The Government's New Net Zero Strategy By 2050

[Wheezer]

One would think the Muldi's would help the cause by restricting the number of tourists flying to their luxurious lands , instead they wish to expand their airports to accommodate millions more and have given the contract to build, worth nearly a billion dollars to the the world's leader in fossil fuel burning,  China.  Yet they want ransom money for their modeled future ultimate demise 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Wheezer

[weirpig]

16 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I personally think geo-engineering will have to be an answer going forward unfortunately. 

It's way to late now to alter the pattern by going carbon neutral by 2050.  Clues in the title global warming   and with many countries way behind us including China it really is pointless   not to say that going greener isn't the right thing to do  it's a no brainer but to think it will change the direction of the climate is wishful thinking.   Now is the time to put all efforts monies etc into geo engineering imo 

[Gowon]

On 19/10/2021 at 13:35, The PIT said:

Well the heat air pumps aren't a good idea. Noisy if poorly installed ask my neighbour they turned there's off due low level noise which meant no sleep for them. Thought that was funny as I don't like the guy. Basically didn't do any research. Need a hot water tank so you need a hybrid system or a heat battery if you don't have one. A lot of modern houses will have combi boilers and won't have room for hot water tank.

Dunno why they didn't go for a electric combi as standard. Probably cheaper and lot less hassle.

ROGER BISBY: Heat pumps are one of the biggest con I've seen

WWW.MSN.COM

---

ROGER BISBY: Even I have been unprepared by the scale of opposition to the heat pumps that the Government is so keen to make us all fit in our homes, having ripped out our gas boilers first.

 

[Inga Horwood]

Anyone have any idea how development of osmotic energy is going?

[Derecho]

13 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

regarding the Maldives..just playing devils advocate ....here is an article from 1988..where it states back then most of the islands are no more than 1 metre above sea level and were in danger of being overwhelmed in the next 20-40 years..and here we are in 2021 saying the same thing 

The environmental affairs minister for the Maldives is hardly a scientific consensus though is it? the scientific consensus is for sea levels to rise by 0.5-1.1m depending on which emissions scenario is taken. The fact that the Maldives have already had to construct artificial islands to help some areas says all you need to know.

Don't confuse media headlines with scientific consensus, not the same thing. It's like the 1 scientist who said sea ice may disappear in the 2010s, that went against the consensus and so was likely to be wrong anyway.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Wheezer]

With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world.  Sea level rise has  remained consistent for decades/centuries,  2-4mm per year.  Yet Somehow this is now not a natural progression 

[Derecho]

5 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world.  Sea level rise has  remained consistent for decades/centuries,  2-4mm per year.  Yet Somehow this is now not a natural progression 

Sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades due to increasing global temperatures. Thermal expansion as well as melting ice are a risk. Of course there will be variations locally that add an element of uncertainty in comparison to global projections of Sea Level Rise. However the given the situation the Maldives find themselves in you cannot blame them for panicking.

[Wheezer]

21 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades due to increasing global temperatures. Thermal expansion as well as melting ice are a risk. Of course there will be variations locally that add an element of uncertainty in comparison to global projections of Sea Level Rise. However the given the situation the Maldives find themselves in you cannot blame them for panicking.

Yes, agree , and well within the mentioned range average.  Of course it's higher (and lower) during anomalies,  such as the recent super El-nino. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Wheezer

[cheeky_monkey]

2 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

The environmental affairs minister for the Maldives is hardly a scientific consensus though is it? the scientific consensus is for sea levels to rise by 0.5-1.1m depending on which emissions scenario is taken. The fact that the Maldives have already had to construct artificial islands to help some areas says all you need to know.

