Food for thought - Climate Change

[Bluemarlin]

22 hours ago, Linas.P said:

That said - regarding education I agree, it is not necessarily question of money, I just generally find two tier system benefiting some and burying others unacceptable, especially in education. As well I find mere existence of Private education as proof of Public education failure. 

As for education, I fully agree that it's an issue that needs to be resolved,  but your opposition to private education seems to me like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As I mentioned earlier, I came from a not very well off background, but had the good fortune of parents of who made sacrifices to send me to a private school. As well as forcing a decent education into my somewhat rebellious self, I mixed not only with kids like myself, but also the children of wealthy, and even some famous parents. The latter gives one a sense of social mobility that's not so easily gifted to children herded together in schools of their own social class, and breaks barriers that are just as hard to cross as those created by academic achievement.

To reach your full potential, and make the most of opportunities, you first need to know what those opportunities are. In later life I genuinely met people who had no idea that there were career oppotunities beyond blue collar type work, or that it would never be for them, simply because they were never exposed to such people. The idea of being a doctor, lawyer or accountant was alien to them, and something for people to be born into.

Throughout my life this has worked both ways, and I've learned a lot from mixing with people outside my apparent social or demographic sphere, from either end of the spectrum. As a result, despite my somewhat humble beginnings, I have always been comfortable and treated equally in either the company of labourers or the CEOs of listed companies. I can summarise it best by saying that my educational environment gave me a confidence beyond my starting point, and an understanding that I'm neither better nor worse than anyone else, no matter who they are or where they came from.

Doing away with private education won't remove privilege from the privileged, it will simply reposition it. State education is location based and, in the absence of private schools, the state schools will fill that gap in the wealthy residential areas, the parents will make sure of it. Those who can't afford to live in those areas will be left with the schools they've always had. So all it will achieve is wealthy parents being able to send their kids to pseudo state/private schools at the taxpayers expense, instead of their own.

Far better to go the other way in my opinion, and widen the availability of private schools to those less forunate, through grants and scholarships. I'd even go so far as mandating that such schools had to take a minimum percentage of grant paid students.  It won't help everyone, at least not in the short term,  but it's a step in the right direction. I have no problem with equalising education opportunites, or or anything for that matter, and think it's a good thing but, whilst it's harder, and takes longer, I feel it's better to try and equalise upwards than downwards.

[Bluemarlin]

6 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

I think you meant "taking on the Argentinian women single handedly" with the occasional time out for a good Malbec.

"Young women", if you want to be picky 🙂

[Linas.P]

7 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Isn't it though? You did start by saying how such things affected your lifestyle, but maybe I'm reading between the lines too much.

You wouldn't jump off a building just because the theoery is inconclusive.

What matters is whether human intervention accelerates that process to a damaging degree, and science claims that it does.

But how it affecting my lifestyle brought you to the other conclusions? Or for that matter misquoting what I have said. Yes I said it negatively impacts my lifestyle, but none of the other points.

And that is exactly what I think we are doing... we are "jumping to the actions" without understanding the science. And yes you right - science is often inconclusive, but we as well can have practical experimentation e.g. we do smaller jump, then larger jump and we reach the point to where we strain ourselves and then we come to rooftop and we can gauge that if you jump from this it is not going to end well. Whereas with environment it is literally "we have this theory and we think it may cause this - let's stop living now".

I actually disagree that scientists says that "acceleration of climate change is damaging", I think that is exactly the misconception pushed by ecomentalists "science says it is damaging". No science says- it temperatures will rise, ice will melt, some animals will go extinct and sea level will rise. So that is fact. Ecomentalist interpretation of such fact would be "yeah exactly - so that is damaging", my interpretation is "no it is not damaging, that is natural and inevitable".

 

[Linas.P]

32 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

As for education, I fully agree that it's an issue that needs to be resolved,  but your opposition to private education seems to me like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The latter gives one a sense of social mobility that's not so easily gifted to children herded together in schools of their own social class, and breaks barriers that are just as hard to cross as those created by academic achievement.

Doing away with private education won't remove privilege from the privileged, it will simply reposition it.

How so? What is the actual benefit of private schools if state schools are good? 

... and that social mobility is taken away (unless parents make sacrifices), because we allow rich parents kids to live in their private school bubble. If state schools would be decent, then everyone would go to state schools and it would increase social mobility? No? 

[Bluemarlin]

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

But how it affecting my lifestyle brought you to the other conclusions? Or for that matter misquoting what I have said. Yes I said it negatively impacts my lifestyle, but none of the other points.

And that is exactly what I think we are doing... we are "jumping to the actions" without understanding the science. And yes you right - science is often inconclusive, but we as well can have practical experimentation e.g. we do smaller jump, then larger jump and we reach the point to where we strain ourselves and then we come to rooftop and we can gauge that if you jump from this it is not going to end well. Whereas with environment it is literally "we have this theory and we think it may cause this - let's stop living now".

I actually disagree that scientists says that "acceleration of climate change is damaging", I think that is exactly the misconception pushed by ecomentalists "science says it is damaging". No science says- it temperatures will rise, ice will melt, some animals will go extinct and sea level will rise. So that is fact. Ecomentalist interpretation of such fact would be "yeah exactly - so that is damaging", my interpretation is "no it is not damaging, that is natural and inevitable".

 

You're right, we are jumping to actions in response to the available evidence we have, that's what we do. In fact, according to you, cars are the lesser evil, and so we are starting with a smaller jump, just as you suggest.

No-one is saying we have to stop living. No-one is taking cars away without a replacement, and even the government recognises this will take more time than originally thought.

Regardless of the the rights and wrongs, I think you're being just as alarmist as the ecomentalists when it comes to the potential outcomes of addressing these things. There's nothing scientific about saying "let's stop living now", when there's no evidence to suggest that will happen.

You can disagree as much as you like, but there's plenty of evidence to support it. What's happening is little more than what the oil companies own scientists predicted 50 years ago. So it's wrong to assume that this is just the result of fanatics. However, I guess we'll never agree, other than agree to differ.  

[Bluemarlin]

6 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

How so? What is the actual benefit of private schools if state schools are good? 

... and that social mobility is taken away (unless parents make sacrifices), because we allow rich parents kids to live in their private school bubble. If state schools would be decent, then everyone would go to state schools and it would increase social mobility? No? 

Unintended consequences Linas.

What I'm saying is that there's nothing to suggest that the state schools will be good, at least not in the geographic areas that it matters.  Also, given that state schooling is location based, no social mobility would occur, as rich kids will go to schools in rich areas, and poor kids will go to schools in poor areas.

Guesss which ones will be better.

[Malc1]

16 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

as rich kids will go to schools in rich areas

rich kids parents might send their kids anywhere they wish ............ if they pay the going rate OR indeed they may send their kids to exemplary State schools too and find they have to move home to the catchment area !

Some State schools I understand have quite forbidding Entrance Exams to hurdle over ..  where not only the kids MUST perform but also the parents no doubt have to meet certain acceptable levels of criteria .....  I can think of one at least ( or it used to be ! ( my old school ) )

Malc

[Boomer54]

56 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

But how it affecting my lifestyle brought you to the other conclusions? Or for that matter misquoting what I have said. Yes I said it negatively impacts my lifestyle, but none of the other points.

