AndyRM
Elder Goth
That sir, is a gross slur on the Margaret Calvert and her influential typography.
Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?
- Thread starter Banderill
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That sir, is a gross slur on the Margaret Calvert and her influential typography.
Cirrus
Active Member
That was my first thought when I saw the design.
Watching TV last night interviewees were suggesting achieving Net Zero is the solution to the extreme weather we are experiencing caused/enhanced by Climate Change.
My understanding is that at the moment things are still getting worse (increasing levels of Climate Change pollution and Net Zero just stops things getting worse at the point we achieve it ie year on year things get worse until we meet "Net Zero" at which point we are no longer making it all worse (ignoring delays in the pollution impacting the climate and extreme weather).
And given we really are not happy with the extreme weather frequency we are seeing now, Net Zero isn't goint to help that and we need "Net Negative" in a significant way for a significant time.
Ian
My understanding is that at the moment things are still getting worse (increasing levels of Climate Change pollution and Net Zero just stops things getting worse at the point we achieve it ie year on year things get worse until we meet "Net Zero" at which point we are no longer making it all worse (ignoring delays in the pollution impacting the climate and extreme weather).
And given we really are not happy with the extreme weather frequency we are seeing now, Net Zero isn't goint to help that and we need "Net Negative" in a significant way for a significant time.
Ian
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
The winters in ''97-98 where colder than they are now, off course there is always someone screaming it's because of the climate but the fact in the matter is we didn't see extreme weather, the LA fires are terrible but the weather is not to blame, the 13million cut in the fire department funding might, together with an place that is known for their fire risk. The floods in Germany and the Netherlands a few years back where unusual but not unexpected, the Netherlands had higher levels in 97-98, after which improved flood defenses where built. (which i edited the add did help with the aforementioned floods.)
Just to clarify i'm not nessarary against net zero net negative how every you call it, it just don't like lies supporting an argument. (and yes similarly i also don't like those supporting there is no climate change)
monkers
Legendary Member
The winters in ''97-98 where colder than they are now, off course there is always someone screaming it's because of the climate but the fact in the matter is we didn't see extreme weather, the LA fires are terrible but the weather is not to blame, the 13million cut in the fire department funding might, together with an place that is known for their fire risk. The floods in Germany and the Netherlands a few years back where unusual but not unexpected, the Netherlands had higher levels in 97-98, after which improved flood defenses where built. (which i edited the add did help with the aforementioned floods.) Just to clarify i'm not nessarary against net zero net negative how every you call it, it just don't like lies supporting an argument. (and yes similarly i also don't like those supporting there is no climate change)
Let's break this down and analyze for errors and biases:
- Winters in '97-98:
- Claim: Winters in '97-98 were colder than they are now.
- Fact Check: Climate data shows that there can be variability in winter temperatures, but overall, global temperatures have been rising over the past few decades. It's important to differentiate between short-term variability and long-term trends.
- Climate Change Skepticism:
- Claim: There is always someone attributing changes to climate, but extreme weather wasn't observed.
- Fact Check: Climate change contributes to the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. While one winter or a specific event can't be solely attributed to climate change, the overall trend shows an increase in extreme weather due to global warming.
- LA Fires:
- Claim: LA fires are terrible but not due to weather; instead, fire department funding cuts are to blame.
- Fact Check: While funding cuts and poor land management contribute to wildfire risks, climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of these fires due to higher temperatures and prolonged droughts.
- Floods in Germany and the Netherlands:
- Claim: Floods were unusual but not unexpected, and higher levels were seen in '97-98.
- Fact Check: Floods can vary in frequency and severity. Improved flood defenses do help, but climate change also increases the likelihood of extreme rainfall and flooding events.
- Net Zero Critique:
- Claim: Not against net zero, but dislikes lies supporting arguments on both sides.
- Fact Check: It's essential to base discussions on accurate information. Both underplaying and exaggerating climate change can be harmful. It's crucial to rely on scientific evidence and consensus.
Ian H
Legendary Member
Quantum opinion: simultaneously for and against the science supporting climate change.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
The claim of IPCC amongst others is that the winters would be colder and the climate more unpredictable, whilst your claims facts say it just getting hotter, which one is it?
I said '' off course there is always someone screaming it's because of the climate but the fact in the matter is we didn't see extreme weather'' which is formatting and language clearly a response i known english is your first language, so please try to keep up instead of taking things out of context trying to change their meaning. the full context linked extreme wheather directly with these events, not on itself. On itself we only know with hindsight, with hindsight we know the past 100 years where quite calm in terms of natural disasters and as humanity in general and we have become better in surviving disasters off any kind. But at some point what goes down has to go up. On the other hand we do also use a lot of oil, gas an other natural resources, so we should expect them to cause disasters because we might use to much. Earthquakes near gas-drilling are a perfect example.
