Climate Change - a poll

[MC Prussian]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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...

That was decades before the talk about climate change, driven by the constant fear/presence of war.

 

We've seen an unprecedented influx of migrants in the Western World in the past 20+ years (I know, a blip in the grand scheme of things), China, India and Africa have grown tremendously population-wise. Yet we still manage.

The five countries with the biggest growth in population are India, China, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico.

Instead of preaching to the choir over here, climate activists ought to focus their efforts on these parts of the world (I don't see the likes of Greta Thunberg in Lagos, Delhi or Beijing that often – I wonder why).

 

Regarding "pressure on arable land", there's efforts to turn deserts or steppes into agricultural land. Successfully, I might add:

https://earthshotprize.org/winners-finalists/desert-agricultural-transformation/

https://disruptorsmagazine.com/the-blooming-desert-how-israel-turned-arid-land-into-agricultural-gold/

 

Desalination could help, too:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/desalination-drinking-water-water-scarcity/

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That was decades before the talk about climate change, driven by the constant fear/presence of war.

 

We've seen an unprecedented influx of migrants in the Western World in the past 20+ years (I know, a blip in the grand scheme of things), China, India and Africa have grown tremendously population-wise. Yet we still manage.

The five countries with the biggest growth in population are India, China, Brazil, Nigeria and Mexico.

Instead of preaching to the choir over here, climate activists ought to focus their efforts on these parts of the world (I don't see the likes of Greta Thunberg in Lagos, Delhi or Beijing that often – I wonder why).

 

Regarding "pressure on arable land", there's efforts to turn deserts or steppes into agricultural land. Successfully, I might add:

https://earthshotprize.org/winners-finalists/desert-agricultural-transformation/

https://disruptorsmagazine.com/the-blooming-desert-how-israel-turned-arid-land-into-agricultural-gold/

 

Desalination could help, too:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/desalination-drinking-water-water-scarcity/

I believe this to be rather missing the point. 

 

There have been wars over vital resources before. There will be again. 

 

The resource balance is "fine" (for a very given value of) now. It may not be in a couple of decades unless action is taken. 

 

While desalination or regrowing projects have a chance, it remains that - just a chance. They are just part of a suite of solutions needed, or there will come a time when a lot of the equatorial regions become simply uninhabitable due to lack of sourcing fresh water. 

 

Such a lack of such a scale will mean a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportions. The warfare over those vital spots that still have fresh water would just be one part of it. 

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, SpacedX said:

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. 

 

As you state in your own words, the speed of change is unheard of.

We have no other scenario in (recent) human history that comes close.

I'm not debating/negating the development (in the past 250+ years).

 

As you're explaining succinctly, we simply have no true frame of reference as to how the Earth will respond to this development.

I guess it's all a question of frame of mind. Do I accept climate change? Sure. Who wouldn't?

 

I guess; I just don't belong to the alarmist faction. No one can predict the future, not even scientists.

As stated prior, the discussion in the UK/the EU/Europe is somwheat redundant. I think it's great we're undertaking efforts to turn our societies into more eco-friendly ones. I'm just not sure it's worth preaching on a UK forum, when the real culprits are found elsewhere.

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I believe this to be rather missing the point. 

 

There have been wars over vital resources before. There will be again. 

 

The resource balance is "fine" (for a very given value of) now. It may not be in a couple of decades unless action is taken. 

 

While desalination or regrowing projects have a chance, it remains that - just a chance. They are just part of a suite of solutions needed, or there will come a time when a lot of the equatorial regions become simply uninhabitable due to lack of sourcing fresh water. 

 

Such a lack of such a scale will mean a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportions. The warfare over those vital spots that still have fresh water would just be one part of it. 

Which as a result means people killing each other, thus reducing the world's population again (briefly).

 

Those wars will be fought elsewhere, in Africa and Asia, in particular.

 

And again, we're at the issue of growth in global population, driven by a handful of countries – and Africa.  I guess that'd mean the birth rate will have to come down. Which it will, with or without wars.

As stated before, it's all hypothetical. No one knows what the outcome will be. I guess we'll have to wait and see – and put faith in science and technology.

Humanity has shown tremendous resilience to all sorts of crisis, and the Earth is still coping. As humanity is nothing but a drop in the ocean of Earth history.

