The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

3% just doesn't seem right to me given that for instance Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station emits around 10 million tons of CO2 a year, and that's one of just many coal fired power stations around the world. Plus all the other emitters.

Lots of data in this,

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/pub ... te-change/

I do not think 3% is correct either, still trying to find out how that figure was reached.

Christel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:15 pm Would be nice if someone could explain that 3% indeed?

I think the old saying " Lies, Damn lies and Statistics" comes into play - various papers imply that the range is anywhere from 2-50%, with the major argument being is an annual contribution or a culumative one.
I also read the abstract from a scientic paper that suggests that since climate chage has started, human influence is negligible as CO2 emitions are primarily being driven be temperature, which causes a positive feedback loop and won't stop until it causes negative feedback loop to kick in and reverse it.

I admit, this is akin to my thoughts - we kicked it off and are now in damge limition mode until equalibrium is restored...the question is, "How long will it take and how many will be around to see it?"

Edit: Apparently the 3% came from an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report - haven't found or read it myself...

I would be more convinced that there was a real climate emergency if the COP conferences were done virtually instead of thousands of people flying in to attend using their private jets. I'm looking at you John Kerry and others of your ilk.

The biggest problem facing the earth is not CO2 levels, it is population levels. The earth can cope with CO2, but it cannot cope with increasing numbers of people who are competing for limited resources.
What we need is a good flood, or a severe asteroid strike. That'll give all the so-called 'experts' something to chew on.

Les wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:55 pm The biggest problem facing the earth is not CO2 levels, it is population levels. The earth can cope with CO2, but it cannot cope with increasing numbers of people who are competing for limited resources.
What we need is a good flood, or a severe asteroid strike. That'll give all the so-called 'experts' something to chew on.

The way things are going it wont be long before the Russians sort out the population levels for us. It is only going to get worse until some one puts a gun to his head.

Here in New Zealand we have already stopped new oil and gas exploration, slapped a tax on non-electric vehicles (even though our electrical generation capacity could not possibly keep up with increased numbers of electric vehicles) and now they want to put such onerous requirements on farmers that an estimated 1-in-5 will go out of business.

NZ is responsible for about 1/10th of one percent of the world's emissions. Meanwhile China and India are building literally hundreds of new coal-fired power plants. Any savings we might make in NZ would be wiped out in seconds by current emissions by China and India. In fact if NZ and all our emissions disappeared from the world overnight, it would make an absolute maximum of three weeks' difference to the estimated date when it all goes to hell.

So in my view it simply is not worth us sacrificing our standard of living just to be SEEN to be doing 'our share'. I say sod the whole idea.

While that hyper virtue signalling horse is in charge of NZ you haven't got a hope in hell!

Blackstuff wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 8:44 am While that hyper virtue signalling horse is in charge of NZ you haven't got a hope in hell!

Sadly, very true.