People were naive beyond belief to accept any kind of 'net zero' nonsense. I have yet to find any meaningful definition for the term either. But, you were young at the time.
However, your climate change caveat still shows signs of muddled thinking. Although it is obvious to everyone that the climate does indeed change, it is the fixation on CO2/fossil fuel usage that has become an almost religious dogma that stands no dissent. The Earths global temparature has change wildly, both up and down over millenia, yet modellers and surprisingly few actual climate scientists have decided that they can predict what is going to happen (and why) in the next few years. A literal blink of an eye in planetary terms. I suggest you expand your reading to include people such as Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, John Christy et al.
I’ll put your penultimate paragraph down to youthful naivety. Just as your eyes have been opened to the stupidity of NZ, you’ll eventually realise that the man made climate change dogma on which it is built is a scam.
Sooo many laughable assertions in this Beano worthy article. The Brexit Party had nothing to say about it? There were so many Brexit forums deriding 'Nut Zero', it was that which was embarrassing, not 'the country falling for it'. Because you fell for it, and were blind to dissenters does not mean there were none. And just where these barometer polls were taken anyway is a mystery to me and most of my acquaintances. Quite obviously 'most of the public' did not see Nut Zero in the same way at all, judging by your account of your early evangelical conversion. Climate change has happened naturally for millennia. The government stance that we could stop it by abandoning the only thing keeping our lights on (reliably) was laughed at everywhere, especially when it became clear early on that we were the only ones stupid enough to fall for it, and that taxpayers money was disappearing into some spiv's pocket once again. Same old corrupt establishment.
I am 61 and for my entire adult life and much of my formative years I have had one climate emergency after another thrown at me. At 15 we were told in school that North Sea oil would run out in 15 years time, not could - would. That should have happened 31 years ago. It didn't.
We had global warming pumped into us (the planet was going to burn), then global cooling (the planet was going to be a giant snowball), which morphed into climate change, climate catastrophe, and now climate emergency. In every case the trees in the Amazon were going to dwindle leaving less oxygen for carbon lifeforms to survive. I've heard every extreme case scenario going and what has become abundantly clear is that being 'Green to be Clean' is bloody well expensive! You'd think that if our very survival depended on it that it would be heavily subsidised or even free, but no, it has enabled enormous profits to be made whilst hammering the taxpayer in both punitive taxes AND consumer end user prices.
In 1976 we enjoyed a long hot glorious Summer. It was a wonderful time to be alive. The heatwave lasted 8 weeks unbroken. No rain at all. It was great! This year we had hot weather - marginally hotter than in 76 but it wasn't continual like 76 was. And suddenly the planet is going to burn. Again.
I can't live your years for you, you must live them yourself and arrive at your own conclusions 40 years from now, but I know one thing to be true: You'll remember what you've just read here for the rest of your life.
Question everything and believe less than half of the answers you're given. That's a great starting point. You'll work the rest out as you go.
Were you aware that CO2 responds to only a tiny fraction of the infra red (IR) spectrum (defined as 0.7 micron to 1000 micron wavelength)? The principal response is a very narrow peak centred on 15 micron. So the majority of IR photons have no absorption effect on CO2.
Each CO2 molecule is only 1 molecule in 2380 other air molecules at sea level. Moreover most of the atmosphere is empty - all the various molecules which make up air at sea level occupy only 0.1% of the volume.
So the idea that CO2 acts like some sort of blanket to keep the Earth warm is for the birds. Its more like one of those old fashioned string vests where the hole covers about 119 million times more area than the string. That's not going to keep anyone warm. The effect of CO2 is no more than any other molecule in the air.
Ask yourself this question "Where does the heat go that a CO2 molecule absorbs?" If you don't know you shouldn't accept the supposed "consensus". And no the heat does not heat the ground (from where the heat was emitted in the first place) because that would transgress the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Ask yourself another question "If CO2 is so good at "trapping" heat, why aren't double glazing panels filled with CO2 rather than Argon?
Ask yourself a third question "The Sun emits radiation which, at the top of our atmosphere, mostly covers 0.1 micron to 100 micron, or well into the IR region. Thus if CO2 "traps" or blocks heat transfer (it doesn't) then it will "trap" IR from the Sun. So why doesn't this make the Earth cooler by trapping warm sunlight?"
People were naive beyond belief to accept any kind of 'net zero' nonsense. I have yet to find any meaningful definition for the term either. But, you were young at the time.