 

We've had a lot of alarmists and doom mongers in the past. They're all dead now – and humanity is still kicking.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Which as a result means people killing each other, thus reducing the world's population again (briefly).

 

Those wars will be fought elsewhere, in Africa and Asia, in particular.

 

And again, we're at the issue of growth in global population, driven by a handful of countries – and Africa.  I guess that'd mean the birth rate will have to come down. Which it will, with or without wars.

As stated before, it's all hypothetical. No one knows what the outcome will be. I guess we'll have to wait and see – and put faith in science and technology.

Humanity has shown tremendous resilience to all sorts of crisis, and the Earth is still coping. As humanity is nothing but a drop in the ocean of Earth history.

 

We've had a lot of alarmists and doom mongers in the past. They're all dead now – and humanity is still kicking.

Driven by the unshakeable faith that the Earth is ours, huh?

 

Perhaps it will just be "limited" (and I use that word very, very loosely considering it's still allowing for completely unnecessary human suffering) to what is described here. Perhaps it won't. The key thing about the "doom-mongers", as it is put here, is that they only have to be right once.

 

And, with respect to the wider picture, I would like to see humanity become a species not just of thousands of years, but of millions. And the only way that happens is by adaptation and prevention. The latter mostly because in that miniscule fraction of time that humanity has existed, the Earth has barely even scratched the surface of what consequences it can mete out to a species that does not adapt and puts short term self interest first. 

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

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.

Lol mate war would be very nice in comparison to what a 4* world would look like. All the boomers that bang on about the hard times they lived through are spoiled brats/completely naive/lazy (prob all) if they’re comparing their upbringing to what’s coming next. Anyway there’s plenty of robust and free scenario analysis tools out there to give you your own idea.

edit - plenty of cash to be made out of it too as you better believe happy clappers will keep denying this issue, imo they then deserve to get fiscally hammered 

Edited 19 January by grobyfox1990

[grobyfox1990]

Overall global economic losses stemming from disasters, including thunderstorms and earthquakes, totalled about $260bn, according to the review by insurance broker Aon.

Happy clappers are right tbf, climate change is waaaaay too expensive, just not for the reasons they think it is

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Overall global economic losses stemming from disasters, including thunderstorms and earthquakes, totalled about $260bn, according to the review by insurance broker Aon.

Happy clappers are right tbf, climate change is waaaaay too expensive, just not for the reasons they think it is

And that cost is only going to follow the trend of global average temperature. 

 

Up, up and away!

 

It's always been a case of buy now or pay much, much more later. Just far too many people in denial about the payment coming due. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9y1e09j72o

 

The decline in the health of nature around the world poses a threat to the UK's security and prosperity, an intelligence committee has concluded in a long-awaited report.

The document warns of "cascading risks" from the degradation of some of the planet's most important ecosystems, including conflict, migration and increased competition for resources.

Pointing to the UK's reliance on ecosystems that are "on a pathway to collapse" – such as the Amazon rainforest – the report warns of rising food prices and says that UK food security could be at risk.

 

... this is only being published as news now? It's been obvious for a decade or more. 

 

Ecosystem decline due to human activity -> resource scarcity in many regions affected by that decline -> shooting and migration over those limited resources vastly increases. 

 

The chain of causality is hardly difficult. 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9y1e09j72o

 

The decline in the health of nature around the world poses a threat to the UK's security and prosperity, an intelligence committee has concluded in a long-awaited report.

The document warns of "cascading risks" from the degradation of some of the planet's most important ecosystems, including conflict, migration and increased competition for resources.

Pointing to the UK's reliance on ecosystems that are "on a pathway to collapse" – such as the Amazon rainforest – the report warns of rising food prices and says that UK food security could be at risk.

 

... this is only being published as news now? It's been obvious for a decade or more. 

 

Ecosystem decline due to human activity -> resource scarcity in many regions affected by that decline -> shooting and migration over those limited resources vastly increases. 

 

The chain of causality is hardly difficult. 

 

I think it's been reported plenty, it's just no one will listen until it happens.

 

I told you so.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I think it's been reported plenty, it's just no one will listen until it happens.

 

I told you so.

No disagreement there. 

 

Denial is apparently not just a river in Egypt. And that same denial could well lead us all down a very dark path. 

