; Methane etc whose amounts are of miniscule proportions.
But despite its meagre contribution, CO2 is 'universally' touted as a profoundly influential force with regard to the Climate 'Emergency', and in particular, the anthropogenic impact of its output.
John Causer: Nobel Prize Winner for Physics sharing the award with Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger.
Dr Dick Lindzen: served as a Lead Author for Chapter 7 ("Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks") of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report on climate change
Dr John Christie: accompanied by Dr Roy Spencer, was awardedNASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Noted for the first successful development of a Satellite Temperature Record.
Will Happer: both a Dr & Professor of Physics who was science advisor to three American presidents
All of the above are Climate 'Sceptics', and clearly not 'plain stupid' as the self-righteous Climate acolytes would have them...
They are all in agreement that CO2 is not a significant driver of the climate. They are also in agreement that - hold on to your hats - the Sun is the prime driver of the climate.
Who knew...?
I'm not a Climate 'denier', I'm a Climate sceptic: sceptical of the fear-mongering inculcation and pharisaic posturing of a trillion dollar Industry.The make up of the earth's atmosphere is finely balanced and I would imagine small changes would have a disproportionate effect on global temperature. Small percentages changing doesn't necessarily result in small effects.I would agree that the focus is, and always has been, on the effect burning fossil fuels has on carbon dioxide emissions and consequently global warming. The loss of rain forests and probably more importantly mangroves, salt marshes and sea grasses (all of which sink CO2 about 3 or 4 times more than trees) - they are down between 30-50% in the last 200 years, primarily due to coastal development.Fossil fuels are a finite resource - yes there's plenty left but will increasingly become cost prohibitive to extract. I don't believe that, for example, ceasing all fossil fuel burning right now would resolve the global warming issue. But ignoring that, it seems to me to be common sense to exploit the use of renewables to provide energy - wind, solar, tide, nuclear and so on. Coal, oil and gas will keep us warm and drive our cars for perhaps a couple of generations but Christ on a bike we should be thinking longer term for the sake of humanity. We'll be alright Jack, fuck the future, is not a sensible way of seeing things - it's a selfish way of seeing things.If Canute like we can't hold back the sea of global warming then mitigating it's impact is also where we should be spending much more money - low lying countries specifically, particularly south east Asia, will be catastrophically affected by rising sea levels.Just musing - there is no one answer.
Much of the problem is hard to address and the tech may not yet be good enough to solve it at scale but there are some very easy wins. We could get our grid to 90-95% renewable pretty quickly and easily with the right investment (and change to the price mechanism in order to flatten out peak demand). The last 5-10% is a lot harder to do and will likely need a big scale up in nuclear to give flexibility. But lets get the 90-95% done asap and work on a solution to the last part. Similarly - heating homes will take longer to decarbonise but if we remove gas from the grid it will make that cheaper for those who need to and investments in insulation will help reduce useage and prepare homes for new tech.
Also - every degree of warming we prevent = huge numbers of lives saved and life much easier for many parts of the world.
Its all worth doing even if its imperfect.2 -
We need to hope that climate predictions for the UK come true, with wetter, milder winters. El Nino is something that is going to affect the world over the coming year. Hopefully it will bring a decent amount of rain to replenish reservoirs and aquifers.ShootersHillGuru said:I suspect there are a lot of people in authority that are currently shitting themselves. We had a dry summer in 2025 when the reservoirs were at record low levels. Fortunately this was followed by a very wet winter which fully replenished them. The summer of 2026 is going to be the hottest and driest on record but what happens if this winter is a dry one rather than wet. Starting spring / Summer 2027 with reservoirs less than full could turn into a national disaster. We’re now at the point where our seasons and associated weather is no longer as predictable as it was just a few short years ago. We’ve been warned and yet we still do nothing substantial to rectify it.0 -
Well done to Canada.Stig said:I'm not sure why this thread has descended into a population vs consumption argument. Both population and consumption per capita are growing. Both are part of the problem.
