Climate change. discuss/.

[doc.fixit]

12 hours ago, SJR said:

I have just fast forwarded to the end of the subject.I will say though that if the same clowns that have told us that we will die due to Nuclear War SARS a new ice age Global Warming AIDs The hole in the ozone layer Bird Flu and one that I cannot remember are allowed in charge then it is time to give up..

was it the oil running out before the end of the 20th century?

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, doc.fixit said:

was it the oil running out before the end of the 20th century?

Yes, I too remember that one in the late 70s. Never heard the end of it back then.

Our saviour was to be the 80mpg Mini Metro.....

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Butterflies said:

Climate change denying isn't even a thing any more. Over a thousand Governments, jurisdictions and countries have declared a climate emergency, including the IOM, the UK, Canada, Portugal, France, Spain, the Pope and many, many others. Over 10,000 scientists from 150 countries have recently signed a declaration published in Bioscience stating:

"We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.  To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. This entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems."

It's undeniable that the climate is changing and as we have increased the global population eightfold it is plain that we have a hand in it. That is one thing. It is quite another thing to declare a "climate emergency" which has been driven by mass hysteria among populations whipped up by internet groups and seized upon by self-serving politicians. The simple fact is that we cannot sustain the current size of population without burning fossil fuels to do the heavy lifting. There are other important factors such as habitat destruction and human encroachment on biodiversity. What will probably happen is that we will run short of natural resources. There will be wars. There will be disease from deprivation. Eventually it may wind down to a simpler life and a much lower population if we're lucky. If not, we could go the way of the dinosaurs. Their brains too small for their survival, ours too large. The planet may have seen our like multiple times before and rendered all to dust. One thing is certain. We will not reverse climate warming by global agreement,  good management and windfarms. 

[Albert Tatlock]

27 minutes ago, woolley said:

Plenty of boomers use food banks. 

These food banks are often run by unpleasant people.

I went into Barclays and asked for a tin of beans...and all the guy said was "Fuck off you looney"

[Max Power]

2 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

ISo why try?  

The snopes link points out that the petition call on anyone with an undergraduate degree in a science to sign it.  Rather devalues that don't you think?

The Forbes article seems more focused on ensuring that we continue to use fossil fuels.  Can't help but feel there must be a reason behind that?

Because there are enough scientists who question the effect we can have to reverse what is happening. Yes we should clean up our emissions, the waste which we pollute the planet with and find more sustainable energy sources. My feeling is that we are having a crisis declared to hurry along development rather than anything meaningful being done to counter the effects of something which we can do nothing about, part of the Earth's natural weather cycle, coming to the end of a habitable period  which will most certainly lead to bigger changes than us driving electric cars.  

[RIchard Britten]

6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Because there are enough scientists who question the effect...

Exactly what proportion would you say is enough to accept?

1%?  5%?  20%?

 

[manxman1980]

23 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Yes we should clean up our emissions, the waste which we pollute the planet with and find more sustainable energy sources. My feeling is that we are having a crisis declared to hurry along development rather than anything meaningful being done to counter the effects of something which we can do nothing about, part of the Earth's natural weather cycle, coming to the end of a habitable period  which will most certainly lead to bigger changes than us driving electric cars.  

Firstly, see Richard's point above.

Secondly, this all just like people being afraid to change the way they are living their lives to improve the environment and minimise the impact of human activity which would make life better for all of us.  There are no easy answers, there are people working on new greener technologies, there are people working on carbon capture techniques, there are people researching how we can use more natural materials in products and many other projects aiming to improve/save our environment.

It is, however, noticeable that for some it always comes down to whataboutery as they look to excuse their own lifestyles and pretend it is not their problem.  

[Max Power]

2 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Firstly, see Richard's point above.

Secondly, this all just like people being afraid to change the way they are living their lives to improve the environment and minimise the impact of human activity which would make life better for all of us.  There are no easy answers, there are people working on new greener technologies, there are people working on carbon capture techniques, there are people researching how we can use more natural materials in products and many other projects aiming to improve/save our environment.

It is, however, noticeable that for some it always comes down to whataboutery as they look to excuse their own lifestyles and pretend it is not their problem.  

I haven't suggested for a minute that changes must come, but what is being done about the massive loss of rainforests to farming? Meanwhile ordinary people are expected to make huge sacrifices. Shouldn't we be invading Brazil or Indonesia, forcing India and China to adopt cleaner forms of energy? Meanwhile, 80 year old Mavis will be heavily penalised for going shopping in her Polo diesel, keeping warm by her fire and cooking her lamb chops on her gas stove!

[flaps]

Whenever I see a news article or thread about climate change, it's always followed by a load of comments from people who, conveniently for their lifestyle, say it's a load of nonsense. It's a common human trait to deny responsibility, point the finger elsewhere. We don't want to change. The thing is, lets suppose the IPCC issue a new report tomorrow saying "our calculations were wrong, it's not our fault" - what then? Just carry on burning everything we can? Clear the rainforests? Chuck everything in the river? Trash the place? Even if it was to turn out to be a load of bollocks, we still need to be changing our lifestyles anyway, because we're trashing the joint.

With regard to the Isle of Man, clearly any reductions in our emissions will make no difference overall, but that could be said by anyone. It's only by collectively doing our bit the world over will it work. One thing we do need to invest in is our promenades, harbours and riverbanks, as they have been neglected for far too long, and the sea isn't going to get lower.

Renewable power is now cheaper than fossil fuels, but unfortunately our MEA is in such debt we're in the embarrassing position of being a 'Biosphere' without a single wind turbine.

