Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
And perhaps occasionally light hearted, as I genuinely feel sorry for those who seem obsessed with our doom laden future…SporadicAddick said: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.
4 -
This thread isnt an echo chamber - there have been plenty of robust debate over the last 10 pages alone. Even without that this thread was set up to be a positive place where people can discuss changes made in their own lives, and emerging technology on climate change mitigations/prevention. That doesnt make it an echo chamber just it has a specific purpose. The majority of the debate has happened on numerous other threads on here. And its perfectly okay to split it like that.SporadicAddick said: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.
Unfortunately some people are beyond help, they are sooo deep rooted in their political ideology and have linked that so intrinsically to their identity that they ignore all evidence and reality. Many of them only post to troll the thread (its our choice to engage to be fair). Ultimately they arent here to be informed or to inform.
Future generations will study the views like theirs as an incredible case study in how normal people could be propagandised to the point wherre they would vehmently argue against their own interests in support of foreign based multinational corportations who are terrified that renewables will break their monopoly on power meaning that they can no longer create artificial scarcity and drive up prices in order to expoit consumers. They are scarred that they cant monopolose the wind or the sun and so are throwing billions into persuading normal people to turn against it. Unfortunately it is working. Behaviourists and historians will study this in the same way they study proaganda in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.10 -
There is plenty on this thread that is genuinely informative.SporadicAddick said: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.
Of course people are free to believe what they want, but when the overwhelming evidence is presented and they don't provide any evidence to the contrary, just puerile remarks, it is extremely frustrating.
Countering dis/misinformation is important, because there are still far too many taken in by those with a vested interest in promoting lies for their own benefit,whether it be political or financial.
I'm glad that you have stated that climate change is real and that the science behind it is overwhelming, because there are still far too many that don't.
We do need greater agreement on the way forward and to take the politics out of it. The costs of doing nothing will be far greater than the costs of doing more to mitigate and slow the release of greenhouse gases.
4 -
How many times?ME14addick said:
What is your point?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
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.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT.
It's maddening watching this5 -
There are many discussions about different aspects of climate change that would be useful and interesting, not just one. How to slow the change is one of them. Another is to examine the counter-measures that will be needed to manage all the ill effects that will be brought upon us. Quite frankly the costs of those things are set to make the cost of transitioning from carbon-based to clean energy look absolutely trifling and I'm not sure many people have grasped that yet, even those with no doubts that climate change is real. That's just looking at climate change as a single issue, but it isn't really. Even if we could solve it overnight, there'd still be loads of other related environmental issues that are set to bite us on the bum: deforestation, soil depletion, overcrowding, overfishing, the finiteness of many natural resources are ones that immediately spring to my mind and I know that there many more. And the trouble is, we are just not geared up to managing it. We have political systems that only deal in short-tern issues, we have an economic system that relentlessly pursues profit above all else and we have a largely docile populace who for the most part look away from the big issues. No wonder a number of people express their incredulity. As for humour, good luck with that!SporadicAddick said:...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...
7 -
Soon felt the difference in temperature today compared to Monday and Tuesday. Autumn has arrived0
-
It's the first day since early June, that nowhere in the UK has gone above 20C. That isn't normal.shirty5 said:Soon felt the difference in temperature today compared to Monday and Tuesday. Autumn has arrived3 -
I like it warm so it was a shock to the system todayME14addick said:
It's the first day since early June, that nowhere in the UK has gone above 20C. That isn't normal.shirty5 said:Soon felt the difference in temperature today compared to Monday and Tuesday. Autumn has arrived0 -
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
Don't it's fun watching them ring of Roses round a cowpat, you noticed everyone Is wrong except them. Lots gave up ages ago and on similar threads due to the same.5 -
shirty5 said:
I like it warm so it was a shock to the system todayME14addick said:
It's the first day since early June, that nowhere in the UK has gone above 20C. That isn't normal.shirty5 said:Soon felt the difference in temperature today compared to Monday and Tuesday. Autumn has arrived
Almost time to put the CH on.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
The person I was responding to isn't the main protagonist, that honour lies with our resident carpenter.Leroy Ambrose said:
How many times?ME14addick said:
What is your point?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
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.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT.
