Climate Change - a poll

[CornwallFox]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I think the Americans (well the right anyway) are expecting fusion to work and be commercial en masse within 25 years.    Too late ?  Probably for a lot of people but then if fusion can work we’ll have affordable A/C everywhere that wants it.  Across large parts of the globe we’d become effectively an indoor species for much of the year.  

I don't think the Americans want nuclear, they're happy making money from oil. I think carbon capture is how they imagine they can do both once we have half the global population

[Grebfromgrebland]

I think the plan is to massively reduce the population which should solve a lot of issues though not palatable 

[Dahnsouff]

Kingsley Davis was bang on point in 1967

 

Quote

government policy to lower birth rates would read like a “catalogue of horrors” — including things like squeezing consumers through taxation/inflation, making housing scarce, forcing more mothers into paid work without childcare support, etc

foreshadowing as they call it thesecdaya

[MC Prussian]

On 11/01/2026 at 17:20, Grebfromgrebland said:

I think the plan is to massively reduce the population which should solve a lot of issues though not palatable 

What plan?

 

Are you advocating for war(s)? Because that's the quickest way to massively reduce the population.

 

Or we could make sure economic growth and/or prosperity can be "exported" to Third World countries, in order to dampen or prevent mass migration.

 

And we should continue to talk about China, as they are the biggest polluters on this planet, with the US a distinct second.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country

India is not far behind, either.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

What plan?

 

Are you advocating for war(s)? Because that's the quickest way to massively reduce the population.

 

Or we could make sure economic growth and/or prosperity can be "exported" to Third World countries, in order to dampen or prevent mass migration.

 

And we should continue to talk about China, as they are the biggest polluters on this planet, with the US a distinct second.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country

India is not far behind, either.

Purely for the record, this line of argument pretty much amounts to tacit acceptance that drastic ecological change is inevitable, because if China are not doing enough to mitigate the harm they're doing ecologically, then neither are any of the world major powers. 

 

As such, I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this argument is, apart from perhaps a method of looking to absolve those same other world powers of responsibility for the horrible times that may come and that they are responsible for, given that if it comes to that they had the power to do enough and simply didn't. 

 

Do agree with the idea of exporting clean energy methods to as many developing places as possible as fast as possible, though. 

[leicsmac]

With respect to the population discussion earlier, I'm sure that those with a sociopathic view towards the future have at least had the idea of ridding it of a great many people to further enhance their own power. The tech advances in AI and the like are no doubt viewed by some as a way to replace people. 

 

Won't work, of course, given that human civilisation runs on people (do you know how many are involved in the production of a simple ballpoint pen from start to delivery?) and tech and whatever loyal servants they have left won't be able to come close to plugging the gaps, so if population crashes, their own quality of life will crash along with everyone else's. Think Ted Faro in Thebes. 

[CornwallFox]

Over £100m spent on republican election support by the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.rinnovabili.net/business/markets/fossil-fuels-trump-industry-ties-report/

 

Republicans move to create legal shield from climate related damages for the fossil fuel industry. https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20251015-us-republicans-seek-to-shield-oil-giants-as-climate-lawsuits-advance

[Grebfromgrebland]

18 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Over £100m spent on republican election support by the fossil fuel industry.

https://www.rinnovabili.net/business/markets/fossil-fuels-trump-industry-ties-report/

 

Republicans move to create legal shield from climate related damages for the fossil fuel industry. https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20251015-us-republicans-seek-to-shield-oil-giants-as-climate-lawsuits-advance

The only way is to take up arms.

 

 

[The Year Of The Fox]

A slightly annoying hiccup to buck a trend they wanted to be able to broadcast.
 

Fortunately there’s a name/term/reason for it which enables them to carry on with the party line 

 

La niña

Edited 14 January by The Year Of The Fox

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

A slightly annoying hiccup to buck a trend they wanted to be able to broadcast.
 

Fortunately there’s a name/term/reason for it which enables them to carry on with the party line 

 

La niña

More on this:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5p9rzd4ko

 

.

Not sure it's a trend they "want to broadcast" rather than one that well... just exists, in the same way as any other output of the laws of physics. 

 

Denial of such things isn't really helpful. 

[CornwallFox]

We're 40-70 years ahead of the worst climate models. 

Edited 19 January by CornwallFox

[Trav Le Bleu]

Great chance to get people out, not using their cars, yet government....

 

Protest held against decision to fill in Queensbury Tunnel - BBC News

 

https://share.google/I2UXL5O821aY8GCKT

 

[leicsmac]

Sometimes I wish that the poll at the top of this thread wasn't anonymous.

 

That being said, as has been said before, it does actually match polling data on the matter for the broader UK population.

 

Perhaps two of the five main parties in the UK might consider that before crafting policy on the matter designed with the 8% in mind, rather than the 71.54%.

