Food for thought - Climate Change

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/23/2023 at 1:54 PM, Linas.P said:

5000 years is the timeline for all permanent ice to melt on Earth currently agreed by scientist i.e. official end of glacial period and entry into interglacial period. Both are cyclical and normal.  

The storms, landslides, droughts all do happen, but there is no evidence that they are more frequent than they were in the past. I put this down to 1. instant information space 2. politicians just blaming something else i.e. climate change is convenient excuse for collecting more taxes and example give "extreme weather events are more frequent, wouldn't you want to pay more tax, because you are the cause". Flooding I have already addressed, this is 100% absolutelly fake... it is excuse for lacking infrastructure. Simple answer to that - urbanisation coverts the ground with impenetrable roads and pavements, water can't be absorbed, so it pools up and floods place. The answer to that is larger, more complicated and more sophisticated drainage systems, using permeable materials for roads and pavements and in the end of the day simply maintaining existing drainage systems. So more frequent flooding is just "fake news", what is actually happening is poor maintenance and poor drainage planning an implementation, it is not related with climate. Altogether, this could be explained by humans settling in areas which were in the past not suitable for permanent settlement, like floodplains... now we can control flooding, but not sufficiently enough to reliably prevent it all the time.

Why then we mandating batteries with lithium batteries which are fundamentally flawed? Why are we mandating them in 6 years (moving to 11 now). Why don't we first get those technologies (batteries with different and better chemistry) available first and then making decision on mandating them. Why are we mandating highly toxic, damaging, polluting technology of car propulsion now, just to replace it in 10-20 years? Seems very wasteful to me... As well note - just stop oil ecomaniacs quite specifically exists with sole goal to stop oil extraction in UK. Just think about it for a second - UK has limited oil resources, but talking about "energy independence" that is good thing to have our own oil and secondly exploration in UK is proven to be cheaper and cleaner than importing. So talking about energy independence - wouldn't it be right to try to exhaust as much resources as we have logically before importing?

"No-one is being forced to buy EVs" - that is just 100% false, alternative modes of propulsion will be literally BANNED by 2035 (at least it seems like now, as of last week it was 2030). So yes indeed - people are being FORCED to buy flawed BEVs. if we want to compare this to mobile phones, that is equivalent of banning landlines in 1980s and mandating that every household have to have a very flawed and expensive mobile phone OR NOTHING, despite it still being in it's infancy with NiCd batteries. I would repeat - I am not against BEVs or any other type of EVs. I am against mandating the flawed and largely unproven technology now, whilst it is still unproven and flawed. Instead I am saying we should invest in that technology make it viable and then people will buy it voluntarily in 2045. I may still keep classic RC-F or LC500 in 2045 as a weekend car to enjoy on some synthetic fuel, but I have no issue having daily hydrogen/aluminium oxide battery hybrid, which will have 120 miles range chargeable in 1 minute and extra hydrogen on board to go 1000 miles, when this technology will be cheap enough that I can buys such car for 50% less than equivalent ICEV. So my argument should not be confused with anti-change and anti-technology argument.

My argument is instead - uneducated people who don't understand climate processes have jumped to conclusion that we are living in some sort of "climate catastrophe", despite there being no evidence for that, likewise they don't understand and don't have perspective of boundaries of naturally occurring climate change. As such they wrongly concluded that climate change is both human made and bad, and furthermore that it is imminent and imminent tragic outcomes are about to materialise, both of which is false. And therefore based on their wrong perspective and wrong conclusions they are advocating for strict, immediate and illogical restrictions which will significantly diminish our quality of life. So this is one group. Second group is politicians and government who were looking for excuse to extract more tax, they are always looking for one, because their inefficiency and corruption wastes large amount of tax collected, therefore it seems like there is never enough money ion the budget to keep even basic services going. Now this second group found argument of first group as convenient excuse to raise the taxes. I want to be very clear here - second group DOES NOT CARE about environment, they just using ecomentalists argument as an excuse to raise taxes and raise more money, that is all. 

What I am saying is that technological advances are good and it is undeniable that there must be more efficient way to propel us than controlled explosions of flammable liquid, however we have not yet mastered those other technologies and anything that is mandated is always bad. It basically does exactly opposite from what you advocating. If mobile phones would have been mandated over landlines in 1980s, then they would have never improved to the level we have today. WHY? because once you mandate flawed technology you remove any incentive to improve it, if manufacturers would have had captive market for NaCd batteries phones, then they would have never even tried to improve them. Why fix something that "works"?! So same with lithium powered electric cars - they are scam, they are trash, they do not work, they are shaite technology demonstrators, sure that technology has huge potential, but it is not there yet. So the answer here is - "go back to your dungeon and comeback when you figured it out". If we now mandate adoption of flawed technology, then we just removing the incentive to improve it!

Linas, there's a huge difference between all the permanent ice melting, and sufficient ice melting for it to cause environmental problems, and even disasters. There's also a difference between cyclical occurences that happened prior to us having sophistiated and complex societies that are affected by such things, and the effects of climate change on life today. As such, it doesn't matter if such things were more frequent 5000 years ago, and only what their frequency is now, and the extent of damage they cause. Equally, saying that such things happened naturally 5000 years ago does not automatically mean that man made emissions aren't contributing to them today. That would be like saying that cancer existed before cigarettes, and so it's wrong to blame cigarettes for causing cancer. As for flooding, you're right in that poor land management might result in floods in developed areas like the Thames valley, but that doesn't account for things such as why US coastal flooding has doubled in a few decades. Nor does it account for increased flooding and/or droughts in less developed parts of the world.