It's maddening watching this3 -
My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.3
-
You've put it rather facetiously but wars and the military industrial complex are massive contributing factors to the climate crisis. Of course its all inextricably linked via our economic system.Starinnaddick said:My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Stopping facking fighting each other would go a long way to helping humanity save itself. Of course its more likely that humans will fight each other much more as the crisis bites.6 -
Fighting over scarce resources is extremely likely, as is migration, as more areas of the planet become unable to support growth of the food & supply the water that humans need to survive.cantersaddick said:
You've put it rather facetiously but wars and the military industrial complex are massive contributing factors to the climate crisis. Of course its all inextricably linked via our economic system.Starinnaddick said:My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Stopping facking fighting each other would go a long way to helping humanity save itself. Of course its more likely that humans will fight each other much more as the crisis bites.1 -
Which is exactly why an ever increasing world population is the fucking problemME14addick said:
Fighting over scarce resources is extremely likely, as is migration, as more areas of the planet become unable to support growth of the food & supply the water that humans need to survive.cantersaddick said:
You've put it rather facetiously but wars and the military industrial complex are massive contributing factors to the climate crisis. Of course its all inextricably linked via our economic system.Starinnaddick said:My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Stopping facking fighting each other would go a long way to helping humanity save itself. Of course its more likely that humans will fight each other much more as the crisis bites.6 -
Starinnaddick said:My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Do you value your head.0 -
Brilliantly put!Stig said:
There are many discussions about different aspects of climate change that would be useful and interesting, not just one. How to slow the change is one of them. Another is to examine the counter-measures that will be needed to manage all the ill effects that will be brought upon us. Quite frankly the costs of those things are set to make the cost of transitioning from carbon-based to clean energy look absolutely trifling and I'm not sure many people have grasped that yet, even those with no doubts that climate change is real. That's just looking at climate change as a single issue, but it isn't really. Even if we could solve it overnight, there'd still be loads of other related environmental issues that are set to bite us on the bum: deforestation, soil depletion, overcrowding, overfishing, the finiteness of many natural resources are ones that immediately spring to my mind and I know that there many more. And the trouble is, we are just not geared up to managing it. We have political systems that only deal in short-tern issues, we have an economic system that relentlessly pursues profit above all else and we have a largely docile populace who for the most part look away from the big issues. No wonder a number of people express their incredulity. As for humour, good luck with that!SporadicAddick said:...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...
It reminded me of this report https://www.theccc.org.uk/2026/03/11/cost-of-net-zero-by-2050-less-than-a-single-fossil-fuel-price-shock-ccc/ (and the subsequent Oxford university Smiths school one here:https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-03/SSEE-New-perspective-report-V5.pdf) which found that:
"the total additional cost of a single fossil fuel price spike of 2022 magnitude is likely to be as large as the total net additional cost of meeting the pathway to Net Zero across every year to 2050."
We are on our 3rd fossil fuel shock since 2022. THis means we've already paid the equivalent cost of net zero 3 times over on reacting to fossil fuel shocks and got nothing to show for it and no further resiliance to future shocks. On top of that these shocks are becoming more frequent and more severe. Once again the cost of inaction is much worse than the cost of action. And people with a certain mindset always "know the price of everything and the value of nothing".7 -
ME14addick said:
The person I was responding to isn't the main protagonist, that honour lies with our resident carpenter.Leroy Ambrose said:
How many times?ME14addick said:
What is your point?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
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.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT.
It's maddening watching this
I am a fitter and Turner by trade, moved to a weapons engineer on subs and warships and finished my career as head of manufacturing, maintenance and process in a facility in the Thames Valley.
