Climate Change


#281

Do you see catastrophic climate change happening then?


#282

No, but incremental climate change yes, probably with sufficient time for some adaptation (though I’m sure water shortages and refugee issues will continue and worsen, boiling oceans, no). There’s also a lot of unknown about feedback effects and how these will play out (for example, there’s significant and generally acknowledged ‘greening’ going on with increases in CO2, and these are positive from the point of view of absorption of greenhouse gases - see this Nasa view: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth). It is very difficult to be sure, hence the precautionary principle should apply.

In terms of @no-class’s comment above on skepticism, many people just don’t bother posting in threads like these if they even intimate anything outside the mainstream view (or even question it) because they fear being widely ostracized. The result is the bias of views (in a thread like these) is overwhelmingly doomladen. If that makes people feel very depressed, that’s a serious thing (hence me sticking my head above the parapet to be shot off).

In terms of background, I’m a physical geographer working in the environment, largely on renewables projects and frequently on habitat restoration projects, but still think it’s wise to try and grapple with all sides of the arguments. I used to be an academic and it was absolutely the case (even 20 years ago) that the easiest way to get funding for future work was to add a ‘things will be worse under climate change, so can we have some money to see how much worse they will be’. I left academia and decided to be something more practical instead (applying knowledge). Definitely keep appraised of what’s going on, but don’t let it get you down. Do what you can, and stay well.


#283

we don’t seem to have adapted even to just the stuff that’s happening right now though.


#284

Well, hopefully, sooner or later, at least our government might stop allowing people to build on floodplains (etc). But money talks and all that. If it really is as serious as suggested, we’ll have no choice but to adapt.

Here’s an interesting article on adaptation, for example - helpful in the sense that some of the ‘alarmist’ elements are not coming to pass, but still urging caution:


#285

#286

Saw what that idiot from the government had to say on the news earlier. Bit weird, but I probably shouldn’t be surprised.

I mean that ‘nanny state’ argument could make sense if this was something suggesting people stop/reduce their meat use for personal health reasons, but it’s about not turning the planet into a burnt out dust ball.

I did hope that this sentence:

"But if you and I eat less meat, with all the flatulent sheep in Switzerland and flatulent cows in the Netherlands…

Was going to go down the route of ‘but if we stop eating them, what are we going to do with all those animals’, but sadly not.


#287

turning the planet into a burnt out dust ball > government intervention


#288

When people say technology is gonna save us, what are they actually on about? Just renewables getting more efficient or some kind of secret wacky rescue plan?


#289

Yeah, saw this earlier - absolutely maddening…


#290

This idiot government being the same idiot government that screwed up renewables subsidies for a few years and would rather support fracking than put money into making wave and tidal viable.


#291

As I say, probably shouldn’t be surprised.


#292

All right, Jay Z


#293


#294

‘During Sunday’s interview, Mr Trump cast doubt on making any changes, saying the scientists “have a very big political agenda”.

“I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference,” he told journalist Lesley Stahl.

“But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this. I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.”

Mr Trump added that temperatures “could very well go back” - although he did not say how.’

Six of our 12 years left to fix this have him at the helm of the biggest contributor, people. Start getting your scavenger crews ready people! :rage:


#295

I genuinely think our leaders will get more doolally as the crisis worsens. We ain’t seen shit yet. Hope I’m wrong but I see leaders openly saying let’s enjoy the last of it and burn as many fossil fuels as possible – while other countries try to do something but efforts are nullified – religious fanatics taking the helm and proclaiming that doomsday is upon us and that repenting for our sins (but continuing to consume) will save us etc.

Our best chance is now, while there’s still some semblance of unilateral government. As things go to shit it’s just going to be harder to organise any kind of collective effort. Hoping that things will be better after Trump is a dangerous game


#296

six? bit pessimistic


#297

Or optimistic, depending on how you look at it


#298

nah i do think (hope) he’ll be gone at the next opportunity, he’s pissed off a lot of people who voted for him. but yeah i also think things are completely hopeless as long as he’s in the WH…all the wooden toothbrushes in the world aren’t going to make a difference.


#299

Word.


#300

Stick enough wooden toothbrushes up his trumpet and that would probably have some impact. Don’t brush good advice like this aside.