leicsmac

I just don't see a situation where NATO and Russian troops exchange fire in a way that results in serious casualties that doesn't escalate to that eventually. Both sides would accept that from that point on that to be on the losing side would mean losing practically everything (especially Putin), and neither side would accept that loss when they have the ultimate option available to ensure everyone, not just they, lose. (Barring some miracle of diplomacy that would mean not losing unacceptably and thus allow an off-ramp that either side would take, that is)

Denial is a very strong human emotion. There's a reason it's the first stage of any reaction to drastic negative change.

Fair points. I just wonder whether or not any amount of jets and missiles can drive the Russians out, seeing as the present efforts appear to be failing in that regard. The only thing I can see rolling on is a continual meatgrinder with neither getting the upper hand until there is either a deal...or the Russians win. I do hope I'm wrong though. A direct engagement between NATO and Russian forces will escalate and only ends one way. You're betting the future of human civilisation on the Russians backing down, and IMO that's too risky a bet considering the stakes.

If that's the case, and the Russians won't consider any deal worth the ink its printed on... is there any possible outcome where Ukraine actually actually neutralises Russia as a military threat and so stops them attacking? Because that's the only other "good" way this ends. Personally, at the present time, I don't see one.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65754296 Another good primer by the Beeb. Of particular import: Current policies do indeed put us on course for a 2.5-2.9 degrees Celsius increase by the end of the century. Now, that's (probably) not apocalyptic, but it will result in vastly increased droughts, extreme weather, collapse of certain pollinating species, introduction of invasive species (like malarial mosquitoes), decreased resources and growing spaces, increased sea levels and biome changes. All of this will result in a great deal of currently inhabited land becoming pretty much uninhabitable, with the associated risk of death, suffering and displacement to (potentially) billions of people - with all the upheaval that will cause. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/ This is a problem bigger in terms of threat to human life than any other barring global nuclear holocaust (which, if things go truly awful, it could end up leading to due to dwindling resources) - that's a simple matter of fact.

Agreed. Though I think that even if someone wins in the US in 2024 who will happily leave the Ukrainians to the tender mercies of Putin, that they can hold out enough defensively for some kind of deal to be made that favours them at least a little. Of course, if there's more aid because a Dem wins in 2024, then the better the holdout/counteroffensive and the better any deal would be. Either way, like you, I don't see Ukraine dislodging Russia from much of what they already have barring escalation that would lead to no good place for anyone, but I hope I'm wrong there,

It would be hilarious if there weren't so many people who actually believe this unironically over there.

It's a possibility, but if that's true then we can't really be sure about much at all on the matter.

Hmmmm... honestly, I think the number of hats on the ground as a result of this thing in the UK compared to other countries speaks for itself there, but that's me.

Just my take, but I think it's just a reaction from those who think that because he was the PM at the time, the buck stopped with him on the whole matter. I don't buy that unilaterally either - we don't have an executive system of government in that way so it's not just on him. However, given the raw numbers of deaths, it's a fact that the UK didn't respond to the crisis as well as comparable nations did and that at least in part lies at the feet of the government response.

Would still kill less than air pollution and increased global average temperature increase already do now - to say nothing of the future. But on a more serious note, as mentioned above, the technology will mature and again, lest we forget, it's part of a solution that will avoid the needless death and suffering of an awful lot of people - even if (at first) they'll be out of sight and therefore out of mind for some.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that wind is the only solution, just part of a suite of solutions that make up the whole, along with solar, tidal, and Gen III/IV fission.

Most certainly. AFAIC though the actual nature of the problem and whether it is a problem or not didn't require any further discussion beyond the second post on the first page. Much in the same way that it doesn't need much discussion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and a square has four sides of equal length. It's just something that, well...is. The response to the problem and how we go about it ethically, however...yeah, that's much more debatable.

'Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.It was its tendency to bend at the knees." - Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

Right. I guess such organisations don't think long term because there's often not much point for them in doing so beyond the next election cycle. Flawed. But then, so is leaving such things to the vagaries of the market too. As you say, Scandinavia where both the market and public office are a bulwark against each other seems to work.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67544977 A good primer on current steps being taken and how effective they may or may not be.

