UK to bake in 33C amid extreme heat warning

[grobyfox1990]

19 minutes ago, jonathan_ross said:

You can always trust the guardian for a nice big dose of left wing agenda driven fear propaganda 

Despite being a paid up tree hugger I totally agree with you. Fear mongering and predictions years into the future clearly don’t resonate with people. It’s a simple message imo - ‘force your govt to change or you won’t have a job or any money in a few years time at best you berk’ 

[Trav Le Bleu]

37 minutes ago, jonathan_ross said:

You can always trust the guardian for a nice big dose of left wing agenda driven fear propaganda 

To be fair, all newspapers are guilty of fear driven propaganda, it's just whether it's left wing or right wing that makes the difference and whether it annoys you much.

 

Though personally all fear driven propaganda, left or right is annoying to me. It's not the way to do it.

 

On another note, we still have grasshoppers sunning themselves in our garden. Usually they'd be quite dead by now.

 

So global warming is good news for wildlife

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, jonathan_ross said:

You can always trust the guardian for a nice big dose of left wing agenda driven fear propaganda 

What about it is scientifically inaccurate?

 

The laws of thermodynamics don't suffer anyone's denial of them.

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Despite being a paid up tree hugger I totally agree with you. Fear mongering and predictions years into the future clearly don’t resonate with people. It’s a simple message imo - ‘force your govt to change or you won’t have a job or any money in a few years time at best you berk’ 

Another problem is that seemingly an event serious enough to convince enough people that the problem is real and needs addressing means we're already too late and the focus would become triage, not prevention.

 

Of course, if enough folks might actually show some faith in the scientific method, then that might not happen and future generations might not look at us with the same scorn (and well deserved) as we do the populations responsible for mass death and suffering in the past. Only on a scale much bigger than any of them.

Edited 28 October 2022 by leicsmac

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 hour ago, jonathan_ross said:

You can always trust the guardian for a nice big dose of left wing agenda driven fear propaganda

Simply reporting the scientific consensus is hardly that.

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

To be fair, all newspapers are guilty of fear driven propaganda, it's just whether it's left wing or right wing that makes the difference and whether it annoys you much.

 

Though personally all fear driven propaganda, left or right is annoying to me. It's not the way to do it.

 

On another note, we still have grasshoppers sunning themselves in our garden. Usually they'd be quite dead by now.

 

So global warming is good news for wildlife

I'm genuinely looking for an answer on this particular topic: what is it about this particular matter that is being embellished or exaggerated?

 

The scientific modelling, for worst case scenario anyway, is pretty clear and there's no real reason to doubt its accuracy.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm genuinely looking for an answer on this particular topic: what is it about this particular matter that is being embellished or exaggerated?

You're not going to get one. At least not one that makes any sense. Because nothing is being embellished or exaggerated. If anything it's been underestimated in the past.

[grobyfox1990]

38 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Another problem is that seemingly an event serious enough to convince enough people that the problem is real and needs addressing means we're already too late and the focus would become triage, not prevention.

 

Of course, if enough folks might actually show some faith in the scientific method, then that might not happen and future generations might not look at us with the same scorn (and well deserved) as we do the populations responsible for mass death and suffering in the past. Only on a scale much bigger than any of them.

Agree but the problem, and one that my industry often faces, is that the media only showcases worst case scenarios instead of base or best case. Plus the rhetoric around it is very blame-driven. Doesn’t work with people. People respond better to opportunity rather than threats and being told they’ve messed up. 

[jonathan_ross]

1 hour ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Simply reporting the scientific consensus is hardly that.

How does any individual actually know other than reading certain articles on a consensus that follows a certain rhetoric supported by the WEF? 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

41 minutes ago, jonathan_ross said:

How does any individual actually know

We only 'know' by informing ourselves as best we can. And given that most reputable scientists both know what they are talking about and have nothing to gain by making crap up, if they are all saying the same thing then my informed opinion is going to be that they're probably right.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

47 minutes ago, jonathan_ross said:

a consensus that follows a certain rhetoric supported by the WEF

Both the 'rhetoric' and the support are based on the scientific consensus, not the other way round.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Agree but the problem, and one that my industry often faces, is that the media only showcases worst case scenarios instead of base or best case. Plus the rhetoric around it is very blame-driven. Doesn’t work with people. People respond better to opportunity rather than threats and being told they’ve messed up. 

As much as I agree that positive reinforcement is much better for motivation, the truth is that people who know about the matter have been talking about opportunity and using such positive reinforcement for the last two decades. The result of which is what we see now.

 

And the time for such opportunity is running out. And when there is no more opportunity, there should, there will be, accountability.

 

Hopefully it doesn't come to that though.

 

44 minutes ago, jonathan_ross said:

How does any individual actually know other than reading certain articles on a consensus that follows a certain rhetoric supported by the WEF? 

So the inference here is that the entire climate science corps and the scientific method they use which everyone relies upon every single day is hopelessly corrupt and in hock to nefarious powers?

 

Interesting.

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As much as I agree that positive reinforcement is much better for motivation, the truth is that people who know about the matter have been talking about opportunity and using such positive reinforcement for the last two decades. The result of which is what we see now.

 

And the time for such opportunity is running out. And when there is no more opportunity, there should, there will be, accountability.

 

Hopefully it doesn't come to that though.

 

So the inference here is that the entire climate science corps and the scientific method they use which everyone relies upon every single day is hopelessly corrupt and in hock to nefarious powers?

 

Interesting.

