leicsmac

...only to then say he was misquoted and affirm that "We very much believe and respect the science." Adding: "I honestly think there is some confusion out there, and misrepresentation. I am quite surprised with the constant and repeated attempts to undermine the work of the COP28 presidency", and ""Science has been central to my own career progress and yes, I respect the science in everything I do" and "I have said over and over that the phase down and the phase out of fossil fuel is inevitable". So I'm sure the luminaries there were rather OK with that, as should anyone with a modicum of sense who likes the world the way it is, and not, say, like something out of Mad Max.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67591422 Clare is studying the insects to understand how dengue spreads around the world - and how climate change is fuelling that spread. As leaders gather in Dubai for COP28 - the latest round of the UN's international climate talks - experts say global warming is already having a "profound effect" on global health. Mosquitoes already cause more death and suffering to humans than any other complex organism - including humans themselves. Might not be the best idea to have even more ideal conditions in which they can thrive.

If we don't get stopping fossil fuels for energy generation pretty damn quick then it's a probability our species ends up back in the caves in short order anyway. Or an equivalent thereof.

Not being able to defend 41 off four overs - in fact conceding it in less than three - isn't a great look. Definitely agree with the above sentiment about Curran being a liability.

Unscrupulous landlords wanting a little extra money squeezed from their tenants and a reasonably easy way to do it? Sadly rather common, I would guess.

Came across a fantastic SciComm channel concerning animals today - Casual Geographic. Hugely entertaining and informative in equal measure.

Whoever wrote this and Kojima writing the last part of MGS2 were incredibly prescient.

Yep, rampant commercialism sucks.

It's like any other radical development, really. The genie is out of the bottle and it has the potential to make our world so much better, but it could go the other way too. But we have no choice but to take the chance.

Also, I would absolutely not recommend using https://archive.is and you absolutely should not simply enter the FT web address into the search bar when you're there.

... the same thing thought when every individual talking head gets propped up to say something like this. If what he said was pertinent to the current situation, it would have been taken into account and quickly become scientific fact by the consensus of data and viewpoint. Unless and until then, his words need to be treated as they are - an interesting viewpoint but one that shouldn't be taken as read without the backing of his peers. NB. This particular quote again suffers from the problem a lot of similar individual viewpoints designed solely to satisfy confirmation bias do - it presents some facts, but frames them in a way that is incomplete and/or dishonest. Edit: for people's consideration, beware the Gish Gallop. https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67521051 Interesting article on attitudes towards this matter around the world and how difficult it can be at times to get scientific fact to be accepted.

...and this is why no serious work on the subject advocates for what the "hardcore activists" are advocating for, because it leads to similar or same shitshows as you point out here. Whatever way things go the animals bred for consumption that exist now and in the near future end up suffering and dying, there's simply no way round it. Perhaps the best solution would be a gradual drawdown to a lower level (as opposed to no such animals at all) - which, in terms of the emissions caused by animal agriculture and that supply chain, we probably have time for. WRT the last paragraph, the economic arguments are pertinent but I think they are mostly easier solved than the ethical ones. Same goes for oil and gas workers put out of work by advances in nuclear and renewable tech - yes, they need to be looked after, but that doesn't mean the change doesn't have to happen.

Agriculture and supply chains based on it are a big question when it comes to carbon emissions. Is it actually less costly in terms of emissions to import meat, vegetables and fruit, or instead rear it where it is to be consumed? You would think that the latter is better, but from what I've read it isn't actually that cut and dry, for a few reasons. In any case, the elephant in the room remains energy generation and that is the priority issue.

Yeah, he doesn't have to say it explicitly, the inference is enough. The Mail (and their legal team, obviously) are very good at such inferences that fall just short of libel. As you say, it is really damn difficult when someone with credentials comes out with this kind of stuff because it sounds like they know what they're talking about (and they do) and it's difficult for a layman to parse such comments. That's what makes it all the more difficult to weed out the dishonest actors from the honest ones, especially when the former are telling a group of people what they want to hear. It's frustrating and I have sympathy for folks who would read this and be not sure what to think of it because it's (accidentally or deliberately) not framed at a level for everyone to understand - not good science communication, again, accidentally or by design. In this case, what he's saying here is a blend of half-truths ("HIV fixes mainly on to one receptor - but the Covid virus binds to several, allowing it to lock into cells in the nose, mouth, lungs and elsewhere in the body") and speculation dressed up as fact ("The Covid virus is designed for maximum impact - no such structure has occurred naturally in other coronaviruses"). It says just about enough that's true to sound good, but doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story - a common tactic used by such "mavericks" to get people on their side of a particular scientific issue. It is very frustrating because again, as you say, it's difficult for people to parse the truth of it because of the phrasing and because there's just enough fact in there, and some people won't try because it satisfies their confirmation bias, and the Mail knows this.

