This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
No it doesn't. The weather changes literally every single day. Climate change is, by its nature, protracted. Climate is usually defined as a period of over 30 years.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Greenhouse gases are molecules in our atmosphere that absorb heat radiating from Earth’s surface, preventing it from being emitted into space. The most common greenhouse gases are (in order of atmospheric concentration) water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a suite of halogen-bearing gases (like fluorocarbons) that are derived from industrial activities.
With the exception of water vapor, industrial processes and land use changes have significantly increased the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past one and a half centuries, leading to a more than 1 degree C (2 degrees F) increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial era.
Put simply it means that heat cannot escape and warms the planet.
Yes Google. And why are all the above increasing at an alarming rate?
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Greenhouse gases are molecules in our atmosphere that absorb heat radiating from Earth’s surface, preventing it from being emitted into space. The most common greenhouse gases are (in order of atmospheric concentration) water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a suite of halogen-bearing gases (like fluorocarbons) that are derived from industrial activities.
With the exception of water vapor, industrial processes and land use changes have significantly increased the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past one and a half centuries, leading to a more than 1 degree C (2 degrees F) increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial era.
Put simply it means that heat cannot escape and warms the planet.
Yes Google. And why are all the above increasing at an alarming rate?
* CO2 is typically reported in parts per million (ppm) but is reported here in parts per billion (ppb) to provide a more direct comparison with the concentrations of other greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gas
Major sources
1750 concentration (ppb)
2019 concentration (ppb)
2021 emissions rate (gigatons CO2e)
Sources and Concentrations of Major Greenhouse Gases
Carbon dioxide*
Fossil fuel combustion; Deforestation; Cement production
278,300
409,900
36.69
Methane
Fossil fuel production; Agriculture; Landfills
729
1,866
8.46
Nitrous oxide
Fertilizer application; Fossil fuel and biomass combustion; Industrial processes
270
332
3.12
Halogenated compounds
Refrigerants; Electricity transmission; Semiconductor manufacturing; Other industrial processes
Weather stats aka averages are based on 30 year periods starting with a year ending in '1'. Currently we are comparing against the period 1991-2020. When we get to 2031 the comparison period moves to 2001-2030. However, such is the recent rate of change, average comparisons are also made against older 30 year periods (eg 1961-1990) to avoid climate change influences.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
I'm not seeing much to disagree with here to be honest, apart from the climate changing daily. It's not as variable as weather, but I accept weather is influenced by the prevailing climate.
You have correctly identified what I believe is the only area of contention, but the LA fire arguments surrounding management and containment of them have naff all to do with the causes.
On the volcanoes point, I did wonder myself what links there might be to the surface crust of the earth warning, as it is, and geothermal activity events, such as volcanoes erupting. In Iceland, the land of ice and fire, where I believe the ice is melting as the surface temperature heats up, there seems to have been quite a lot of volcanic instability in the past few years. A coincidence, or is there more to it?
In the long term, they do create more land mass, which we could do with, but I suspect humanity will have shuffled off this mortal coil long before then.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Greenhouse gases are molecules in our atmosphere that absorb heat radiating from Earth’s surface, preventing it from being emitted into space. The most common greenhouse gases are (in order of atmospheric concentration) water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and a suite of halogen-bearing gases (like fluorocarbons) that are derived from industrial activities.
With the exception of water vapor, industrial processes and land use changes have significantly increased the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past one and a half centuries, leading to a more than 1 degree C (2 degrees F) increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial era.
Put simply it means that heat cannot escape and warms the planet.
Yes Google. And why are all the above increasing at an alarming rate?
* CO2 is typically reported in parts per million (ppm) but is reported here in parts per billion (ppb) to provide a more direct comparison with the concentrations of other greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gas
Major sources
1750 concentration (ppb)
2019 concentration (ppb)
2021 emissions rate (gigatons CO2e)
Sources and Concentrations of Major Greenhouse Gases
Carbon dioxide*
Fossil fuel combustion; Deforestation; Cement production
278,300
409,900
36.69
Methane
Fossil fuel production; Agriculture; Landfills
729
1,866
8.46
Nitrous oxide
Fertilizer application; Fossil fuel and biomass combustion; Industrial processes
270
332
3.12
Halogenated compounds
Refrigerants; Electricity transmission; Semiconductor manufacturing; Other industrial processes
0.034
1.378
1.28
Fascinating stuff and well formatted.
