Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Climate Emergency

1…101102103105107

Comments

  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,928
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 18,895
    Chizz said:
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
    Excellently put!
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 10,549
    I don’t normally like to call anyone stupid because everyone has different levels of intelligence in each of the different types of intelligence:

    Logical-Mathematical Intelligence 
    Linguistic Intelligence 
    Interpersonal Intelligence 
    Intrapersonal Intelligence 
    Musical Intelligence 
    Visual-Spatial Intelligence 
    Bodily-Kinaesthetic Intelligence 
    Naturalist Intelligence 
    Existential Intelligence 

    Or as Chizz puts it: ’less-analytical cognitive styles’

    But, for me, climate change denyers, like flat earthers, must be stupid. If not, what is the definition of ’stupid’. Will they still be denying it if in ten years there is no fruit or vegetables left for them in the supermarkets. 

    Customer: Why are there no fruit or vegetables?
    Supermarket worker: Because we’ve had no rain for 18 months, and there’s no water left in the reservoirs.  It all has to be reserved for drinking. 
    Customer: Yeah the 2040s are a worry.
    SW: Climate change is a disaster 
    Customer: Oh, I don’t believe in that.
    SW: Stupid.


  • ken_shabby
    ken_shabby Posts: 6,786
    Chizz said:
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
    Great post - nailed it.
  • ME14addick
    ME14addick Posts: 10,316
    ken_shabby said:
    ME14addick said:
    Barcelona has again had torrential rain, causing devastating floods, this is not normal.
    It was devastating. The trains are still out and the clear up of mud, plus the flooded houses and schools is incredibly expensive. And you see the idiots saying fossil fuels are cheaper (they aren't even at basic level before climate change kicks in).
    Sorry to hear that, I hope you are OK. I saw the pictures on tv this morning, it looked dreadful. 
  • ME14addick
    ME14addick Posts: 10,316
    The actual science around greenhouse gases is not complicated. I was taught about them in school and I'm in my late 60s. 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 24,976
    The world is absolutely fucked, but one rando made more cider than normal, so we just all jog on and get drunk! 
  • m_2
    m_2 Posts: 181
    Chizz said:
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
    I did laugh when I read this!

    I work for an environmental charity and word for word the facts are the mirror opposite of what this claims.

    Typical lefty remainerism as well, everyone is thick who doesn’t agree with them.

    I can only point you towards the meteorological, geological, archeological and historical discoveries of the last decade which make nonsense of these outdated and patently false conclusions.

    Open your eyes, weather is cyclical and always will be.

  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,864
    m_2 said:
    Chizz said:
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
    I did laugh when I read this!

    I work for an environmental charity and word for word the facts are the mirror opposite of what this claims.

    Typical lefty remainerism as well, everyone is thick who doesn’t agree with them.

    I can only point you towards the meteorological, geological, archeological and historical discoveries of the last decade which make nonsense of these outdated and patently false conclusions.

    Open your eyes, weather is cyclical and always will be.

    I refuse to believe people like this exist. It's just too depressing to contemplate. 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 24,976
    Weather is cyclical, sure, that's what we call "seasons".

    Climate? Somewhat less so

  • Sponsored links:



  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 18,895
    edited October 6
    m_2 said:
    Chizz said:
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
    I did laugh when I read this!

    I work for an environmental charity and word for word the facts are the mirror opposite of what this claims.

    Typical lefty remainerism as well, everyone is thick who doesn’t agree with them.

    I can only point you towards the meteorological, geological, archeological and historical discoveries of the last decade which make nonsense of these outdated and patently false conclusions.

    Open your eyes, weather is cyclical and always will be.

    You could, but you haven't. You've relied on "open your eyes" which is ironic.