For decades, in much the same way as the tobacco companies, oil companies have funded the denial of fossil fuels affecting the climate, despite their own scientists warning them long ago of the dangers. As far back as 1979, an Exxon study said that burning fossil fuels “will cause dramatic environmental effects” in the coming decades. So, you can deny the effects of it as much as you wish, but even the oil companies now accept the reality of it. The truth is buried in the research and data, and once again, like tobacco, will take time to emerge; but with lawsuits starting to be filed against oil companies, it's only a matter of time before all the evidence comes to light.

So I don't buy your argument that such claims are put forth by undeducated people who don't understand climate processes, as most of these claims are made by highly educated climate scientists, who conclude from the available data that man made emissions are affecting the climate in such a way that has a negative impact on the environment. It's not just the scientific consensus either, as even the oil companies now acknowledge that burning fossil fuels causes climate changes that are detrimental to the environment. I would therefore counter such a claim by saying that it's only uneducated people who are taking historical data to leap to the conclusion that it's all natural and cyclical, and that our activities are inconsequential.

The tax argument would have some merit if we didn't pay high taxes on oil, but we do, and so whatever we do, regarding cars, the climate, or whatever, the government will adjust taxes to suit. It makes no difference.

I think your fears are unfounded too. I see nothing in what we're doing that will "significantly diminish our quality of life". At worst I see some minor inconvenience and short term cost. Further, any cost and incovenience is no worse than your proposed solution, which would be to relocate cities and restructure society in order to maintain the viability of burning fossil fuels. I fear that mandating that people should move from their home might be a far more inconvenient solution than having to buy an EV, and would lead to an even greater diminishing of one's quality of life.

Once again, you're using timing to inaccurately characterise what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that no-one is being forced today. Already many people are choosing to buy EVs, without being forced. If costs come down sufficiently, then by 2035, it's quite possible that most will make that choice of their own accord. Nor are those on lower incomes impacted, as they traditionally buy used cars, and can continue to do so long after 2035. I do agree with some of what you're saying, but equally feel that you're exaggerating some points, to the extent that it comes across as making a mountain out of a molehill.

I also agree with you that the technology in terms of batteries is not yet mature, and would certainly agree that if everyone were forced into BEVs today then that would be wrong. The reality is that goverements are looking to transition in a way that allows the technology to catch up. If it were simply a scam we'd be forced into them now, but the fact that the government has already agreed to a five year delay suggests that they're acknowledging the current limitations, by allowing more time for progress to be made.

So, I agree with some of what you're saying about the speed of any such transiton, and that if pushed along too quickly will be detrimental. But I don't agree that we will see any significant diminishing in our quality of life, in anything that we're currently doing, or are likely to do.

 

[Linas.P]

@Bluemarlin First of all, I wanted to clarify that we have 5000 years until the "doom" scenario happens and we enter interglacial period, not that cycle repeats every 5000 years. I have already provided date to support such argument. Last interglacial period happened 120,000 years ago. Current one is actually late, so we should already be in the interglacial period for some time, but something happened this time around and it is delayed. Human activity in this case is kind of "helping along" for climate to catch-up. I am not saying that human activity does not make a difference.

I quite like your analogy with tobacco and cancer. Except more correct analogy here would be being alarmed by body temperature reaching 36.9C when somebody has just run the marathon. Yes normal temperature may be 36.6C, but after heavy exercise temperatures up-to 38C are acceptable. I remember being like 8 years old and being alarmed by when I checked my temperature for some reason in summer after paying basketball on sunny day for several hours and telling my parents that I am dying and need to be taken to hospital, because in school I was told normal temperature is 36.6C. Just to be told that is normal. And that was the problem of context - I have learned as a child that normal body temp is 36.6C and that is correct, but I was not told that there are exceptions and lacking this context I was scared. This is true in our current climate debate, we are told temperature is raising, and we are told it will eventually melt the ice, but lacking proper context we wrongly consider that to be negative. As I have said - I have already provided this context, it is not even-up for debate. Normal temps could rise as much as 6C more and we shouldn't be alarmed about it, and that is true just for 3 million years. It could be way way higher if we look in even longer time perspective, but then we may end-up with climate that is not acceptable for our own survival (despite being normal).

As for people understanding this - "just stop oil" retards clearly do not understand anything... It would be hard to find any climate related topic that they do understand... they are just headless chicken basically pushed to run into certain direction. As for scientists, I am not sure, there could be many different reasons, they may be dishonest or have certain agenda, they may be misunderstood and misquoted, taken out of context etc. First of all - I do not agree that scientists agree that climate change is ONLY human made and that consequences of it are all negative. I think this is narrative which is being forcefully pushed to us by various organisations that are not scientific themselves. That is why I am quoting science in this topic, not pre-digested conclusions. The glacial and interglacial periods are not even controversial in any way and I assume any self-respecting climate scientist knows about them. So I would suggest going to the sources and checking that the information you getting is scientific and not already manipulated to drive particular agenda. And this manipulation is very easy, half-truth works well here, good example of that is looking at climate for limited period e.g. 150 years, or 2000 years, instead of relevant periods like 300,000-3,000,000 years. So yes - it is true that temperature has increased compared to 2000 years ago, but at the same time it would be dishonest to say that it is "record high" or that it was caused by human activity.

