Should The BBC Do This?

[Greyhound81]

On 26/07/2022 at 09:03, Gray-Wolf said:

Since I 'hung up my saddle' in the climate debate (2014) I've seen more of the folk that I have contact with raise their awareness to the Emergency than I ever saw over near 2 decades battling in places like this?

I now feel that it is all a matter of 'positioning'?

Sit facing a person & it is far easier for them to become an opponent than if they're sat next to you?

I'm sure this is what has happened since I stopped trying to help folk to knowledge & let them ask the questions themselves?

They might be surprised at the answer, it may will be quite 'detailed', but then they did ask!

On another matter I've found the most persuasive folk on climate change are the folk who have travelled from 'Denier' to Scientifically aware?

The climate section of this forum seems very quiet these days.  There are not many posts in this section compared to previous years.  Also Bornfromthevoid seems to have gone.  He was very good at explaining how climate change works.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Greyhound81

[richie3846]

On 03/07/2023 at 09:14, MP-R said:

This is the most sensible position to hold. Sadly though, if you don’t follow the narrative that’s blithely followed by others, then you’re automatically a denier. I wish more people would take more academic approach.

Wrt the BBC’s article… nothing new from them really. It’s partly why I’ve stopped using them as a source of information.

When people start using terms such as 'denier', it indicates that they've elevated climate change to the status of a quasi-religion. Facts don't matter to the people with this mindset. It becomes a noble cause, and the subjectiveness of their thinking makes it impossible for them to see reasonable argument to the contrary, because that goes against their 'religious' beliefs. 

When this mentality shapes policy, that's when I start to become concerned with the direction we are headed. I'm seeing some of this already, with people gluing themselves to bridges etc. 

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, richie3846 said:

When people start using terms such as 'denier', it indicates that they've elevated climate change to the status of a quasi-religion. Facts don't matter to the people with this mindset. It becomes a noble cause, and the subjectiveness of their thinking makes it impossible for them to see reasonable argument to the contrary, because that goes against their 'religious' beliefs. 

When this mentality shapes policy, that's when I start to become concerned with the direction we are headed. I'm seeing some of this already, with people gluing themselves to bridges etc. 

And, do you apply that same 'logic' to, say, Holocaust denial, polio-vaccine denial or MMR vaccine denial? Is adherence to the efficacy of those a 'religious belief, too? 

[richie3846]

45 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

And, do you apply that same 'logic' to, say, Holocaust denial, polio-vaccine denial or MMR vaccine denial? Is adherence to the efficacy of those a 'religious belief, too? 

No, because people have used the term, climate change denier, as a slur against those who are not completely won over by the arguments. We saw something similar with COVID. Those who dared suggest certain things about the origin of the virus, and also the safety of the vaccine, were often barred from social media platforms etc. Later on in proceedings we have scientists talking about the likelihood of a lab leak, yet a year before people were being censored heavily by daring to suggest that this was a possibility. We have a similar situation now where the science is not absolute, yet the path we are following has become an absolute path, fighting climate change at every opportunity, without having completely concrete facts that we can definitely rely on. 

Holocaust - absolute fact

COVID - not absolute science 

Climate change - not absolute science

 

[MP-R]

4 hours ago, Methuselah said:

So, tell me, genius, where will I find it? 

Surprise surprise, non mainstream media if we’re working at that level…

Or there is a wealth of information out there not bought and paid for in journals/journal articles, books, podcasts, interviews… the list goes on.

Gotta look beyond the state approved thinky thinky drip drip.

[Mixer 85]

I believe there are still plenty of skeptics out there and possibly here too but it’s gotten to the point where it’s exceedingly difficult to have a level headed debate. There’s just so many arguments and counter arguments, along with the propensity of some to dismiss and shout people down. Proper old fashioned, mutually respectful debates are near impossible to find nowadays. Steve Koonin vs Andrew Dessler is probably the only real climate debate I’ve heard in years.

 

Climate change or not, what I do believe worthy of serious discussion is government response, ie Net Zero, ESG, etc. These are policies that affect all of us in our day to day lives as opposed to the may or may not happenings of the future.

