leicsmac

If possible and enforceable, yes. But, just to reiterate the point again, if we fail on this one, we fail as a species, not as any individual "tribe". That's true both from historical evidence of contribution, and from the fact that those left in that world looking for those to blame simply won't make such distinctions anyway. Edit: pardon for belabouring the above point multiple times but apparently it needs to be repeated, given the amount of people still about looking to disingenuously absolve their own "group" of responsibility for all the bad times to come (should it happen).

Doesn't negate in any way the collective responsibility for all parties involved based on what's happened so far. And as per @grobyfox1990 salient argument immediately above - if things go to hell in a handbasket (which, given lack of decisive action, they will), those left behind are going to blame everyone who didn't do enough to stop the problem as well as those who "mostly" contributed to it. And they'll be right to. So as a species - all of us - we can either argue about who's killing the world or, as well as taking action ourselves as nation states, take whatever action we can to ensure others walk the walk too.

Human psychology. A lot of people don't want their comfortable status quo to change, even if that status quo will lead them and everyone else to ruin, so they will do what they can to preserve it. And that's the problem those trying to guarantee the future face; you're having to solve the same problem several times, psychologically and logistically.

Splendid. This is what I mean about the tech getting better as it matures. But there are those who would simply stick to the Paleolithic way of burning things to make our energy, with all the consequences that entails, and not give it a chance to mature at all.

Yeah, that second graph tells more of the story, appreciate it. It also backs up the point about collective responsibility for the situation that our species finds itself in.

On a topic that's often discussed here, this is what I mean by if the shit hits the fan, it is everyone that will be responsible for doing their part to make it so. Not just the current biggest emitters.

Mr Lowe so close to getting it. And why exactly are those harvests poor, Mr Lowe?

In terms of the harm either can do, they're equal in that the answer is the same - at worst, absolute. The effects of a rogue AI could certainly be applied faster, though. Certainly a possible threat that needs to be considered a lot more than perhaps it is. Both require the requisite amount of resources to address.

In so many words....

You would have thought the future of human civilisation would be a multipartisan area, wouldn't you? Evidently not. (There was a discussion about short term thinking that social media and other things has bred on this thread recently. This particular topic highlights a key and fatal weakness of it.)

Which maturing renewable tech will continue to address as it matures - as well as better storage solutions. Tidal and coastal barrages are another option, but they tend to be larger infrastructure projects and so a harder sell. As much as securing immediate energy needs is important, I'm not sure how anyone can point to recent average temperature increases in the UK - and over the world - and their consequences, and even accept, let alone welcome, more like that.

Which is why better battery storage and fission power should have been implemented as part of the solution decades ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93487x97kyo A judge in Florida has ruled President Donald Trump must hand over financial records sought by the BBC as it defends itself in his $10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit. The order came during the first hearing in the case, in which the US president is suing the corporation over an episode of Panorama that edited together different sections of his speech on the day of the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. Judge Enjoliqué Lett granted a motion by the BBC's legal team to compel the release of financial records held by the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust, which he created to manage his businesses while he is president. The judge's ruling at Tuesday's hearing in Miami can still be appealed. However, it amounts to a partial success in the BBC's attempt to force Trump to provide evidence for his claim of financial loss due to the Panorama edit. Felon#47 finding out that "discovery" is not just a TV channel, then.

Then (if we're both right here) I guess human civilisation will have to pick its poison either way. And either way, the decisions made by every major government over the last few decades, including that of the Chinese, in not being adequately prepared and so having to make that choice, are responsible for the consequences.

If there is no guarantee that the North Sea extracts won't either be used abroad or used in power generation, then all that decision will do is contribute to an issue that will fvck everyone. It's already beginning to.

Peter Drury, good? That's an interesting perspective.

... or the funded-by-popup-ads-clickbait that passes as media, anyway. The fast-food, short term memory nature of society in general right now is something that's come up here a few times before, and it is a big issue.

Don't be afraid of the AI that passes the Turing test. Be terrified of the one that lies about failing it. Or, as it happens, cheats to pass it.

His team in that period was an irresistible force that had the bad luck to come up against a truly immovable object. Great bloke, and he will be missed.

I think Neville has let the TV role he has go to his head. Hopefully, Rooney would not.

Evidently harder than one might think, if current evidence is any judge.

It's a bloody difficult thing to comprehend, that's for sure. It also highlights a weakness of when every single issue, even long term scientific ones like this, being directly subject to democratic process - it's next to impossible for enough people to make an informed choice, so the wrong one ends up being made.

Wayne Rooney growing massively into his TV pundit role at this world cup. He had a pretty raw time of it both at the end of his playing career and with what he's done in management and was clearly struggling psychologically for a while, so it's good to see him growing into a role.

Which, these days, is a pretty difficult tightrope to walk, even though I absolutely agree with the sentiment in principle. Especially when that opposition press is only too happy to fabricate when they can't actually find much, because the press regulator is toothless.

And it's self evident that the hypocrisy is not limited to one side of the aisle. I guess, with that being true, it comes down to which entity is capable of bigger degrees of influencing the public and therefore policy decision-making, and therefore where the hypocrisy causes most damage. And that is a pretty loaded debate in of itself.