So not a carpenter at all. No doubt you will Google something to say my career didn't do that at all.3 -
You've said this before and whilst I agree its a factor I'm just not convinced its the whole problem. I just want to dig into and understand more on 2 things from what you say:blackpool72 said:
Which is exactly why an ever increasing world population is the fucking problemME14addick said:
Fighting over scarce resources is extremely likely, as is migration, as more areas of the planet become unable to support growth of the food & supply the water that humans need to survive.cantersaddick said:
You've put it rather facetiously but wars and the military industrial complex are massive contributing factors to the climate crisis. Of course its all inextricably linked via our economic system.Starinnaddick said:My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Stopping facking fighting each other would go a long way to helping humanity save itself. Of course its more likely that humans will fight each other much more as the crisis bites.
1 - "ever increasing" is it ever increasing? every projection I've seen has the world population peaking in the next 5-10 years and every revision makes that peak sooner not frther away as growth is slower than expected.
2 - If it is the whole problem what are you proposing as the solution to this?2 -
Whoosh!Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
The person I was responding to isn't the main protagonist, that honour lies with our resident carpenter.Leroy Ambrose said:
How many times?ME14addick said:
What is your point?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
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.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT.
It's maddening watching this
I am a fitter and Turner by trade, moved to a weapons engineer on subs and warships and finished my career as head of manufacturing, maintenance and process in a facility in the Thames Valley.
So not a carpenter at all. No doubt you will Google something to say my career didn't do that at all.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
ME14addick said:
Whoosh!Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
The person I was responding to isn't the main protagonist, that honour lies with our resident carpenter.Leroy Ambrose said:
How many times?ME14addick said:
What is your point?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
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.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT.
It's maddening watching this
I am a fitter and Turner by trade, moved to a weapons engineer on subs and warships and finished my career as head of manufacturing, maintenance and process in a facility in the Thames Valley.
So not a carpenter at all. No doubt you will Google something to say my career didn't do that at all.
You can'thank me for my service at anytime keeping you safe whilst you lay in bed WFH.3 -
You may well be right.cantersaddick said:
This thread isnt an echo chamber - there have been plenty of robust debate over the last 10 pages alone. Even without that this thread was set up to be a positive place where people can discuss changes made in their own lives, and emerging technology on climate change mitigations/prevention. That doesnt make it an echo chamber just it has a specific purpose. The majority of the debate has happened on numerous other threads on here. And its perfectly okay to split it like that.SporadicAddick said: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.
Unfortunately some people are beyond help, they are sooo deep rooted in their political ideology and have linked that so intrinsically to their identity that they ignore all evidence and reality. Many of them only post to troll the thread (its our choice to engage to be fair). Ultimately they arent here to be informed or to inform.
Future generations will study the views like theirs as an incredible case study in how normal people could be propagandised to the point wherre they would vehmently argue against their own interests in support of foreign based multinational corportations who are terrified that renewables will break their monopoly on power meaning that they can no longer create artificial scarcity and drive up prices in order to expoit consumers. They are scarred that they cant monopolose the wind or the sun and so are throwing billions into persuading normal people to turn against it. Unfortunately it is working. Behaviourists and historians will study this in the same way they study proaganda in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
That said, referencing "single cell organisms" in the context of people who have different views, and calling people "son" in order to patronise them, puts you in the premier league of condescending posters on this forum.4 -
I'm assuming you must have had to pass some exams at some stage. Hard to imagine how given your constant scepticism...Chippycafc said:ME14addick said:
The person I was responding to isn't the main protagonist, that honour lies with our resident carpenter.Leroy Ambrose said:
How many times?ME14addick said:
What is your point?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
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.
HE DOESN'T HAVE A POINT.
It's maddening watching this
I am a fitter and Turner by trade, moved to a weapons engineer on subs and warships and finished my career as head of manufacturing, maintenance and process in a facility in the Thames Valley.