However, your climate change caveat still shows signs of muddled thinking. Although it is obvious to everyone that the climate does indeed change, it is the fixation on CO2/fossil fuel usage that has become an almost religious dogma that stands no dissent. The Earths global temparature has change wildly, both up and down over millenia, yet modellers and surprisingly few actual climate scientists have decided that they can predict what is going to happen (and why) in the next few years. A literal blink of an eye in planetary terms. I suggest you expand your reading to include people such as Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, John Christy et al.
Doing so well until you said you believed that climate change was real . . . with the implication that it had to be taken seriously.
I’ll put your penultimate paragraph down to youthful naivety. Just as your eyes have been opened to the stupidity of NZ, you’ll eventually realise that the man made climate change dogma on which it is built is a scam.
Sooo many laughable assertions in this Beano worthy article. The Brexit Party had nothing to say about it? There were so many Brexit forums deriding 'Nut Zero', it was that which was embarrassing, not 'the country falling for it'. Because you fell for it, and were blind to dissenters does not mean there were none. And just where these barometer polls were taken anyway is a mystery to me and most of my acquaintances. Quite obviously 'most of the public' did not see Nut Zero in the same way at all, judging by your account of your early evangelical conversion. Climate change has happened naturally for millennia. The government stance that we could stop it by abandoning the only thing keeping our lights on (reliably) was laughed at everywhere, especially when it became clear early on that we were the only ones stupid enough to fall for it, and that taxpayers money was disappearing into some spiv's pocket once again. Same old corrupt establishment.
So you're 24 now, correct?
I am 61 and for my entire adult life and much of my formative years I have had one climate emergency after another thrown at me. At 15 we were told in school that North Sea oil would run out in 15 years time, not could - would. That should have happened 31 years ago. It didn't.
We had global warming pumped into us (the planet was going to burn), then global cooling (the planet was going to be a giant snowball), which morphed into climate change, climate catastrophe, and now climate emergency. In every case the trees in the Amazon were going to dwindle leaving less oxygen for carbon lifeforms to survive. I've heard every extreme case scenario going and what has become abundantly clear is that being 'Green to be Clean' is bloody well expensive! You'd think that if our very survival depended on it that it would be heavily subsidised or even free, but no, it has enabled enormous profits to be made whilst hammering the taxpayer in both punitive taxes AND consumer end user prices.
In 1976 we enjoyed a long hot glorious Summer. It was a wonderful time to be alive. The heatwave lasted 8 weeks unbroken. No rain at all. It was great! This year we had hot weather - marginally hotter than in 76 but it wasn't continual like 76 was. And suddenly the planet is going to burn. Again.
I can't live your years for you, you must live them yourself and arrive at your own conclusions 40 years from now, but I know one thing to be true: You'll remember what you've just read here for the rest of your life.
Question everything and believe less than half of the answers you're given. That's a great starting point. You'll work the rest out as you go.
Regards,
Chris
Were you aware that CO2 responds to only a tiny fraction of the infra red (IR) spectrum (defined as 0.7 micron to 1000 micron wavelength)? The principal response is a very narrow peak centred on 15 micron. So the majority of IR photons have no absorption effect on CO2.
Each CO2 molecule is only 1 molecule in 2380 other air molecules at sea level. Moreover most of the atmosphere is empty - all the various molecules which make up air at sea level occupy only 0.1% of the volume.
So the idea that CO2 acts like some sort of blanket to keep the Earth warm is for the birds. Its more like one of those old fashioned string vests where the hole covers about 119 million times more area than the string. That's not going to keep anyone warm. The effect of CO2 is no more than any other molecule in the air.
Ask yourself this question "Where does the heat go that a CO2 molecule absorbs?" If you don't know you shouldn't accept the supposed "consensus". And no the heat does not heat the ground (from where the heat was emitted in the first place) because that would transgress the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Ask yourself another question "If CO2 is so good at "trapping" heat, why aren't double glazing panels filled with CO2 rather than Argon?
Ask yourself a third question "The Sun emits radiation which, at the top of our atmosphere, mostly covers 0.1 micron to 100 micron, or well into the IR region. Thus if CO2 "traps" or blocks heat transfer (it doesn't) then it will "trap" IR from the Sun. So why doesn't this make the Earth cooler by trapping warm sunlight?"