Firstly, the sweeping term 'climate denial' is a nonsense of a generalisation. Questioning is how the scientific process works, and there are certainly some questions to be asked, and many of the ones I have asked are because the scientists themsleves describe them as being uncertain. The science is definitley not settled, and that's according to the scientists. The claim it is stems from Gore and Obama and is based on some very dubious studies. They've both invested heavily in Ocean front properties, which should raise questions. That aside, I think I've answered your first point (a) in my reply above. There is no way of preventing it. There is some argument that there could be an influence on the when, but the key is building a society that is capable of adapting to those changes. (B) Currently, more efficient use of existing technology until a credible alternative is available, and moving resources to investigate those possibilities rather than wasting billions on initiatives that are unlikely to be of any real value, and liable to make things worse for many. C) The air you breath is far, far cleaner now than it's been in over 50 years, and is continuing to improve each year. If you mean that more liable to influence the atmosphere, water vapor, methane and others have a far greater warming potential, so in an emergency, that is where I would expect to see the focus in the short to medium term, yet there is little if any realistic conversation on that. Your last line and tone is pretty much what I was referring to with Toasts posts. They make you look ignorant and pompous and add nothing to the discussion. It makes it look like you're actually frightened of a discussion actually taking place.
And that right there is why any reasonable debate goes tits up. Questioning government or climate crisis activists ideas, policies and initiatives does not make you a denier. I question many of things that we are told to do to save the planet, not because I don't think we need to anything but because I think some of the ideas are stupid. But apparently as I'm not a scientist I'm wrong.
It's funny how many non-scientists with no experience dismiss the claims some make, claiming it's because they're non-scientists with no experience, which ironically is Thunberg to a T.
A) Unless the Elephant in the Room is adressed which is population growth its actaully pointless making ourselves poorer to meet some never ending Net Zero target particulary when anything we do would have little to no impact anyway. B) Change the way the price of energy is calculated for a start as its a stitch up also replace Ofgem who are gutless and appear in bed with the energy companies. Again the Elephant in the room is a ever increasing population, your always going to be chasing a higher energy capacity and never catching up. If our population in the Uk was the same as it was only 15 years ago we would of being energy effiecent last winter and not had to import anything. C) Personally don't see it as a proplem.
Okay, I'll chuck some food for thought before I log off. On a few trivia sites I've looked through, some have made a similar claim, but related it to different parts of the earth, with Australia and Hawaii being two that I can recall. I keep meaning to look to see where these bits of trivia fit with other bits. The first bits relate to New York, Mexico sinking due to the weight of the City, and the UK effectively tilting toward the South East and rising in Scotland due to natural processes. This is repeated in various other places too. The bit about Hawaii, Australia and some other places is that they are moving year on year, and it was described as being at about the same rate that fingernails grow. As I said, I haven't checked any of this, so it could be total bullshit, but it was something that I thought I'd look at when I got chance, so I thought I may as well lob it in here in case someone else already had because with the changes in sea level being talked of, they could be factors to be included.
It's not a case of disagreeing, that suggests it's a debatable topic with a subjective conclusion. This was a complete fabrication and he outright lies all the time. I'll start here. What you're looking at here is a photograph taken of the coffins of immigrants that were being stored on an island. David's claim is that because the photo is a fake regarding Covid, Covid therefore was fake. This was very, very quickly debunked and explained to him, yet he posted it again a year later. He knows that photo isn't what he says it is, but over 74,000 people influenced that and sent it around the Internet. Then there's this. In this one he claims that because the two weather maps are from the same programme, five years apart, and show lower temperatures but on a different map, it gives the impression that the "media" are sensationalising the recent temperatures as extreme when that isn't the case and in actual fact the world is just fine. The German news company put out an interview explaining in detail the difference between the two maps, that the green one does not signify any changes or anything specific, it merely notes the temperatures. The colour map shows differences in temperatures throughout the day, as it gets hotter. He used the fact that they're five years apart to suggest that there hasn't been any real change and that the use of a red and yellow map is somehow them making it look worse than it is. That one got 1.7m views and 44,000 influences to spread it out. That's what I have a problem with.