So not a carpenter at all. No doubt you will Google something to say my career didn't do that at all.2 -
I think you should look at the digs at me that I was responding to before making that accusation. I always meet people on a level. If they choose for that level to be on the floor I'll happily stoop down and join them. Interesting with how regularly you make these accusations that it's always levied at people on one side of the argument but never at those on the other... despite the insults usually originating frome the people from whom you let it slide. Your own biases coming through there chap.SporadicAddick said:
You may well be right.cantersaddick said:
This thread isnt an echo chamber - there have been plenty of robust debate over the last 10 pages alone. Even without that this thread was set up to be a positive place where people can discuss changes made in their own lives, and emerging technology on climate change mitigations/prevention. That doesnt make it an echo chamber just it has a specific purpose. The majority of the debate has happened on numerous other threads on here. And its perfectly okay to split it like that.SporadicAddick said: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.
Unfortunately some people are beyond help, they are sooo deep rooted in their political ideology and have linked that so intrinsically to their identity that they ignore all evidence and reality. Many of them only post to troll the thread (its our choice to engage to be fair). Ultimately they arent here to be informed or to inform.
Future generations will study the views like theirs as an incredible case study in how normal people could be propagandised to the point wherre they would vehmently argue against their own interests in support of foreign based multinational corportations who are terrified that renewables will break their monopoly on power meaning that they can no longer create artificial scarcity and drive up prices in order to expoit consumers. They are scarred that they cant monopolose the wind or the sun and so are throwing billions into persuading normal people to turn against it. Unfortunately it is working. Behaviourists and historians will study this in the same way they study proaganda in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
That said, referencing "single cell organisms" in the context of people who have different views, and calling people "son" in order to patronise them, puts you in the premier league of condescending posters on this forum.
10 -
I see what you did there…cantersaddick said:
I think you should look at the digs at me that I was responding to before making that accusation. I always meet people on a level. If they choose for that level to be on the floor I'll happily stoop down and join them. Interesting with how regularly you make these accusations that it's always levied at people on one side of the argument but never at those on the other... despite the insults usually originating frome the people from whom you let it slide. Your own biases coming through there chap.SporadicAddick said:
You may well be right.cantersaddick said:
This thread isnt an echo chamber - there have been plenty of robust debate over the last 10 pages alone. Even without that this thread was set up to be a positive place where people can discuss changes made in their own lives, and emerging technology on climate change mitigations/prevention. That doesnt make it an echo chamber just it has a specific purpose. The majority of the debate has happened on numerous other threads on here. And its perfectly okay to split it like that.SporadicAddick said: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.
Unfortunately some people are beyond help, they are sooo deep rooted in their political ideology and have linked that so intrinsically to their identity that they ignore all evidence and reality. Many of them only post to troll the thread (its our choice to engage to be fair). Ultimately they arent here to be informed or to inform.
Future generations will study the views like theirs as an incredible case study in how normal people could be propagandised to the point wherre they would vehmently argue against their own interests in support of foreign based multinational corportations who are terrified that renewables will break their monopoly on power meaning that they can no longer create artificial scarcity and drive up prices in order to expoit consumers. They are scarred that they cant monopolose the wind or the sun and so are throwing billions into persuading normal people to turn against it. Unfortunately it is working. Behaviourists and historians will study this in the same way they study proaganda in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
That said, referencing "single cell organisms" in the context of people who have different views, and calling people "son" in order to patronise them, puts you in the premier league of condescending posters on this forum.