As for meat production, it's definitely on the increase. Not just because the World's population is bigger, but because people are eating more meat than ever before. The two maps below show the massive increase in meat eating in just 21 years, this century.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production3 -
Not just a national disaster but a continental disaster.ShootersHillGuru said:I suspect there are a lot of people in authority that are currently shitting themselves. We had a dry summer in 2025 when the reservoirs were at record low levels. Fortunately this was followed by a very wet winter which fully replenished them. The summer of 2026 is going to be the hottest and driest on record but what happens if this winter is a dry one rather than wet. Starting spring / Summer 2027 with reservoirs less than full could turn into a national disaster. We’re now at the point where our seasons and associated weather is no longer as predictable as it was just a few short years ago. We’ve been warned and yet we still do nothing substantial to rectify it.
In the long term we could become climate refugees.2 -
El Nino? Have we been linked? Is he available on a free? Does he have a work permit?ME14addick said:
We need to hope that climate predictions for the UK come true, with wetter, milder winters. El Nino is something that is going to affect the world over the coming year. Hopefully it will bring a decent amount of rain to replenish reservoirs and aquifers.ShootersHillGuru said:I suspect there are a lot of people in authority that are currently shitting themselves. We had a dry summer in 2025 when the reservoirs were at record low levels. Fortunately this was followed by a very wet winter which fully replenished them. The summer of 2026 is going to be the hottest and driest on record but what happens if this winter is a dry one rather than wet. Starting spring / Summer 2027 with reservoirs less than full could turn into a national disaster. We’re now at the point where our seasons and associated weather is no longer as predictable as it was just a few short years ago. We’ve been warned and yet we still do nothing substantial to rectify it.
I must be out of touch. I thought we were in for colder winters, but I'm hazy on the reasoning. Jet stream or gulf stream shutting down? Something like that 🤔
2 -
Gasoline is 85p a litre in Torontojimmymelrose said:
Well done to Canada.Stig said:I'm not sure why this thread has descended into a population vs consumption argument. Both population and consumption per capita are growing. Both are part of the problem.
As for meat production, it's definitely on the increase. Not just because the World's population is bigger, but because people are eating more meat than ever before. The two maps below show the massive increase in meat eating in just 21 years, this century.
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production0 -
How is my point wrong? I said they are using coal fired plants which is clearly true. You see what you want to see. As bad as most politicianscantersaddick said:
I didnt say China and India werent operating coal or even opening coal but the evidence I cited shows they are building renewables faster and that their coal usage has in fact peaked and begun to fall. That isnt to mean it isnt a problem but that its not the argument that it once was given the rate of growth of their green sectors. They are likely to be well ahead of us in not very long (in fact they are in a number of areas). So using them as an excuse to take no action - which is the point you oringinally made - is in fact wrong.redman said:
per Global Energy Monitor; In the first half of 2026 alone, China brought 30 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity online and started construction on an additional 25.4 GW. Around 392 GW of total capacity is announced, prepared, or permitted. spanning over 300 individual projects in various stages. China operates well over 1,100 active coal power stations.cantersaddick said:
Ahhh the old "but China and India" argument. Also known as the Fox News argument. A proper classic - in that its about 15 years out of date.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
Firstly that 1% figure is a classic manipluation of how data is communicated to fool those who lack critical thought. It is the current annual emissions share, what it misses is that the UK is the world's 5th-largest cumulative emitter historically. Cumulative CO2 is what actually determines how much warming has already been locked in. A country doesn't get to exclude its historical contribution just because its current annual share has fallen.
Even if what you state about China and India is true (it isnt but we will get to that shortly) it still misses the key point: If the UK wishes to use its soft power to push China, India or anyone else towards aster climate action then it relies on its diplomatic credibility which is dependent on the UK taking its own action and being a leader in this. The UK has outsized influence on climate diplomacy (COP26 presidency, climate finance commitments, its position in international negotiations) but this is only because of its own delivery on the climate.
There is also a more direct beenfit of developing and scaling technologies at home (offshore wind, grid-scale storage, solar manufacturing/recycling) builds an exportable industry and expertise that others buy. That's not a sacrifice, it's positioning UK firms to profit from a transition that's happening regardless of what the UK does.
Now lets dig into whether what you state about China and India is atually true. TLDR: Its not.
This argument is massively out of date, both are decarbonising incredibly quickly.
