Climate change could cause Western Europe to become much colder - NASA

That's right, the environment is not the preserve of any political quadrant. However, the environment was the most obvious cause left to disappointed socialists when the USSR collapsed and it still is something they all latch on to and use to let their politics flow through. They are called Melons, for being Green on the surface but Red underneath it. Twitter is packed with them, the traditional anti-capitalists campaigning for every minority they can get their hands on and for the abolition of borders so everybody in the world can escape the catastrophe and come live with us. It's not all about the physical environment, they're even more concerned about the social one.

The main problem is the way the issue is hijacked by all sorts of political quacks and hangers on for all sorts of self-serving reasons, beyond the obvious financial interests invested and collected by governments and a thousand other agencies. Also the media, people who make wind turbines and land owners for them to go on, Elon Musk, electricity suppliers, City traders on carbon-credits, too many to name.

So much money is made out of it all that it begs the question: were there to be a decrease in global temperatures over the next decade, would we be told? Or would we be told something else that wouldn't jeopardise all of those interests put together? In other words, were the IPCC and the scientific community briefed and paid to look for other possible explanations for the observable changes and non-human related...would they find any? We'll never know but we do know the IPCC was originally set up in order to identify any human-related influence, could they ever come back and say something else? That's not denying anything, just qualifying the premises.

ps, that's a reply to Ferrograd, quote went up in smoke like a greenhouse gas. Tax-free, hopefully.

It is a concern, China's efforts with solar energy seem to be overshadowed by their continued reliance on coal, which is odd given they have the technology and innovation to use other methods and at a time when everyone else is ditching it.

In reality, groups like XR should be focusing their attention on China and those countries. I'm not trying to be a boomer, it's not about blaming othee people , but look what the UK has done. We've reached forestry levels we had in medieval times. Just the other day we banned petrol and diesel beyond 2035. We have had consistently falling emissions....

The siutation with China are far more complicated than people make out.

First you need to consider population. Pure emission statistics aren't relevant, given the different size of nations populations. Its much more useful to look at how much pollution a nation is producing per person, as that shows their efficiency (but its also flawed because it doesn't account for pollution that nations incur on behalf of others).

So with China, when you consider how many people there are.. they are much more respectable in terms of their energy use. The use half as much energy per person as the USA. Less than japan, gemerany, belgium etc. And only slightly more than we use in the UK (per person). But then you have to consider that they are the factory of the world.. and part of the reason they are so polluted is that wealthier nations like the UK have moved their manufacturing industries (highly polluting) offshore to nations like China, who now have to deal with the waste/pollution of these industries.

The final thing to consider is the wealth of a nation and how it developed. The UK grew and became rich by consuming natural resources and poluting.. now we are (comparatively) rich, we have the resources to try more expensive, but environmental solutions. Its highly hypocritical of us to say to nations that are still developing, like China, 'you can't develop through consuming natural resources.. like we did.. because now we know better'. Those nations can't afford all of the green solutions that we can. China is rich as a whole, but its poor when you factor in the population, and it simply doesn't have the ability to do what western nations are doing on a mass scale. They use coal because that's all the poor areas can afford.. their GDP per capita is far less than ours, its always worth remembering that. As it stands, fossil fuels are the cheapest and most efficient forms of energy, to take these away from developing nations, is to slow down their development, by forbidding them to do the exact thing that richer nations already benefited from. Its a highly hypocritical stance to take.

China is an easy finger to point blame at, for people who don't really understand the situation very well.

I'm not compalining, I'm simply saying that they should stop relying on coal when everyone else is ditching it.

China isn't a "developing" nation. Just look at their economic performance....and I think its different to compare how Britain was built on fossil fuels compared to China. We used it because we didn't know that it was bad for the environment and had no other technology at the time. China uses it and insists on using it in 2020 despite literally everywhere else, coal is being phased out, even in places like the USA that have seen continuous fall in CO2 emissions thanks to the redundancy of coal.

China can easily afford other energy sources. They are trying - like using solar energy, but they're consistently building new airports, opening new coal mines etc. They are obsessed with economic growth. Granted, this isn't a bad thing but it usually comes at the expense of the environment.

Your falling into the trap of thinking that China is richer than it actually is.

Yes, as a nation its pretty rich.. $12tr, compared to the UKs $2.6tr

So of course they have the money to pay for (more expensive) renewable energy, right?

Except, then you consider that China has more than 10x the population of the UK, and you get the real numbers:
GDP(Per capita)
UK: $40,000
Chn: $8,600

For every person, the UK has nearly 5x as much money as China does.

This is the number that matters when it comes to energy consumption, because energy is consumed by people, and needs to be provided to everyone. Its a cost that split between your population, uposed to a single national cost. As such, China has far far less money than the UK does, to pay for each persons energy.

(America on the otherhand, polutes 2x more per person than the UK does, despite having a GDP(pc) of $60,000. So if you want to point fingers.. you have one country who polutes roughly the same as we do per person, despite being considerably poorer.. and one country who is richer than us, and could do far more, yet polutes 2x as much).