Don't confuse media headlines with scientific consensus, not the same thing. It's like the 1 scientist who said sea ice may disappear in the 2010s, that went against the consensus and so was likely to be wrong anyway.

as i have said before if there is a consensus then its not science..that's the whole point about science is to push the boundaries and ask questions and to challenge the consensus 

Edited October 21, 2021 by cheeky_monkey

[Derecho]

9 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

as i have said before if there is a consensus then its not science..that's the whole point about science is to push the boundaries and ask questions and to challenge the consensus 

Rubbish, as I've mentioned before science aims to improve understanding and once that level of understanding is high enough a consensus naturally develops. Your statement doesn't even make sense, there is a consensus amongst scientists for example that the earth isn't flat. Would you void the science behind that because there is a consensus?

Given the amount of time climatologists devote to their research, don't you think there would have found major flaws behind AGW by now? As I mentioned before, if there was solid evidence behind the research it would be on the front page of Nature. You seem to be treading on the same arguments over and over again.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Mixer 85]

Yes there is a consensus that the Earth is warming, a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of that warming. This is undeniable and not where the argument lies. 
The question that’s still in hot debate is how much warming is attributed to CO2 outside of the natural range of variation. There is no consensus on this as far as I can see as there’s still numerous studies published attributing much of the warming to things like solar, cosmic rays, clouds, etc. As far as I’m concerned ‘the consensus’ is a strong man argument that’s spun out to shout down anyone who wanders beyond the bounds of the CO2 narrative. 
 

Science should encourage challenge and speculation. I’d also like to add, I’ve no vested interests in fossil fuels. I agree with exploring other energy sources, nuclear being my personal favourite. I lead a very green lifestyle. My wife and I organically grow much of what we eat. I’ve invested a lot of time and money into designing and building a solar passively heated greenhouse that should provide almost year round (tip of the hat to you Ed) We give away excess fruit and veg to family and friends. We buy locally where possible and avoid buying rubbish we don’t need. We built our house over 10yrs ago, it’s heated with kerosene and a wood burning stove. I don’t feel guilty about that when I come home to a warm house after a 13hr day working and commuting.

[Methuselah]

What with HMG's commitment to carbon neutrality, the upcoming Climate Change Conference and the BBC's film about the Climategate scam, it's hardly surprising that Deniers would be trying a daredevil last-ditch offensive. I think I'll call it The Battle of The Bilge!

[Derecho]

3 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Yes there is a consensus that the Earth is warming, a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for some of that warming. This is undeniable and not where the argument lies. 

The question that’s still in hot debate is how much warming is attributed to CO2 outside of the natural range of variation.

There is some uncertainty as to how sensitive exactly the climate is to CO2 but given how exceptionally high CO2 content is, there is no way that the warming we are seeing is within what we would expect given natural variability. Indeed Milankovitch cycles suggest the climate should be cooling right now.

There is no consensus on this as far as I can see as there’s still numerous studies published attributing much of the warming to things like solar, cosmic rays, clouds, etc.

No consensus? Have you tried reading the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers suggesting there is? No deniers on here ever link peer reviewed literature that suggests otherwise and Anthony Watts isn't classed as peer reviewed literature. Speaking of Anthony Watts there was a team at Berkley he worked with that specifically aimed to address potential flaws in the global temperature record. Watts even said:

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."

Yet the study produced almost identical results to other global temperature datasets and Watts oddly went quiet.

If you make an argument you've got to back it up with research. No studies cast doubt on AGW because of solar cycle variations.

As far as I’m concerned ‘the consensus’ is a strong man argument that’s spun out to shout down anyone who wanders beyond the bounds of the CO2 narrative. 
 

No the consensus is based on decades of hard work and sound scientific theory.

Science should encourage challenge and speculation.

Nobody said it doesn't, as I said some things just become clear from those who actually put in the effort to research it. Science doesn't support flat earth theory for obvious reasons and we have a strong consensus on AGW based on decades of painstaking research.