It's interesting how many from the narrative supportive* know so much about people most other people have never heard of. It'd be interesting to know how many of the hits on such sites are theirs and how much their attempts to debunk actually end up leaving people preferring the other views, as people really do not like being preached at, especially if the preaching comes over as pompous and patronising. (*other terms are available, I was trying to think of a non-abusive generalisation. I'd prefer it if 'them and us' didn't exist, and conversations could relate to the issues, rather than people hunting out people to then try and debunk. There's little kudos in that and it bogs conversations down. ) That aside, It's also interesting to note that the same people are virtually silent on some of the claims made by the likes of Attenborough that turned out to be less than honest, especially as Thunberg claimed his programme was the source of her education on the topic. The problem with focusing on minutiae is that they tend to be pre-conditional of other things, and it ends up quibbling over semantics, and misses so much. As mentioned, the new head of it all seems to have an awareness of how the optics of extremism and hysteria from the media and other quarters is having a detrimental impact on the problem. This has been one of my main arguments throughout, and has seen me labelled as a denier by the less informed. If people were offering a balance position, they should be accusing Jim of denial for saying many of the things I and others on here have been advocating. They won't of course, and rightly so. Along with his comments on the hysteria, his introductory address was reassuring and revealing, as it's long been argued that the various bodies were not collaborating sufficiently, which risks key aspects being missed in each, and not least the impact on less developed areas of the world. Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says 07/30/2023July 30, 2023 Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's IPCC, said it's not helpful to imply that a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity. He calls for a balanced approach to the climate change debate. Speaking to weekly magazine Der Spiegel, in an interview first published on Saturday, Skea warned against laying too much value on the international community's current nominal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared the pre-industrial era. "We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures were to increase by this amount, he said. In a separate discussion with German news agency DPA, Skea expanded on why. "If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said. "The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world." Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity. Skea predicted that one difficult area might prove to be changing people's lifestyles. He said that no scientist could tell people how to live or what to eat. "Individual abstinence is good, but it alone will not bring about the change to the extent it will be necessary," Skea said. "If we are to live more climate consciously, we need entirely new infrastructure. People will not get on bikes if there are no cycle paths." Skea said he also wanted to adapt the IPCC so that it could provide better and more targeted advice to specific groups of people on how they could act to combat climate change. He named groups like town planners, landowners and businesses: "With all these things it's about real people and their real lives, not scientific abstractions. We need to come down a level," he told DPA. He said he also hoped to make progress during his tenure on how and where money was sent and spent to tackle the problem globally. "There's enough money in the world, the challenge is getting it to flow to the right places," he said. https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523
I think the idea was that it's £350m in additional resources. The trend on that chart suggests not. If you normalise it for inflationary increases and staff pay rises, I would suspect it would look different. It barely justifies £350m a week as it is. Be a good boy and go google, say, staffing levels over the same period (including agency/consultants). That will be more meaningful. Not saying you are wrong as I don't give an arse really, just that the graph doesn't support the claim. It's irrelevant anyway, as I know must brexiters didn't believe that anyway, other than the really ****ing stupid ones. Oh...wait a minute.
Just another quick rant on the current optics. I understand why people see log burners as bad, and gas is certainly a better, cleaner option, however the current focus is effectively demonising some little old lady that is trying to avoid freezing to death (the focus on hotter temperatures when cold kills far more is another issue) by using the only fuel they can afford, in foraging wood for her open fire. Yet if that lady used an electric fire, fuelled by the largest timber user in the UK with associated impacts on tree coverage and biodiversity globally and responsible for emitting more pollutants than many other sectors combined, especially as it is shipped on mucky oil fueled ships from the other side of the world, she's done her bit. Okay, the additional costs may mean she's starved of food as well as heat, but those costs can subsidise a wealthier person to get an EV to travel around in. Hell, one of these EV drivers may even give her a lift to her medical appointments now she can no longer afford to run her old car... And the 'leaders' and advisors travel to the summits by the plane load...the 'free electricity' from the turbines in the North Sea is not dissimilar to the claims of free gas when they started changing us from towns gas...which could lead me on to how similar some of the Hydrogen production is to those old methods.
