If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
So Peter you have accused me of two abusive posts as well as violating the IET’s code of conduct. Have you reported this to the moderation team?
As far as I can tell asking you a direct question is classed as abusive. Are we just supposed to accept what the professor/god says?
You said in a response to David Stone:
I have set out a list of propositions for Roger Bryant so he can show me with which of those he disagrees.
The only list I can find is this:
The issue is this.
1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.
2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.
3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.
4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
As you are aware I agree with the first three and for 4. follow the other information that you have posted as well as AR6 WG1 which suggest an ECS of around 2°C.
In another reply you seem to take the typical ‘green’ endless resources viewpoint.
Costs are relative to, well, politics. Let me remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes in the midst of WWII: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (1942 BBC Address, Collected Works XXVII).
I think we can cover our rooves with PV plates, cover our walls with insulation, and exchange our windows. We can “actually do” it. Ergo, according to Keynes, we can afford it.
Indeed governments can print money but many of the resources required to carry out the ‘green’ movements demands are finite and highly polluting and energy intensive to produce/refine.
What are your solutions to AGW and what are their resource requirements?
So Peter you have accused me of two abusive posts as well as violating the IET’s code of conduct. Have you reported this to the moderation team?
As far as I can tell asking you a direct question is classed as abusive. Are we just supposed to accept what the professor/god says?
You said in a response to David Stone:
I have set out a list of propositions for Roger Bryant so he can show me with which of those he disagrees.
The only list I can find is this:
The issue is this.
1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.
2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.
3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.
4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
As you are aware I agree with the first three and for 4. follow the other information that you have posted as well as AR6 WG1 which suggest an ECS of around 2°C.
In another reply you seem to take the typical ‘green’ endless resources viewpoint.
Costs are relative to, well, politics. Let me remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes in the midst of WWII: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (1942 BBC Address, Collected Works XXVII).
I think we can cover our rooves with PV plates, cover our walls with insulation, and exchange our windows. We can “actually do” it. Ergo, according to Keynes, we can afford it.
Indeed governments can print money but many of the resources required to carry out the ‘green’ movements demands are finite and highly polluting and energy intensive to produce/refine.
What are your solutions to AGW and what are their resource requirements?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
