Climate Change - a poll

[Rubbersoul]

23 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

It's a fair question as there are plenty of lines put out by the climate denial brigade that it's just another example of what has always happened. 

 

You're right, climate does change, and that change happens over eons. It's a gradual process. What's different here is firstly the change is demonstrably caused by humanity, it's not part of a natural cycle (obviously those cycles continue underneath but the warming being seen is way beyond that). 

 

Second, the pace of change is hugely faster. We're potentially on course to go from where we were to literally unliveable pretty much within a century. No creature can out evolve change at that speed. Obviously the earth would survive, some creatures would survive, some plants might enjoy the extra CO2, but humanity will find things pretty tough. 

 

The way it impacts the globe isn't constant and consistent everywhere. We're a rapidly spinning ball with a thick atmosphere, warmth means energy, if you think back to science class, so there's more energy in weather systems. That means hotter hots, it means stronger evaporation and cloud formatioms, it means heavier rain, stronger winds, bigger floods, highest sea levels.... All of which we're already seeing.

 

We've already had China experience months of constant 40°+ temps. Pakistan had an area the size of Britain flooded. The glacial collapse and flooded destruction in Nepal was akin to Pompeii only with water. Loads of other examples of hugely out of the ordinary weather events. Britain has had things very mild but still hit 40° there other year which was basically Impossible before. 

 

Humanity would survive. But it would not all survive. There'd be areas of the world which would become like 3/4s of Australia now - pretty much unsurvivable at scale. There'll be societal breakdown. At higher temperatures there'll be huge death tolls. Crops are already failing, it'll get worse. I'm afraid the picture is awful without immediate action. 

 

It's the pace of change which is different. It's the fact humanity has never lived at those temperatures. And there's evidence for it all, including what we could do (and should already have done) about it. 

 

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There are no uneducated questions when someone is asking in good faith, which you clearly are. 

 

The answer is that while there have been more drastic shifts in terms of amount of temperature and atmospheric composition change in the past (most notably for the "big Five" extinction events), the speed of change at the present time is faster than practically any event up to now. 

 

If you have any more specific questions about comparisons with the past on this one, I'd be happy to answer. 

Appreciate the responses guys. I have learnt something new today! 

 

It’s the argument I always see pop up with this subject. The Earth has always changed so what’s happening now is nothing new, which I guess for many is easier to live with. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Rubbersoul said:

 

Appreciate the responses guys. I have learnt something new today! 

 

It’s the argument I always see pop up with this subject. The Earth has always changed so what’s happening now is nothing new, which I guess for many is easier to live with. 
 

 

To which the rather obvious response is to point out the speed of change, and also that living in a situation where such changes are happening at a speed that isn't known outside previous extinction events might not be a good thing. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Well played Labour 👏🏼 

 

Great news 

[leicsmac]

As long as the proceeds are used for local applications in a way that helps transition to a situation where neither gas nor oil is used for energy generation at all, then I'd cautiously accept this as a necessity to that end. 

 

That being said, from the feed on the article involved:

 

The timing is uncomfortable for the government.

Jackdaw was approved on the same day the UN Environment Programme (Unep) warned that the world will now breach the 1.5C (34.7F) global warming limit, at least temporarily, after "decades of insufficient climate action".

Unep’s annual Emissions Gap report measures how far off course the world is from cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.

This year’s report says that even in the best case, warming will peak at about 1.7 to 1.8C, by around mid-century.

The risks from climate change, such as intense heatwaves, rising sea-levels and loss of wildlife, would be much higher at 2C of warming than at 1.5C, according to scientists.

Bringing it back below 1.5C by 2100 would require global emissions to fall 18% by 2030, compared with 2025 levels.

Unep has said the pledges governments have made so far would deliver less than half the cut needed.

 

The world is already changing. it will change more (the UK not excepted), and almost universally in a negative fashion for humans and practically every other living being. All we can do is what we can to limit the degree of change while there is still time to do it.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

That seems like a sensible decision to me. If we're burning it anyway it may as well come from our backyard and the profits we can decide what to do with.

 

Labour quietly doing quite well in my eyes. 

[LCFCJohn]

12 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

That seems like a sensible decision to me. If we're burning it anyway it may as well come from our backyard and the profits we can decide what to do with.

 

Labour quietly doing quite well in my eyes. 

I hope as much of the world can be working towards clean and renewable energy to stop the reliance on fossil fuels. But it isn’t possible overnight and as you say, if doing this means cost of living in this country can be improved in the short to medium term, it will help with other issues as long as the long term is not forgotten about.

 

Agree about labour. This and the fact that evidence shows boat crossing numbers are lower than they were will have a certain party and its supporters reeling!

[The Year Of The Fox]

29 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

That seems like a sensible decision to me. If we're burning it anyway it may as well come from our backyard and the profits we can decide what to do with.