And that is exactly what I think we are doing... we are "jumping to the actions" without understanding the science. And yes you right - science is often inconclusive, but we as well can have practical experimentation e.g. we do smaller jump, then larger jump and we reach the point to where we strain ourselves and then we come to rooftop and we can gauge that if you jump from this it is not going to end well. Whereas with environment it is literally "we have this theory and we think it may cause this - let's stop living now".

I actually disagree that scientists says that "acceleration of climate change is damaging", I think that is exactly the misconception pushed by ecomentalists "science says it is damaging". No science says- it temperatures will rise, ice will melt, some animals will go extinct and sea level will rise. So that is fact. Ecomentalist interpretation of such fact would be "yeah exactly - so that is damaging", my interpretation is "no it is not damaging, that is natural and inevitable".

 

I have been thinking on this myself, and it is something that unsettles me. We are acting on a theoretical issue, but seem to have jumped a couple of steps in the learning process, albeit I can't quite work out how we could reasonably do the science on this issue so that we could act based upon what we had learned rather than what we had theorised..

You see as you imply we tend to learn and develop our next steps incremently. Call it learning by trial and error. This is the very basis for the Edison adage “Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.” 

We really are not that different in this respect to squirrels. So, imagine how would we learn about climate change and formulate our next steps based upon what we have learned if we were this squirrel? I am not confident that this is the same as computer modelling in which case we could really be setting ourselves up a Ratner moment,,, means "oops it's all crap".

 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

You're right, we are jumping to actions in response to the available evidence we have, that's what we do. In fact, according to you, cars are the lesser evil, and so we are starting with a smaller jump, just as you suggest.

No-one is saying we have to stop living. No-one is taking cars away without a replacement, and even the government recognises this will take more time than originally thought.

Regardless of the the rights and wrongs, I think you're being just as alarmist as the ecomentalists when it comes to the potential outcomes of addressing these things. There's nothing scientific about saying "let's stop living now", when there's no evidence to suggest that will happen.

You can disagree as much as you like, but there's plenty of evidence to support it. What's happening is little more than what the oil companies own scientists predicted 50 years ago. So it's wrong to assume that this is just the result of fanatics. However, I guess we'll never agree, other than agree to differ.  

No that is kind of opposite - we taking away things that makes least difference, but creates maximum pain (at least from my perspective). So this is not example of evidence based experimenting. 

The goal of stopping human induced acceleration of climate change would require humans to stop existing and would still fail, because it is natural process - that is fact if you look into the evidence. So on one hand yes - nobody is "saying we should stop living", but the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2C above the temperature at the time of industrial revolution itself requires human extinction and more, it is otherwise not achievable. Unless - we admit that reducing emissions is not enough and we need something like carbon capture - then yes. I have explained this several times now, but it seems I am unable to explain it in such way that makes sense to you. 

I am not alarmist - I am only talking about the "hurt" that I am suffering myself. You already said you do not consider that an issue yourself, so we agree to disagree here - fine. 

Evidence to support what? That temperature is rising, that sea level is rising, that ice is melting? Yes - evidence for that is plenty! That this is damaging - that is already interpretation of facts and not a fact in itself. That is not my opinion, so we don't need to disagree on anything here.

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Unintended consequences Linas.

What I'm saying is that there's nothing to suggest that the state schools will be good, at least not in the geographic areas that it matters.  Also, given that state schooling is location based, no social mobility would occur, as rich kids will go to schools in rich areas, and poor kids will go to schools in poor areas.

No and I am not suggesting that - I am saying "if they would be good"... so that is theoretical.

You geographical point is good and valid. Although partial solutions that we had in our country was so called "Gymnasiums" - they are still public schools, but for kids who are academically better than others, still free to attend (although back in my days there were rumours of bribing for places). That said what is important is that acceptance in them at least in theory was based completely on academical merit and now how rich the kids were, secondly their diploma had exactly same value as simple secondary school and the only reason they were attractive was because in theory all the kids were "proven good students", so in theory there was less nonsense and distractions. So it worked something like this - there would be geographically located secondary schools all working at roughly the same level, they were not strictly limited to geography but predominantly attended by kids from the area. And then in bigger cities and some towns they had "gymnasiums" which were secondary schools, but instead of being automatically attended by kids from the area, they were based on application and usually kids would travel there from around the city to attend. 

Most importantly as you can see the attendance was based on academic merit and not MONEY! And it was actually choice of the kids themselves to some degree, because they had to achieve that by getting good grades. And it was only for grade 8+ (so ~14-15 years olds+).

So they kind of achieved what UK is trying to achieve with money, just without money and without disadvantaging anyone. Because you could get just as good grade in normal secondary school (in fact it was easier to get good grade in normal school) and you would get into the same universities. I know the argument here could be - "yeah but in public school in UK you could also get good grade"... theoretically yes, but practically no. The system I am describing really gave no advantage to anyone who didn't already had it, nor took it away from somebody. 

And we even had opposite of that - we had like "technology/technical schools"... usually for kids who were not academically good (sadly that is why they were considered schools for losers), but they were focusing on "blue collar" work, basically welders, mechanics, carpenters etc. Very good idea in theory and to large degree they worked, but in practice they as well had a lot of issues with antisocial types who were there because they dropped out of the normal school. Although I know that quality nowadays have significantly improved compared to the times I was in school. Nowadays they have strong record of teaching programming, robotics etc. and standard has really improved, it is no longer the place for those who can't read or write. 

To distil my argument then - I see the point of separation, as long as it is not based on paying fees to get kids into private schools, it should not be monetary distinction, it should be distinction on merit. And one may ask - so what is then distinction between the system I am describing and "tripartite" - the difference is that nobody was forced to take any of those options. One could simply continue in secondary school as long as they want and as long as they can get grade better than 4/10 (5 or 6/10 in some gymnasiums) and even then this was only requirement in later years for like 14-16 years olds, not putting 9 years old into inferior education because school failed to interest them in any subject.

[Boomer54]

45 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Unintended consequences Linas.

What I'm saying is that there's nothing to suggest that the state schools will be good, at least not in the geographic areas that it matters.  Also, given that state schooling is location based, no social mobility would occur, as rich kids will go to schools in rich areas, and poor kids will go to schools in poor areas.

Guesss which ones will be better.

Yes, we live in the same world. We didn't  make it this way. We're just trying to manage our way through it.

My family was a really good example of how a streamed system works well and not just for social mobility , but in determining that there is a stream available that fits the child.

Family with no parents with anything but basic education (other than a degree in hunting down Japanese soldiers in Burmese jungles 😉 don't knock it), but with a respect for the value of education without the educational level to support learning. Hence, eldest brother disinterested in academic education goes to a Comprehensive school (trapped according to labour), but went on nonethless to do very well in civil engineering. Certainly earned well and enjoyed what he did in something he found interesting. Middle brother goes to Grammar, not particularly academic although according to mensa he scores 147 and goes on to be Senior management with a multinational Pharm , kids educated privately. Youngest goes Grammar, most academic ,but too interested in everything takes time to find the path which is he likes which is to make money and finds that how he does it is less satisfying than the challenge that he does it. Kids educated privately.

Ironically you don't really need private education for social mobility, but unfortunately our educational system overall seems to favour academic achievement Grade inflation ahoy) as opposed to a system that correctly assesses what is appropriate for the individual and then offers a pathway to optimise that.

