Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
ozleicester

Climate Change - a poll

By ozleicester, in General Chat

Climate Change - a poll  

411 members have voted

  1. 1. Climate Change is....

    • Not Real
      33
    • Real - Human influenced
      296
    • Real - Just Nature
      82

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Judging by this, the ignorance isn't based on age. It's based on political ideology. 

 

 

FB_IMG_1785703607419.jpg

Tough one

the specific June heatwave itself wasn’t caused by climate change. 
it was just weather 


so the question is poorly structured!

 

I mean I’m being quote pedantic but blaming specific weather events on climate change is an open goal to climate change deniers. 

Edited by st albans fox
  • Haha 2
Collymore

Collymore

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Judging by this, the ignorance isn't based on age. It's based on political ideology. 

 

 

FB_IMG_1785703607419.jpg

This kind of backs up my idea of the 65+ Reform voter being mostly climate change 'nonbelievers' it especially backs up my hunch after some interesting conversations i had earlier with said demographic! 

 

It's all interesting the political stuff behind this though.

 

It can't be as simple as to say the left trust data more and right don't because you can pop up anywhere on the political spectrum can't you? Isn't that what centre means - like a pick and mix? 

 

Climate change should be the one where we all agree on it shouldn't it but why is it so decisive?

 

Yes, there's politics around it with economies and fossil fuels but the underlying principle we'll all be ****ed if we continue for a few more decades should be a no brainer? 

 

 

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Tough one

the specific June heatwave itself wasn’t caused by climate change. 
it was just weather 


so the question is poorly structured!

 

I mean I’m being quote pedantic but blaming specific weather events on climate change is an open goal to climate change deniers. 

We've talked about this before and it is a semantic distinction without a difference.

 

The change in climate is driving more extreme weather events, such as the one mentioned in the poll. That's "cause". If people want to be needlessly pedantic with terminology then that's between them and their thesaurus - the laws of thermodynamics on this one are quite clear and the links are quite obvious. Any such "denial" is at this stage most likely wilful and for base purposes and should be disregarded and marginalised in terms of policymaking as much as possible.

 

26 minutes ago, Collymore said:

This kind of backs up my idea of the 65+ Reform voter being mostly climate change 'nonbelievers' it especially backs up my hunch after some interesting conversations i had earlier with said demographic! 

 

It's all interesting the political stuff behind this though.

 

It can't be as simple as to say the left trust data more and right don't because you can pop up anywhere on the political spectrum can't you? Isn't that what centre means - like a pick and mix? 

 

Climate change should be the one where we all agree on it shouldn't it but why is it so decisive?

 

Yes, there's politics around it with economies and fossil fuels but the underlying principle we'll all be ****ed if we continue for a few more decades should be a no brainer? 

 

 

I honestly don't think the variance based on age is statistically significant, whereas the variance based on party affiliation almost certainly is.

 

And there's a multitude of reasons that there isn't total consensus right now, which I can elaborate on if asked.

CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Judging by this, the ignorance isn't based on age. It's based on political ideology. 

 

 

FB_IMG_1785703607419.jpg

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Also, it's interesting to see that the polling data for the FT poll itself reasonably closely matches national data on the matter. 

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

We've talked about this before and it is a semantic distinction without a difference.

 

The change in climate is driving more extreme weather events, such as the one mentioned in the poll. That's "cause". If people want to be needlessly pedantic with terminology then that's between them and their thesaurus - the laws of thermodynamics on this one are quite clear and the links are quite obvious. Any such "denial" is at this stage most likely wilful and for base purposes and should be disregarded and marginalised in terms of policymaking as much as possible.

 

I honestly don't think the variance based on age is statistically significant, whereas the variance based on party affiliation almost certainly is.

 

And there's a multitude of reasons that there isn't total consensus right now, which I can elaborate on if asked.

We all know it's a direct correlation with academic achievement and we all have our own opinions about what we might call that in layman's terms.

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

 

 

We all know it's a direct correlation with academic achievement and we all have our own opinions about what we might call that in layman's terms.

A quick datamine appears to show a correlation here, if only indirectly.

 

Be that as it may, however, actually addressing that adequately as a problem is a complex issue.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

We've talked about this before and it is a semantic distinction without a difference.

 

The change in climate is driving more extreme weather events, such as the one mentioned in the poll. That's "cause". If people want to be needlessly pedantic with terminology then that's between them and their thesaurus - the laws of thermodynamics on this one are quite clear and the links are quite obvious. Any such "denial" is at this stage most likely wilful and for base purposes and should be disregarded and marginalised in terms of policymaking as much as possible.

 

Language is important because if you don’t differentiate clearly then you allow the question to be put to a scientist who has to answer no when challenged to answer only yes/no. The deniers then jump on that as evidence that we’re all being duped. They aren’t interested in hearing nuance or detailed evidence because they have their opinion and don’t have the attention span or interest in hearing anything else. when they see the clip from an interview where a reputable scientist is asked ‘yes/no and only one word answer allowed, was the June heatwave caused by climate change’ then that is enough for them. 
 

could have written the question as whether the repetitive heatwaves and their intensity this year are linked to climate change.  That would be indisputably yes.  

yes it’s pedantic and semantics but if you leave a door slightly ajar then those with an agenda will kick it open.  And somehow we need to show those people what’s cause and effect re the changing climate. If they won’t accept what’s in front of their eyes to begin with then that’s impossible.  