You are clearly part of this anti-climate change Illuminati with your false flag tactics. I see through your games.

 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And the time for such opportunity is running out. And when there is no more opportunity, there should, there will be, accountability.

 

Hopefully it doesn't come to that though.

I can't see how it won't, to be honest. Less than nothing is being done to prevent it, or even mitigate it. Those who could do anything would rather maximise profit.

[leicsmac]

In any case, there *is* still time to mitigate the worst effects of what is to come. 

 

But it does need everyone on board, and it does need to be soon. The cost- both present and future - increases every day.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63407459

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

I can't see how it won't, to be honest. Less than nothing is being done to prevent it, or even mitigate it. Those who could do anything would rather maximise profit.

I'm not ready to accept the death of (at least) tens of millions of people and the suffering of many more that will be a corollary of that as a fait accompli. Not until it's absolutely certain - and it isn't, not yet.

Edited 28 October 2022 by leicsmac

[grobyfox1990]

7 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

I can't see how it won't, to be honest. Less than nothing is being done to prevent it, or even mitigate it. Those who could do anything would rather maximise profit.

????? There is plenty that can very very easily be done to prevent it, see the ten point plan - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-ten-point-plan-for-a-green-industrial-revolution/title

 

Likewise those who can do something about it and are good at maximising profit are already piling in. Blackstone and Blackrock only care about $$$$ but have well established and very well integrated ESG investment flows that will deliver stable long-term  revenue to investors. It is completely and factually untrue that those who only care about profit will not move into sustainable investment. The key will be ensuring investment goes to developing nations, watch COP27 for that.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm genuinely looking for an answer on this particular topic: what is it about this particular matter that is being embellished or exaggerated?

 

The scientific modelling, for worst case scenario anyway, is pretty clear and there's no real reason to doubt its accuracy.

I didn't read the actual article, but the Guardian are as guilty as any other rag of publishing stories with a bias, whilst also overplaying aspects to induce fear in their readership.

 

My comment was more related that both left and right use this.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I didn't read the actual article, but the Guardian are as guilty as any other rag of publishing stories with a bias, whilst also overplaying aspects to induce fear in their readership.

 

My comment was more related that both left and right use this.

It's certainly true that the reputation of the Grauniad precedes itself.

 

However, in this case, what they state is what the scientific consensus also states.

[FoyleFox]

3 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

On another note, we still have grasshoppers sunning themselves in our garden. Usually they'd be quite dead by now.

 

So global warming is good news for wildlife

We're part way through Frozen Planet 2, Attenborough would not agree.

[BKLFox]

I've found the seasons slipping by a month for many years now with Dec more autumn like than winter & winter pushing into April.

Probably go back 10yrs+ where hiding Easter eggs in the garden has been pointless in that its either been so hot by the time they are found they are a runny mess or the gardens covered in snow effectively rendering hiding the brightly coloured boxes against a white canvas useless.
 

[Trav Le Bleu]

49 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

We're part way through Frozen Planet 2, Attenborough would not agree.

Grasshoppers would.

 

The comment was entirely tongue in cheek.

[leicsmac]

Another thing just occurred to me:

 

Let's say that apathy and antipathy do end up winning through, and those who think present day freedom to do as they like get what they want.

 

Temperatures rise and the assorted drought, famine and extreme weather consequences ensue. The world becomes a hell of a lot more chaotic, as supply chains are disrupted everywhere. What is the natural global government response to that?

 

The same response to any incident causing mass chaos...crackdown, authoritarian, freedom-inhibiting, looking to restore control over a world that has lost it.

 

So...it's darkly humorous that those advocating for maximum freedom now are pushing for the course of action most likely to see them losing that freedom in the near future.

 

 

[Fazzer 7]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

In any case, there *is* still time to mitigate the worst effects of what is to come. 

 

But it does need everyone on board, and it does need to be soon. The cost- both present and future - increases every day.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63407459

Look, as well you know, I'm as far from a scientist as you can get and yes I'll admit to being a tad sceptical about some aspects of climate change, though not as much as Hartley Brewer. My scepticism lies in the fact that our emissions are very small and cutting them entirely will have next to zero effect globally.  But I ask you as you are clearly very knowledgable on such matters. Isn't there some man made means of extracting co'2 from the atmosphere rather like flora does and either storing it or converting it? Or is it even feasible that such technology could ever be developed?

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Look, as well you know, I'm as far from a scientist as you can get and yes I'll admit to being a tad sceptical about some aspects of climate change, though not as much as Hartley Brewer. My scepticism lies in the fact that our emissions are very small and cutting them entirely will have next to zero effect globally.  But I ask you as you are clearly very knowledgable on such matters. Isn't there some man made means of extracting co'2 from the atmosphere rather like flora does and either storing it or converting it? Or is it even feasible that such technology could ever be developed?

It's a good question to ask.

 

What you're referring to is called "carbon capture", which involves capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in a variety of ways.

 

While it is technically feasible and several differing mechanics exist to apply it, none of them are as efficient at the present time as plant life is, and the storage of carbon presents logistical problems of its own. While it may well help as an adjutant to reducing emissions, drawing down on those emissions should remain the first priority if at all possible. That's not to say it should be dismissed out of hand, rather it considered as one of a suite of solutions all utilised alongside each other.

 

NB. The UK not being responsible for most global emissions isn't going to shield it from the consequences of those emissions, as we've discussed before. Lead by example and lobby other nations to do the same.

Edited 28 October 2022 by leicsmac