Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I would like to see Africa in that chart.

Here it is in map form.

 

 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The problem there is that the people saying things are going to hell in a handbasket only need to be right once. 

 

But, again, if a person wants to simply let things play out in the short term and trust in human ingenuity, driven by the unshakeable faith that the earth is ours (or by the idea that it's not, but that's OK too because all species die) then that's between them and their own conscience. Everyone views the world differently, after all. 

I can see right through that playbook. It's the same with all quacks, charlatans, palm readers, mediums. They only need to be right once and the herd believes them.

Never ended well. There's plenty of past examples.

 

I, however, look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of mankind to cope with all sorts of dire conditions.

[leicsmac]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

I can see right through that playbook. It's the same with all quacks, charlatans, palm readers, mediums. They only need to be right once and the herd believes them.

Never ended well. There's plenty of past examples.

 

I, however, look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of mankind to cope with all sorts of dire conditions.

Well, in a reasonably short space of time (given current data), one of us is going to be wrong. 

 

I think that it's you. 

I hope that it's me. 

 

Have a good evening, Prussian. 

[Zear0]

33 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I can see right through that playbook. It's the same with all quacks, charlatans, palm readers, mediums. They only need to be right once and the herd believes them.

Never ended well. There's plenty of past examples.

 

I, however, look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of mankind to cope with all sorts of dire conditions.

Probably makes more sense to avoid the dire conditions in the first place.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

 

 

I, however, look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of mankind to cope with all sorts of dire conditions.

Weird.

 

I look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of humankind to b***ocks it up and barely survive by the skin of its teeth.

Edited 30 July by Trav Le Bleu

[CornwallFox]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I can see right through that playbook. It's the same with all quacks, charlatans, palm readers, mediums. They only need to be right once and the herd believes them.

Never ended well. There's plenty of past examples.

 

I, however, look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of mankind to cope with all sorts of dire conditions.

What a load of word salad cobblers

[leicsmac]

Clearly I need to be less diplomatic when I'm talking about this stuff on here. 

[ozleicester]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Clearly I need to be less diplomatic when I'm talking about this stuff on here. 

I wouldnt if i were you

[Robo61]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I can see right through that playbook. It's the same with all quacks, charlatans, palm readers, mediums. They only need to be right once and the herd believes them.

Never ended well. There's plenty of past examples.

 

I, however, look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of mankind to cope with all sorts of dire conditions.

So let me get this right you are comparing a group of scientists with quacks, palm readers and mediums,  really?????????  

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

So let me get this right you are comparing a group of scientists with quacks, palm readers and mediums,  really?????????  

No, I mean some of the argumentation used by fearmongers in this thread, in particular @leicsmac.

[MC Prussian]

11 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Probably makes more sense to avoid the dire conditions in the first place.

And how would you go on about that?

Edited 31 July by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

On a more positive note, winemakers can expect a bombastic harvest this year.

[MC Prussian]

10 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Weird.

 

I look back at history and acknowledge the tremendous ability of humankind to b***ocks it up and barely survive by the skin of its teeth.

Sure, let‘s ignore the impact of grave diseases and the fact that we‘ve made tremendous strides by overcoming our deficiencies and mistakes of the past, such as large-scale wars.

 

As @leicsmac put it, all a matter of perspective.

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

What a load of word salad cobblers

And your argument with regards to climate change is…?

[Zear0]

28 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And how would you go on about that?

I think in this response and others you're deliberately conflating things being difficult and there being no benefit in even trying.  Even the most Brighton holiday going hipster Greens aren't suggesting turn fossil fuels off over night.  

 

But to your earlier point, you're effectively arguing that because humans are adaptable, we shouldn't bother trying . Do you also think let's not bother with flood defences as people can rebuild houses, stop crime prevention as people will get over being a victim, stop with vaccinations as we've survived plagues in the past?  Musk once described combustion engines as quaint and primitive relics that will soon be in the museum.  As someone who spends lots of free time volunteering at GCR clambering over such relics, I get the appeal but also learnt long ago the world moves on and we don't any more luddites holding back society and future generations when I'm pushing up the daises.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression from your comments is that you're aware that utilising a finite commodity that is both directly and indirectly costly and that you simply don't care and fear any change?  I've posted this before, but the IEA https://www.iea.org/topics/fossil-fuel-subsidies has the cost of fuel subsidises at about $1tn per year with the damage caused by the changing climate around $7tn.  Climate change isn't free and we're seeing every single day the damage from flooding, droughts, wild fires, crop failures, insurance costs and the health impact to breathing shitty air.  I'm not sure the British wine industries boom you mention offsets the cost of the food crops that are dying around the country as we speak.  Sure the wine growers of Bordeaux aren't shouting about their harvest given it's all up in flames.