The graph is calculated in real terms not actual pounds so it's taken into account "inflationary increases and staff pay rises" Remainers are incapable of making an irrelevant point without including a gratuitous insult
What he said was not factually incorrect. I have absolutely no problem with that statement and I agree, it is a dangerous world we move into when that level of warming occurs.
I agree with you on cruise ships and they affect me more than most, as there's currently 3 of them moored up 5km from my house. Diesel cars are charged ca. £9 each time it drives into the city centre and there's cruise ships belching out fumes there (the engines can't be turned off when docked, for obvious reasons). But, and it's a big but, many ppl love them and passenger numbers are increasing yearly since covid.
On debunking, there has to be a line in the sand. If you’re looking for information on a topic, what you don’t want to be faced with is a mountain of disinformation. I’m sure we’d all love a world where people can come to their own conclusions about things on their own, but in the current state of play, the sheer amount of untruth out there about critically important subjects is ridiculous and people need to start from a fair and balanced point. Allowing outright misinformation and “alternative facts” to propagate sets a dangerous precedent and before you know it, we’re teaching alternative historical timelines in schools (we aren’t, not even in jest) and people are walking about trying to discredit actual facts replacing them with utter pish. Science is always open ended to the extent that the challenge to consensus is presented with data that cannot be dismissed. If it doesn’t hold up, it gets dismissed. That isn’t censorship, it’s how we arrived at the world we live in today. People use terms like “censorship”to sound victimised and to coerce others into a defensive stance to make it sound like what they had to say was somehow actually valid. It’s just another grift, designed to get views, rob people of their hard earned and boost their profile. These people lack the talent to be famous through genuine success, so they go down the route of scamming to make their money. It isn’t even difficult to do, the QAnon movement, and to a lesser extent New Age healing and the Sovereign Citizen movement are great examples of how you can ever so slightly twist the truth to make it seem like you’re making a valid point. As 35th Prime Minister of Great Britain Fellowship Sprinkletoes once said “the truth is harder to roll over than the lie we sleep in.”
I think the fact you actually agree with me highlights another point I've raised, in that focusing on the minutiae distracts from the bits that really can make changes. Contrary to the claims of several, the science isn't settled, and the scientists involved say as much. It'd be odd if they didn't as disproving a theory or hypothesis is a key part of the scientific process, and as an aside is one that is unfortunately not taught very well as at schools and even universities. If rather than getting bogged down with people trying to show what they think they know, and often revealing the opposite, the views of the majority are actually listened to, rather than patronising or demonising them, I think there then would be greater support and people pulling together, especially if that is supported centrally with a credible startegic plan. Few would argue against it being a good idea not to chuck **** into the environment, or taking stuff out the ground faster than we can replace it. By not asking the right questions, politicians thought that peoples support for the environment was unconditional and therefore a vote winner, but that missed the issue of cost and convenience, which as soon as they are added makes them far less politically attractive, especially when there are doubts about the basis of those claims. The abuse of data and its use to impact on civil liberties and freedoms during covid was quite a big set back, as it was an eyeopener to many people. It makes it interesting to see the attempts to use threats and doom to invoke behaviour change, as it has been long recognised by behaviorists that such an approach rarely works, and more often produces the exact opposite reaction. The experts advising the decision makers should surely be aware of this, which if they're not raises a few other questions.. The decision makers need to lead by example, tackle the big sources and put systems in place that facilitate people to do their bit without really even trying.
