- This topic has 108 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 21 hours, 4 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It is, of course, up to the individual to decide whether or not to sign this petition, but I think there are a number of very sound reasons for doing so:
1. Coking coal is required to make steel. Need I say more.
2. If the coking coal isn’t mined in the UK it will have to be imported — how on earth can that make environmental sense?
3. No steel means no renewable energy — again, how can that make environmental sense?
4. This mine will provide jobs. Again, need I say more.
Here is the link to the petition:
1 user thanked author for this post.
“1. Coking coal is required to make steel. Need I say more.
2. If the coking coal isn’t mined in the UK it will have to be imported — how on earth can that make environmental sense?
3. No steel means no renewable energy — again, how can that make environmental sense?
4. This mine will provide jobs. Again, need I say more”.
I will consider it. You have made a strong case for coal and the petition supports the creation of 500 jobs.
Can I ask, did you show the same level of support for the same reasons above for the coal industry in the 1980s and 1990s when far more than 500 jobs were at stake?
1 user thanked author for this post.
He will want people to sign it then bring out the old global warming chesnut, you know, ” so you are for fossil fuel burning even though you say it’s a major contributor to global warming “, once again missing the point about world wide reductions needed in a structured way and not trampling on all industry in the process. The old lad is clearly struggling, I feel he needs to take a breather from this forum.
I’m happy to support this, but as Heath says it all goes back to the Thatcherite policies of the 80s.
If the government had put together a long term plan of closure and retention instead of a wholesale slaughter of the mining industry (as has been the case in other countries) jobs would not have been lost in such huge numbers or whole communities destroyed.
If the last five years have shown us anything it is that UK governments seem incapable of putting together any kind of withdrawal plan.
Funnily enough I’ve also had an email from Greenpeace asking me to sign a petition against the proposal.
Their take on it is: –
“I think it’s important to address this concern here.
Whether it’s steel manufacturers, energy producers, oil companies, transport networks or government policies – the fact is that to have any hope of avoiding the worst effects of the climate crisis we simply have to move away from fossil fuels.
Supporting the low-carbon production technologies that steel makers have developed is the best way to give the UK industry a viable future – much better than digging ourselves further into a high-carbon hole.
Early signs show that the coal from this mine won’t even be usable by UK steel producers in substantial proportions.”
Bucksiron or Greenpeace? Quite a dilemma!
It’s entirely up to you, NI, obviously.
I’m all for Greenpeace protecting the planet but stopping this mine will make things worse, not better. What Greenpeace doesn’t appear to understand is that coking coal is used to make iron, not steel, and we’re years away from this changing. They really should get their facts straight before coming out with what is very misleading information.
Over and above that you only have to look at what’s happening in China to see that regardless of the propaganda they will continue to build coal-fired power stations for years to come. They’ll also continue to use coking coal for years to come.
No doubt I’ll be accused of ‘gaslighting’ — ironic given the topic — but no matter what Greenpeace says, preventing this mine from going ahead will have direct consequences on Scunthorpe steel and jobs while doing so little to stop climate change that it can be totally ignored. Another irony, of course, is that Scunthorpe steel is now in Chinese hands anyway, but anything that allows British Steel to compete on global markets has to be good news for the town.
Regarding the 1980s strikes I never liked Thatcher and had a great deal of sympathy for the miners. The problem was the unions, not the workers. Unions are very important to ensure workers’ rights but they have to understand that if there’s no market there’ll be no jobs.
What I don’t think a lot of people understand or appreciate is that while we need to move to better ways of powering our industries it will be a long time before we can do this. In the meantime the current drive to low carbon energy does not need to happen as quickly as the environmentalists claim — just look carefully at the data and you can see this.
This is another reason why Greenpeace’s argument is so hollow. Yes, we need to move from fossil fuels but can do so over a much greater length of time — all that’s going to happen with our current drive to low carbon energy will be massive increases in costs, which will hit the poorest most, while having virtually no impact on the climate whatever.