The tax argument. I would say that our politicians are like stray dogs, they often bark-up wrong policy, because they don't understand anything and they will bark-up anything that seems beneficial for them in short term. So yes - you as a person who is open minded can argue that this would be madness... we have already highly taxed the oil related industries and activities, so driving them and their users further to the level of complete elimination makes no sense. But that is because you are assuming that politician either cares or even understands what they are doing. So first of all I want to be clear that I never said "it has just started". No the excessive taxation with excuse of being climate related has been going on for good 30 years, probably longer and that is why I am arguing my quality of life has been diminished. Not going to get diminished in the future if that continues... no it has already been diminished, it is continue to be diminished and it will be further diminished as long as this policy continues. Excessive taxation has caused inflation, inflation has caused all sorts of other issues and if I now have to spend double for most activity than generation before me, then my quality of life is naturally half as good as if it would be otherwise. Secondly, this is quite common for politicians to do, example I just used in another topic are speed limits. As well I have used brexshaite in this topic. These are just example of politicians lying about something, which informs wrong policy, then instead of educating the public and reversing that wrong policy they double down on it to the point where it not only hurts public interests, but their own interests as well. So climate is just one of those policies - they wrongly blamed burning of fossil fuel every time when something like flooding happened, then public demanded action, their action was to increase taxes on fossil fuel, then they realised this was convenient argument just to raise taxes in perpetuity and now we arriving to the point where it is basically eradicating whole successful industry and all it's users (as result making us all poorer) rather than admitting past policy mistakes. Politicians will never admit making mistakes. Just look at what happened with diesel - has any politician stood-up and said "we were wrong in 80s and 90s to push it for personal use"... no it was all drivers fault for buying diesels. So yes indeed - they will push taxation past the point where it hurts us all and even their own interests and destroy whole beneficial industry, unless public stops them. But make no mistake - tax will have to be paid, we will pay it one way or another, except in future we won't be able to have personal transportation, yet still we going to fund the government somehow from other areas.

I don't have fears, I have concrete, current quality of life damage. I don't understand why can't you see it, perhaps you value different things and what is valuable for me are simply not valuable for your. I mean we already been trough this topic so I am not going to repeat it, but I am being punished right now for basically being alive, this is not some "fear about the future". As well I don't understand how can you say that we are "not being forced to get EVs", I am not sure if this could even be honest assertion or play on words? It is like saying "nobody is planning to execute you" to the inmate with pending death penalty in 10 years... "cheer-up you still alive today". Everything is pointing to forced EV introduction, ULEZ, LEZ, Congestion charge, Parking Charges, excessive taxation, to have any more reasonable car will cost you £600+ on road tax a year and alternative is very clear - get electric. They are exempt from most of these taxes. As well even the choice of the cars I have is very limited. You may not want RC350, but you cannot deny that reason why we don't have it in UK is the stupid climate action. Lexus knew that if they were to introduce IS350, GS350 and RC350 in UK then these cars would attract maximum road tax. As result they would not sell many of them, as result they simply decided not to sell them at all. I understand that you do not care about it and for you this is "making mountain out of molehill", but that is huge problem for me. Like literally this is the difference between me having the car I like and being literally frustrated sine ~2018, because I just can't find the car which I would like to own. Again you may say -"this is just a car, find something else, who cars, that is not big problem"... NO it is a big problem for me, because that is specific, particular car I want and I cannot have... and even past RC350 example... the whole segment of the market was destroyed, so it is not like I am missing on one particular model, I am missing out on whole segment of cars that I want to drive. For example what if climate action would result in SUVs being banned i.e. you cannot have an RX? This by the way isn't even a joke, some activists were advocating for that. Would you be happy? And again you may say - who cares, I don't really care what car I am forced to drive, cars and driving are simply not really that important to me... well okey - they are not important for you, but they are important to me. So to say that you cannot see any diminishing quality of life requires closing your eyes and covering your faces with your hands in this context.

Finally, it is just ridiculous to suggest that people will be inconvenienced because coast line will shift in 5000 years, this is such a ridiculously long period of time that nobody gives a damn. What is this? Like 150 generations of people, could you tell me what house your family owned even 10 generations ago? I doubt it... so this is 15 times more. It will have literally not perceivable impact on anyone and it is so slow that from human existence perspective this will be seamless transition.

[Linas.P]

6 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

I’ve read this thread with interest. My own perspective is summed up by the enclosed satirical piece. Silly perhaps, but the element of truth - well, make your own minds up.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/petrol-cars-are-killing-the-planet-says-gen-z-girl-expecting-massive-shein-delivery-20230924240455

We should be trying to do the right thing for our environment, both locally, nationally and globally. That means reuse, recycle and act sustainably. Consumption for its own sake is damaging on many levels.

Focussing on one thing - such as EVs - whilst conveniently ignoring other factors will solve nothing.

But that is pretty much the argument we having here. Cars are mere 2.4% of pollution, replacing them all with electric will potentially save 0.8% from total pollution (importantly - potentially! because there are many things that should happen for this to actually work out at the larger scale). 