[MC Prussian]

On 14/01/2026 at 08:10, leicsmac said:

More on this:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5p9rzd4ko

 

.

Not sure it's a trend they "want to broadcast" rather than one that well... just exists, in the same way as any other output of the laws of physics. 

 

Denial of such things isn't really helpful. 

It's also not really helpful to put things into perspective, you know, giving context:

https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-hotter-now-than-any-time-in-100-000-years-210126

 

I don't see many media outlets going into further detail here, or referencing this chart – instead, they focus on the same old "panic mode" scenario (whatever works best to generate clicks, I guess):
I've said this before: Judging by Earth's history, for every warming period, there's been a (very long) cooling period, too (as extreme as Ice Ages).

Edited 19 January by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It's also not really helpful to put things into perspective, you know, giving context:

https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-hotter-now-than-any-time-in-100-000-years-210126

 

I don't see many media outlets going into further detail here, or referencing this chart – instead, they focus on the same old "panic mode" scenario (whatever works best to generate clicks, I guess):
I've said this before: Judging by Earth's history, for every warming period, there's been a (very long) cooling period, too (as extreme as Ice Ages).

It's not really helpful either to refer to something that the scientific community is well aware of and has also been referenced on here before, too. By a conversation between the two of us, come to that. 

 

To wit from a later interaction:

 

Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them. 

 

Complacency through ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics will only bring us very, very bad outcomes. But then I think a lot of people supposedly ignorant actually know that, they just choose not to think it won't spin on them and their lives before they end. 

[grobyfox1990]

33 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

It's also not really helpful to put things into perspective, you know, giving context:

https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-hotter-now-than-any-time-in-100-000-years-210126

 

I don't see many media outlets going into further detail here, or referencing this chart – instead, they focus on the same old "panic mode" scenario (whatever works best to generate clicks, I guess):
I've said this before: Judging by Earth's history, for every warming period, there's been a (very long) cooling period, too (as extreme as Ice Ages).

No doubt about that but we've built a world which is only operational with a narrow temperature range. Once you get out of that range, big costs and big changes to lifestyle follow. This was not the case 100k years ago (obvs). 

[Tommy G]

Climate change wars ...........fiiiiiiiiiiiight

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Climate change wars ...........fiiiiiiiiiiiight

I believe I've heard it said that humanity is three missed meals from reverting to barbarism. 

 

Once there's a lot of pressure on arable land and potable water sources as they become more sparse...

[SpacedX]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I believe I've heard it said that humanity is three missed meals from reverting to barbarism. 

 

I think it was Lenin, and yes, meaning that society can quickly descend into chaos or anarchy if basic needs like food, the foundational Maslovian needs aren't fulfilled. He was highlighting how fragile civilisation actually is and how quickly order breaks down when people are desperate, with some variations suggesting "24 hours" away from barbarism. It was popularly coined during the farmer's protests over the inheritance taxation when they threatened to disrupt supply chains and starve supermarket shelves. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's not really helpful either to refer to something that the scientific community is well aware of and has also been referenced on here before, too. By a conversation between the two of us, come to that. 

 

To wit from a later interaction:

 

Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them. 

 

Complacency through ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics will only bring us very, very bad outcomes. But then I think a lot of people supposedly ignorant actually know that, they just choose not to think it won't spin on them and their lives before they end. 

Also worth noting that human civilisation wasn't around in these times either. Looks like the period where the Earth warms to similar temperatures as now coincides with the start of history c.5000 BCE.

[fox_up_north]

I remember a friend telling me nearly 20 years ago he felt we would be the last generation to fully live and we'd see the decline, but he saw it more as "we'll benefit from the most achieved".

 

I laughed, at the time. 

 

China's population has now hit steady decline and will be half at 2100 or so. That seems to be the only way things change. Massive decrease in birth rates, about 30-40 years of the old enduring unpleasantness and around 2120 might be improving. 

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

It's also not really helpful to put things into perspective, you know, giving context:

https://theconversation.com/is-it-really-hotter-now-than-any-time-in-100-000-years-210126

 

I don't see many media outlets going into further detail here, or referencing this chart – instead, they focus on the same old "panic mode" scenario (whatever works best to generate clicks, I guess):
I've said this before: Judging by Earth's history, for every warming period, there's been a (very long) cooling period, too (as extreme as Ice Ages).

The flaw and outright danger of such cherry picking was explained to you, what, seven or eight years ago now? And as mentioned, do you think that climatologists/climate scientists are ignorant of this data or unaware of the causes? 

