Climate Change - a poll

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Weather and climate are two entirely different things. There is nothing 'natural' about the climate chaos being unleashed, it is entirely of anthropogenic origin. 

 

Interestingly a similar poll was conducted on this forum some years ago. I find it staggering that there are people that there are still those that think that this is "just nature" and almost as questionable as those that think it isn't real. 

Not if you were a mayfly.

[SpacedX]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

Not if you were a mayfly.

Carpe diem - as they say. (Not mayflies, though, since they can't talk). 

[Dunge]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think the societal inequality thing comes into the cooperation/investment side of things?

It’s not unrelated, granted, but I don’t see them as things that need the same solution. You don’t need to completely overhaul human society to find solutions for climate change and it can be painted that way. For instance, you mention Average Joe from Braunstone to Beijing - it is a problem if he can’t survive but similarly he doesn’t need to be comfortable. You can half-arse that problem but you can’t half-arse climate change.

 

27 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cause the climate is changing, the earth doesn't stay the same forever,  20000 years ago we had glaciers in the penines and wales, where have they gone? Maybe they melted because the sabre tooth tigers weren't eating enough woolly mamoths or maybe it was because the climate changed. If humans are so egotistical that they believe they can change things, they're living on another planet, or rather they should do. Yes, the scientists will put names to things and study things to the nth degree cos that's what they do, and the climate people will want everyone to abandon material goods and live on broad beans we grow in the garden, but nothing will actually change. All i know is that the plants and trees have gone mental this year and if that's due to the climate changing, there's going to be plenty of food in the future, we may even see banana trees in Leicester.

I’d say two things: First of all, change is happening incredibly quickly in terms of time. It’s us; there’s no doubt about it.

Second, regardless of that, we need to develop ways to control climate for the good of our civilisation. We live in a relatively cold period of the Earth’s history. We really, really do not want to live in a hot period. We’re currently heading that way and need to do something about it before we get there. Because we could end up going way past banana trees on the Fosse.

[bmt]

3 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Unsure myself. 
 

It’s an excellently convenient way for governments to bring about extra taxation any how.

 

I’m certainly not bothered enough by it to start recycling, never mind buy an electric car, have an air source heat pump, or limit what beef I eat (😂) or the number of flights I take a year. 
 

The whole ‘solution’ to our “carbon footprint” is a complete waste of time. Maybe once these have actually become affordable to the general public, and maybe once the infrastructure required doesn’t make more “carbon footprint” than running your diesel car, will I start to consider it.

Wow. 

 

Also won't start recycling is a. not really to do with climate change (although it is tangentially) and b. ridiculous because its easy af to do.

 

 

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Weather and climate are two entirely different things. There is nothing 'natural' about the climate chaos being unleashed, it is entirely of anthropogenic origin. 

 

Interestingly a similar poll was conducted on this forum some years ago. I find it staggering that that there are still those that think that this is "just nature" and almost as questionable as those that think it isn't real. 

I think I made it clear that I think  it is mostly affected by human activity, but that there is also an argument that climate/weather has an element of cycling to it. I'm not an expert but I look back though history and it seems to me the weather/climate has varied over time without significant human interaction.

 

As for weather and climate being entirely different as an ignorant observer I'm not conversant with the various nuances of these relative definitions but I suspect you knew what I meant.

 

[Finnegan]

19 minutes ago, Line-X said:

find it staggering that that there are still those that think that this is "just nature"

 

No you don't.

 

Just as you don't find it staggering there are still working class people that will vote Tory, there are still people that stand by Brexit, there are still people that deny covid and vaccines and insist the world is flat. 

 

You might be depressed by it or angry or defeated but you're absolutely not shocked, staggered or surprised. You're smarter than that. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

Wow. 

 

Also won't start recycling is a. not really to do with climate change (although it is tangentially) and b. ridiculous because its easy af to do.

 

 

I used to 

 

But when I once had my red bin full of beer cans after a house party, and was left out for recycling, some knob had chucked an empty fag packet on top. So the bin men never emptied the bin because of the ‘contamination’ 

 

Well if it’s too much effort for them to take the fag packet out in order to recycle about 50 cans, then I shan’t bother either. Needless to say, those 50 cans went straight into my normal bin and I’ve never bothered since.

[The boy Linacre]

There are so many strands to this BUT the pace of change is picking up way faster than we thought.

 

I went backpacking in and around the millenium, whilst in Asia we passed 6 billion earth population, so it took us 2000 years to get to that, we reached 8 billion in Nov 22.  That's a lot more people turning the fridge & TV on, using a phone, driving places, flying places, that weren't when I was at school, burning CO2.

We used to walk, a lot, we caught the buses (way more), now we drive EVERYWHERE.  We couldn't afford overseas holidays, now so many have 2-3 per year.

