Climate Change

[Pat494]

We could use volcanoes and cause a year long winter which would drop temperatures significantly.

 

[cantagril]

pun indented

....or even intended....either way

 

[trendie]

Idk, for example, global warming contributes to the rise of water temperatures in seas and oceans and it is becoming harder and harder for corals to survive. Some estimate that in 50 years coral reefs will seize to exist. Needless to say that they play a vital role in ecosystems of our oceans and our oceans are one of the global sources of food for us, humans as well.

If indeed humans impact the rate of global warming and how fast the climate changes we are just digging our own grave and I don't see anything natural about this situation.

This subject is endlessly fascinating!
It has been speculated that a slight increase in water temperature, and the oceans start releasing the CO2 dissolved in it; and that that is the cause of the CO2 spike, in addition to man-made events.

Equally, higher CO2 would mean more greenery as plants and flora flourish more. Someone, somewhere, must surely done some work on how greener the world would become, if we didnt keep hacking it down.

Even if temps rise, it will change areas that are habitable. I guess Canada, home of perm-frost, as is Siberia, would melt, and give rise to verdant regions of new habitation, while areas such as California and Texas would see a spike in heat-deaths, and become wastelands. The frame-work of peoples thinking is that their "bit of land" is somehow special. Mass migrations of first-world regions might be needed northwards. (Immigration: Oh the irony; the irony!)

With regards to population, there is a problem. The assumption is being made that all people are equal. They are not. The first world produces more pollution per capita than developing countries. If we want to reduce head-count, killing off first-worlders would benefit the world more, as thats less cars, houses, commuting, medicine, electricity, water, food that would be needed. (We get our food flown in from across the world (using fuel and resources) whilst poor people in destitute villages scrape a living locally off the land.) Think about that the next time you're smashing mexican avacados on some artisan bread, using some himalayan pink salt.

Personally, I think we are screwed, because the solution is to relocate northwards or southwards, BUT we have boxed ourselves into our arbitrary national boundaries. We may be discovering that instead of using borders to lock people out, we find we have locked ourselves in.
Curiously, Greenland, mentioned recently by Herr Trump, might one day become a warmer, more verdant region.

 

[Signalcalc]

This subject is endlessly fascinating!
It has been speculated that a slight increase in water temperature, and the oceans start releasing the CO2 dissolved in it; and that that is the cause of the CO2 spike, in addition to man-made events.

Equally, higher CO2 would mean more greenery as plants and flora flourish more. Someone, somewhere, must surely done some work on how greener the world would become, if we didnt keep hacking it down.

Even if temps rise, it will change areas that are habitable. I guess Canada, home of perm-frost, as is Siberia, would melt, and give rise to verdant regions of new habitation, while areas such as California and Texas would see a spike in heat-deaths, and become wastelands. The frame-work of peoples thinking is that their "bit of land" is somehow special. Mass migrations of first-world regions might be needed northwards. (Immigration: Oh the irony; the irony!)

With regards to population, there is a problem. The assumption is being made that all people are equal. They are not. The first world produces more pollution per capita than developing countries. If we want to reduce head-count, killing off first-worlders would benefit the world more, as thats less cars, houses, commuting, medicine, electricity, water, food that would be needed. (We get our food flown in from across the world (using fuel and resources) whilst poor people in destitute villages scrape a living locally off the land.) Think about that the next time you're smashing mexican avacados on some artisan bread, using some himalayan pink salt.

Personally, I think we are screwed, because the solution is to relocate northwards or southwards, BUT we have boxed ourselves into our arbitrary national boundaries. We may be discovering that instead of using borders to lock people out, we find we have locked ourselves in.
Curiously, Greenland, mentioned recently by Herr Trump, might one day become a warmer, more verdant region.

I like the spin, to think that the changing demographics of North America could be as a result of climate change and not just as a result of petty politics. Americans migrating North [emoji106]

 

[Signalcalc]

It was a good article until towards the end when all the suggestions became null and void because of conflicts of interests.

How politicians think that the general public should be listening when there are vested interests lobbying is beyond me [emoji33]

BBC News - Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs

Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs

MPs say people will have to stop driving if the UK is to meet its Zero Carbon goals by 2050.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Exscudo]

This subject is endlessly fascinating!
It has been speculated that a slight increase in water temperature, and the oceans start releasing the CO2 dissolved in it; and that that is the cause of the CO2 spike, in addition to man-made events.

Equally, higher CO2 would mean more greenery as plants and flora flourish more. Someone, somewhere, must surely done some work on how greener the world would become, if we didnt keep hacking it down.

Even if temps rise, it will change areas that are habitable. I guess Canada, home of perm-frost, as is Siberia, would melt, and give rise to verdant regions of new habitation, while areas such as California and Texas would see a spike in heat-deaths, and become wastelands. The frame-work of peoples thinking is that their "bit of land" is somehow special. Mass migrations of first-world regions might be needed northwards. (Immigration: Oh the irony; the irony!)

