https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... imate-poll" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If that's true, I suggest they want faster action by someone else, not themselves. Maybe I move in the wrong circles but I don't know anyone except me who has done anything to change their ways to alleviate climate issues. And I haven't done much.

And someone else to pay for it

Of course they do, as long as it doesn’t mean turning down the heat, being able to buy mass produced ‘throwaway’ clothes, drive to the shops, buy plastic ridden products, catch cheap flights for weekends away etc. etc.

Most people probably do want fast action but few I suspect would be prepared to do what might be necessary.

The individual can make small lifestyle changes and if we all do that, the effect is huge.

Personally, I have reduced my annual mileage from 25,000 to 7,000 and instead of buying the 3.5 litre car I desired, I bought the 1.8 version.

In my garden, I’ve deliberately chosen flowers that attract bees, butterflies, dragonflies, ladybirds etc. and created areas suitable for birds to nest and hedgehogs to hibernate.

When shopping I select items with the least packaging and use the recycling bins.

I’m sure there is far more I could do.

Firstly, it's the Guardian and secondly, what questions were they asked and how were they phrased ?

Surveys can produce any result you want .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

2000 people were asked out of a population of over sixty million and they say that 70% want action.How do they arrive at that conclusion. Statistics, Statistics and dammed lies.
Until China, India Russia and tbe USA do more to reduce their footprint then the whole exercise is useless.

It's not useless, the first companies and countries to develop the solutions and infrastructure required will gain big competitive advantage as the world slowly figures it out. The wealthiest in India and China look to the west for their spending aspirations, as soon as petrol engines are old news and it's cool to drive Tesla's here, they'll become massive in Asia too and become the aspirational choice for billions.
Big action absolutely needs to come from governments though, consumers are too isolated, uninformed or unmotivated to make long term sustainability decisions, and even when they are informed the cumulative effect is minimal from small communities in relatively well off nations. We'd still be killing the ozone with CFCs had they not been banned, by governments. Pressure needs applying to governments, these problems won't be solved by a globe full of consumers.

What we do is pointless, if China, India, the US and other big polluters do nothing.

I am definately in the 1/3 that want slower change then.
still lots of issues unresolved about this, and the causes. Some might ridicule the scientists who are sceptical, but it looks like there are vested interests in announcing the planet is doomed.
and as box of frogs suggested, a few diligent folk in the UK chucking rubbish out in the correct bins or driving a few less miles is a drop in the ocean as long as entire continents are busy spewing colossal tonnages of crap into the atmosphere.

Wile E Coyote wrote:I am definately in the 1/3 that want slower change then.
still lots of issues unresolved about this, and the causes. Some might ridicule the scientists who are sceptical, but it looks like there are vested interests in announcing the planet is doomed.
and as box of frogs suggested, a few diligent folk in the UK chucking rubbish out in the correct bins or driving a few less miles is a drop in the ocean as long as entire continents are busy spewing colossal tonnages of crap into the atmosphere.

Don't you think there's probably few more incredibly rich, massively influential, well connected, lobbyist funding 'vested interests' on the 'carry on (giving us your money) as normal' side of the argument though? (Obviously there are and they've been very successful creating any form of debate at all)

box_of_frogs wrote:What we do is pointless, if China, India, the US and other big polluters do nothing.

Directly, as far as climate change is concerned, 'yes'.

However this country can still set an example and in addition, reducing fossil fuel use will improve air quality which is becoming an increasing concern.

Therefore we should still act.

Hipper wrote:Directly, as far as climate change is concerned, 'yes'.

However this country can still set an example and in addition, reducing fossil fuel use will improve air quality which is becoming an increasing concern.

Therefore we should still act.

This

Agreed, I’m not saying chin it all off. But there comes a point where the cost to us outweighs the zero benefit gained if others are doing nothing. At that point we’re just pointlessly thrashing ourselves.

One or two who post on here could benefit the whole of mankind by cutting out their personal carbon dioxide emissions.

Hipper wrote:If that's true, I suggest they want faster action by someone else, not themselves. Maybe I move in the wrong circles but I don't know anyone except me who has done anything to change their ways to alleviate climate issues. And I haven't done much.