 

What do we do?  Stop deliberately pretending fossil fuel are cheap and that this business is some naturally cheap, perfectly efficient market that doesn't benefit from enormous direct and indirect subsidies, while much of the environmental and health damage they cause is paid for by everyone else (us) rather than reflected in their market price.  I appreciate lots of people don't actually give a toss about climate change and that we need to make this an economic argument.  I struggle to see how having cheaper renewable electricity, energy security, reduced dependence on imported oil and gas, new industries and export markets are a detriment. Sitting on the side-lines because "it's difficult" is how you end up being left behind and at the mercy of Russia, Iran, the Emirates and the US.  I personally am not a fan of that cabal sending my monthly energy bill from £80pm to £280.

 

Have to also pick you up on comparing climate science to palm readers or mediums. Climate science is built on physics, chemistry, satellite observations and measurements and that's just anti-science that belong for the unlettered.  Just a daft statement.

 

"It's hard, therefore we shouldn't bother." That's not pragmatism; it's defeatism. Reducing harm, lowering future costs and investing in better technology is exactly what successful societies have always done.  There are some absolute donkeys on this forum and you're definitely not one so it's a weird hill you're choosing to die on here.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

And your argument with regards to climate change is…?

The science of the general affects of burning fossil fuels are very well known and understood, have been for decades, and current models are underplaying the effects that are being observed in the real world. 

 

Without serious and urgent change, those effects are potentially an existential threat to much of humanity. 

 

The activity required to cut fossil fuel use realistically area also very well known and have been set out very clearly in IPCC reports. There is no lack of ability to stop further harm of the political will were there. 

 

Humanity has overcome many things but if we see 3-4°C warming, we are in big, big trouble. Crop failures, huge wildfires, nation scale flooding, 45°C heat domes lasting weeks are already happening. That's at just shy of 1.5°C.

 

There is no serious scientific debate any more. Muddying of the waters comes purely from fossil fuel funded media and social media. 

 

Anybody still burying their head in the sand, saying we don't have to act immediately, that we can simply mitigate and get used to it etc is lying to themselves. You have to activity refuse to engage with the science too take that sort of view. You have to be intentionally, deliberately not wanting to engage with the truth to have any view other than urgent action is required and governments should stop putting profits before humanity. 

[grobyfox1990]

46 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I think in this response and others you're deliberately conflating things being difficult and there being no benefit in even trying.  Even the most Brighton holiday going hipster Greens aren't suggesting turn fossil fuels off over night.  

 

But to your earlier point, you're effectively arguing that because humans are adaptable, we shouldn't bother trying . Do you also think let's not bother with flood defences as people can rebuild houses, stop crime prevention as people will get over being a victim, stop with vaccinations as we've survived plagues in the past?  Musk once described combustion engines as quaint and primitive relics that will soon be in the museum.  As someone who spends lots of free time volunteering at GCR clambering over such relics, I get the appeal but also learnt long ago the world moves on and we don't any more luddites holding back society and future generations when I'm pushing up the daises.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression from your comments is that you're aware that utilising a finite commodity that is both directly and indirectly costly and that you simply don't care and fear any change?  I've posted this before, but the IEA https://www.iea.org/topics/fossil-fuel-subsidies has the cost of fuel subsidises at about $1tn per year with the damage caused by the changing climate around $7tn.  Climate change isn't free and we're seeing every single day the damage from flooding, droughts, wild fires, crop failures, insurance costs and the health impact to breathing shitty air.  I'm not sure the British wine industries boom you mention offsets the cost of the food crops that are dying around the country as we speak.  Sure the wine growers of Bordeaux aren't shouting about their harvest given it's all up in flames.

 

What do we do?  Stop deliberately pretending fossil fuel are cheap and that this business is some naturally cheap, perfectly efficient market that doesn't benefit from enormous direct and indirect subsidies, while much of the environmental and health damage they cause is paid for by everyone else (us) rather than reflected in their market price.  I appreciate lots of people don't actually give a toss about climate change and that we need to make this an economic argument.  I struggle to see how having cheaper renewable electricity, energy security, reduced dependence on imported oil and gas, new industries and export markets are a detriment. Sitting on the side-lines because "it's difficult" is how you end up being left behind and at the mercy of Russia, Iran, the Emirates and the US.  I personally am not a fan of that cabal sending my monthly energy bill from £80pm to £280.

