Climate Change - a poll

[Daggers]

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67557533

 

Interesting summation on COP28 from the Beeb.

[Wortho]

The BBC are well known for their ridiculous over the top propaganda.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Wortho said:

The BBC are well known for their ridiculous over the top propaganda.

...on this topic?

 

As with most sceptical arguments on this matter (like the talk on the last page) it would be nice to know what scientific proof there is for the danger represented here being "over the top" - as opposed to the near-universal agreement of nation-states and the scientific community (even if the former are dragging their heels way too much on it).

 

I've no idea why some folks think such science bods have a reason to lie - even the argument that doing so would be more profitable is ridiculous when oil and gas companies would pay far more to say things are hunky-dory and stay on their own gravy train.

[Heathrow fox]

Read today that if the up coming EU elections took place tomorrow then the far right block would make significant gains,whilst the Greens would lose 25% of their contingent.This does not mean that Hitler is coming back on the horizon.It does indicate what direction the EU is heading in.
How could this possibly be?

Immigration is one factor.Added to by displaced populations,caused by wars and now climate change.with the added need for immigration due to falling birth rates.All situations that will get worse with time, not better. 
The other major factor,in is the slow down in economic growth for the average bod during the last decade and a half.Some would argue lack of economic growth since the late Seventies.Recently things have gone backwards.How do you sell green policies that are likely to hit average bod’s standard of living the most,to an already hard pressed population,thats stretched to the limit with out risking the rise of populist governments? 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Read today that if the up coming EU elections took place tomorrow then the far right block would make significant gains,whilst the Greens would lose 25% of their contingent.This does not mean that Hitler is coming back on the horizon.It does indicate what direction the EU is heading in.
How could this possibly be?

Immigration is one factor.Added to by displaced populations,caused by wars and now climate change.with the added need for immigration due to falling birth rates.All situations that will get worse with time, not better. 
The other major factor,in is the slow down in economic growth for the average bod during the last decade and a half.Some would argue lack of economic growth since the late Seventies.Recently things have gone backwards.How do you sell green policies that are likely to hit average bod’s standard of living the most,to an already hard pressed population,thats stretched to the limit with out risking the rise of populist governments? 

Somehow they have to be made more financially attractive, seeing as appealing to people's better nature doesn't work most of the time.

 

Oh, and the truth is that without those green policies that "average bod's standard of living" will plunge into the very darkest abyss in (relatively) short order - shortly after those people in far-flung places they clearly don't give a Castlemaine XXXX about.

[Daggers]

[Collymore]

Who was it who said global warming was good as it'll boost tourism by turning the UK into the new Mediterranean? I'm thinking Boris but it might have been someone else. 

Edited 30 November 2023 by Collymore

[SouthStandUpperTier]

3 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Who was it who said global warming was good as it'll boost tourism by turning the UK into the new Mediterranean? I'm thinking Boris but it might have been someone else. 

It was Kent Brockman

 

 

 

[Collymore]

Interesting reading old articles too. We're nearly at the halfway point of when this article was written for  2050. 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4091068.stm

 

I'm not a gardener or tree person so not sure if these predictions are starting to play out...

Edited 30 November 2023 by Collymore

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Amazed people still fall for this sort of guff.He knows exactly what he’s doing

[Dunge]

11 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Amazed people still fall for this sort of guff.He knows exactly what he’s doing

You know that website is satire, right?

[Dunge]

(To be fair it’s getting increasingly hard to tell these days.)

[Heathrow fox]

26 minutes ago, Dunge said:

You know that website is satire, right?

No.Just had flashbacks of the drinking Dettol Covid thing.

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Somehow they have to be made more financially attractive, seeing as appealing to people's better nature doesn't work most of the time.

 

Oh, and the truth is that without those green policies that "average bod's standard of living" will plunge into the very darkest abyss in (relatively) short order - shortly after those people in far-flung places they clearly don't give a Castlemaine XXXX about.

My argument which I think you may agree with, is to make the required changes top downwards.Not bottom upwards which seems to be the route we will be taking.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Heathrow fox said:

Amazed people still fall for this sort of guff.He knows exactly what he’s doing

Eh?

[Sly]

The challenge is that businesses can go more green in some instances, however the associated cost with doing to steer people away from it. It is now possible to get carbon saving reports between different products in construction project and you’d be surprised how many people just aren’t that interested due to the extra costs involved. 
 

If you ever look at cement, it accounts for something like 8% of the world’s carbon output. However you couldn’t live without it. I read a quote that stated if it was a country, it would be the world’s 3rd biggest emitter of CO2 in the world. Can you foresee a world where people don’t use concrete though with the amount of urbanisation we’ve seen in the past 20 years? 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

My argument which I think you may agree with, is to make the required changes top downwards.Not bottom upwards which seems to be the route we will be taking.

