This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Just 85 days to go before COP 26

I am sort of excited , its like seeing what arrives at the Rainhill trials all over again (ok I don't time travel) , and we await the big government on heating , and the EV systems are still getting ironed out . I hope i have outlined in previous posts , why we need large scale efficiencies, particularly as we venture to green hydrogen new places , so is there anything new and exciting arriving yet … Well it depends where your start is , if you know who Rachel Carson is and her book silent spring , then your start is real ecology thinking , and your not tub thumping the bath asking for drill baby drill , the pollution problems are real , and we are finding stuff out about just how delicate and interrelated, the organic chemistry of life , really is , so I guess i am with the eco thinkers on pollution , if your an economic thinker and worried about not having a job , then you believe high tech will get us of the problem of impairment of the natural life systems of the planet , mmm which unfortunately i can only argue as such views being deluded , natural habitat loss , is just that, loss and all the fruit cakes who wanted sodium hydroxide trees removing CO2 , I think we are going to argue that . CCS has problems , both technically and in terms of trajectory , and even though George Monbiot has advocated nuclear , I dont really agree , and he hasnt explained the trajectory very well at all , but maybe hes hoping Fusion reactors work (which i dont think they do) , so its all getting a bit exciting in the tin foil hat and expensed wonk stakes , in technology choice awards , some bits can be nailed down but they are to do with infrastructure , and some quite massive changes can be achieved , with redesigning some aspects considering how the EV will work. The liquid fuels believers so called SAF fuels have appeared , and an interesting idea on electrifying HGVs by fitting them with a pantograph , to draw from an overhead line on the motorway , still a problem in HGV weight , and i think Sweden has looked at a centre rail in the road , mmm well problem there is stuff , roadkill getting washed into your concealed live conductor ,duct , still driving along and the kids saying , whats that smell as another bird or mammal is cooking on the centre again , had a biref fun moment . 

Anyhow been as I have designed some eco tech ,(starts rubbing hands feverishly) were reading for the wonk and tin foil hat market makers , the rules are you produce some (not necessarily perfect engineering figures , no more of this Hydrogen gas turbine hopey change thing ) , seems fair enough as alot of tax payers money will be going on some aspects of eco thinking , some are already self sustaining , for transport as LNG is doing well as a transport fuel .

Not happy with some of things the so called cop 26 climate ambassador has been saying so far , not the COP 26 panel (i am hard pushed to find any member truly knowledgeable on natural life system dynmaics and chemistry ) , but as they say only 85  days to go , and who knows anyhting could happen ? 

      

Parents
  • Rob Eagle: 
     

    I am not sure that the science is pretty clear, the detractors are denied media exposure but they certainly are out  there.

    The detractors are not really denied media exposure. 

    There are some US “think tank” type institutes that one could describe as taking an ACC-denial position. And before that, they doubted that anthropogenic CFCs caused the ozone hole. And before that, they doubted that acid rain was caused by anthropogenic sulphur and nitrogen emissions. And before that they doubted that there was any link between tobacco smoking and cancer. Those institutes and their members have throughout had very good access indeed both to news media and to politicians. 

    You can read the detailed history in Oreskes and Conway's decade-old book.

    Russia has been ACC-sceptic on the political level for decades (I don't know whether it still is). You can read what happened when a UK scientific delegation let by the UK Chief Scientific Advisor visited Moscow for a nominally “scientific” meeting about climate science in 2004 in Chapter 4 of Peter Stott's book Hot Air. Do you suppose the Russian news-media are ACC-acceptors?

    One detractor on another forum produced link after link after link to ACC-sceptical material, not only from the above sources. Those links would not be there if the media were to be “den[ying] exposure.” Indeed, in most of the world all anyone has to do is pay a domain registration agency (what for us is) a small amount of money, and they have a (mostly) world-wide accessible site for them to publish whatever they want.  And people do. 

    By contrast, we could look at the peer-reviewed climate science published in scientific journals. Mark Lynas and his colleagues just did. They took a randomised sample of 3,000 of the 88,000+ articles that have been published since 2012, found 4 with ACC-sceptical material in the abstract, and 28 with ACC-sceptical keyword sequences in the body.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

    That suggests that, in the entire peer-reviewed climate science literature since 2021, there are probably only 800-850 papers exhibiting such characteristics. Lynas et al don't analyse and present the arguments in the articles they found, but it might be fun to do so, and the task seems doable (about a person-year).

     

Reply
  • Rob Eagle: 
     

    I am not sure that the science is pretty clear, the detractors are denied media exposure but they certainly are out  there.

    The detractors are not really denied media exposure. 

    There are some US “think tank” type institutes that one could describe as taking an ACC-denial position. And before that, they doubted that anthropogenic CFCs caused the ozone hole. And before that, they doubted that acid rain was caused by anthropogenic sulphur and nitrogen emissions. And before that they doubted that there was any link between tobacco smoking and cancer. Those institutes and their members have throughout had very good access indeed both to news media and to politicians. 

    You can read the detailed history in Oreskes and Conway's decade-old book.

    Russia has been ACC-sceptic on the political level for decades (I don't know whether it still is). You can read what happened when a UK scientific delegation let by the UK Chief Scientific Advisor visited Moscow for a nominally “scientific” meeting about climate science in 2004 in Chapter 4 of Peter Stott's book Hot Air. Do you suppose the Russian news-media are ACC-acceptors?

    One detractor on another forum produced link after link after link to ACC-sceptical material, not only from the above sources. Those links would not be there if the media were to be “den[ying] exposure.” Indeed, in most of the world all anyone has to do is pay a domain registration agency (what for us is) a small amount of money, and they have a (mostly) world-wide accessible site for them to publish whatever they want.  And people do. 

    By contrast, we could look at the peer-reviewed climate science published in scientific journals. Mark Lynas and his colleagues just did. They took a randomised sample of 3,000 of the 88,000+ articles that have been published since 2012, found 4 with ACC-sceptical material in the abstract, and 28 with ACC-sceptical keyword sequences in the body.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

    That suggests that, in the entire peer-reviewed climate science literature since 2021, there are probably only 800-850 papers exhibiting such characteristics. Lynas et al don't analyse and present the arguments in the articles they found, but it might be fun to do so, and the task seems doable (about a person-year).

     

Children
No Data