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  

397 members have voted

  1. 1. Climate Change is....

    • Not Real
      33
    • Real - Human influenced
      284
    • Real - Just Nature
      80

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66854670

 

Climate change made the storm that devastated the Libyan city of Derna, killing thousands of people, up to 50 times more likely, experts say. 

 

Up to 50% more rain had fallen as a result of human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions, climate scientists at the World Weather Attribution group found.

 

Great time for the current UK administration to roll back their pledges to address climate change, huh?

I have an issue with the emphasis being that it’s all our fault  - ‘as a result of human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions’

this doesn’t help to bring the non believers towards the sensible end of the discussion.  Our emissions are certainly contributory - whether ifs hugely or partly isn’t clear because no one can be certain at this point.  Would be way better to say that our input is making a naturally warming climate warmer faster.  Telling people that don’t want to listen that it’s their fault surely isn’t a good approach to draw them into the debate. 

HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

One of the problems (amongst many) with this government is that they think the general public are thick as pig sh*t. They're happy to ditch policies that they had in their manifesto and current policy in the hope of stiring up a non exists t culture war. People will see this as a government (bar a few single digit IQ folk who read the Express) with zero principles.

 

In an usual situation where I agree with JRM, when he said the public could see through their gerrymandering about voter ID he acknowledged that backfired. This will be the same. They live in this mental bubble that fortunately isn't representative of the majority of this country. 

 

Most of the measures they're dropping will make bills cheaper which is what people want and it can be turned against them so easily. 

And yet, millions will still vote for them. The absolute definition of madness.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
The Year Of The Fox

The Year Of The Fox

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

One of the problems (amongst many) with this government is that they think the general public are thick as pig sh*t. They're happy to ditch policies that they had in their manifesto and current policy in the hope of stiring up a non exists t culture war. People will see this as a government (bar a few single digit IQ folk who read the Express) with zero principles.

 

In an usual situation where I agree with JRM, when he said the public could see through their gerrymandering about voter ID he acknowledged that backfired. This will be the same. They live in this mental bubble that fortunately isn't representative of the majority of this country. 

 

Most of the measures they're dropping will make bills cheaper which is what people want and it can be turned against them so easily. 

The policies/targets were nonsense to start with. Sunak has finally woken up to the fact. 
 

 

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I have an issue with the emphasis being that it’s all our fault  - ‘as a result of human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions’

this doesn’t help to bring the non believers towards the sensible end of the discussion.  Our emissions are certainly contributory - whether ifs hugely or partly isn’t clear because no one can be certain at this point.  Would be way better to say that our input is making a naturally warming climate warmer faster.  Telling people that don’t want to listen that it’s their fault surely isn’t a good approach to draw them into the debate. 

I can see where you're coming from here, but quite frankly the softly-softly approach has been tried by the scientific community for the last three decades (at least) and what we have to show for it is where we are - not enough.

 

So people in the know are beginning to get a little bit frayed, and are beginning to frame things in terms of accountability if things go wrong as well as what can be done to stop them from getting to that stage. I'd agree that the latter framing would be nicer, but once again: where has nice got us to up until now?

 

Of course, the stick rather than the carrot may not produce the required action either, but I can certainly understand why people who have been pointing out a clear and obvious threat to human civilisation for a very long time are, as it is beginning to make itself felt in earnest, losing patience.

 

NB. The contributions of human industrial activity from the early to mid 1800's to the present day have had a massively significant effect on carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and commensurate average temperature increase.

 

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

The policies/targets were nonsense to start with. Sunak has finally woken up to the fact. 
 

 

The specific policies might well be viewed to be nonsensical.

 

The issue they seek to address, and more importantly the consequences of not taking it seriously, most certainly isn't.

 

Folks might want to parse the difference.

Dorkingfox

Dorkingfox

Posted
Posted

Green house gases are mainly water vapour, about 0.4%, CO2 about 0.04%.

Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include human, animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in formation layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources.

solar flares and sun spots affects the earth temp as well. 

This does not mean we should not reduce creating more through industrial and consumer use, but it is an ongoing natural and human problem.

The Year Of The Fox

The Year Of The Fox

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

I can see where you're coming from here, but quite frankly the softly-softly approach has been tried by the scientific community for the last three decades (at least) and what we have to show for it is where we are - not enough.

 

So people in the know are beginning to get a little bit frayed, and are beginning to frame things in terms of accountability if things go wrong as well as what can be done to stop them from getting to that stage. I'd agree that the latter framing would be nicer, but once again: where has nice got us to up until now?

 

Of course, the stick rather than the carrot may not produce the required action either, but I can certainly understand why people who have been pointing out a clear and obvious threat to human civilisation for a very long time are, as it is beginning to make itself felt in earnest, losing patience.

 

NB. The contributions of human industrial activity from the early to mid 1800's to the present day have had a massively significant effect on carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and commensurate average temperature increase.

 

The specific policies might well be viewed to be nonsensical.

 

The issue they seek to address, and more importantly the consequences of not taking it seriously, most certainly isn't.

 

Folks might want to parse the difference.


As you acknowledge, there’s a difference 

 

Johnson’s targets were ridiculous- EG the majority of Heating Engineers have been quietly scathing with regards to gas boilers being taken off the shelf by 2030. Finally it seems like industry experts might be being listened to, thanks to Sunak. 
 

