Climate Change is here and man made

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Excellent

Poor Greta has been used and duped by her parents in order for them to get rich on the backs of brainwashing a vulnerable young woman.

Social media horseshit designed to minimalize her arguments.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

I find this thoroughly depressing. Nobody and no country is exempt from criticism. The thought that we are all in this together is no solace as no government is far sighted enough to really care and a vote to divert all resources to preparing to relocate folk and build flood defences will not attract votes. There are interactive maps on tinternet from reputable bodies that show the effect of rising sea levels by 2030. That’s one generation away.

to bring the point home you wonder how much sway possible sea levels and flood tides played a part in the risk analysis of Everton’s new stadium. Maybe Liverpool should not have been too bothered about losing their World Heritage status for their docklands as it could be submerged in about nine years.

You can bet as well that all the money available will go towards redesigning the Thames Barrier and saving our delightful capital.

 

[Corky]

Damning evidence but it is too late. The human race is destined to destroy this planet and will only react when it has to. Why be proactive and make a change when there is still money to be made from ruining the planet?

It is alright doing your bit until you realise that the air source heat pump, solid wall insulation, roof in roof insulation and other measures needed will cost £30k.

Not many people are moving away from boilers to heat pumps, which is crucial in this country to meet the net zero target by 2050, they are just too expensive at the moment.

 

[Essex blue]

Some fantastic views in here.
Electric cars are not the answer. Apparently we need to open lots new mines and older ones to mine the tin and lithium the batteries need.
We will need lots of new power stations which even constructing these will be a massive polluting event before they even come online.
There is no easy fix and the biggest polluting industry is shipping

 

[Chippy_boy]

this Seems overly optimistic to me to be honest and you seem to have a lot more faith in humanity than I.

1) Climate change will result in less livable land, from larger deserts to sea rises. Less livable land is less farmable land and less space to actually live on and less food to live on.

Will it? Says who? We will lose come coastline for sure. But on the other hand, we'll presumably have areas which are currently too dry to be arable, which then become arable. And we'll have arctic tudra where nothing grows currently, which in a century may well be fertile and highly productive. I think it is far from obvious that we will be able to grow less and will have less food to live on. And who knows what technology we will have to produce synthetic meat etc.

2) The second an event occurs that causes a mass migration, and it will happen. there will be localised wars, the scale of those wars is debatable. But imagine 500+ million people from India trying to get into China / Pakistan for example. Just look at Europe now with a million or so fleeing Syria, multiply that by 100? 1000?

Will climate change wipe out the human race, Nope. but its sure as hell going to change the face of the globe in terms of countries/politics in the long run.

Overplayed as an argument IMO. The whole thing smacks to me of "We need to do something about climate change, so how are we going to justify it". Scholars looking for reasons to justify their beliefs. I dunno - maybe you have a point on this one, I really don't know. But climate change is gradual and we'll have decades - tens of decades - to adjust.

People are far too quick to point at a forest fire and say "look, climate change". If politicians and scientists were honest about the whole thing, I wouldn't have a problem with it: i.e. Climate change is happening and we must take steps to try to moderate the effects. But far too many of them are not honest. Either that or they are idiots. They try to pretend the world is coming to an end, in order to try to shock the gullible into action. Or they genuinely believe the world would come to an end, in which case they are simply idiots. When did the BBC ever put up a chart like this:

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Will it? Says who? We will lose come coastline for sure. But on the other hand, we'll presumably have areas which are currently too dry to be arable, which then become arable. And we'll have arctic tudra where nothing grows currently, which in a century may well be fertile and highly productive. I think it is far from obvious that we will be able to grow less and will have less food to live on. And who knows what technology we will have to produce synthetic meat etc.



Overplayed as an argument IMO. The whole thing smacks to me of "We need to do something about climate change, so how are we going to justify it". Scholars looking for reasons to justify their beliefs. I dunno - maybe you have a point on this one, I really don't know. But climate change is gradual and we'll have decades - tens of decades - to adjust.

People are far too quick to point at a forest fire and say "look, climate change". If politicians and scientists were honest about the whole thing, I wouldn't have a problem with it: i.e. Climate change is happening and we must take steps to try to moderate the effects. But far too many of them are not honest. Either that or they are idiots. They try to pretend the world is coming to an end, in order to try to shock the gullible into action. Or they genuinely believe the world would come to an end, in which case they are simply idiots.

Chippy boy. You may be right with your views and therein lies the dilemma for me. The most reputable bunch of scientists say we need to act now and quickly with their report actually underwritten by governments.

Your views may be corrent but if the scientists are right we don’t have decades. We actually have one, (ten or so years) before rising sea levels impact fairly dramatically on the UK. The occurrences of wildfires and droughts and floods in the UK and elsewhere will continue and accelerate If they are right.

I don’t think we will get everyone on the same page for years. Take covid as a classic recent example. There are still folk who say it’s not a problem.

