Should The BBC Do This?

[MP-R]

1 hour ago, alexisj9 said:

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

No. As I said in my post…

[Paul]

16 minutes ago, ANYWEATHER said:

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

In the context of millions of years, perhaps. But in the context of our lifetimes, children's lifetimes etc, there is plenty enough evidence that co2 in the atmosphere is driving a warming of the climate, with all the possible, potentially quite nasty outcomes within those same, shorter timescales that come with it. 

What's the answer, to pretend what we do know isn't relevant, because 1 million years ago the climate was vastly different and maybe vastly different in a million years time too? Sounds a bit head in the sand to me. 

[Paul]

9 minutes ago, MP-R said:

No. As I said in my post…

If you think you know something no-one else does and have some actual, scientific evidence to present, then please do so.

[MP-R]

15 minutes ago, Paul said:

If you think you know something no-one else does and have some actual, scientific evidence to present, then please do so.

This is hardly complex stuff Paul. I’m merely suggesting that one doesn’t delegate the ability to think for oneself to the mainstream media… (or any source of info for that matter) surely that’s just common sense. I’m far from the only person who knows that!

[Bristawl Si]

I think the debate (generally, not this thread in particular) has quickly become a typical 21st century polarised argument, where both 'sides' are spouting entrenched views.

There are so many different 'parts' to the climate change 'debate'.

Everytime i watch a guest on some tv progs get very quickly emotional about climate change and then goes on a rant, and claiming we're all going to die or there's no future i basically switch off. 

Everytime a weather event is blamed on climate change i usually give out a yawn.

The narrative is becoming increasingly melodramatic, and it means i shut down.

There are so many counter arguments floating around that i cant make head or tail of the truth.

Electric cars - too expensive, the infrastructure isnt there, used electric cars will become increasingly difficult to insure as batteries dont have a particularly long shelf life and replacement is v expensive. As interest rates have risen the leasing option has quickly become v expensive. Then there's the ethical element. Cheap labour mining the lithium. Their actual production costs are high and actually not particularly 'Green'.

And you cant just switch off economies from using oil. It'll take decades. How can households just switch to heat pumps that dont work properly in colder weather? Millions of dwellings cant even accomodate heat pump 'hardware' - think terraced houses with no front gardens.

Peeps focusing on cars and pollution. Anyone have ideas in this global economy how you restrict shipping? Biggest polluter of all transport by an absolute street.

1 week's worth of English Channel shipping (pollution) is equiv to a whole year's worth of the total road transport useage in the UK. Yep. That's a stat to think "Jeez!".

So much more can be written on this topic and the way it can affect us or how we adapt. The solution will take decades, literally.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Bristle Si

[Bristawl Si]

1 minute ago, MP-R said:

This is hardly complex stuff Paul. I’m merely suggesting that one doesn’t delegate the ability to think for oneself to the mainstream media… (or any source of info for that matter) surely that’s just common sense. I’m far from the only person who knows that!

It's a very valid point, MP-R.

Narratives for all sorts of issues are being thrown at our population, with detail being omitted.

I could list many such topics/issues where Joe and Joanne Public are NOT getting the full story, esp in last 5 years. In fact, the MSM have become just as 'bad' as SM for pushing entrenched/biased narratives to the UK public.

And if one disagrees one is isolated or in danger of being absolutely slammed.

[Paul]

11 minutes ago, MP-R said:

This is hardly complex stuff Paul. I’m merely suggesting that one doesn’t delegate the ability to think for oneself to the mainstream media… (or any source of info for that matter) surely that’s just common sense. I’m far from the only person who knows that!

I think the vast majority of people are capable of figuring that there's plenty of spin and agenda driven stuff out there in virtually all corners of the media. Doesn't mean all news and views presented within MSM is that way though.

[MP-R]

10 minutes ago, Bristle Si said:

It's a very valid point, MP-R.

Narratives for all sorts of issues are being thrown at our population, with detail being omitted.