And this is why I said that despite arguing that climate change isn't big issue I actually take a lot of steps to meaningfully reduce my own footprint. Like for example I don't buy fast fashion or any cheap clothing or footwear. This has double effect - first of all more premium clothing are more likely to be made more locally, secondly materials used are likely be more sustainable, tertiary they last longer and finally I am willing to wear them longer. I just generally have less clothing and I only replace clothing/shoes when they are fully worn down... including taking some for repairs in the past which were not economically viable, but ecologically viable. Same applies to electronics - I only ever buy premium brands and high-end electronics, not only they are more sustainably made, but they last longer, so I have to replace them less often. Same goes for food - I buy less, but better quality food, I rarely throw any food away. Same goes with the cars - only ever buy used more premium cars, this has much lower climate impact than constantly buying cheap brand new trash cars. Same goes for the tools, same goes for the furniture, same goes for many things. And this is just few examples, but in principle I actually do a lot to minimise my personal waste... not really because I care about climate change or temperature rising, but because I find it morally important for myself to minimise my personal waste. I would do it with or without government forcing me to do it. 

So yes - I am driving older petrol vehicle and I am missing on the opportunity to save maybe 0.8% of pollution, but I am cutting my use in case of other 90% of pollution by 60%, maybe more. Yet some idiot virtuous just stop oil ecomentalists will be holding me stuck in traffic for hours because of this 0.8%, despite doing nothing to address the remaining 99%+ of the pollution.

Hence I am arguing this topic and saying the police if flawed because we focusing our efforts in wrong place. 

[Boomer54]

"And this is just few examples, but in principle I actually do a lot to minimise my personal waste... not really because I care about climate change or temperature rising, but because I find it morally important for myself to minimise my personal waste. I would do it with or without government forcing me to do it. "

Indeed, and personally, the longer that I have something the more attached to it I tend to become. I have the same friends I made 55 years ago, the same wife (more or less) as I married 40 years ao, my Levi Strauss flares have been in and out of fashion at least 3 times whilst I have had them. Then there is my treasured little friend who greets me for breakfast each day..

I am not a fan of disposable society.

 

[Lmafudd]

36 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

"And this is just few examples, but in principle I actually do a lot to minimise my personal waste... not really because I care about climate change or temperature rising, but because I find it morally important for myself to minimise my personal waste. I would do it with or without government forcing me to do it. "

Indeed, and personally, the longer that I have something the more attached to it I tend to become. I have the same friends I made 55 years ago, the same wife (more or less) as I married 40 years ao, my Levi Strauss flares have been in and out of fashion at least 3 times whilst I have had them. Then there is my treasured little friend who greets me for breakfast each day..

I am not a fan of disposable society.

 

All this Imperative Climate stuff and it's "the same wife (more or less)" part that has me intrigued!

[Bluemarlin]

I'm still confused by the relevance of the doom scenario, Linas. As far as I can see, no one is saying that the world will end tomorrow unless we do something about it. Ok, maybe some environmental extremists are but, as you say, they're ill informed fanatics. Additionally, no one has said that scientists agree that climate change is only human made, so you're disagreeing with a strawman there. What they are saying is that burning fossil fuels is having an effect on the climate over and above natural occurence, which is leading to damaging weather and environmental events.

Regardless of historical trends, cyclical events, and natural occurences, the scientific consensus seems to be that burning fossils has an effect on the climate which has been destructive, and that continuing to do so will only perpetuate that damage. In addition, this was something predicted by the oil companies own scientific research 40 years ago, and which the oil companies acknowledge as a reality today. I agree with you that a 6 degree rise is easily survivable, but that's not the point. The issue with warming isn't that we'll burn to death, no one is even saying that, it's that the effects it will have on the environment will cause substantial disruption. Nor does what happened 3 million years ago, 3 thousand years ago, or even 3 hundred years ago matter. We're not talking about what's survivable, but about what's sustainable, given the societies we've created in the last couple of hundred years.

So you're right in one sense, whether temperatures stay the same, or increase by 6C, the human race will survive. However, the issue isn't simply about survival, it's about the cost of managing the effects of any such increase. When you boil it down, it's just a cost benefit analysis. It's as simple as that; and the deeper, more complex areas of climate science, historical data, and cyclical trends are a distraction to anyone other than climate scientists. The bottom line is, does burning fossil fuels cause changes to our climate that carry a cost? Even the oil industry accepts that as fact. As a consequnce, it's then just a case of deciding whether it's more cost effective to reduce our carbon emissions, and the effect they have on our climate, or would it be more cost effective to carry on and pay the costs of fixing and adapting to the changed climate. I believe the former to be the case, with the added bonus that it will drive innovation that might lead to many other improvements.

As for the quality of life thing, right now you seem to be focusing on what you think you might lose, rather than anything you've actually lost, or even what you might have gained. You mentioned inflation and rising costs, but that's a recent thing. Up until a couple of years ago your generation enjoyed possibly one of the longest periods of low interest rates and inflation for a long time. Far from having all the benefits, at your age my generation were paying 15% mortgage rates. I think you have a somewhat rosy view of what it was like for previous generations.

I don't think it's because I don't get what you're saying, or that I have different priorties. I face the same things you do, but it's just that I approach things differently. Getting upset because things aren't how I'd like hurts no-one but myself. Instead I just try to change what I can and adapt to what I can't. For example, if they banned SUVs, then the mentally healthier option for me would be to adapt to an estate or saloon, or justify a sports car, rather than remain annoyed at the loss of my SUV. Maybe I'd even move to a country where they allowed SUVs, who knows. Absolutely last thing I'd do though is look for anything and everything that shows the banning of SUVs was unjustified, or that it was scam or a plot to punish me. Not because that might not be true, but because to do so doesn't benefit me in slightest.