 

Politically, NO politician is looking medium term let alone long term, so nobody in the world is setting an example, there is no unified agreement or approach, vote winners are growth (i.e. housebuilding, manufacturing, money in people's pockets etc. all CO2 burners).

 

I would suspect most of the world's informed population know we need to do something sustainable sooner rather than later and the sooner is shrinking rapidly, BUT how will we do this, and how will the worlds leaders reach agreement.  The opposite of sustainable is revenue and profit, who are we to dictate that as we had those opportunities, we should deny others either by age or geography, old vs younger, developed world vs developing.

 

That is the dichotomy, BUT the quicker we can find a way and a unified approach, the better for all.  We developed vaccines for Covid in months to save millions, we are looking here to save our planet, we need to agree a way and quickly and invest (a lot) in developing these approaches, there's very little alternative.

Or we'll all be watching water polo at the KP when its under water rather than football

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

I think I made it clear that I think  it is mostly affected by human activity, but that there is also an argument that climate/weather has an element of cycling to it. I'm not an expert but I look back though history and it seems to me the weather/climate has varied over time without significant human interaction.

 

As for weather and climate being entirely different as an ignorant observer I'm not conversant with the various nuances of these relative definitions but I suspect you knew what I meant.

 

Weather is measured over a short period, climate is over a long period.

[bmt]

6 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I used to 

 

But when I once had my red bin full of beer cans after a house party, and was left out for recycling, some knob had chucked an empty fag packet on top. So the bin men never emptied the bin because of the ‘contamination’ 

 

Well if it’s too much effort for them to take the fag packet out in order to recycle about 50 cans, then I shan’t bother either. Needless to say, those 50 cans went straight into my normal bin and I’ve never bothered since.

Recycling processes have massively improved over the last few years to the point that in some areas it can sort recycling from non recycling very effectively (although not as effective as doing it yourself at home).

 

Things progress and become easier. 

[davieG]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Weather is measured over a short period, climate is over a long period.

Isn't the weather affected by the climate and aren't most peoples connection to all of this is by the weather? Surely when asking questions  like this topic it's not surprising people view it as the weather changing and would use that as their means of making a judgement.

 

At least that's what i did, I'm not convinced there's a need for anyone to be so pedantic about using the correct language with this question.

[SpacedX]

24 minutes ago, davieG said:

 but that there is also an argument that climate/weather has an element of cycling to it.

 

Not in terms of anthropogenic climate change it doesn't. 

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, davieG said:

At least that's what i did, I'm not convinced there's a need for anyone to be so pedantic about using the correct language with this question.

It's not intended to be in the slightest bit derogatory or pedantic, it is a very important distinction. 

[yorkie1999]

24 minutes ago, davieG said:

Isn't the weather affected by the climate and aren't most peoples connection to all of this is by the weather? Surely when asking questions  like this topic it's not surprising people view it as the weather changing and would use that as their means of making a judgement.

 

At least that's what i did, I'm not convinced there's a need for anyone to be so pedantic about using the correct language with this question.

It's not being pedantic to use the correct language though , if we didn't, then no-one in the UK would believe there's any such thing as climate change due to how quickly our weather changes. Yesterday was a bit windy with summer showers and sun in between for instance, no different to 40 years ago, and probley no different to when the romans were here.

 

Out of curriosity i looked up what was the weather like during roman times, came across this.. Old Greta would have been mortified in ad107.

https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-100bc-to-499ad/

Edited 17 July 2023 by yorkie1999

[SpacedX]

22 minutes ago, The boy Linacre said:

Or we'll all be watching water polo at the KP when its under water rather than football

 

[davieG]

20 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's not being pedantic to use the correct language though , if we didn't, then no-one in the UK would believe there's any such thing as climate change due to how quickly our weather changes. Yesterday was a bit windy with summer showers and sun in between for instance, no different to 40 years ago, and probley no different to when the romans were here.

 

Out of curriosity i looked up what was the weather like during roman times, came across this.. Old Greta would have been mortified in ad107.

https://premium.weatherweb.net/weather-in-history-100bc-to-499ad/

But the question was about climate change so should have been sufficient context to understand the thought behind my reply without picking me up on a technicality. 

 

In my life time I would say the weather has changed quite a bit so that's how I see Climate change seasonal weather was very predictable hence things like April showers and March winds. I don't have the technical know how to describe it in any other way.

 

Beginning to wish I'd not posted in here.