- China installed a record 315 GW of new solar capacity in 2025 alone, taking cumulative solar past 1.2 terawatts and pushing non-fossil power sources past thermal generation for the first time. Combined wind and solar capacity now exceeds 47% of China's total installed power capacity, having overtaken thermal power for the first time.https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/01/28/china-adds-315-gw-of-solar-in-2025/
-Coal power generation fell in both China and India in 2025 — the first simultaneous decline in both countries in 52 years — driven by record clean-energy growth outpacing demand.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records
-India added a record 41 GW of renewables in the first eleven months of 2025 alone, raising renewables to 40% of installed capacity, while coal-fired generation fell by 3% — only the second full-year decline in at least 50 years. India has already passed 50% non-fossil installed capacity in 2025, ahead of its 2030 target https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/india-power-sector-review-2025/
-Electric cars made up almost 55% of new car sales in China in 2025, and an estimated 44 million electric cars were on Chinese roads by the end of the year https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2026/trends-in-electric-cars
-India's residential rooftop scheme, PM Surya Ghar, launched in February 2024 — and has already overtaken the UK's entire rooftop solar base in raw numbers, from a colder start: it has passed 5 million households and 14.8 GW of cumulative rooftop capacity, with installations now running at over 16,000 households a day — one of the fastest-growing clean energy programmes anywhere in the world. It's targeting 10 million households by March 2027.https://www.pv-magazine-india.com/2026/08/04/pm-surya-ghar-rooftop-solar-scheme-surpasses-5-million-households/
That's not a poorer country lagging behind on the technology the UK is being asked to adopt - its countried installing at a rate the UK isnt close to matching.
So the picture isn't "the West decarbonises while China and India keep building coal" — it's closer to a genuine global race, with China and India adding renewable capacity faster in absolute terms than any Western economy ever has. That undercuts the case for the UK sitting it out, and strengthens the case that credible leadership (technology, policy, finance) is exactly what accelerates that trend further, rather than free-riding on it.
Across power generation, EVs, and rooftop solar, the pattern is consistent: China and India aren't dragging their feet while the UK carries the burden — in several of these metrics they're outpacing the UK. That doesn't mean the UK should relax its own effort; if anything it strengthens the opposite conclusion — the "waiting for others to move first" argument was already weak, but at this point the others have moved.
To directly tackle your question:"Should we be ruing(sp) our economy when the world super powers do far less?"
a) As shown above others are doing more not less
b) Its proovably not ruining our economy. In fact the opposite is true.
The green sector isn't a drag on the UK economy, it's currently one of its best performers:
-The UK's net zero economy now supports over a million jobs and added £105 billion in gross value added in 2025 alone, making it one of the UK's fastest-growing economic sectors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-security-jobs-and-investment-boost-through-climate-action
- The sector's total economic value has grown 10.1% since 2023 — roughly three times the growth rate of the wider UK economy — and net zero jobs are 40% more productive than the national average, with wages 15% higher.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/growth-and-innovation-in-the-uk-s-net-zero-economy/
- It's genuinely a UK-wide story, not a London bubble: the West Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber, and South West England are emerging as major hotspots, while Scotland's net zero economy alone contributes £9.1 billion in GVA and over 100,000 full-time jobs.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/growth-and-innovation-in-the-uk-s-net-zero-economy/
- The sector is underpinned by over 23,500 businesses, more than 96% of them SMEs — this is broad-based enterprise growth, not a handful of subsidised giants — and there's £455 billion of investment already planned or under construction across 262 GW of capacity, roughly four times current installed renewable capacity.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/net-gains-the-uks-net-zero-economy-in-2025/
- Even during the 2023 recession, the net-zero economy grew 9% year-on-year while the wider British economy contracted — the sector was explicitly cited as bucking the broader downturn.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2024/02/28/uk-net-zero-economy-bucks-recession-study-shows/120355
Put those together and the "should we ruin our economy" framing gets the direction of travel backwards. This is the sector actively reindustrialising parts of the country that lost manufacturing decades ago, turning old industrial and coastal regions into hubs for offshore wind, battery manufacturing, and grid infrastructure, with productivity and wages above the national average. Any government serious about growth and regional rebalancing would be doubling down on a sector outperforming the rest of the economy three-to-one, not treating it as an act of self-harm. The economic case for slowing down here is actually harder to make than the case for accelerating.