 

Have to also pick you up on comparing climate science to palm readers or mediums. Climate science is built on physics, chemistry, satellite observations and measurements and that's just anti-science that belong for the unlettered.  Just a daft statement.

 

"It's hard, therefore we shouldn't bother." That's not pragmatism; it's defeatism. Reducing harm, lowering future costs and investing in better technology is exactly what successful societies have always done.  There are some absolute donkeys on this forum and you're definitely not one so it's a weird hill you're choosing to die on here.

Excellent post, the likes of which I wish I could be bothered to write in between meetings and taking dumps at work but never do.

I second everything stated here.

Humans are inefficient, that's been proven by the stupid behaviour we all do. Alongside airport security measures, maybe climate mitigation will rank as the most inefficient action ever. 'Wait... so you morons paid more money to choke yourselves on dirty fumes whilst slowly destroying the world around you?? and 'you designed a world which is operational between 5-25 degrees and willingly destroyed that with the counter being 'million of years ago it was 200 degrees and we survived that'??'

Can totally understand happy clappers not caring about death and destruction but the fact they're gleefully pay over the odds for the privilege of it is bizarre

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

No, I mean some of the argumentation used by fearmongers in this thread, in particular @leicsmac.

So a no but yes then

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Excellent post, the likes of which I wish I could be bothered to write in between meetings and taking dumps at work but never do.

I second everything stated here.

Humans are inefficient, that's been proven by the stupid behaviour we all do. Alongside airport security measures, maybe climate mitigation will rank as the most inefficient action ever. 'Wait... so you morons paid more money to choke yourselves on dirty fumes whilst slowly destroying the world around you?? and 'you designed a world which is operational between 5-25 degrees and willingly destroyed that with the counter being 'million of years ago it was 200 degrees and we survived that'??'

Can totally understand happy clappers not caring about death and destruction but the fact they're gleefully pay over the odds for the privilege of it is bizarre

Well done sir.

 

Several long paragraphs and not a single mention of ha...

 

Oh, I just got to the last paragraph.

[MC Prussian]

On 31/07/2026 at 11:05, Zear0 said:

I think in this response and others you're deliberately conflating things being difficult and there being no benefit in even trying.  Even the most Brighton holiday going hipster Greens aren't suggesting turn fossil fuels off over night.  

 

But to your earlier point, you're effectively arguing that because humans are adaptable, we shouldn't bother trying . Do you also think let's not bother with flood defences as people can rebuild houses, stop crime prevention as people will get over being a victim, stop with vaccinations as we've survived plagues in the past?  Musk once described combustion engines as quaint and primitive relics that will soon be in the museum.  As someone who spends lots of free time volunteering at GCR clambering over such relics, I get the appeal but also learnt long ago the world moves on and we don't any more luddites holding back society and future generations when I'm pushing up the daises.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression from your comments is that you're aware that utilising a finite commodity that is both directly and indirectly costly and that you simply don't care and fear any change?  I've posted this before, but the IEA https://www.iea.org/topics/fossil-fuel-subsidies has the cost of fuel subsidises at about $1tn per year with the damage caused by the changing climate around $7tn.  Climate change isn't free and we're seeing every single day the damage from flooding, droughts, wild fires, crop failures, insurance costs and the health impact to breathing shitty air.  I'm not sure the British wine industries boom you mention offsets the cost of the food crops that are dying around the country as we speak.  Sure the wine growers of Bordeaux aren't shouting about their harvest given it's all up in flames.

 

What do we do?  Stop deliberately pretending fossil fuel are cheap and that this business is some naturally cheap, perfectly efficient market that doesn't benefit from enormous direct and indirect subsidies, while much of the environmental and health damage they cause is paid for by everyone else (us) rather than reflected in their market price.  I appreciate lots of people don't actually give a toss about climate change and that we need to make this an economic argument.  I struggle to see how having cheaper renewable electricity, energy security, reduced dependence on imported oil and gas, new industries and export markets are a detriment. Sitting on the side-lines because "it's difficult" is how you end up being left behind and at the mercy of Russia, Iran, the Emirates and the US.  I personally am not a fan of that cabal sending my monthly energy bill from £80pm to £280.

 

Have to also pick you up on comparing climate science to palm readers or mediums. Climate science is built on physics, chemistry, satellite observations and measurements and that's just anti-science that belong for the unlettered.  Just a daft statement.