---

And yes, China is obsessed with economic growth (like every country mind you) because it was only 30-40 years ago that its people were starving and living below the poverty line. China has lifted 2/3rds of a billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years. Thats 10x more people than in the entire UK, who have gone from starving and struggling to survive.. who now live reasonably comfortable lives. They still have much less money than the UK, but they are not in poverty any more. their GDPpc, is still 5x less than ours, and 8x less than the USA's, so they still have, in their eyes, a way to go to catch up to where we are economically, so that they can have a similar set of living standards to us.

Its great saying 'well we know better', but people don't care. They want their lives to improve, and they aren't going to listen to the hypocracy of the west telling them to not do something that they have already done. If the west really wanted to aproach this in a non-hypocritical way, they would massivly fund energy-solutions for the developing world, so as to not pull up the drawbridge, and hinder the development of these countries, by removing their ability to access the most efficient energy sources.

---

'ditch coal, like everyone else' - the nations that are ditching coal are far richer, and far more capable of paying the higher price for the alternatives. I don't think you quite know just how poor China is..

How so? The planet has been significantly warmer in the past and pootled along quite nicely...

How so? The planet has been significantly warmer in the past and pootled along quite nicely...

The current rate of change is unprecedented though, which is why scientists are so concerned

Yeah that's what the Liberal Cucks there at NASA want you to know. Stop being such a little libtard and wake up to what's actually going on in the real world. What other lies have NASA told us? You really gonna believe a source which doctors pictures and states that the world is spherical??? Hahaha you make me laugh with your sheer ignorance. Climate change is as fictional as the pope who lives my back garden. All NASA and you want is to ban fossil fuel-powered cars, take our guns and overall take away our freedom. I'll leave you a quote from a true prophet and speaker Alex Jones, who's words will one day save us:

"1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms"

I don't get where we got the idea "the planet was warmer in the past" from. I'm pretty sure it's the warmest in 800,000 years? And even then, only some parts of the world were marginally warmer. Eg, in the medieval warm period, it was only Europe that was warm. Now, I'm not sure about the Roman period, you could have vineyards as far North as Hadrians wall then, but who knows scientists have not studied this.

That said, I would advise on holding back from speculating about the current rate of change. Scientsits have said the period from 2018-2022 will be "unusually warm", and as such I imagine tempreatures may cool down after that, even if it is just for a few years. Much like before 2014. We had rapid warming then, 2014 was the warmest year on record, before it was beaten by 2015, and then 2016. 2017 was average, 2018 was tied with 2019 as the warmest year on record. Met Office believes warmest year on record will be between now and 2025. My bet is 2020 beign the warmest year on record but people have pointed out to me that this might not be the case due to natural La Nina cycles that could lead to a cooler summer. Who knows.

Isn't that a bit irrelevant though, when you consider the tipping points we're on course for?

The siutation with China are far more complicated than people make out.

First you need to consider population. Pure emission statistics aren't relevant, given the different size of nations populations. Its much more useful to look at how much pollution a nation is producing per person, as that shows their efficiency (but its also flawed because it doesn't account for pollution that nations incur on behalf of others).

So with China, when you consider how many people there are.. they are much more respectable in terms of their energy use. The use half as much energy per person as the USA. Less than japan, gemerany, belgium etc. And only slightly more than we use in the UK (per person). But then you have to consider that they are the factory of the world.. and part of the reason they are so polluted is that wealthier nations like the UK have moved their manufacturing industries (highly polluting) offshore to nations like China, who now have to deal with the waste/pollution of these industries.

The final thing to consider is the wealth of a nation and how it developed. The UK grew and became rich by consuming natural resources and poluting.. now we are (comparatively) rich, we have the resources to try more expensive, but environmental solutions. Its highly hypocritical of us to say to nations that are still developing, like China, 'you can't develop through consuming natural resources.. like we did.. because now we know better'. Those nations can't afford all of the green solutions that we can. China is rich as a whole, but its poor when you factor in the population, and it simply doesn't have the ability to do what western nations are doing on a mass scale. They use coal because that's all the poor areas can afford.. their GDP per capita is far less than ours, its always worth remembering that. As it stands, fossil fuels are the cheapest and most efficient forms of energy, to take these away from developing nations, is to slow down their development, by forbidding them to do the exact thing that richer nations already benefited from. Its a highly hypocritical stance to take.

China is an easy finger to point blame at, for people who don't really understand the situation very well.

Gulf stream rather than jet stream.

And I just see this as bad news since everything in this country stops working the moment it hits -1C.

Then imagine Canadian winters in the UK.

So much money is made out of it all that it begs the question: were there to be a decrease in global temperatures over the next decade, would we be told? Or would we be told something else that wouldn't jeopardise all of those interests put together? In other words, were the IPCC and the scientific community briefed and paid to look for other possible explanations for the observable changes and non-human related...would they find any? We'll never know but we do know the IPCC was originally set up in order to identify any human-related influence, could they ever come back and say something else? That's not denying anything, just qualifying the premises.

Pfft -1C? You're far too generous.


There are some theories floating around that the sun may have much more of an impact on Earth than we realise, which may well extend to climate. I mean, there's a pretty solid correlation between CME bursts and seismic activity to the point that you can actually predict when and roughly how bad an Earthquake might occur/be. If the sun can do that, impacting the climate isn't exactly a far fetch

There are some theories floating around that the sun may have much more of an impact on Earth than we realise, which may well extend to climate.

It could be 20 C colder and it still won’t snow in London