12 hours ago, EnterName said:

You talk of "indirect imperialism and oppression", and that absolutely is a Social Justice talking point, as is your suggestion that "wealth redistribution is inevitable".

Please re-read your handy screenshot:

I am only stating the obvious. Your whole post in the screenshot effectively says China have nearly 36 times worse than UK for CO2 emission. But the fact of the matter is that they have MUCH bigger population, MUCH bigger land mass and MUCH bigger economic output.

To say they are wrong to do what UK has done in early to mid 1900's is views of an oppressor. Plain and simple.

To label above sentence as social justice is just unnecessary and putting words into my mouth.

12 hours ago, EnterName said:

a) Yeah, but as I have shown previously, the UK could achieve "Net Zero" and it would have zero impact on "climate change". None.

Citation needed. Is it just because you have calculated a small nation by population/land mass/economic output has a small-ish CO2 emission, it means the small nation will have zero impact?

Did the development of internet by UK national have zero impact on the world?

Just because UK is a small producer does not mean its innovation cannot change the world.

12 hours ago, EnterName said:

b) You'll have to ask Blair exactly what he meant by "short term". What does it usually mean?

You are saying Blair is talking facts, but the fact that was quoted does not have anything that can be pin-pointed, you don't know, I don't know. It is just "good" politician's way of speaking absolute tosh. So how can this politician's way of speaking be considered factual?

Emissions per capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

The mean per capita for the world is 4.86

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by Stonekeeper

4 hours ago, EnterName said:

Even if the UK achieves net-zero, that will still leave 99.9908% of global CO2 remaining.

(Note, that 99.9908% remaining CO2 still only comprises less than 0.05% of the earth's atmospheric gases.)

It just says there, UK produces 3% of total human-made CO2. For such a small island, it's massive.

0.83% of (presumably current) global annual CO2 by UK.

Why are you quoting everything based on total atmospheric CO2?

By doing so, you are effectively saying human race (a tiny spec in Earth's history) must make a measurable change to total atmospheric CO2. Are you aware what you are asking?

4 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

By doing so, you are effectively saying human race (a tiny spec in Earth's history) must make a measurable change to total atmospheric CO2. Are you aware what you are asking?

But that is the point.

5 minutes ago, Stonekeeper said:

Emissions per capita

That's a massive reversal.

As I previously said. UK are post industrial revolution whereas China is in later stages.

UK's fantastic improvement comes from decoupling of economic growth from CO2 emissions. China is working on that this very moment.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence

If UK was allowed to burn coal to get their industry going, why can't China?

It took UK a century to arrive at this level of reduction (2000 to 2023), I bet it will take China a lot less time.

At the same time, why shouldn't UK forge ahead with net-zero innovations?

Just now, Stonekeeper said:

But that is the point.

Isn't the point to minimise human-made CO2 emissions in order to have minimal impact on Earth's climate?

The overall climate change over millenniums are inevitable. Quoting total atmospheric CO2 is basically saying human should have total control of Earth's climate.

7 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

At the same time, why shouldn't UK forge ahead with net-zero innovations?

On 04/05/2025 at 21:21, wyx087 said:

I am only stating the obvious. Your whole post in the screenshot effectively says China have nearly 36 times worse than UK for CO2 emission. But the fact of the matter is that they have MUCH bigger population, MUCH bigger land mass and MUCH bigger economic output.

To say they are wrong to do what UK has done in early to mid 1900's is views of an oppressor. Plain and simple.

To label above sentence as social justice is just unnecessary and putting words into my mouth.

You do realise they'll never let you into the Clique if you disown "Social Justice"? 😋

But more importantly.

Full analysis here.

On 04/05/2025 at 21:21, wyx087 said:

Citation needed. Is it just because you have calculated a small nation by population/land mass/economic output has a small-ish CO2 emission, it means the small nation will have zero impact?

Please see the comprehensive analysis I provided a few posts ago.

On 04/05/2025 at 21:21, wyx087 said:

Did the development of internet by UK national have zero impact on the world?

Just because UK is a small producer does not mean its innovation cannot change the world.

Cute! But there's a guiding hand of big business behind the push for "Climate Change" initiatives.

Much like this Coke advert. Nice-sounding, but actually all about transferring money from many people to a few people.

