"The head of the climate watchdog behind the planned boiler ban has admitted that he still has gas heating in his own home. More than four years after claiming he was “keen” to convert to electric heating in his flat, Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, said he still has a gas boiler."
Hmm. Not that much of a climate emergency then?
The best thing would be to only fly planes at full capacity. Instead, they’ll fly them empty to keep their slot if you stay at home (because you’re assuming people in Greece won’t want to travel back and forth just because you’ve decided to be a holiday-martyr 🤣).
Umm.. you seem to think that we believe that if WE as individuals stop flying, then it fixes everything? That's not what we're saying. We ALL need to fly less, including the people in Greece. Then if no-one's on the plane they will reduce the schedule and get rid of the slots. No airline is going to maintain and fly planes into slots they have to pay for when there aren't enough passengers to pay for it.
We need to collectively make the required changes. Now, I'm of the opinion that governments need to step in and mandate things, because even if people do believe in the concepts they will still make small bad decisions all the time in the same way that smokes still know its bad for them. Humans are not rational. However, governments won't mandate anything unless it has popular support, and that's where you and I and this thread come in. We need to have these conversations and the message needs to be get across. Not necessarily to actually get people to make sacrifices themselves, but to steer the public conversation to the point where governments can make the required changes. It's already happened to an extent, it just needs to happen more.
.
The people in this thread are almost without exception in the top 1% when it comes to global wealth. The idea that you’ve had your fill of fossil fuel-powered freedom and that burgeoning economies and populations around the world are going to sit back and let you impose like for like climate policies on them is bonkers.
LOL. You’re assuming most people in this thread are bringing in ~$1m a year (the approximate threshold for the top 1% in 2023)? You’ve seriously misjudged your audience. I’d imagine most people in this thread wouldn’t individually make the top 10% threshold.
The global median wealth per capita is just $8,360
🤷🏻♂️
I'm not talking about the 1% of the 1%.
Neither am I. The top 1% threshold in 2023 is $1m a year. In 2020 it was ~$825k
[url] https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ [/url]
Perhaps if you didn’t continually cherry pick facts and figures to support your viewpoint you might garner more credibility.
Uh, thats based on US wage data isn't it?
Not being facetious but that article doesn’t say what it is referring to. Isn’t it talking about the top 1% of USA, not global income?
You'll need at least six figures to count yourself among the nation's top earners.
Conspiracy theorists are always going to be climate deniers. Long term it's an education thing - hopefully children coming out of school now will have a better understanding of climate change - and in the short term a carrot and stick approach might work.
I think it's a lost cause to stop aircraft flying but it can be made carbon neutral with money and effort (biofuels that don't involve stripping rainforests bare, for example). Banning older aircraft from the sky completely for a start. There are still old 4-engine passenger aircraft around in the EU, with a fuel burn roughly double that per passenger than something new like a 787.
The UK is confused because of things like ULEZ, which attempts to prevent local harm, and actual carbon reductions. But again, this is a successive government failure that's led to enormous car ownership while diesel trains rumble slowly up and down the ECML.
Personally I don't see why we can't work on both at the same time. It's not going to make the world worse and will certainly lead to local improvements. With appropriate nuclear power, investment in solar and battery storage, the UK will not have a problem moving from fossil fuels.
funkmasterp
I also answered your question. We shouldn’t just be concentrating on the human element. We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences.
How many tens of millions of human deaths are you willing to accept for his ideal?
Or do you not really believe the consequences of climate change to humans will result in at least tens of millions of deaths?
By tackling climate change we will achieve this. There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.
Except you just contradicted this above.
It's pretty simple - tens of millions of humans are going to die as a result of climate change and that is close to the best case scenario. Only discovering some new as yet not considered carbon capture is going to prevent that.
If that doesn't sound real then consider the Great Chinese Famine cost 15 to 55 million lives depending which source you take and the period you include. (1959 - 1961 or 1958 - 1962)
We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences.
Climate change is real and happening ... we either address it as the most important existential threat or not.