I see, thank you. It does naturally follow that if one disregards the latter, the former has zero meaning too. To answer the question, there have been a great many warm periods millions of years ago in Earths history, and life flourished - dinosaurs, dragonflies the size of eagles, the whole whack. However, as the poster above points out, this isn't really about survival of life on Earth (much, anyway, we're causing indescribable damage to biodiversity without considering any of the effects we have on climate), it's about the survival of our species and civilisation. To expand on the above post, at some point the Earth was going to undergo a drastic change in climate conditions - either hot, cold, or a mix of the two depending on location, as has again happened many times in the past - and those effects would be devastating to our civilisation. Thanks to our influence, that day of change is arriving far sooner and far more drastically than at any time in recorded geological history. That is the real problem - doing enough to stave off that change long enough that we can adapt in a way that means our civilisation survives in the way that it is accustomed to, and doesn't simply collapse. These are not fictional or made-up concerns - they are matters of scientific fact, and denial for the sake of materialism won't make them go away. They must be addressed, one way or another. And COP, as vacuous as it appears to be (and mostly is tbh), is a part of that. NB. I have no idea why some folks use and trust the fruits of the scientific method for practically every aspect of the lives they live but then choose to suddenly distrust it in areas where it clashes with their personal politics.

This meeting, or the findings of the climate science corps in general? It would be nice to know which. NB. Agree that it would be better to do a virtual meeting, but considering the numbers that's obvious anyway.

Quite. Perhaps there's a few reasons that when you go to a graveyard and look further back than, say, the 50's, you see an awful lot of graves of kids under seven or eight years old. Thankfully, those are the days behind us - mostly, for now and in the UK, anyway.

Slovenian President Natasa Pirc Musar spoke of disruptive climate protesters, asking "what else they can do [...] if COP after COP after COP, we, who are elected by the people to lead them into a better future, refuse to listen to their pleas?" Interesting words. I think we had a discussion about this on here when groups like XR and JSO where being much more active.

Yet another big example of short-term material gain clashing damagingly with long-term better outcomes. There's an awful lot of that about and it isn't good. There are quite a few situations - cement, producing plastics etc where using fossil fuels for the process is integral and can't be given up too easily. However the biggest elephant in the room, by far, remains energy generation - and that should be the key area of focus for the moment IMO. Though the current COP discussions are focusing a fair bit on agriculture too, which does have a large footprint requiring attention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/67587748 Interesting thoughts from Kyrgios, glad Murray saw what was going on and offered what help he could.

To clarify, that this virus could have gotten out of the Wuhan lab accidentally and the Chinese covered it up is possible - there's currently no theory that meets an adequate burden of proof (despite what this talking head might say expressing opinion as fact), though the zoonotic origin is considered most likely by most. The virus being released deliberately or even the inference thereof (like in this article) is ridiculous xenophobic Yellow Peril rubbish that is par for the course for the Mail, but which no really self respecting scientist should have his name on.

Obviously that's the best way both ethically and to get things done in general. However, yet again, the situation is down to the laws of thermodynamics driven by human influence and the consequences of such don't care much about politics, so the stuff has to get done one way or another because the alternative will practically always be worse.

Somehow they have to be made more financially attractive, seeing as appealing to people's better nature doesn't work most of the time. Oh, and the truth is that without those green policies that "average bod's standard of living" will plunge into the very darkest abyss in (relatively) short order - shortly after those people in far-flung places they clearly don't give a Castlemaine XXXX about.

...on this topic? As with most sceptical arguments on this matter (like the talk on the last page) it would be nice to know what scientific proof there is for the danger represented here being "over the top" - as opposed to the near-universal agreement of nation-states and the scientific community (even if the former are dragging their heels way too much on it). I've no idea why some folks think such science bods have a reason to lie - even the argument that doing so would be more profitable is ridiculous when oil and gas companies would pay far more to say things are hunky-dory and stay on their own gravy train.