Obviously that's the best way both ethically and to get things done in general.

 

However, yet again, the situation is down to the laws of thermodynamics driven by human influence and the consequences of such don't care much about politics, so the stuff has to get done one way or another because the alternative will practically always be worse.

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, Sly said:

The challenge is that businesses can go more green in some instances, however the associated cost with doing to steer people away from it. It is now possible to get carbon saving reports between different products in construction project and you’d be surprised how many people just aren’t that interested due to the extra costs involved. 
 

If you ever look at cement, it accounts for something like 8% of the world’s carbon output. However you couldn’t live without it. I read a quote that stated if it was a country, it would be the world’s 3rd biggest emitter of CO2 in the world. Can you foresee a world where people don’t use concrete though with the amount of urbanisation we’ve seen in the past 20 years? 

 

 

 

Yet another big example of short-term material gain clashing damagingly with long-term better outcomes. There's an awful lot of that about and it isn't good.

 

There are quite a few situations - cement, producing plastics etc where using fossil fuels for the process is integral and can't be given up too easily. However the biggest elephant in the room, by far, remains energy generation - and that should be the key area of focus for the moment IMO.

 

Though the current COP discussions are focusing a fair bit on agriculture too, which does have a large footprint requiring attention.

[leicsmac]

Slovenian President Natasa Pirc Musar spoke of disruptive climate protesters, asking "what else they can do [...] if COP after COP after COP, we, who are elected by the people to lead them into a better future, refuse to listen to their pleas?"

 

Interesting words. I think we had a discussion about this on here when groups like XR and JSO where being much more active.

[Wortho]

IMHO couldn’t the attendees could’ve done this over a zoom call? Dragging 400k people many in private jets to Dubai really is embarrassing. Also, the elite will dictate to you where you can travel but this doesn’t apply to them.

What I can’t understand is that people actually believe and accept this propaganda? It’s a money making scam but  some people can’t see it!!!

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Wortho said:

IMHO couldn’t the attendees could’ve done this over a zoom call? Dragging 400k people many in private jets to Dubai really is embarrassing. Also, the elite will dictate to you where you can travel but this doesn’t apply to them.

What I can’t understand is that people actually believe and accept this propaganda? It’s a money making scam but  some people can’t see it!!!

This meeting, or the findings of the climate science corps in general? It would be nice to know which.

 

NB. Agree that it would be better to do a virtual meeting, but considering the numbers that's obvious anyway.

[Wortho]

Both points. 
Wasn’t there two hot periods millions of years ago? 
You seem to be a very knowledgeable person and I am you sure have lots of answers. I do respect your views.

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Both points. 
Wasn’t there two hot periods millions of years ago? 
You seem to be a very knowledgeable person and I am you sure have lots of answers. I do respect your views.

I’m sure there were - but humans have only been around for 300,000 years ……..  so any v hot periods before 500,000 years ago are irrelevant to man’s ability to survive.  We may well find a way to survive as a species but our numbers will be enormously reduced and hundreds of millions if not billions will perish.  I guess the overall question is probably that was the  planet always going to become too hot for us to flourish at some point - it’s just that we’ve managed to accelerate the current warming phase which may well have seen ups and downs for hundreds of years on a slow but sure incline to a period too warm for us to live in.  
 

getting philosophical……

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Wortho said:

Both points. 
Wasn’t there two hot periods millions of years ago? 
You seem to be a very knowledgeable person and I am you sure have lots of answers. I do respect your views.

I see, thank you. It does naturally follow that if one disregards the latter, the former has zero meaning too.

 

To answer the question, there have been a great many warm periods millions of years ago in Earths history, and life flourished - dinosaurs, dragonflies the size of eagles, the whole whack. However, as the poster above points out, this isn't really about survival of life on Earth (much, anyway, we're causing indescribable damage to biodiversity without considering any of the effects we have on climate), it's about the survival of our species and civilisation. To expand on the above post, at some point the Earth was going to undergo a drastic change in climate conditions - either hot, cold, or a mix of the two depending on location, as has again happened many times in the past - and those effects would be devastating to our civilisation. Thanks to our influence, that day of change is arriving far sooner and far more drastically than at any time in recorded geological history. That is the real problem - doing enough to stave off that change long enough that we can adapt in a way that means our civilisation survives in the way that it is accustomed to, and doesn't simply collapse.

 

These are not fictional or made-up concerns - they are matters of scientific fact, and denial for the sake of materialism won't make them go away. They must be addressed, one way or another. And COP, as vacuous as it appears to be (and mostly is tbh), is a part of that.

 

NB. I have no idea why some folks use and trust the fruits of the scientific method for practically every aspect of the lives they live but then choose to suddenly distrust it in areas where it clashes with their personal politics.