[CornwallFox]

On 19/01/2026 at 18:58, MC Prussian said:

As you state in your own words, the speed of change is unheard of.

We have no other scenario in (recent) human history that comes close.

I'm not debating/negating the development (in the past 250+ years).

 

As you're explaining succinctly, we simply have no true frame of reference as to how the Earth will respond to this development.

I guess it's all a question of frame of mind. Do I accept climate change? Sure. Who wouldn't?

 

I guess; I just don't belong to the alarmist faction. No one can predict the future, not even scientists.

As stated prior, the discussion in the UK/the EU/Europe is somwheat redundant. I think it's great we're undertaking efforts to turn our societies into more eco-friendly ones. I'm just not sure it's worth preaching on a UK forum, when the real culprits are found elsewhere.

The world is interconnected. When one country shows something can be done others follow as it's economically illiterate to fall behind the times.

Scientists are doing a pretty good job of predicting the future, if anything they haven't been 'alarmist' enough. Current trends are worse than even the worst predictions by quite some distance.

Edited 22 January by CornwallFox

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cvgdg475d4po

 

More record breaking. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

I saw the sun today.

 

Felt like the first time in weeks!

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-climate-fingerprints-human-atmosphere-bottom.html

 

The world is warming. This fact is most often discussed for Earth's surface, where we live. But the climate is also changing from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean. And there is a clear fingerprint of humanity's role in causing these changes through greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Over the last several decades, satellites have monitored Earth and measured how much heat enters and leaves the atmosphere. Over that time, as greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the atmosphere, there has been less heat escaping into space, causing an imbalance with more heat being retained.

The consequence is a rapidly heating planet.

 

And may those who come after us either cherish us for somehow doing the right thing to turn things round, or forgive us for giving to them a world vastly less capable of sustaining their life, and all life. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-climate-fingerprints-human-atmosphere-bottom.html

 

The world is warming. This fact is most often discussed for Earth's surface, where we live. But the climate is also changing from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean. And there is a clear fingerprint of humanity's role in causing these changes through greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Over the last several decades, satellites have monitored Earth and measured how much heat enters and leaves the atmosphere. Over that time, as greenhouse gas concentrations have increased in the atmosphere, there has been less heat escaping into space, causing an imbalance with more heat being retained.

The consequence is a rapidly heating planet.

 

And may those who come after us either cherish us for somehow doing the right thing to turn things round, or forgive us for giving to them a world vastly less capable of sustaining their life, and all life. 

Nah, don't worry. They'll all be dead.

[CornwallFox]

Climate change report fed into by our intelligence services that was squashed. Presumably because it would cause political chaos and is pretty stark. 

 

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-uk-climate-intelligence-quietly.html

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Climate change report fed into by our intelligence services that was squashed. Presumably because it would cause political chaos and is pretty stark. 

 

https://phys.org/news/2026-02-uk-climate-intelligence-quietly.html

 

This deserves a full copy and paste here for the sake of everyone reading it. It is spot on. 

 

Last autumn, a UK government report warned that climate-driven ecosystem collapse could lead to food shortages, mass migration, political extremism and even nuclear conflict. The report was never officially launched.

Commissioned by Defra—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and informed by intelligence agencies including MI5 and MI6, the briefing assessed how environmental degradation could affect UK national security.

 

At the last minute, the launch was canceled, reportedly blocked by Number 10. Thanks to pressure from campaigners and a freedom of information request, a 14-page version of the report was snuck out (no launch, not even a press release) on January 22.

 

That report says, "Critical ecosystems that support major food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles" are already under stress and represent a national security risk. If they failed, the consequences would be severe: water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, loss of arable land, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel zoonotic disease and loss of pharmaceutical resources.

In plainer terms, the UK would face hunger, thirst, disease and increasingly violent weather.

 

An unredacted version of the report, seen by the Times, goes further. It warns that the degradation of the Congo rainforest and the drying up of rivers fed by the Himalayas could drive people to flee to Europe (Britain's large south Asian diaspora would make it "an attractive destination"), leading to "more polarized and populist politics" and putting more pressure on national infrastructure.

 

The Times describes a "reasonable worst case scenario" in the report, where many ecosystems were "so stressed that they could soon pass the point where they could be protected." Declining Himalayan water supplies would "almost certainly escalate tensions" between China, India and Pakistan, potentially leading to nuclear conflict. Britain, which imports 40% of its food, would struggle to feed itself, the unredacted report says.