Again misinterpreting my quote, for someone who has english as their primarly language you doing an awfull job today, is said '' off course there is always someone screaming it's because of the climate but the fact in the matter is we didn't see extreme weather, the LA fires are terrible but the weather is not to blame, the 13million cut in the fire department funding might, together with an place that is known for their fire risk. '' hey to line you borrowed to insert a totally not relevant statement is back! You know in this combination it provides context and in effect it makes you whole lecture nonsensical because if you read it you read that i don't say that ''fire departments cuts are to blame'' i said that funding cuts might not help. That does not rule out or deny increased risks due to changing climate or prolonger droughts, because spoiler that's why it is an area with an higher fire risk. But that does not make climate change an primarly driver.
So my point based on what scientist said and showed after the last floods in Germany in the Netherlands as well as what the flood maps showed is that the flood levels where not as extreme as in said period and that the dutch improvemenents worked. similarly in Germany there where extra factors that had nothing to do with the climate but everything with government decision that made those floods much worse. Does not say that the changing climate has no role in it at all, but it is deflection from many other things to claim it's all due to the climate.
There is a separate government department(rijkswaterstaat and the waterschappen) in the Netherlands with expertise solely in water management, and they expect a big flood roughly every 100 year, they classed this as a big one but not the biggest one, so that floods vary and frequency and severity is well known, i was not disputing that. i'm disputing the claim that it was solely due to climate change and or that climate change had and or needed any role in managing this particular flood.
I'm not against science i'm against abusing science such as claiming these wild fires are because of climate change while the reality is there is no significant change in climate in the particular instance of these wildfires, there are however significant cuts in the fire department funding. along with the area being an flood risk.
Similarly in my other example of the floods in Germany in the Netherlands, again the climate science was dragged in and alltough climate change certainly has a part in it in this case it was used as a deflection, the problem if you use a serious thing as a deflection to often is that people get desensitized they don't care or believe about the topic anymore.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
The claim of IPCC amongst others is that the winters would be colder and the climate more unpredictable, whilst your claims facts say it just getting hotter, which one is it? monkers said: [*]Climate Change Skepticism: Claim: There is always someone attributing changes to climate, but extreme weather wasn't observed. Fact Check: Climate change contributes to the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. While one winter or a specific event can't be solely attributed to climate change, the overall trend shows an increase in extreme weather due to global warming. I said '' off course there is always someone screaming it's because of the climate but the fact in the matter is we didn't see extreme weather'' which is formatting and language clearly a response i known english is your first language, so please try to keep up instead of taking things out of context trying to change their meaning. the full context linked extreme wheather directly with these events, not on itself. On itself we only know with hindsight, with hindsight we know the past 100 years where quite calm in terms of natural disasters and as humanity in general and we have become better in surviving disasters off any kind. But at some point what goes down has to go up. On the other hand we do also use a lot of oil, gas an other natural resources, so we should expect them to cause disasters because we might use to much. Earthquakes near gas-drilling are a perfect example.
- IPCC Statements: The IPCC reports do indicate that while some regions may experience colder winters due to climate change (e.g., changes in atmospheric circulation patterns), the overall trend is towards global warming. This means that globally, temperatures are rising, even if some localized areas experience colder spells.
- Your Claim: That it’s just getting hotter. This aligns with the broader trend of global warming as documented by scientific research.
- Extreme Weather: You argue that extreme weather events are not observed and criticize me for taking things out of context. However, the scientific consensus is that climate change does increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. So while any single event can’t be attributed solely to climate change, the overall trend is well-documented.
- Natural Disasters and Resources: You mention historical calmness in natural disasters and our improved resilience. You also acknowledge the impact of using natural resources like oil and gas, mentioning induced earthquakes from activities like gas drilling. This is true—human activities can cause such environmental impacts, but the broader context of climate change exacerbating extreme weather still stands.
It's a common tactic among climate change skeptics to use outlier events to question established science. While it's valid to examine individual weather events, it's crucial to consider the broader scientific consensus.
I understand that English is my first language and Dutch is your own, but I believe the challenge here isn't about language differences. It seems that, whether intentionally or not, your arguments come across as denying the broader evidence of climate change. More clarification from you could help in making your perspective clearer and more convincing.
While outlier cases can be interesting and worth discussing, they should not be used to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that supports the reality of climate change. The consensus among scientists is that climate change is real and significantly impacts our environment.
monkers
Legendary Member
While it's true that flood levels vary and that improvements in flood defenses, particularly in the Netherlands, have been effective. The recent floods being less extreme than past events like '97-98 is a testament to these advancements.
I also understand that in Germany, other factors, including government decisions, played a role in worsening the situation.