So once again your "arguments" dont stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny and dont match the evidence.The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025, even as the global coal fleet generated less electricity, amid a “widening disconnect” in the sector. That is according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), which finds that the world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025, the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants.
It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China.
O well everything I say is wrong so ..........
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Your first point is often quoted as justification for high salaries and even higher bonuses. And if it is repeated often enough it will be accepted as fact.bobmunro said:ME14addick said:
I don't but Thames Water is a badly failing company, a paying out £1 million pounds is way over the top.redman said:
Let me assure you, that when a company is in financial trouble, you have to pay even more than a successful company.ME14addick said:
When a company is heavily in debt it is not a good look to give a signing on bonus of such magnitude. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could do just as good job on far less. Water should never have been privatised and the results of that are only too evident now.redman said:
Somebody who might be able to help solve the problem. Or should have got some clown on £20k pa just to keep the likes of you happy. Wake up to the real world.ME14addick said:
They've just paid their Chief Exec a £1million signing on bonus.usetobunkin said:
Thames Water will pay shareholders dividends before they invest in much needed infrastructureBigRedEvil said:I really hope we fast track building more resorvoirs to store water during the winter months. It's going to be needed in the future
Why are you sure? How much relevant experience do you have?The payment would comes on top of total pay for Buck of £591,000 in the financial year to 31 March. That included a £491,000 base salary, as well as a £25,000 discretionary payment to “support" his appointment.
Buck’s base salary was also increased to £630,000 in April.
The point @redman was making is that to rescue a badly failing company you need a heavyweight - and they cost money! Maybe they should have given the job to a cheaper alternative - then we could have really seen how much lower a badly failing company could go!
If the guy was capable of 'rescuing' the company within a reasonable timescale, the bonus might be justified. But he won't rescue anything, as the financial model under which Thames Water and similar companies operate just won't allow it.
The water industry is in a mess, as a provider of water and sewage treatment, because successive greedy owners and weak regulators have allowed it to become so. I don't believe excessive salaries and bonuses for senior staff were required to make the industry work before privatisation and the taps didn't run dry.
I would be fascinated to know what the current incumbent does compared with someone being paid say £250k pa would do under the same constraints.
7 -
You have a point as long as you accept that Climate Change is happening. I think the most stupid thing Governments do is trust car companies. They produce cars that don't last and cost massive amounts in terms of the ebvironment to build and dispose of. Yes, you can get cars with zero emissions but when you take into account a battery lasts about 8 years then needs replacing at a cost too high not to scrap your electric car. So the cost of keeping a small petrol car for 15 to 20 years is likely to be cheaper but is discouraged. If you export your CO2 production to other countries is doesn't count. Being green has to be green and I don't trust large companies, especially car companies, to be so. I think we are pretty much buggered but at least I don't pretend Climate Change isn't happening.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.1 -
So many super intellectual people on this thread and not one of you have mentioned super el nino. Wonder why.
Keep trusting those scientists guys, like dr anthony fauci he was out to help humanity, they honestly have your best interests at heart.2 -
MuttleyCAFC said:
You have a point as long as you accept that Climate Change is happening. I think the most stupid thing Governments do is trust car companies. They produce cars that don't last and cost massive amounts in terms of the ebvironment to build and dispose of. Yes, you can get cars with zero emissions but when you take into account a battery lasts about 8 years then needs replacing at a cost too high not to scrap your electric car. So the cost of keeping a small petrol car for 15 to 20 years is likely to be cheaper but is discouraged. If you export your CO2 production to other countries is doesn't count. Being green has to be green and I don't trust large companies, especially car companies, to be so. I think we are pretty much buggered but at least I don't pretend Climate Change isn't happening.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.Anyone who pretends that climate change/global warming isn't happening is a fucking idiot. The questions that need answers are a) what factors are causing it? (it's more than just burning fossil fuels), can global warming be reversed/halted? and if not then what do we need to do as humankind to mitigate wherever possible its effects?I have no faith whatsoever that humankind is collectively capable of working together on the last point.3 -
That's the frustration for me. We are capable. We know what needs doing, although we can't be 💯 it'd arrest the worst consequences of climate change now. But we don't have the collective willpower to make the necessary sacrifices to our lifestyles.bobmunro said:MuttleyCAFC said:
You have a point as long as you accept that Climate Change is happening. I think the most stupid thing Governments do is trust car companies. They produce cars that don't last and cost massive amounts in terms of the ebvironment to build and dispose of. Yes, you can get cars with zero emissions but when you take into account a battery lasts about 8 years then needs replacing at a cost too high not to scrap your electric car. So the cost of keeping a small petrol car for 15 to 20 years is likely to be cheaper but is discouraged. If you export your CO2 production to other countries is doesn't count. Being green has to be green and I don't trust large companies, especially car companies, to be so. I think we are pretty much buggered but at least I don't pretend Climate Change isn't happening.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.Anyone who pretends that climate change/global warming isn't happening is a fucking idiot. The questions that need answers are a) what factors are causing it? (it's more than just burning fossil fuels), can global warming be reversed/halted? and if not then what do we need to do as humankind to mitigate wherever possible its effects?I have no faith whatsoever that humankind is collectively capable of working together on the last point.