So, we'll see what happens with EVs. I agree though, that some might not have exactly the kind of car they'd like, but then others might end up with something far better than they could ever have hoped for. Unfortunately the world doesn't care about your happiness and quality of life Linas, that's your responsibility, and you just have to take what the world throws at you and make the best of it.

 

[Linas.P]

22 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I'm still confused by the relevance of the doom scenario, Linas. As far as I can see, no one is saying that the world will end tomorrow unless we do something about it. Ok, maybe some environmental extremists are but, as you say, they're ill informed fanatics. Additionally, no one has said that scientists agree that climate change is only human made, so you're disagreeing with a strawman there. What they are saying is that burning fossil fuels is having an effect on the climate over and above natural occurence, which is leading to damaging weather and environmental events.

Regardless of historical trends, cyclical events, and natural occurences, the scientific consensus seems to be that burning fossils has an effect on the climate which has been destructive, and that continuing to do so will only perpetuate that damage. In addition, this was something predicted by the oil companies own scientific research 40 years ago, and which the oil companies acknowledge as a reality today. I agree with you that a 6 degree rise is easily survivable, but that's not the point. The issue with warming isn't that we'll burn to death, no one is even saying that, it's that the effects it will have on the environment will cause substantial disruption. Nor does what happened 3 million years ago, 3 thousand years ago, or even 3 hundred years ago matter. We're not talking about what's survivable, but about what's sustainable, given the societies we've created in the last couple of hundred years.

So you're right in one sense, whether temperatures stay the same, or increase by 6C, the human race will survive. However, the issue isn't simply about survival, it's about the cost of managing the effects of any such increase. When you boil it down, it's just a cost benefit analysis. It's as simple as that; and the deeper, more complex areas of climate science, historical data, and cyclical trends are a distraction to anyone other than climate scientists. The bottom line is, does burning fossil fuels cause changes to our climate that carry a cost? Even the oil industry accepts that as fact. As a consequnce, it's then just a case of deciding whether it's more cost effective to reduce our carbon emissions, and the effect they have on our climate, or would it be more cost effective to carry on and pay the costs of fixing and adapting to the changed climate. I believe the former to be the case, with the added bonus that it will drive innovation that might lead to many other improvements.

As for the quality of life thing, right now you seem to be focusing on what you think you might lose, rather than anything you've actually lost, or even what you might have gained. You mentioned inflation and rising costs, but that's a recent thing. Up until a couple of years ago your generation enjoyed possibly one of the longest periods of low interest rates and inflation for a long time. Far from having all the benefits, at your age my generation were paying 15% mortgage rates. I think you have a somewhat rosy view of what it was like for previous generations.

I don't think it's because I don't get what you're saying, or that I have different priorties. I face the same things you do, but it's just that I approach things differently. Getting upset because things aren't how I'd like hurts no-one but myself. Instead I just try to change what I can and adapt to what I can't. For example, if they banned SUVs, then the mentally healthier option for me would be to adapt to an estate or saloon, or justify a sports car, rather than remain annoyed at the loss of my SUV. Maybe I'd even move to a country where they allowed SUVs, who knows. Absolutely last thing I'd do though is look for anything and everything that shows the banning of SUVs was unjustified, or that it was scam or a plot to punish me. Not because that might not be true, but because to do so doesn't benefit me in slightest.

So, we'll see what happens with EVs. I agree though, that some might not have exactly the kind of car they'd like, but then others might end up with something far better than they could ever have hoped for. Unfortunately the world doesn't care about your happiness and quality of life Linas, that's your responsibility, and you just have to take what the world throws at you and make the best of it.

We are going in circles... 6C temperature increase is inevitable, if we burn fossil fuel or not. All ice melting is inevitable, including all changes resulting from that... all that happened without human activity and will happen again, with or without human activity.

So all this discussion about what is more cost effective is irrelevant, it is not like we have choice not to have this climate change. I mean sure - we can way the cost benefit for "climate control", that is stopping and reversing natural climate change via technological means, but that is totally different goal and topic. 

And there is no point making this about you or me, I have just used few examples from personal experience to illustrate how bad policies hurt interests of people. I am not losing sleep or sanity over it, but this is just purely philosophical discussion about good vs. bad policy, why bad policy is made, what are causes etc. And my point being that lack of perspective on climate processes and lack of understanding of natural boundaries is causing this.

Housing price is separate topic and unlikely climate related, at least not directly... that said I would rather pay 15% interest on £80,000 property than 3% on on one for £800,000. Housing prices is incredibly complex topic and why market is so messed-up right now requires different topic on it's own. 

[Sundance]

You're all going in circles ... mainly because this topic is so subjective in principal with such large portions of speculation and empirical flaws that it is most unlikely that anybody is going to be proven right within their respective lifetimes, regardless of scientific qualifications or experience.

My six-pennyworth suggests that evidence of the human race accelerating global warming is gradually accruing and should be neither denied nor ignored, not that anything substantial can be done about it given low perception, minimal understanding and general world-wide scepticism.

There is also no doubt that such change that is cyclical is beyond human control but that is not to say that we, the current custodians of planet earth, should take zero responsibility or proceed as if nothing is happening.

What we mere minions can/should/need to do about it is a vast can of worms and will be open to perpetual discussion, argument, theorising and conjecture for decades if not generations to come.

