Climate Change

[Rorschach]

No it's not.

Indeed. They have plenty of easily measurable data on sea temperature which this year is really in unprecedented territory and freaking all the scientists out. Is that news? I guess not.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Indeed. They have plenty of easily measurable data on sea temperature which this year is really in unprecedented territory and freaking all the scientists out. Is that news? I guess not.

Why not post that data? It is a vital serious topic yet we’re talking about boiling seas without posting the data?

If we want change we have to be a lot better at presenting the reality.

 

[Lilbaz]

Have to agree with DTA. The world average temperature isn't at the moment higher than it has been over the last few thousand years. It is where we are going that is the problem. Or will be. (We started in a cold period).

Also we have to address the net zero bs. The emissions stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years (some longer). So even if we got net zero tomorrow we would still be warming the planet. We need to start taking it out.

 

[DTA]

Did you actually think I meant the seas were boiling or was it more reasonable to assume it was a turn of phrase? And the scary they (which includes me) are indeed trying to jolt the complacent and apathetic to wake the fudge up. And honestly, I couldn't care less if that makes people uncomfortable. Couching this in timid language and making sure nobody is inconvenienced has been tried and failed, miserably.

I'm not referring to evaporation. My point made for me that MSM has failed us in that you were not aware of what I was talking about.

but that’s my point completely. The language you use is not jolting anyone into action at all. It is having the effect of devaluing your message. And feeding in to the central message that those who deny climate change are now putting out… which is something along the lines of:
“they are just out to scare you, to be able to control you. To stop you driving your cars and enjoying your life…. Look at the lies tell about seas boiling.”

do you understand me now?

 

[Lilbaz]

The media don't help (do they ever)? Scientific paper says.... ok was it peer reviewed? Was that the absolute worse case scenario you are focusing on? What else did it say? Is that the consensus with other studies? Who funded the research?

 

[Rorschach]

but that’s my point completely. The language you use is not jolting anyone into action at all. It is having the effect of devaluing your message. And feeding in to the central message that those who deny climate change are now putting out… which is something along the lines of:
“they are just out to scare you, to be able to control you. To stop you driving your cars and enjoying your life…. Look at the lies tell about seas boiling.”

do you understand me now?

I understand your point fine. I've heard it a thousand times over as has anyone in the climate space, and I just don't think it holds any merit. That you immediately focused on the wording of my sentence rather than the message, and somehow think that this is driving people into denialism is straight out the fossil fuel PR playbook. I've seen the 'most effective messaging' debate played out between climate scientists forever. I'll dig up a few articles or pods about it if you want but they all come to the same conclusion in the end. If you don't want to hear the point then sugarcoating won't change anything, and never has. There is no magic stat, communication style, formula or chart that can really compete against an industry that makes 32 bil a day and is using a fair chunk of that to counteract your point.

You have focused on one word that I said, deliberating misinterpreting as a literal point to start with when it obviously wasn't and then pivoted to say that my messaging is the problem that makes denialism worse or something to that effect. No, it doesn't, or if it does you were that way inclined to begin with. It is more or less the same argument being applied to the climate protesters on how they are protesting in the wrong way. This is a variation of this same idea.

Climate scientists certainly have improved how they deliver the message, especially in recent years. Some have become very good storytellers which is helping, and some others have gone on to protest more vigorously as they think that is the best way to make their point. I don't give a fudge how they do it as we are all pulling the same way in the end and time is almost up.

 

[DTA]

I understand your point fine. I've heard it a thousand times over as has anyone in the climate space, and I just don't think it holds any merit. That you immediately focused on the wording of my sentence rather than the message, and somehow think that this is driving people into denialism is straight out the fossil fuel PR playbook. I've seen the 'most effective messaging' debate played out between climate scientists forever. I'll dig up a few articles or pods about it if you want but they all come to the same conclusion in the end. If you don't want to hear the point then sugarcoating won't change anything, and never has. There is no magic stat, communication style, formula or chart that can really compete against an industry that makes 32 bil a day and is using a fair chunk of that to counteract your point.