 

Labour quietly doing quite well in my eyes. 

All they need to do now is get the Royal Navy patrolling and using whatever means necessary to deter these ‘small boats’ then we may be able to agree

 

But that’s for a topic I banned from on here

 

Regarding this, it’s another step to acknowledging that going ‘carbon neutral’ or whatever ridiculous buzz phrase is used this year is completely out of reach and not desired by the wider public as something at the forefront of our minds.

 

Well done Andy 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

All they need to do now is get the Royal Navy patrolling and using whatever means necessary to deter these ‘small boats’ then we may be able to agree

 

But that’s for a topic I banned from on here

 

Regarding this, it’s another step to acknowledging that going ‘carbon neutral’ or whatever ridiculous buzz phrase is used this year is completely out of reach and not desired by the wider public as something at the forefront of our minds.

 

Well done Andy 

I wonder whether UK farmers - and those directly reliant upon them - share this sentiment after the summer they've had, and want more just like it or worse.

[The Year Of The Fox]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wonder whether UK farmers - and those directly reliant upon them - share this sentiment after the summer they've had, and want more just like it or worse.

They probably don’t- it was unbelievably hot at times. I was very grateful of the air conditioning I had installed in the Spring.

 

Our golf course suffered badly too. 
 

I just don’t think my little combi boiler being changed to an air source heat pump will improve my golf courses fairways. They need to look farther afield than that 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

They probably don’t- it was unbelievably hot at times. I was very grateful of the air conditioning I had installed in the Spring.

 

Our golf course suffered badly too. 
 

I just don’t think my little combi boiler being changed to an air source heat pump will improve my golf courses fairways. They need to look farther afield than that 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 

... I'm presuming you meant the American flag rather than the Aussie one there?

 

In any case, "they don't give a fvck, so why would we?" will be a lovely epitaph for our species (along with quite a few others), wouldn't it? (Edit: The Chinese actually making an effort, as opposed to the Americans, Indians and Russians, notwithstanding.)

Edited Wednesday at 12:43 by leicsmac

[The Year Of The Fox]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... I'm presuming you meant the American flag rather than the Aussie one there?

 

In any case, "they don't give a fvck, so why would we?" will be a lovely epitaph for our species (along with quite a few others), wouldn't it? (Edit: The Chinese actually making an effort, as opposed to the Americans, Indians and Russians, notwithstanding.)

No I meant the Aussies with all the coal mines they’re building 

[LCFCJohn]

11 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

They probably don’t- it was unbelievably hot at times. I was very grateful of the air conditioning I had installed in the Spring.

 

Our golf course suffered badly too. 
 

I just don’t think my little combi boiler being changed to an air source heat pump will improve my golf courses fairways. They need to look farther afield than that 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 

It’s obviously no good if only certain countries are on board, I think we all can see that.

 

But there is a difference between scoffing at the principle as many do, up to the outright deniers, and the view that it’s a bit pointless without wider buy in.

 

I definitely sympathise with that viewpoint. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

No I meant the Aussies with all the coal mines they’re building 

I'm curious as to why you'd leave the Yanks out of it then, quite frankly. 

 

But in any case, as per many previous discussions on the matter, I think the whole argument is pretty invalid anyway. 

 

I just hope that the prevailing opinion as detailed on the poll on this thread (which pretty accurately reflects current wider polling on the matter, come to that) is the one that is used to shape UK policy decision on the matter now and for as long as it takes to prevent or mitigate a summer like the last one, or much worse. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, LCFCJohn said:

It’s obviously no good if only certain countries are on board, I think we all can see that.

 

But there is a difference between scoffing at the principle as many do, up to the outright deniers, and the view that it’s a bit pointless without wider buy in.

 

I definitely sympathise with that viewpoint. 

That viewpoint is one to sympathise with, but at a fundamental level it's a tacit acceptance of the worst consequences of what's coming, and imo that comes hand in hand with at least some responsibility for those consequences. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, LCFCJohn said:

I hope as much of the world can be working towards clean and renewable energy to stop the reliance on fossil fuels. But it isn’t possible overnight and as you say, if doing this means cost of living in this country can be improved in the short to medium term, it will help with other issues as long as the long term is not forgotten about.

 

Agree about labour. This and the fact that evidence shows boat crossing numbers are lower than they were will have a certain party and its supporters reeling!

What about the ghost flights coming into Manchester and Liverpool airports? 

[BenTheFox]

2 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

All they need to do now is get the Royal Navy patrolling and using whatever means necessary to deter these ‘small boats’ then we may be able to agree

 

But that’s for a topic I banned from on here

 

Regarding this, it’s another step to acknowledging that going ‘carbon neutral’ or whatever ridiculous buzz phrase is used this year is completely out of reach and not desired by the wider public as something at the forefront of our minds.