These kind of surveys are worthless because they skew the result towards the answers they want and then present them in the manner you've demonstrated.

I doubt that anybody who completed the survey was asked the direct question, "Do you want faster action on climate change?"

Rather they would have bee asked a leading question such as "Do you think the UK should set an example and lead other countries by cutting CO2 emissions ahead of the minimum targets?"

If two thirds of people answer yes to that leading question, we end up with tendentious headlines like the thread title.

I'm even more certain that they won't have been asked the kind of leading question that would just as easily have produced the opposite result. For example, if you ask people "Would you be willing to surrender your car and your gas central heating so that the government can impose compulsory restrictions on your energy use?" then people would, of course, respond with a no.

And you could write the headline "vast majority of people vigorously oppose government's pie-in-the-sky net zero CO2 policy".

Welcome to the post truth era where everything you read confirms the beliefs you already think you hold.

BTW I switched from using pencils to pens to cut back on how much carbon I was using.

Nobody can't tell me I'm not doing my bit for the new religion.

Are you still a denier of man-made climate change, Rowls?

He's a denier of anything that doesn't suit his world view full stop.

Clarets4me wrote:Firstly, it's the Guardian and secondly, what questions were they asked and how were they phrased ?

Surveys can produce any result you want .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

I knew that link would be that clip

Erasmus wrote:Are you still a denier of man-made climate change, Rowls?

I'm highly sceptical, happy to tell you that but more than that I do not think that the apocalypse is round the corner. This is an age-old evolutionary human trait.

Very happy to create new lower carbon tech because that will benefit us long term. Very happy to have targets to lower carbon that are challenging but achievable.

But there is so much BS about this subject that it's impossible to judge it properly.

For example, the BBC had a story the other day which amounted to "Polar Bear Spotted in Polar Region". The story tried to imply that this was down to climate change (without expressly stating so). The poor polar bear was apparently hungry because of climate change.

What the story failed to mention is that breeding pairs of polar bears are at record highs and that they are not under any immediate threat.

Lancasterclaret wrote:He's a denier of anything that doesn't suit his world view full stop.

I suppose this is a view that really challenged your world view?

I'm sure you thought long and hard before posting it because unlike me you're so thoughtful and have put immeasurable hours into your correct "world view".

Clarets4me wrote:Firstly, it's the Guardian and secondly, what questions were they asked and how were they phrased ?

Surveys can produce any result you want .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

... and The Independent.....

Rowls wrote:These kind of surveys are worthless because they skew the result towards the answers they want and then present them in the manner you've demonstrated.

I doubt that anybody who completed the survey was asked the direct question, "Do you want faster action on climate change?"

Rather they would have bee asked a leading question such as "Do you think the UK should set an example and lead other countries by cutting CO2 emissions ahead of the minimum targets?"

If two thirds of people answer yes to that leading question, we end up with tendentious headlines like the thread title.

I'm even more certain that they won't have been asked the kind of leading question that would just as easily have produced the opposite result. For example, if you ask people "Would you be willing to surrender your car and your gas central heating so that the government can impose compulsory restrictions on your energy use?" then people would, of course, respond with a no.

And you could write the headline "vast majority of people vigorously oppose government's pie-in-the-sky net zero CO2 policy".

Welcome to the post truth era where everything you read confirms the beliefs you already think you hold.

Why don't you read the article then you can get some idea of the questions asked.

I agree though that this article have something of a press release about them.

Hipper wrote:Why don't you read the article then you can get some idea of the questions asked.
I agree though that this article have something of a press release about them.

I read the article. It doesn't tell us how the questions were phrased.

And I already have "an idea" of the kind of questions that were asked. It's only an idea though and I may be wrong but I spelled it out in my first post on this thread.

As has been stated on this thread, I'm sceptical about many of the claims, even if there is some kind of truth to the idea of man-made climate change.

However, here's an article with some very good points which sums up partially how I feel about the issue:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1974" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hipper wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... imate-poll

If that's true, I suggest they want faster action by someone else, not themselves. Maybe I move in the wrong circles but I don't know anyone except me who has done anything to change their ways to alleviate climate issues. And I haven't done much.