    Ohh and reducing global climate collapse to a petty left-versus-right political debate demonstrates intelligence akin to that of a single-celled organism. If humanity survives this crisis, future historians will look back on this absurdity as the greatest propaganda triumph in human history.
  • Leuth
    Leuth Posts: 24,717
    They flood the zone, they want you to reply. Fucking stop I beg 
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 18,895
    Leuth said:
    They flood the zone, they want you to reply. Fucking stop I beg 
    Where's the fun in that?
  • rambeau
    rambeau Posts: 68
    There was an opinion article in the WSJ yesterday titled Covid, Climate and The Consensus Trap, arguing that the 2008 banking crisis, the 2020-2021 Covid shutdown policies, and claims of scientific unanimity on the need for decarbonisation are linked by a rejection of non-conforming thinking which in each case has led or will lead to disaster.
    The links between these events are tortuous at best: the banking crisis was driven by greed, there is no consensus yet on what would have been the best way to manage the Covid pandemic, and we wait to see the impact of failing to decarbonise, if that’s the way we go. But it’s deeply worrying that news outlets like the WSJ accept such flawed arguments in an opinion piece. And it’s also depressing that relatively influential people are still willing to play games like this.
    Shortly after reading that I read several articles describing extraordinary ice loss in different parts are the earth. Opinion pieces deriding scientific consensus won’t change that.
  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 7,645
    Leuth said:
    They flood the zone, they want you to reply. Fucking stop I beg 
    Is that because of the ice caps?

    I'll get my coat...
  • ME14addick
    ME14addick Posts: 10,316
    edited October 6
    m_2 said:
    Chizz said:
    Climate skepticism is associated with certain less-analytical cognitive styles and lower climate-specific knowledge, but political ideology and identity are major factors, and intelligence itself is not a reliable predictor.  So, when stupid people make stupid comments denying (or minimising) the existence of - and effects of - climate change, it's easy to think they've drawn their conclusions from simple stupidity.  

    But there is actually very strong evidence of a closer correlation between political ideology and climate skepticism.  In other words, stupid people are less likely to draw conclusions about climate from in-depth, careful analysis of facts than they are simply to parrot the views of political figures they admire.  

    And that is what makes it impossible to change the views of certain climate skeptics; they're not interested in analysing facts and data (because, of course, they can't) and, instead they lazily regurgitate the views of the political leaders in whose thrall they are.  

    The plural of anecdote is, of course, not data.  But a stupid climate change denier might be seduced by their own mishearing of - for example - a cider-maker's fortunes, while ignoring the tsunami of facts and data that demonstrate evidence of the climate emergency.   

    In short, you cannot make someone understand the urgent necessity to deal seriously and comprehensively with climate change if their political lodestones who told them Brexit will bring back control and we'd be better off outside Europe are also telling them we should drill more oil, ban onshore wind turbines and tax solar farms. 
    I did laugh when I read this!

    I work for an environmental charity and word for word the facts are the mirror opposite of what this claims.

    Typical lefty remainerism as well, everyone is thick who doesn’t agree with them.

    I can only point you towards the meteorological, geological, archeological and historical discoveries of the last decade which make nonsense of these outdated and patently false conclusions.

    Open your eyes, weather is cyclical and always will be.

    I worked for an environmental charity for almost 13 years and the consensus was very much that burning fossil fuels releases Carbon Dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases prevent heat from the sun escaping into space, the heat warms the atmosphere, which leads to global warming, which leads to climate change and extremes of weather.

    I also studied Geography, Biology & Geology at A level and did start a degree course in Geography/Geology at Bristol University. I didn't complete the degree for family reasons, but I know enough about geological time scales to know that the increase in Carbon Dioxide since the start of the Industrial Revolution is very rapid and not explained by cyclical patterns. 

    It's a shame that something that is affecting the whole planet and is an existential problem has come down to politics, because we should all be pulling together, to do all we can to look after all life on the planet. It's greed that releases mis/disinformation about the causes of climate change, with certain parties having a vested interest in promoting it.
  • Chippycafc
    Chippycafc Posts: 14,751
    edited October 7
    Remember reading similar crap on the groups threads by the same individuals (describing themselves),  about how wonderful a new government was going to sweep the country into the promised land. And everyone else who didn't align with their view didn't know what they were talking about. 

