The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[David Hankey]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... if there's a bigger crisis that the world (and the UK is part of the world) is facing than anywhere between tens of millions and a billion people having no food or potable water within the next few decades with all the knock on effects that entails, I'd like to hear what it is.

 

Of course, the consequences seem far away and so other concerns appear more dire, but if we're to stave off those consequences, action needs to be taken ASAP. Which makes it a pressing issue.

 

Or... the UK and other rich nations could just wait until it happems, tweak their immigration policy and pull up the drawbridge (figuratively) and take bets on how long it will take countless millions of people to starve, die of thirst or kill each other. That sounds like a morally acceptable time.

 

 

Well, adopting a more hands-off approach isn't really likely to work, either.

It's not a more "hands off approach". Every country needs to be represented but not by a vast encourage of delegates.

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

You will appreciate the fact that this is COP27, the 27th such gathering. I thought "significant" strides had already been taken but it seems to no avail.

 

Every country on the planet needs to do the same and if you think that can be achieved, cloud cuckoo land springs to mind.

So we just take our foot off the gas and enjoy the ride whilst it lasts? This land populated by cloud cuckoo's sounds infinitely preferable

Edited 2 November 2022 by Dahnsouff

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

It's not a more "hands off approach". Every country needs to be represented but not by a vast encourage of delegates.

Allow me to clarify: if countries actually did their bit without these agreements and delegates, I'd welcome it. As it is, having leading figures showing up is a sign that the thing is at least being taken partly seriously.

 

Not seriously enough, but it would be  even less if high level representation wasn't there.

 

Believe me, I wish it wasn't so.

 

7 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

You will appreciate the fact that this is COP27, the 27th such gathering. I thought "significant" strides had already been taken but it seems to no avail.

 

Every country on the planet needs to do the same and if you think that can be achieved, cloud cuckoo land springs to mind.

Sorry, but I think accepting the death and suffering of a very great deal of people as a fait accompli (which is where action that isn't unified will get us) is rather poor.

[Fazzer 7]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

So you think our manageable local issues are more important than the existential crisis of our time? Perhaps you were being sarcastic.......

 

No, he could have sent the environment minister or others. No need for him to be there in person. 

[David Hankey]

10 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

So we just take our foot off the gas and enjoy the ride whilst it lasts? This land populated by cloud cuckoo's sounds infinitely preferable

You are missing my point which put simply is that we don't need massive amounts of delegates flying into COP27 with all that entails. Surely, that defeats the objective.

[Fazzer 7]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

It's more make a decision and stick to it, rather than constantly make bad ones, put them out there and then change when it gets bad reaction. It's constant with this lot. I'm all for people holding their hands up and admitting they got things wrong, but with this group of Tories, it's less that and more see what they can get away with and then react to public reaction. They do it so often on numerous things its obvious they are testing the water, seeing what they can get away with.

I agree. 

[David Hankey]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Allow me to clarify: if countries actually did their bit without these agreements and delegates, I'd welcome it. As it is, having leading figures showing up is a sign that the thing is at least being taken partly seriously.

 

Not seriously enough, but it would be  even less if high level representation wasn't there.

 

Believe me, I wish it wasn't so.

 

Sorry, but I think accepting the death and suffering of a very great deal of people as a fait accompli (which is where action that isn't unified will get us) is rather poor.

Reality seems to have been lost on you.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

No, he could have sent the environment minister or others. No need for him to be there in person. 

With respect, that implies that the domestic issues are more important.

 

And it can be empirically proven that they're not, depending on what metric one wants to use.

 

Just now, David Hankey said:

You are missing my point which put simply is that we don't need massive amounts of delegates flying into COP27 with all that entails. Surely, that defeats the objective.

I think he addressed that point in his very first reply.

[leicsmac]

Just now, David Hankey said:

Reality seems to have been lost on you.

If you want me to cite numerous scientific papers proving the "reality" of what will happen is this issue is not addressed, then I will do so.

 

Unless there's a different angle to this comment, in which case I would appreciate some clarity.

[Fazzer 7]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

They’re all part of the same crisis. The climate catastrophe will create millions of refugees. 

Yes maybe. But as I keep on saying, you should be venting your anger at the big polluters. We are doing our bit! Quite a lot actually. 

[David Hankey]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, that implies that the domestic issues are more important.