 

The report isn't an outlier, and these concerns are not confined to classified briefings. A 2024 report by the University of Exeter and think-tank IPPR warned that cascading climate impacts and tipping points threaten national security—exactly the risk outlined in the Defra report.

 

The government has not publicly explained why the launch was canceled. In response to the Times article, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesperson said, "Nature underpins our security, prosperity and resilience, and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is crucial to meeting them head on. The findings of this report will inform the action we take to prepare for the future."

 

Perhaps there are mundane reasons to be cautious about a report linked to the intelligence services that warns of global instability. But the absence of any formal briefing or ministerial comment is itself revealing—climate risks appear to be treated differently from other risks to national security. It's hard to imagine a report warning of national security risks from AI, China or ocean piracy getting the same treatment.

 

This episode is not even especially unusual, historically. Governments have been receiving warnings about climate change—and downplaying or delaying responses—for decades.

 

In January 1957, the Otago Daily Times reported a speech by New Zealand scientist Athol Rafter under the headline "Polar Ice Caps May Melt With Industrialisation." Rafter was merely repeating concerns already circulating internationally, including by a Canadian physicist whose similar warning went around the world in May 1953. Climate change first went viral more than seven decades ago.

 

By the early 1960s, scientists were holding meetings explicitly focused on the implications of carbon dioxide buildup. In 1965, a report to the US president's Science Advisory Council warned that "marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur."

Senior figures in the UK government were aware of these discussions by the late 1960s, while the very first environment white paper, in May 1970, mentions carbon dioxide build-up as a possible problem.

 

But the story we see today was the same. Reports are commissioned, urgent warnings are issued—and action is deferred. When climate change gained renewed momentum in the mid-1980s, following the discovery of the ozone hole and the effects of greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide, the message sharpened: Global warming will come quicker and hit harder than expected.

 

Margaret Thatcher finally acknowledged the threat in a landmark 1988 speech to the Royal Society. But when green groups tried to get her to make specific commitments, they had little success.

 

Since about 1990, the briefings have barely changed. Act now, or suffer severe consequences later. Those consequences, however, are no longer theoretical.

 

Why does nothing happen?

Partly, it's down to inertia. We have built societies in which carbon-intensive systems are locked in. Once you've built infrastructure around, say, the private petrol-powered automobile, it's hard for competitors to offer an alternative.

 

There's also a mental intertia: It's hard to let go of assumptions you grew up with in a more stable era.

Secrecy plays a role too. As the Defra report illustrates, uncomfortable assessments are often softened, delayed or buried. Then, if you do accept the need for action, you are then up against the problem of responsibility being fragmented across sectors and institutions, making it hard to know where to aim your efforts. Meanwhile, social movements fighting for climate action find it hard to sustain momentum for more than three years.

Here's the final irony. Conspiracy theorists and climate deniers insist governments are exaggerating the threat. In reality, the evidence increasingly suggests the opposite. Official assessments tend to lag behind scientific warnings, and the most pessimistic scenarios are often confined to technical or classified documents.

 

The situation is not better than we are told. It's actually far worse.

 

This is the reality, people. Denial will get you no place but the void. Along with a great proportion of our species and all species.

 

 

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This deserves a full copy and paste here for the sake of everyone reading it. It is spot on. 

 

Last autumn, a UK government report warned that climate-driven ecosystem collapse could lead to food shortages, mass migration, political extremism and even nuclear conflict. The report was never officially launched.

Commissioned by Defra—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and informed by intelligence agencies including MI5 and MI6, the briefing assessed how environmental degradation could affect UK national security.

 

At the last minute, the launch was canceled, reportedly blocked by Number 10. Thanks to pressure from campaigners and a freedom of information request, a 14-page version of the report was snuck out (no launch, not even a press release) on January 22.

 

That report says, "Critical ecosystems that support major food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles" are already under stress and represent a national security risk. If they failed, the consequences would be severe: water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, loss of arable land, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel zoonotic disease and loss of pharmaceutical resources.

In plainer terms, the UK would face hunger, thirst, disease and increasingly violent weather.