You have focused on one word that I said, deliberating misinterpreting as a literal point to start with when it obviously wasn't and then pivoted to say that my messaging is the problem that makes denialism worse or something to that effect. No, it doesn't, or if it does you were that way inclined to begin with. It is more or less the same argument being applied to the climate protesters on how they are protesting in the worng way. This is a variation of this same idea.

Climate scientists certainly have improved how they deliver the message, especially in recent years. Some have become very good storytellers which is helping, and some others have gone on to protest more vigorously as they think that is the best way to make their point. I don't give a fudge how they do it as we are all pulling the same way in the end and time is almost up.

you again miss my point. Doesn’t matter, if you think that ‘boiling seas’ is the correct tone to get your message across, then go for it.

 

[Rorschach]

you again miss my point. Doesn’t matter, if you think that ‘boiling seas’ is the correct tone to get your message across, then go for it.

As you have missed mine. Ships passing in a slightly lukewarm sea I guess.

 

[Lemonade Money]

I do love a hot sea.

 

[Lilbaz]

I understand your point fine. I've heard it a thousand times over as has anyone in the climate space, and I just don't think it holds any merit. That you immediately focused on the wording of my sentence rather than the message, and somehow think that this is driving people into denialism is straight out the fossil fuel PR playbook. I've seen the 'most effective messaging' debate played out between climate scientists forever. I'll dig up a few articles or pods about it if you want but they all come to the same conclusion in the end. If you don't want to hear the point then sugarcoating won't change anything, and never has. There is no magic stat, communication style, formula or chart that can really compete against an industry that makes 32 bil a day and is using a fair chunk of that to counteract your point.

You have focused on one word that I said, deliberating misinterpreting as a literal point to start with when it obviously wasn't and then pivoted to say that my messaging is the problem that makes denialism worse or something to that effect. No, it doesn't, or if it does you were that way inclined to begin with. It is more or less the same argument being applied to the climate protesters on how they are protesting in the wrong way. This is a variation of this same idea.

Climate scientists certainly have improved how they deliver the message, especially in recent years. Some have become very good storytellers which is helping, and some others have gone on to protest more vigorously as they think that is the best way to make their point. I don't give a fudge how they do it as we are all pulling the same way in the end and time is almost up.

Totally get where you are coming from. The fossil fuel industry and other bad players are spending a lot of money trying to obfuscate the truth. Create uncertainty and even disbelief. If there is no truth, then the truth can be what you make it. For your own advantage.

But there is an objective truth and we should try to stay as close to that as possible.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I understand your point fine. I've heard it a thousand times over as has anyone in the climate space, and I just don't think it holds any merit. That you immediately focused on the wording of my sentence rather than the message, and somehow think that this is driving people into denialism is straight out the fossil fuel PR playbook. I've seen the 'most effective messaging' debate played out between climate scientists forever. I'll dig up a few articles or pods about it if you want but they all come to the same conclusion in the end. If you don't want to hear the point then sugarcoating won't change anything, and never has. There is no magic stat, communication style, formula or chart that can really compete against an industry that makes 32 bil a day and is using a fair chunk of that to counteract your point.

You have focused on one word that I said, deliberating misinterpreting as a literal point to start with when it obviously wasn't and then pivoted to say that my messaging is the problem that makes denialism worse or something to that effect. No, it doesn't, or if it does you were that way inclined to begin with. It is more or less the same argument being applied to the climate protesters on how they are protesting in the wrong way. This is a variation of this same idea.

Climate scientists certainly have improved how they deliver the message, especially in recent years. Some have become very good storytellers which is helping, and some others have gone on to protest more vigorously as they think that is the best way to make their point. I don't give a fudge how they do it as we are all pulling the same way in the end and time is almost up.

I think there is lot that should be taken from peoples feedback into this, as clearly the current changes are inconsequential. People buying new electric car which is barely better environmentally than a petrol one. We are not making any significant headway, while the planet heats up.

So we should understand why that is!

Messaging is crucial.

Governmental action is weak.

And international pressure and cooperation is woeful.

When you see that Turkmenistan emits the same amount of carbon from simple Methane production leaks as the whole UKs carbon footprint each year, something is seriously seriously wrong. This is a case of plugging some pipes and not burning off or dumping unwanted gas. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-methane-emissions-from-turkmenistan-revealed

A Gutterboy-type question: should governments impose taxes for having more than one kid? As humans are the issue, and there are so many of them. Probably the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is not have them. Each human spawns more travel-hungry earth exploiters.