I could list many such topics/issues where Joe and Joanne Public are NOT getting the full story, esp in last 5 years. In fact, the MSM have become just as 'bad' as SM for pushing entrenched/biased narratives to the UK public.

And if one disagrees one is isolated or in danger of being absolutely slammed.

Exactly that.

5 minutes ago, Paul said:

I think the vast majority of people are capable of figuring that there's plenty of spin and agenda driven stuff out there in virtually all corners of the media. Doesn't mean all news and views presented within MSM is that way though.

I beg to differ…

[alexisj9]

14 minutes ago, MP-R said:

This is hardly complex stuff Paul. I’m merely suggesting that one doesn’t delegate the ability to think for oneself to the mainstream media… (or any source of info for that matter) surely that’s just common sense. I’m far from the only person who knows that!

So when thinking for yourself, through observing stuff happening around the world this year, makes you think climate change is real, does that make you wrong, because it agrees with the narrative?

As that is what I'm basing my posts on 

[alexisj9]

20 minutes ago, Bristle Si said:

I think the debate (generally, not this thread in particular) has quickly become a typical 21st century polarised argument, where both 'sides' are spouting entrenched views.

There are so many different 'parts' to the climate change 'debate'.

Everytime i watch a guest on some tv progs get very quickly emotional about climate change and then goes on a rant, and claiming we're all going to die or there's no future i basically switch off. 

Everytime a weather event is blamed on climate change i usually give out a yawn.

The narrative is becoming increasingly melodramatic, and it means i shut down.

There are so many counter arguments floating around that i cant make head or tail of the truth.

Electric cars - too expensive, the infrastructure isnt there, used electric cars will become increasingly difficult to insure as batteries dont have a particularly long shelf life and replacement is v expensive. As interest rates have risen the leasing option has quickly become v expensive. Then there's the ethical element. Cheap labour mining the lithium. Their actual production costs are high and actually not particularly 'Green'.

And you cant just switch off economies from using oil. It'll take decades. How can households just switch to heat pumps that dont work properly in colder weather? Millions of dwellings cant even accomodate heat pump 'hardware - think terraced houses with no front gardens.

Peeps focusing on cars and pollution. Anyone have ideas in this global economy how you restrict shipping? Biggest polluter of all transport by an absolute street.

1 week's worth of English Channel shipping (pollution) is equiv to a whole year's worth of the total road transport useage in the UK. Yep. That's a stat to think "Jeez!".

So much more can be written on this topic and the way it can affect us or how we adapt. The solution will take decades, literally.

I agree we are not handling things in the right way, but tbh, without taking a big step into the past, I don't think we can, and many won't be wiling to. So although I'm on the climate change is here, and very visible now page, I don't think we can counter it effectively.

[Methuselah]

21 minutes ago, MP-R said:

This is hardly complex stuff Paul. I’m merely suggesting that one doesn’t delegate the ability to think for oneself to the mainstream media… (or any source of info for that matter) surely that’s just common sense. I’m far from the only person who knows that!

Well then, why not educate us lesser mortals? Do you really believe that palaeoclimatology is not complex? 

[Paul]

11 minutes ago, MP-R said:

I beg to differ…

I assumed that may be the case. I don't know if this is the case with you, but so often you hear this sort of thing from people who distrust everything in what they they call msm. Generally, what they've done is found themselves a publication/website/youtuber etc that happens to confirm their views on the subject at hand (whether it be politics, climate or whatever else), and that uncannily becomes their 'trusted' source.

[Mixer 85]

I find it interesting the idea that skeptics are being regarded as distrusting, anti establishment, anti science  who only consume material supporting their preferred view. 
To me that seems as though there’s preconceptions towards skeptics that will hinder any debate.

 

Also we must question what is the debate about? To my knowledge there is no debate about the effects of co2 or climate change. That is settled science. The debate is more about the future climate, the extent of co2 forcing, to which the science is very unsettled and all theoretical. Some scientists believe increasing co2 is a net benefit where as others believe we’re headed towards disaster. Either way, all theoretical and debatable.