I’d also like to add, I’ve no vested interests in fossil fuels. I agree with exploring other energy sources, nuclear being my personal favourite. I lead a very green lifestyle. My wife and I organically grow much of what we eat. I’ve invested a lot of time and money into designing and building a solar passively heated greenhouse that should provide almost year round (tip of the hat to you Ed) We give away excess fruit and veg to family and friends. We buy locally where possible and avoid buying rubbish we don’t need. We built our house over 10yrs ago, it’s heated with kerosene and a wood burning stove. I don’t feel guilty about that when I come home to a warm house after a 13hr day working and commuting.

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Mixer 85]

Thanks for the response @Quicksilver1989 I appreciate you discussing each point and I’m very much open to such. 
 

A few points if you don’t mind.

Are Milankovitch cycles not more on a millennial scale? My understanding is that they happen very slowly over thousands of years, hence why we’re currently in a glacial phase, albeit a warm period within a glacial phase. 
 

Re CO2, @400 ppm is it really that exceptionally high given that there’s been past periods 10 times as high with no apparent tipping points or runaway warming? These high levels of CO2 have been shown to follow after warming as warmer oceans released vast amounts of  stored CO2. 
 

Re consensus, I still believe in debate and my main gripe is that the 97% consensus (now 99.9 apparently) is being used to strong man and silence the opposition. It’s an all too often used counter argument. It’s origins (97%) are questionable too. 
 

Re global temperature record, ice core data showing warmer periods in the past, mwp, etc. No anthropogenic input there. What makes us so certain we’re the dominant cause of current warming?

 

Re solar cycles, there’s loads of studies that cast doubt on AGW due to solar variation. Here’s 3 from your favorite website Please don’t discredit because they’re linked from a sceptical website. By all means discredit based on a scientific approach.

2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions – Watts Up With That?

WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM

---

Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the...

I agree with most that WUWT is overly  right wing and pro fossil fuels but I go there because it links to material rarely seen on MSM. 
 

I agree scientific consensus is based on decades of hard work but in the case of climate science, is it possible that some scientists approach their work with core underlying beliefs in AGW? Does the consensus itself become part of a doctrine that’s accepted and doesn’t need to be disputed or disproved?

 

Am I correct in thinking that future predictions are based on computer models that many argue don’t have a complete picture and aren’t quite up to the task. Based on the amount of times you see “might happen/could” within climate studies, does this not highlight uncertainty and invite opposition. The theory might be correct hence passing peer review but in the vastly complex real world it could be way off the mark.

 

I’m by no means a genius in this field, I’m just highlighting some of the questions mulling around in my sceptical brain. I welcome alternative views and I’m not closed off to the notion of AGW, just sceptical of the extent and regularly peeved off by the extreme ott portrayals peddled by main stream media. If anything MSM pushes me further in the opposite direction. 

[knocker]

10 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Thanks for the response @Quicksilver1989 I appreciate you discussing each point and I’m very much open to such. 
 

A few points if you don’t mind.

Are Milankovitch cycles not more on a millennial scale? My understanding is that they happen very slowly over thousands of years, hence why we’re currently in a glacial phase, albeit a warm period within a glacial phase. 
 

Re CO2, @400 ppm is it really that exceptionally high given that there’s been past periods 10 times as high with no apparent tipping points or runaway warming? These high levels of CO2 have been shown to follow after warming as warmer oceans released vast amounts of  stored CO2. 
 

Re consensus, I still believe in debate and my main gripe is that the 97% consensus (now 99.9 apparently) is being used to strong man and silence the opposition. It’s an all too often used counter argument. It’s origins (97%) are questionable too. 
 

Re global temperature record, ice core data showing warmer periods in the past, mwp, etc. No anthropogenic input there. What makes us so certain we’re the dominant cause of current warming?

 

Re solar cycles, there’s loads of studies that cast doubt on AGW due to solar variation. Here’s 3 from your favorite website Please don’t discredit because they’re linked from a sceptical website. By all means discredit based on a scientific approach.

2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions – Watts Up With That?

WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM

---

Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the...

I agree with most that WUWT is overly  right wing and pro fossil fuels but I go there because it links to material rarely seen on MSM. 
 

