Oh, dear... https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-summer-2018-sceptics?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Now, let's see how "things change"...
Niceeeeeeeeeeee....... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...erm=282592&subid=20906735&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
There, a right and proper conspiracy against the corporations.... ahem... by corporations in question?!? https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings Shell and Exxon's secret 1980s climate change warnings Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products. One day in 1961, an American economist named Daniel Ellsberg stumbled across a piece of paper with apocalyptic implications. Ellsberg, who was advising the US government on its secret nuclear war plans, had discovered a document that contained an official estimate of the death toll in a preemptive “first strike” on China and the Soviet Union: 300 million in those countries, and double that globally. Ellsberg was troubled that such a plan existed; years later, he tried to leak the details of nuclear annihilation to the public. Although his attempt failed, Ellsberg would become famous instead for leaking what came to be known as the Pentagon Papers – the US government’s secret history of its military intervention in Vietnam. America’s amoral military planning during the Cold War echoes the hubris exhibited by another cast of characters gambling with the fate of humanity. Recently, secret documents have been unearthed detailing what the energy industry knew about the links between their products and global warming. But, unlike the government’s nuclear plans, what the industry detailed was put into action. In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels). FacebookTwitterPinterest Exxon’s private prediction of the future growth of carbon dioxide levels (left axis) and global temperature relative to 1982 (right axis). Elsewhere in its report, Exxon noted that the most widely accepted science at the time indicated that doubling carbon dioxide levels would cause a global warming of 3°C. Illustration: 1982 Exxon internal briefing document Later that decade, in 1988, an internal report by Shell projected similar effects but also found that CO2 could double even earlier, by 2030. Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections. Shell’s assessment foresaw a one-meter sea-level rise, and noted that warming could also fuel disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, resulting in a worldwide rise in sea level of “five to six meters.” That would be enough to inundate entire low-lying countries. Shell’s analysts also warned of the “disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction,” predicted an increase in “runoff, destructive floods, and inundation of low-lying farmland,” and said that “new sources of freshwater would be required” to compensate for changes in precipitation. Global changes in air temperature would also “drastically change the way people live and work.” All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.” For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.” Like Shell’s experts, Exxon’s scientists predicted devastating sea-level rise, and warned that the American Midwest and other parts of the world could become desert-like. Looking on the bright side, the company expressed its confidence that “this problem is not as significant to mankind as a nuclear holocaust or world famine.” The documents make for frightening reading. And the effect is all the more chilling in view of the oil giants’ refusal to warn the public about the damage that their own researchers predicted. Shell’s report, marked “confidential,” was first disclosed by a Dutch news organization earlier this year. Exxon’s study was not intended for external distribution, either; it was leaked in 2015. Nor did the companies ever take responsibility for their products. In Shell’s study, the firm argued that the “main burden” of addressing climate change rests not with the energy industry, but with governments and consumers. That argument might have made sense if oil executives, including those from Exxon and Shell, had not later lied about climate change and actively prevented governments from enacting clean-energy policies. Although the details of global warming were foreign to most people in the 1980s, among the few who had a better idea than most were the companies contributing the most to it. Despite scientific uncertainties, the bottom line was this: oil firms recognized that their products added CO2 to the atmosphere, understood that this would lead to warming, and calculated the likely consequences. And then they chose to accept those risks on our behalf, at our expense, and without our knowledge. ...and yet... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rgy-subsidies-community-projects-fossil-fuels Green energy feels the heat as subsidies go to fossil fuels Community projects can slash household bills but the sector has ground to a halt in Britain – in contrast with schemes in Europe Subsidies can hedge the risks, but in 2015 the government cut them for green energy, including the “feed-in tariff” households get for supplying excess energy back to the national grid, capping the total at £100m by 2019. Fossil fuel subsidies are more than 30 times higher – companies running oil or coal-fired power stations received more than £3bn last year through the capacity market, funded partly by household fuel bills. On the other hand: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018...mmunities-can-supply-90-of-their-energy-needs These Dutch microgrid communities can supply 90% of their energy needs Go figure...
Now, how cool is this: https://qz.com/1056019/satisfyingly...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer ...the world’s largest floating solar farm. Appropriately, it has been built atop a former coal mine, which had become a lake after being flooded with groundwater. The China Daily reports that the farm started generating electricity earlier this week. The 40-megawatt power plant consists of 120,000 solar panels covering an area of more than 160 American football fields. The $45-million investment could help power 15,000 homes. Here’s a drone tour of the solar farm, set to electronic music:
Ummm not to curb your enthusiasm, but pollution and global warming are not the same thing! Unless you are in the co2 is a pollutant boat!
don't forget possible earthquakes due to the disposal of water (you'd think they would've caught that in planning, scientists must've been asleep)
I use iridium and video blocker on youtube to avoid all the stupid videos like "we're living in the end times" "planet x" and all the other crap people post daily on spewtube. youtube is nothing but conspiracy videos, red circles, reaction videos, vines, pranks, gameplay videos with retarded intros and annoying commentary these days. i filter everything so i usually only see trailers and not much else. biggest time wasting site up there with facecrook, twatter and all the other pointless social sites. someone is always posting a doomsday video, they must have a very short shopping list. food water tin foil, lots of tin foil.
Just for you The Washington Post The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...rol-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.580ce7b7aeeb