Sure, if you feel that it is negligible with a rate during the last 20 years which is about 2,5 times greater than during the 113 years before that.
We all can see the graph. The question is why does it have a substantial rate before say 1930?
The answer is simple. No one knows. Then all of the sudden a whole lot of “experts” knows everything about the last 60 years, which aren’t very dissimilar than the earlier years.
LeSving wrote:
the last 60 years, which aren’t very dissimilar than the earlier years.
Not quite – there is one factor missing, in fact it is ALWAYS omitted by the climate change crowd: population growth. In the past 60 years, the world’s population has gone from about 3 billion to about 8 billion. Duh. Will 8 billion consume more resources? Will they pollute more? You bet. While most of this increase was in low/middle income countries with a lower level of CO2 output than the industrialized West, it cannot be ignored. Neither can the fact that two of the worst polluters are India and China with their coal fired power plants. I’d LOVE to see Greta and her ilk demonstrating in Beijing. Or New Delhi. Would be fun to watch.
The operative expression is “better world”.
How to define it is why so far all efforts are pretty fruitless, as opinions about what a better world is are many and most do not have a lot in common with the other.
What is clear to me is that no “better world” vision will stand a chance if it means decreasing standard of life for the masses of the population. Neither will it be possible to force such scenarios onto people, at least not in the West.
I would like to thank @dublinpilot for his clever virtue signalling and politely ask:
A better world for whom?
When I hear people like Schwab claiming “we will own nothing and be happy,” I don’t see the billionaires of the world running to renounce their worldly wealth. I don’t see them swapping their multi roomed mega-mansions for a 2 bedroom apartment in a 22 floor tower block from the 1950s. They should practice what they preach. But they don’t.
The reality is restrictions and demands are being imposed on the many whilst those who have the largest carbon footprint continue their lives as normal. Surely, if we are all to enjoy a better world, shouldn’t the change start with them?
But they won’t and unfortunately we have too many useful idiots virtue signalling trying to guilt trip the rest of us.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s true of course. I agree that something needs to be done on a global basis, but as we don’t have a world government it means that every individual country must do its share. 100 times 1% adds upp to 100%.
And if 99 nations say no, what then?
Peter wrote:
So… what’s happened in the last 20 years?
That’s a question worth asking, but quite different from saying that the difference is negligible.
Steve6443 wrote:
I would like to thank @dublinpilot for his clever virtue signalling and politely ask:
You don’t get to accuse someone of virtue signalling and claim you are doing it politely.
Name calling or labelling people is never polite.
And I am not qualified to virtue signal. I come from one of the most polluting countries (per capita – which is the only fair way of calculating that) in the world. And within that country I’m probably at the upper end of polluters in that -
- I commute to work every day by car
- I drive a 2.5L petrol car
- My home is not at the upper end of energy efficiency
- I take a number of airline flights every year
- I fly a gas guzzling aircraft for a hobby
Steve6443 wrote:
ask:A better world for whom?
No thanks. I’ve already told you that I’ve no interested in arguing with you.
I notice some striking parallels between the climate change “debate” and tax debates. Many people seem to always “believe” that someone else should pay so that they don’t have to. And if they lose that argument, then they turn to the ‘nobody needs to pay’ argument. They will also search for some argument why they don’t need to change their own position.
Silvaire wrote:
I don’t have children and it’s worked out quite well for me. I recommend it for those who quite correctly understand that the world is obscenely overpopulated.
Thanks for that @Silvaire 
A view which I fully share. Unfortunately most humans feel, for different reasons, the need to procreate, even claiming it as a right. Unfortunately that same “right” will lead to our demise, one way or another, sooner or later…
dublinpilot wrote:
You don’t get to accuse someone of virtue signalling and claim you are doing it politely.
Name calling or labelling people is never polite.And I am not qualified to virtue signal. I come from one of the most polluting countries (per capita – which is the only fair way of calculating that) in the world. And within that country I’m probably at the upper end of polluters in that -
- I commute to work every day by car
- I drive a 2.5L petrol car
- My home is not at the upper end of energy efficiency
- I take a number of airline flights every year
- I fly a gas guzzling aircraft for a hobby
I’m glad your ability to detect sarcasm is still working.
dublinpilot wrote:
I notice some striking parallels between the climate change “debate” and tax debates. Many people seem to always “believe” that someone else should pay so that they don’t have to. And if they lose that argument, then they turn to the ‘nobody needs to pay’ argument. They will also search for some argument why they don’t need to change their own position.
I do not believe in man made climate change, any more that I believe that increasing the tax burden on the average working man will actually stop it. If man made climate change truly needs to be addressed, then it must be across the board, starting with curbing those who pollute the most. Until I see the world leaders stop swanning off around the world to “discuss” issues, then I know climate change is a scam. Why not use zoom? Or other video conferencing solutions?
Additionally, I do believe in fair taxation – according to the ability to pay, not based on the ability to pay accountants to push them through tax loopholes to minimise their tax burden.
That is not saying “someone else should pay”. I’m not a communist. Never was, never will be. Nor is it saying “no-one should pay”, on the contrary my position is rather: “paying more taxes will achieve nothing” which is the same position when comparing atheists to agnostics. An atheist says: show me, I will believe. The agnostic says: there is nothing to believe.
I’m an agnostic where man made climate change is concerned. I don’t believe restricting rights and increasing taxes on the population in general will have any impact on climate change. I actually asked your views on how paying higher taxes would resolve climate change. And what was your response?
dublinpilot wrote:
No thanks. I’ve already told you that I’ve no interested in arguing with you.
Oh yeah, that was it…..
Peter wrote:
And, more to the point, in light of current events, the alternative to nuclear power is, exactly what?
Wind and solar are rather reliable over a large area (e.g. Europe) if linked in a smart grid. But such a grid is costly and requires lots of local governments working reliably together. Also it is probably vulnerable to attack (think undersea high-tension DC cables).
Fusion power would be the perfect solution to all our energy worries, but the technology evades mastery for decades already. I’m convinced it will be workable in my lifetime, but rather close to my retirement…