I agree scientific consensus is based on decades of hard work but in the case of climate science, is it possible that some scientists approach their work with core underlying beliefs in AGW? Does the consensus itself become part of a doctrine that’s accepted and doesn’t need to be disputed or disproved?

 

Am I correct in thinking that future predictions are based on computer models that many argue don’t have a complete picture and aren’t quite up to the task. Based on the amount of times you see “might happen/could” within climate studies, does this not highlight uncertainty and invite opposition. The theory might be correct hence passing peer review but in the vastly complex real world it could be way off the mark.

 

I’m by no means a genius in this field, I’m just highlighting some of the questions mulling around in my sceptical brain. I welcome alternative views and I’m not closed off to the notion of AGW, just sceptical of the extent and regularly peeved off by the extreme ott portrayals peddled by main stream media. If anything MSM pushes me further in the opposite direction. 

Regarding the highlighted comment

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.pdf

[4wd]

20 hours ago, Wheezer said:

With more than 80 percent of its 1,190 coral islands standing less than 1 meter above sea level, the Maldives has the lowest terrain of any country in the world.  Sea level rise has  remained consistent for decades/centuries,  2-4mm per year.  Yet Somehow this is now not a natural progression 

Coral islands are a dynamic living system which can easily keep up with slow sea level rise.
Unless you build on them and disrupt sediment flows and build up.
The Maldives have always been vulnerable to major storms sweeping over large areas it's like building new houses on a flood plain then wondering why they flood a couple of times per decade.

[Mixer 85]

5 hours ago, knocker said:

Regarding the highlighted comment

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.pdf 1.23 MB · 8 downloads

Thanks very much for the linked material Knocker, and also your contribution to the site as a whole over the years. Your commentary has always been accurate and well balanced…I highly respect that.

 

I’ve always been under the impression  that in past climatology CO2 increases lagged behind temperature increases. I will delve into this further.

[knocker]

This brief extract from Raymond T. Pierrehumbert's comprehensive study, 'Principles of Planetary Climate'. although written in 2010, still pretty much sums up where we are at at the moment, albeit we have a further 10 years of scientific development and evidence

All aspects of the essential chemistry, radiative physics and thermodynamics underlying the prediction of human-caused global warming have been verified In numerous laboratory experiments or observations of the Earth and other planets. Other aspects of the effect of increasing greenhouse gases rely on complex collective behaviour of the Interacting parts of the climate system; this Includes behaviour of clouds and water vapor, sea ice and snow, and redistribution of heat by atmospheric winds and ocean currents. Such things are Impossible to test in laboratory experiments. To some extent, aspects of our theories or the collective behaviour have been tested against the seasonal cycle of Earth, interannual variability, and past climates, as well as attempts to simulate other planetary climates. The ultimate test of the theory, though, is to verify it against the uncontrolled and Inadvertent experiment we are conducting on Earth's own climate. Can we see the predicted warming in data? This Is not an easy task. For one thing, the atmospheric CO2 increase is only a small part of the way towards doubling, and the climate has not even fully adjusted to the effect of this amount of extra radiative forcing: oceans take rime to warm up, and delay the effect for many years (for reasons to be discussed in Chapter 7). Thus, so far the signal of the human imprint on climate Is fairly small. Set against that Is a fair amount of noise complicating the detection of the signal. Climate, even unperturbed by human influence, is not steady from year to year, but is subject to a certain amount of natural variability. This can be due to volcanic eruptions and subtle variations in the brightness of the Sun. There are also various natural cycles in the ocean-atmosphere system that cause the planet to be a bit warmer or colder from one year to the next. Chief among these Is the El Nino phenomenon of the tropical Pacific. During El Nino years, the coupled dynamics of the tropical ocean and atmosphere causes warm water to spread throughout the Pacific, leading to a warming of mean surface temperatures both in the troplcs and further afield. INina years represent a bunching up or the warm water, and an accentuated upwelling of cold water, leading to cold years. The two phases alternate erratically, with a typical lime scale or three to five years.