Perhaps top 2?0 -
Chap is a normal friendly greeting. Just like mate. I was actually trying to build a bridge with that. Chap or Chappo are used regularly on group chats I'm in, though potentially now I think about it they are influenced by the number of Aussies on them.SporadicAddick said:
I see what you did there…cantersaddick said:
I think you should look at the digs at me that I was responding to before making that accusation. I always meet people on a level. If they choose for that level to be on the floor I'll happily stoop down and join them. Interesting with how regularly you make these accusations that it's always levied at people on one side of the argument but never at those on the other... despite the insults usually originating frome the people from whom you let it slide. Your own biases coming through there chap.SporadicAddick said:
You may well be right.cantersaddick said:
This thread isnt an echo chamber - there have been plenty of robust debate over the last 10 pages alone. Even without that this thread was set up to be a positive place where people can discuss changes made in their own lives, and emerging technology on climate change mitigations/prevention. That doesnt make it an echo chamber just it has a specific purpose. The majority of the debate has happened on numerous other threads on here. And its perfectly okay to split it like that.SporadicAddick said: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.
Unfortunately some people are beyond help, they are sooo deep rooted in their political ideology and have linked that so intrinsically to their identity that they ignore all evidence and reality. Many of them only post to troll the thread (its our choice to engage to be fair). Ultimately they arent here to be informed or to inform.
Future generations will study the views like theirs as an incredible case study in how normal people could be propagandised to the point wherre they would vehmently argue against their own interests in support of foreign based multinational corportations who are terrified that renewables will break their monopoly on power meaning that they can no longer create artificial scarcity and drive up prices in order to expoit consumers. They are scarred that they cant monopolose the wind or the sun and so are throwing billions into persuading normal people to turn against it. Unfortunately it is working. Behaviourists and historians will study this in the same way they study proaganda in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
That said, referencing "single cell organisms" in the context of people who have different views, and calling people "son" in order to patronise them, puts you in the premier league of condescending posters on this forum.
Perhaps top 2?
The classic sporadic ad hominem hasn't been missed though. Always the first to say "play the ball not the man" whilst doing the exact opposite. Just as calling others condescending whilst being condescending to everyone else. Need both a mirror and some self awareness.4 -
You're never, ever, ever going to get a reply to the second question. Nobody has the balls to just come out and say it: when the four horsemen come to Africa and Asia, we mustn't lift a finger, just dab our tears at the carnage and station more gunboats along the coastcantersaddick said:
You've said this before and whilst I agree its a factor I'm just not convinced its the whole problem. I just want to dig into and understand more on 2 things from what you say:blackpool72 said:
Which is exactly why an ever increasing world population is the fucking problemME14addick said:
Fighting over scarce resources is extremely likely, as is migration, as more areas of the planet become unable to support growth of the food & supply the water that humans need to survive.cantersaddick said:
You've put it rather facetiously but wars and the military industrial complex are massive contributing factors to the climate crisis. Of course its all inextricably linked via our economic system.Starinnaddick said:My wife, who knows everything, told me the other day that the changeable weather is all caused by the high volume of rockets etc. in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Stopping facking fighting each other would go a long way to helping humanity save itself. Of course its more likely that humans will fight each other much more as the crisis bites.
1 - "ever increasing" is it ever increasing? every projection I've seen has the world population peaking in the next 5-10 years and every revision makes that peak sooner not frther away as growth is slower than expected.
2 - If it is the whole problem what are you proposing as the solution to this?4 -
Stig said:
There are many discussions about different aspects of climate change that would be useful and interesting, not just one. How to slow the change is one of them. Another is to examine the counter-measures that will be needed to manage all the ill effects that will be brought upon us. Quite frankly the costs of those things are set to make the cost of transitioning from carbon-based to clean energy look absolutely trifling and I'm not sure many people have grasped that yet, even those with no doubts that climate change is real. That's just looking at climate change as a single issue, but it isn't really. Even if we could solve it overnight, there'd still be loads of other related environmental issues that are set to bite us on the bum: deforestation, soil depletion, overcrowding, overfishing, the finiteness of many natural resources are ones that immediately spring to my mind and I know that there many more. And the trouble is, we are just not geared up to managing it. We have political systems that only deal in short-tern issues, we have an economic system that relentlessly pursues profit above all else and we have a largely docile populace who for the most part look away from the big issues. No wonder a number of people express their incredulity. As for humour, good luck with that!SporadicAddick said:...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...'Earth Overshoot Day' marks the date each year when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services exceeds what the Earth can regenerate during that year. After that point, we’re effectively using resources faster than nature can replenish them.This year, Earth Overshoot Day 2026 fell on 30 July 2026, according to the Global Footprint Network. That means that by 30 July, humanity had used as much from nature as Earth can regenerate over the whole of 2026. The estimate says humanity is currently using nature 73% faster can regenerate, equivalent to requiring about 1.73 Earths.