 

And it can be empirically proven that they're not, depending on what metric one wants to use.

 

I think he addressed that point in his very first reply.

Well, I didn't think so.

[Dunge]

Should the PM be going to COP27?
 

- Yes. It’s very important that this is seen not just as a policy part of government but that there is demonstrable will from the whole world in fixing it. If there is inconvenience to national leaders then that shows all the more commitment to the cause. Fixing this issue is going to be about science and policy, but also demonstrating willpower is very important. He should never have considered not going in the first place, budget or no budget.

 

Should an entourage go with him?

 

- Yes. Is he treating this meeting seriously or popping over for a chat? It’s only natural that he should bring an entourage. Again, it demonstrates willpower to treat the issue and the conference seriously.

 

Is it hypocritical to fly so many people out there?

 

- In a small way, yes; but one conference is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of pollution around the world. If this and other conferences can fix that, the pollution caused by this conference will be massively offset by the resulting reductions.

 

Does this really need to be explained?

 

- No. Yet here we are.

[David Hankey]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you want me to cite numerous scientific papers proving the "reality" of what will happen is this issue is not addressed, then I will do so.

 

Unless there's a different angle to this comment, in which case I would appreciate some clarity.

Christ!! At the risk of repeating myself again.

 

I don't need you to cite long and laborious "scientific papers", thank you. All I am saying is that it doesn't need copious amounts of delegates to attend.

[urban.spaceman]

10 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Yes maybe. But as I keep on saying, you should be venting your anger at the big polluters. We are doing our bit! Quite a lot actually. 

No not maybe. It’s a guarantee. Tens maybe hundreds of millions of people will be displaced.

 

also… are you now advocating for activism? 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Yes maybe. But as I keep on saying, you should be venting your anger at the big polluters. We are doing our bit! Quite a lot actually. 

Two things:

 

- doing "our bit" will mean nothing if the world doesn't come along too. That's what meetings like this are for.

 

- the effects of this not getting done aren't going to stop at the UK border just because we "did our bit", so I'm unsure at all at what relevance it has.

 

And it must be getting into double figures that these tired, vacuous, unscientific and entirely debunked arguments have been stated here.

 

But if they keep getting served up, I do intend to keep refuting such highly damaging misinformation.

 

18 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Well, I didn't think so.

Fair enough.

 

It all comes down to whether or not meaningful and effective action comes from events like this to prove it right or wrong.

 

But make no mistake, the clock is ticking towards the greatest humanitarian disaster since the start of the last interglacial period 10000 years ago. And we, as a species, are behaving like spoiled, self interested individuals and fluffing our lines.

 

10 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Christ!! At the risk of repeating myself again.

 

I don't need you to cite long and laborious "scientific papers", thank you. All I am saying is that it doesn't need copious amounts of delegates to attend.

Not sure why the speech marks are there - the papers are what they are.

 

But anyway, as above, I can see what you mean, but I don't think I agree.

 

NB. if you're tired of repeating yourself, I empathise. Imagine what it is like as a science communicator to address the same arguments on here again and again to keep them from getting traction.

Edited 2 November 2022 by leicsmac

[Dahnsouff]

19 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Well, I didn't think so.

The point was that the PM would add significant gravitas to such an event, increase its import and allow significant visible decisions to be made.

[Dahnsouff]

27 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Yes maybe. But as I keep on saying, you should be venting your anger at the big polluters. We are doing our bit! Quite a lot actually. 

Crux of the matter here, we do need to do more than some polluters because we can do more.

[Fazzer 7]

14 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

No not maybe. It’s a guarantee. Tens maybe hundreds of millions of people will be displaced.

 

also… are you now advocating for activism? 

You can go over to China with some Orange paint if you like. I’m sure you’ll find them most welcoming. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

You can go over to China with some Orange paint if you like. I’m sure you’ll find them most welcoming. 

... is there a valid good faith argument in the offing here, or is what is to come more debunked attempts at deflection?

 

Look - we've talked before on this and I presented information that you seemed to welcome, is there really a need to retread old ground?

Edited 2 November 2022 by leicsmac

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

They’re all part of the same crisis. The climate catastrophe will create millions of refugees. 

Oh ffs, more Albanians?! 