There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.
and there never will be whilst it's diluted and conflated
https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i
So... the average UK salary of £26400 ish after tax puts you in the top 2.8% globally with this calculator.
I'd wager the average STW salary is a tad higher....
So my instinctive guess was not magnitudes of order out.....
Reading this you are highly likely to be in the top 1% of global income......
Edukator
Greenpeace supports black lives matter
Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards
Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools
Greenpeace works to protect indiginous peoples
Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis
Greenpeace promotes renewable energy
Greenpeace campaigns against bee-killing pesticides (bees are essential to many people’s lives)
Greenpeace fights against illegal deforestation
Greenpeace has succesfully campaigned against hydroflourocarbons
But don’t let facts get in the way, Stevextc.
Take out the political virtue signalling and what are you left with?
What has BLM or protecting indigenous populations got to do with an environmental organisation for example?
Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards - nothing specific about humans here
Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools - they oppose full stop.. they are just jumping on a political bandwagon
Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis
Sure but they keep trying to tag stuff on...
Greenpeace promotes renewable energy
to the exclusion of nuclear
We ALL need to fly less, including the people in Greece
Is this not like Climate Change colonialism??
It’s none of your business what other nations decide is it?
How many tens of millions of human deaths are you willing to accept for his ideal?
Or do you not really believe the consequences of climate change to humans will result in at least tens of millions of deaths?
Big sigh. You’re clearly not understanding are you? You’re failing to read or comprehend. Tackling climate change will result in a better outcome for all species. I’m not responsible for any human deaths so I don’t have a say in your theoretical limit. You’re just attempting to be theatrical and failing miserably.
We (not me) need to collectively tackle climate change for the sake of all species on the planet. It needs direct and immediate action on a global scale. Sadly that won’t happen. There’s a war going on in Ukraine and several brewing or on the go in Africa.
Species loss is, and I’ll say it again, a part of climate change. We are losing f species as a direct result of the effects of it. If we had the will, on a global scale, to tackle it we could reduce the loss of human and other species lives. The fact that we’ve always put humans above all else is part of the reason we’re in this ****ing mess in the first place.
Crosshair, you do realise that on this forum we are very used the use of question marks to put words in people's mouths. Most people have stopped because they realise that it's agressive bad faith provocation.
Another thing that means that this forum is more civil than most is that most people understand and generally abide by rule #1
I meant to write ‘isn’t it’ sorry. Wasn’t being obtuse. Trying to argue and work 🤣
Edit- what are you on about, I used question marks where I posed a question 🤷🏻♂️
Flaperon
The UK is confused because of things like ULEZ, which attempts to prevent local harm, and actual carbon reductions. But again, this is a successive government failure that’s led to enormous car ownership while diesel trains rumble slowly up and down the ECML.
How much CO2 to diesel trains contribute? I strongly suspect people taking diesel trains are creating multiple times less CO2 than those driving electric cars (and multiple times less particulates).
How does driving 5x the distance reduce CO2 ?
Remember, these are the "people" told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?
Personally I don’t see why we can’t work on both at the same time. It’s not going to make the world worse and will certainly lead to local improvements. With appropriate nuclear power, investment in solar and battery storage, the UK will not have a problem moving from fossil fuels.
I don't disagree except we need to stop conflating the two and have clear priorities and to me clear priorities meand mitigating climate change to the best of our ability.
We need to make it very clear that improving things is a "nice thing to do" but not helping mitigate climate change in the short term and short term is absolutely critical.
Doubtless there will be different levels of support the the "nice to do"... but we have to accept that and ensure climate change is kept as a separate and clear priority.
It’s none of your business what other nations decide is it?
Remove the question mark and that's what you really mean, a reproach telling us to mind our own business. We aren't daft and daft provocation is why people point out you're trolling.
You think you're being clever but I've been around here long enough to know that the survivors here are a lot cleverer than you're taking us/them for.
There are sub-commubities here in STW, you'll get along fine on petrolhead threads, in these kind of threads though you'l find people for whom "woke" is a compliment.