But it gives no information about the rate of change over the decades, or the reasons behind the increases.
This isn’t in the news but Madagascar has
unprecedented wildfires at the moment too – in the rainforest in rainy reason.
“Madagascar’s rainy season runs between
November and April, but “it has not rained in December or January,” Wright [of
Centre Valbio] said. “Everything in the rainforest is wilted and dry.”
If anyone wants to help (a little does go a
long way in Madagascar) then Centre Valbio is the main charity on-site and is
assisting fire fighters: Donate
to CVB | Centre ValBio
According to the Financial Times, no less, Scientists are calling this 'The Wiplash effect' . The article states that there is a belief amongst scientists that increased rainfall encourages growth of foliage, trees, bushes and suchlike, this is largely developing unchecked and then this is followed by a dry season, turning the 'bush' tinder dry and under the heat of the sun becomes a fire that is almost impossible to fight.
I like reservoirs. I visit them a lot. Where I live it's rain that replenishes the water supply in these reservoirs. Perhaps it's different in California. 🤔
It was not empty due to a lack of rainfall. So yes, it was different in this instance in California. It was due to Government incompetence.
I don't reckon any reservoir or water system could cope with 8 months with less than a tenth of an inch of rain and less than 0.02% of its usual rainfall foe that period.
Should we be upgrading these systems in light of the climate crisis? Absolutely. Have governments across the west spent decades not investing in these - or in the UK selling it off to the private sector to exploit and dismantle the system. Unfortunately also yes.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every single day. People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
I'm not seeing much to disagree with here to be honest, apart from the climate changing daily. It's not as variable as weather, but I accept weather is influenced by the prevailing climate.
You have correctly identified what I believe is the only area of contention, but the LA fire arguments surrounding management and containment of them have naff all to do with the causes.
On the volcanoes point, I did wonder myself what links there might be to the surface crust of the earth warning, as it is, and geothermal activity events, such as volcanoes erupting. In Iceland, the land of ice and fire, where I believe the ice is melting as the surface temperature heats up, there seems to have been quite a lot of volcanic instability in the past few years. A coincidence, or is there more to it?
In the long term, they do create more land mass, which we could do with, but I suspect humanity will have shuffled off this mortal coil long before then.
Yes, I did realise this as I was typing it (now corrected) but I didn't think anyone would be pedantic enough to bring it up seeing as it made no difference whatsoever on my overall message.
Had I said "our environment changes every day" or "nature around us changes every day", I may just have got away with it.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of society
Said absolutely no one.
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.
Quite. The measure used is "relative" poverty which guarantees that about 30% of the populations falls within the definition.
Thank you. The definition is: Relative Poverty measures individuals who have income below 60% of median incomes. Relative poverty will fall if: individuals with low incomes see their incomes rise more than the Median average; or. individuals with low incomes see their incomes fall less than the Median average.
Whatever happens you can never get rid of it. If, say, you gave £1m to half the families in relative poverty, most people would think you would halve poverty, but you wouldn't. It's basic stats .... which I like, but not those that are misused.
1) distance from the median is massively important. It's a basic measure of inequality. Past performance in the 90s and before shows its possible to make a big impact in this measure by reducing inequality.
2) when applied to children it's even more volatile as its thr parents income that determine this.
3) not sure what they use as median income but I've seen average salary stats between 29k and 33k recently. A family trying to survive on that will be struggling. A family trying to survive on only 60% of that will be in poverty. No doubt.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not what I said at all. Where did I say anything about not trying to bring it under control?
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not really. High energy prices (a consequence of the move to Green energy) leads to high inflation.
High inflation increases poverty. Poverty causes disease and death.
It also increases pollution with an increased usage of fossil fuels and open fires (A real health problem here in Thailand)
We absolutely need to be sure that our actions are having a meaningful and lasting effect because we could actually be making the problem worse.
I'm not seeing too many positive changes in the world over the past couple of decades, in fact people in general seem to be worse off, as does their health.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not what I said at all. Where did I say anything about not trying to bring it under control?
It's the only logical inference from that sentence? Why else would you want proof we can get it under control?