[Linas.P]

29 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

I have been thinking on this myself, and it is something that unsettles me. We are acting on a theoretical issue, but seem to have jumped a couple of steps in the learning process, albeit I can't quite work out how we could reasonably do the science on this issue so that we could act based upon what we had learned rather than what we had theorised..

You see as you imply we tend to learn and develop our next steps incremently. Call it learning by trial and error. This is the very basis for the Edison adage “Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.” 

We really are not that different in this respect to squirrels. So, imagine how would we learn about climate change and formulate our next steps based upon what we have learned if we were this squirrel? I am not confident that this is the same as computer modelling in which case we could really be setting ourselves up a Ratner moment,,, means "oops it's all crap".

I don't have complete answer to the climate change, but if we focus onto factual outcomes - rising temperature, sea level and meting ice... then we already doing adaptation and we already doing "trial and error". As well animals do it naturally.

So we can already do a little experiment... We can go to a different locations and see how we feel. We know that about 2000ppm Co2 would result in temperature 6C higher than now... where is 6C higher than UK? Canary Islands... so we can go there today and see how we feel. Hottest temperature on Earth nowadays is "death valley" at 56.7C (or 20C higher on average than UK) - again we can go there and I reckon majority would not like it.

Animals do that all the time, they do migrate as well, but if we really want to see the effect on particular animal, then we can take say bees from UK and take them to Brazil... and... ohhh wait they thrive there! We can as well take fish from more salty seas to less salty (because melting ice dilutes the ocean) and see how they adapt. My understanding is that they will be just fine considering the process is so gradual (literally thousands of years), but I might be wrong as I am not an expert here. Now sure - at the same time we know that some animal will be fffed - like sorry polar bears!

As for water level... we don't really need adaptation at all, simply as well build and maintain buildings some shoreline locations will have to be moved further inshore. We don't need any special buildings, just ideally not building them under the water. 

Now obviously I am oversupplying here and it is almost parody of the climate science, but that is partially why I started this thread - when eco mentalists says that "0.5C more and world ends" (because we are already up by 1.5C on the 2C target) I just want to illustrate how ridiculous is this statement. 

[Sundance]

This thread reminds me of a long drawn out doubles tennis match, but without a final result!  Keep going guys ... 😆

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Sundance said:

This thread reminds me of a long drawn out doubles tennis match, but without a final result!  Keep going guys ... 😆

I know what you mean. At one glass of Carmenere per set played I should have just bid on the vineyard.

[Boomer54]

10 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

I know what you mean. At one glass of Carmenere per set played I should have just bid on the vineyard.

Just saw this and well....how could I not post it.

[Bluemarlin]

17 hours ago, Linas.P said:

No and I am not suggesting that - I am saying "if they would be good"... so that is theoretical.

You geographical point is good and valid. Although partial solutions that we had in our country was so called "Gymnasiums" - they are still public schools, but for kids who are academically better than others, still free to attend (although back in my days there were rumours of bribing for places). That said what is important is that acceptance in them at least in theory was based completely on academical merit and now how rich the kids were, secondly their diploma had exactly same value as simple secondary school and the only reason they were attractive was because in theory all the kids were "proven good students", so in theory there was less nonsense and distractions. So it worked something like this - there would be geographically located secondary schools all working at roughly the same level, they were not strictly limited to geography but predominantly attended by kids from the area. And then in bigger cities and some towns they had "gymnasiums" which were secondary schools, but instead of being automatically attended by kids from the area, they were based on application and usually kids would travel there from around the city to attend. 

Most importantly as you can see the attendance was based on academic merit and not MONEY! And it was actually choice of the kids themselves to some degree, because they had to achieve that by getting good grades. And it was only for grade 8+ (so ~14-15 years olds+).

So they kind of achieved what UK is trying to achieve with money, just without money and without disadvantaging anyone. Because you could get just as good grade in normal secondary school (in fact it was easier to get good grade in normal school) and you would get into the same universities. I know the argument here could be - "yeah but in public school in UK you could also get good grade"... theoretically yes, but practically no. The system I am describing really gave no advantage to anyone who didn't already had it, nor took it away from somebody. 

And we even had opposite of that - we had like "technology/technical schools"... usually for kids who were not academically good (sadly that is why they were considered schools for losers), but they were focusing on "blue collar" work, basically welders, mechanics, carpenters etc. Very good idea in theory and to large degree they worked, but in practice they as well had a lot of issues with antisocial types who were there because they dropped out of the normal school. Although I know that quality nowadays have significantly improved compared to the times I was in school. Nowadays they have strong record of teaching programming, robotics etc. and standard has really improved, it is no longer the place for those who can't read or write. 

To distil my argument then - I see the point of separation, as long as it is not based on paying fees to get kids into private schools, it should not be monetary distinction, it should be distinction on merit. And one may ask - so what is then distinction between the system I am describing and "tripartite" - the difference is that nobody was forced to take any of those options. One could simply continue in secondary school as long as they want and as long as they can get grade better than 4/10 (5 or 6/10 in some gymnasiums) and even then this was only requirement in later years for like 14-16 years olds, not putting 9 years old into inferior education because school failed to interest them in any subject.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. You're talking about theory, and I'm talking about what tends to happen in the real world, based on past experience and the one we live in.

In theory, a system where everyone has equal access to the same quality of education is great, no argument from me. In practice I don't see how it would happen. That said, let's look at what I see as some of the flaws.

How is your suggestion of selection based on academic merit any fairer? A bright kid, from an underprivileged background and uneducated parents, is quite likely to fall below the standard of an average one, whose parents provided some education at an early age; even though he might be smarter in the long run, with greater potential. So, whether it comes down to merit, wealth, location,  or the child's aspirations, it ultimately lies with the parents. If the parents are insufficiently motivated, or incapable of preparing their kids to compete academically, then you're back to square one.

Yes, the education system is broken, but I'd argue that it's a result of a broken social system and, unless that is fixed, no amount of tweaking the school system will change things very much.

[Boomer54]

6 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Ok, I see where you're coming from. You're talking about theory, and I'm talking about what tends to happen in the real world, based on past experience and the one we live in.

In theory, a system where everyone has equal access to the same quality of education is great, no argument from me. In practice I don't see how it would happen. That said, let's look at what I see as some of the flaws.

How is your suggestion of selection based on academic merit any fairer? A bright kid, from an underprivileged background and uneducated parents, is quite likely to fall below the standard of an average one, whose parents provided some education at an early age; even though he might be smarter in the long run, with greater potential. So, whether it comes down to merit, wealth, location,  or the child's aspirations, it ultimately lies with the parents. If the parents are insufficiently motivated, or incapable of preparing their kids to compete academically, then you're back to square one.

Yes, the education system is broken, but I'd argue that it's a result of a broken social system and, unless that is fixed, no amount of tweaking the school system will change things very much.

Indeed, far too long for me to post it comprehensively. However, starting with Terman (flawed or not) there is a vast amount of research work that would support the argument you are making. Opportunity is just that and nothing more. It's the rest, familial values and support, individuals motivation etc etc.that makes the idea of equal opportunity nothing more than a fairytale ideal hardly worthy of pursuit.