[Paul]

I struggle with the concept that climate change is not 'absolute science' (whatever that means). Speak to a climate scientist (virtually any climate scientist) and they'll tell you the science is as settled as it can possibly be. So who are the people who are claiming it's not settled enough to move onto the next stage of the debate - eg what to do about it? If they're not climate scientists with peer reviewed papers on the subject, why are they given any prominence? Why do so many people prefer to believe non-experts above the actual experts in the field?

I think that's the biggest issue in all of this - why is a reasonably large sub-section of society drawn into believing counter views which tend to have no basis in science, or actual evidence to back them up? We need to get to the bottom of it, as it's damaging - questioning stuff is of course fine, that's how science works. But being 'sceptical' to the extent of not being prepared to believe scientific evidence but happily believing a random youtuber or whatever doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

[reef]

11 hours ago, richie3846 said:

No, because people have used the term, climate change denier, as a slur against those who are not completely won over by the arguments. We saw something similar with COVID. Those who dared suggest certain things about the origin of the virus, and also the safety of the vaccine, were often barred from social media platforms etc. Later on in proceedings we have scientists talking about the likelihood of a lab leak, yet a year before people were being censored heavily by daring to suggest that this was a possibility. We have a similar situation now where the science is not absolute, yet the path we are following has become an absolute path, fighting climate change at every opportunity, without having completely concrete facts that we can definitely rely on. 

Holocaust - absolute fact

COVID - not absolute science 

Climate change - not absolute science

 

Whataboutism at its finest.

Climate change is absolute fact. If you're interested in the real science, go and look at some FTIR tables and they'll show you what wavelength molecular bonds (such as the C=O bond in CO2) absorb infrared radiation (heat) at. There is no question whatsoever on this, nor the fact that we've increased this gas rapidly in the atmosphere from 280 to 420ppm and hence more heat is reflected back to Earth.

I'll repeat, there is no question whatsoever on this. There is no debate because it is settled.

[richie3846]

48 minutes ago, reef said:

Whataboutism at its finest.

Climate change is absolute fact. If you're interested in the real science, go and look at some FTIR tables and they'll show you what wavelength molecular bonds (such as the C=O bond in CO2) absorb infrared radiation (heat) at. There is no question whatsoever on this, nor the fact that we've increased this gas rapidly in the atmosphere from 280 to 420ppm and hence more heat is reflected back to Earth.

I'll repeat, there is no question whatsoever on this. There is no debate because it is settled.

This is the problem we are facing. Cherry picking data isn't solid robust science, and saying there is no question whatsoever, implies the point I was making in the first place. People have turned this into some sort of crusade, and are shutting off avenues of debate and reason. Science must always be open to further research and opposing ideas. Yes, there is ongoing debates that need to continue indefinitely. Once upon a time I was told for absolute definite, that I shouldn't allow peanuts anywhere near my kids, and mum should give them up when pregnant. Now I have a child with a severe nut allergy, and now am told the science wasn't correct in the first place. The increase in child allergies because of this flawed scientific advice given to parents, 10 to 20 years ago, is now ruining lives and occasionally causing deaths. This is what happens when we blindly accept science as solid face without further questioning. 

[richie3846]

58 minutes ago, Paul said:

I struggle with the concept that climate change is not 'absolute science' (whatever that means). Speak to a climate scientist (virtually any climate scientist) and they'll tell you the science is as settled as it can possibly be. So who are the people who are claiming it's not settled enough to move onto the next stage of the debate - eg what to do about it? If they're not climate scientists with peer reviewed papers on the subject, why are they given any prominence? Why do so many people prefer to believe non-experts above the actual experts in the field?

I think that's the biggest issue in all of this - why is a reasonably large sub-section of society drawn into believing counter views which tend to have no basis in science, or actual evidence to back them up? We need to get to the bottom of it, as it's damaging - questioning stuff is of course fine, that's how science works. But being 'sceptical' to the extent of not being prepared to believe scientific evidence but happily believing a random youtuber or whatever doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

I agree with the point, often the 'quasi-religious' element works both ways. Skeptics become just as one-directional as believers can. We often end up with large chunks of society with polarised views, neither side having a grasp of what science is out there. 

As I mentioned in a recent reply, I'm sure the science into nut allergies was peer reviewed back in the day, but that didn't stop it being very wrong, and now the whole thing has been opened up again, with new treatments to undo the damage caused by the initial science. 