I wonder what natural catastrophic event will need to occur to act as the catalyst to get everyone on the same page and force governments to take climate change seriously. There are still Tory ministers pushing for the coke extraction plant in Whitehaven. Why, coz it gets them votes.

Answers on a postcard please! And note that the seaside town you buy it from may not be there for your kids/ grandkids to enjoy In your lifetime.

 

[hilts]

Chippy boy. You may be right with your views and therein lies the dilemma for me. The most reputable bunch of scientists say we need to act now and quickly with their report actually underwritten by governments.

Your views may be corrent but if the scientists are right we don’t have decades. We actually have one, (ten or so years) before rising sea levels impact fairly dramatically on the UK. The occurrences of wildfires and droughts and floods in the UK and elsewhere will continue and accelerate If they are right.

I don’t think we will get everyone on the same page for years. Take covid as a classic recent example. There are still folk who say it’s not a problem.

I wonder what natural catastrophic event will need to occur to act as the catalyst to get everyone on the same page and force governments to take climate change seriously. There are still Tory ministers pushing for the coke extraction plant in Whitehaven. Why, coz it gets them votes.

Answers on a postcard please! And note that the seaside town you buy it from may not be there for your kids/ grandkids to enjoy In your lifetime.

It’s not called an inconvenient truth for nothing although I like the idea that Chippy is right and the overwhelming consensus is just because they are a bit dim.

 

[grunge]

Will it? Says who? We will lose come coastline for sure. But on the other hand, we'll presumably have areas which are currently too dry to be arable, which then become arable. And we'll have arctic tudra where nothing grows currently, which in a century may well be fertile and highly productive. I think it is far from obvious that we will be able to grow less and will have less food to live on. And who knows what technology we will have to produce synthetic meat etc.



Overplayed as an argument IMO. The whole thing smacks to me of "We need to do something about climate change, so how are we going to justify it". Scholars looking for reasons to justify their beliefs. I dunno - maybe you have a point on this one, I really don't know. But climate change is gradual and we'll have decades - tens of decades - to adjust.

People are far too quick to point at a forest fire and say "look, climate change". If politicians and scientists were honest about the whole thing, I wouldn't have a problem with it: i.e. Climate change is happening and we must take steps to try to moderate the effects. But far too many of them are not honest. Either that or they are idiots. They try to pretend the world is coming to an end, in order to try to shock the gullible into action. Or they genuinely believe the world would come to an end, in which case they are simply idiots. When did the BBC ever put up a chart like this:

Desertification is going to happen by all accounts, generally the rule of thumb from what I've read is what you get now weather wise will still happen but with more extremes. Deserts will get bigger, hotter and drier. so large areas of Africa/Middle east will become less liveable. Tropics will get hotter and probably wetter with more intense storms/hurricains/typhoons etc. people will migrate due to that. with landmasses like the US its probably less of an impact. past the fact that most of the big cities are coastal. they will need to move inland. on the same note thats the same with most big cities,

The problem with graphs like that is the scale of time vs the scale of time we have been around (and are still quite up in the air projections, there is no solid consensus on if we were ice free in the cretatious people 150m years ago). we have been around about 300k years. we don't even register on that graph yet let alone our impact on it. How much further past these historical spikes will we go? will it get to that level at all? will our food chain be still even close to viable? will the man made global warming trigger other events that are more of an issue, for example the permafrost melts. Methane literally popping out of the earth in Siberia. Methane being far more of an issue greenhouse gas wise than CO2.

That being said, even our worst projections don't point us into an Ice free world.

As I say though, We as a race will certainly survive climate change. our biggest danger is ourselves on that front.

As for the forest fires going on. I dont think its a coincidence that the the north American continent keeps having record breaking heat/cold snaps. granted we only have a limited time scale to compare against but there is a definite peak and trough effect going on at the moment and it seems to match predictions of "getting more of what you have normally", just more severe.

 

[marco]

Only if China, India, US, Brazil and Indonesia do somthing will we avoid carastrophe. Anybody else's efforts will ust a drop in the ocean in resolving the problem.

i think just china TBH if they cant turn it round were all shafted,what the UK are doing is a drop in the ocean and pointless if China's not on board

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I find this thoroughly depressing. Nobody and no country is exempt from criticism. The thought that we are all in this together is no solace as no government is far sighted enough to really care and a vote to divert all resources to preparing to relocate folk and build flood defences will not attract votes. There are interactive maps on tinternet from reputable bodies that show the effect of rising sea levels by 2030. That’s one generation away.

to bring the point home you wonder how much sway possible sea levels and flood tides played a part in the risk analysis of Everton’s new stadium. Maybe Liverpool should not have been too bothered about losing their World Heritage status for their docklands as it could be submerged in about nine years.

You can bet as well that all the money available will go towards redesigning the Thames Barrier and saving our delightful capital.

It’s 9 years not a generation!