Australian Wildfires

Simon Barker:

Roger Bryant:

This is more a cynical response than a skeptical response.


If you compare the amount of talk to the amount of action I don't think many, if any, of the 'stop climate change' proponents really believe in what they are saying. The high profile ones still fly around the world and buy beach houses. Governments and Councils declare 'Climate Emergencies' but don't actually do anything. They all say we must be 'Carbon Neutral' (whatever that actually means) by 2030 or 2050 or some when. Where is the real work behind this? Where are the feasibility studies? Where are the action plans with dates and costs? The technical and scientific institutes produce 'position statements' but don't come up with anything more. The paper from the I Mech E that you linked in a previous posting just says 'it's difficult'.


I think that once you study what is the problem and what are the solutions you realise that 'Carbon Neutral' by 2050 is not possible and also not necessary. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels by 2100 is sensible and feasible.

Who in the current media climate is going to stand up a say that? Ms Thunberg will send them off for forced labour in the battery factory (to quote OMS ? ).


For my views on why all this is happening have a look at the 1984 thread:
https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24015


Best regards


Roger


P.S. When I spell checked this it tried to change Thunberg to Thinker, maybe not.

 

Everything is "too difficult" for someone who doesn't want to do it.  I don't believe that carbon neutral by 2030 is realistically possible.  2050 should be. 2100 is too late, and is basically saying "don't bother doing anything until I'm long dead".

Dear Roger,


Did you know that...:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/The-Biggest-Proponent-Of-Solar-Isnt-What-Youd-Expect.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-past-helped-launch-the-solar-industry-of-today?t=1580374156158

I myself as an Electrical and Electronics Engineer, started on those years ( 1970s) to design and build some solar energy devices but some years later I abandoned this route because of the then very low efficiency (4%) and very high prices of solar cells compared with the today's ones:
https://www.solar.com/learn/solar-panel-efficiency/

And here is George Orwell  1984. Have a good reading ( for everyone):
https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/1984.pdf

 

 

Simon Barker:

Roger Bryant:

This is more a cynical response than a skeptical response.


If you compare the amount of talk to the amount of action I don't think many, if any, of the 'stop climate change' proponents really believe in what they are saying. The high profile ones still fly around the world and buy beach houses. Governments and Councils declare 'Climate Emergencies' but don't actually do anything. They all say we must be 'Carbon Neutral' (whatever that actually means) by 2030 or 2050 or some when. Where is the real work behind this? Where are the feasibility studies? Where are the action plans with dates and costs? The technical and scientific institutes produce 'position statements' but don't come up with anything more. The paper from the I Mech E that you linked in a previous posting just says 'it's difficult'.


I think that once you study what is the problem and what are the solutions you realise that 'Carbon Neutral' by 2050 is not possible and also not necessary. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels by 2100 is sensible and feasible.

Who in the current media climate is going to stand up a say that? Ms Thunberg will send them off for forced labour in the battery factory (to quote OMS ? ).


For my views on why all this is happening have a look at the 1984 thread:
https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24015


Best regards


Roger


P.S. When I spell checked this it tried to change Thunberg to Thinker, maybe not.

 

Everything is "too difficult" for someone who doesn't want to do it.  I don't believe that carbon neutral by 2030 is realistically possible.  2050 should be. 2100 is too late, and is basically saying "don't bother doing anything until I'm long dead".

Dear Roger,


Did you know that...:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/The-Biggest-Proponent-Of-Solar-Isnt-What-Youd-Expect.html

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-past-helped-launch-the-solar-industry-of-today?t=1580374156158

I myself as an Electrical and Electronics Engineer, started on those years ( 1970s) to design and build some solar energy devices but some years later I abandoned this route because of the then very low efficiency (4%) and very high prices of solar cells compared with the today's ones:
https://www.solar.com/learn/solar-panel-efficiency/

And here is George Orwell  1984. Have a good reading ( for everyone):
https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/1984.pdf