• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How are you going to deal with Climate Change?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,476
Location
Edinburgh
I think Summer 2021 has really hit home for a lot of people. Hopefully this all gets brought up at COP26 and that goals are agreed.

The Biden Administration seem to have climate as one of their priorities.

Although, I did see a paper saying that the UK and Ireland have a good chance of surviving collapse of civilisation.


New Zealand, Iceland, the UK, Tasmania and Ireland are the places best suited to survive a global collapse of society, according to a study.

The researchers said human civilisation was “in a perilous state” due to the highly interconnected and energy-intensive society that had developed and the environmental damage this had caused.



A collapse could arise from shocks, such as a severe financial crisis, the impacts of the climate crisis, destruction of nature, an even worse pandemic than Covid-19 or a combination of these, the scientists said.

To assess which nations would be most resilient to such a collapse, countries were ranked according to their ability to grow food for their population, protect their borders from unwanted mass migration, and maintain an electrical grid and some manufacturing ability. Islands in temperate regions and mostly with low population densities came out on top.
Billionaires have been reported to be buying land for bunkers in New Zealand in preparation for an apocalypse. “We weren’t surprised New Zealand was on our list,” said Prof Aled Jones, at the Global Sustainability Institute, at Anglia Ruskin University, in the UK.

Jones added: “We chose that you had to be able to protect borders and places had to be temperate. So with hindsight it’s quite obvious that large islands with complex societies on them already [make up the list].

“We were quite surprised the UK came out strongly. It is densely populated, has traditionally outsourced manufacturing, hasn’t been the quickest to develop renewable technology, and only produces 50% of its own food at the moment. But it has the potential to withstand shocks.”
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,751
Location
Scotland
Although, I did see a paper saying that the UK and Ireland have a good chance of surviving collapse of civilisation.
I suspect they skewed the numbers a bit... As they said in your quote, we have a large population compared to our land area, we're very dependent on trade and don't produce anywhere close to enough food.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,601
Location
Taunton or Kent
I think Summer 2021 has really hit home for a lot of people. Hopefully this all gets brought up at COP26 and that goals are agreed.

The Biden Administration seem to have climate as one of their priorities.

Although, I did see a paper saying that the UK and Ireland have a good chance of surviving collapse of civilisation.

These places will also be top targets for climate refugees, which is unfortunate both in itself and considering those who attack the current refugees fleeing wars (caused by our own foreign policy) also hold a degree of climate denial, when really it would be a very strong argument for climate action (then again maybe those against refugees want them to come so they can keep scapegoating them to cover up all the real problems in society).
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
By living the good life whilst I can.
There's no point in me as a 30 year old planning for a conventional retirement.

The situation now is beyond any hope of recovery. In 40 years time we will all be either burning, starving, drowning or fighting off the people who are.
There is no scientific basis behind this belief.

The IPCC report categorically proves that there is still time to limit warming to 1.5°c. Whether we'll manage that or not is another matter, but we're not screwed yet and I think your doom-baiting outlook is deeply irresponsible. We should demand and have a expectation of action, not lay down and die. Every single split digit of a degree less of warming is worth fighting for, every fewer life lost.

There's a reason climate deniers like Trump have been shifting towards "it's too late for us to do anything": it makes people switch off and give up. It creates inertia. There's literally nothing to gain from being so passive and resigned, and it's deeply unscientific.

The scientific consensus is that there's things we can do, actions we can take. These can inform our decisions at the ballot box, or our word of mouth, or whether we take the streets. We aren't powerless, and acting like we are is very damaging. It's a pretty privileged attitude that other areas of the world can't afford to take.
We're going to need a bigger sandpit if there are already this many heads being buried in it :|
Quite!

Of course this thread is full of the ysdal blend of denialism, doomism and even ecofascism, to the extent that I'm actually relieved to see some realistic contributions (from @najaB and @Techniquest). So many of the denialist arguments here have already been comprehensively debunked, so instead climate deniers are just spouting utter sh!te like "It won't happen because Al Gore once said something contradictory, except he didn't", or "An Inconvenient Truth is boring", as if that disproves entire fields of climatology and ecological study.

I get that your ideological comfort blankets and sense of the sceptic's discerning superiority are nice to maintain, but they're also deeply arrogant beliefs. Discarding an overwhelming scientific consensus for the sake of your own selfish coping mechanisms - the danger you'd rather deny than admit exists, no matter how many people you drag with you - it's the apex of human self-contentment.

I think Summer 2021 has really hit home for a lot of people. Hopefully this all gets brought up at COP26 and that goals are agreed.