 

I'm out.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cause the climate is changing, the earth doesn't stay the same forever,  20000 years ago we had glaciers in the penines and wales, where have they gone? Maybe they melted because the sabre tooth tigers weren't eating enough woolly mamoths or maybe it was because the climate changed. If humans are so egotistical that they believe they can change things, they're living on another planet, or rather they should do. Yes, the scientists will put names to things and study things to the nth degree cos that's what they do, and the climate people will want everyone to abandon material goods and live on broad beans we grow in the garden, but nothing will actually change. All i know is that the plants and trees have gone mental this year and if that's due to the climate changing, there's going to be plenty of food in the future, we may even see banana trees in Leicester.

- The idea that vastly increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases along with a commensurate increase in global average temperature from pretty much the exact time the Industrial Revolution kicked into high gear is purely coincidental is an interesting theoryㅂ, I must say.

 

- Those scientists and their discoveries are the reason you can type what you are typing now, and possibly the reason you are still alive.

 

- Just a shame about the billions of people everywhere else who will have nowhere near enough food or potable water, then.

 

23 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

No you don't.

 

Just as you don't find it staggering there are still working class people that will vote Tory, there are still people that stand by Brexit, there are still people that deny covid and vaccines and insist the world is flat. 

 

You might be depressed by it or angry or defeated but you're absolutely not shocked, staggered or surprised. You're smarter than that. 

I would agree here, and I have to say that the key thing will be, quite frankly, neutralising any effect they may have on policy on this matter. The stakes are too high.

 

 

22 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I used to 

 

But when I once had my red bin full of beer cans after a house party, and was left out for recycling, some knob had chucked an empty fag packet on top. So the bin men never emptied the bin because of the ‘contamination’ 

 

Well if it’s too much effort for them to take the fag packet out in order to recycle about 50 cans, then I shan’t bother either. Needless to say, those 50 cans went straight into my normal bin and I’ve never bothered since.

I'm not going to judge this (apart from it being a worldview so diametrically opposed to my own that it's interesting), but I can't speak for others now or in the future, especially if things do go Pete Tong and they are looking to attribute responsibility, solo or collective, to those who they believe "killed the world".

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, davieG said:

But the question was about climate change so should have been sufficient context to understand the thought behind my reply without picking me up on a technicality. 

 

In my life time I would say the weather has changed quite a bit so that's how I see Climate change seasonal weather was very predictable hence things like April showers and March winds. I don't have the technical know how to describe it in any other way.

 

Beginning to wish I'd not posted in here.

 

I'm out.

I would ask that you don't go, your take is fair and correct and the person you're responding to is incorrect to assume that overall climate doesn't directly drive weather events.

[Sparrowhawk]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

For me it seems like it's part of the natural weather cycle of the earth but then on top of that massively influenced by human activity making it considerably worse.

 

 

I think the world would be gradually warming if we weren't here (aren't we still coming out of an ice age?) but the changes would be glacially (sic, and indeed lol) slow. We should be doing things to slow it further (and we'd have had plenty of time) but instead we're accelerating it at an astonishing rate and so we now have very little time indeed.

 

The sheer rate at which records are being broken and extreme events are happening  puts it well outside the natural weather cycle.

[Sparrowhawk]

29 minutes ago, davieG said:

But the question was about climate change so should have been sufficient context to understand the thought behind my reply without picking me up on a technicality.

Pedants gonna pedant.

[Sparrowhawk]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would ask that you don't go, your take is fair and correct and the person you're responding to is incorrect to assume that overall climate doesn't directly drive weather events.

I would agree. And I would add that when someone joins in a discussion in good faith, it's unhelpful (and a bit rude) to drive them away with criticism of the words they use. If he'd come in saying climate change didn't exist and anyone who believes in it is an idiot stooge of the liberals, it would be fair to make him feel like an idiot. But he didn't.

[yorkie1999]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would ask that you don't go, your take is fair and correct and the person you're responding to is incorrect to assume that overall climate doesn't directly drive weather events.

I didn't say or assume that though,  I said that weather is a measure of the short term, climate is a measure of the long term.

[leicsmac]

As an aside, the current polling here actually reflects the polling data I've seen in the UK about the matter as a whole - about 85% OK with the scientific consensus, about 10% thinking it's just another natural cycle, and a tiny minority in firm denial of clear evidence, for whatever reason.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

I didn't say or assume that though,  I said that weather is a measure of the short term, climate is a measure of the long term.

That's fair enough and thank you for the clarification. One drives the other, which I believe to be pretty critical.

 

Honestly yorkie, we've talked about this topic at length before and personally I can't quite understand the lackadaisical and self centred attitude you have towards it all given the stakes in terms of money and lives, but so it goes.

[yorkie1999]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough and thank you for the clarification. One drives the other, which I believe to be pretty critical.

 

Honestly yorkie, we've talked about this topic at length before and personally I can't quite understand the lackadaisical and self centred attitude you have towards it all given the stakes in terms of money and lives, but so it goes.

If you'd read what i wrote you wouldn't need clarification.