[Bluemarlin]

17 hours ago, Linas.P said:

No that is kind of opposite - we taking away things that makes least difference, but creates maximum pain (at least from my perspective). So this is not example of evidence based experimenting. 

The goal of stopping human induced acceleration of climate change would require humans to stop existing and would still fail, because it is natural process - that is fact if you look into the evidence. So on one hand yes - nobody is "saying we should stop living", but the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2C above the temperature at the time of industrial revolution itself requires human extinction and more, it is otherwise not achievable. Unless - we admit that reducing emissions is not enough and we need something like carbon capture - then yes. I have explained this several times now, but it seems I am unable to explain it in such way that makes sense to you. 

I am not alarmist - I am only talking about the "hurt" that I am suffering myself. You already said you do not consider that an issue yourself, so we agree to disagree here - fine. 

Evidence to support what? That temperature is rising, that sea level is rising, that ice is melting? Yes - evidence for that is plenty! That this is damaging - that is already interpretation of facts and not a fact in itself. That is not my opinion, so we don't need to disagree on anything here.

 

Once again you're referring to the pain of what's being done as "you're pain", and then add to this that you're only talking about the hurt you're suffering yourself, which is why I felt you were presenting a somewhat subjective viewpoint.

No, it doesn't require human extinction, it just requires us not to burn things that cause climate change. As far as I know, wind, solar, hydrogen, and all manner of alternative energies will still allow us to live and enjoy all the things we still have, without adding to climate change.

In your later post you talk about going to different locations to see how we'd cope in an enviroment that was 6C higher and, if we could cope, then a 6C rise in global temperature would be no problem for survival. If this your understanding of the effects of climate change, then I fear we're in different universes on the subject.

To be clear, the concern about a 6C rise in global temperatures has nothing to do with the possibility that we might need a bit more sun lotion, or how we'd feel if we were a bit warmer. It's about the environmental effects that result in ice melting, rising sea levels, coastlines disappearing, productive land turning to desert, along with the dumping of fresh water into the oceans from melting ice that affects the stability of the gulf stream, and thus leads to increases in volatile weather patterns which cause catastrophoc damage. These are all things that are happening now.

Going back to your pain at the costs. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to relocate the countless cities built on shorelines, or manage the mass migration of people from areas where it's no longer possible to produce food and live? That alone would bugger up the lifestyles of people far more than the cost of switching to an EV.

So yeah, the ecomentalist might be ridiculous in saying that 0.5C more and the world ends, bit it's far less ridiculous than saying that a 6C rise will lead to nothing worse than us all living in Tenerife.

I agree with you, and Stephen, that to some extent we're acting on theory based only on what we know so far, but what other option is there? We know that excess CO2 causes climate change. We know that our relatively small contribution to it results in the majority of that change. We can already see the expensive and damaging effects of that change in many parts of the world. And we can reliably predict that it will get exponentionally get worse over time.

So, we're left with a bet. That being that we act to reduce our CO2 emissions to slow down, if not eliminate, the harm our own emisssions are causing; or we take a punt that the scientific conclusions are wrong. To me then, the logical choice is the former, as I see it as a kind of insurance, for which the evidence suggests that there's small chance that the expense might be unnecessary, against the far greater cost we would face if the conclusions are correct. Like most insurance, I don't like having to pay it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

[Malc1]

7 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Like most insurance, I don't like having to pay it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

then you're calling for a really good subsidy on EV car insurance to attract people to switch from other modes ?

Might encourage a better take-up !

Malc

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Ok, I see where you're coming from. You're talking about theory, and I'm talking about what tends to happen in the real world, based on past experience and the one we live in.

In theory, a system where everyone has equal access to the same quality of education is great, no argument from me. In practice I don't see how it would happen. That said, let's look at what I see as some of the flaws.

How is your suggestion of selection based on academic merit any fairer? A bright kid, from an underprivileged background and uneducated parents, is quite likely to fall below the standard of an average one, whose parents provided some education at an early age; even though he might be smarter in the long run, with greater potential. So, whether it comes down to merit, wealth, location,  or the child's aspirations, it ultimately lies with the parents. If the parents are insufficiently motivated, or incapable of preparing their kids to compete academically, then you're back to square one.

Yes, the education system is broken, but I'd argue that it's a result of a broken social system and, unless that is fixed, no amount of tweaking the school system will change things very much.

Agree with you that in practice it is harder to achieve, but that doesn't make the current system in UK any better. I think it is objective to say that UK system is bad, without the need to find alternative solution. So I think we can agree that it is bad and could be made better...

I have actually seen opposite in my experience, the more uneducated parents were the more they actually pushed their kids to study harder, unnecessarily so. As well they are more often than not took teacher advise as some sort of divine word and would punish their kids for not following it. The the hardest studying kids in my experience were always the ones from poor and uneducated families, those were actually majority of my class mates who gone to study in "gymnasiums", because that was seen by their parents as more prestigious and bragging rights. The ones from educated families were way more relaxed, more often skipping classes, putting much less effort into studying (yet still achieving most of the goals), but their parents were the ones complaining to principals, telling teachers how to educate their kids etc. Finally there were kids from antisocial and incomplete families who often had the worst in all aspects, bullied, picked on by teachers etc. But I would say majority of them still stayed in the school and finished it, at very least they were not artificially limited in their opportunities by the school. It is important to note here that the only reason poor kids from uneducated families were excelling in studies was that the education was 100% and totally free. Again, I think the biggest issue for me is that barrier between poor and good quality education is monetary one. 

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Once again you're referring to the pain of what's being done as "you're pain", and then add to this that you're only talking about the hurt you're suffering yourself, which is why I felt you were presenting a somewhat subjective viewpoint.

No, it doesn't require human extinction, it just requires us not to burn things that cause climate change.

As far as I know, wind, solar, hydrogen, and all manner of alternative energies will still allow us to live and enjoy all the things we still have, without adding to climate change.

In your later post you talk about going to different locations to see how we'd cope in an enviroment that was 6C higher and, if we could cope, then a 6C rise in global temperature would be no problem for survival. If this your understanding of the effects of climate change, then I fear we're in different universes on the subject.

To be clear, the concern about a 6C rise in global temperatures has nothing to do with the possibility that we might need a bit more sun lotion, or how we'd feel if we were a bit warmer. It's about the environmental effects that result in ice melting, rising sea levels, coastlines disappearing, productive land turning to desert, along with the dumping of fresh water into the oceans from melting ice that affects the stability of the gulf stream, and thus leads to increases in volatile weather patterns which cause catastrophoc damage. These are all things that are happening now.

Going back to your pain at the costs. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to relocate the countless cities built on shorelines, or manage the mass migration of people from areas where it's no longer possible to produce food and live? That alone would bugger up the lifestyles of people far more than the cost of switching to an EV.

So yeah, the ecomentalist might be ridiculous in saying that 0.5C more and the world ends, bit it's far less ridiculous than saying that a 6C rise will lead to nothing worse than us all living in Tenerife.

I agree with you, and Stephen, that to some extent we're acting on theory based only on what we know so far, but what other option is there? We know that excess CO2 causes climate change. We know that our relatively small contribution to it results in the majority of that change. We can already see the expensive and damaging effects of that change in many parts of the world. And we can reliably predict that it will get exponentionally get worse over time.