The fact that the signal is hard to detect does not mean that global warming is of little consequence. The difficulty arises because  we are trying to detect the signal before it becomes so overwhelmingly large as to be obvious. Given the long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere it would be highly desirable to keep the signal from getting that large

 

 

[knocker]

In-depth Q&A: The UK’s net-zero strategy

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-uks-net-zero-strategy?utm_campaign=Carbon Brief Weekly Briefing&utm_content=20211022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue Weekly

[Mixer 85]

Thanks again @knocker. I find what you’ve quoted above to be quite palatable and quite aligned with my own views. Perhaps I’m more agnostic than sceptic but ultimately I believe there is still much to learn regarding feedbacks, natural cycles, albedo, ocean currents etc. 
 

Regarding the topic at hand, is net zero really achievable? It’s a plan that’s entirely dependent on technologies that don’t yet exist. In addition to investment in technological advancement, would it be wise to set up a mitigation fund to pay for protective infrastructures like flood defences. If we’re wrong about many of the worst effects of cc then there’s a pile of money in the bank or if things continue on the predicted trajectories then there’s funds to pay for defences.

[Derecho]

On 21/10/2021 at 23:11, Mixer 85 said:

Thanks for the response @Quicksilver1989 I appreciate you discussing each point and I’m very much open to such. 
 

A few points if you don’t mind.

Are Milankovitch cycles not more on a millennial scale? My understanding is that they happen very slowly over thousands of years, hence why we’re currently in a glacial phase, albeit a warm period within a glacial phase. 
 

Yes they do happen on much longer timescales but Milankovitch cycles are the key cause of global climate variations (besides volcanoes) when we disregard greenhouse gases. We should be in a cooling phase which is what sparked interest in a potential ice age in the 1970s (though a lot of scientists were already leaning towards AGW at this point).

Re CO2, @400 ppm is it really that exceptionally high given that there’s been past periods 10 times as high with no apparent tipping points or runaway warming? These high levels of CO2 have been shown to follow after warming as warmer oceans released vast amounts of  stored CO2. 
 

Yes but bear in mind this was millions of years ago, when carbon sequestration and natural emissions behaved very differently. Orbital patterns were also different.

Here is a good link if you want to find out more:

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org - Past | Present | Future

EARTH.ORG

---

As the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, CO2 levels have varied widely over the course of the Earth’s 4.54 billion year history.

Re consensus, I still believe in debate and my main gripe is that the 97% consensus (now 99.9 apparently) is being used to strong man and silence the opposition. It’s an all too often used counter argument. It’s origins (97%) are questionable too. 
 

Sorry but that's what it is based off decades of research.

Re global temperature record, ice core data showing warmer periods in the past, mwp, etc. No anthropogenic input there. What makes us so certain we’re the dominant cause of current warming?

Across some parts of the northern hemisphere, yes the MWP was a bit warmer but not all areas were warmer in tandem. Also paleoclimate proxies indicate ocean temperatures were colder, especially in the North Atlantic and parts of the Pacific, indeed the proxies hint at a very strong La Nina signal. It was likely that this period saw a lot of winters with a positive NAO, like the 1910s / 20s but global temps during these periods were also notably cold. More info here.

Re solar cycles, there’s loads of studies that cast doubt on AGW due to solar variation. Here’s 3 from your favorite website Please don’t discredit because they’re linked from a sceptical website. By all means discredit based on a scientific approach.

2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions – Watts Up With That?

WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM

---

Three new studies affirm the increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds (albedo) has been the “root cause” of the...

I'm sorry but WUWT is NOT a reliable source. I've had a look at the first paper they have talked about and they have deliberately taken the findings out of context to try and paint their own narrative. The article says the paper concludes:
 

“This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor.”

So basically increases in greenhouse gas emissions are outpacing any potential negative feedback and as a result global temperatures are increasing

Yet this author concludes....