Today, it is estimated that the global steel industry used about 2 billion tonnes of iron ore, 1 billion tonnes of metallurgical coal and 575 million tonnes of recycled steel to produce about 1.7 billion tonnes of crude steel in addition to billions of litres of water.
These facts need to be taken into consideration. The balance between environmental matters and the concerns expressed by Bucksiron is not straightforward, so I am holding my fire just now before deciding to sign or not. Perhaps increased efficiency in recycling scrap could persuade me not to sign, on the other hand……..Sorry to hijack Bucks’s thread but this is another petition worthy of consideration.
We all know the important role pubs, bars and restaurants play in our social life and in the economy of the country. Many have already closed for good and others will follow without government help.
Plus, we’re talking about job losses in thousands here, not hundreds.
https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/106178123/verify?token=_rPW0vRQwQ7D9NsoS1AD
What’s the petition NI? That link takes you to what looks like perhaps your post sig? Can’t actually see what it’s for.
Regarding the other petetition, I’m not convinced either way. Had a long discussion with the other half about this subject last night. No easy answer to it. I suppose if the alternative is a higher carbon footprint importing coke and there’s the bonus of creating jobs then I’d probably err towards Whitehaven mining. As long as it’s localised for steel making use and not the start of a fossil fuel strategy. The bigger question for me is ‘shouldn’t we be striving towards less consumption?’.
Is this a better link?
Yes. That’s a no brainer. Signed. For what it’s worth.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’d be interested to know what the sulphur content of the Cumbrian coal is; during my time on the works, the biggest limiting factor in including more UK coal in the blend was its very high sulphur content which would very quickly consume the site’s annual SOx emissions.
As for importing coal, given the economies of scale involved, the environmental impact of a tonne of coal shipped from Australia is probably not significantly different to trucking or training it from Cumbria to Scunthorpe.
“As for importing coal, given the economies of scale involved, the environmental impact of a tonne of coal shipped from Australia is probably not significantly different to trucking or training it from Cumbria to Scunthorpe.”
Well, Australia is only 12,000 miles away and Australian coal would only need to be transported to a large ship, loaded onto the ship, sailed in the ship to the UK, loaded onto coal wagons in Immingham and transported to Scunthorpe.
You make a remarkably strong case, Ferrite. I’m surprised we don’t just import everything from Australia to save the planet.
“I’m surprised we don’t just import everything from Australia to save the planet”.
Good to see that after 4 years you have finally put forward a possible Brexit benefit!!
You make a remarkably strong case, Ferrite. I’m surprised we don’t just import everything from Australia to save the planet.
*rolls eyes*
Another day, another person willfully misunderstanding something because it doesn’t fit his view of the world. Ho hum.
Absolute rubbish, Ferrite. In fact it’s the complete opposite. People are opposed to the Cumbrian mine for the very thing you’re attempting to pin on me, which is that it doesn’t fit their view of the world.
When you look at the facts rationally they speak for themselves. But rational thought has gone out of the window in today’s world where anything and everything is down to ‘global warming’. Study the hard evidence and you’ll find this is simply not the case, but that doesn’t fit the ‘view of the world’ being forced upon us. Why? Because politics has now overtaken science where global warming is concerned.
I just hope that I’m able to live long enough for the reality to be seen for what it is, which is a complete hyping of a problem that’s negligible. That, however, is doubtful given the doom-mongers always tell us what’s going to happen sufficiently far into the future for them not to be accountable for it.
People can see how unreliable computer models are regarding pandemics. There’s nothing remotely surprising about this because while the theory about how pandemics spread is relatively easy to understand, in reality it’s 100% impossible to model because of the number of variables involved and the uncertainty around them.
It’s precisely the same with climate models, yet these are what are being used to make predictions well into the future. The one and only thing 100% certain about the predictions is that they’ll be wrong; and they won’t just be a bit wrong but very wrong. That isn’t my opinion but a scientific fact. However, that doesn’t keep the money rolling in so it’s very conveniently ignored.
What a total and utter scam the whole thing is.