Okay let me try again.
Is it any of our business whether the other 99% of the world wish to share our luxury of climate guilt?
Should a poor Indonesian factory worker have to join a lottery for the chance to ever experience a flight in an aeroplane?
(I’m trying not to get drawn into personal conflict with anyone and answering posts regardless of the user name- but first I was told this is not an echo chamber, now I’m being told to find a different echo chamber as this one doesn’t like considered debate with people who don’t conform to the average view here. Which is it? Is this a closed minded echo chamber or not?)
Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?
Both knowledge and technology are changing:
Back when diesels were first promoted they produced very little NOX which is the main killer of asthmatics in big cities. However they did produce a lot of soot. The came common rail - more NOX, then turbos - more NOX, then th eEuro normes started to bite but didn't - dieselgate. A now we have Euro6 and whilst an improvemnt on previous diesels under test conditions which are more rigorously applied they are still ****ing filthy when people boot it. The level of ultra fine particles is still IMO unacceptable. As for the older diesels, ride a bike in town for a while and get back to us.
Lowering CO2 is still a priority, that's why there's legisaltion in place to progessively replace ICEs with EVs. The problem is that's it's not a priority for petrolheads (and dieselheads obviously)
Adding a question mark in same manner as Crosshair when you know it's false puts you in th esame category in terms of quality of debate.
Is it any of our business whether the other 99% of the world wish to share our luxury of climate guilt?
Yes it is, because what they're doing is what's going to make the planet much less inhabitable for both us and them.
We need to persuade them too, and happily there's a growing world-wide concensus that doing soemthing is essential because this is an existential threat that concerns us all.
But some people who could do something to contribute are too selfish, too stupid, to anti or so caught up in conspiracy crap that they rejoice in doing nothing positive or are even gratuitously destrctive taking pride in smoking out cyclists with their filthy diesel van or or fitting a radiator in their uninsulated patio to use a couple of examples from this forum.
It’s none of your business what other nations decide is it?
No country can solve this alone. Nations absolutely need to work together.
So… the average UK salary of £26400 ish after tax puts you in the top 2.8% globally with this calculator.
Again you’re being selective. It only does that if you live alone.
I strongly suspect people taking diesel trains are creating multiple times less CO2 than those driving electric cars (and multiple times less particulates).
I was thinking more of particulate emissions when the option to run electric trains is available. The cloud of black shit that comes out of the exhaust of a train running a 50-year-old engine design and fluid coupling gearbox is horrendous.
You are right about particle emissons, 40% of diesels in use have no certified depollution equipment. However those old ineffficient diesels were also low on NOX
https://www.esglegalhub.com/insight/green-future-modified-rolling-stock
Edukator
Adding a question mark in same manner as Crosshair when you know it’s false puts you in th esame category in terms of quality of debate.
It's not false. I'll clarify.
Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?
I can clarify .. caps to clarify not shouting
Remember, these are the “people” told to buy diesel because it is lower CO2 now being told to buy petrol because it seems TO MANY OF THEM THAT lowering CO2 is no longer a priority?
Back when diesels were first promoted they produced very little NOX which is the main killer of asthmatics in big cities. However they did produce a lot of soot. The came common rail – more NOX, then turbos – more NOX, then th eEuro normes started to bite but didn’t – dieselgate. A now we have Euro6 and whilst an improvemnt on previous diesels under test conditions which are more rigorously applied they are still **** filthy when people boot it. The level of ultra fine particles is still IMO unacceptable. As for the older diesels, ride a bike in town for a while and get back to us.
Lowering CO2 is still a priority, that’s why there’s legisaltion in place to progessively replace ICEs with EVs. The problem is that’s it’s not a priority for petrolheads (and dieselheads obviously)
You just did the same thing.. petrol still produces more CO2 asthmatics dying is completely irrelevant
I'm not saying asthmatics dying is good ... I'm saying it is not causing climate change (unless they are cremated if you want to be a pedant).