With regards to population, there is a problem. The assumption is being made that all people are equal. They are not. The first world produces more pollution per capita than developing countries. If we want to reduce head-count, killing off first-worlders would benefit the world more, as thats less cars, houses, commuting, medicine, electricity, water, food that would be needed. (We get our food flown in from across the world (using fuel and resources) whilst poor people in destitute villages scrape a living locally off the land.) Think about that the next time you're smashing mexican avacados on some artisan bread, using some himalayan pink salt.

Personally, I think we are screwed, because the solution is to relocate northwards or southwards, BUT we have boxed ourselves into our arbitrary national boundaries. We may be discovering that instead of using borders to lock people out, we find we have locked ourselves in.
Curiously, Greenland, mentioned recently by Herr Trump, might one day become a warmer, more verdant region.

Yeah, this is an interesting take on the future. Just as much pessimistic as it is realistic.
Though, what makes me even sadder is the incredible wildlife that will seize to exist because of our impact on the planet.

You say that more developed countries make a much bigger negative impact – totally agree with that, but... We know that in developing countries people are reproducing at much higher rates and there is evince of people exploiting the land to the point that it can not sustain them anymore. Think Madagascar or even better, Easter island. So, maybe it is questionable what nation will actually contribute to our grim future more...

 

[Exscudo]

It was a good article until towards the end when all the suggestions became null and void because of conflicts of interests.

How politicians think that the general public should be listening when there are vested interests lobbying is beyond me [emoji33]

BBC News - Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs

Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs

MPs say people will have to stop driving if the UK is to meet its Zero Carbon goals by 2050.

www.bbc.co.uk

At least, don't they like bicycles over there?

 

[Signalcalc]

At least, don't they like bicycles over there?

I bought my first electric bike in 2009, way before the revolution started, now everybody is buying one.

I can see a future where you are taxed for local car journeys of less than 10 miles, forcing people to walk and cycle more.

For that to happen there needs to be a radical investment in walking and cycling infrastructure and a constriction of roadways to force traffic to slow to a crawl through towns and villages thereby forcing people to look for alternatives.

Big business should be forced to invest way more billions into the whole climate change agenda, the public is already being forced down this route.

Governments could easily legislate for these things if they were really serious, alas they are not serious as they see vote losing policies and high profile lobbying such as the BBC article.

This is why none of this can be taken seriously unless serious action is taken out of the hands of anti-capitalist eco warriors who just seek to disrupt and destroy and put into the hands of those with policies that have more than a single use benefit eg cycling and walking have health benefits beyond pollution reduction.

Problem is that politicians are looking to the younger generation for ideas and unfortunately the young have no life experience with which to advise. The younger generation base arguments on emotion and left wing anti capitalism which has been indoctrinated into them by the education system.

 

[Exscudo]

I bought my first electric bike in 2009, way before the revolution started, now everybody is buying one.

I can see a future where you are taxed for local car journeys of less than 10 miles, forcing people to walk and cycle more.

For that to happen there needs to be a radical investment in walking and cycling infrastructure and a constriction of roadways to force traffic to slow to a crawl through towns and villages thereby forcing people to look for alternatives.

Big business should be forced to invest way more billions into the whole climate change agenda, the public is already being forced down this route.

Governments could easily legislate for these things if they were really serious, alas they are not serious as they see vote losing policies and high profile lobbying such as the BBC article.

This is why none of this can be taken seriously unless serious action is taken out of the hands of anti-capitalist eco warriors who just seek to disrupt and destroy and put into the hands of those with policies that have more than a single use benefit eg cycling and walking have health benefits beyond pollution reduction.

Problem is that politicians are looking to the younger generation for ideas and unfortunately the young have no life experience with which to advise. The younger generation base arguments on emotion and left wing anti capitalism which has been indoctrinated into them by the education system.

yeah, I agree.

I am going to get a bike as well, but not an electric one, an entry-level MTB. I live in Tiblisi, Georgia ( country ) and we don't really have any biking infrastructure over here. Actually, it's more of a car cult because here you are only considered a "cool man" if you own a "cool car", so everybody and their mother are buying 1990 Mercedeses. Honestly, there probably isn't another place on earth where you can find this many old Mercedes Benz cars. Which are not fuel-efficient, to say the least...

 

[timsk]

In this vid' by Lord Christopher Monckton entitled: 'The Very Last Talk on Golobal Warming You Will Ever Need to Hear', he explains the serious physics error made by climate scientists that 'proves' there is no climate change emergency. The only problem (for me) is that it's all technical gobbledegook and so, as a layman, I have no way of determining whether or not his claims are true or false. See what you think . . .

 

[Atilla]

Based on my personal experience over 50+ year life time, my witnessed conclusion is that the global climate is becoming warmer with more extreme variances.

Just a personal opinion that's all.

 

[cantagril]

Based on my personal experience over 50+ year life time, my witnessed conclusion is that the global climate is becoming warmer with more extreme variances.

Just a personal opinion that's all.