The Biden Administration seem to have climate as one of their priorities.

Although, I did see a paper saying that the UK and Ireland have a good chance of surviving collapse of civilisation.


I do think we're in the jaws of a turning point at the moment. To hear Tory ministers and Telegraph writers speaking strongly about the climate emergency feels different - even if it's greenwash on some level, they recognise the truth behind it. The difficulty will be stopping them from turning COP26 into a 'glory to Britain' party, but there will still be some politicians with brains at the table. I think Biden's rather overrated on the climate - lots of talk and less action - but he does seem to at least believe that there's a crisis, so let's see...

There's another crucial thing happening too: a developing understanding that the vociferous fossil fuel lobby is an obstacle to human survival, not an accessory to it. Johnson thought pressing ahead with Cambo without permits to get at Sturgeon would be a good move, instead they've been forced to delay...

Antonio Guterres literally said that the IPCC report is a "death knell" for the fossil fuel industry. That's massive; not the sort of rhetoric we've ever heard before. And he's right.

These places will also be top targets for climate refugees, which is unfortunate both in itself and considering those who attack the current refugees fleeing wars (caused by our own foreign policy) also hold a degree of climate denial, when really it would be a very strong argument for climate action (then again maybe those against refugees want them to come so they can keep scapegoating them to cover up all the real problems in society).
Agreed. It's also funny seeing people on here of a certain political persuasion deflect from the climate crisis by talking about Sunni and Shia muslims.

As for the question opening the thread: I do what I can. There's not that much you can do as an individual, but I try to stay optimistic, keep a scientific mind, argue for a survivable world, share info, sign petitions, and generally wade into depressing online debates like these out of a sense of obligation when I'd much rather not. I also don't fly, drive, or eat meat, though I understand that not everyone has the privilege to make those changes and choices.
 
Last edited:

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,476
Location
Edinburgh
There is no scientific basis behind this belief.

The IPCC report categorically proves that there is still time to limit warming to 1.5°c. Whether we'll manage that or not is another matter, but we're not screwed yet and I think your doom-baiting outlook is deeply irresponsible. We should demand and have a expectation of action, not lay down and die.

There's a reason climate deniers like Trump have been shifting towards "it's too late for us to do anything": it makes people switch off and give up. It creates inertia. There's literally nothing to gain from being so passive and resigned, and it's deeply unscientific.

The scientific consensus is that there's things we can do, actions we can take. These can inform our decisions at the ballot box, or our word of mouth, or whether we take the streets. We aren't powerless, and acting like we are is very damaging.

Quite!

So many of the denialist arguments here have already been comprehensively debunked, so instead climate deniers are just spouting utter sh!te like "It won't happen because Al Gore once said something contradictory, except he didn't" , or "An Inconvenient Truth is boring", as if that disproves entire fields of climatology and ecological study.

I get that your ideological comfort blankets and sense of the sceptic's discerning superiority are nice to maintain, but they're also deeply arrogant beliefs. Discarding an overwhelming scientific consensus for the sake of your own selfish coping mechanisms - the danger you'd rather deny than admit exists, no matter how many people you drag with you - it's the apex of human self-contentment.



I do think we're in the jaws of a turning point at the moment. To hear Tory ministers and Telegraph writers speaking strongly about the climate emergency feels different - even if it's greenwash on some level, they recognise the truth behind it. The difficulty will be stopping them from turning COP26 into a 'glory to Britain' party, but there will still be some politicians with brains at the table. I think Biden's rather overrated on the climate - lots of talk and less action - but he does seem to at least believe that there's a crisis, so let's see...

There's another crucial thing happening too: a developing understanding that the vociferous fossil fuel lobby is an obstacle to human survival, not an accessory to it. Johnson thought pressing ahead with Cambo without permits to get at Sturgeon would be a good move, instead they've been forced to delay...

Antonio Guterres literally said that the IPCC report is a "death knell" for the fossil fuel industry. That's massive; not the sort of rhetoric we've ever heard before. And he's right.


Agreed. It's also funny seeing people on here of a certain political persuasion deflect from the climate crisis by talking about muslims.
Totally agreed.

I do think we will be seeing lots more commitment being taken at COP26, and most likely some action especially if ministers and leaders are beginning to recognise the crisis. I'd imagine a lot more will be done by leaders of Europe, particularly the likes of Germany and Belgium who were savaged by flooding earlier in the year.

Not to sound morbid, but I do think COP26 is our last big chance, which is why I'm hoping that politicians and leaders have actually listened this time...
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Totally agreed.