I have voted Green the last few elections. We need much more effective government around the world to make any meaningful changes. Technologically and collectively, we can easily plug the leaks of Methane in Turkmenistan. It probably wouldn't even cost that much and its equal to the UKs yearly carbon impact!

So what 'boils' my pizz is how ineffective we are at addressing these relatively simple things. Governments are not providing leadership, and humans are still producing increasing numbers of people.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think there is lot that should be taken from peoples feedback into this, as clearly the current changes are inconsequential. People buying new electric car which is barely better environmentally than a petrol one. We are not making any significant headway, while the planet heats up.

So we should understand why that is!

Messaging is crucial.

Governmental action is weak.

And international pressure and cooperation is woeful.

When you see that Turkmenistan emits the same amount of carbon from simple Methane production leaks as the whole UKs carbon footprint each year, something is seriously seriously wrong. This is a case of plugging some pipes and not burning off or dumping unwanted gas. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-methane-emissions-from-turkmenistan-revealed

A Gutterboy-type question: should governments impose taxes for having more than one kid? As humans are the issue, and there are so many of them. Probably the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is not have them. Each human spawns more travel-hungry earth exploiters.

I have voted Green the last few elections. We need much more effective government around the world to make any meaningful changes. Technologically and collectively, we can easily plug the leaks of Methane in Turkmenistan. It probably wouldn't even cost that much and its equal to the UKs yearly carbon impact!

So what 'boils' my pizz is how ineffective we are at addressing these relatively simple things. Governments are not providing leadership, and humans are still producing increasing numbers of people.

Then why are extinction rebellion and just stop oil not protesting outside the turkmenistan embassy each day?

 

[Rorschach]

Totally get where you are coming from. The fossil fuel industry and other bad players are spending a lot of money trying to obfuscate the truth. Create uncertainty and even disbelief. If there is no truth, then the truth can be what you make it. For your own advantage.

But there is an objective truth and we should try to stay as close to that as possible.

It is very reminiscent of the methods employed by the tobacco industry back in the day. The tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to manipulate public opinion are not that different than those they used. It has evolved now as it needed to. It needed to because climate change became an accepted fact rather than a scientific debate (stoked by the fossil fuel industry). It has moved from sponsored contrarian research to absolute greenwashed nonsense.
Carbon capture tech is a perfect example of a technology that will not help at all on a scale that will make a jot of difference, yet it is plugged into every net zero carbon equation.

 

[Rorschach]

I think there is lot that should be taken from peoples feedback into this, as clearly the current changes are inconsequential. People buying new electric car which is barely better environmentally than a petrol one. We are not making any significant headway, while the planet heats up.

So we should understand why that is!

Messaging is crucial.

Governmental action is weak.

And international pressure and cooperation is woeful.

When you see that Turkmenistan emits the same amount of carbon from simple Methane production leaks as the whole UKs carbon footprint each year, something is seriously seriously wrong. This is a case of plugging some pipes and not burning off or dumping unwanted gas. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-methane-emissions-from-turkmenistan-revealed

A Gutterboy-type question: should governments impose taxes for having more than one kid? As humans are the issue, and there are so many of them. Probably the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is not have them. Each human spawns more travel-hungry earth exploiters.

I have voted Green the last few elections. We need much more effective government around the world to make any meaningful changes. Technologically and collectively, we can easily plug the leaks of Methane in Turkmenistan. It probably wouldn't even cost that much and its equal to the UKs yearly carbon impact!

So what 'boils' my pizz is how ineffective we are at addressing these relatively simple things. Governments are not providing leadership, and humans are still producing increasing numbers of people.

Methane leaks can be spotted by satellite too. It is way worse than CO2 and only stays 12 years in the atmosphere so a quick(ish) fix. It is no brainer to go after every well or pump that is emitting it and fine them until they fix it.