Individuals taking action isn't going to solve the problem, what's going to solve the problem is entire countries taking action. That's why we want the government to change it's policies to be those that actually will help solve the problem.

Asking the public to inflate their tyres, or to only boil just enough water for their tea, was never going to solve the problem, or even help all that much, because people are lazy and change is hard. That's why we want the government to create policies that solve the problem at its root - ending the need for fossil fuel.

Ending fossil fuel subsidies (which they don't ******* need because it's the richest industry in history) will make fossil fuels more expensive. Or more accurately it will make them exactly as expensive as the free market says they should be.
Then we better subsidise the production and use of renewable energy solutions with some (or all, i'm fine with all) of the billions of pounds we'll save every year because we no longer need to give these leeches tax breaks and grants.

The root cause of our global inaction against climate change has been money. We tried making humanitarian arguments and the monied interests fought against them, with money (and lots of lies). So let's fight money with money. Make it more expensive to use fuels that are destroying the habitability of our planet. And the only way we can do that is if we collectively decide that that's what we want our governments to do.

So, stop shaming people for travelling on planes, for eating beef, for not having the most energy-efficient lifestyle because you're taken some personal, meagre action to alter yours, and start acting smart about what is actually going to change policies, because their vote is much more helpful in this fight than having them be careful about how much water they're boiling.

Rowls wrote:I suppose this is a view that really challenged your world view?

I'm sure you thought long and hard before posting it because unlike me you're so thoughtful and have put immeasurable hours into your correct "world view".

Well no, I haven't spent hours constructing ludicrous scenarios where I look a fool after my first post.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Well no, I haven't spent hours constructing ludicrous scenarios where I look a fool after my first post.

No response necessary here Lancs.

Rowls wrote:No response necessary here Lancs.

Quite correct as well

You know what you are doing, and I know what you are doing, and I'll just wait till you make a complete fool of yourself as usual.

I mean, you've managed it already which I think is a new record.

I'm not sure just because some doom mongers have got it wrong over the years means that others are wrong too.

I don't think it matters too much if climate change is caused by humans or not. The key question is 'is it happening'. Then we need to ask if the results will be good or bad. If bad, can we slow or stop it, and if that is not possible, then how best to mitigate the damage. Once we decide to tackle the issue then we should ask what the causes are.

The problem is the whole business is so incredibly complicated and it is clear we still don't know all there is to know. All we can do is use our best computers to model and estimate of what may happen, and of course that means putting in various parameters which if changed slightly can give large differences in results.

My view is that it seems certain the earth is warming up - glaciers are melting, permafrost is melting, oceans are warming etc..

Is it going to be good or bad? Here in the UK I would think that is difficult to answer as it seems we may warm up through climate but perhaps cool if the Gulf Stream changes. We will suffer loss of land and infrastructure through sea level rises.

I think it is man made. A good case has been made. We certainly can affect the environment on a global scale - O-zone hole, plastics, chemicals. What evidence is there that it is a natural phenomenon. I thought the natural threat was another ice age (as has been pointed out somewhere, perhaps our warming the climate will counteract an ice age).

The most obvious cause is population growth, and add to that the standard of living people expected - cars, phones etc..

I'm of the view that we can't solve the problems on a global basis because the poorer overcrowded countries - e.g. Indonesia, Phillipines - will find it impossible to do. Therefore we should look after our own interests here in the UK as best we can.

Looks like the government have finally figured out that they need to end subsidies of the fossil fuel industry!

Only kidding, they're ending a subsidy for a component of solar energy because they're *****.

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/statu ... 40385?s=09" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wile E Coyote wrote:I am definately in the 1/3 that want slower change then.
still lots of issues unresolved about this, and the causes. Some might ridicule the scientists who are sceptical, but it looks like there are vested interests in announcing the planet is doomed.
and as box of frogs suggested, a few diligent folk in the UK chucking rubbish out in the correct bins or driving a few less miles is a drop in the ocean as long as entire continents are busy spewing colossal tonnages of crap into the atmosphere.

You Sir, are an ignoramus, of the first order!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Looks like the government have finally figured out that they need to end subsidies of the fossil fuel industry!

Only kidding, they're ending a subsidy for a component of solar energy because they're *****.