I do think we will be seeing lots more commitment being taken at COP26, and most likely some action especially if ministers and leaders are beginning to recognise the crisis. I'd imagine a lot more will be done by leaders of Europe, particularly the likes of Germany and Belgium who were savaged by flooding earlier in the year.

Not to sound morbid, but I do think COP26 is our last big chance, which is why I'm hoping that politicians and leaders have actually listened this time...
I don't think COP26 is the be-all end-all - if it fails, they'll just have another one somewhere else before very long - but it does represent a colossal opportunity to turn our course, and it's one of a limited number of those, in a brief and urgent window. But broadly, I agree with you.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,476
Location
Edinburgh
I don't think COP26 is the be-all end-all - if it fails, they'll just have another one somewhere else before very long - but it does represent a colossal opportunity to turn our course, and it's one of a limited number of those, in a brief and urgent window. But broadly, I agree with you.
Very true.

I just hope they don't waste time with this.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,064
I was listening to "Climate Change and Me" on BBC sounds the other day.

Effectively talking to people in a few scientific fields as to how coinage change has impacted their field.

Well worth a listen to.

Another one that's interesting is 39 ways to save the planet, again on BBC sounds.
 

Harold Hill

On Moderation
Joined
24 Oct 2019
Messages
135
Location
Bristol
Ask a Chinese leader, I agree with China. Re-open the coal mines with new and safer technology, don't repair wind factories when they inevitably fail and get fracking!
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,919
For "a while" substitute 30 years, which actually increased net CO2 emissions rather than reduce them.

I thought the coal powered stations were essentially replaced with gas, which whilst still a fossil fuel is considerably cleaner than coal.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,064
Ask a Chinese leader, I agree with China. Re-open the coal mines with new and safer technology, don't repair wind factories when they inevitably fail and get fracking!

There's a UK based company which is looking at coal mines so as to generate electricity.

However they're looking at using the vertical shafts to house large weights to use renewable energy to lift then at times of high production and then use the falling weight to generate electricity when there's shortages in the supply.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,197
Location
Elginshire
Ask a Chinese leader, I agree with China. Re-open the coal mines with new and safer technology, don't repair wind factories when they inevitably fail and get fracking!
I thought the dinosaurs were extinct - clearly not! :)
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
4,354
Location
University of Birmingham
There's a UK based company which is looking at coal mines so as to generate electricity.

However they're looking at using the vertical shafts to house large weights to use renewable energy to lift then at times of high production and then use the falling weight to generate electricity when there's shortages in the supply.
Presumably the coal would be used for something like steel manufacturing?
 

102 fan

On Moderation
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
790
I think Summer 2021 has really hit home for a lot of people. Hopefully this all gets brought up at COP26 and that goals are agreed.

The Biden Administration seem to have climate as one of their priorities.

Although, I did see a paper saying that the UK and Ireland have a good chance of surviving collapse of civilisation.



This is the conference that will see world leaders flying to the UK to tell us not to use fossil fuels?

Would it not carry a LOT more weight if it was done via virtual conferencing?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,389
I suspect they skewed the numbers a bit... As they said in your quote, we have a large population compared to our land area, we're very dependent on trade and don't produce anywhere close to enough food.

The UK also has a sufficiently developed chemical and biologics industry that we are no longer entirely dependent on agriculture for food supplies.

It can be demonstrated that fossil fuel consumption a small fraction of today's levels could produce enough food calories to support the population through single cell protein, direct chemical synthesis and a variety of other mechanisms.

We have sufficient UK based fossil fuel resources to keep that up for a very long time.
 

Paul Jones 88

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2020
Messages
446
Location
Headcorn
I'm going to do my bit by buying a big Cadillac 4x4, this spring and summer have had below average temperatures around here, things need warming up.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
974
Location
Tyneside
I'm going to do my bit by buying a big Cadillac 4x4, this spring and summer have had below average temperatures around here, things need warming up.
Below average? Maybe below last year's temperatures but certainly not the average 40 or 50 years ago.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Below average? Maybe below last year's temperatures but certainly not the average 40 or 50 years ago.
What about the average 500, 50 000, 500 000, 5 000 000, 500 000 000 5 000 000 000 years ago?

It's misleading to choose a period as short as 50 years when the Earth is billions of years old. See Example 3 in the linked page which shows how data can be cherry picked to give the desired impression.

 
Last edited:

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
974
Location
Tyneside
What about the average 500, 50 000, 500 000, 5 000 000, 500 000 000 5 000 000 000 years ago?

