Global warming - how else can these signs be explained?

Emp_Fab

Climate change is real.  We've caused it.  We're never going to get our shit together to do anything other than slow it down a tiny fraction - forget stopping it or reversing it.  We're all likely going to die (as a species) as a result.  Then only question is when and how many of us.

Anyone who believes this isn't true has jelly and custard between their ears.

Shrews

When the vast majority of scientists are all saying the same thing, then it probably is time for the human race to start taking note.

Heartfeltdawn

Emp_Fab said:

Climate change is real.  We've caused it.  We're never going to get our shit together to do anything other than slow it down a tiny fraction - forget stopping it or reversing it.  We're all likely going to die (as a species) as a result.  Then only question is when and how many of us.

Anyone who believes this isn't true has jelly and custard between their ears.

Which is why we'll be forced to eat people come Brexit and the food shortages. The denialists will be the first ones to be eaten. 

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

No, but NASA is an agency of the US Government : They presumably are therefore capable of "government lies"?

True. We never went to the Moon.

I'm out!

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

No, but NASA is an agency of the US Government : They presumably are therefore capable of "government lies"?

True. We never went to the Moon.

I'm out!

It's a good thing it was NASA doing the Moon landing and not a British team. We'd have had major delays and a load of confusing messages before all the astronauts were loaded onto a Moon landing replacement bus and forced to travel to the Sea of Tranquility via Reading, Slough, and Didcot Parkway. 

ICBM

If the British had done the Moon landing, it would have been cancelled in order to save money at the last minute once the astronauts were already in lunar orbit, despite the fact that it would cost more to abort it then than go through with it, even discounting the money already spent.

munckee

We produce roughly 1% of global emissions compared to 55% which come from China, India, Russia and US combined. Us charging 5p for a carrier bag is not going to solve it.  If we stopped our entire use of fossil fuels and plastic would not change it. Unless there is a globally agreed plan nothing is going to change. 

Plus us the countries on the rise developmentally Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia etcwill be expanding their use of resources. 

I also think while denying man is partly responsible is nuts it’s also true that scientists do not know how much is from man and how much is part of the cycles of the earth. 

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn said:

Chalky said:

As a wise man once said "Imagine that we suddenly had concrete undisputed scientific evidence that by stopping all sports, all hobbies, all music, all TV, all alcohol, we could halt global warming.  What would you bet the outcome would be? The wilful abandonment of all those things by everyone? Or the bloodiest war?"

The point is that, whatever the cause, the solution is not going to be achieved by everyone being nice.

We don't want nice. One can deny climate change in the most beautifully polite prose imaginable. What is needed is a reasoned response and a belief in evidence-based analysis. 

The scenario you detail: it's likely we'd have gone over the tipping point if the only way to stop climate change was to erase huge tracts of societal behaviour. 

You miss the point. 

If the situation is at the very bad end of the scientific predictions, then massive changes are required, far in excess of what China, India, USA will tolerate, and far in excess of what ordinary people will tolerate.

As another wise man once said "Be careful what you wish for".

Chalky

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

iseverynamegone

Chalky said:

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

A lot? 

Yes?

Yes?

Chalky

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

A lot? 

Yes?

Yes?

Good for you. How many of your family, friends, colleagues, all the people you know, do you estimate would be like you and say Yes?

p90fool

munckee said:

We produce roughly 1% of global emissions compared to 55% which come from China, India, Russia and US combined.  

That depends on how you measure it. If you're talking about global emissions immediately in the airspace over this island then maybe, but we're still biggish consumers of products which cause problems elsewhere, like South American beef for example. 

You can't isolate a single country's contribution to the problem any more. 

iseverynamegone

Chalky said:

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

A lot? 

Yes?

Yes?

Good for you. How many of your family, friends, colleagues, all the people you know, do you estimate would be like you and say Yes?

Clearly not many to the second 2 questions , but then the analogy is not real and the argument seems forced to project a view that there is little you can do as an individual in order to defend a position where you do nothing as no one else will. 