We can't just tag stuff on we think is beneficial, it needs to be a clear and unambiguous (and watertight) case for climate change mitigation.
Flaperon
I was thinking more of particulate emissions when the option to run electric trains is available. The cloud of black shit that comes out of the exhaust of a train running a 50-year-old engine design and fluid coupling gearbox is horrendous.
Sure but that's not climate change... the point is remove those trains and people will drive instead.
Obviously some modern electric trains produced with low CO2 electric is ideal... but in the meantime from a climate change perspective we are better off with polluting diesels than people forced into driving
Again you’re being selective. It only does that if you live alone.
Hey? That’s already captured in the fact that the salary figure I used is the UK average.
So it will be uk salary average x number of inhabitants. Then divide that by number of inhabitants 🤷🏻♂️
Ie 1x £26400 is sufficient to illustrate the point.
Ha! This story is pretty fascinating. Cuts to sulfur emissions into the atmosphere by ships has increased global warming because the smog was literally protecting the sea as a proxy for cloud cover 🤣
Then, to add insult to injury, the shippers are getting around the law by still using the cheaper, dirtier fuel but scrubbing the pollution out and then..... draining it into the sea 🤣
Now they are refusing to work with scientists to provide further data because of their inherent bias!!
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.372.6543.672
This to me is a great illustration of why pursuing one narrow agenda at all costs ('restore' the atmosphere) with knee jerk regulations- is a red herring. (quite literally if the Herring swim through an underwater sulfur cloud too 🤣 )
Listening to scientists is one thing- but if those scientists are micro-focused on one outcome, I can see more and more of these unintended consequences occurring.
If I'm honest, this is one of the great unintended consequences of internet debates- I'm learning cool stuff every day at the minute 😀 (Still can't get over that 14,000 species in London stat 🤯)
Maybe all those diesel drivers 'rolling coal' as they pass Edukator have bought us another decade! 😀
Hey? That’s already captured in the fact that the salary figure I used is the UK average.
So it will be uk salary average x number of inhabitants. Then divide that by number of inhabitants 🤷🏻♂️Ie 1x £26400 is sufficient to illustrate the point.
Nope that’s not how it works.
It's a household calculator that we are using to assess 'your' personal wealth as that's what I was referring to.
If you want to delve around, find a better way to compare global personal income and discover that, the average STW reader is in fact only in the 98th percentile of global wealth then go for it. The fact will remain that 'we' are discussing this subject from a position of extreme privileged luxury not afforded to 'around' 98-99% of the rest of the world.
Another calculator here. Summarises the point nicely- 90% of the UK population are in the Global middle class.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global-income-calculator/
Even using it as a household calculator- 2 adults on UK average wage with one child would be in the 93rd percentile.... Two adults on £40k with two kids would be back above the 95th percentile.
I know it makes attacking the super rich harder (#arewethebaddies 🤣) so it's a tough pill to swallow, but we are all very very lucky folks to have a choice about any of this stuff.
It’s a household calculator that we are using to assess ‘your’ personal wealth as that’s what I was referring to.
It’s an annual wage income calculator, if you’re going off the average family you need to add two kids. Wealth and wage aren’t the same thing. Yes, most people on here are above the poverty line, many aren’t. Not many will be in the 1%. Your unsubstantial claims aren’t convincing anyone.
Even using it as a household calculator- 2 adults on UK average wage with one child would be in the 93rd percentile…. Two adults on £40k with two kids would be back above the 95th percentile.
So not 1%
So not 1%
As individual members of the forum, you will be- yes. Whether you choose to use some of your extreme wealth privilege (in a global context) to support a family is entirely up to you.
(And even as a household- most of you will still be 1% too.)
None of your evidence has proven that to be the case, it’s proven to be the opposite. I’m very lucky to be on an income way above the average. I don’t make the 1% you claim, I only think you mean 10%.
If it is $45,000 or more then you are in the top 1% as defined by that calculator. It only take $17000 dollars to put you into the top 10%!