On 04/05/2025 at 21:21, wyx087 said:

You are saying Blair is talking facts, but the fact that was quoted does not have anything that can be pin-pointed, you don't know, I don't know. It is just "good" politician's way of speaking absolute tosh. So how can this politician's way of speaking be considered factual?

What I was trying to do, unsuccessfully it seems, was to get you to criticise what he was saying.

I even provided you a crib-sheet of reasonable contradictions to Blair's points, which was characteristically helpful of me. 😇

But no. As far as you're concerned he's 'wrong' and that's all there is to it.

Why is he wrong?

'Everyone KNOWS he's wrong! No need to actually get into what he says!'(!)

On 04/05/2025 at 12:08, Lee01 said:

For the record the post mentioned and badly displayed and misrepresented above was made by me 18 months ago. It has not been removed and is a currently ongoing topic.

As evidenced here. The topic is 'Farage debanked' in Roadside.
To be honest I'm surprised it got to him so much. All I did was mistakenly type 'you' instead of 'they'. My bad <Oopsie!>
Mine is the top post he displayed, the other is by Brisky admin and was made two and a half years before he himself started the 'Farage debanked' topic.

For the record, Lee is wrong, as usual. 😄

I'm surprised he hasn't dog-whistled his little protege in here to bark nonsense at me.

.

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

But more importantly.

Full analysis here.

Please see the comprehensive analysis I provided a few posts ago.

Great you are using AI to create a coherent argument, including doing basic maths. But I see no point in responding to AI slurp that is clearly prompted to generate your biases. By all means construct your own reasoning.

And I've already responded to you here. Your whole reasoning is based on the incorrect number, generated by deliberately prompting AI to calculate that number.

1 hour ago, EnterName said:

What I was trying to do, unsuccessfully it seems, was to get you to criticise what he was saying.

I even provided you a crib-sheet of reasonable contradictions to Blair's points, which was characteristically helpful of me. 😇

But no. As far as you're concerned he's 'wrong' and that's all there is to it.

Why is he wrong?

'Everyone KNOWS he's wrong! No need to actually get into what he says!'(!)

I am saying I don't agree with his opinions, just as you don't agree with my opinions. That's fine.

I am also saying what you claim are facts are not facts in my response to your crib-sheet linked below. Without your counter points, I take it my reasoning for why those are not facts can be agreed?

Therefore, I am saying I don't agree with his opinions. Plain and simple.

"characteristically helpful" must be the biggest lie of this thread. I think you forgot the "un" in front because a few lines of sarcastic sentences per post and AI slurp seems to be all the responses you can muster most of the time. ;)

On 04/05/2025 at 21:49, Stonekeeper said:

Seems sensible enough:

The title, as always with youtube videos, are designed to be controversial.

But the message is simple, be more sensible with messaging and innovate out of the problem. Can't argue with that.

On decreasing funding. I think it's more of a numbers game than a problem. The $2+ trillion number may seem big, but considering fossil fuel industry subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022, $2+ trillion by 2100 is tiny and will be a much smaller slice of global GDP compared to current 7.1% for fossil fuel (assuming growth).

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281

This is the type of discussion I want to promote, not climate scepticism.

Interesting @EnterName "liked" the video, does that mean you agree with the message? That man-made climate is real and we must act in response?

2 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

Interesting @EnterName "liked" the video, does that mean you agree with the message? That man-made climate is real and we must act in response?

No.

I don't have to agree with everything that gets a response from me on here.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Wxy.

16 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

And I've already responded to you here. Your whole reasoning is based on the incorrect number, generated by deliberately prompting AI to calculate that number.

You didn't really make a decent argument that it's an incorrect number.

Your objection seems to be that it doesn't support your hypothesis.

I mean I get it, but that doesn't make the number incorrect. All sources and working out is provided. Where's your beef?

Incidentally, it seems somehow incongruous for an advocate of EVs objecting to my use of AI.