 

All projections for the future are no more than just predictions. Some of which are comparable to Nostradamus making his way into a super computer.The peer review process doesn’t make a prediction or projection infallible either. This is not a subject that’s as simple as black and white, it’s a broad and nuanced field with in fathomable complexity. 

 

 

[Paul]

3 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

I find it interesting the idea that skeptics are being regarded as distrusting, anti establishment, anti science  who only consume material supporting their preferred view. 
To me that seems as though there’s preconceptions towards skeptics that will hinder any debate.

You're entirely misrepresenting what's been said there. No one is saying all 'sceptics' are any of those things, but clearly there are elements of our society who are.

[ANYWEATHER]

I think the problem is , we have had misinformation for decades now and predictions have not come to truth , and the goal posts keep being further and further away . In the end it results in utter confusion for the average Jo Bloggs ………

[alexisj9]

5 minutes ago, ANYWEATHER said:

I think the problem is , we have had misinformation for decades now and predictions have not come to truth , and the goal posts keep being further and further away . In the end it results in utter confusion for the average Jo Bloggs ………

You mean the goal post that we have actually passed last year. I don't mean the 40⁰, but the whole global rise has reached the goal post already. Now we are on the next one, might be why it's moved, and probably forward as we reached things earlier than expected.

[ANYWEATHER]

13 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

You mean the goal post that we have actually passed last year. I don't mean the 40⁰, but the whole global rise has reached the goal post already. Now we are on the next one, might be why it's moved, and probably forward as we reached things earlier than expected.

No I don’t mean that, but I’m too tired to explain myself

[Gowon]

You can come and pollute the area if you give us money - the ULEZ is a joke, it's all about money.

 

 

[Gray-Wolf]

On 05/07/2023 at 11:46, 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.

I changed to using 'Climate Chaos' a while back Alex?....covers all corners eh?

As the pendulum swings get ever more severe we can expect to see both extreme heat (as our GHG forcing helps enable?) but also the 'dumping' of cold ever more swiftly into lower latitudes.

In My past ar masses generally to a 45-degree rack from their point of origin. Now it is a direct N/S (or S/N?) exchange?) so we see 'Snow' in Med. countries & 90-degree temps in the Arctic....."Climate Chaos"!

Poor Mother N. trying to keep things 'balanced' & within the old parameters.....

She's gonna step up to the next 'Stable setting (for 'Her') any time soon....maybe then Folk will 'get it'.....

"We're doomed Capt. Manering....doomed....."

Edited July 6, 2023 by Gray-Wolf

[Sky Full]

Having read this thread from the beginning it’s clear that the majority of us are now agreed that the global climate is changing to a more chaotic and unpredictable state more rapidly than would occur naturally without the presence of human activity, transport and industry.  The speed and real consequences of these changes are more difficult to assess and presently could be described as ‘unknowns’ and so, as humans with a finite life expectancy, we tend to only consider how it might affect us personally.  Humans are basically selfish, driven by personal self-preservation, and because many of the predicted life-affecting changes are not likely to occur within the lifetime of any living human, humanity as a whole is not yet really taking concerted global action to preserve a climate which is comfortable for human existence in the centuries ahead.  

Whilst the UK and a few other countries are, at great cost, making an effort to cut out hydrocarbons from their energy production and transport industries in the relatively near future, other countries with huge populations are not.  A large chunk of the worlds population in places such as China, India, Brazil and even the USA continue to burn increasing amounts of coal, cut down forests as fast as they can and grow unsustainable cash crops with no regard whatsoever for the future of the global climate.  So the question forming in my selfish, self-preserving human mind is:  

Why are we in the UK so concerned with achieving net zero and creating an energy crisis for ourselves, pretty much destroying what’s left of our manufacturing and economic prowess, while China et al are doing the exact opposite?