I just don't see how proof we can get it under control is at all relevant. When 1) the only way we could prove that is if it had happened before and humabityvhas never faced this before and 2) we likely can't get it under control.
But neither of those are reasons to delay or not try. We have to throw everything at getting it under control.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not really. High energy prices (a consequence of the move to Green energy) leads to high inflation.
High inflation increases poverty. Poverty causes disease and death.
It also increases pollution with an increased usage of fossil fuels and open fires (A real health problem here in Thailand)
We absolutely need to be sure that our actions are having a meaningful and lasting effect because we could actually be making the problem worse.
I'm not seeing too many positive changes in the world over the past couple of decades, in fact people in general seem to be worse off, as does their health.
So many things just completely incorrect in this post. I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain it all to you so I'll leave you with just one.
Green energy costs are between 20 and 30% of non renewables so actually much much lower. The increase in energy prices over the last few years is fully driven by gas and oil (various market and geopolitical factors driving that) and blatant profiteering on the part of energy companies (profit margins rising faster and above the levels of costs).
I'm an economist. Analysing these markets is my job. Try something else.
I suspect you know everything you said was untrue but are willing to accept it if it fits your narrative
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not what I said at all. Where did I say anything about not trying to bring it under control?
It's the only logical inference from that sentence? Why else would you want proof we can get it under control?
I just don't see how proof we can get it under control is at all relevant. When 1) the only way we could prove that is if it had happened before and humabityvhas never faced this before and 2) we likely can't get it under control.
But neither of those are reasons to delay or not try. We have to throw everything at getting it under control.
No it isn't. If it isn't there, you shouldn't infer it. That's misrepresenting me.
I'm doing all I can. I know we cause it. Don't need more evidence of that. Of course we should try to bring under control, but we aren't seeing that we can do it as yet, unless I'm missing something
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
Hes part of the "we don't want experts because they're woke and Uncle Nigel, who's definitely a man of the people and not at all the establishment or in the pocket of energy companies, said so" group.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not what I said at all. Where did I say anything about not trying to bring it under control?
It's the only logical inference from that sentence? Why else would you want proof we can get it under control?
I just don't see how proof we can get it under control is at all relevant. When 1) the only way we could prove that is if it had happened before and humabityvhas never faced this before and 2) we likely can't get it under control.
But neither of those are reasons to delay or not try. We have to throw everything at getting it under control.
No it isn't. If it isn't there, you shouldn't infer it. That's misrepresenting me.
I'm doing all I can. I know we cause it. Don't need more evidence of that. Of course we should try to bring under control, but we aren't seeing that we can do it as yet, unless I'm missing something
Genuine apologies that I misunderstood /misinterpreted. This is an emotive subject and I'm aware I get carried away and drawn in at times. Glad you agree for the most part. What I don't understand is why proof that we can get it under control is at all relevant to climate action?
For me, there is very little doubt that the rapid rise in temperature has been due to industrialisation - the graph I posted earlier in the thread would support that, unless it is a remarkable coincidence.
I also read today an assertion that if we stopped burning fossil fuels completely, today, it would take a 1000 years for the earth to return to pre-industrial averages. Humans do not see that far into the future for altruistic reasons, at best they see their childrens' and grandchildrens' futures.
I believe the best we can do is reduce green house gas emissions to a minimum to slow the rate of increase and use that time to help those low lying areas of the globe to mitigate the effects.
We must aim also to eliminate all fossil fuel usage as quickly as we can if there is to be a future for mankind - the clock is ticking on us but the world will survive.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
It's not in dispute amongst anyone with enough brain cells to knock together
Whilst I'm 100% in agreement with you that we can make a difference, isn't the point still valid that this rock was around for a long time before we appeared, and the climate varied plenty without our help before then.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
So you want to see proof that we can bring it under control before we try anything to prevent millions of people dying?
What an odd thing to put in writing.
Not what I said at all. Where did I say anything about not trying to bring it under control?
It's the only logical inference from that sentence? Why else would you want proof we can get it under control?
I just don't see how proof we can get it under control is at all relevant. When 1) the only way we could prove that is if it had happened before and humabityvhas never faced this before and 2) we likely can't get it under control.
But neither of those are reasons to delay or not try. We have to throw everything at getting it under control.