Based on my personal experience over 5+ years on T2W, my witnessed conclusion is that your opinions are becoming warmer with more extreme variances 😛

 

[Signalcalc]

Based on my personal experience over 50+ year life time, my witnessed conclusion is that the global climate is becoming warmer with more extreme variances.

Just a personal opinion that's all.

It means I won't need to up sticks and move to Spain at great expense, I love the UK and love the hot sunny days we have here now, it's almost mid-France most Summer days. I would love it more if I was retired and free to enjoy it though.

We try here and there to help the climate but it's only tinkering. There will be a major shake up at some stage, beyond taxing us and trying to make us feel guilty.

Of course we should do all we can, but if we ain't playing on a global scale involving global scale sums of money then nowt will change.

Society needs trillions spent on its well being in order to start reducing pollution, where will that investment come from if there is no return other than maybe centuries later?

Who's going to compensate the middle East when all that oil no longer needs to be pumped because the planet has gone solar and wind?

Either way there is going to be a slow death. We die because we will be poisoned or we die because of conflict.

There's a film storyline in there somewhere [emoji4]

 

[Atilla]

It means I won't need to up sticks and move to Spain at great expense, I love the UK and love the hot sunny days we have here now, it's almost mid-France most Summer days. I would love it more if I was retired and free to enjoy it though.

With sea levels rising and one third of UK marshlands will simply disappear. Some major people movement and congestion will take place.

We try here and there to help the climate but it's only tinkering. There will be a major shake up at some stage, beyond taxing us and trying to make us feel guilty.

Impact likely to be trifle more than feelings of guilt

Of course we should do all we can, but if we ain't playing on a global scale involving global scale sums of money then nowt will change.

Capitalism is bent. Externalises social costs and privatises profit. Doomed to fail and screw up resources. Can't continue.

Society needs trillions spent on its well being in order to start reducing pollution, where will that investment come from if there is no return other than maybe centuries later?

As above capitalist institutions should pay for producing goods excessively packaged. ie Yogurt pots where the plastic box container costs more than ingredients. Go figure.

Who's going to compensate the middle East when all that oil no longer needs to be pumped because the planet has gone solar and wind?

Why compensate them? Let the numpties work for their living and earn it.

Either way there is going to be a slow death. We die because we will be poisoned or we die because of conflict.

Slow death??? Depends who and where one is?

There's a film storyline in there somewhere [emoji4]

Should sort out capitalist and religious dorks with one natural catastrophe. Has some positives perhaps?

 

[counter_violent]

In this vid' by Lord Christopher Monckton entitled: 'The Very Last Talk on Golobal Warming You Will Ever Need to Hear', he explains the serious physics error made by climate scientists that 'proves' there is no climate change emergency. The only problem (for me) is that it's all technical gobbledegook and so, as a layman, I have no way of determining whether or not his claims are true or false. See what you think . . .

Good find. Needs a layman now to simplify the message so that our useful idiots understand that we are on to them. However, debunking global warming is one thing but harmful particulates created by burning fossil fuels are quite another. This also extends to vehicle emissions, which i'm convinced are responsible for a whole host of health issues, inc dementia.

 

[timsk]

. . . This also extends to vehicle emissions, which i'm convinced are responsible for a whole host of health issues, inc dementia.

My mother was of that view (as am I), and she's been dead almost 20 years. I do find it disconcerting c_v the extent to which I find myself in agreement with you on a range of topics, even if I start out disagreeing with you as I did in the case of the EU referendum. Gritty, gruff 'n tough northerners like you and southern softies like me aren't supposed to see eye to eye. It ain't right!

 

[Pat494]

My mother was of that view (as am I), and she's been dead almost 20 years. I do find it disconcerting c_v the extent to which I find myself in agreement with you on a range of topics, even if I start out disagreeing with you as I did in the case of the EU referendum. Gritty, gruff 'n tough northerners like you and southern softies like me aren't supposed to see eye to eye. It ain't right!

Try crossing swords with the mad Yank fibo and truly get a mouthful of venom !! He reckon the Brits are guilty of the world's problems etc.

 

[Signalcalc]

Imagine if this money was spent on pollution reduction initiatives instead, but the aim wouldn't be to save lives, that is counterproductive to the climate!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1164228810310426624

 

[Signalcalc]

Still not talking about population reduction/control just more tax increases, what a surprise. Not even a mention of lower incomes to reduce consumption, of course not, that would affect his bonus too.

BBC News - Climate change: Big lifestyle changes 'needed to cut emissions'

Climate change: Big lifestyle changes 'needed to cut emissions'

Reaching Net Zero emissions will be a huge challenge, says UK's outgoing chief environment scientist.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Signalcalc]

The planet is only available to the richest, whilst the rest of us will be taxed to death, much trouble in our future over this.

Who's for a glass of iceberg water?

Many varieties of bottled water claim they can also boost levels of health, energy, vitamins and minerals. The UK market is now worth more than £2.1 billion - with bottles priced up to £74.25.

mol.im