[Linas.P]

13 minutes ago, Sundance said:

You're all going in circles ... mainly because this topic is so subjective in principal with such large portions of speculation and empirical flaws that it is most unlikely that anybody is going to be proven right within their respective lifetimes, regardless of scientific qualifications or experience.

My six-pennyworth suggests that evidence of the human race accelerating global warming is gradually accruing and should be neither denied nor ignored, not that anything substantial can be done about it given low perception, minimal understanding and general world-wide scepticism.

There is also no doubt that such change that is cyclical is beyond human control but that is not to say that we, the current custodians of planet earth, should take zero responsibility or proceed as if nothing is happening.

What we mere minions can/should/need to do about it is a vast can of worms and will be open to perpetual discussion, argument, theorising and conjecture for decades if not generations to come.

Generally speaking agree  and I genuinely support reduction of personal waste of any sort and policies that promotes it for the society as a whole, yet that is not what is happening right now. 

Currently majority of the policies are just taking advantage of climate change to levy higher taxes and use it as excuse to limit freedoms. And that is basis of my objection. I think there is sufficient evidence already provided to make this conclusion. 

 

[Sundance]

I'm in fear of feeling the warmth of agreement with you Linas. 😉

If only these specialist topics were kept well out of reach of the average politician how much better off we would be ... and I include both the NHS and Education as equivalents in this respect.  Although I have no real intention of drifting too far into politics we, as a Nation, are being steered well off course no thanks to our so-called leaders who are in command.

Satisfactory solutions, if indeed there are any routes we can take to avoid the inevitable, should not be investigated by unqualified people whose principle motivation is self-aggrandisement and political gain.  The pursuance of non-partisan science should provide well reasoned and unidealistic options but even then there are bound to be disagreements as I don't believe that with climate change/global warming we are dealing with an exact science.

Far too much meddling and profiteering from those who know so little and yet pretend to know so much.

[Bluemarlin]

On 9/25/2023 at 2:38 PM, Linas.P said:

We are going in circles... 6C temperature increase is inevitable, if we burn fossil fuel or not. All ice melting is inevitable, including all changes resulting from that... all that happened without human activity and will happen again, with or without human activity.

So all this discussion about what is more cost effective is irrelevant, it is not like we have choice not to have this climate change. I mean sure - we can way the cost benefit for "climate control", that is stopping and reversing natural climate change via technological means, but that is totally different goal and topic. 

And there is no point making this about you or me, I have just used few examples from personal experience to illustrate how bad policies hurt interests of people. I am not losing sleep or sanity over it, but this is just purely philosophical discussion about good vs. bad policy, why bad policy is made, what are causes etc. And my point being that lack of perspective on climate processes and lack of understanding of natural boundaries is causing this.

Housing price is separate topic and unlikely climate related, at least not directly... that said I would rather pay 15% interest on £80,000 property than 3% on on one for £800,000. Housing prices is incredibly complex topic and why market is so messed-up right now requires different topic on it's own. 

You're right Linas, it isn't about you and me, and I honestly do understand where you're coming from, and the feeling that your generation is paying some kind of price; even if we don't agree on that. Utimately I enjoy the discussion and sometimes play devil's advocate to explore and understand points more deeply. I'm also genuinely sorry if you feel that you're being punished in any way.

You're also right in that we're going round in circles on the climate issue, because we both have different beliefs around its cause and effects. We also disagree on the point that human activity is outweighed by natural occurence, and that it's therefore pointless changing what we do. We're unlikely to change our views, so I'll summarise where I'm coming from and leave it that.

The short version is that I believe that man made emissions have an impact on the climate, which has and will create effects on the environment that are both costly and detrimental.

The longer version is that I also believe that this is both over and above, and faster acting than natural/cyclical events, and so acting to reduce them will have beneficial consequences in the short to medium terms. As a result, cost effectiveness is entirely relevant, as my beliefs are based on the assumption that limiting emissions will reduce damaging effects, and doing nothing will increase them. Whilst I agree that natural forces also cause damage, I don't believe that they have the same immediate impact of man made forces, nor do I believe that their occurence is a reason not to change what we're doing. Either way, I believe that we can more easily, cheaply, and less disruptively, alter our own actions than we can mitigate against unforseen natural events, although ideally we'd do both.

I also agree with Rowley, in that it's impossible to be 100% certain of anything, which opens the door to speculation. What is fairly certain though is that we're pumping things into the atmosphere at a level that wouldn't occur naturally, and so it's logical to assume that they'll have an effect outside of natural occurence.

Now, when it comes to what effect that might have, we're left with examining all the available evidence, and then trying to draw the best possible conclusions, which is where we seem to disagree. I'm certainly not qualified to understand, analyse and interpet that data, let alone draw any conclusions from it, and I'm guessing the same applies for you (apologies if I'm wrong and you're a climate scientist). As such, we have to rely on the people best qualified to do that. The people we turn to, far from lacking perspective and understanding, are fully aware of the historical and cyclical changes in the planet's temperatures and climate and, for the most part, have a pretty good understanding of why and how they occured; along with the predicted speed and effect of any natural changes, like 6C increases and ice melting at some point in the future. That is their field of expertise, which they've collectively studied for very many years, and so will have factored that in to any conclusions. Sure there are gaps in knowledge, like there are with evolutionary theory, which can then be interpreted by others to paint an entirely different picture. However, the consensus amongst those with the appropriate education and training, is that man made emissions are causing damaging climate changes that we're seeing today, over and above natural forces, which will only get exponentially worse if we don't address them.

