Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

It is the hypocrisy people don't like.  The number of sanctimonious twats flying all over the world and telling people to change their day to day lives when they are not willing to do so themselves.  Gary Lineker doesn't fly private anymore though so it is ok.

...so?

 

If climate change isn't real, then it's just people yelling into the wind and it's not going to matter how many flights they take, so why even listen or bother to criticise at all? For people who go on about how they're tough and about "snowflakes", it seems a bit snowflakeish.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Interesting that the alleged massive use of power by IT servers etc doesn't make an appearance.

Perhaps that's under "Commerical" or "other".

 

You're right though, it's not as big a source as might be claimed.

 

But seriously, it is power generation, oil, gas, coal, that is the biggest contributor by far and everything else is just window dressing.

[leicsmac]

Of course, that pie chart is from 2016, so a more up to date version might be worth looking for.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...so?

 

If climate change isn't real, then it's just people yelling into the wind and it's not going to matter how many flights they take, so why even listen or bother to criticise at all? For people who go on about how they're tough and about "snowflakes", it seems a bit snowflakeish.

I would say plenty of people who do believe climate change is real are also pissed off with the hypocrisy no?  These denier types are no doubt playing on that.

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps that's under "Commerical" or "other".

 

You're right though, it's not as big a source as might be claimed.

 

But seriously, it is power generation, oil, gas, coal, that is the biggest contributor by far and everything else is just window dressing.

Power generation I think is in hand, in that the investment is there, and if we get over the reticence for Nuclear we can make the transition.  I worry about use in industrial processes more, and we need a lot more metals, cement, plastics etc to achieve the transition, so that grows in importance along the way.  I think it requires a change in investment model which is taking time.  For example, presently minerals processing is a pretty much continuous high energy process apart from maintenance shut downs, which required storable power, lots of it.  If you change that model to produce in a stop start manner when Solar is available, you can reduce the impact, but then you have idle assets half the time.  Difficult, hence the investment in Hydrogen and bettery tech.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I would say plenty of people who do believe climate change is real are also pissed off with the hypocrisy no?  These denier types are no doubt playing on that.

Goes with a lot of other complaints on the same matter IMO - understandable given the nature of humans, but not excusable given it contributes nothing constructive.

 

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Power generation I think is in hand, in that the investment is there, and if we get over the reticence for Nuclear we can make the transition.  I worry about use in industrial processes more, and we need a lot more metals, cement, plastics etc to achieve the transition, so that grows in importance along the way.  I think it requires a change in investment model which is taking time.  For example, presently minerals processing is a pretty much continuous high energy process apart from maintenance shut downs, which required storable power, lots of it.  If you change that model to produce in a stop start manner when Solar is available, you can reduce the impact, but then you have idle assets half the time.  Difficult, hence the investment in Hydrogen and bettery tech.

Given you work in such industrial processing capacity I can see where you're coming from, and it does take up a chunk that will no doubt get bigger, as you say. Something to address alongside energy generation. Do agree that Gen III/IV fission as well as renewabkle sources is the way forward, until we crack fusion (which we will).

[nnfox]

I've just finished watching 'Earth' on iPlayer with Chris Packham and found it fascinating.  It spends a good deal of time discussing our atmosphere and expands on several instances in deep pre-history where the earth has experienced high temperatures and also been thrown into deep freezes due (largely) to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It portrays how delicate the atmosphere is and how devastating changes have been and will be.

 

Depressingly, the final episode looked at the evolution of humans and what modern man has done to the planet.  What we have done, and are continuing to do, to the land, sea and air will ultimately see us, in my opinion. fulfil our destiny as a failed species.  Anatomically modern humans have been around for 300k years, give or take.  The damage we have overseen in the last 12,000 years of farming and civilization building is staggering.  It's a geological blink of an eye.  I just don't see a way back, without radical, government backed, global solutions coupled with huge investment in science and industry.  

 

One feeling that I had coming away from the series was that talk of "the" environment, should be replaced with "our" environment.  The environment will be absolutely fine - it has seen plenty worse than what we've done to it and will likely naturally see plenty worse again, but humans are delicate creatures and it is our environment that we need to take care of, right now, or we're doomed - and in pretty short time too.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I've just finished watching 'Earth' on iPlayer with Chris Packham and found it fascinating.  It spends a good deal of time discussing our atmosphere and expands on several instances in deep pre-history where the earth has experienced high temperatures and also been thrown into deep freezes due (largely) to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  It portrays how delicate the atmosphere is and how devastating changes have been and will be.

 

Depressingly, the final episode looked at the evolution of humans and what modern man has done to the planet.  What we have done, and are continuing to do, to the land, sea and air will ultimately see us, in my opinion. fulfil our destiny as a failed species.  Anatomically modern humans have been around for 300k years, give or take.  The damage we have overseen in the last 12,000 years of farming and civilization building is staggering.  It's a geological blink of an eye.  I just don't see a way back, without radical, government backed, global solutions coupled with huge investment in science and industry.  

 

One feeling that I had coming away from the series was that talk of "the" environment, should be replaced with "our" environment.  The environment will be absolutely fine - it has seen plenty worse than what we've done to it and will likely naturally see plenty worse again, but humans are delicate creatures and it is our environment that we need to take care of, right now, or we're doomed - and in pretty short time too.