Chippy may have been flippant about foreign holidays and car usage, but he's bang on mentioning our attitude.
In general, we don't want to compromise our living standards, and we won't vote for governments that require us to.1 -
It's off topic, but the treatment of Dr Fauci by the Trump administration is scandalous.TD_Addick said:So many super intellectual people on this thread and not one of you have mentioned super el nino. Wonder why.
Keep trusting those scientists guys, like dr anthony fauci he was out to help humanity, they honestly have your best interests at heart.
I did mention the upcoming El Nino, it may or may not exacerbate the already evident effects of man made climate change on the UK. It will no doubt have a big effect on Pacific countries .
3 -
Because your point was "why should we be reducing our emissions when India and China are still using coal". My response was that yes they are still using coal (I'm not denying that) but they are also moving faster than us to reduce emissions so why would that be a reason for us not to bother.redman said:
How is my point wrong? I said they are using coal fired plants which is clearly true. You see what you want to see. As bad as most politicianscantersaddick said:
I didnt say China and India werent operating coal or even opening coal but the evidence I cited shows they are building renewables faster and that their coal usage has in fact peaked and begun to fall. That isnt to mean it isnt a problem but that its not the argument that it once was given the rate of growth of their green sectors. They are likely to be well ahead of us in not very long (in fact they are in a number of areas). So using them as an excuse to take no action - which is the point you oringinally made - is in fact wrong.redman said:
per Global Energy Monitor; In the first half of 2026 alone, China brought 30 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power capacity online and started construction on an additional 25.4 GW. Around 392 GW of total capacity is announced, prepared, or permitted. spanning over 300 individual projects in various stages. China operates well over 1,100 active coal power stations.cantersaddick said:
Ahhh the old "but China and India" argument. Also known as the Fox News argument. A proper classic - in that its about 15 years out of date.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.
Firstly that 1% figure is a classic manipluation of how data is communicated to fool those who lack critical thought. It is the current annual emissions share, what it misses is that the UK is the world's 5th-largest cumulative emitter historically. Cumulative CO2 is what actually determines how much warming has already been locked in. A country doesn't get to exclude its historical contribution just because its current annual share has fallen.
Even if what you state about China and India is true (it isnt but we will get to that shortly) it still misses the key point: If the UK wishes to use its soft power to push China, India or anyone else towards aster climate action then it relies on its diplomatic credibility which is dependent on the UK taking its own action and being a leader in this. The UK has outsized influence on climate diplomacy (COP26 presidency, climate finance commitments, its position in international negotiations) but this is only because of its own delivery on the climate.
There is also a more direct beenfit of developing and scaling technologies at home (offshore wind, grid-scale storage, solar manufacturing/recycling) builds an exportable industry and expertise that others buy. That's not a sacrifice, it's positioning UK firms to profit from a transition that's happening regardless of what the UK does.
Now lets dig into whether what you state about China and India is atually true. TLDR: Its not.
This argument is massively out of date, both are decarbonising incredibly quickly.