I'm getting a 'You must use advanced technology to protect humanity. No! Not like that!' vibe. 😋

there is something that slows down, prevents people who want clean air, water and soil from improving it over time, for their children, grandchildren.

human society as a whole is selfish. while in the EU and the rest of the pro-western countries every gram of CO2 counts, countries in Asia pollute 20x more, recently I saw a city on a river in Asia, one after another, trucks with municipal and other waste in a row unload all this in tons into the river that carries it all into the sea. disgusting to see. there is hypocrisy here too. in eco tests when registering a car, you in the UK call it MOT, diesel can pass even with the exhaust gas purification components removed, while on a petrol car several chemical compounds are measured per gram, in accordance with the ecological standard. What is measured on diesel? gas opacity? ridiculous.

yes, they only measure that because no diesel car can reach the environmental norm assigned to it, maybe when it's brand new, but I watched a documentary where mechanical engineers, mechanics and a few others compare complete tests of all exhaust gases of a diesel and a 1.5 liter petrol.

the 5-year-old gasoline had everything within the norm, while the diesel had gases that were increased by 100%, while the PN, the number of particles was twice the norm.

norm 5-6 for diesel or gasoline prescribes the number of particles at 250,000 in 1cm3.

on a new car, 6 months, 5,000 km, 1 million was measured, on a 5-year-old diesel car with 100,000 km, 2 million were measured, which is 8 times more than the norm., diesel will never be in accordance with the norms. they are going through lobbying and scandals and now the plan is to remove all ICE cars from the streets.

many scientists agree that it is too late to stop environmental change. we should have reacted in the 1980s.

sorry for the long post.

40 minutes ago, EnterName said:

You didn't really make a decent argument that it's an incorrect number.

Your objection seems to be that it doesn't support your hypothesis.

I mean I get it, but that doesn't make the number incorrect. All sources and working out is provided. Where's your beef?

Incidentally, it seems somehow incongruous for an advocate of EVs objecting to my use of AI.

I'm getting a 'You must use advanced technology to protect humanity. No! Not like that!' vibe. 😋

My objection is that your original question (argument) that whether UK has very little to do with climate change, by presenting 0.0092% as your reason to raise this question.

On 04/05/2025 at 16:43, EnterName said:

If someone would be so good as to tell me how reducing global CO2 by 0.0092% will improve the climate, please tell me what impact it will have and show the data used to come to that improvement?

The correct number to use in your question is:

On 04/05/2025 at 21:34, wyx087 said:

It just says there, UK produces 3% of total human-made CO2. For such a small island, it's massive.

0.83% of (presumably current) global annual CO2 by UK.

There is 100x magnitude of difference and makes your argument a lot less meaningful.

Therefore, my reasoning is that you used the incorrect number. The number you got by deliberately asking the AI to calculate against total global CO2. As I said, to have any measurable impact on total global CO2 is beyond human technology capability by thousands if not millions of years.

In effect, you are asking the impossible in order to make a sound argument for inaction.

I think EV's are ready for mass adoption, replacing vast majority of vehicles. But gen-AI and heat pumps are not. Heat pump is very close, good for most system boiler replacements but still need to work on how to replace combi boiler. Current generative AI are great at very narrow specific set of things, it is not ready for critical thinking and constructing coherent arguments. Those 2 are precisely what you are trying to get it to do.

Or not do, because your prompts are designed to make it echo your skewed views. For example, asking AI to produce calculation against total global CO2.

Anyone got thoughts on this? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Irrelevant?

If Antarctica gaining huge amounts of ice is irrelevant, perhaps it might be possible to explain how Antarctica losing huge amounts of isn't also irrelevant?

Or perhaps whatever happens globally is irrelevant in the pursuit of the Climate Change narrative. 🤷‍♂️

https://scitechdaily.com/antarcticas-astonishing-rebound-ice-sheet-grows-for-the-first-time-in-decades/

5 minutes ago, wyx087 said:

My objection is that your original question (argument) that whether UK has very little to do with climate change, by presenting 0.0092% as your reason to raise this question.

The correct number to use in your question is:

There is 100x magnitude of difference and makes your argument a lot less meaningful.

Therefore, my reasoning is that you used the incorrect number. The number you got by deliberately asking the AI to calculate against total global CO2. As I said, to have any measurable impact on total global CO2 is beyond human technology capability by thousands if not millions of years.

In effect, you are asking the impossible in order to make a sound argument for inaction.

I think EV's are ready for mass adoption, replacing vast majority of vehicles. But gen-AI and heat pumps are not. Heat pump is very close, good for most system boiler replacements but still need to work on how to replace combi boiler. Current generative AI are great at very narrow specific set of things, it is not ready for critical thinking and constructing coherent arguments. Those 2 are precisely what you are trying to get it to do.