No it isn't. If it isn't there, you shouldn't infer it. That's misrepresenting me.
I'm doing all I can. I know we cause it. Don't need more evidence of that. Of course we should try to bring under control, but we aren't seeing that we can do it as yet, unless I'm missing something
Genuine apologies that I misunderstood /misinterpreted. This is an emotive subject and I'm aware I get carried away and drawn in at times. Glad you agree for the most part. What I don't understand is why proof that we can get it under control is at all relevant to climate action?
But I never said proof our actions are working should affect/justify climate action. All I'm saying is that the outcome of our climate action to combat the change maybe less certain than the knowledge of what's been done to cause it because there's no proof that our combined efforts are having the desired effect yet.
I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
That's a startling statistic. I'm assuming it refers to their wider business affairs rather than their own personal / private consumption, which is obviously an important distinction.
I looked this up and I'm assuming it's from an Oxfam report as they make a couple of similar points:-
"Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity" (Oxfam 2017).
"The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population (77 million people) produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 as the five billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity". (Oxfam 2023).
I'm struggling to correlate the two in relation to that statistic, unless the top 20 are disproportionate within the 77 million?
Comments
https://www.c2es.org/content/main-greenhouse-gases/
Notes
* CO2 is typically reported in parts per million (ppm) but is reported here in parts per billion (ppb) to provide a more direct comparison with the concentrations of other greenhouse gases.
You have correctly identified what I believe is the only area of contention, but the LA fire arguments surrounding management and containment of them have naff all to do with the causes.
On the volcanoes point, I did wonder myself what links there might be to the surface crust of the earth warning, as it is, and geothermal activity events, such as volcanoes erupting. In Iceland, the land of ice and fire, where I believe the ice is melting as the surface temperature heats up, there seems to have been quite a lot of volcanic instability in the past few years. A coincidence, or is there more to it?
In the long term, they do create more land mass, which we could do with, but I suspect humanity will have shuffled off this mortal coil long before then.
How many times?
But it gives no information about the rate of change over the decades, or the reasons behind the increases.
Should we be upgrading these systems in light of the climate crisis? Absolutely. Have governments across the west spent decades not investing in these - or in the UK selling it off to the private sector to exploit and dismantle the system. Unfortunately also yes.
Had I said "our environment changes every day" or "nature around us changes every day", I may just have got away with it.
I should have known better of course!
2) when applied to children it's even more volatile as its thr parents income that determine this.
3) not sure what they use as median income but I've seen average salary stats between 29k and 33k recently. A family trying to survive on that will be struggling. A family trying to survive on only 60% of that will be in poverty. No doubt.
In fact we're probably only here because it stabilized to within the temperature limits, which I don't doubt we've now contributed to making hotter. I'd like to see the proof that we can bring it under control rather than more proof we've caused it, but whilst we continue to 'tinker' as QA put it, I'm not expecting to see it.
What an odd thing to put in writing.
No need for it..
High inflation increases poverty.
Poverty causes disease and death.
It also increases pollution with an increased usage of fossil fuels and open fires (A real health problem here in Thailand)
We absolutely need to be sure that our actions are having a meaningful and lasting effect because we could actually be making the problem worse.
I'm not seeing too many positive changes in the world over the past couple of decades, in fact people in general seem to be worse off, as does their health.
I just don't see how proof we can get it under control is at all relevant. When 1) the only way we could prove that is if it had happened before and humabityvhas never faced this before and 2) we likely can't get it under control.
But neither of those are reasons to delay or not try. We have to throw everything at getting it under control.
Green energy costs are between 20 and 30% of non renewables so actually much much lower. The increase in energy prices over the last few years is fully driven by gas and oil (various market and geopolitical factors driving that) and blatant profiteering on the part of energy companies (profit margins rising faster and above the levels of costs).
I'm an economist. Analysing these markets is my job. Try something else.
I suspect you know everything you said was untrue but are willing to accept it if it fits your narrative
I'm doing all I can. I know we cause it. Don't need more evidence of that. Of course we should try to bring under control, but we aren't seeing that we can do it as yet, unless I'm missing something
What I don't understand is why proof that we can get it under control is at all relevant to climate action?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
This song sums up how I feel every time I have this conversation.
I'll pull out the key lyrics later.