O/T:- Climate Change

[MarcusCole]

Sorry folks, but this debate is depressingly familiar in its futility. People are entrenched either on the one side or the other, and there's virtually zero movement between.

All I'll say is that most people seem to be perfectly happy to trust science (and its spin-off technology) for 99% of their everyday lives - the exception being something for which they have a very strong emotional response... a "gut" feeling... and another conspiracy is born.

see also:
Religion / supernatural, also extra-terrestrial visitors
{versus Evolution through natural selection, & their non-existence}

I sort of see where you are coming from but I see there are being three camps on this

1st extremist view - There is a Climate Emergency and extreme measures must be taken and d@mn and consequences.

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done

3rd Extremist view - Its all a lie

[the_anticlough]

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done

The 'middle of the row, can't be so far behind, can it?

The information has been there for decades, it's clear what needs to be done, and the sooner it's implemented the less catastrophic it'll be for the poor suckers who had the misfortune to follow generations trained to be selfish and indifferent

[Mark_Ross]

I sort of see where you are coming from but I see there are being three camps on this

1st extremist view - There is a Climate Emergency and extreme measures must be taken and d@mn and consequences.

2nd middle of the row view - Something is going on but there is too much alarmist rhetoric. The want proper information on what is happening so they can decide what needs to be done

3rd Extremist view - Its all a lie

RE: 1st extremist view
At what point does a crisis become an emergency?
Are people extremist to believe that we cannot simply set aside the issue any longer - something has got to be done... now.

[drillerpie]

Sorry folks, but this debate is depressingly familiar in its futility. People are entrenched either on the one side or the other, and there's virtually zero movement between.

People are unlikely to post that they have changed their mind, because it's a 'I lose you win' scenario. It they might think to themselves after they have logged off.

What I find interesting (and worrying) reading through board is how it's pretty easy to guess people's view on any controversial topic, from one opinion on one controversial topic.

It's not 100% accurate of course, but it is still very accurate. Tell me someone's opinion on climate change, for example, and I'll fancy my chances of telling you where they stand on Covid, Brexit, invasion of Ukraine, cancel culture, etc. Even though these are seemingly unrelated things.

I'm I my forties so I don't know how it was in say the 70s or 60s. Has it always been like this? Or is it the way we get our information now?

[BigFatPie]

People are unlikely to post that they have changed their mind, because it's a 'I lose you win' scenario. It they might think to themselves after they have logged off.

What I find interesting (and worrying) reading through board is how it's pretty easy to guess people's view on any controversial topic, from one opinion on one controversial topic.

It's not 100% accurate of course, but it is still very accurate. Tell me someone's opinion on climate change, for example, and I'll fancy my chances of telling you where they stand on Covid, Brexit, invasion of Ukraine, cancel culture, etc. Even though these are seemingly unrelated things.

I'm I my forties so I don't know how it was in say the 70s or 60s. Has it always been like this? Or is it the way we get our information now?

In the 70s and 80s there were big debates on smoking and we can probably guess who would have been which side on that one as well.

The parallels between that issue and climate change are quite striking, in both the science was settled for years but the waters were deliberately muddied by industry shills going round saying it wasn’t actually as bad as those uptight scientists said it was and also promoting smoking as a ‘freedom’ issue, with those wanting restrictions as being part of the ‘nanny state’.

Nowadays of course climate denialists, both paid and unpaid, have many more platforms to spread their nonsense, and their unscientific claims are proving harder to discredit. Sunak’s disgraceful announcements yesterday are of course a massive backward step.

[Mark_Ross]

In the 70s and 80s there were big debates on smoking and we can probably guess who would have been which side on that one as well.

The parallels between that issue and climate change are quite striking, in both the science was settled for years but the waters were deliberately muddied by industry shills going round saying it wasn’t actually as bad as those uptight scientists said it was and also promoting smoking as a ‘freedom’ issue, with those wanting restrictions as being part of the ‘nanny state’.

Nowadays of course climate denialists, both paid and unpaid, have many more platforms to spread their nonsense, and their unscientific claims are proving harder to discredit. Sunak’s disgraceful announcements yesterday are of course a massive backward step.

Good point BFP.
I think the parallels between the old smoking debate (science finally / tragically victorious) & the ongoing anthropogenic climate change debate are striking.

[the_anticlough]

People are unlikely to post that they have changed their mind, because it's a 'I lose you win' scenario. It they might think to themselves after they have logged off.

What I find interesting (and worrying) reading through board is how it's pretty easy to guess people's view on any controversial topic, from one opinion on one controversial topic.

It's not 100% accurate of course, but it is still very accurate. Tell me someone's opinion on climate change, for example, and I'll fancy my chances of telling you where they stand on Covid, Brexit, invasion of Ukraine, cancel culture, etc. Even though these are seemingly unrelated things.

I'm I my forties so I don't know how it was in say the 70s or 60s. Has it always been like this? Or is it the way we get our information now?

The majority of that will be accounted for by the underlying, unifying principles that make up a person's worldview (or backyardview ; ) ). So it's not necessarily tribalism or propaganda. If someone's applying, say, compassion or fatalism on one issue, they're most likely to bring it to bear on all the others too.

[jackal2]

The shocking level of misanthropy by those saying they don't care about future generations of humanity not being able to enjoy the kind of lives we've been able to live...

I'm sure there are those with a misanthropic view that they simply don't care about future generations, but I doubt there are that many, and I certainly think it would be unfair just to categorise all climate change sceptics under that banner.

