leicsmac

The last paragraph here is spot on, which is why the thing has to be made financially appealing to help it be done. That's an important part of getting people on board. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that regardless it does have to be done and I'll happily use the WWII comparison freely and acceptably because firstly, if we wait until the threat is that immediate it will be too late, the vital resources of water and crops we rely on will be critically lowered, and there will be nothing left but got the shooting to start and count the bodies when it's all over, and secondly the scale of devastation this problem could cause, through both natural and man-made consequence (because warfare tends to happen when vital resources are at stake) would dwarf every single war in our past, WWII included. And so the accusation following from this is that pretty much the entire climate science corps is clueless or corrupt, again? Well, I guess various corners of the Internet see this particular libel every day, why should here be an exception... I'll say just what I tend to say whenever this comes up and there's clearly no ground to be gained; I hope that those people are right and I am wrong, because if that's the case we can at least visit in a couple of decades in a world that is still comfortable, and if it's the other way round...I would hope that those "lucky" people left looking for someone to hold accountable for the horror they find themselves in would be merciful. But they would have no reason to be, or to forgive any of us.

Lynas et al. There are next to no alternative views among those learned on the subject. This untruth is deeply frustrating, especially when it's then used to point to policy that will cause harm to us all.

It's like some folks simply don't want our species to progress at all. I wasn't aware that particular dichotomy was the only option available. There are many places all over the world that are actually planning for the future without putting an inordinate amount of financial strain on the individual. But let's just say that this dichotomy was indeed true - I wonder what the people who come after us would think if the generations that exist now wouldn't sacrifice anything to overcome a massive threat to their future - as many past generations have done? WWII cost the UK the remainder of its imperial possessions and a lot of cost to every citizen, but I don't reckon there were many folks then who said it wasn't a price worth paying.

And then taking some pisstaking in the opposite direction incredibly personally. Anyway, simply put; wanting to pursue fossil fuels for energy generation is at most charitable foolhardy hubris that will have a massive economic cost, and at least charitable flat-out death worship which considers the future death and suffering of a great part of both human civilisation and the biosphere as necessary in the name of satisfying one's own selfish short term desires.

Glad for the additional economic argument here to add to the manifold others for progress rather than Paleolithic regression on this matter.

When it comes to UK specific long-term infrastructure projects, there has to be a better way of ensuring their completion without money drain and party political flip-flopping than the current one. Any ideas, because there's far too many essential big jobs that either don't get done or get done late and massively over budget because of the politicking?

On this topic, it still rather baffles me how the idea of demographic mutability worries, and therefore intimidates and angers, so many people. It's almost like they have to have humanity dispersed into easily defined groups so there's always an "out-group" to exert power over, isn't it? It'll be an auspicious day for our species when that kind of discrimination is rendered utterly obsolete, through whatever method.

... it's like they truly, honestly don't understand where the pathway they want to go ends, do they? Or they're so sociopathic they simply don't care about a future they may not be involved in. Or both.

I think that the differences in levels of personal freedoms in a place like China and like North Korea are rather large, but each to their own. My earlier points about the UK trade policy and China (as much as their government appears to be horrible) being best placed among the leading powers to meet the coming future still stand.

The UK already does business with a lot of governments that might be considered abhorrent, without the benefit that China has of actually being forward-looking as well as objectionable in terms of style of government. I don't really see a reason to clutch pearls without being a hypocrite there. Their ambitions, I think, are the long game. Their massive energy infrastructure investment in many places shows this. The West can either look to match them in kind on that, or fall behind and let them have the power that will come from being best-placed in the world that is changing and will change more - no matter how much people bask in their own denial about the laws of thermodynamics. Edit: pedantry here, but North Korea is totalitarian. China is authoritarian.

It's darkly funny how a lot of the West continue to look down their noses at China while they're currently accelerating away from us on almost every metric concerning progressive infrastructure to guarantee the future. The same hubris from the other side - "we're no.1 so why try harder" - was one of the key reasons that led to the Opium Wars and the "Century of Humiliation" for China. Something to consider before we keep thinking they're somehow inferior.

I must admit I was looking for something more along the lines of Lynas et al involving an assessment of the peer reviewed literature and showing clear consensus of data on the chromosomal definition of sex as an absolute arbiter (if that's what we're using) as well as what was said in that article, but I appreciate the time and effort taken. Glad there's agreement there. It's unfortunate, however, that quite a few folks appear to have a great deal of trust in scientific findings (such as they are) on this matter, but a remarkable lack of trust on other matters where an even greater scientific consensus exists - to the point of affecting policy decisions in a negative fashion for most everyone. It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind that particular dichotomy.

Agreed. So there should be no problem showing the scientific consensus of data that proves this reality, right? Additionally, the same consensus of data should be trusted in other cases when it comes to policymaking, right? Asking for the sake of clarity because sometimes there does seem to be a certain element of... cherry-picking regarding exactly what defines a scientific consensus and whether that consensus should be used to craft policy and decision making or not. And of course, some decent people simply trying to live their lives without actually harming anyone are viewed as at best a laughable anomaly and at worst a degenerate target of violence by many.

Nah, they won't escape consequences. Not for long, anyway.

It is, but at least when the shit hits the fan (which if the liars get their way, it inevitably will), at least the liars will be in it with everyone else and with any luck those wanting to know who killed the world will know who those liars are and who to hold accountable.

The very worst thing about this horrible tragedy was that it was preventable.

Honestly, it's very mid-tier. It's unfortunate to ladies like KA Applegate whose Animorphs series was so much higher in standard but much less popular, for whatever reason. Fair point well made regarding the economic contributions. I'm pretty sure there are better ways to address the issue. Would need a better mind than mine to give the idea, though. Addressing inequality isn't just about some abstract idea of fairness, it's also practical from the standpoint that in times of such inequality, people tend to become more tribal, more divided, and there tends to be a fair bit more blood on the street by the end of it all. And as Sollozo in The Godfather once said, blood is itself a big expense.

It is scary, and doesn't end well. Which, again, is why a solution is required rather promptly.

He made up for it by actually caring about every single human being, rather than being selective about it. And wrote about such critical issues in a way that put most other authors, Rowling included, in the shade. The Harry Potter series is mediocre writing with an excellent marketing team, nothing more. But that's a rather fraught discussion, so I'll leave that one there.

I agree, and I'm still looking for a way to address that which doesn't involve doing things that the super rich might not like. But they don't appear to be contributing much to a solution if results at the present time are any judge, either. And yes, it's their responsibility to do that, along with everyone else.

Depends whether they actually use those services and keep money in circulation or just hoard. And as per above, increasing inequality is a massive driver of social disorder and we really should be looking to address that however possible.

FYP. But on the general point being made here, there's a lot of scare stories about wealthy people upping sticks when taxes go up but firstly there are places where there are higher tax rates and a better standard of living all round where that doesn't happen, and secondly addressing inequality is a massive concern and I'd be interested in hearing other ways it might happen.

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-paris-agreement-offset-economic-growth.html Interesting analysis on the current state of things.

That sounds about right. It also sounds like a reason why the rules are rather flawed.

No harm anyone does in the name of "net zero" will be as bad as what will happen should we ignore the problem. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious. That's often true. And now, such desensitised behaviour is allowing actual fascists, racists and bigots to begin pulling the levers of power in various places. At the end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the wolf does actually come.