https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/eod-2026-en/3 -
I see this all the time at work.cantersaddick said:
I think you should look at the digs at me that I was responding to before making that accusation. I always meet people on a level. If they choose for that level to be on the floor I'll happily stoop down and join them.SporadicAddick said:
You may well be right.cantersaddick said:
This thread isnt an echo chamber - there have been plenty of robust debate over the last 10 pages alone. Even without that this thread was set up to be a positive place where people can discuss changes made in their own lives, and emerging technology on climate change mitigations/prevention. That doesnt make it an echo chamber just it has a specific purpose. The majority of the debate has happened on numerous other threads on here. And its perfectly okay to split it like that.SporadicAddick said: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.
Unfortunately some people are beyond help, they are sooo deep rooted in their political ideology and have linked that so intrinsically to their identity that they ignore all evidence and reality. Many of them only post to troll the thread (its our choice to engage to be fair). Ultimately they arent here to be informed or to inform.
Future generations will study the views like theirs as an incredible case study in how normal people could be propagandised to the point wherre they would vehmently argue against their own interests in support of foreign based multinational corportations who are terrified that renewables will break their monopoly on power meaning that they can no longer create artificial scarcity and drive up prices in order to expoit consumers. They are scarred that they cant monopolose the wind or the sun and so are throwing billions into persuading normal people to turn against it. Unfortunately it is working. Behaviourists and historians will study this in the same way they study proaganda in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
That said, referencing "single cell organisms" in the context of people who have different views, and calling people "son" in order to patronise them, puts you in the premier league of condescending posters on this forum.
I'm a primary school teacher.2 -
The climate crisis affects us all, equally, but differently. No matter where we are, where we're from, who we are or, importantly, whom we vote for. That's a crucial point to keep in mind: whoever you support politically, you will suffer the effect of climate change.
People understand this. That's why councils the length and breadth of England have declared climate emergencies. London. Greenwich. Lewisham. Southwark. Westminster. Hammersmith and Fulham. Kensington and Chelsea. Surrey. Brighton and Hove. Devon. Cornwall. Birmingham. Leeds. Liverpool. Manchester. Nottingham.
I won't post them all because there are more than 270 councils in England that operate under a declared climate emergency. Clear, unambiguous, almost-universal demonstration of the prevailing wisdom and widespread understanding that there is a climate emergency and focus should be put not on whether, but on how it's ameliorated.
But there are other councils who have taken a different approach. Labour-run Durham council and Sunderland council declared climate emergency in February and March 2019 respectively. Newcastle-under-Lyme (Tory/no overall control) declared in April 2019. And Tory-run Kent followed in May 2019. Since then, each of these councils have been "won" by Reform UK. And each has rescinded its climate emergency declaration. Should we be asking Reforum UK what has changed, in climate terms, in Durham, Sunderland, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Kent?
Being a climate sceptic isn't, in and of itself proof that you're stupid. There are some climate sceptics who aren't. (Probably). But, as we've seen, there's a closer correlation between political support and climate change denial.
If you're a climate change denier, that's fine. But if you're a climate change denier because you believe that the party that told you we'd all be better off out of Europe, Brexit would gives us complete control of our borders and there would be no wars in Europe if we left the EU, then it would be fair to expect to be questioned on your reasons.
Or, even, be considered to be outside the group of climate sceptics with high IQs.8