 

An unredacted version of the report, seen by the Times, goes further. It warns that the degradation of the Congo rainforest and the drying up of rivers fed by the Himalayas could drive people to flee to Europe (Britain's large south Asian diaspora would make it "an attractive destination"), leading to "more polarized and populist politics" and putting more pressure on national infrastructure.

 

The Times describes a "reasonable worst case scenario" in the report, where many ecosystems were "so stressed that they could soon pass the point where they could be protected." Declining Himalayan water supplies would "almost certainly escalate tensions" between China, India and Pakistan, potentially leading to nuclear conflict. Britain, which imports 40% of its food, would struggle to feed itself, the unredacted report says.

 

The report isn't an outlier, and these concerns are not confined to classified briefings. A 2024 report by the University of Exeter and think-tank IPPR warned that cascading climate impacts and tipping points threaten national security—exactly the risk outlined in the Defra report.

 

The government has not publicly explained why the launch was canceled. In response to the Times article, a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesperson said, "Nature underpins our security, prosperity and resilience, and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is crucial to meeting them head on. The findings of this report will inform the action we take to prepare for the future."

 

Perhaps there are mundane reasons to be cautious about a report linked to the intelligence services that warns of global instability. But the absence of any formal briefing or ministerial comment is itself revealing—climate risks appear to be treated differently from other risks to national security. It's hard to imagine a report warning of national security risks from AI, China or ocean piracy getting the same treatment.

 

This episode is not even especially unusual, historically. Governments have been receiving warnings about climate change—and downplaying or delaying responses—for decades.

 

In January 1957, the Otago Daily Times reported a speech by New Zealand scientist Athol Rafter under the headline "Polar Ice Caps May Melt With Industrialisation." Rafter was merely repeating concerns already circulating internationally, including by a Canadian physicist whose similar warning went around the world in May 1953. Climate change first went viral more than seven decades ago.

 

By the early 1960s, scientists were holding meetings explicitly focused on the implications of carbon dioxide buildup. In 1965, a report to the US president's Science Advisory Council warned that "marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur."

Senior figures in the UK government were aware of these discussions by the late 1960s, while the very first environment white paper, in May 1970, mentions carbon dioxide build-up as a possible problem.

 

But the story we see today was the same. Reports are commissioned, urgent warnings are issued—and action is deferred. When climate change gained renewed momentum in the mid-1980s, following the discovery of the ozone hole and the effects of greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide, the message sharpened: Global warming will come quicker and hit harder than expected.

 

Margaret Thatcher finally acknowledged the threat in a landmark 1988 speech to the Royal Society. But when green groups tried to get her to make specific commitments, they had little success.

 

Since about 1990, the briefings have barely changed. Act now, or suffer severe consequences later. Those consequences, however, are no longer theoretical.

 

Why does nothing happen?

Partly, it's down to inertia. We have built societies in which carbon-intensive systems are locked in. Once you've built infrastructure around, say, the private petrol-powered automobile, it's hard for competitors to offer an alternative.

 

There's also a mental intertia: It's hard to let go of assumptions you grew up with in a more stable era.

Secrecy plays a role too. As the Defra report illustrates, uncomfortable assessments are often softened, delayed or buried. Then, if you do accept the need for action, you are then up against the problem of responsibility being fragmented across sectors and institutions, making it hard to know where to aim your efforts. Meanwhile, social movements fighting for climate action find it hard to sustain momentum for more than three years.

Here's the final irony. Conspiracy theorists and climate deniers insist governments are exaggerating the threat. In reality, the evidence increasingly suggests the opposite. Official assessments tend to lag behind scientific warnings, and the most pessimistic scenarios are often confined to technical or classified documents.

 

The situation is not better than we are told. It's actually far worse.

 

This is the reality, people. Denial will get you no place but the void. Along with a great proportion of our species and all species.

 

 

Irrespective of the cause of CC, this is surely all understood by those capable of critical thinking.  The planet is warming faster than it would be expected to based on historical analysis. whether we can stop that is a moot point.  Could it be argued if we should be spending resources developing solutions to cope with a planet that has swathes of uninhabitable lands and unable to feed its populations based on existing methods rather than trying to slow the speed of warming.  The warming will happen even if we managed to slow it somewhat. The solutions are going to be needed in any case. 
 

not wanting to appear like an ostrich here but wondering whether we need to be thinking of some crazy looking ideas to deal with the fall out of CC as opposed to ending up being viewed as a generation of Canutes.

