Global warming - how else can these signs be explained?

Shrews

I think the 'half-rations' thing should be trialled.  Start with a half-ration day, then maybe a week, then maybe a month.  After all we have initiatives like 'Stoptober' which people buy into.

As a species, we consume far too much of the planets resources and we take it all for granted. The vast majority of us have no idea where the chemicals come from that get added to food and, well, pretty much everything

These facts from Wiki re: Ink Cartridges

• Each year over 350 million cartridges are thrown out to landfills
• By the year 2012, 500 million laser cartridges and 1.8 billion ink cartridges had been dumped in landfills.
• Cartridges can take up to 425 to 1000 years to decompose
• Every ink cartridge becomes 3.5 pounds of solid waste.

Trouble is, I would guess the vast majority of us have no idea about those facts..... and they're just tiny ink cartridges!

The scientists warned of the climate change 'tipping point' a few years ago and it may well be that we still have a chance before that happens, but I doubt it, just not enough is being done and the human race as a whole either don't care enough, choose not to believe it or just don't understand (because they've never been informed).

My guess is that we've already reached that tipping point and the scientists and politicians know this.  As I said on another thread, if Mr Trump (probably) announces that we are off to colonise Mars in the next 10 years then we can start to get worried that the tipping point has been reached and that Planet Earth is going to become uninhabitable, needing us to start again somewhere else.

Philtre

Fretwired said:

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 because people prefer lies and stupidity over truth and facts they just voted for a different "ruling elite".

Fretwired

Philtre said:

Fretwired said:

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 because people prefer lies and stupidity over truth and facts they just voted for a different "ruling elite".

Trump is seriously different. I wouldn't call him part of the 'ruling elite' .. Brexit will shake up UK politics. There is talk of David Miliband returning to form a new party. Either way the Tories are split and Labour's not much better. There's a good chance a new party will be formed.

It's just easy and trite to stand on a hill and shout "lies" .. the issues are complex. People aren't like Mr Spock .. they are emotional not logical.

Philtre

Fretwired said:

Philtre said:

Fretwired said:

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 because people prefer lies and stupidity over truth and facts they just voted for a different "ruling elite".

Trump is seriously different. I wouldn't call him part of the 'ruling elite' .. Brexit will shake up UK politics. There is talk of David Miliband returning to form a new party. Either way the Tories are split and Labour's not much better. There's a good chance a new party will be formed.

It's just easy and trite to stand on a hill and shout "lies" .. the issues are complex. People aren't like Mr Spock .. they are emotional not logical.

I guess so. I'm just jaded and grumpy. ;-)

Emp_Fab

If I kill the politician, can I have their share?

littlegreenman

The planet's probably fucked as far as humans are concerned, we will never collectively do what needs to be done to save it for our continued survival. We're genetically programmed to be selfish cunts, just like all other lifeforms. Survive, at any cost.

The problem seems to be that "surviving" means different things depending on where you are on the planet.

I'd imagine the aspirations of someone in a third world ghetto are somewhat detached to those of someone living in Knightsbridge, and yet they would both feel the "need" for a bowl of rice or another yacht.

Until that inequality is addressed, which I don't think ever will be, there will be no solution.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

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".

How can I miss the point of a fictional scenario?  

If the only way to save the planet was to eradicate huge tracts of societal behaviour as you detail, the likelihood is that a) the entire world wouldn't obey it and b) that if the margins were that tight then the planet would already be beyond repair. 

As you write, why is there a separation between China, India, and the USA, and 'ordinary people'? 

Heartfeltdawn

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?

First line: I would like to save the planet. 

Second line: yes. 

Third line: No, and I will explain why. In your example you say "Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?". 

I don't want sworn testimony. I want hard reliable scientific data and analysis that is peer reviewed until the proverbial pips squeak and the scientific community comes together with a large majority consensus viewpoint that "We do this, this, and this, and the planet lives". Words alone would not be enough. 