    The same people dismissed those that warned them what a disaster their vote would be. Those that warned them gave plenty of reasons why. 

    The same people ignored that sensible and reasonable obvious advice and followed their nose and voted accordingly and look  what a dreadful state we are now in. 

    Cheers,  now own it. 
  • Chippycafc
    Chippycafc Posts: 14,751
    sam3110 said:
    The world is absolutely fucked, but one rando made more cider than normal, so we just all jog on and get drunk! 

    Post of the day... Drink and get merry enjoy paying your extra money on your bills to fund nut zero. 
  • R0TW
    R0TW Posts: 2,069
    ME14addick said:
    The actual science around greenhouse gases is not complicated. I was taught about them in school and I'm in my late 60s. 
    Don’t fart in a confined space.
    I learnt the hard way
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 24,976
    Chippycafc said:
    sam3110 said:
    The world is absolutely fucked, but one rando made more cider than normal, so we just all jog on and get drunk! 

    Post of the day... Drink and get merry enjoy paying your extra money on your bills to fund nut zero. 
    Cheers mate, would actually mean something if I gave a rats arse about anything posted on here...

  • Sponsored links:



  • Chippycafc
    Chippycafc Posts: 14,751
    sam3110 said:
    Chippycafc said:
    sam3110 said:
    The world is absolutely fucked, but one rando made more cider than normal, so we just all jog on and get drunk! 

    Post of the day... Drink and get merry enjoy paying your extra money on your bills to fund nut zero. 
    Cheers mate, would actually mean something if I gave a rats arse about anything posted on here...

    Me too. 
  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 7,645
    sam3110 said:
    Chippycafc said:
    sam3110 said:
    The world is absolutely fucked, but one rando made more cider than normal, so we just all jog on and get drunk! 

    Post of the day... Drink and get merry enjoy paying your extra money on your bills to fund nut zero. 
    Cheers mate, would actually mean something if I gave a rats arse about anything posted on here...
    and yet - there you are...
  • ME14addick
    ME14addick Posts: 10,316
    Those thinking that we are paying more in subsidies for green energy than for fossil fuels are much mistaken. 

    The UK still gives more financial support to fossil fuels than to green energy, because fossil fuel tax breaks and bill subsidies are huge. Fossil fuel support is about £20bn to £30bn per year, whilst renewables receives about £18bn to £20bn a year.

    Fossil fuel support is still larger overall, mainly because of: VAT reduction on domestic fuel, fuel duty rebates (especially aviation and heating oil, oil & gas tax reliefs and crisis related bill subsidies.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 18,895
    ME14addick said:
    Those thinking that we are paying more in subsidies for green energy than for fossil fuels are much mistaken. 

    The UK still gives more financial support to fossil fuels than to green energy, because fossil fuel tax breaks and bill subsidies are huge. Fossil fuel support is about £20bn to £30bn per year, whilst renewables receives about £18bn to £20bn a year.

    Fossil fuel support is still larger overall, mainly because of: VAT reduction on domestic fuel, fuel duty rebates (especially aviation and heating oil, oil & gas tax reliefs and crisis related bill subsidies.
    And the Green Levy was removed from bills more than 18 months ago so their claims are doubly wrong. But dont be bringing facts and logic into the conversation, single cell organisms cant process them.
  • redman
    redman Posts: 5,520
    2024–2025 total government revenues and taxes from  UK oil and gas production revenues raised £4.5 billion. This included the marginal 78% tax rate. But let's only show part of the situation. Let the arogant keep us single cell organisms in check. Canters you really have exceeded yourself here. 
  • ME14addick
    ME14addick Posts: 10,316
    redman said:
    2024–2025 total government revenues and taxes from  UK oil and gas production revenues raised £4.5 billion. This included the marginal 78% tax rate. But let's only show part of the situation. Let the arogant keep us single cell organisms in check. Canters you really have exceeded yourself here. 