 

 Just throwing this out there ……

[Jattdogg]

The winter we have had so far in Ontario feels like a real winter (like we used to get).  Full of snow and temperatures from  less than 5 celsius to -25 celsius. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Irrespective of the cause of CC, this is surely all understood by those capable of critical thinking.  The planet is warming faster than it would be expected to based on historical analysis. whether we can stop that is a moot point.  Could it be argued if we should be spending resources developing solutions to cope with a planet that has swathes of uninhabitable lands and unable to feed its populations based on existing methods rather than trying to slow the speed of warming.  The warming will happen even if we managed to slow it somewhat. The solutions are going to be needed in any case. 
 

not wanting to appear like an ostrich here but wondering whether we need to be thinking of some crazy looking ideas to deal with the fall out of CC as opposed to ending up being viewed as a generation of Canutes.

 

 Just throwing this out there ……

You mean, like building a Thunderdome?

[st albans fox]

56 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You mean, like building a Thunderdome?

Lateral thinking- good start !

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Irrespective of the cause of CC, this is surely all understood by those capable of critical thinking.  The planet is warming faster than it would be expected to based on historical analysis. whether we can stop that is a moot point.  Could it be argued if we should be spending resources developing solutions to cope with a planet that has swathes of uninhabitable lands and unable to feed its populations based on existing methods rather than trying to slow the speed of warming.  The warming will happen even if we managed to slow it somewhat. The solutions are going to be needed in any case. 
 

not wanting to appear like an ostrich here but wondering whether we need to be thinking of some crazy looking ideas to deal with the fall out of CC as opposed to ending up being viewed as a generation of Canutes.

 

 Just throwing this out there ……

Well, you would think it would be self evident, yes, but sadly it would appear not. 

 

With respect to the general point being made here, it is a valid point but it's been made multiple times before, at length, and always seems a mite like both a deflection and a capitulation. We absolutely require solutions to mitigate a worst case scenario as described here, but quite frankly the consequences of that will be so severe that catastrophic damage will be done to life and infrastructure, no matter what we might do. We can perhaps do our best to limit the amount of bodies that will pile up, but there will still be plenty of them. 

 

So, yes, while we should devote time and attention to mitigation, considering that to be our best or only option is not only accepting the deaths of a truly massive amount of life, but also pretty much guaranteeing that prophecy will be self fulfilling through lack of effort. Future generations won't look at the why - they'll just say we all killed the world, and they'd be right to. 

 

So unless and until that is someone's idea of a morally acceptable time, then prevention, even to a small degree that might save a few lives, must be the priority, with mitigation a consideration, but only to be used when all other options are absolutely and categorically exhausted. 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, you would think it would be self evident, yes, but sadly it would appear not. 

 

With respect to the general point being made here, it is a valid point but it's been made multiple times before, at length, and always seems a mite like both a deflection and a capitulation. We absolutely require solutions to mitigate a worst case scenario as described here, but quite frankly the consequences of that will be so severe that catastrophic damage will be done to life and infrastructure, no matter what we might do. We can perhaps do our best to limit the amount of bodies that will pile up, but there will still be plenty of them. 

 

So, yes, while we should devote time and attention to mitigation, considering that to be our best or only option is not only accepting the deaths of a truly massive amount of life, but also pretty much guaranteeing that prophecy will be self fulfilling through lack of effort. Future generations won't look at the why - they'll just say we all killed the world, and they'd be right to. 

 

So unless and until that is someone's idea of a morally acceptable time, then prevention, even to a small degree that might save a few lives, must be the priority, with mitigation a consideration, but only to be used when all other options are absolutely and categorically exhausted. 

Understand that and it’s broadly the accepted way forward but does trying to hold back the sea mean that we’ll end up with more dead than finding solutions to living on a baking planet?  Impossible to answer. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Understand that and it’s broadly the accepted way forward but does trying to hold back the sea mean that we’ll end up with more dead than finding solutions to living on a baking planet?  Impossible to answer. 

No, and I think that answer is not only possible, but obvious. 

 

At least, it gives us the chance to end up with less dead, whereas that other option gives us zero chance of that.