Yawn. More crap from the resident armchair expert. As I have been through many times, and won’t be doing again, we don’t need computer models to see that the effects from climate change are occurring and have occurred in recent recorded history. Unfortunately, the rubbish spouted by ‘sceptics’ hasn’t come to fruition, but that doesn’t stop the armchair experts spouting off as if they know anything, while they still argue that snow on the ground means it’s all a lie, and thus demonstrating their non-understanding of the issue.
The same ‘sceptics’ said that more than 200 deaths per day in the second wave was doom mongering from so-called experts, but were unfortunately proven wrong quite quickly. Yet they still argue as if we should give a toss about their so called expertise. You would think they would have a little self-awareness when talking of trust when they rubbish those whose claims were more on the ball than theirs.
I just hope that I’m able to live long enough for the reality to be seen for what it is, which is a complete hyping of a problem that’s negligible.
WOW!
I hope David Attenborough can get hold of your number.
Always amuses me how Buck’s is always right yet the climate scientists are so dramatically wrong, quite unique how this mega brained right wing conspiracy theorist is walking a higher path of intelligence and morals far above the majority of professionals who are recognised as leaders in their respective fields regarding climate change. However Trump says it’s rubbish ( you know the old ” inject disinfectant to cure covid guy ” ) so brainiac Buck’s agrees with him on climate change hoax. There is a link here folks it’s to do with capitalism and money money money, gimme gimme gimme. As I stated earlier, get well soon Buck’s.
Anything that stymies the ‘invisible hand’ and the free market is seized upon. Pretty sure you’re university educated Bucks. Surely you didn’t back up your arguments with this sort of fluff?
‘The one and only thing 100% certain about the predictions is that they’ll be wrong; and they won’t just be a bit wrong but very wrong. That isn’t my opinion but a scientific fact.’
Unless you can demonstrate what you’re saying is ‘scientific fact’ then of course it’s just opinion. This is elementary stuff!
You can also add the Remainer ‘sceptics’ to the list – i.e. Those that were sceptical about the problems Remainers said leaving the EU would cause. Unfortunately, they are coming to fruition now in the form of layers of bureaucracy and tariffs. All those blockers that are influencing businesses to move to France and Germany and which will discourage artists and musicians from touring Europe. At least they’ll have rotting shellfish to chow on I suppose…
The one and only thing 100% certain about the predictions is that they’ll be wrong; and they won’t just be a bit wrong but very wrong. That isn’t my opinion but a scientific fact.
So it’s a scientific fact that the scientists are wrong?
Hmmm, still trying to get my head round that one.
So it’s a scientific fact that the scientists are wrong?
Hmmm, still trying to get my head round that one.
Reminds of the guy in Brasseye “no there’s no real evidence for it but it is scientific fact”!
2 users thanked author for this post.
“As I have been through many times, and won’t be doing again, we don’t need computer models to see that the effects from climate change are occurring and have occurred in recent recorded history. ”
And as I’ve been through many times, BRI, what neither you nor anyone else on the planet can do — no matter what their scientific credentials are — is say what the magnitude of these effects from man-made greenhouse gases actually are. The ONLY evidence that exists for this is based on computer models. You and anyone else can talk until they’re blue in the face but that is an indisputable, 100% fact; and just to be totally clear about this — for the nth time — I am not talking about the existence of man-made climate change, which nobody is denying, but the size of its impact.
As for how the climate scientists are “so dramatically wrong”, there are plenty of climate scientists who disagree very strongly with the worst-case scenarios continuously pumped out by the IPCC. What you will find, however, is that those who have dared ‘put their heads above the parapet’ over this have been treated appallingly and in many cases forced to resign their posts or even dismissed for daring to speak out. The two most high profile of these are Judith Curry and Peter Ridd, but there are many others.
Anyone who believes that academics are immune to politics or ‘marketing their expertise’ to gain funding is totally and utterly naive. They’re every bit as bad if not worse than any other profession.