Yeah, this is all 100% right.

 

It needs to be common knowledge in more places, or where it is common knowledge but is treated with ostrich-like denial by some people (because reasons), able to supercede that denial in terms of policy action. Or yes, the Earth will treat that denial of the laws of thermodynamics with both contempt and very, very harsh punishment.

[Lionator]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I would say plenty of people who do believe climate change is real are also pissed off with the hypocrisy no?  These denier types are no doubt playing on that.

Not defending it because it is hypocritical but as you can see from the graph on the last page, aviation barely impacts on overall emissions. There are far more important things one can do, stop eating beef, use public transport more and pressure you governments to use renewable energy sources. 

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Not defending it because it is hypocritical but as you can see from the graph on the last page, aviation barely impacts on overall emissions. There are far more important things one can do, stop eating beef, use public transport more and pressure you governments to use renewable energy sources. 

All the Beef stats seem to be based on the US corn fed beef which is very different to eating grass fed beef from the UK or indeed Australia.

[Lionator]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

All the Beef stats seem to be based on the US corn fed beef which is very different to eating grass fed beef from the UK or indeed Australia.

It’s an interesting debate but not necessarily correct or incorrect. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science#:~:text=A number of past studies,belches) over their longer lifespans.
 

And yeah the American food industry is genuinely disgusting. 

[ozleicester]

 nah, not going there.
 

[ozleicester]

As we watch the sadness of dozens of Pilot Whales beaching themselves.... and we say, "we just dont understand why they are destroying themselves this way".




Far off in the darkness of space a little green person with a telescope is looking at the entire earth and is saying... "we just dont understand why they are destroying themselves this way."

[The Year Of The Fox]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And a good point from one of the comments. Perhaps one of the 11 people who thinks climate change isn't real might chip in on this:

 

If climate change isn't real and so consumption of oil and gas are having no effect at all, why criticise the BBC/climate activists/AN Other for any plane trips/gas-guzzling vehicles/whatever else they use (a pretty common line from those interested in the status quo)? Or if those entities using carbon products is a problem, why say climate change isn't real?

 

Little bit of a logical inconsistency there.

It’s not is it really?

 

The inconsistency are the ones preaching about it, yet still using those methods

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

It’s not is it really?

 

The inconsistency are the ones preaching about it, yet still using those methods

I think I covered this above, but I'll repeat here:

 

If they're going on about hypocrisy but think climate change isn't real, then they're essentially shouting at clouds because it's nothing that will affect their lives beyond words.

 

If they're going on about climate change, think it's real but can't be arsed to do anything to help, then they're every bit as hypocritical themselves.

 

If it's just some kind of tantrum about being "told what to do", well, there are a hundred and one things we get told to do every day that otherwise don't have an effect on our lives, mostly from the advertising industry. It's odd and rather inconsistent that such a determined bloc would choose to focus on this one.

 

NB. The whole hypocrisy argument is mostly a strawman anyway, as no one serious about this whole matter who actually wants to see it succeed long term is advocating for giving up flying or whatever anyway, rather applying advanced tech solutions to solve the problem.

 

In any case, AFAIC people can think as they like, but this matter is as intractable as any other law of physics - either we change things to prevent and to mitigate, or the Earth itself will restore an equilibrium, and that will be far more devastating than any mooted measures to deal with it. That's about it, really - peoples denial doesn't mean anything apart from possibly getting in the way and ending up with a great many people suffering and killed entirely unnecessarily.

Edited 26 July 2023 by leicsmac

[ozleicester]

Climate change deniers be denying

[marbles]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Climate change deniers be denying

Don’t you be denying the deniers!!

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, marbles said:

Don’t you be denying the deniers!!

hey! Im entitled to my opinion!!

[Blarmy]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If it's just some kind of tantrum about being "told what to do", well, there are a hundred and one things we get told to do every day that otherwise don't have an effect on our lives, mostly from the advertising industry. It's odd and rather inconsistent that such a determined bloc would choose to focus on this one.

 

I don’t have any evidence, but my gut tells me in the majority of cases it’s this, because I see it everywhere.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Blarmy said:

I don’t have any evidence, but my gut tells me in the majority of cases it’s this, because I see it everywhere.

I think my instinct agrees with yours here.

 

Yet again, the sentiment falls under acknowledgeable, understandable...but in no way excusable. Not wit the evidence and consequences being what they are.

[ozleicester]

 

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

This is a disappointing discovery - thanks, I will be selecting my beef more carefully in future.  

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is a disappointing discovery - thanks, I will be selecting my beef more carefully in future.  

There are 2 that i know of within 2 hours of Perth

[ozleicester]

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-66323843

 

"Temperatures this July have been "remarkable" in records going back to the 1940s, says Carlo Buontempo, director of Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). Scientists are confident the record has been surpassed, even before the month ends.

Data suggests the temperatures this July could be "unprecedented in our history in the last few thousand years," he says.

Possibly even longer "on the order of 100,000 years."

"The extreme weather which has affected many millions of people in July is unfortunately the harsh reality of climate change and a foretaste of the future," says the World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general Petteri Taalas."