So, we're left with a bet. That being that we act to reduce our CO2 emissions to slow down, if not eliminate, the harm our own emisssions are causing; or we take a punt that the scientific conclusions are wrong. To me then, the logical choice is the former, as I see it as a kind of insurance, for which the evidence suggests that there's small chance that the expense might be unnecessary, against the far greater cost we would face if the conclusions are correct. Like most insurance, I don't like having to pay it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

You can say it is subjective, I don't think people from my generation would agree, but I don't mind you saying that. 

NO and specifically NO. You still not understanding how unrealistic 2C target is. We can end this topic right here as you either not reading or you failing to understand what I am saying - to stay below 2C target, it requires us disappearing from the planet and MORE. I don't know how to explain it any better - planet is warming because of ~2% excess Co2 (at least that is the theory), humans are causing ~1.8% of that. That is all we do, what we eat, our houses, our heating, our cooling, our transport, our clothes, the air we breath as well. To stop client heating we need to reduce excess Co2 by 100%, that means we need to wipe out this 2% excess, but even killing every human on earth achieves only 1.8%. Switching from ICE to BEV literally has effect of only 0.04%, getting rid of all "fossil fuels", would save maybe 60% or 1.08%... so as long as humans are alive, we still have this excess, which is still causing climate change. So in simplest possible terms - human life is incompatible with this goal. This is simple math, it is not even debatable or controversial - to achieve the goal it requires human extinction.

You know wrong, because you are not getting the math. It doesn't add-up. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and all manner of alternative energies will reduce emissions (by ~60%), but they won't completely eliminate them. Again to achieve this goal we not only need to eliminate 100%, but as well additional natural emissions, so carbon capture is basically the only way.

That was simplified example on "human experience", and yes - from perspective of living in UK the climate change will feel exactly as living in Canary Islands. The "more frequent extreme events" is speculation at best, there is no proven link between frequency of extreme events and climate change - this is alarmist narrative and I would argue (maybe incorrectly) that this is simply the result of instant information space i.e. in middle ages the tornadoes may have been just as frequent, but because only the 100 people who died from it knew, nobody else took notice of it. Now that we get all information from all around the world, we think it is more frequent. On top of that there is clear narrative from the press to always blame everything on climate change, despite again there being no proof that it is correlated.

You forgetting to mention all the positives - permafrost and tundra (unproductive land) turning tropical and very productive, desert likely flooding and becoming jungle etc. It is zero sum game, some place will become more hospitable, some will become less hospitable. We just repeating same argument here. You claim of "catastrophic damage" is unproven, subjective and depends on perspective. As I said coast line actually will become longer. Gulf stream may stop, but ocean currents are constantly shifting so this is nothing new. Sure climate in UK may become more "extreme" and we may get proper 4 seasons, which from my perspective is actually good, I honestly kind of hate overly mild climate without pronounced snowy winters and with wet gloomy summers. Again - we can agree here - change will happen, but that it is for worse or that it is catastrophic, that is your interpretation of facts, not a fact.

Again - no we can't see extensive damaging effects. I can see change which is in line and expected with warming temperatures. Again - this is just narrative, if you consider the changes as damaging, then they will get more damaging, if I don't see them that way, then they will not be damaging. As well there is nothing really exponential about the changes, only our information environment is becoming exponentially more concerned and alarmist about it. 

And finally, you reached the conclusion which was obvious considering your overall perspective... you see it as damaging and you believe we can make a difference, so you think that logical choice is to act. If that would be my perspective, then I would reach same conclusion. The difference is that I know for a fact - we can't make a difference, at least not with the goals and actions we taking right now and I don't see the effects as causing any harm, so predictably my logical conclusion is not to do anything. Which is by the way not necessarily true, I am playing devils advocate here at least a little bit. Because my primary perspective would be - nuclear fusion > carbon capture > climate control > terraforming of the planet > space exploration > multi-planetary life. But that is little bit "science fictional", still I don't see the problem with climate change at all - it is happening, but that is about all. 

[Boomer54]

36 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Agree with you that in practice it is harder to achieve, but that doesn't make the current system in UK any better. I think it is objective to say that UK system is bad, without the need to find alternative solution. So I think we can agree that it is bad and could be made better...

I have actually seen opposite in my experience, the more uneducated parents were the more they actually pushed their kids to study harder, unnecessarily so. As well they are more often than not took teacher advise as some sort of divine word and would punish their kids for not following it. The the hardest studying kids in my experience were always the ones from poor and uneducated families, those were actually majority of my class mates who gone to study in "gymnasiums", because that was seen by their parents as more prestigious and bragging rights. The ones from educated families were way more relaxed, more often skipping classes, putting much less effort into studying (yet still achieving most of the goals), but their parents were the ones complaining to principals, telling teachers how to educate their kids etc. Finally there were kids from antisocial and incomplete families who often had the worst in all aspects, bullied, picked on by teachers etc. But I would say majority of them still stayed in the school and finished it, at very least they were not artificially limited in their opportunities by the school. It is important to note here that the only reason poor kids from uneducated families were excelling in studies was that the education was 100% and totally free. Again, I think the biggest issue for me is that barrier between poor and good quality education is monetary one. 

You can say it is subjective, I don't think people from my generation would agree, but I don't mind you saying that. 

NO and specifically NO. You still not understanding how unrealistic 2C target is. We can end this topic right here as you either not reading or you failing to understand what I am saying - to stay below 2C target, it requires us disappearing from the planet and MORE. I don't know how to explain it any better - planet is warming because of ~2% excess Co2 (at least that is the theory), humans are causing ~1.8% of that. That is all we do, what we eat, our houses, our heating, our cooling, our transport, our clothes, the air we breath as well. To stop client heating we need to reduce excess Co2 by 100%, that means we need to wipe out this 2% excess, but even killing every human on earth achieves only 1.8%. Switching from ICE to BEV literally has effect of only 0.04%, getting rid of all "fossil fuels", would save maybe 60% or 1.08%... so as long as humans are alive, we still have this excess, which is still causing climate change. So in simplest possible terms - human life is incompatible with this goal. This is simple math, it is not even debatable or controversial - to achieve the goal it requires human extinction.

You know wrong, because you are not getting the math. It doesn't add-up. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and all manner of alternative energies will reduce emissions (by ~60%), but they won't completely eliminate them. Again to achieve this goal we not only need to eliminate 100%, but as well additional natural emissions, so carbon capture is basically the only way.

That was simplified example on "human experience", and yes - from perspective of living in UK the climate change will feel exactly as living in Canary Islands. The "more frequent extreme events" is speculation at best, there is no proven link between frequency of extreme events and climate change - this is alarmist narrative and I would argue (maybe incorrectly) that this is simply the result of instant information space i.e. in middle ages the tornadoes may have been just as frequent, but because only the 100 people who died from it knew, nobody else took notice of it. Now that we get all information from all around the world, we think it is more frequent. On top of that there is clear narrative from the press to always blame everything on climate change, despite again there being no proof that it is correlated.