 

"It's hard, therefore we shouldn't bother." That's not pragmatism; it's defeatism. Reducing harm, lowering future costs and investing in better technology is exactly what successful societies have always done.  There are some absolute donkeys on this forum and you're definitely not one so it's a weird hill you're choosing to die on here.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying in this thread all along. But I understand it's time-consuming to wade through previous posts or pages in this thread.

A major part of your post is you going off on a tangent, based on a flawed assumption.

No one in his or her right state of mind can deny climate change. Because climate changes all the time.

I've never said once we shouldn't try to do what's possible in order to protect ourselves or prepare for what's to come. Then again, climate knows no state boundaries, and I sometimes ask myself why we've developed such an obsession with climate change in Europe, when the biggest polluters are found elsewhere today (such as China and their coal plants).

 

I find solar energy essential, wind can do a part (to a certain extent, not a big fan of wind farms, personally). At the same token, I think we'd be naive to ignore the technical advances in fusion energy. And shutting off nuclear power plants is a rather short-sighted move.

I do wonder whether – parallel to creating more power-efficient cars and tools and whatnot – there's any way to improve the efficiency of power in itself, to get more power out of the juice, so to speak.

 

With electric cars, I'm torn: no reliance of fossil fuels, but bad for the environment in terms of where the raw material for batteries come from.

Curious to see how water engine technology develops further.

 

The trick is in the mix, I guess.

 

What I have is a major issue with the fearmongers, the people freaking out as if the end was nigh (there's plenty of examples in this thread). The reliance on a particular set of scientists (the IPCC springs to mind), as if the hold all the answers and should be believed blindly. The overdramatization. The constant omission of elements leading up to environmental catastrophies, such as the recent forest fires.

 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying in this thread all along. But I understand it's time-consuming to wade through previous posts or pages in this thread.

A major part of your post is you going off on a tangent, based on a flawed assumption.

No one in his or her right state of mind can deny climate change. Because climate changes all the time.

I've never said once we shouldn't try to do what's possible in order to protect ourselves or prepare for what's to come. Then again, climate knows no state boundaries, and I sometimes ask myself why we've developed such an obsession with climate change in Europe, when the biggest polluters are found elsewhere today (such as China and their coal plants).

 

I find solar energy essential, wind can do a part (to a certain extent, not a big fan of wind farms, personally). At the same token, I think we'd be naive to ignore the technical advances in fusion energy. And shutting off nuclear power plants is a rather short-sighted move.

I do wonder whether – parallel to creating more power-efficient cars and tools and whatnot – there's any way to improve the efficiency of power in itself, to get more power out of the juice, so to speak.

 

With electric cars, I'm torn: no reliance of fossil fuels, but bad for the environment in terms of where the raw material for batteries come from.

Curious to see how water engine technology develops further.

 

The trick is in the mix, I guess.

 

What I have is a major issue with the fearmongers, the people freaking out as if the end was nigh (there's plenty of examples in this thread). The reliance on a particular set of scientists (the IPCC springs to mind), as if the hold all the answers and should be believed blindly. The overdramatization. The constant omission of elements leading up to environmental catastrophies, such as the recent forest fires.

 

It's not fear mongering to say that this is an existential threat without dramatic action.

Also, it's not a particular set of scientists. There's not one scientist on earth who has provided a theory let alone evidence of anything other than human caused climate change being an existential threat. Not one. There's some talking heads willing to take the oil money but no serious studies, theories or evidence. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

It's not fear mongering to say that this is an existential threat without dramatic action.

Also, it's not a particular set of scientists. There's not one scientist on earth who has provided a theory let alone evidence of anything other than human caused climate change being an existential threat. Not one. There's some talking heads willing to take the oil money but no serious studies, theories or evidence. 

Lynas et al is pretty damn clear on the consensus, as per the very first page of this thread, yes. 

[CornwallFox]

2 days ago London hit 30°C for the 24th time this year. 

 

In the 1980s that happened 22 times.... across the whole decade. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

2 days ago London hit 30°C for the 24th time this year. 

 

In the 1980s that happened 22 times.... across the whole decade. 

Between 2014 and 2023 it was 59.  It’s feasible that this year reaches half that number which is so very recent. The whole of the seventies was 31 (yeah including ‘76 which provided half of them).
 

I’m not sure some people are appreciating what’s happening this year. It’s astonishing. 

[leicsmac]

Record temperatures in the Far East today. 

 

Just summer, though.