Is there any virtue in impoverishing our own country if there is little or no measurable effect on the global climate, because all our efforts to mitigate it are cancelled out by other countries burning an even bigger share of the worlds hydrocarbons than we are saving?  If future generations of UK citizens are going to suffer the effects of climate change anyway, due to the activities of others over which we have no control, then shouldn’t we at least leave them with a country which is self sufficient in energy, and still able to compete in the worlds economy?  Otherwise are we not doing our future generations a great disservice?  

[cheeky_monkey]

4 hours ago, Sky Full said:

Having read this thread from the beginning it’s clear that the majority of us are now agreed that the global climate is changing to a more chaotic and unpredictable state more rapidly than would occur naturally without the presence of human activity, transport and industry.  The speed and real consequences of these changes are more difficult to assess and presently could be described as ‘unknowns’ and so, as humans with a finite life expectancy, we tend to only consider how it might affect us personally.  Humans are basically selfish, driven by personal self-preservation, and because many of the predicted life-affecting changes are not likely to occur within the lifetime of any living human, humanity as a whole is not yet really taking concerted global action to preserve a climate which is comfortable for human existence in the centuries ahead.  

Whilst the UK and a few other countries are, at great cost, making an effort to cut out hydrocarbons from their energy production and transport industries in the relatively near future, other countries with huge populations are not.  A large chunk of the worlds population in places such as China, India, Brazil and even the USA continue to burn increasing amounts of coal, cut down forests as fast as they can and grow unsustainable cash crops with no regard whatsoever for the future of the global climate.  So the question forming in my selfish, self-preserving human mind is:  

Why are we in the UK so concerned with achieving net zero and creating an energy crisis for ourselves, pretty much destroying what’s left of our manufacturing and economic prowess, while China et al are doing the exact opposite?

Is there any virtue in impoverishing our own country if there is little or no measurable effect on the global climate, because all our efforts to mitigate it are cancelled out by other countries burning an even bigger share of the worlds hydrocarbons than we are saving?  If future generations of UK citizens are going to suffer the effects of climate change anyway, due to the activities of others over which we have no control, then shouldn’t we at least leave them with a country which is self sufficient in energy, and still able to compete in the worlds economy?  Otherwise are we not doing our future generations a great disservice?  

funny that we dont see just stop oil and the like stopping sporting events and blocking traffic in China etc i wonder why 

[Sky Full]

On 07/07/2023 at 14:18, cheeky_monkey said:

funny that we dont see just stop oil and the like stopping sporting events and blocking traffic in China etc i wonder why 

When the mountain glaciers have retreated far enough to restrict Chinas fresh water rivers and their cities start to experience water shortages, then we might see China take climate change seriously.  Industrial pollution doesn’t seem to bother them, though.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Sky Full

[cheeky_monkey]

what happens if and when we get to net zero in the next few years? there is nothing else for countries like the UK to do..the planet will still continue to warm and we will all be a lot poorer financially .. i mean electric cars are not going to save the planet..wind farms and solar are not going to save the planet...hefty carbon taxes on individuals is not going to save the planet..we will have nothing and be happy 

[ANYWEATHER]

On 07/07/2023 at 09:58, Sky Full said:

Having read this thread from the beginning it’s clear that the majority of us are now agreed that the global climate is changing to a more chaotic and unpredictable state more rapidly than would occur naturally without the presence of human activity, transport and industry.  The speed and real consequences of these changes are more difficult to assess and presently could be described as ‘unknowns’ and so, as humans with a finite life expectancy, we tend to only consider how it might affect us personally.  Humans are basically selfish, driven by personal self-preservation, and because many of the predicted life-affecting changes are not likely to occur within the lifetime of any living human, humanity as a whole is not yet really taking concerted global action to preserve a climate which is comfortable for human existence in the centuries ahead.  