    Government tax revenues from oil and gas are currently higher than the subsidies given to the fossil fuel sector. But this comes with important nuance: fossil fuel consumption subsidies (like VAT reductions and bill support) are still very large.

    From the official UK fossil fuel incentives and subsidies inventory , the government classifies subsidies as:

    A. Producer subsidies (oil & gas companies)

    These include tax reliefs for exploration, decommissioning, and capital investment.

    • ~£2–3 billion per year in tax reliefs (Ring‑fence allowances, decommissioning relief, supplementary charge relief)

    B. Consumer subsidies (indirect fossil support)

    ·         These are much larger and include: 5% VAT on domestic gas & electricity → £7 billion per year

    ·         Fuel duty rebates (red diesel, aviation fuel, heating oil) → £3–10 billion per year depending on category

    ·         Energy Price Guarantee / bill support schemes → £4–8 billion during crisis years

    Total fossil‑related support: ➡️ £20–30+ billion per year

    Most of this is not money given to oil companies — it is tax reductions for consumers that make fossil fuels cheaper.

    3. So which is bigger?

    Government revenue from oil & gas production:

    £3–7 billion per year

    Total fossil fuel subsidies (producer + consumer):

    £20–30+ billion per year

    Conclusion:

    The UK receives more tax from oil & gas companies than it gives directly to the fossil fuel industry. But overall fossil fuel subsidies (mostly consumer subsidies and VAT reductions) are far larger than the tax revenue.

    Put simply:

    Oil companies pay more tax than they receive in direct subsidies — but the UK still subsidises fossil fuel use far more than it earns from fossil fuel production.


  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 18,895
    redman said:
    2024–2025 total government revenues and taxes from  UK oil and gas production revenues raised £4.5 billion. This included the marginal 78% tax rate. But let's only show part of the situation. Let the arogant keep us single cell organisms in check. Canters you really have exceeded yourself here. 
    We were talking about the Green Levy son. 

    But I'll reply to your "point" anyway. You talk about only showing one side of the situation whilst also only talking about the revenue raised and not the subsidies given nor the tax breaks given. Just look at the recent high court papers from the appeals about Jackdaw and Rosebank where both the lawyers for the fossil fuel company and HMT's lawyers all agreed that it would be net negative for the exchequer due to the level of subsidies and tax breaks required to make it commercially viable. And that excluded the subsidies for speculative drilling in those fields that have been given over the last 15 years.

    Links to the high court papers and evidence submitted are a couple pages back on this very thread. 

    So yes, renewables are a bigger growth sector, a significantly bigger employment sector and require less in subsidies and tax breaks than fossil fuels. 
  • redman
    redman Posts: 5,520
    you've got to laugh haven't you. Why don't you both actually completely miss the point. I feel sorry for you both
  • ME14addick
    ME14addick Posts: 10,316
    redman said:
    you've got to laugh haven't you. Why don't you both actually completely miss the point. I feel sorry for you both
    What is your point?

    There are those on this thread who have been pushed into thinking that fossil fuels are free from subsidy, but that net zero (or nut zero as the more deluded call it) initiatives are costing us all too much money.

    They completely ignore the fact that climate change is having a huge effect everywhere on the planet, they've been coaxed into believing that climate change is not down to human action.

    We HAVE to do more to reduce those effects and stop the situation getting worse. The costs of dealing with climate change are huge, flood defences, water shortages, crop yields down, wildfires, the cost of making schools, hospitals, homes and other pubic buildings cooler in hot weather and warmer in winter; Insurance costs rising because of the increased risk of subsidence, flooding & fire. 


  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 7,645
    Climate change is real and the science behind its causes is overwhelming.

    Surely the discussion is around how we as a society adapt to the real world situation, taking into account the process of slowing the change balanced with the need for economies and societies to transition, rather than maintain the condescending (yes Chizz that is a big word) tone of the usual protagonists towards those who disagree, and who are entitled to do so.

    Perhaps that shift might change this thread from being the biggest echo chamber on this forum to something that is genuinely informative.

Categories