Like I've said above, I'm happy to accept the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, but I certainly don't believe human beings as a collective across the world will have the willpower to change or abandon, as you say, "the kind of lives we've been able to live", which is exactly what scientists identify as the problem.

Yes, that no doubt includes climate change sceptics (who presumably might not even try!) but it also includes many of the people who accept climate change is happening and purport to be living greener lives but only at a superficial level. You don't have to look too far to find people who say all the right words about living in a more environmentally-friendly way and do certain low-level gesture-type things that are consistent with it, but who then fly on holiday each year or keep three cars outside their house.

Then there's the whole global issue of countries like ours who in the past gleaned huge economic benefits from our industrial revolutions turning around to countries like China and saying "sorry, you can't have your own industrial revolution because we've now decided it is dirty and polluting". Unsurprisingly, the Chinese (and others in a similar position) tell us to get stuffed and build another batch of new coal power plants!

Are all these people misanthropes consciously and deliberately blighting future generations, or are they simply human beings being human beings: selfless at times, selfish at others. Perhaps as an imperfect species we're pre-programmed to self-expire as many other species have before us?

[Newish Pie]

I'm sure there are those with a misanthropic view that they simply don't care about future generations, but I doubt there are that many, and I certainly think it would be unfair just to categorise all climate change sceptics under that banner.

Like I've said above, I'm happy to accept the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, but I certainly don't believe human beings as a collective across the world will have the willpower to change or abandon, as you say, "the kind of lives we've been able to live", which is exactly what scientists identify as the problem.

Yes, that no doubt includes climate change sceptics (who presumably might not even try!) but it also includes many of the people who accept climate change is happening and purport to be living greener lives but only at a superficial level. You don't have to look too far to find people who say all the right words about living in a more environmentally-friendly way and do certain low-level gesture-type things that are consistent with it, but who then fly on holiday each year or keep three cars outside their house.

Then there's the whole global issue of countries like ours who in the past gleaned huge economic benefits from our industrial revolutions turning around to countries like China and saying "sorry, you can't have your own industrial revolution because we've now decided it is dirty and polluting". Unsurprisingly, the Chinese (and others in a similar position) tell us to get stuffed and build another batch of new coal power plants!

Are all these people misanthropes consciously and deliberately blighting future generations, or are they simply human beings being human beings: selfless at times, selfish at others. Perhaps as an imperfect species we're pre-programmed to self-expire as many other species have before us?

I agree that not all climate crisis deniers are misanthropes, but some are, and many won't admit it until they're pushed. Including on this board, people happy to admit that they don't much care if the human race goes extinct, and by implication don't much care about the suffering caused as society and modern industrial society breaks down. I'm not sure why the rest of who do care should pay them or their opinions much attention.

I'm more optimistic about the power of humans to turn things round, certainly enough to make it worth doing. Ultimately, we're social animals, and we take our cues from those around us and how they behave. We reach tipping points, and behaviour and attitudes change. In many of our lifetimes, it's gone from being socially unacceptable not to be homophobic to the opposite. See also: most racists who feel the need to argue that they're not racists in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Because it's not socially acceptable.

Speaking as someone who is very concerned about the climate, but who nevertheless flew to the US for a holiday, I'd say it's not about a small number of people being perfect - being environmental monks - but about a lot of people doing a bit better. That all adds up.

I also don't think the main source of change will be individuals making individual choices. It'll be government policies, it'll be industry, it'll be government regulation for industry - the attempt to make individuals primarily responsible for climate change is often a pretty grubby attempt to deflect responsibility from where it really lies. We can blame individuals for their car use, or we can ask why they use their cars - is public transport not good enough or too expensive, is active travel like cycling or walking too dangerous or difficult?

There's so much government could do... the UK housing stock is very poorly insulated and very inefficient. What we need is a government programme to improve the quality of home energy efficiency. This will reduce energy use, will improve human health, will reduce poverty, and will create jobs. And most of the worst housing stock is in the poorest areas where the jobs are most needed. So many wins. It's madness that we've not done it... it's such an obviously good idea, it shouldn't be a left/right issue.

I guess I'm optimistic because when I look at all that humans have accomplished... it's pretty impressive. We can coordinate and cooperate when we need to.

I absolutely agree that we need other countries to do their bit too, and developing countries absolutely have a case when they say to the west: look, you got where you are now by polluting the planet and you're saying we can't do the same to improve our people's living standards?! Part of the answer is in giving them access to technology and cleaner ways to achieve the same objectives. The other part of the answer is taking leadership and setting an example. In the case of China, I'd also point out that a lot of China's production is actually manufacturing stuff for countries like the UK. Not all of which we need.

It may be that I'm completely wrong about this, and intransigence and "you first-ism" will doom us all. But we have to try.

[Jampie]

Like I've said above, I'm happy to accept the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, but I certainly don't believe human beings as a collective across the world will have the willpower to change or abandon, as you say, "the kind of lives we've been able to live", which is exactly what scientists identify as the problem.

Not really. There's no real need to drastically alter lifestyles, "just" switch out a few energy sources. And it's in full swing right now. There's still transitional costs to bear and the fossil fuel companies, their paid shills and useful idiots are making all the noise they can, but honestly I think the majority just aren't listening anymore.

Could all backslide again. The Trump years in the US were particularly bad for that, hopefully we don't see a repeat.