So, we can either believe the consensus of people with the relevant education, background and training in the subject, or those who pursue the gaps, and my preference lies with the former.

I fully agree with you though that politicians, and those with vested interests, will exploit the data and conclusions, on both sides of the debate, for their own ends. We've seen this happen in the past, with politicians and corporations who exploited the gaps in favour of the oil industry, and we'll see it with others who'll now exploit the scientific consensus for political and financial gain. We will also see some ill thought out decisions made; some with the best of intentions, some with more nefarious motivation. That's the nature of politics, business and human nature, unfortunately. However, it's my belief that those who would prefer not be exploited, would be better off focusing their energies against greed and corruption, than fighting an argument about climate change. Both are probably losing battles, but the latter isn't the reason why people will be taken advantage of, and simply another tool with which it can be done, which can be easily changed for another if it's taken away.

[Linas.P]

I have said myself that human caused emissions are majority of excess, so I don't think we disagree here. However, I as well said that whatever policies are in place does not seem to address human made emissions and rather just focuses on few areas which are both most profitable/easily exploited by taxation and least important in overall climate change picture. Besides the goals set to us goes beyond just human emissions so it seems like they were set to fail (and I think we should question why?).

So I think we both agree that climate change is happening and human activity is contributing to it, we disagree about impact and cost of it, but to be fair I also agree with Rowley that we can both be wrong, or both be right, it is just to hard to put the price tag on it when climate isn't exact scienience (at least not yet). The only thing I am saying here - the price we currently paying isn't worth it, because we addressing wrong issues and in wrong way, because we are misled by our rulers about what needs to be done about it, because they themselves don't understand either because of ignorance or malice. This is quite evident and I don't mind repeating the examples of where it is quite obvious... like starting from personal transportation which is minor contributor, but ignoring big industry which contributes the most, is just one of them.

Finally, this was exactly intention of this whole debate - "focusing their energies against greed and corruption", except I see current argument about climate change being part of "greed and corruption" rather than separate topic. Basically, why I am saying - greed and corruption nowadays are masquerading as "virtuous saviours of the planet".

And don't worry about me, I like good debate myself and sometimes to get to the bottom of it requires touching on various subjects. 

[Malc1]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

The short version is that I believe that man made emissions have an impact on the climate, which has and will create effects on the environment that are both costly and detrimental.

and the seemingly indisputable FACT that it's the cows farting and belching that are the biggest contributors to CO2 emissions and all that harm to our planet !

Malc

[dutchie01]

Unfortunately the Uncomfortable thruth, the Environmental Crisis, is a soft target that everybody can use for their own agenda. Creative accounting in various reports and fake news make this an easy thing to do. As in this thread figures stated can be true or not nobody knows. It is however a strong political argument which is backed by lobby groups from both sides. From IsmellsoRebellion to official political parties trying to push their agenda with exactly this. I expect it to become an even more polarized topic over time where nobody listens to the other side.

 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, dutchie01 said:

I expect it to become an even more polarized topic over time where nobody listens to the other side.

This always happens when instead of trying to find objective truth people are following narrative which benefits them most or simply are ignorant and allows other to set the narrative.

I am not sure what is the counter narrative at the moment, but if there is one then it is clearly losing, because mainstream narrative is still that "we must do something right now or and ban petrol cars because otherwise we will drown by the end of tomorrow... or the day after". I suppose that would be so called "climate change deniers" and I am sure I would be bunched together with them in debate with salads and potato heads, but matter of the fact I do not deny climate change, I just can't see how banning personal transportation and making society more commun....socialist is the solution?!

[dutchie01]

11 hours ago, Linas.P said:

mainstream narrative is still that "we must do something right now or and ban petrol cars because otherwise we will drown by the end of tomorrow... or the day after". I suppose that would be so called "climate change deniers" 

That is called Climate Industry

[Boomer54]

12 hours ago, Linas.P said:

This always happens when instead of trying to find objective truth people are following narrative which benefits them most or simply are ignorant and allows other to set the narrative.

I am not sure what is the counter narrative at the moment, but if there is one then it is clearly losing, because mainstream narrative is still that "we must do something right now or and ban petrol cars because otherwise we will drown by the end of tomorrow... or the day after". I suppose that would be so called "climate change deniers" and I am sure I would be bunched together with them in debate with salads and potato heads, but matter of the fact I do not deny climate change, I just can't see how banning personal transportation and making society more commun....socialist is the solution?!

You know you don't really enhance your argument by going hyperbolic. That is, 'This always happens'. I can think of certain physical events that you might say always happen, but when it comes to human behaviour such as you allude to it really does not apply.

Indeed, quite apart from the lack of financial education in this country we also do not really teach Philosophy either until it is too late to rectify the lack of it in our formative years. By Philosophy I am not talking about sitting around on the grass, smoking weed, and musing on why the grass (sic) grows. I am talking about analytical thinking, critical thinking, always questioning, steering away from 'absolutes'...etc etc.

By the way Linas that is not me being critical of you per se. It is more a commentary on why so often we see people taking up diametrically opposing positions on issues with a level of conviction that no one is really entitled to hold. Ok, I am off to empty the dustbins.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

You know you don't really enhance your argument by going hyperbolic. That is, 'This always happens'. I can think of certain physical events that you might say always happen, but when it comes to human behaviour such as you allude to it really does not apply.