You forgetting to mention all the positives - permafrost and tundra (unproductive land) turning tropical and very productive, desert likely flooding and becoming jungle etc. It is zero sum game, some place will become more hospitable, some will become less hospitable. We just repeating same argument here. You claim of "catastrophic damage" is unproven, subjective and depends on perspective. As I said coast line actually will become longer. Gulf stream may stop, but ocean currents are constantly shifting so this is mothing new. Sure climate in UK may become more "extreme" and we may get proper 4 seasons, which from my perspective is actually good, I honestly kind of hate overly mild climate without pronounced snowy winters and with wet gloomy summers. Again - we can agree here - change will happen, that it is for worse or that it is catastrophic, that is your interpretation of facts, not a fact.

Again - no we can see extensive damaging effects. I can see change which is in line and expected with warming temperatures. Again - this is just narrative, if you consider the changes as damaging, then they will get more damaging, you don't see them that way, then they will not be damaging. As well there is nothing really exponential about the changes, only our information environment is becoming exponentially more concerned and alarmist about it. 

And finally, you reached the conclusion which was obvious considering your overall perspective... you see it as damaging and you believe we can make a difference, so you think that logical choice is to act. If that would be my perspective, then I would reach same conclusion. The difference is that I know for a fact - we can't make a difference, at least not with the goals and actions we taking right now and I don't see the effects as causing any harm, so predictably my logical conclusion is not to do anything. Which is by the way not necessarily true, I am playing devils advocate here at least a little bit. Because my primary perspective would be - nuclear fusion > carbon capture > climate control > terraforming of the planet > space exploration > multi-planetary life. But that is little bit "science fictional", still I don't see the problem with climate change at all - it is happening, but that is about all. 

It has been my experience that when it comes to uncertainty the thing people find hardest to do is NOTHING. They will act and do so in the most illogical manner just to try and remove uncertainty. I suspect they find it unduly stressful to live with the not knowing.

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

It has been my experience that when it comes to uncertainty the thing people find hardest to do is NOTHING. They will act and do so in the most illogical manner just to try and remove uncertainty. I suspect they find it unduly stressful to live with the not knowing.

Likely... but that is why I started by saying we probably should invest more in research.

After all we relatively smart when we decide to do something, it was not stupid people that created nuclear bombs or landed on the moon, or the ones that work on DNA manipulations, so if properly funded and prioritised I think we could get to the bottom of what causing climate change, how bad it can actually be and what we can do about it. Seem like good start for problem solving to me.

You know when my car does not start I first investigate what I can, if I can't figure out myself I call mechanic or take it to the garage... I usually don't start from smashing the windscreen with hammer right away... normally. 

[Boomer54]

5 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Likely... but that is why I started by saying we probably should invest more in research.

After all we relatively smart when we decide to do something, it was not stupid people that created nuclear bombs or landed on the moon, or the ones that work on DNA manipulations, so if properly funded and prioritised I think we could get to the bottom of what causing climate change, how bad it can actually be and what we can do about it. Seem like good start for problem solving to me.

You know when my car does not start I first investigate what I can, if I can't figure out myself I call mechanic or take it to the garage... I usually don't start from smashing the windscreen with hammer right away... normally. 

Indeed, but the problem is the research is underway, but there is much division regarding what the results to date tell us. Without a doubt you have a strong view here, but still it is the nature of division that others disagree with you. For myself I have no issue with doing nothing, because I am not convinced on this climate change issue. My point is many others will not do that if only because they are driven to act by their nature.

 

[Bluemarlin]

23 hours ago, Linas.P said:

You can say it is subjective, I don't think people from my generation would agree, but I don't mind you saying that. 

NO and specifically NO. You still not understanding how unrealistic 2C target is. We can end this topic right here as you either not reading or you failing to understand what I am saying - to stay below 2C target, it requires us disappearing from the planet and MORE. I don't know how to explain it any better - planet is warming because of ~2% excess Co2 (at least that is the theory), humans are causing ~1.8% of that. That is all we do, what we eat, our houses, our heating, our cooling, our transport, our clothes, the air we breath as well. To stop client heating we need to reduce excess Co2 by 100%, that means we need to wipe out this 2% excess, but even killing every human on earth achieves only 1.8%. Switching from ICE to BEV literally has effect of only 0.04%, getting rid of all "fossil fuels", would save maybe 60% or 1.08%... so as long as humans are alive, we still have this excess, which is still causing climate change. So in simplest possible terms - human life is incompatible with this goal. This is simple math, it is not even debatable or controversial - to achieve the goal it requires human extinction.

You know wrong, because you are not getting the math. It doesn't add-up. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and all manner of alternative energies will reduce emissions (by ~60%), but they won't completely eliminate them. Again to achieve this goal we not only need to eliminate 100%, but as well additional natural emissions, so carbon capture is basically the only way.

That was simplified example on "human experience", and yes - from perspective of living in UK the climate change will feel exactly as living in Canary Islands. The "more frequent extreme events" is speculation at best, there is no proven link between frequency of extreme events and climate change - this is alarmist narrative and I would argue (maybe incorrectly) that this is simply the result of instant information space i.e. in middle ages the tornadoes may have been just as frequent, but because only the 100 people who died from it knew, nobody else took notice of it. Now that we get all information from all around the world, we think it is more frequent. On top of that there is clear narrative from the press to always blame everything on climate change, despite again there being no proof that it is correlated.

You forgetting to mention all the positives - permafrost and tundra (unproductive land) turning tropical and very productive, desert likely flooding and becoming jungle etc. It is zero sum game, some place will become more hospitable, some will become less hospitable. We just repeating same argument here. You claim of "catastrophic damage" is unproven, subjective and depends on perspective. As I said coast line actually will become longer. Gulf stream may stop, but ocean currents are constantly shifting so this is nothing new. Sure climate in UK may become more "extreme" and we may get proper 4 seasons, which from my perspective is actually good, I honestly kind of hate overly mild climate without pronounced snowy winters and with wet gloomy summers. Again - we can agree here - change will happen, but that it is for worse or that it is catastrophic, that is your interpretation of facts, not a fact.

Again - no we can't see extensive damaging effects. I can see change which is in line and expected with warming temperatures. Again - this is just narrative, if you consider the changes as damaging, then they will get more damaging, if I don't see them that way, then they will not be damaging. As well there is nothing really exponential about the changes, only our information environment is becoming exponentially more concerned and alarmist about it. 

And finally, you reached the conclusion which was obvious considering your overall perspective... you see it as damaging and you believe we can make a difference, so you think that logical choice is to act. If that would be my perspective, then I would reach same conclusion. The difference is that I know for a fact - we can't make a difference, at least not with the goals and actions we taking right now and I don't see the effects as causing any harm, so predictably my logical conclusion is not to do anything. Which is by the way not necessarily true, I am playing devils advocate here at least a little bit. Because my primary perspective would be - nuclear fusion > carbon capture > climate control > terraforming of the planet > space exploration > multi-planetary life. But that is little bit "science fictional", still I don't see the problem with climate change at all - it is happening, but that is about all. 

Linas, you make a lot of assertions, but I've yet to see any of them backed up. As such, rather than going round in circles refuting them, I'll simply ask you if you have any peer reviewed scientific data that asserts we need to end humanity in order to prevent catastrophic climate change. Additionally, whether climate change will be simply worse or catastrophic, is not my interpretation of facts, it's the interpretation of the scientific, industrial, commercial and political community, and I'm just passing on the message, not authoring it.