I was not suggesting that we should be listening to random YouTubers for our information. I was trying to make the point that humans have a tendency to become subjective and biased, and often this can detract from scientific rigour. 

[Methuselah]

2 minutes ago, richie3846 said:

This is the problem we are facing. Cherry picking data isn't solid robust science, and saying there is no question whatsoever, implies the point I was making in the first place. People have turned this into some sort of crusade, and are shutting off avenues of debate and reason. Science must always be open to further research and opposing ideas. Yes, there is ongoing debates that need to continue indefinitely. Once upon a time I was told for absolute definite, that I shouldn't allow peanuts anywhere near my kids, and mum should give them up when pregnant. Now I have a child with a severe nut allergy, and now am told the science wasn't correct in the first place. The increase in child allergies because of this flawed scientific advice given to parents, 10 to 20 years ago, is now ruining lives and occasionally causing deaths. This is what happens when we blindly accept science as solid face without further questioning. 

I think the real problem is one of non-comprehension, and, with it, the somewhat dubious belief that everyone has something relevant to say, on any subject whatsoever. Should society start doubting the reality of gravity? 

[Gray-Wolf]

13 hours ago, Greyhound81 said:

The climate section of this forum seems very quiet these days.  There are not many posts in this section compared to previous years.  Also Bornfromthevoid seems to have gone.  He was very good at explaining how climate change works.

BFTV began as a climate sceptic!

He is now a PHD looking into coastal erosion around the Arctic Basin!!!

Just shows You what 'exposure to healthy debate' can drive in a soul eh?

Many posters became 'restricted' in their posting b/c of poor behaviours esp. once it was clear that the debate was over & the 'Human' inputs to Climate change became irrefutable.

Recent 'Record Global Temps (likely to be broken again over the coming weeks due to the N.Hemisphere not at its peak temps yet & with an El Nino growing in the equatorial Pacific?) surely highlight our peril?

Maybe it's so quiet b/c 'climate chaos' is now HERE & not a thing to be warned of?

[Paul]

The fact that some scientific theories have been disproved and therefore updated isn't a reason to ignore science. The point of science is to take the evidence, test it and come to conclusions based on that evidence. So, of course if the evidence changes, the same process will apply and different conclusions may be drawn. That is the way forward, what isn't is simply not believing the evidence or the conclusions based on it, and preferring to believe something which has zero evidence to back it up. 

 

[Eagle Eye]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

 

I think that's the biggest issue in all of this - why is a reasonably large sub-section of society drawn into believing counter views which tend to have no basis in science, or actual evidence to back them up? 

People don't like change, they've used fossil fuels all their life and don't want to stop now. So they come up with unproven theories in their head and search for 1 document that 'proves it' compared to the thousands that are peer reviewed and show that their theories are nonsense. Then, some other people choose to believe those documents instead of the peer reviewed ones out of some fear that the government and science are somehow linked together to drive some supposed campaign against people. I think with other people it's just that they don't understand the science so choose to ignore what the science is saying.

[Paul]

3 minutes ago, Eagle Eye said:

People don't like change, they've used fossil fuels all their life and don't want to stop now. So they come up with unproven theories in their head and search for 1 document that 'proves it' compared to the thousands that are peer reviewed and show that their theories are nonsense. Then, some other people choose to believe those documents instead of the peer reviewed ones out of some fear that the government and science are somehow linked together to drive some supposed campaign against people. I think with other people it's just that they don't understand the science so choose to ignore what the science is saying.

I'm sure there's an element of that, without doubt. But, I also think there is a set of people who feel let down by, or have an issue with the 'establishment' which means they really distrust and therefore won't believe virtually any main stream view that they see as coming from said establishment (whoever and whatever that may entail). 

Social media then feeds it, and proliferates these views which have no actual evidence to back them up, but to someone who won't trust the science, it's all the evidence they need. I don't know how, as a society, we solve the problem, but I do think we're going to need to. 

[richie3846]

1 minute ago, Paul said:

I'm sure there's an element of that, without doubt. But, I also think there is a set of people who feel let down by, or have an issue with the 'establishment' which means they really distrust and therefore won't believe virtually any main stream view that they see as coming from said establishment (whoever and whatever that may entail). 

Social media then feeds it, and proliferates these views which have no actual evidence to back them up, but to someone who won't trust the science, it's all the evidence they need. I don't know how, as a society, we solve the problem, but I do think we're going to need to. 