So, BRI, or, indeed, anyone out there, let me ask one very simple question, which given all the ‘evidence’ should be VERY simple and easy to answer: what is the confidence level of the predictions being made about the SIZE of the impact of man-made global warming? Anyone who understands even the most basic of scientific analysis will know and understand that confidence intervals should ALWAYS be quoted when ANY scientific prediction is made.
I look forward very much indeed to getting the answer.
The evidence for recent climate changes are not based solely on climate models (and when it has you have been unable to back this up with evidence that doesn’t have questions surrounding its context or legitimacy). I have not been talking about climate models when doing so, generally, but once again you try and bring it back to this. All it demonstrates is your lack of understanding and I have no trust that you would even accept any evidence to the contrary.
After all, you accepted Phin’s Ickean nonsense (which includes her climate guff), so why should I even waste time with this?
Remember, just because your gargantuan ego convinces you that you are some expert on this it doesn’t mean others have to see you that way. Your ramblings on this shows that you haven’t got the foggiest about climate change, from your continued misunderstandings on things like the polar vortex to the continued existence of snow to the evidence for anthropogenic climate change beyond models to Phin’s error strewn analysis being blindly trusted because it suits your agenda.
If you were genuinely interested you would not seek answers from this or blogs, but from scientists outside your selected bubble, who happen to agree with everything you say, no matter what, and consider what the evidence actually says, not what you want it to be. The scientists you cite are outliers, and it’s perhaps you try to understand why a little more. Of course being an outlier doesn’t mean they’re incorrect, there are plenty of outlying opinions have been shown to be correct. However, they are shown to be because of indisputable evidence. Curry and others can keep trying to show otherwise, but their views are not automatically granted respect when they can’t back them up or answer queries. When such scientists are shown to be wrong it’s perhaps best to ask why (see here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/18/global-warming-when-judith-curry-makes-a-claim-check-for-yourself/) rather than constantly assuming that there must be some grand conspiracy because people dare to challenge your expert opinion. When you rely on such people with dubious answers it shouldn’t come as a surprise when people doubt your understanding on this and don’t consider you to be someone whose judgment isn’t clouded. It’s clear that you only accept views which agree with your pre-conceived ideas, as always.
No doubt you will claim I am doing such, in your usual tedious fashion, because we all know you can never be wrong. However, consider that I am the one actually checking their claims and not spouting about how right they are and citing scientists without a thought as to the criticism they receive. And receiving criticism does not equal silencing, as the wannabe martyrs of the denier movement so want it to be.
That will be all. I will not bother looking at this thread, and feed your obsession, so by all means respond if you want to waste your time.
“No doubt you will claim I am doing such, in your usual tedious fashion, because we all know you can never be wrong.”
On the contrary, BRI, you’re the one who can never be wrong. What’s more here’s the perfect opportunity to stuff my words down my throat. All you have to do is answer the question that I’ve asked: what is the confidence level of the predictions being made about the SIZE of the impact of man-made global warming? There’s no trick to this. In fact the complete opposite and given all the evidence you claim is out there it should be a piece of cake.
Yet what do we get? A tirade of insults designed to belittle and undermine me. As for the link to the piece about Judith Curry the irony given the question that I’ve asked is extraordinary. The author talks about ‘uncertainty’ around the data Curry’s used because she hasn’t provided confidence levels. It would be laughable were it not so serious.
As for your reference to Zoe Phin, I don’t agree with lots of things she says but the example I used was an excellent expose of so-called ‘climate science’, which you failed to debunk despite claiming otherwise; and claiming that I get ‘answers from blogs’ is just untrue. In fact it couldn’t be further from the truth. I go back to the academic papers and the source data.
I build and use computer models all the time. They’re fantastic for doing all sorts of things but anyone who knows anything about them knows that when it comes to predictions of complex systems with numerous variables they are ALWAYS, 100% completely wrong. The way real science gets around this is to ensure that confidence intervals are provided.
So, BRI’s failed to answer this fundamental question. Given the reward of proving I’m a complete idiot and all the evidence out there I’m sure someone will find it. After all, it shouldn’t be difficult.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.