[Fazzer 7]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... is there a valid good faith argument in the offing here, or is what is to come more debunked attempts at deflection?

 

Look - we've talked before on this and I presented information that you seemed to welcome, is there really a need to retread old ground?

@urban.spacemanasked me if I was advocating activism. That was my slightly cynical response. Yes you know my views on this subject.  I know yours, everyone on here does. Where we differ, I believe. Is you and many here seem to believe Britain should and can save the world against the effects of climate change. Clearly it can’t. What we’ve done here thus far is substantial in my view, and no doubt it will continue to be. Meanwhile, China and others continue building coal fired power stations. You no doubt will say we shouldn’t be participating in a race to the bottom. We’re not. But there is a limit to what we as a small country, with debt of more than trillion can do in the here and now. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

@urban.spacemanasked me if I was advocating activism. That was my slightly cynical response. Yes you know my views on this subject.  I know yours, everyone on here does. Where we differ, I believe. Is you and many here seem to believe Britain should and can save the world against the effects of climate change. Clearly it can’t. What we’ve done here thus far is substantial in my view, and no doubt it will continue to be. Meanwhile, China and others continue building coal fired power stations. You no doubt will say we shouldn’t be participating in a race to the bottom. We’re not. But there is a limit to what we as a small country, with debt of more than trillion can do in the here and now. 

The UK has the obligation to try, in tandem with other nations wherever and whenever.

 

Allow me to phrase things differently, and ask another couple of questions, because while we've talked about this at length I could do with a little more clarity.

 

How do you foresee the next few decades turning out in terms of such things, if the leading nations follow the path you believe them to be taking? (I've made my thoughts on it abundantly clear, what are yours?)

 

and...

 

What kind of evidence would it take to convince you that the UK and other nations need to take on a leading role in this matter?

 

NB. I'm genuinely curious and seeking understanding on this. I think it's essential.

Edited 2 November 2022 by leicsmac

[BenTheFox]

That was a truly appalling performance from Rishi Sunak. He didn't answer a single question. Also, his Corbyn deflection tactic was also incredibly forced, irrelevant and frankly pitiful. Anyone with an ounce of brains can see through it. 

[Voll Blau]

4 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

That was a truly appalling performance from Rishi Sunak. He didn't answer a single question. Also, his Corbyn deflection tactic was also incredibly forced, irrelevant and frankly pitiful. Anyone with an ounce of brains can see through it. 

As I said last week, he's in real trouble if he's just resorting to Johnson tribute act lines this early on. It's often said Labour's problem electorally is that they always try and fight the previous election, seems like Sunak's going to try and do just that the way he's carrying on.

 

Couldn't help but notice how stony-faced Mordaunt was throughout it all. There's clearly no love lost there...

[grobyfox1990]

26 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

@urban.spacemanasked me if I was advocating activism. That was my slightly cynical response. Yes you know my views on this subject.  I know yours, everyone on here does. Where we differ, I believe. Is you and many here seem to believe Britain should and can save the world against the effects of climate change. Clearly it can’t. What we’ve done here thus far is substantial in my view, and no doubt it will continue to be. Meanwhile, China and others continue building coal fired power stations. You no doubt will say we shouldn’t be participating in a race to the bottom. We’re not. But there is a limit to what we as a small country, with debt of more than trillion can do in the here and now. 

Hey man am i part of the 'many here'!! To disassociate myself from the science crowd, i believe we 'should and can save the world against the effects of climate change' because there's a barrel load of cash to be made from it, and we're smack broke at the minute, so probably need to find new markets/industries or we will become even more of a pointless island in the ocean.

 

I applaud @leicsemac and that mob on here but lets be honest the man on the clapham omnibus doesn't give a flying f4ck about what peer-reviewed papers say, if they even know what that term means, its not reality, and the rhetoric is just far too negative, its failed to convince people for decades and won't start now. We need to see climate change as the greatest market opportunity to bring back GREAT britain ever, with a side consequence of saving the planet. That'll get people going!

 

People have a tough time understanding that not everyone sees things EXACTLY the same way they do, just read some of the comments around Brexit yesterday, saying people who voted 'leave' should admit they are wrong lol, baffling. If you don't see climate as a threat and do not believe we can make a difference to it, flip the script. See it as an opportunity. Both viewpoints are correct and neither makes you 'thick'