If you have chosen to use your income to support other dependants- then that's not evidence that you don't earn enough to qualify for the 1% of global salary.
Even using it as a household calculator- 2 adults on UK average wage with one child would be in the 93rd percentile…. Two adults on £40k with two kids would be back above the 95th percentile.
I know it makes attacking the super rich harder (#arewethebaddies 🤣) so it’s a tough pill to swallow, but we are all very very lucky folks to have a choice about any of this stuff.
Yes. someone on an average income in the UK or other wealthy country is way up in the top percentiles on a global scale. FFS, one decent mountain bike would be a year's salary for most people in poorer countries.
From the World Bank
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?name_desc=false
China has GDP per capita of $12,720
India 2,388
Indonesia 4,788
****stan 1,596
Nigeria 2,184
Brazil 8,917
Bangladesh 2,688
Across the whole world, the GDP per capita is $12,647
Those countries have a combined population of close to four billion people. The United Kingdom has GDP per capita of $45,850, so an average UK income is in the ballpark of 10x the income for half the world and close to 4x the global average. An average earner in the UK is very wealthy on a global scale.
If it is $45,000 or more then you are in the top 1% as defined by that calculator. It only take $17000 dollars to put you into the top 10%!
1 person in the household and you’ve gone up to $45k dollars. That’s still not the UK average family income.
This is what I originally said…
So… the average UK salary of £26400 ish after tax puts you in the top 2.8% globally with this calculator.
I’d wager the average STW salary is a tad higher….
So my instinctive guess was not magnitudes of order out…..
Reading this you are highly likely to be in the top 1% of global income……
I guess after years of the Guardian demonising the “1%” it stings for folk to discover that was you all along #arewethebaddies
https://amp.theguardian.com/money/2022/jan/07/richest-uk-households-worth-at-least-36m-each
Original point was simply that the optics of someone buying an EV as a climate-warrior lifestyle choice telling an immigrant Greek docker that they can’t fly abroad with their life savings is pretty revolting.
Why are you lot comparing absolute incomes across countries with wildly different costs of living?
What you need to compare is spending power.
Original point was simply that the optics of someone buying an EV as a climate-warrior lifestyle choice telling an immigrant Greek docker that they can’t fly abroad with their life savings is pretty revolting.
It is, but that doesn't mean that it's then justifiable for everyone to do whatever they want. This is not a personal debate. The 'yeah but look at them' playground complaint does not work here. The climate does not care if someone else is consuming more than you.
Why are you indulging this clown with a diversion away from the thread subject?
It's classic troll behaviour and has got some of you in a froth about a distraction. A troll is a troll is a troll. They're good 'cos many of you cannot see through the very thin veneer of whatabouttery. Or are you all now converts to the land use school of climate change denying troll-onomics?
If a minted Tory minister says “we’re all in this together” about a topic- what is the reaction of this forum usually?
As I say- this stinks of climate colonialism. Developing nations (Scotland? 😉🤣) sat on huge fossil fuel reserves being told by the inventors of the Industrial Revolution “sorry old bean, atmosphere is full” just isn’t going to stick is it.
This is why the world will come to fist fights- energy gate keeping, not famine!
Hi all,
I wonder this a lot lately. As I cycle to work and am passed by an endless procession of luxury 2-ton SUVs, it does rather seem that we’ll collectively fail at mitigating perhaps nothing but the worst effects of global heating. Given the coverage in the more reputable papers, I can’t quite fathom the juxtaposition of it against day-to-day life.
So assuming nothing is achieved, and we continue to double down on our insatiable consumption habits, will things breakdown suddenly or bit by bit? Would looking into the future, say in forty years time, be rather like looking today but a much more actue ‘version’ or will it be something nearing widespread collapse?
I struggle to see much above that isn’t pertinent to the OP IMO 🤷🏻♂️
I see @crosshair's still trolling, but can we at least put this dumbest of arguments to bed?:
An average earner in the UK is very wealthy on a global scale
No. Wealthy is relative. If it's £300,000 for a house in the UK and £15,000 for a house in Cambodia, and you get £30kpa in the UK and £1.5kpa in Cambodia then you're equally wealthy. (And both pretty fekking poor).