Regarding climate change, while it is not the sole cause of any specific flood event, the broader scientific consensus indicates that climate change does increase the likelihood of extreme rainfall and flooding. This doesn't negate the importance of other factors but highlights the need to address climate change alongside improvements in flood defenses and policy decisions.
It's crucial to consider the comprehensive picture, acknowledging the role of climate change and other contributing factors in managing and mitigating flood risks.
I will end by pointing out that selecting outlier cases of what are short term events, ie, weather events are the tactics of climate change deniers. It is not possible for me to know from your words whether your intention is to play down the effects of climate change in order to persuade that net zero is not a valid project. This is again a common-place tactic of climate change deniers, who are typically more concerned with preserving the pound in their pocket.
Instead I respectfully urge that when discussing climate change to focus on the climate consensus without introducing either facts of opinions about what are outlier or extreme weather events.
matticus
Guru
Yes.
... and there is the frequently seen extension of this;
"OF COURSE we need to do something about Climate Change! But not anything suggested so far ..."
monkers
Legendary Member
There is probably a multitude of reasons for it, but persuading people that not only are there tangible benefits to a green energy revolution, but that work must begin on it now, is an uphill struggle.
The climate science consensus have warned that ambient air temperature increases must be held below 2 degrees or better still 1.5 degrees. Since that time of the Paris Agreement the trajectory remains upwards, with the warning that the limit will be met in the range of 7 to 10 years.
The Reform Party say that would simply scrap the net zero targets and just blithely carry on. The Tories and Labour have targets of 2050 that the scientific consensus says is simply too late.
If the climate emergency is to be addressed, then the only political party that the electorate can vote for is the Green Party with their much more ambitions net zero target of 2010. However the electorate are much more convinced by other conviction such as 'get Brexit done', worrying about the length and style of the urethras of trans women etc.
I guess the big conversation by the next GE will be 'get Brexit undone' and let's just castrate anyone LGBT or put them all in camps or something.
I await usual the Frazer gifs.
monkers
Legendary Member
🌍 Breaking Point: The Time to Act is Now 🌍
2024 has officially become the hottest year on record, surpassing the critical 1.5°C global warming limit. This alarming milestone signals that we may have crossed a tipping point in our fight against climate change. Catastrophic wildfires are ravaging Los Angeles, while the UK faces severe winter storms and flooding. While these events may have contributing factors with no direct link to climate change, there can be no doubt that there are contributing factors that do. Worldwide, there have been extreme weather events and disasters directly linked to climate change.
Despite these clear warnings, carbon emissions continue to rise, reaching an all-time high. It's imperative that we stop burning fossil fuels and invest in sustainable, remedial measures to protect our planet and future generations.
The science is clear: we must accelerate the transition to clean energy and keep fossil fuels in the ground. The time for bold action is now. Let's come together and make a difference.
I say this after receiving an email from the Green Party of England & Wales. We need bold action. We cannot rely solely on our elected representatives to bring this action. Those who show willingness in their words also demonstrate reluctance through inaction, while their policies remain inadequate. Meanwhile, climate change protestors face harsh penalties for their efforts.
I have just arranged for my own little car to go to the salvage yard tomorrow. 🌱💪
2024 has officially become the hottest year on record, surpassing the critical 1.5°C global warming limit. This alarming milestone signals that we may have crossed a tipping point in our fight against climate change. Catastrophic wildfires are ravaging Los Angeles, while the UK faces severe winter storms and flooding. While these events may have contributing factors with no direct link to climate change, there can be no doubt that there are contributing factors that do. Worldwide, there have been extreme weather events and disasters directly linked to climate change.
Despite these clear warnings, carbon emissions continue to rise, reaching an all-time high. It's imperative that we stop burning fossil fuels and invest in sustainable, remedial measures to protect our planet and future generations.
The science is clear: we must accelerate the transition to clean energy and keep fossil fuels in the ground. The time for bold action is now. Let's come together and make a difference.
I say this after receiving an email from the Green Party of England & Wales. We need bold action. We cannot rely solely on our elected representatives to bring this action. Those who show willingness in their words also demonstrate reluctance through inaction, while their policies remain inadequate. Meanwhile, climate change protestors face harsh penalties for their efforts.
I have just arranged for my own little car to go to the salvage yard tomorrow. 🌱💪
Last edited:
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
Agreed, however i would argue that these days it's just as much an tactic, to claim something is due to the climate change, often to deflect from obvious failures from either authorities or something else. Often because it serves short term interest of career politics, that focus on plasters instead of fixes, focus on branding instead of soluttions.
Look at the floods we have every year in the uk, years back the problem was in Kent, somerset too, despite the local politician being mocked by then PM Cameron, they did something that for so what we can see now did work, but it's not something you can phrase in a catchy political slogan, not something voters quickly remeber but it is something that often works.