 

"Context"? "Perspective"? Let's add some shall we? The cause of today’s climate change differs from the planetary forces responsible for the breaks between ice ages. Past cycles, (chiefly Milankovitch cycles - eccentricity, obliquity/axial tilt and precession) - caused warming by increasing the sunlight reaching icy parts of the Earth. As ice melted, the Earth became less reflective, and retained more of the sun’s heat. That warming led carbon dioxide to move from the ocean into the atmosphere, accelerating that change. But today, the cause is reversed: by burning fossil fuels, anthropogenic climate change is driven by the large amounts of CO2 that have been put into the atmosphere very quickly, and that has spurred warming. As explained, the speed of climatic change today is unprecedented. The amount of CO2 that humans have added over just the last hundred years is comparable to the amount that was added over 100 centuries after the last ice age. To put it another way, in the industrial era, atmospheric carbon has risen about 100 times faster than when humans emerged from the last ice age. That difference is part of why current climate change is so alarming. 

 

At the end of the last ice age, ecosystems, gradually over many millennia adapted to the warming as it occurred. Currently they have much less time because of the rapidity and rate of warming. To reiterate, mankind has established entire societies around the current climate. Where we cultivate food, build cities, and set up infrastructure are all inextricably geographically linked with the environment as it looked over recent history. Now that environment is changing exponentially. If this isn't arrested, civilisation is facing catastrophic destabilisation. 

 

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's not really helpful either to refer to something that the scientific community is well aware of and has also been referenced on here before, too. By a conversation between the two of us, come to that. 

 

To wit from a later interaction:

 

Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them. 

 

Complacency through ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics will only bring us very, very bad outcomes. But then I think a lot of people supposedly ignorant actually know that, they just choose not to think it won't spin on them and their lives before they end. 

I remember. And I also mentioned that we ought to prepare for that cooling period, just as much as we have to learn to live with higher temperatures.

The cooling period will come, eventually (just not in my or anybody else's lifetime, mind).

 

Also, a drop in temperature can happen any day already. As we remember the Year Without A Summer (1816) or the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.

 

I also stated that I have great faith in humanity and our technological advancement. Add to that the expected decline in population around 2050, and we'll be fine.

 

Energy saving efforts in Europe are all fine and dandy – as long as nations such as China (way ahead of everybody else), the US, India, Russia or Japan don't change their policies, it'll all be for naught. All our efforts turn into a blimp in history (as they already do). And then it serves nothing but to soothe the individual or collective guilty conscience, and turns into virtue signaling to the rest of the world.

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No doubt about that but we've built a world which is only operational with a narrow temperature range. Once you get out of that range, big costs and big changes to lifestyle follow. This was not the case 100k years ago (obvs). 

Looking at the middle class dissolving more and more, not much change needed when all you require is the bare minimum.

 

We're also 80+ years into a time period without any major war (in Europe). That is unprecedented.

That safety has made a lot of people complacent, I'd say.

I have a grandmother who survived WWII (the bombing of Königsberg) who's still alive today, and that gives me some perspective.

 

As another element, I'd also claim that many people lack historical knowledge and or historical context and don't know about the past, don't want to learn from the past. They live their life as they please, in the moment, some way beyond their means. And I can't blame them for that. They don't know what a crisis or sacrifice really means.

When water, food and power is gone.

I'm the last one to preach, it's just something I keep in mind on a regular basis, my plea for us to be more conscientious.

Edited 19 January by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I remember. And I also mentioned that we ought to prepare for that cooling period, just as much as we have to learn to live with higher temperatures.

The cooling period will come, eventually (just not in my or anybody else's lifetime, mind).

 

Also, a drop in temperature can happen any day already. As we remember the Year Without A Summer (1816) or the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.

 

I also stated that I have great faith in humanity and our technological advancement. Add to that the expected decline in population around 2050, and we'll be fine.

 

Energy saving efforts in Europe are all fine and dandy – as long as nations such as China (way ahead of everybody else), the US, India, Russia or Japan don't change their policies, it'll all be for naught. All our efforts turn into a blimp in history (as they already do). And then it serves nothing but to soothe the individual or collective guilty conscience, and turns into virtue signaling to the rest of the world.

There will be more examples of extreme weather as the overall trend goes upwards. Whether that's interrupted by singular disastrous events causing short-term disruption in that way is something that should be considered, but only as a possibility to plan for, rather than the certainty of the effects of increased average global temperatures.

 

Like you, I have faith that humanity can overcome thanks to their tech development. Whether they will, however, will come down to how many people and nations are willing to "plant trees they will never sit in the shade of". Long term thinking, planning and execution of infrastructure, to prevent, prepare and mitigate, is vital.

 

WRT the last paragraph, really speaking, the only option is for those with that farsight to at least try to bring enough people and resources onside across the world. If not, failure is the only option. And future generations, living in the vastly reduced circumstances that they will be living in, will curse and blame everyone for not doing enough. And they'll be right to.