Indeed, quite apart from the lack of financial education in this country we also do not really teach Philosophy either until it is too late to rectify the lack of it in our formative years. By Philosophy I am not talking about sitting around on the grass, smoking weed, and musing on why the grass (sic) grows. I am talking about analytical thinking, critical thinking, always questioning, steering away from 'absolutes'...etc etc.

By the way Linas that is not me being critical of you per se. It is more a commentary on why so often we see people taking up diametrically opposing positions on issues with a level of conviction that no one is really entitled to hold. Ok, I am off to empty the dustbins.

I like hyperbole sometimes, perhaps I should put "hyperbole warning" next time, but to be fair that should be just added to ever comment I make. In principle I don't mind even if you critical of me - this is just the way I speak (often in hyperbole), people get used to that, that doesn't mean that I am right doing it, nor that I am planning to change, some here cannot stand me so much that they chosen to ignore me altogether, don't mind that either 🙂 

Context for my statement - when argument get's political, and it "always" get's political when facts are missing, and then it becomes us and them argument. In Europe we have less of that, but for example in US all argument about everything between democrats and republicans get's to that point (gun control, birth control, education, healthcare... you name it). I think Climate argument we having here in UK is also reaching that point - liberals and ecomentalists do not care about any stats and the opposing side does not care about their feelings (not sure how to define "opposite" to ecomentalist - climate deniers, realists, people like me, meat eaters, normal people?!).

4 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

That is called Climate Industry

Could you identify anyone who is in that "climate industry"? 

[Boomer54]

10 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I like hyperbole sometimes, perhaps I should put "hyperbole warning" next time, but to be fair that should be just added to ever comment I make. In principle I don't mind even if you critical of me - this is just the way I speak (often in hyperbole), people get used to that, that doesn't mean that I am right doing it, nor that I am planning to change, some here cannot stand me so much that they chosen to ignore me altogether, don't mind that either 🙂 

Context for my statement - when argument get's political, and it "always" get's political when facts are missing, and then it becomes us and them argument. In Europe we have less of that, but for example in US all argument about everything between democrats and republicans get's to that point (gun control, birth control, education, healthcare... you name it). I think Climate argument we having here in UK is also reaching that point - liberals and ecomentalists do not care about any stats and the opposing side does not care about their feelings (not sure how to define "opposite" to ecomentalist - climate deniers, realists, people like me, meat eaters, normal people?!).

Could you identify anyone who is in that "climate industry"? 

Judging by your response you seem to have decided I was being critical of you. No, I wasn't. In a sense I was venting my frustration that we cannot apparently educate people to a level where the usual hyperbolic crap that is served up as political, or even economic policy,  is not dissected, analysed and shoved back down the throats of those people who are elected to serve in our interests , but all too often do not. In that sense also I was suggesting your arguments are oft good enough without the hyperbole. However, if this is simply some sort of emotional release for you also then that is another issue. My 'couch' is open to all. 😄

[Linas.P]

Just now, Boomer54 said:

Judging by your response you seem to have decided I was being critical of you. No, I wasn't. In a sense I was venting my frustration that we cannot apparently educate people to a level where the usual hyperbolic crap that is served up as political, or even economic policy,  is not dissected, analysed and shoved back down the throats of those people who are elected to serve in our interests , but all too often do not.

That is fine with me either way. Perhaps I should consider political career - already have the adopted their way of speaking anyway 😄 

[Malc1]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

"climate industry"

the weatherman on TV  maybe 😉

Malc

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Perhaps I should consider political career

NO NO NO you're way to sensible and even rational to join those ranks  😅

Malc

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

the weatherman on TV  maybe 😉

So that would be example of opposite... I think Bernard meant "the industry that for some reason denies climate change".

As for politician I was just joking - I would never put my hands in that dirt, besides I would earn less money and I could not do it due to my values and beliefs - honest and transparent people do not stand a chance in politics (me being honest and transparent if I say so myself), basically it is set-up in a way that one has to be corrupt and slimy to get elected. We don't have different parties, we just have bunch of unaccountable populists basically, so even having ideology is not possible. 

[dutchie01]

The climate industry is everybody that is making money from the Climate Crisis. This can be very wide indeed. From large corporations ( even the likes of shell bp) to pressure groups , lobbyists, manufacturers of windmills solarpanels, lawyers EV producers and you name it. What they have in common is they use the climate change/crisis/environment as their business. This can both be pro or against it. This must be a billion dollar industry?

[Boomer54]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So that would be example of opposite... I think Bernard meant "the industry that for some reason denies climate change".

As for politician I was just joking - I would never put my hands in that dirt, besides I would earn less money and I could not do it due to my values and beliefs - honest and transparent people do not stand a chance in politics (me being honest and transparent if I say so myself), basically it is set-up in a way that one has to be corrupt and slimy to get elected. We don't have different parties, we just have bunch of unaccountable populists basically, so even having ideology is not possible. 

"honest and transparent people". Surely a oversight that you did not mention modest and humble people.😀

who know they don't have all the answers. Who heavens above may even admit they may be wrong!

Actually, when people talk as though they are completely right my selective deafness switches on automatically. However, when people lead out with 'I don't know, but I will try to find out' I find myself wanting to listen.

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

modest and humble people

... that is not something I call myself 😄