I suspect that policy that results from the science, is also part of the problem. We're early days in learning how to become more at one, with mother earth, and the fast moving changes run the risk of causing more problems down the line. There are already concerns over materials for electric cars, air heat pumps don't work when it's cold, and wind turbines can affect birds. I've just touched on a few points there, I'm sure there are many more. Some of the world leaders are talking about this work needed like it's some sort of crusade, and I fear there could be a lack of balance developing in the response to the new scientific data. Human suffering could be the end result if we are not careful, all in the name of climate change.

[alexisj9]

16 hours ago, Methuselah said:

But Matty's post referred to rivers, not lakes ... Not that Thames Water cares where it dumps its sheet!  

Aye, but it does prove that fish did due from lack of oxygen in warm water at that point.

[alexisj9]

13 hours ago, MP-R said:

Surprise surprise, non mainstream media if we’re working at that level…

Or there is a wealth of information out there not bought and paid for in journals/journal articles, books, podcasts, interviews… the list goes on.

Gotta look beyond the state approved thinky thinky drip drip.

You mean stuff that doesn't pass review, but gets spread around all over the place anyway. 

[Stuart Norman]

Well I can't afford the alternative it's simple as that.

I can't afford an electric van and I cant afford a electric car. I can't afford a heat pump, I just invested in the best boiler I could for my modest house.

I have looked at solar panels which I could afford but I can't cos I need a new van soon.

Personally I also haven't been on a plane for 10 years, I haven't been away in the UK for 4 years, I don't eat meat, i grow my own vegetables and I recycle all my bottles and cardboard.

I bike to town whenever I can out of work so I can't really do anything else to help.

I cannot earn anymore than I do now to pay for it I already work 5-6 days a week.

I'm also a firm believer recently that possibly paying councils , governments and mayor's a load of extra tax in the future won't help except make their pockets much fatter.

 

 

 

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, richie3846 said:

This is the problem we are facing. Cherry picking data isn't solid robust science, and saying there is no question whatsoever, implies the point I was making in the first place. People have turned this into some sort of crusade, and are shutting off avenues of debate and reason. Science must always be open to further research and opposing ideas. Yes, there is ongoing debates that need to continue indefinitely. Once upon a time I was told for absolute definite, that I shouldn't allow peanuts anywhere near my kids, and mum should give them up when pregnant. Now I have a child with a severe nut allergy, and now am told the science wasn't correct in the first place. The increase in child allergies because of this flawed scientific advice given to parents, 10 to 20 years ago, is now ruining lives and occasionally causing deaths. This is what happens when we blindly accept science as solid face without further questioning. 

Might be why mine are alright then, I didn't modify my diet but I didn't drink. I still have a son with diagnosed autism though, and yes he did have his jabs, and no that didn't cause it. Think it runs in the family through his dad.

Edited July 5, 2023 by alexisj9

[alexisj9]

1 hour ago, Gray-Wolf said:

BFTV began as a climate sceptic!

He is now a PHD looking into coastal erosion around the Arctic Basin!!!

Just shows You what 'exposure to healthy debate' can drive in a soul eh?

Many posters became 'restricted' in their posting b/c of poor behaviours esp. once it was clear that the debate was over & the 'Human' inputs to Climate change became irrefutable.

Recent 'Record Global Temps (likely to be broken again over the coming weeks due to the N.Hemisphere not at its peak temps yet & with an El Nino growing in the equatorial Pacific?) surely highlight our peril?

Maybe it's so quiet b/c 'climate chaos' is now HERE & not a thing to be warned of?

What I don't get, is people don't see yesterday's almost if not record breaking cold temps as part of the issue, they think it proves against climate change, because they only think warming is what climate change is about. It's the full chaos of unusual weather happening literally everywhere right now. Out cold day, has actually turn into a full on rapid cyclogenesis storm now, with a possible sting jet, in July.

[richie3846]

28 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

What I don't get, is people don't see yesterday's almost if not record breaking cold temps as part of the issue, they think it proves against climate change, because they only think warming is what climate change is about. It's the full chaos of unusual weather happening literally everywhere right now. Out cold day, has actually turn into a full on rapid cyclogenesis storm now, with a possible sting jet, in July.

