Tuesday, 4 January 2022

MANIFESTO FOR COMMON SENSE

Here is a good manifesto for common sense that should be adopted by our politicians. 

 Manifesto For 2022 | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

13 comments:

  1. Fundamental Principles

    All government actions regarding Net Zero should be consistent with two fundamental principles:



    1) Policy should be affordable, both for the public and government finances.

    2) Decarbonisation in future should not be at a faster rate than the rest of the world.





    CO2 is the linchpin to net zero policy. No matter how you look at it, net zero is the plan that will give humanity and life on earth a healthy more economical life to live in. Renewable energy and storage are the way forward out of human made mess of fossil fuels. To stick with FF is to crush some life off the face of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What planet are you on? Have you not seen how energy costs are rocketing - hardly more economical, is it? You are obviously indoctrinated by all the media exaggeration and lies. Look at what is happening in China and India. They have no intention of abandoning fossil fuels. If you want to see the cost of energy and everything else that depends on energy continue to rocket then abandon fossil fuels.

    ReplyDelete
  3. [ Look at what is happening in China and India. ]



    Both countries are investing in renewable energy. This takes time.

    Showing results for renewable energy investment by country
    Search instead for renewable enrgy investment by country

    Investment in clean energy globally in 2019, by select country (in billion U.S. dollars)
    Characteristic Investment in billion U.S. dollars
    China 83.4
    U.S. 55.5
    Japan 16.5
    India 9.3
    9 more rows•Jan 16, 2020

    Global clean energy investment by select country 2019 - Statista

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, the Chinese and others are investing in renewable energy, but what you are ignoring is that they are also investing far more in new fossil fuel electricity generation. They are treating us as fools, encouraging us to weaken our energy independence and increase our energy costs, while quietly continuing to rely on cheap abundant fossil fuels themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [They are treating us as fools, encouraging us to weaken our energy independence and increase our energy costs, while quietly continuing to rely on cheap abundant fossil fuels themselves.]



    That is your active low self esteem hard at work. Our advanced societies taught them how to use coal to begin with. Every coutry in the world gets it they have to change to clean energy. Developing countries will get there later than we will.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is just some bloke's opinion! He has no qualifications or expertise. Why would we listen to him (or you Derek) instead of actual experts who have studied the subject?

    https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-trying-to-fool-the-public-again-about-extreme-weather/

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you read this blog then you will see that I have linked to dozens of experts who have studied this subject. I am not just giving my opinion, I am trying to open your eyes to the opinions of experts who have shown that global warming, or climate change is massively exaggerated. The policies being advocated to deal with this so-called crisis are themselves very costly and dangerous. You would not cut off your leg to cure a damaged ligament. Paul Homewood may not have a piece of paper saying "qualified climate scientist", but he has spent many hours studying the data and it is the data that you should look at, not the ranting of media headlines. Look at Paul's blog https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ I think he has shown that he has studied the subject seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My ears and eyes are well tuned to climate denial. I've been at this for 15 years now. I come from a family where science is celebrated as something good. Opening up the link you provided is pure science denial of the reality we created on earth with our fossil fuel burning.

    Speaking of costs, climate damage will trillions down the road per year while it is now billions per year. Its one of those smart investments the fossil fuel industry doesn't like. As they shrink small enough to drown in a bathtub, they will not be a bother then.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “Although Mr Homewood also promotes the idea of a NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] conspiracy, his blog provides absolutely no evidence to substantiate his baseless accusation.” Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul's blog is full of information which comes from the official data. His charts and graphs show clearly that there is no climate emergency, just a lot of exaggeration and propaganda. Bob Ward is a public relations expert, not any more qualified than Paul Homewood and I am. If you do not have an open mind then no amount of data will convince you. My own blog has been running for 15 years and I can see through the climate hysteria that has been kept going by a massive one-sided propaganda campaign. Governments are now so sucked into this that they cannot get out, even though they, individually, know it is ruining their economies in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1) Policy should be affordable, both for the public and government finances.

    The interesting part in this is that the United States alone has gone through 147 billion dollars last year in 2021. So the question is, "What does affordable mean"? Affordable in this case I will define as, its cheaper to fix the situation now than wait till later. Damages over time from a warming earth are going to accelerate. This is not a linear change. It has been made very clear from a conservative point of view how global warming will damage our world society. Since we in the United States can spend a trillion dollars a year on the military, the investment against future warming with all its implications and unknowns would easily justify that kind of budget.





    2) Decarbonisation in future should not be at a faster rate than the rest of the world.


    I disagree with statement. I find it petty to make such a statement to begin with with our wealth that we have. As we lead, then the rest of the world can benefit from technology from a market point of view. This is the next wealth expansion. Tesla is doing so well on the leader on the S curve of production of electric cars, they could easily leapfrog the legacy auto manufacturers of the world. Tesla is already highly rewarded for their leadership. This is a foolish position to take on rate of decarbonization.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Out of interest, what’s your view on chemical pollution as an equal disaster to overheating due to carbon?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/18/chemical-pollution-has-passed-safe-limit-for-humanity-say-scientists

    ReplyDelete
  13. “There has been a fiftyfold increase in the production of chemicals since 1950 and this is projected to triple again by 2050,” said Patricia Villarrubia-G√≥mez, a PhD candidate and research assistant at the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) who was part of the study team. “The pace that societies are producing and releasing new chemicals into the environment is not consistent with staying within a safe operating space for humanity.”



    It appears we are going to pay a price for spreading chemicals far and wide.

    ReplyDelete

Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.