I would reject that view. 

munckee

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

A lot? 

Yes?

Yes?

Would everyone in the devleoped world?

munckee

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

A lot? 

Yes?

Yes?

Good for you. How many of your family, friends, colleagues, all the people you know, do you estimate would be like you and say Yes?

Clearly not many to the second 2 questions , but then the analogy is not real and the argument seems forced to project a view that there is little you can do as an individual in order to defend a position where you do nothing as no one else will. 

I would reject that view. 

Reject as in because if everyone says that it’s self defeating or because you believe it’s not true?

iseverynamegone

Littering is a huge issue. Me not littering really makes no neglible difference to the problem. But that doesn’t make me think  I may as well just litter.  I want my kids to understand that littering is not right , even if
others do it and I can’t easliy change their behaviour. 

I think most non flat earthers would agree with the above. 

Clearly the personal inconvenience  of not littering is small. The personal inconvience of reducing your carbon footprint is much greater. 

I have to fly for work , I have to drive for work. Many do. I cannot easily change these things without large disruption to my life, in a vacuum.  So I continue to do them.

There are however other things I can do in a vacuum
which may make a difference and  may set an example to my kids and others.  

Philtre

One thing I know. People prefer lies and stupidity over truth and facts. Hence Trump and Brexit and climate change deniers. Far better to blame climate change on wasps, or gravy than humans.

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe. - Frank Zappa

Chalky

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

iseverynamegone said:

Chalky said:

Ask yourself how much you want to save the planet?

Do the half test.  Would you accept everything you consume being rationed so you only got half of what you consume today?

So you and your family would be rationed to half the food you buy today, half the water, half the electricity, half the internet time, half the media (12 hours dead time when no media can be used), half the fuel used by your vehicles, half the buses and trains, and so on, etc.  Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?

A lot? 

Yes?

Yes?

Good for you. How many of your family, friends, colleagues, all the people you know, do you estimate would be like you and say Yes?

Clearly not many to the second 2 questions , but then the analogy is not real and the argument seems forced to project a view that there is little you can do as an individual in order to defend a position where you do nothing as no one else will. 

I would reject that view. 

Of course you would, because it against your idealogical view.  The idea that one person can make a difference is romantic but feasible.  The idea that one person will always make a difference is false.

Fretwired

Philtre said:

One thing I know. People prefer lies and stupidity over truth and facts. Hence Trump and Brexit and climate change deniers. Far better to blame climate change on wasps, or gravy than humans.

Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe. - Frank Zappa

I don't buy that - as usual a simplistic soundbite. People are complicated. Trump and Brexit are linked -  a large group of voters who felt disenfranchised and marginalised by the ruling elite. And most politicians can be accused of lying as they rarely implement, or do what they promise.

When it comes to climate change people have a right to be cynical - for example the government encouraged everyone to buy diesel cars. The government then does a U-turn and demonises them  with higher taxes and bans from town centres. The value of second hand diesel cars has fallen and car companies like Jaguar and BMW are in trouble with falling sales - people are angry. We now about to have a major push on cutting meat consumption - good idea. The government is now having a consultation on .. wait for it .. a meat tax. People will see this as merely an opportunity to get more revenue rather than a real attempt to control climate change.

Chalky

iseverynamegone said:

Littering is a huge issue. Me not littering really makes no neglible difference to the problem. But that doesn’t make me think  I may as well just litter.  I want my kids to understand that littering is not right , even if
others do it and I can’t easliy change their behaviour. 

I think most non flat earthers would agree with the above. 

Clearly the personal inconvenience  of not littering is small. The personal inconvience of reducing your carbon footprint is much greater. 

I have to fly for work , I have to drive for work. Many do. I cannot easily change these things without large disruption to my life, in a vacuum.  So I continue to do them.

There are however other things I can do in a vacuum
which may make a difference and  may set an example to my kids and others.  

But that is exactly the problem. If you want to meet the objectives of reducing carbon footprint to the point of reversing climate change, then the argument "I have to for work" is not sufficient.