Or not do, because your prompts are designed to make it echo your skewed views. For example, asking AI to produce calculation against total global CO2.

Ah! Now I see.

But both I and the inestimable @Stonekeeper pointed out that the per-capita CO2 output of China is getting on for twice that of the UK.

And as you yourself said, China has a much larger population than the UK. (Not to mention India.)

It is really hard to see how the UK doing anything about UK CO2 is going to achieve anything beyond green virtue-signalling.

Certainly the impact of the UK's CO2 is never presented in a meaningful way.

Nobody tries to claim exactly what the benefit will be if the UK gets to "net zero".

I'd like to see it in terms of what will be better by how much.

Something like what they did for smoking.

I dare say it's wrong, but at least they're trying to give a meaningful quantitive figure to the harm of smoking.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/30/single-cigarette-takes-20-minutes-off-life-expectancy-study

1 hour ago, imart143 said:

many scientists agree that it is too late to stop environmental change. we should have reacted in the 1980s.

It's indeed too late to stop it completely. Man-made CO2 is excessive and will create climate change was definitively known back in 1970's. It is unfortunately capitalist greed that caused intensive lobbying to create the "climate debate" as though scientific discoveries can be debated by general public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

But it's never too late to minimise damage. Every little helps :)

Climate Change is Global.

The world is not repairing it's self.

The changes might be quick in some regions and that is still part of patterns that will be seen long term.

When land is lost and the land gained is because no longer under ice or because of the lava from volcanoes creating land below & above sea level that is just as has been happening for billions of years.

The Ocean is the worlds life support system David Attenbourgh just said on the telly.

'It is surprising how quickly the oceans can repair them selves.'

Now Deep Sea Mining is getting approvals and that is yet another consideration on what the future brings.

@EnterName Your 'nobody' is just another use of a word that is nonsense because there are people that 'Try to claim what the benefits will be if if the UK gets to Net Zero.

Did you not ask AI? It must get its information from Places & People and stuff said or published.

If there is nobody claiming things then there is no reason to challenge it.

A somebody, not a nobody.

Edited 6 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

18 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Anyone got thoughts on this? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Irrelevant?

If Antarctica gaining huge amounts of ice is irrelevant, perhaps it might be possible to explain how Antarctica losing huge amounts of isn't also irrelevant?

Or perhaps whatever happens globally is irrelevant in the pursuit of the Climate Change narrative. 🤷‍♂️

https://scitechdaily.com/antarcticas-astonishing-rebound-ice-sheet-grows-for-the-first-time-in-decades/

The article or paper didn't investigate the cause.

In 2022, nearby (global scale) Hunga Tonga volcano had erupted. This causes localised short term cooling whilst increasing long term global warming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami#Climate_and_atmospheric_impact

Would be interesting to see result 2020-2030 in 5 years time. I bet it will still be net decrease.

15 minutes ago, EnterName said:

It is really hard to see how the UK doing anything about UK CO2 is going to achieve anything beyond green virtue-signalling.

Certainly the impact of the UK's CO2 is never presented in a meaningful way.

Nobody tries to claim exactly what the benefit will be if the UK gets to "net zero".

I'd like to see it in terms of what will be better by how much.

The world is not divided into completely separate nations. People move around. Innovations gets collaborated and improved upon across boarders.

UK's goal for net zero lines up with most other nations. UK has it in law by 2050. China has it in policy documents by 2060.

https://zerotracker.net/

This is a global effort, always is. Concentrating on nations as though it is virtue-signalling is missing the point.

With regard to what are the benefits:

• Cheaper energy

• Energy independence

• Jobs

• Technology leadership

• Economic activities

• Health benefits

Just to name a few.

Targets are always missed by the government in Scotland and projects go over priced, and politicians get changed and replaced by ones just as inefficient.

Winters with plenty snow for months are very few and far between now.

Edited 6 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

Follow the money as they say. Then ask why fans of Farage etc or even supporters of a party led by Farage repeat the BS spewed by them on GB 'News'...
There's money to be made trying to deny scientific consensus on behalf of 'big oil'.

https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/04/nigel-farage-reform-uk-party-2-3-million-fossil-fuel-interests-climate-deniers-polluters-since-2019-election/

https://www.desmog.com/2025/04/25/nigel-farage-reform-uk-top-fundraiser-nick-candy-targets-oil-gas-donations/