It's misleading to choose a period as short as 50 years when the Earth is billions of years old. See Example 3 in the linked page which shows how data can be cherry picked to give the desired impression.

But the world hasn't been affected by humans/industry until the last couple of hundred years. Fifty years ago is also in living memory for plenty of people. I don't think anyone wants the world to return to temperatures unfit for human habitation?
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
But the world hasn't been affected by humans/industry until the last couple of hundred years. Fifty years ago is also in living memory for plenty of people. I don't think anyone wants the world to return to temperatures unfit for human habitation?
That's exactly the sort of cherry picking I'm talking about.

If you want to prove that human activity is responsible for warming the planet you have to look at what it was like before we were around. Saying it's been the warmest/coldest/wettest/windiest day/week/month/year "since records began" conveniently ignores that the records only go back a century or two at best. It tells us nothing about how extreme the weather may have been in the past, before we allegedly started to influence things.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
That's exactly the sort of cherry picking I'm talking about.

If you want to prove that human activity is responsible for warming the planet you have to look at what it was like before we were around.

I refer you back to the links in post 17, the first one (earth temperature timeline) specifically. It certainly can't be accused of presenting only part of the data, starting at 20,000BC
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
I refer you back to the links in post 17, the first one (earth temperature timeline) specifically. It certainly can't be accused of presenting only part of the data, starting at 20,000BC
That's still only an instant compared with the age of the planet. The figures are guesstimates (not measurements) and the temperature scales are truncated.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
974
Location
Tyneside
That's exactly the sort of cherry picking I'm talking about.

If you want to prove that human activity is responsible for warming the planet you have to look at what it was like before we were around. Saying it's been the warmest/coldest/wettest/windiest day/week/month/year "since records began" conveniently ignores that the records only go back a century or two at best. It tells us nothing about how extreme the weather may have been in the past, before we allegedly started to influence things.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that you think that industry has had no impact on the planet?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
That's still only an instant compared with the age of the planet. The figures are guesstimates (not measurements) and the temperature scales are truncated.

The planet is frankly irrelevant, it's a lump of rock hurtling through space, it doesn't really care how hot or cold it is. Humans on the other hand, are rather more relevant, and the period in question is a "sweet spot" between vaguely reliable data and the existence of modern humanity, it covers almost every known ancient civilisation, so would seem fairly relevant on that context. With my nihilist hat on, I'm very much "pro-earth" in that I couldn't care less if humanity melted off the face of the planet, and quite frankly we'd have it coming.

Rather obviously the numbers are estimates, nobody was stood around recording temperatures 20,000 years ago. In lieu of helpful ancient met-office reports, there are a number of different measures for determining historic temperatures - the graph is based on a paper that used 80 different measures, so it can be taken as about as reasonable an estimate as can be made. If you've got any better estimates for global temperatures over the last 22000 years, I'd be happy to see them

The scale isn't truncated at all - it shows temperature relative to the 1961-90 baseline, and shows that there's only been a ~4°C movement in the last 20,000 years (and worst case extrapolation goes to just north of +4° to baseline). There's no point showing it squished off against one side of the graph (naturally, in the interest of accuracy you'd use Kelvin...) when you're showing the relative movement - that is poor data presentation for the sake of pedantry.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that you think that industry has had no impact on the planet?

It does seem like some top grade denialism
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,751
Location
Scotland
It's misleading to choose a period as short as 50 years when the Earth is billions of years old. See Example 3 in the linked page which shows how data can be cherry picked to give the desired impression.
If you want to examine changes that have occurred in the last 150 years why would you use a moving average period of tens of thousands of years.?
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that you think that industry has had no impact on the planet?
I'm saying I don't know whether the impact of industry, or any changes we decide to make, is significant in comparison with all the other forces at work. The partial, unreliable, manipulated and mispresented data we're often fed doesn't help me make up my mind.

I am passionate about people being misled when data is misunderstood, manipulated or misrepresented (deliberately or not).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

If you want to examine changes that have occurred in the last 150 years why would you use a moving average period of tens of thousands of years.?
I don't want to examine changes that have occurred only in the last 150 years. I regard that as cherry-picking.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,399
Location
The UK
Dai by name, die by nature...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I thought the dinosaurs were extinct - clearly not! :)
Quite!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I don't want to examine changes that have occurred only in the last 150 years. I regard that as cherry-picking.
Sounds like your goalposts are the things you're cherrypicking.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,998
Sounds like your goalposts are the things you're cherrypicking.
Not really. I'm just saying we should consider the whole picture before coming to a conclusion. Even if that conclusion doesn't support our agenda or preconceptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top