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/statu ... 40385?s=09" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this a government decision? I thought it was due to a recent ECJ ruling on VAT treatment.

The EU isn't keen on the 0% and 5% band for VAT, we can keep old stuff in there but it is very difficult to get anything new into those bands.

Rowls wrote:I'm highly sceptical, happy to tell you that but more than that I do not think that the apocalypse is round the corner. This is an age-old evolutionary human trait.

Very happy to create new lower carbon tech because that will benefit us long term. Very happy to have targets to lower carbon that are challenging but achievable.

But there is so much BS about this subject that it's impossible to judge it properly.

For example, the BBC had a story the other day which amounted to "Polar Bear Spotted in Polar Region". The story tried to imply that this was down to climate change (without expressly stating so). The poor polar bear was apparently hungry because of climate change.

What the story failed to mention is that breeding pairs of polar bears are at record highs and that they are not under any immediate threat.

Pompous, & wrong as usual!.....Do you even believe in Science?....
You know, where you come up with a thesis, conduct experiments, which are then reproduced by your peers, and then, only then, you publish your findings......Keep reading the Daily Mail, while masturbating before portraits of Margaret Thatcher & the Queen/ Boris Johnson.

The temperature of the earth rises and it falls it’s been doing that for billions of years....the earth in the past has been hotter than current temperatures for many many years! Yes, carbon monoxide according to the scientists has risen the temperature of the earth by 1 degree over the last hundred years or so....but how much would it have risen on its own anyway?

Mother Earth is in a warming phase at the moment, if we are looking to cut carbon monoxide because it’s risen the temperature.....what are we going to do when the time comes that Mother Earth decides to go into her cooling phase....? It’s not that long ago we had a mini ice age....Would we be therefore pumping as much carbon monoxide into the air as we can to counteract her from cooling when she does it again?

We can’t control mother Nature! She will do as she pleases....we are just along for the ride!

What we need to concentrate on right now is plastic! Lets get this plastic problem under control and clean it up...!

COYC73 wrote:Would we be therefore pumping as much carbon monoxide into the air as we can to counteract her from cooling

Pretty sure we don’t want to be doing that.

COYC73 wrote:The temperature of the earth rises and it falls it’s been doing that for billions of years....the earth in the past has been hotter than current temperatures for many many years! Yes, carbon monoxide according to the scientists has risen the temperature of the earth by 1 degree over the last hundred years or so....but how much would it have risen on its own anyway?

Mother Earth is in a warming phase at the moment, if we are looking to cut carbon monoxide because it’s risen the temperature.....what are we going to do when the time comes that Mother Earth decides to go into her cooling phase....? It’s not that long ago we had a mini ice age....Would we be therefore pumping as much carbon monoxide into the air as we can to counteract her from cooling when she does it again?

We can’t control mother Nature! She will do as she pleases....we are just along for the ride!

What we need to concentrate on right now is plastic! Lets get this plastic problem under control and clean it up...!

Mother Earth is in a plastic phase at the moment. We can just wait for her to enter her non-plastic phase. We can't control mother nature, she will do as she pleases. We are just along for the ride.

COYC73 wrote:The temperature of the earth rises and it falls it’s been doing that for billions of years....the earth in the past has been hotter than current temperatures for many many years! Yes, carbon monoxide according to the scientists has risen the temperature of the earth by 1 degree over the last hundred years or so....but how much would it have risen on its own anyway?

Mother Earth is in a warming phase at the moment, if we are looking to cut carbon monoxide because it’s risen the temperature.....what are we going to do when the time comes that Mother Earth decides to go into her cooling phase....? It’s not that long ago we had a mini ice age....Would we be therefore pumping as much carbon monoxide into the air as we can to counteract her from cooling when she does it again?

We can’t control mother Nature! She will do as she pleases....we are just along for the ride!

What we need to concentrate on right now is plastic! Lets get this plastic problem under control and clean it up...!

The last mini ice age saw temperatures drop by 2 degrees over a period of 700 years. This 2 degree swing froze the baltic sea and caused widespread famine via crop failure.
If a 2 degree drop freezes the ******* sea what do you think a 2 degree increase will do, because we're halfway there.

lancastrian wrote:2000 people were asked out of a population of over sixty million and they say that 70% want action.How do they arrive at that conclusion. Statistics, Statistics and dammed lies.
Until China, India Russia and tbe USA do more to reduce their footprint then the whole exercise is useless.