 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Language is important because if you don’t differentiate clearly then you allow the question to be put to a scientist who has to answer no when challenged to answer only yes/no. The deniers then jump on that as evidence that we’re all being duped. They aren’t interested in hearing nuance or detailed evidence because they have their opinion and don’t have the attention span or interest in hearing anything else. when they see the clip from an interview where a reputable scientist is asked ‘yes/no and only one word answer allowed, was the June heatwave caused by climate change’ then that is enough for them. 
 

could have written the question as whether the repetitive heatwaves and their intensity this year are linked to climate change.  That would be indisputably yes.  

yes it’s pedantic and semantics but if you leave a door slightly ajar then those with an agenda will kick it open.  And somehow we need to show those people what’s cause and effect re the changing climate. If they won’t accept what’s in front of their eyes to begin with then that’s impossible.  

 

I would agree that the phrasing of the question could have been done better, particularly from a professional polling company. 

 

That being said, I think that the evidence is so out there and the lines drawn so starkly now that the people you speak of are (at least mostly) arguing in bad faith in a position they know that's bunk but want to fight for their own self interest anyway. No line of argument, however clear, will convince them.

CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

A quick datamine appears to show a correlation here, if only indirectly.

 

Be that as it may, however, actually addressing that adequately as a problem is a complex issue.

Like everything else wrong with the country, a good start would be requiring a degree of honesty by the non TV press. By all means have differing views of the world and differing answers to problems, but let's not be allowed to lie to the public about facts. Let's have facts be facts and then debate from there. No side has a monopoly on what is right, and all sides pick and choose their truths. But there are some big lies allowed to go often repeated that area causing immense harm, particularly in relation to climate change and (separately and unrelated in the context that I'm writing) economics. 

Edited by CornwallFox
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Like everything else wrong with the country, a good start would be requiring a degree of honesty by the non TV press. By all means have differing views of the world and differing answers to problems, but let's not be allowed to lie to the public about facts. Let's have facts be facts and then debate from there. No side has a monopoly on what is right, and all sides pick and choose their truths. But there are some big lies allowed to go often repeated that area causing immense harm, particularly in relation to climate change and (separately and unrelated in the context that I'm writing) economics. 

The subversion of pretty much the very idea of facts and therefore having even those scientific facts becoming matters of debate and therefore not being acted upon is massively harmful now and may become absolutely harmful in the future, yes. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Every time I visited Seoul in July it was disgusting. The humidity was usually so high - I can’t imagine what tomorrows feels like 48c would be like. 

 

When I was there, you couldn't really do anything outside for at least July and August. 

 

And now it's getting worse. 

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/03/south-korea-highest-temperature

 

More on this. 

 

Glad I'm not over there now. 

This is where things are different to past hot years. 1976 was a hot year for the UK due to weather patterns around western Europe. It was us and a few other countries. Outside of that single weather front, everyone else had an average year. 

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

This is where things are different to past hot years. 1976 was a hot year for the UK due to weather patterns around western Europe. It was us and a few other countries. Outside of that single weather front, everyone else had an average year. 

Quite. 

 

Once again, this is a global matter, with global consequences and requiring global attention. 

JonnyBoy

JonnyBoy

Posted
Posted
On 27/07/2026 at 14:47, JonnyBoy said:

i remember it being a huge story was it two years ago where those hours literally caught on fire in England because of the heat, soon as autumn came the whole thing was forgotten about. I can't ever remember in over 30 years a duration of this kind with no rain. The whole UK infrastructure just isn't set up to cope with this increased heat. I think anyone who is is HVAC over the next few years will make an absolute killing. We would be tempted if it wasn't for the eye soar fans stuck on the side of your house that are also noisy and not really fair on the neighbours 

Ok so this has happened again then 

 

will this be brushed over and forgotten about come October I expect 

CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
On 11/08/2026 at 15:57, Trav Le Bleu said:

Time to buy some property in Melton and build some beach huts.

Honestly, I've been thinking for a while that Scotland looks a decent investment when it's future summers might be the only slightly okay ones we have left.

  • 2 weeks later...
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62m4gpnp78o

 

The world's oceans are hotter than ever recorded, new data suggests, as they suffer from human-caused climate change and the growing El Niño weather phenomenon.

The average surface temperature of the planet's seas outside the polar regions hit 21.1C (70F) on Saturday, according to figures from the European Copernicus climate change service.

That edges past the 21.09C recorded on three separate days in March 2024, and is far above average for the time of year.

Warmer oceans can have wide-reaching consequences, including supercharging extreme weather, raising sea levels and harming marine life.

"This record is another clear signal of an ocean under growing stress," said Dr Samantha Burgess, deputy director of Copernicus.

"El Niño is adding heat to the system, but it is doing so on top of decades of human-driven warming," she added.

 

e6072080-9fc0-11f1-aed2-8d6da8d75094.png

 

Isn't it nice to be record breakers? :D

  • Sad 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...