You also said "so if properly funded and prioritised I think we could get to the bottom of what's causing climate change, how bad it can actually be and what we can do about it."  But that's precisely what we're doing. It's massively funded and researched, and we're finding new answers and solutions every day. So, with the exception of breathing, there's every reason to believe that we can eliminate our production of carbon, and are well on the way to doing so. Even China now produces less than half it's energy from fossil fuels, and is a maassive investor in solutions globally.

Talking of breathing (ie natural emissions) and carbon capture, your thinking on that is flawed too. Here's a quote that summarises the matter: "Human beings do exhale almost three billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy." In other words, our eating and breathing is part of a natural cycle that both produces and re-uses CO2, which is naturally captured as part of that cycle, and so is carbon neutral, if not sllightly negative. There are plenty of articles that explain it in more detail if you wish to Google it.

You seem to focus on small areas, upon which you go on to make seemingly flawed assumptions, based on what seems like little more than your own thoughts and observations, which you admit might be wrong, and then claim that carries more weight than the evidence and conclusions that have come from billions in scientific research, over several decades. In this, and other posts, you seem oblivious to a multitude of other things that are going on. As such, rather than repeat myself, I'll try and summarise just a few of those things. None of this is guesswork or asumption on my part by the way, and mostly comes from New Scientist articles.

Your often raised complaint that governments have focused solely on transport, specifically motorists, is simply untrue. Energy providers have been consistently reducing their carbon emissions, to such an extent that it was expected to peak in the summer of this year, and then start declining. Ironically this was delayed due to global warming causing droughts and heatwaves, which resulted in a significant reduction in hydropower in places like the USA and China.

Regarding your wish that we spend more on researching solutions, here's one small example. Hydrogen is seen as a potential carbon free energy source. The problem is that to produce it economically currently requires burning a lot of fossil fuels, with the resultant CO2 emissions. However, scientists at a US university have recently discovered a way to produce hydrogen by burning household waste plastics. This not only produces no CO2, but actually results in graphene as a byproduct. Further, if the graphene is then sold  at only 5% of its current market value, the hydrogen production becomes not only free, but in profit to the tune of about $4 a kilo. So, free hydrogen, a possible solution to plastic waste, and money in the bank. I guess we'll have to wait and see where that leads, but this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that being forced to think differently, and innovate our way out of a problem, might lead to benefits that far outweigh any downsides. There are plenty of other studies and initiatives taking place all over the world, which could deliver things we haven't yet dreamed of.

I'll also pre-empt another of your favourite arguments, which is why should we bother, when the likes of China are still burning coal, as it seems both pointless and unfair; but that coveniently ignores the other side of the China coin. As well being the largest emitter of greehouse gases, it's also the world's largest supplier of clean energy technologies. Their own level of clean energy investment is unmatched, with more than half of all global wind and solar capacity set to be installed in China this year. They're also adding more nuclear and hydropower than anywhere else. So, whilst they continue to burn a lot of coal, fossil fuels now only account for less than half of their energy generation, with new coal plants built not to run at full capacity, but largely to remain as a short to medium term fallback.

Not only has this enormous growth in green energy helped in mitigating China's emissions, it's also resulted in much cheaper technology for everyone else. China makes around 80% of the world's solar panels, as well as being the dominant suplier of wind turbine equipment. As a consequence it's now more cost effective in many countries to build new solar and wind installations than it is fossil fuel ones. In addition, China is investing billions in green energy in lower income countries.

Finally, despite feeling forced into EVs here, China is seeing record adoption, with sales exceeding 20% of all new car sales last year.

Sure, there are huge problems with China's current level of emissions, but they are at least in part due to its population size and the massive redevelopment taking place. So, whilst it predicts that it will be behind some other countries in becoming carbon neutral, it's almost single handedly responsible for providing the technology and equipment for other countries to do so.

None of this suddenly makes China the good guys though, on the contrary. What is does mean is that, even if the fears of climate change are overblown, the world is moving in that direction. China may be the largest emitter of CO2, but it's already by far the largest producer of the technology to combat it. So yeah, we can sit back and do nothing, in the belief that what we're doing causes no harm, because we're just a small island, and dont want the incovenience. However, if we do that, then in a few decades we'll not only be technologically behind the rest of the world, but completely and utterly dependent on others to dig us out of it.

Whatever your beliefs in the science, the case is overwhelmingly in favour of reducing the use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, and replacing them with cleaner and renewable forms of energy.

Have a lovely Sunday 🙂

[Bluemarlin]

23 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Agree with you that in practice it is harder to achieve, but that doesn't make the current system in UK any better. I think it is objective to say that UK system is bad, without the need to find alternative solution. So I think we can agree that it is bad and could be made better...

I have actually seen opposite in my experience, the more uneducated parents were the more they actually pushed their kids to study harder, unnecessarily so. As well they are more often than not took teacher advise as some sort of divine word and would punish their kids for not following it. The the hardest studying kids in my experience were always the ones from poor and uneducated families, those were actually majority of my class mates who gone to study in "gymnasiums", because that was seen by their parents as more prestigious and bragging rights. The ones from educated families were way more relaxed, more often skipping classes, putting much less effort into studying (yet still achieving most of the goals), but their parents were the ones complaining to principals, telling teachers how to educate their kids etc. Finally there were kids from antisocial and incomplete families who often had the worst in all aspects, bullied, picked on by teachers etc. But I would say majority of them still stayed in the school and finished it, at very least they were not artificially limited in their opportunities by the school. It is important to note here that the only reason poor kids from uneducated families were excelling in studies was that the education was 100% and totally free. Again, I think the biggest issue for me is that barrier between poor and good quality education is monetary one. 

 

As I understand it, you were educated in a different country, and so the fact that you saw less well off families push their kids more may not be true here. There are a variety of cultural differences across nations, not least relating to the family, which is why I believe the problem is social rather than finanancial.

I don't know the answer to our social problems, or even why some other countries/cultures don't face the same ones. Perhaps then it's worth looking at some things we do differently.

Let's start with a simple one, like Germany, where in many places shops still don't open on a Sunday. This is at least in part because they feel it's more important to have some leisure time, spent with one's family, than it is to traipse around IKEA scoffing meatballs. Does this make a difference? Who knows, but it can't hurt when it comes to providing a stable family structure.

Some countries still have at least some form of national service, whilst others have only given it up fairly recently compared to us. Does that make a difference? It certainly must help in terms of instilling a sense of pride, discipline, structure, purpose and responsibiliity into a young person's life, before they become a parent.

Many countries/cultures seem to put far more emphasis on the value of the family than we do. In the UK Asian cultures are a good example, where children from such backgrounds consistently fare better academically, regardles of their location or economic status.

There are probably many more examples of differences, which are all things worthy of researching, even if they only lead to being dismissed as making no meaningful difference.

You also raise an important point about kids who come from incomplete families having the worst of it. That's true, as by virtually every meaningful metric, children from single parent households fare worse than those from two parent ones. At 21%, the UK is apparently the second highest country (behind the US) for single parent households. Given that the vast majority of prisoners, drug abusers, teen pregancies, youth suicides and runaway homeless children come from single parent families, how much does that add to our problems? Is it just the relatve poverty, or the additional parental burden that causes issues, or is it more than that? Most of these children are raised by their mothers, and with both the teaching and social services professions being predominantly female, it means that many children, especially from less fortunate backgrounds, have no positive male influence in their lives. How does that affect things, if at all?