Whilst the UK and a few other countries are, at great cost, making an effort to cut out hydrocarbons from their energy production and transport industries in the relatively near future, other countries with huge populations are not.  A large chunk of the worlds population in places such as China, India, Brazil and even the USA continue to burn increasing amounts of coal, cut down forests as fast as they can and grow unsustainable cash crops with no regard whatsoever for the future of the global climate.  So the question forming in my selfish, self-preserving human mind is:  

Why are we in the UK so concerned with achieving net zero and creating an energy crisis for ourselves, pretty much destroying what’s left of our manufacturing and economic prowess, while China et al are doing the exact opposite?

Is there any virtue in impoverishing our own country if there is little or no measurable effect on the global climate, because all our efforts to mitigate it are cancelled out by other countries burning an even bigger share of the worlds hydrocarbons than we are saving?  If future generations of UK citizens are going to suffer the effects of climate change anyway, due to the activities of others over which we have no control, then shouldn’t we at least leave them with a country which is self sufficient in energy, and still able to compete in the worlds economy?  Otherwise are we not doing our future generations a great disservice?  

Interesting article about false alarm of melting glaciers in the Himalayas by the Cato Institute.

[richie3846]

On 07/07/2023 at 09:58, Sky Full said:

Having read this thread from the beginning it’s clear that the majority of us are now agreed that the global climate is changing to a more chaotic and unpredictable state more rapidly than would occur naturally without the presence of human activity, transport and industry.  The speed and real consequences of these changes are more difficult to assess and presently could be described as ‘unknowns’ and so, as humans with a finite life expectancy, we tend to only consider how it might affect us personally.  Humans are basically selfish, driven by personal self-preservation, and because many of the predicted life-affecting changes are not likely to occur within the lifetime of any living human, humanity as a whole is not yet really taking concerted global action to preserve a climate which is comfortable for human existence in the centuries ahead.  

Whilst the UK and a few other countries are, at great cost, making an effort to cut out hydrocarbons from their energy production and transport industries in the relatively near future, other countries with huge populations are not.  A large chunk of the worlds population in places such as China, India, Brazil and even the USA continue to burn increasing amounts of coal, cut down forests as fast as they can and grow unsustainable cash crops with no regard whatsoever for the future of the global climate.  So the question forming in my selfish, self-preserving human mind is:  

Why are we in the UK so concerned with achieving net zero and creating an energy crisis for ourselves, pretty much destroying what’s left of our manufacturing and economic prowess, while China et al are doing the exact opposite?

Is there any virtue in impoverishing our own country if there is little or no measurable effect on the global climate, because all our efforts to mitigate it are cancelled out by other countries burning an even bigger share of the worlds hydrocarbons than we are saving?  If future generations of UK citizens are going to suffer the effects of climate change anyway, due to the activities of others over which we have no control, then shouldn’t we at least leave them with a country which is self sufficient in energy, and still able to compete in the worlds economy?  Otherwise are we not doing our future generations a great disservice?  

Well said. I suspect if change, real change were to happen, it would be driven by necessity and survival, not these fanciful climate change goals. Humans think we are somehow different from the rest of the animal kingdom, but the only difference is our brain capacity. When it comes down to it, every species fights for survival, adapts, dies or thrives - humans aren't any different. Our brains adapted as a means of survival in an uncertain world, many thousands of years ago, and our species survived hardship. The hardship is the true driver of change. I believe real hardship will arrive sooner or later, then that will force new innovation, borne of the primal instincts of survival. We are trying to deal with climate change with our heads, and not our visceral instincts. Heads are good at ruminating, but the real powerhouse in each of us lays deep in our viscera and in our powerful, often suppressed natural instincts. Often, our heads, our worries, our concern for the future generations, is what prevents us from actually taking real action, because these sorts of thinking patterns are power hungry, and take away from the driving instincts that we share with animals. This is why I believe these driving instincts will need to be powered up, through survival and necessity, in order to preserve the human race for a long time to come.