 

[Lilbaz]

It is very reminiscent of the methods employed by the tobacco industry back in the day. The tactics used by the fossil fuel industry to manipulate public opinion were not that different than those they used. It has evolved now as it needed to because climate change became an accepted fact rather than a scientific debate (stoked by the fossil fuel industry). It has moved from sponsored contrarian research to absolute greenwashed nonsense. Carbon capture tech is a perfect example of a technology that will not help at all on a scale that will make a jot of difference, yet it is plugged into every net zero carbon equation.

As you said. £32bn a day. Every day delayed is worth a lot of money.

 

[P.D.]

Problem is no one has actually said in simple language what humans need to do by way of life changes. I think people understand recycling, electric cars etc but realistically to achieve the reductions needed people would need to stop flying, get off gas heating, cut 50% off meat from their diet etc but no government is going to come out and say that.

There's lots of simple changes that could help though - I mean why are new build houses being built with gas heating, why don't they all include solar panels etc. The whole thing about burning gas to generate electricity needs to stop - we're still dallying about building another nuclear plant, it's so obvious they're needed we should be aiming for 2 or 3 more not squabbling over 1.

 

[Lilbaz]

Problem is no one has actually said in simple language what humans need to do by way of life changes. I think people understand recycling, electric cars etc but realistically to achieve the reductions needed people would need to stop flying, get off gas heating, cut 50% off meat from their diet etc but no government is going to come out and say that.

There's lots of simple changes that could help though - I mean why are new build houses being built with gas heating, why don't they all include solar panels etc. The whole thing about burning gas to generate electricity needs to stop - we're still dallying about building another nuclear plant, it's so obvious they're needed we should be aiming for 2 or 3 more not squabbling over 1.

Don't get sucked into the trap. BP were the ones to come up with the idea of a personal carbon footprint. Why? To take pressure off the producers and put it on consumers.
We don't need to give up flying. Just the planes need to run on clean energy.
We don't have to give up eating meat either. Just the way cattle is raised needs to use less carbon or be offset by reductions.

 

[SpurMeUp]

The seas are boiling and it is freaking out every climate scientist on the planet and it is barely getting a mention in the MSM. We're the dog in the burning house.

as you said Mr https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65948544.amp

Just in our experiences: our summers are not what they were right? Summers in the 70s, 80s, 90s weren’t quite like this were they? No wonder the seas are getting hotter

We already have a dramatically different climate.

What we can do about it, and how we go after the ‘low-hanging fruit’, dealing with things like methane leaks? But the rate of change should alarm us and should make us ask what change we can ensure our governments take. Just buying EVs isn’t the answer. We need to ensure nation states are collaborating globally to attack the most severe drivers of climate change.

 

[Grays_1890]

as you said Mr

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65948544.amp

Just in our experiences: our summers are not what they were right? Summers in the 70s, 80s, 90s weren’t quite like this were they? No wonder the seas are getting hotter

We already have a pretty dramatically different climate.

What we can do about it, and how we go after the ‘low hanging fruit’ of dealing with things like methane leaks is still unclear. But the rate of change should alarm and should make us ask what change can we ensure our governments take? Just buying EVs isn’t the answer. We need to ensure nation states are collaborating globally to attack the most severe drivers of climate change.

The issue we have now though is the over reliance on things makes it hard to make the needed wholesale changes. Also as much as its needed you can't plunge people who are already poorer in the current climate by making them poorer by forcing change with cars and the increase in costs, there are massive dangers across the board that cross pollinate in my opinion and they are all linked. Cost of living, climate and food crises are all linked, its a balancing act beyond our capabilities to manage IMO, something has to give

 

[SpurMeUp]

The issue we have now though is the over reliance on things makes it hard to make the needed wholesale changes. Also as much as its needed you can't plunge people who are already poorer in the current climate by making them poorer by forcing change with cars and the increase in costs, there are massive dangers across the board that cross pollinate in my opinion and they are all linked. Cost of living, climate and food crises are all linked, its a balancing act beyond our capabilities to manage IMO, something has to give

It is a perilous position. Humans only have a certain capacity. We aren’t able to address lots of things at once.

We need an international focus on quick climate wins. When methane leaks from a few processing plants in one country equated to THE WHOLE of the UKs annual carbon emissions, there are easy things we can do.

We need to count the emissions globally, as well as nationally, and get government’s working together more.