 

Well done Andy 

I'm not sure the polling data backs up your claim on this one. When polled, the British electorate are broadly more supportive of green policies than in many other countries. For example, according to the latest YouGov poll on this issue, 60% of the electorate support the 2050 Net Zero target compared to 25% that oppose and the plurality of Britons don't think that enough is being done to meet the target. 

 

If the point is that people care more about cost of living in the meantime, then you are correct. I will add that a green transition can absolutely result in a lowering of energy bills in the long-term, the issue is the substantial capital investment required in the short-term. However, if you are suggesting that there is no desire for green policies, then the data doesn't appear to back this up. Put it this way, Reform's 'scrap net zero' policy is not the huge vote winner that some of them seem to think it is. 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 14:07 by BenTheFox

[LCFCJohn]

45 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

What about the ghost flights coming into Manchester and Liverpool airports? 

Sounds a bit…conspiracy like! 

[Samilktray]

40 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Sounds a bit…conspiracy like! 

I was actually reading the comment section from a post on Facebook about the ghost flights this week, very funny reading tbf and from exactly the types on there you'd expect 

[CruzNoir]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

What about the ghost flights coming into Manchester and Liverpool airports? 

Look up any credible info on this and you’ll quickly realise it’s a propaganda conspiracy that fits in line with the agenda of a certain group of brainwashed racist idiots

 

Be smart, don’t be a brainwashed idiot 

[LCFCJohn]

6 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

I was actually reading the comment section from a post on Facebook about the ghost flights this week, very funny reading tbf and from exactly the types on there you'd expect 

I mean suggesting the government is secretly flying in illegal immigrants is a father bizarre and serious accusation. What on earth would be the reason for it?

 

Thinking they are not doing enough to stop the channel crossing is a fair and understandable view even if others think they are trying to. 
 

It will clearly be approved programmes of people (families) being relocated from genuine refugee camps. I experienced such programmes when working in social housing they are part of genuine processes. It sounds like this has been twisted to suit an agenda.

[CornwallFox]

5 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Well played Labour 👏🏼 

 

Great news 

A ridiculous decision made for purely political reasons

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

No I meant the Aussies with all the coal mines they’re building 

They're phasing coal out. Here's the recent and future energy mix in Australia.

 

 

You seem to get your information on most subjects from very poor sources.

Edited Wednesday at 15:04 by CornwallFox

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, BenTheFox said:

I'm not sure the polling data backs up your claim on this one. When polled, the British electorate are broadly more supportive of green policies than in many other countries. For example, according to the latest YouGov poll on this issue, 60% of the electorate support the 2050 Net Zero target compared to 25% that oppose and the plurality of Britons don't think that enough is being done to meet the target. 

 

If the point is that people care more about cost of living in the meantime, then you are correct. I will add that a green transition can absolutely result in a lowering of energy bills in the long-term, the issue is the substantial capital investment required in the short-term. However, if you are suggesting that there is no desire for green policies, then the data doesn't appear to back this up. Put it this way, Reform's 'scrap net zero' policy is not the huge vote winner that some of them seem to think it is. 

 

 

It’s not even about the cost of the immediate cost of living crisis The cost of a heat pump is said to be around the £15k figure (minus the government grant they’re offering) but also excludes the costs of redecorating required after obliterating your house. Call it £15k all in. That’s my gas bill for 15 years. You’ve got to be pretty daft to willingly go down the ASHP route because of some carbon footprint figure. And this is to install a system that won’t even work sufficiently. I’ve said before, probably on here, that the government pushing ASHPs will one day become just like the missold PPI scandal from back in the day.
 

60% may support the notion but I wonder how many of that % are willing to put their money where their mouths are? I don’t know a single person.

[The Year Of The Fox]

7 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

They're phasing coal out. Here's the recent and future energy mix in Australia.

 

 

You seem to get your information on most subjects from very poor sources.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/03/saraji-qld-bhp-bma-coal-project-approved-2055-angering-climate-groups
 

 

I agree. The Guardian is very poor.

[BenTheFox]

7 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

I mean suggesting the government is secretly flying in illegal immigrants is a father bizarre and serious accusation. What on earth would be the reason for it?

 

Thinking they are not doing enough to stop the channel crossing is a fair and understandable view even if others think they are trying to. 
 

It will clearly be approved programmes of people (families) being relocated from genuine refugee camps. I experienced such programmes when working in social housing they are part of genuine processes. It sounds like this has been twisted to suit an agenda.

I do find it quite funny that there's this insinuation from some quarters that the government for some reason want the migrants/Asylum seekers to continue to arrive. I'm not someone who considers the small boats to be my main concern, though I accept that it is very much a problem, but If they could stop this issue for good tomorrow (whilst following due process), do you honestly think they wouldn't? It would be such an easy win politically and would shoot the Reform fox dead, as they don't really have much else to run on.