It's so obvious that this is how "wealth" works that it doesn't need to be restated every other page. These arguments are made to derail threads by people who don't want to talk about the issues at hand.
Sure but that’s not climate change… the point is remove those trains and people will drive instead.
Why not simply replace them with clean, efficient electric versions? No reduction in numbers. I’m not saying get rid of trains, just make them better.
The reason the right (and now Labour…) do so well in polling around climate change when they take a denial viewpoint is because they campaign on the grounds that fixing minimising climate change makes your life worse.
Look at how they market themselves - anti ULEZ, anti EV, anti public transport, anti heat pump, anti solar. They cream themselves at the idea of 15 minute cities. Cyclists are both too fast and too slow for them.
not famine!
Well according to my news sources were in the thick of a famine right now.
https://www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis
You'll note that the countries worst affected are suffering drought which is the result of expansion of desert belts in repsonse ot climatic change.
Developing nations (Scotland? 😉🤣) sat on huge fossil fuel reserves being told by the inventors of the Industrial Revolution “sorry old bean, atmosphere is full” just isn’t going to stick is it.
It is sticking, for the most part, because they are listening to science and not sentiment.
Interesting to note that a donation to the WFP gets spent on basically the opposite of re-wilding. Ie. turning scrub into farmland.
In just four years of the Sahel Resilience Scale-up, WFP and local communities turned 158,000 hectares of barren fields in the Sahel region of five African countries into farm and grazing land.
Sounds remarkably like a land use issue there.
Highlighting not for point scoring but to show the complexity of balancing natural and farmed habitats against each other to the benefit of the local population.
You're twisting things again, Crosshair. It's not turning scrubland into farmland, it's making farmland made unviable by climatic change viable again. Drilling water wells, building storage lakes, selecting suitable species of crops and tress for reforesting.
You are grossly distorting what is happening to suit your negative agenda.
I've been careful to avoid insult direct or implied so far but there's a word I'm going to have to use for your contributions to STW because I can't think of a better one: nihilism.
Seriously, Crosshair, read this and then read your contributions to the thread and see which aspects of nihilism best fit each of your posts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
You're on a moutain bike forum, people here love riding bikes all over the world wherever they happen to live because we live all over world and you're intent on trashing it (edit: forum and planet in case that wasn't clear).
Why are you indulging this clown with a diversion away from the thread subject?
Not all of us are. What could have been a good topic with good information and ideas has now been completely ruined.
Can you find a new emoji other than the shrug and one question mark is always enough. Other than that, carry on. Oh and what are your feelings on the shape of the earth and the continued existence of Elvis Presley?
“Relations between farmers and herders have improved because there is social cohesion between them. Animals have a place of grazing and no longer spoil farmers’ fields. There is better collaboration between us.” Community-level participant from Burkina Faso.
“WFP has developed very rich grazing areas, the animals of the herders no longer need to graze
in the farmers’ fields, so there is no longer any source of tension.” Community-level participant from Burkina Faso.
From the PDF about the project. Not wanting to be facetious here but- aren't we always told that going vegetarian is a more efficient form of land use? Shouldn't the land used for grazing have been used to grow crops instead?
Sounds like they've intensified the grazing operation by turning unimproved land into productive ag. With Petro-Chemical fertiliser by any chance?
3. Improved relationships between farmers and herders. Asset creation activities focused on
restoring degraded environments enhanced natural resource supply and management, reducing conflicts between farmers and herders and allowing them to find ground for symbiotic relations.
So was it Climate Change or stubborn goat herders trashing farmers fields?
It's like it's written by David Brent. (Unless it's just a really bad French translation into Management Speak English in which case- apologies).
I've skimmed the whole thing and none of it sounds any worse than the famines on TV in the 80's?