You are correct an i apologize it was a bit childish of me to be honest, think it's very hard to not come across as someone who denies the science because just as in many other discussion at the moment it has become a left or right / right or wrong kind of discussion. Which i think is sad, because we could have come a lot further much faster if we where a bit more open to other viewpoints.
For example a dutch trucking company(has an article about them some time ago but can't find it) instead of going down the rabbit whole off ''you should buy battery trucks much better'' vs ''hydrogen is tha bomb, mate'' they just bought both and pad they suppliers to build infrastructure to charge and refeul on their premises. From them hydrogen was the clear winner and ev truck s 8hrs out of the running to fully charge and the hydogen truck does not take much longer then a diesel truck takes to fill up.
i think that is an good example of doing instead of discussing why left is better than right, and the in their opinion solution is neither left or right.
Agreed, sadly we often also see this same argument is being used to promote bad solutions, like bio-mass power plants. in most cases they ae used to replace gas powered ones and that is an problem as these need young trees, in the Netherlands they have forests that are being used for this purpose and the concept is then for every tree felled a other one is placed back, on theory that works fine but the bigger problem is that the balance nature has build over the years is stemmed on trees living their normal livespan so the balance is disturbed. and the environmental damage is in my view worse than keeping that gas powered plant on for a bit longer. (they are also far more efficient)
Sure the bio-mass comes better out of the spreadsheet but the spreadsheet doesn't cover the roots of trees not getting enough time to develop and so further and so forth, long story short, bad idea. And that is very similar to objections farmer have against mandatory EU objectives as they similarly deliver result on paper but are worse for the climate in practice.
Yes the data shows how effective it was in managing the water, yes there where floods but vital infrascturue stayed protected.(and water management is also not about stopping floods but about managing water, which is then ore about if it's gonna flood managing where it is going to happen)
But the data also shows based on historic data this wasn't the the biggest flood, that one is yet to come.
Yes there was that whole town that flooded it was their own major who said climate change had nothing to do with it, but i think the lack of maintenance to the bank that broke was the cullpit.
agreed
i don't disagree, i sadly just don't think it's only ''climate change deniers'' i think those seeking short term soluttions, those seeking to cover up their past mistakes etc. etc. are equally willing an able to use this tactics. But i will try ot make my point come across better on this particular topic moving forward.
with a lot of caveats and/or so called ''greenwashing'' along the way. kind of like climbing an hill with an broken bottom bracket having you gears jump all the time.
reform by suggestion to go back to the old ways...
monkers
Legendary Member
@dutchguylivingintheuk
Thanks for your long post. I don't think we need to address the points further, and I'm glad you took my points in the good faith intended.
Thanks for your long post. I don't think we need to address the points further, and I'm glad you took my points in the good faith intended.
monkers
Legendary Member
'Man-of-the-people' Nine Jobs Nigel has taken on his tenth job since he is now working for the Heartland Institute.
EXXONMobil funds climate denial groups like Heartland.
Soggy lettuce, cheese overloading, 'it's a disgrace', 'stop saying I broke the economy' self-unaware ego-maniac, billionaire ********ing Truss was also at the inauguration.
These people are a genuine threat to humanity while pretending to be doing us all a favour.
Apparently Nige needs the money ''because I have expenses''.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...k-launch-of-us-climate-denial-group-heartland
Meanwhile EXXONMobil will be hoping that people won't notice this; their PR machine no doubt will roll on gish-galloping the gullible.
I might sound angry. Am I angry? You bet!
I'm made angry because they threaten life on this planet, I'm made angry by charlatan scam artists, I'm made angry by the insatiable greed, and I'm made angry by the American interference treating the UK like it belongs to them.
If I get on my bike, I'll probably set pbs on Strava all over the place. Humph.
EXXONMobil funds climate denial groups like Heartland.
Soggy lettuce, cheese overloading, 'it's a disgrace', 'stop saying I broke the economy' self-unaware ego-maniac, billionaire ********ing Truss was also at the inauguration.
These people are a genuine threat to humanity while pretending to be doing us all a favour.
Apparently Nige needs the money ''because I have expenses''.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...k-launch-of-us-climate-denial-group-heartland
Meanwhile EXXONMobil will be hoping that people won't notice this; their PR machine no doubt will roll on gish-galloping the gullible.
I might sound angry. Am I angry? You bet!
I'm made angry because they threaten life on this planet, I'm made angry by charlatan scam artists, I'm made angry by the insatiable greed, and I'm made angry by the American interference treating the UK like it belongs to them.
If I get on my bike, I'll probably set pbs on Strava all over the place. Humph.
Last edited:
