Saving the planet / IPCC report on Climate Change Aug ‘21

Emp_Fab

viz said:

We will do something about it. There’s no choice. We’ve been heading to this point for 30, 40, 50 years and the message has been getting more and more unavoidable. So I do believe nations will come together to sort it out, even if they only do the bare minimum.

There IS a choice.  A choice between unpopular restrictions to save future generations and instant gratification.  Instant gratification will win every time.

It's not the case that we'll always have time to get serious about it and to unite as one to reverse the damage.  Climate change isn't something you can just put the brakes on to make it stop.  Once the point is reached where the trapped methane in the ocean floor starts bubbling up (it's already starting in places) it's a runaway train.  Nothing humans can do can stop it then.  The more methane that reaches the atmosphere, the hotter it gets - which causes more methane release and so on.

The planet is on that cliff edge right NOW.  That's it....  We are out of time.

In theory, the whole of humanity could unite and immediately cease all activities that feed global warming and maybe that might be enough to pull the earth back from the brink.  However there is more chance of me laying laminate in every home in the UK on my own by this Friday than there is of that happening.

In short - it's game over time.

Homo Sapiens; 300,000 BC to 2500 AD.

WiresDreamDisasters

Emp_Fab said:

viz said:

We will do something about it. There’s no choice. We’ve been heading to this point for 30, 40, 50 years and the message has been getting more and more unavoidable. So I do believe nations will come together to sort it out, even if they only do the bare minimum.

There IS a choice.  A choice between unpopular restrictions to save future generations and instant gratification.  Instant gratification will win every time.

It's not the case that we'll always have time to get serious about it and to unite as one to reverse the damage.  Climate change isn't something you can just put the brakes on to make it stop.  Once the point is reached where the trapped methane in the ocean floor starts bubbling up (it's already starting in places) it's a runaway train.  Nothing humans can do can stop it then.  The more methane that reaches the atmosphere, the hotter it gets - which causes more methane release and so on.

The planet is on that cliff edge right NOW.  That's it....  We are out of time.

In theory, the whole of humanity could unite and immediately cease all activities that feed global warming and maybe that might be enough to pull the earth back from the brink.  However there is more chance of me laying laminate in every home in the UK on my own by this Friday than there is of that happening.

In short - it's game over time.

Homo Sapiens; 300,000 BC to 2500 AD.

I'm quoting this set of hysterics, for future joint-forum hysterics. Save the date everyone!! Party in 20 years time!!

Simonh

PANIC MR MANNERING!!!

I find it amazing that all the climate scientist who have a vested interest in being right and not having their models questioned in any way shape or form continue to find that they are right and any dissenting science or scientific opinion is pure conspiracy theory and 100% certainly not right as they have the science "settled"

Long may the funding continue...

Hurling_Fruitmig

Creed_Clicks said:

Guitars made out of material other than wood. There are options currently but they are either too heavy or too expensive for the mass market.
So much plastic on guitars as well. Hopefully these could be replaced as well.
Getting rid of plastic packaging would be great but cannot see it happening. Go into any supermarket and 99% of the products use plastic.
The amount of plastic that litters the roads when you look up closely is shocking. You might not notice when you pass by in the car, but if you are walking you can see bits and bobs thrown everywhere.

There must surely be enough guitars in the world to never need to make another new one.

revsorg

Simonh said:

PANIC MR MANNERING!!!

I find it amazing that all the climate scientist who have a vested interest in being right and not having their models questioned in any way shape or form continue to find that they are right and any dissenting science or scientific opinion is pure conspiracy theory and 100% certainly not right as they have the science "settled"

Long may the funding continue...

If you don't believe climate scientists because they're a bunch of greedy liars enriching themselves at your expense, I wonder who you go to for your information?

Greatape

Simonh said:

PANIC MR MANNERING!!!

I find it amazing that all the climate scientist who have a vested interest in being right and not having their models questioned in any way shape or form continue to find that they are right and any dissenting science or scientific opinion is pure conspiracy theory and 100% certainly not right as they have the science "settled"

Long may the funding continue...

Hold on..so you're actually saying that people only go into science to provide proof for their agenda? And that there is a network of peers willing to review your papers and lie? And that hypotheses are not tested? 

Simonh

both opposing "sides" have a vested interest in what they are doing. 

I do not trust any scientist that says the science is settled and there is no doubt in what they are saying, that is bad science.

I have read enough and seen enough of the modelling to know that it is suspect. having worked within a university environment I know how framing of a study can significantly impact the potential funding of that study, ie "A study on understanding the difference between elbows and arseholes" is unlikely to get funding but "A study in the understanding of the impact of climate change in the differences between elbows and arseholes" is much more likely to.

I am not saying that we are not seeing differences in weather/climate etc I am saying that it is 100% certain that human production of Co2 is to blame and that we should all go vegan and walk everywhere or be taxed to within an inch of our lives if we choose not to is suspect.

Hottubes

I thought it funny the climate expert on GB news this morning was saying. "More heavy rainfall and droughts expected due to the Climate crisis"      


Heavy rain and droughts Hmmmmm. 

Then he went and admitted, that the temperature hadn't risen as fast as the thought.

I looked out the window today in August and it isn't any warmer than usual for a summer. Yet in the 1970's summers where always scorching and lasted months.

Emp_Fab

Yeah.... but......    wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution seeing as there isn't another planet we can move to ?
What's the worst that can happen - we end up with cleaner air and cleaner oceans ?

Or is barking about it all being down to vested interests etc whilst doing nothing the best way ?

mart

... on second thoughts, it's best not to bother arguing with idiots ....

Hottubes

I know what he meant. He just seemed a bit lacking in believing his own conviction.

He meant droughts in one place and heavy rains elsewhere not in the same place at the same time obviously. 

But it was the way he said it. It sounded daft. And he never came across as an expert lol

Greatape

....so we would rather cast aspersions on the validity of the scientific/academic establishment than on the huge amounts of money that the fossil fuel industry has thrown at think tanks, lobbyists etc in order to sow disinformation? 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/ending-the-climate-crisis/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/


Knock herself out...

Simonh

Oil producers and heavy production have just as much of a biased vested interest as climate scientists, I think where i said both sides have a vested interest kind of gave that away.

My point is if you can predict that the outcome of the science is that joe public are going to be taxed more then the science is not to be trusted.

Any science that says we are the only answer and anyone that questions the "correct" narrative is not to be trusted, and again that goes for both sides of the story.

As an example one of the common themes has been we need to plant more trees as they convert Co2 to oxygen. Well actually the planet is about 30% greener now than it was in 2000, isn't that a good thing?

Apparently not - so all you tree huggers are bad for the environment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html

(For the record I think more trees are better.)

Greatape

Simonh said:

My point is if you can predict that the outcome of the science is that joe public are going to be taxed more then the science is not to be trusted.

....and by extension, we should only place trust in experts that promise us lower taxes?

Simonh

certainly not, we should only trust scientist that advocate looking at all of the possibilities and not just the ones that support their agenda.

Taxation has it place in the solution, for example I think we should tax anything produced in china at an exorbitant rate.

ICBM

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I don't support zero growth, and never will. Zero growth is literally a pathway to global famine and death and destruction.

We don't have a population growth problem. We're not making enough people, full stop. What we have is a distribution problem, and a hoarding problem.

I don't agree with all of that. It's true that we no longer have a serious population growth problem - the rate of increase is falling drastically, and peak human population has been predicted - it may occur within both our lifetimes (mine only just if I live a very long one). And it's certainly true that the biggest problem is distribution - of all resources - not population.

But that doesn't mean we need *more* people. The projected peak of around 10 to 11 billion is at the upper end of what is truly sustainable, and if it stabilises there or very slowly falls, that will not be a bad thing. We still have to raise 90% of the population out of their relative poverty and to something approaching current Western standards, which will increase resource use per head again, so you will still have economic growth for a very long time - but even that cannot continue literally indefinitely. The Earth is a finite size.

Unless we really have started to colonise the other planets by then, possibly.

ThePrettyDamned

Simonh said:

PANIC MR MANNERING!!!

I find it amazing that all the climate scientist who have a vested interest in being right and not having their models questioned in any way shape or form continue to find that they are right and any dissenting science or scientific opinion is pure conspiracy theory and 100% certainly not right as they have the science "settled"

Long may the funding continue...

Sorry, you believe there is a lot of funding in this?

LOL

That's amazingly funny. 

Kilgore

Simonh said:

PANIC MR MANNERING!!!

I find it amazing that all the climate scientist who have a vested interest in being right and not having their models questioned in any way shape or form continue to find that they are right and any dissenting science or scientific opinion is pure conspiracy theory and 100% certainly not right as they have the science "settled"

Long may the funding continue...

If you weren't feeling well and went to see 1000 doctors. 999 told you this could be quite serious mate, get it checked out, have some tests, etc.

 1 of the doctors tells you probably nothing to worry about. Whose advice would you listen to the 999 or the "dissenting" doctor? 

Simonh

that rather depends on if the 999 doctors all had funding from the same big pharma...

what a ridiculous strawman that is!

and yeah - no money in climate change at all...

https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/

Bridgehouse

As a part owner of a business focused on helping schools to get to net zero I live and breathe this stuff day in and day out. 

Frankly, it’s depressing. 

The majority of change isn’t about restrictions, taxation, or anything like it. It’s about the way we look at stuff, our actions and how much thought we put into stuff. 

Once you start to dig around in the weeds of the issue it’s clear that a lot of the change is actually very beneficial in a multitude of ways. 

If you look at scope 2 emissions only (that’s energy consumption from grid - either gas or electric) in a school, then our data analysis of thousands of schools shows that 60% of all energy consumption happens when there are no pupils in the building. Stuff gets left switched on. Equipment is set to come on during weekends and holidays. Buildings are inefficient. Some of that is old estate, some of it is just massively inefficient ways of managing an estate. 

A few simple monitoring systems, smart controls and well configured equipment can cut energy consumption by around 55% per year. Stuff climate change - that reduction knocks 55% off energy bills and on average would pay for 1.75 extra teachers. 

That would have no material effect on the estate environment for any pupil. If anything it will enable the environment in the classroom to be controlled better and be more comfortable. 

There’s a lot of change which would make little difference to our lives - but we have grown used to being consumers, being lazy about energy and energy consumption, and just don’t think about stuff.