- China installed a record 315 GW of new solar capacity in 2025 alone, taking cumulative solar past 1.2 terawatts and pushing non-fossil power sources past thermal generation for the first time. Combined wind and solar capacity now exceeds 47% of China's total installed power capacity, having overtaken thermal power for the first time.https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/01/28/china-adds-315-gw-of-solar-in-2025/
-Coal power generation fell in both China and India in 2025 — the first simultaneous decline in both countries in 52 years — driven by record clean-energy growth outpacing demand.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records
-India added a record 41 GW of renewables in the first eleven months of 2025 alone, raising renewables to 40% of installed capacity, while coal-fired generation fell by 3% — only the second full-year decline in at least 50 years. India has already passed 50% non-fossil installed capacity in 2025, ahead of its 2030 target https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/india-power-sector-review-2025/
-Electric cars made up almost 55% of new car sales in China in 2025, and an estimated 44 million electric cars were on Chinese roads by the end of the year https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2026/trends-in-electric-cars
-India's residential rooftop scheme, PM Surya Ghar, launched in February 2024 — and has already overtaken the UK's entire rooftop solar base in raw numbers, from a colder start: it has passed 5 million households and 14.8 GW of cumulative rooftop capacity, with installations now running at over 16,000 households a day — one of the fastest-growing clean energy programmes anywhere in the world. It's targeting 10 million households by March 2027.https://www.pv-magazine-india.com/2026/08/04/pm-surya-ghar-rooftop-solar-scheme-surpasses-5-million-households/
That's not a poorer country lagging behind on the technology the UK is being asked to adopt - its countried installing at a rate the UK isnt close to matching.
So the picture isn't "the West decarbonises while China and India keep building coal" — it's closer to a genuine global race, with China and India adding renewable capacity faster in absolute terms than any Western economy ever has. That undercuts the case for the UK sitting it out, and strengthens the case that credible leadership (technology, policy, finance) is exactly what accelerates that trend further, rather than free-riding on it.
Across power generation, EVs, and rooftop solar, the pattern is consistent: China and India aren't dragging their feet while the UK carries the burden — in several of these metrics they're outpacing the UK. That doesn't mean the UK should relax its own effort; if anything it strengthens the opposite conclusion — the "waiting for others to move first" argument was already weak, but at this point the others have moved.
To directly tackle your question:"Should we be ruing(sp) our economy when the world super powers do far less?"
a) As shown above others are doing more not less
b) Its proovably not ruining our economy. In fact the opposite is true.
The green sector isn't a drag on the UK economy, it's currently one of its best performers:
-The UK's net zero economy now supports over a million jobs and added £105 billion in gross value added in 2025 alone, making it one of the UK's fastest-growing economic sectors.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-security-jobs-and-investment-boost-through-climate-action
- The sector's total economic value has grown 10.1% since 2023 — roughly three times the growth rate of the wider UK economy — and net zero jobs are 40% more productive than the national average, with wages 15% higher.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/growth-and-innovation-in-the-uk-s-net-zero-economy/
- It's genuinely a UK-wide story, not a London bubble: the West Midlands, Yorkshire & the Humber, and South West England are emerging as major hotspots, while Scotland's net zero economy alone contributes £9.1 billion in GVA and over 100,000 full-time jobs.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/growth-and-innovation-in-the-uk-s-net-zero-economy/
- The sector is underpinned by over 23,500 businesses, more than 96% of them SMEs — this is broad-based enterprise growth, not a handful of subsidised giants — and there's £455 billion of investment already planned or under construction across 262 GW of capacity, roughly four times current installed renewable capacity.
https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/net-gains-the-uks-net-zero-economy-in-2025/
- Even during the 2023 recession, the net-zero economy grew 9% year-on-year while the wider British economy contracted — the sector was explicitly cited as bucking the broader downturn.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2024/02/28/uk-net-zero-economy-bucks-recession-study-shows/120355
Put those together and the "should we ruin our economy" framing gets the direction of travel backwards. This is the sector actively reindustrialising parts of the country that lost manufacturing decades ago, turning old industrial and coastal regions into hubs for offshore wind, battery manufacturing, and grid infrastructure, with productivity and wages above the national average. Any government serious about growth and regional rebalancing would be doubling down on a sector outperforming the rest of the economy three-to-one, not treating it as an act of self-harm. The economic case for slowing down here is actually harder to make than the case for accelerating.