But record breaking only in the context of a few hundred years of data at most. When I've read into the subject about the climate many thousands and millions of years ago, evidence suggests the earth experienced much warmer and much colder conditions than of the last 300 years. What we don't understand at all, is how the longer term changes may or may not be affected by our contribution. 

When people talk about hard science, they are also ignoring the reality of the unknown unknowns. There is some solid science out there regarding some aspects of climate change, but in context to millions of years timescales, we know very little. 

[reef]

40 minutes ago, richie3846 said:

But record breaking only in the context of a few hundred years of data at most. When I've read into the subject about the climate many thousands and millions of years ago, evidence suggests the earth experienced much warmer and much colder conditions than of the last 300 years. What we don't understand at all, is how the longer term changes may or may not be affected by our contribution. 

When people talk about hard science, they are also ignoring the reality of the unknown unknowns. There is some solid science out there regarding some aspects of climate change, but in context to millions of years timescales, we know very little. 

That's the point though. The climate has been vastly warmer and cooler before, but human civilisation wasn't around then. The Earth was many degrees warmer than now in the past, but then sea levels were tens of metres higher as a result. The Earth and life as a whole would be fine with that, but it would be devastating for us. The majority of our settlements are at sea level, so even a 5 metre rise would be a big problem. There's also the issue that although in the past the climate has changed, the rate of change that is now occurring is rapid.

It is true, we don't yet know how we are affecting long-term natural cycles, but these pale into insignificance compared to what we are doing anyway. The hard science is most important as you cannot get away from it. Regardless of what's going on in the background, Carbon dioxide does reflect heat back to the Earth, we have increased the amount of it in the atmosphere by 50% since pre-industrial times and as a result the temperature is increasing rapidly on a decadal timescale. Solar cycles, Milanchovic cycles and anything else what frequently get mentioned are dwarfed by it.

Edited July 5, 2023 by reef

[richie3846]

16 minutes ago, reef said:

That's the point though. The climate has been vastly warmer and cooler before, but human civilisation wasn't around then. The Earth was many degrees warmer than now in the past, but then sea levels were tens of metres higher as a result. The Earth and life as a whole would be fine with that, but it would be devastating for us. The majority of our settlements are at sea level, so even a 5 metre rise would be a big problem. There's also the issue that although in the past the climate has changed, the rate of change that is now occurring is the issue.

It is true, we don't yet know how we are affecting long-term natural cycles, but these pale into insignificance compared to what we are doing anyway. The hard science is most important as you cannot get away from it. Regardless of what's going on in the background, Carbon dioxide does reflect heat back to the Earth, we have increased the amount of it in the atmosphere by 50% since pre-industrial times and as a result the temperature is increasing rapidly on a decadal timescale. Solar cycles, Milanchovic cycles and anything else what frequently get mentioned are dwarfed by it.

All of our technological advances have contributed to our vulnerability with regards climate change. As you said, sea level changes wouldn't affect the living planet particularly, but as humans, we've built thousands of years of fragility into our lives, until we reach the point where our species wouldn't survive without all the complex technologies that are damaging and draining resources. Now we've reached a point where a 5m sea level rise could cause massive problems for billions of people. 

I've noticed that a lot of the policy ideas about climate change seek mainly to maintain our current lifestyles, and chase around that as the central theme. I haven't heard anyone suggesting that the individual car ownership may be unsustainable, electricity that is only on for part of the day, less import and export etc etc. None of these are suggested because it's inconvenient. Also allowing the population to fall to much less than a billion would be a fast answer if only it was easy. Instead policy makers are desperately trying to figure out ways to remain at high levels of prosperity and comfort, and still do the climate change thing justice. It all seems impossible to me. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by richie3846

[ANYWEATHER]

34 minutes ago, richie3846 said:

But record breaking only in the context of a few hundred years of data at most. When I've read into the subject about the climate many thousands and millions of years ago, evidence suggests the earth experienced much warmer and much colder conditions than of the last 300 years. What we don't understand at all, is how the longer term changes may or may not be affected by our contribution. 

When people talk about hard science, they are also ignoring the reality of the unknown unknowns. There is some solid science out there regarding some aspects of climate change, but in context to millions of years timescales, we know very little. 

We will all be dead before we know what’s going on….