You say we should study things before acting when talking of climate change. You say don't ban cars without understanding if they're the problem, and yet would ban private education, without looking into all these other factors first. In many ways you're using the same argument to oppose private education that you accuse climate change promoters of, with even lesss evidence that it's to blame; which seems logically inconsistent. What I'm saying is that we apply the same degree of scientific rigour that we have to climate change because, for the UK at least, there are host of things to be researched and examined before we blindly leap to banning private schools, and that those things are largely social, and not financial.

I grant you, the private school system provides no direct benefit to those who don't have access to it, but to do away with it means you need to demonstraate that it's the cause of the problem, and not simply a symptom, as it could just as easily be a cure to it for some.

[Linas.P]

35 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Linas, you make a lot of assertions, but I've yet to see any of them backed up.

As such, rather than going round in circles refuting them, I'll simply ask you if you have any peer reviewed scientific data that asserts we need to end humanity in order to prevent catastrophic climate change. Additionally, whether climate change will be simply worse or catastrophic, is not my interpretation of facts, it's the interpretation of the scientific, industrial, commercial and political community, and I'm just passing on the message, not authoring it.

You also said "so if properly funded and prioritised I think we could get to the bottom of what's causing climate change, how bad it can actually be and what we can do about it."  But that's precisely what we're doing. It's massively funded and researched, and we're finding new answers and solutions every day. So, with the exception of breathing, there's every reason to believe that we can eliminate our production of carbon, and are well on the way to doing so. Even China now produces less than half it's energy from fossil fuels, and is a maassive investor in solutions globally.

Talking of breathing (ie natural emissions) and carbon capture, your thinking on that is flawed too. Here's a quote that summarises the matter: "Human beings do exhale almost three billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—where it has been safe from the atmosphere for millions of years—and combust it. So breathe easy." In other words, our eating and breathing is part of a natural cycle that both produces and re-uses CO2, which is naturally captured as part of that cycle, and so is carbon neutral, if not sllightly negative. There are plenty of articles that explain it in more detail if you wish to Google it.

You seem to focus on small areas, upon which you go on to make seemingly flawed assumptions, based on what seems like little more than your own thoughts and observations, which you admit might be wrong, and then claim that carries more weight than the evidence and conclusions that have come from billions in scientific research, over several decades. In this, and other posts, you seem oblivious to a multitude of other things that are going on. As such, rather than repeat myself, I'll try and summarise just a few of those things. None of this is guesswork or asumption on my part by the way, and mostly comes from New Scientist articles.

Your often raised complaint that governments have focused solely on transport, specifically motorists, is simply untrue. Energy providers have been consistently reducing their carbon emissions, to such an extent that it was expected to peak in the summer of this year, and then start declining. Ironically this was delayed due to global warming causing droughts and heatwaves, which resulted in a significant reduction in hydropower in places like the USA and China.

Regarding your wish that we spend more on researching solutions, here's one small example. Hydrogen is seen as a potential carbon free energy source. The problem is that to produce it economically currently requires burning a lot of fossil fuels, with the resultant CO2 emissions. However, scientists at a US university have recently discovered a way to produce hydrogen by burning household waste plastics. This not only produces no CO2, but actually results in graphene as a byproduct. Further, if the graphene is then sold  at only 5% of its current market value, the hydrogen production becomes not only free, but in profit to the tune of about $4 a kilo. So, free hydrogen, a possible solution to plastic waste, and money in the bank. I guess we'll have to wait and see where that leads, but this is the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that being forced to think differently, and innovate our way out of a problem, might lead to benefits that far outweigh any downsides. There are plenty of other studies and initiatives taking place all over the world, which could deliver things we haven't yet dreamed of.

I'll also pre-empt another of your favourite arguments, which is why should we bother, when the likes of China are still burning coal, as it seems both pointless and unfair; but that coveniently ignores the other side of the China coin. As well being the largest emitter of greehouse gases, it's also the world's largest supplier of clean energy technologies. Their own level of clean energy investment is unmatched, with more than half of all global wind and solar capacity set to be installed in China this year. They're also adding more nuclear and hydropower than anywhere else. So, whilst they continue to burn a lot of coal, fossil fuels now only account for less than half of their energy generation, with new coal plants built not to run at full capacity, but largely to remain as a short to medium term fallback.

Not only has this enormous growth in green energy helped in mitigating China's emissions, it's also resulted in much cheaper technology for everyone else. China makes around 80% of the world's solar panels, as well as being the dominant suplier of wind turbine equipment. As a consequence it's now more cost effective in many countries to build new solar and wind installations than it is fossil fuel ones. In addition, China is investing billions in green energy in lower income countries.

Finally, despite feeling forced into EVs here, China is seeing record adoption, with sales exceeding 20% of all new car sales last year.

Sure, there are huge problems with China's current level of emissions, but they are at least in part due to its population size and the massive redevelopment taking place. So, whilst it predicts that it will be behind some other countries in becoming carbon neutral, it's almost single handedly responsible for providing the technology and equipment for other countries to do so.

None of this suddenly makes China the good guys though, on the contrary. What is does mean is that, even if the fears of climate change are overblown, the world is moving in that direction. China may be the largest emitter of CO2, but it's already by far the largest producer of the technology to combat it. So yeah, we can sit back and do nothing, in the belief that what we're doing causes no harm, because we're just a small island, and dont want the incovenience. However, if we do that, then in a few decades we'll not only be technologically behind the rest of the world, but completely and utterly dependent on others to dig us out of it.

Whatever your beliefs in the science, the case is overwhelmingly in favour of reducing the use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, and replacing them with cleaner and renewable forms of energy.

Have a lovely Sunday 🙂

Same for you Bill - do you have any peer reviewed scientific data that climate change causes "catastrophes"? An not think you interpret as "catastrophe" like actual rise of sea level, melting ice, rise of temperature, but actual direct link to "catastrophe" - let's say massive landslide, tsunami, tornado, volcanic eruption etc. 

My statement does not need scientific study thought - is very simple math. The problem here is that you do not understand what "2C target" is. You wrongly believe that it is enough to just "cut the use of fossil fuels" to achieve it, I really not sure what you want me to prove here.  Do you understand what word "excess" means? Humans contribute 90% to the excess, but nature contribute another 10%. Meaning excess will be there regardless and all things you want to prevent will happen regardless. Any excess, even 1%, will result in climate change, be it slower climate change, but it would still change.

Do you agree with statement that climate change is natural process? 

Do you agree with statement that humans are not causing it just accelerating it?

As such does it makes sense that even if we eliminate all humans the climate change still going to happen and it will go beyond 2C?

I am concentrating on 2C target here as this is clear impasse in our discussion if you can't understand the meaning of it. And it matters because all the restrictions nowadays are specifically made to achieve it. So you can't understand the decisions, if they are good or if they are bad if you don't understand what they are aiming to achieve, nor how inadequate they are to achieve it (and inadequate is huge understatement). 

Or other statements needs discussion as well, but we can't even start before laying foundation - hydrogen, China's emissions (that is actually not a problem as per capita is low), China's EVs adoption (stats are fake)... I mean you already incorrectly pre-empting my stance there, I think we can discuss all those in more detail, but for now we can seem to agree even on basics.