So once again your "arguments" dont stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny and dont match the evidence.The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025, even as the global coal fleet generated less electricity, amid a “widening disconnect” in the sector. That is according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), which finds that the world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025, the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants.
It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China.
O well everything I say is wrong so ..........
You are now pretending you didnt say the part about it meaning we shouldnt have to bother.2 -
There has been chat about the super El Niño on this and other threads. Particularly how it has been supercharged and intensified by climate change. It is a symptom not a cause.TD_Addick said:So many super intellectual people on this thread and not one of you have mentioned super el nino. Wonder why.
Keep trusting those scientists guys, like dr anthony fauci he was out to help humanity, they honestly have your best interests at heart.
https://ncas.ac.uk/el-nino-explained-global-weather-uk-impacts-and-climate-change/3 -
Sadly I think you are right, when the fossil fuel industries are able to influence so much of the billionaire owned media, social media and politicians. They are very good at creating division and deflection, with far too many believing their lies.bobmunro said:MuttleyCAFC said:
You have a point as long as you accept that Climate Change is happening. I think the most stupid thing Governments do is trust car companies. They produce cars that don't last and cost massive amounts in terms of the ebvironment to build and dispose of. Yes, you can get cars with zero emissions but when you take into account a battery lasts about 8 years then needs replacing at a cost too high not to scrap your electric car. So the cost of keeping a small petrol car for 15 to 20 years is likely to be cheaper but is discouraged. If you export your CO2 production to other countries is doesn't count. Being green has to be green and I don't trust large companies, especially car companies, to be so. I think we are pretty much buggered but at least I don't pretend Climate Change isn't happening.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.Anyone who pretends that climate change/global warming isn't happening is a fucking idiot. The questions that need answers are a) what factors are causing it? (it's more than just burning fossil fuels), can global warming be reversed/halted? and if not then what do we need to do as humankind to mitigate wherever possible its effects?I have no faith whatsoever that humankind is collectively capable of working together on the last point.
3 -
I agree with much of what you say about things that are the problems - planned obsolecense is a massive issue for the economy, for consumers, the cost of living for waste and the environment. It is however an issue with our economic system where it rewards and incentivises companies that create a product to break and need to be repurchased rather than one that lasts. Its a symptom of late stage capitalism and its a demonstration of why climate change and economic systems are so tightly interlinked and so need to both be addressed if we are to solve either.MuttleyCAFC said:
You have a point as long as you accept that Climate Change is happening. I think the most stupid thing Governments do is trust car companies. They produce cars that don't last and cost massive amounts in terms of the ebvironment to build and dispose of. Yes, you can get cars with zero emissions but when you take into account a battery lasts about 8 years then needs replacing at a cost too high not to scrap your electric car. So the cost of keeping a small petrol car for 15 to 20 years is likely to be cheaper but is discouraged. If you export your CO2 production to other countries is doesn't count. Being green has to be green and I don't trust large companies, especially car companies, to be so. I think we are pretty much buggered but at least I don't pretend Climate Change isn't happening.redman said:
You obviously missed the point of my post. It's the nuances of it that get me. We produce less than 1% of the world's CO2 but reducing ours and moving it to China and India is considered OK, where they are still building coal fired generators. Should we be ruing our economy when the world super powers do far less? Is me not going holiday really going to save the planet.Chizz said:
Can you spell out the main points of the "anti climate change argument"?redman said:
Agree. And one of the reasons is that a lot of media, particularly the BCC, have always shut down anti climate change argument. I find myself in the bracket, probably like a lot, mostly enviromental, but whenever I express disagreement with what I call "extreme green" views I get abused as a climate change denier. That has happened here as well as elsewhere. There are some very arrogant people on all sides of this argument who don't want to debate.Addick_and_Chips said:I don't want to start a political debate on here as we all know how that goes.....
But is anyone else concerned that we are into our 5th heatwave of the year, which will lead to further food and water shortages?
I care deeply for the environment and have been worried for years about where we are heading. I find it staggering that it's not being discussed more in the media at the moment.1