As for how life would change... the operating hours for pubs would change. Society would change. Perhaps for the better. 

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn said:

Chalky said:

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".

How can I miss the point of a fictional scenario?  

If the only way to save the planet was to eradicate huge tracts of societal behaviour as you detail, the likelihood is that a) the entire world wouldn't obey it and b) that if the margins were that tight then the planet would already be beyond repair. 

As you write, why is there a separation between China, India, and the USA, and 'ordinary people'? 

I meant those governments/prevailing political forces, as the biggest polluters (someone mentioned earlier, hence why I selected them) and by ordinary people I meant the people of the world without political power other than the ballot box.

I'm told its not a fictional scenario if you accept the bad end of the scientific predictions.

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn 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?

First line: I would like to save the planet. 

Second line: yes. 

Third line: No, and I will explain why. In your example you say "Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?". 

I don't want sworn testimony. I want hard reliable scientific data and analysis that is peer reviewed until the proverbial pips squeak and the scientific community comes together with a large majority consensus viewpoint that "We do this, this, and this, and the planet lives". Words alone would not be enough. 

As for how life would change... the operating hours for pubs would change. Society would change. Perhaps for the better. 

Re you third line comment, AFAIK there are no "hard reliable scientific data and analysis...etc" regarding the answer to the question "if we do this the planet lives, yes?".  There are only the ranges of potential outcomes of climate change without remedial action, and various high level targets whose remedial effect is not predicted to the same level of detail.

I'm sure one of the environmentalists on here can give more detail.

Heartfeltdawn

OK, that makes sense regarding the ordinary polluting people and the really hardcore mofos. 

The likelihood is that we've already fucked things up beyond repair. The question is therefore this:  do we want to eek out our existence on this planet for 100 years or 200 years? 

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn said:

OK, that makes sense regarding the ordinary polluting people and the really hardcore mofos. 

The likelihood is that we've already fucked things up beyond repair. The question is therefore this:  do we want to eek out our existence on this planet for 100 years or 200 years? 

Now, now, you know I mean the relative political power.

Danny1969

The way I see it there are rough times ahead. Wars have been fought over fairly trivial matters compared to the loss of the entire planet. Would a western country wipe out an entire eastern country if it brought the world another 30 years ?

57Deluxe

Rocker said:

#Our roses are still in bloom, note it is well into November
A lot of Summer bedding plants are still flowering.
I noticed a cowslip flowering a few days ago. These usually flower in late Spring.
On our way into town yesterday, my wife and I saw a cherry tree in full flower.
Last week a pair of sparrows were observed 'doing up' their nest under the boiler house roof.#

sounds like another shit C&W song to me....

Heartfeltdawn

No, I wasn't making any consideration for political power. So I'm totally fine with a delineation between the average person and a hugely polluting country. 

Re. hard data. You're quite right. But I'm responding to your question of "Would you be ok with that if a politician and scientist swore to you that it would save the planet?". A politician can swear blind that blue is white and white is orange. A certain degree of 'truthiness', to crib Stephen Colbert, is what I'd like and that truthiness comes from science. 

Your scenario as set I've answered: I'd happily half the resources I use. Whether society would.. probably not. 

 

Rocker

dbphoto said:

Ghosts are real.
God exists.
Fairies live at the bottom of my garden.
Football is amazing.
The Earth is flat.
Climate change/global warming is not a scam.

I only believe one of the above to be true, but I know I would be wasting my time trying to convince anyone on the internet who disagrees with me.  

I also appreciate that no one in the internet can persuade me otherwise.

I will therefor continue to trust trust the work of scientists over anyone else.

I don't know where your garden is mate but there are Fairies in Co. Fermanagh. On lough Erne to be precise. And they can be seen easily from the lakeshore. Fairies are a class of fast small sailing boats, unique to lough Erne I believe. Fairies do exist.....

darius

Just each do a few small things
I cycle to work
We have one car
It saves tons of cash
It wont on is own save the humans and i doubt the planet cares.