Something I found this morning: If CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, how does it drive global warming? By Franklin Veaux: Below is a photo of a beaker of water, a beaker of water with 0.028% ink, and a beaker of water with 0.056% ink. This is what CO2 does. “But CO2 is clear! It’s transparent! It’s invisible!” Yes, to visual wavelengths of light. To infrared light, it’s black. Visible light from the sun comes in, hits the ground, heats it up, it re-radiates as infrared, the infrared gets trapped because CO2 is black to infrared, the planet heats up. It’s actually pretty straightforward. The part people miss is they think of CO2 as transparent. Everyone knows a black object heats up faster than a white object in the sun. Well, to infrared, CO2 is black.

Our current trajectory - probably - doesn't lead to utter catastrophe. It does, however, lead to an increase of perhaps around 3 degrees C by the end of the century, which is going to be very, very nasty and will at least result in the deaths and displacement of a great many people, to say nothing of ecosystem damage. Something that might be better off avoided. I'd hazard a case such denial and fear are pretty common among those who refuse to accept something as obvious as the earth being an oblate spheroid. Grief is often brought about by change, and the first stage of grief is denial, after all.

The Sun has precious little to do with current warming patterns, long or short term. Please - we're going from refuted point to refuted point here, all of them have been refuted and none of them hold water; if they did, they would be taken more seriously by the scientific community at large. It's a Gish Gallop written large on the last couple pages of this thread and while it's good to point out how such arguments are flawed as they come in, I'm sure there's better things that could be done.

Sellafield is an incredibly old design, which shouldn't have an effect on viewpoints concerning building modern fission plants. And, quite frankly, the numbers on renewables don't add up in terms of power supply - not yet, not in the timescale needed to dump fossil fuels. Fission has to be part of the solution.

Fission power is certainly part of the equation, and should have been started a long time ago. But now will have to do. A combination of fission, wind, solar and tidal (that's something as a coastal nation the UK really should be pushing on) is the way to go. And cracking fusion, too.

Quite right. It's just logical, really.

These are all fair questions that a lot of people would ask, and purely for the record I appreciate you asking them and the points made before and hope I'm presenting the answers and line of thought clearly. To answer: - Perhaps with drastic advances in technology, we can control the changes in climate on Earth to a degree (terraforming in its own way). But this one? We can't stop the current temperature increase and changes as a result of it, but (BIU for emphasis) we can slow it down and prevent it from getting too out of whack. And the slowing down is important, because it buys us an incredibly valuable resource - time. More time means more time to adapt, to put in place resilience strategies all over the world, to safeguard global food supply chains. In short, buying time means buying human lives. - The current plan is the for the UK to attain net zero emissions as a nation by 2050. What will that mean for UK citizens? Not much at all, provided the government strategy papers on the topic can be relied upon. We're not talking about any kind of regression in quality of life in order for this to happen - or at least not nearly so much as other areas of interest at the present time causing the cost of living crisis, and certainly not nearly as much as the consequences should the policies not be implemented. - Bluntly, if the UK does its job and the other nations don't, then everyone is fvcked, the UK included. But then everyone versed on the matter knows that anyway - there is no room for any free riders on this one, and hopefully (judging by the current global direction, if not necessarily the speed) the powers that be don't want it to be them who killed the world more than they don't want to change, so that rather perverse realpolitik equilibrium is producing (slow) results right now.

... that's not the way the scientific method works. It may be the way that money grubbing politics works and that's why some folks are getting confused because of the annoying efforts to mishmash science and politics to deny the former, but physical evidence represented in data in this case does not lie. Additionally, why would practically all the global climate science corps lie when toeing the line in the form of saying everything is fine would be far more personally beneficial to them? People don't like - and don't pay for - the idea that the world is changing, what they want - and pay for - is the idea that tomorrow will be just like today. Of course, people are free to believe and speak as they like on that matter, but that freedom comes with the one upon which all the others are based - the freedom to suffer the consequences of one's actions. And on this particular thing, there will be some. There already is.

And if it were just the "luminaries" talking about this, it might be more agreeable. But it isn't - there is a clear and well defined scientific consensus both of data and viewpoint. I've said this before but I'll repeat it - it's baffling and frustrating that people choose to trust the scientific method and the results it produces in every part of their lives except where it conflicts with their personal politics or when it might be personally inconvenient. It's the smoker inflicting harm on themselves and those around them just because it suits them, all over again. Only on a much bigger, much more hard hitting scale.