"Scientists (Loeb et al., 2021) have determined the rather uncertain positive trend in Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) from 2005 to 2019, 0.5 W/m² ±0.47 W/m² per decade−1, is “primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds.”

The author conveniently omitted everything from the first statement after the word clouds to fit their own agenda. This is dangerous as the author is purposefully misrepresenting the results of the study to try and pedal a contrarian narrative.

This highlights exactly why WUWT should never be considered a reliable source of information. Yes the BBC etc. can sometimes pick the most extreme finding of a study and run away with that headline but to misreport someone elses work as part of an agenda is simply reckless.

Even someone on WUWT has clarified that this article is misleading at the top!!

 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Wheezer]

Ok , I'll play along .  I believe all the models all the assumptions,  and all the science of climate past and climate cycles  and natural variability has zero to do with our climate today. Our climate today is 100% do to societies of the past depending on fossil fuel and its products for survival and advancement and less hardship.  

So called net zero is achievable some day for sure , although it's ridiculous to put a date on it. The problem is the effects on societies and  people's lives under the current plans of governments to achieve that will never , never survive the upheaval and chaos when economies suffer severely  .  What good is a fossil free world , when that world will be in utter chaos.  Oh, and we would still have the same weather extremes we have now and have had for millions of years past.

[knocker]

57 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

Ok , I'll play along .  I believe all the models all the assumptions,  and all the science of climate past and climate cycles  and natural variability has zero to do with our climate today. Our climate today is 100% do to societies of the past depending on fossil fuel and its products for survival and advancement and less hardship.  

So called net zero is achievable some day for sure , although it's ridiculous to put a date on it. The problem is the effects on societies and  people's lives under the current plans of governments to achieve that will never , never survive the upheaval and chaos when economies suffer severely  .  What good is a fossil free world , when that world will be in utter chaos.  Oh, and we would still have the same weather extremes we have now and have had for millions of years past.

I am interested in why a weaning off of the burning of fossil fuels necessarily leads to utter chaos. The advantages would manifestly appear to outway the disadvantages, not least the reduction of air pollution that kills millions every year. So a bit more detail behind your apocalyptic view would be very much appreciated. Oh, and during the weather extremes of millions of years past there weren't 8 billion people toodling around, many living on coastal fringes

[jonboy]

1 hour ago, Wheezer said:

Ok , I'll play along .  I believe all the models all the assumptions,  and all the science of climate past and climate cycles  and natural variability has zero to do with our climate today. Our climate today is 100% do to societies of the past depending on fossil fuel and its products for survival and advancement and less hardship.  

So called net zero is achievable some day for sure , although it's ridiculous to put a date on it. The problem is the effects on societies and  people's lives under the current plans of governments to achieve that will never , never survive the upheaval and chaos when economies suffer severely  .  What good is a fossil free world , when that world will be in utter chaos.  Oh, and we would still have the same weather extremes we have now and have had for millions of years past.

This is a lack of understanding of what net zero is. We are off course along way from being a fossil free world as you state simply because so many products as based on 'fossil products'. That does not mean we should aim to do away with fossil products but rather we should aim to be a non burner of fossil products to provide heat and energy. As knocker say's the benefits of less pollution and over reliance on one source should be a driver towards net zero if nothing else.

Many on here know my underlying views but that doesn't mean I don't agree with net zero targets and societies will not fall over if it is done properly.

[Wheezer]

If it were a true "weaning " I wouldn't have that view.  The Net zero plan in its infancy , in my assumption, which I think I should be allowed to have, is already manifesting or festering in current economies.  Higher energy prices have a trickle down effect on every single thing associated with our lives. Foods, goods, transportation, inflation etc. Governments can blame covid for only so long. 

So glad you brought up the 8 billion nonexistent human beings.  That has been one of my points since the religion was started, being that , that is the biggest change that has happened,  not the climate.  More people and better observational technology make the climate seem more impactful than before

Edited October 25, 2021 by Wheezer