I've reported, if no guidance or action is forthcoming from on high I'm out.
aren’t we always told that going vegetarian is a more efficient form of land use?
that’s because it is. Cows have a very long growth cycle, emit methane and you also need land to grow food for them. Don’t know if it’s the same in your field but generally speaking they’re also pretty big.
Killing and transporting them is also quite a carbon intensive process too. This was all covered a few pages back and it is really ****ing easy to find credible sources on the subject if you can be arsed.
I’ve skimmed the whole thing and none of it sounds any worse than the famines on TV in the 80’s?
Also that’s not a question. Perhaps you are a simple farmhand after all.
hat’s because it is. Cows have a very long growth cycle, emit methane and you also need land to grow food for them. Don’t know if it’s the same in your field but generally speaking they’re also pretty big.
Okay cool- so follow my point to its conclusion then. Why didn't the project (which claims to be fighting back against climate change) encourage the people right there on the front line, suffering at the hands of the climate emergency to go vegetarian? Surely they of all people need to be doing all they can right?
Instead they 'fought climate change' by (checks notes) "intensifying grazing".
See- the narrative doesn't stack up.
There isn’t a narrative you sad, deluded, pathetic little man. There’s evidence, facts, widespread scientific consensus and then there is you in your utopian field somewhere in England that is proof climate change isn’t an issue because insects. It’s all down to land use and if we just shot more pheasants or something all would be well with the world.
People have tried to reason with you and you just roundly ignore them. Therefore I’m resorting to personal abuse in the hope of killing the thread. If it’s any consolation I’d do the same to your face as I’m not the typical keyboard warrior. Just completely fed up of your ****ing trolling. Have fun in your field 🖕🏼
climate colonialism
Well this was a new one to me
Thank you, moderators, for looking at the thread. I hope we can continue the thread debating our differences of opinion in good faith if anyone still has anything to add.
I found this article very interesting, echoes some of the thoughts on here.
https://www.ft.com/content/60f6e94a-eb3b-4a3e-9ef6-273262967121
I will have to take your word for it
People have tried to reason with you and you just roundly ignore them. Therefore I’m resorting to personal abuse in the hope of killing the thread. If it’s any consolation I’d do the same to your face as I’m not the typical keyboard warrior. Just completely fed up of your **** trolling. Have fun in your field 🖕🏼
Careful, the mods don't like you abusing climate trolls. I tried that strategy and got banned twice for my troubles while the trolls remained free to spread their poison. 🙁
Not wanting to be facetious here
20 pages of bulls**t and crosshair has still just managed to out-troll himself
I will have to take your word for it
General gist of it is...
“It’s very strange,” says US climate scientist, Jonathan Foley. “A few years ago, you had activist climate deniers who were spewing nonsense about climate science and saying, ‘Oh you’re all exaggerating this thing’. And now you have climate doomists saying ‘Oh you’re all underplaying what’s going to happen’.”
I think doomists have yet to cause as much damage as the deniers who helped to stall early efforts to cut carbon emissions, or their modern day brethren who knowingly exaggerate the costs of climate action.
But it is not hard to see doomist thinking spread, especially in a year such as this when a warming El Niño climate pattern is adding to a baseline of human-caused higher temperatures. This is leading to confusion about tipping points and so-called runaway warming.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001pmgn?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Good episode of Life Scientific yesterday.
For years we've had the scientific community erring on the side of caution. Wanting to be absolutely sure they could back up their projections with facts, always adding qualifers such as "if we go on as we are", whereas emissions have continued to rise.
Even as a geologist I fell into the trap of peak oil. I knew about fracking and other methods for increasing yields because I was working with people who were working on them but failed to extrapolate to what that would do to peak oil if applied globally. The result is that in my life time peak oil has gone from 1969 to 2035. We are going to emit more than was ever thought posible.
So CO2 emissons have been way ahead of predictions from decades earlier. And climate scientists have been slow to catch up because once you've announce a date forsay +1.5°C and the world's leaders have been using that as a number it's difficult to change the message.