The targets he set were on a par with an unemployed, poorly educated 18 year old stating they want to be a rocket scientist by the time they turn 30- completely unachievable and laughable.

 

My point being that Sunak isn’t in the wrong for revoking or easing off on the targets, the blame lies at Johnson for setting them in the first place. 

Edited by The Year Of The Fox
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:


As you acknowledge, there’s a difference 

 

Johnson’s targets were ridiculous- EG the majority of Heating Engineers have been quietly scathing with regards to gas boilers being taken off the shelf by 2030. Finally it seems like industry experts might be being listened to, thanks to Sunak. 
 

The targets he set were on a par with an unemployed, poorly educated 18 year old stating they want to be a rocket scientist by the time they turn 30- completely unachievable and laughable.

 

My point being that Sunak isn’t in the wrong for revoking or easing off on the targets, the blame lies at Johnson for setting them in the first place. 

I have no reason to doubt your observations regarding the heating industry and what they think of the targets that were set and how unrealistic they think they are - and they should know.

 

However, the big thing is that the Earth may well not offer the UK (or everywhere else) the time for a more "realistic" transition. And it has the casting vote, if what it can do in terms of flooding, drought, famine and general misery (as well as the very human response when things get tough) is anything to go by.

 

Solutions need to be applied, rapidly, and both industry and government need to work together to get them to be effective.

 

NB. Sunak says that these changes will not have an effect on the UK achieving net zero carbon emissions by the set targets. I'd like him to explain and prove this quantitatively rather than offering soundbites.

Edited by leicsmac
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Dorkingfox said:

Green house gases are mainly water vapour, about 0.4%, CO2 about 0.04%.

Natural CO2 sources account for the majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Oceans provide the greatest annual amount of CO2 of any natural or anthropogenic source. Other sources of natural CO2 include human, animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. There are also naturally occurring CO2 deposits found in formation layers within the Earth’s crust that could serve as CO2 sources.

solar flares and sun spots affects the earth temp as well. 

This does not mean we should not reduce creating more through industrial and consumer use, but it is an ongoing natural and human problem.

I'm curious, is the opinion here that both the sharp increase in carbon emissions since the start of the real industrial revolution and the commensurate increase in global average temperature alongside it is (mostly) coincidental and natural, then?

Edited by leicsmac
Bellend Sebastian

Bellend Sebastian

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Guesty said:

 

Yes, those famously woke lefties at Auto Trader have also been weighing in.

 

Christ knows what's been being said in focus groups if they're trying to convince themselves that people not being able to buy a BRAND NEW petrol or diesel car in 7 years time is something that should be informing policy

  • Like 1
foxes1988

foxes1988

Posted
Posted

This government are always flip flopping all over the place.

 

If anyone tells me Tories are the party of business, economy or even just 'but labours economic plans' I think I'll just laugh in their face.

 

 

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

This government are always flip flopping all over the place.

 

If anyone tells me Tories are the party of business, economy or even just 'but labours economic plans' I think I'll just laugh in their face.

 

 

the current govt policy is irrelevant.  i suspect this is simply another stick to try and beat starmer with next year as the pre election debate heats up. 'labour dont care about your costs'.  that kind of stuff

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

the current govt policy is irrelevant.  i suspect this is simply another stick to try and beat starmer with next year as the pre election debate heats up. 'labour dont care about your costs'.  that kind of stuff

Yeah, it's an obvious ploy for the upcoming election.

 

It's ridiculous and counterproductive for the reasons stated earlier in this thread, of course.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

On his daughters’ response, [Sunak] said it was “absolutely wrong” to describe what he was doing as “watering down” climate targets.

“Our commitment to net zero… remains.”

 

Again, prove it quantitatively rather than just saying it as if it's true, please.

 

NB. At least he's overstepped the NIMBY's and scrapped the ban on onshore wind farms and is (slowly) starting the ball rolling on fission plants.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, reporterpenguin said:

It was like the greatest hits of FoxesTalk with the "China emit more, why should we try".

 

Him talking about how we'll still hit our targets, which we may well do, really irked me too. So we're just going for the bare minimum?

Really.

 

I mean, is there anyone with a modicum of awareness of the topic who doesn't know where that train of thought terminates?

Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted

It’s the Liz Truss’ economic approach applied to the environment. As ill considered, as ignorant, and as likely to fail miserably. 
 

Sunak has United Just Stop Oil with Ford. In fact, everyone except for the ideologue shitkickers in Tufty St think it’s completely retarded. 

Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:


As you acknowledge, there’s a difference 

 

Johnson’s targets were ridiculous- EG the majority of Heating Engineers have been quietly scathing with regards to gas boilers being taken off the shelf by 2030. Finally it seems like industry experts might be being listened to, thanks to Sunak. 
 

The targets he set were on a par with an unemployed, poorly educated 18 year old stating they want to be a rocket scientist by the time they turn 30- completely unachievable and laughable.

 

My point being that Sunak isn’t in the wrong for revoking or easing off on the targets, the blame lies at Johnson for setting them in the first place. 

Agreed

  • Thanks 1
  • 2 weeks later...

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...