Electric cars are totally viable here, with our shorter journeys, but we need to be using cars less anyway. Car ownership is now making our living environment worse, clogging up our roads with parked vehicles everywhere. People driving very short distances to the school or co-op etc. Basically, like Lord Buckethead said - "you humans need to take a bloody good look at yourselves".

 

[craggy_steve]

5 hours ago, Butterflies said:

 Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.*

Climate change denying isn't even a thing any more. Over a thousand Governments, jurisdictions and countries have declared a climate emergency, including the IOM, the UK, Canada, Portugal, France, Spain, the Pope and many, many others. Over 10,000 scientists from 150 countries have recently signed a declaration published in Bioscience stating:

"We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.  To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. This entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems."

But no doubt Stu Peters and his ilk know best and the scientists are lying, right?! Jesus wept.

(*stolen, not mine)

 

 

So, as there are now around 8,000,000 scientists in the world (according to UNESCO), 10,000 scientists is what proportion? Oh yeah, 0.125%.

Climate Change is real. Always has been. See my post above, I believe in Climate Change, I'm not a denier. Might even be an emergency. But the voice of science is neither united nor authoritative, the problem is simply too complex for our feeble minds and modern science to give us authoritative answers.

 

Never mind what the scientists say. Read the data for yourself and go with your gut. If there is a man-made problem it's due to a condom shortage.

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

I haven't suggested for a minute that changes must come, but what is being done about the massive loss of rainforests to farming? Meanwhile ordinary people are expected to make huge sacrifices. Shouldn't we be invading Brazil or Indonesia, forcing India and China to adopt cleaner forms of energy? Meanwhile, 80 year old Mavis will be heavily penalised for going shopping in her Polo diesel, keeping warm by her fire and cooking her lamb chops on her gas stove!

More deflection...You could go and help 80 year old Mavis with her shopping while you do your own meaning that only one car is needed not two.  No one is going to stop her cooking or keeping warm by her fire but perhaps a cheaper and greener form of energy would help alleviate her worries about the cost of gas/electricity/oil.

As for Brazil et al why would invading help?  That just causes more destruction and waste!  We should be bringing more political pressure to bear and helping where we can by making technologies for renewable energy cheaper so that they are not reliant on fossil fuels for cheap energy. 

In the meantime make sure you reduce your waste as much as possible, buy local where you can, and buy from companies who are committed to protecting the environment. 

8 minutes ago, craggy_steve said:

So, as there are now around 8,000,000 scientists in the world (according to UNESCO), 10,000 scientists is what proportion? Oh yeah, 0.125%.

7.8 million researchers and it does not specify their specialities so that number will include researchers working in fields as diverse as medicine, astronomy, technology, climate, environment, physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology etc etc.   Get the idea? 

[foxdaleliberationfront]

5 hours ago, Butterflies said:

 Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.*

Climate change denying isn't even a thing any more. Over a thousand Governments, jurisdictions and countries have declared a climate emergency, including the IOM, the UK, Canada, Portugal, France, Spain, the Pope and many, many others. Over 10,000 scientists from 150 countries have recently signed a declaration published in Bioscience stating:

"We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.  To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. This entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems."

But no doubt Stu Peters and his ilk know best and the scientists are lying, right?! Jesus wept.

(*stolen, not mine)

 

 

Who are the supposed '97%'? 

Did you personally go and speak to every single scientist in the world? 

[Butterflies]

I believe in gravity too but I didn't personally speak to Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or any other physicist.

Craggy Steve, yes I read your first post. Another one who understands climate science better than climate scientists. Here is full information on the 97% and the so-called consensus gap that you are evidencing so aptly:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

[craggy_steve]

34 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

 

7.8 million researchers and it does not specify their specialities so that number will include researchers working in fields as diverse as medicine, astronomy, technology, climate, environment, physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology etc etc.   Get the idea? 

2013/14 data. And the claims of X,000 scientists do not discriminate between scientific disciplines. The "scientists agree" camp need to get their propaganda in order, being a scientist does not convey intellectual superpowers or authority. That's at the core of the sceptics basis of scepticism; there was a time when the majority of scientists believed the world was flat, and another time when scientists believed that the smallest sub-atomic particles were electrons.

CO2 has risen dramatically. It's risen in line with population growth. These things we can all see. It might exacerbate warming trends - that's hypothesis, underwritten by logical but unproven models based on our limited understanding of how Earth works. Previous climate emergencies were not preceded or caused by elevated CO2 levels of the scale we see today. Don't put scientists on pedestals, they're no more infallible than billionaires. 

Yes we need to do something, about the CO2 increase. We can hope that doing so might also help mitigate the "Climate Change problem", but then again it might not. We still need to deal with the causes of excessive CO2 irrespective. The CO2 excess is man-made, so let's tell the truth and deal with it. 

[craggy_steve]

32 minutes ago, Butterflies said:

I believe in gravity too but I didn't personally speak to Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or any other physicist.

Craggy Steve, yes I read your first post. Another one who understands climate science better than climate scientists. Here is full information on the 97% and the so-called consensus gap that you are evidencing so aptly:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/millions-of-times-later-97-percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/

I don't claim to understand climate science, but I do understand scientific method and its inherent fallibility. Almost everything we have ever been told by scientists throughout the history of mankind has been subsequently proven to be well-intentioned but incorrect or imprecise.

We need to deal with the causes of elevated CO2, period. If we do then that will also satisfy the arguments of the scientific global warming lobby - until they realise it is more complicated than that. Don't place exaggerated faith in scientists, they're not going to save the world. If anything we can argue that scientific advances are the primary cause of our current challenges.