So we're where we are sooner than expected and people only have to turn on the TV to see:
- Unusually strong winds and drough in Hawaii and a fire
- Mud flows in Italy
- fires in France and elsewhere where fires are common
That's since my last list a page back.
I don't see it as doomism, I see it as catchup. People suddenly getting the message, scientists feeling liberated because they've finally got a concensus, people are finally taking note because its no longer possible to ignore and there no longer being a need to err on the side of caution - say it like it is.
It's fascinating the comparison of a 10-year-old STW thread with now:
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/global-warming-update/page/6/
If you read the thread note that when I was making geological time line comparisons then the current CO
figure was about 35ppm lower than now.
From a social point of view it's interesting how many of the climate sceptics on that thread disappeared into the Internet ether years ago, I wonder if they've changed their minds and would admit it.
The FT article does have a point, and there has def been a bit too much doomerism on this thread for me
On the other hand, the author accuses doomers of hyperbole, then preceeds to repeatedly refer to the fact that scientists do not think the earth is heading towards a Venus like state...
Seriously, I've never heard even those most pessimistic about climate change claim that we are on track to turn the Earth into Venus
There are puddles of lead on the surface of Venus for God's sake
You think there's too much doomerism on this thread, legomeeorology. Who then? Fact check anything I've writen before accusing me or anyone else of doomerism. Be specific or you're just accusing realists of doomerism with nothing to back up that accusation.
Ft is owned by Nikkei and known for a strong bias in favour of business.
@Edukator, that wasn't leveled at you nor anyone else in particular
It's just I feeling I've had at times, but I'm certainly not going to go back through 36 pages just to name names
To be fair, reading my comment that came accross too strongly -- I don't feel that the thread has tended too much towards doomism overall, I just remember reading occasional comments that I felt strayed too far in that direction. For example, comments along the lines of 'we are ****ed until we seriously reduce the population, and if we do not do it Gaia will'
curiosity got the better of me so to back myself up, these are the kind of comments I was thinking of, from early in the thread:
The Earth will recover but we won’t be part of the recovery.
We’re doomed the planet will adapt
eventually there will be no human race – the end
fwiw @Edukator, my realism, if that's what we want to call it, is quite close to yours
I'd seen those comments as well legometrology but you'll note that I didn't contradict them because the geological record tells me that there are probably enough fossil fuels to burn to reach CO2 levels associated with the Cretaceous anoxic events, see link. We've so far gone from say 270ppm to 420ppm and indulged in the destruction of a lot of land biomass (carbon sinks). The oceans too will absorb less CO2 as they warm and plancton species change. Vicious circle.
It was volcanism that produced the CO2 in the Cretaceous, man is doing it now. Sure it's an extreme scenario but one I can't objectively dismiss. Man wouldn't have survived a Cretaceous anoxic event.
It wasn't just the meteorite impact that did for the dinosaurs, it was also climatic change and anoxic events. Just a random google result - well not entirely random, it's one that focusses on the need for accurate paleo CO2 date rather than 1000ppm because I'm always suspicious of round numbers, they quote 650ppm. I haven't read it all but as far as I've read it's good:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018216300967
There are puddles of lead on the surface of Venus for God’s sake
Yes. And the melting point of lead is 327.5 celcius. So clearly, pretty much all life, including microbial, would be a goner.
But this year the average surface sea temperature in Florida is 38.4 degrees.
That's hotter than your average hot tub. It's not livable in by any earth-based animal that can't get access to colder water.
End of. Water too hot to live in, and we enjoy it for shits and giggles, largely oblivious, because our average IQ is woefully inadequate.
this year the average surface sea temperature in Florida is 38.4 degrees.
Can you have a sea surface temperature on land?
Can you have a sea surface temperature on land?
Given the oceans are "taking one for the team" by absorbing most of the temperature rise, to the detriment of the ecosystem that produces the vast majority of the oxygen we all breathe, who gives a fluff?
I guess your I'm-alright-jack glasses can't see that. Must be a failure in schooling, or something.