Add Europes biggest emitter of CO2 Germany. They have 7 of the biggest 10 emitters in Europe. Coal fired power stations.

lancastrian wrote:2000 people were asked out of a population of over sixty million and they say that 70% want action.How do they arrive at that conclusion.

My maths isn't great, but I presume 1,400 people of the 2,000 asked said they want faster action.

Taffy on the wing wrote:Pompous, & wrong as usual!.....Do you even believe in Science?....
You know, where you come up with a thesis, conduct experiments, which are then reproduced by your peers, and then, only then, you publish your findings......Keep reading the Daily Mail, while masturbating before portraits of Margaret Thatcher & the Queen/ Boris Johnson.

Stupid bugger. Talk some sense, grow up and learn how to behave and sturcture a comment. This is rubbish.

Rowls wrote:I'm highly sceptical, happy to tell you that but more than that I do not think that the apocalypse is round the corner. This is an age-old evolutionary human trait.

Very happy to create new lower carbon tech because that will benefit us long term. Very happy to have targets to lower carbon that are challenging but achievable.

But there is so much BS about this subject that it's impossible to judge it properly.

For example, the BBC had a story the other day which amounted to "Polar Bear Spotted in Polar Region". The story tried to imply that this was down to climate change (without expressly stating so). The poor polar bear was apparently hungry because of climate change.

What the story failed to mention is that breeding pairs of polar bears are at record highs and that they are not under any immediate threat.

Come on then. Post an example of "BS" from the scientific consensus. Don't come at me with individuals on the BBC or in the Daily Express saying something, post something from the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming that you think is "BS".

You call yourself a skeptic. If that's true then you should have no problem posting an example of something you are comfortable declaring is "BS".

------

For the rest of you, no, i don't expect him to respond with an example. Because he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. All he knows is that his team calls themselves "skeptics" and so that means he's a "skeptic" too, in his mind.

JohnMcGreal wrote:Mother Earth is in a plastic phase at the moment. We can just wait for her to enter her non-plastic phase. We can't control mother nature, she will do as she pleases. We are just along for the ride.

Awww it sounds like your bum is very sore.... Hope it's not too long before your bum hole returns to a normal size again....ouch!

Stayingup wrote:Stupid bugger. Talk some sense, grow up and learn how to behave and sturcture a comment. This is rubbish.

How about you give your opinion on the scientific consensus on AGW and then the rest of us will decide how capable you are at presenting an informed opinion.

Hell yeah! Cheap petrol and the mass importation of 60s Amercan cars.

I want one of these to add to my collection. An Oldsmobile from 1970, or old smog bile to those green from fumes in London and Brighton etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6rFPeG5F1c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Taffy on the wing wrote:You Sir, are an ignoramus, of the first order!

predictable remark from someone who hasnt a clue. "Baaaaaaa"

I think the stats are a fair representation: I want action on climate change about 66.6% of the time

Wile E Coyote wrote:predictable remark from someone who hasnt a clue. "Baaaaaaa"

And you do have a clue? Then explain why you disagree with the scientific consensus on AGW. Present your opinion in a way you would like others to present theirs, and we'll see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

I think most people are horrified with the state of the Oceans, and the effect we’re having on the environment without necessarily believing it is totally as a result of our actions that the Earth is going through a natural circle of climate change, it’s pretty clear not only from Earth’s human history, but also the evidence of our solar system that most planets have evolved to become the planets they are, Earth seems to fit the estimated times scales in planetary evolution.

elwaclaret wrote:I think most people are horrified with the state of the Oceans, and the effect we’re having on the environment without necessarily believing it is totally as a result of our actions that the Earth is going through a natural circle of climate change, it’s pretty clear not only from Earth’s human history, but also the evidence of our solar system that most planets have evolved to become the planets they are, Earth seems to fit the estimated times scales in planetary evolution.

There is no known cycle that explains the rapid warming seen over recent decades. It is essentially proven that it is caused by man-made emissions. It explains it perfectly while absolutely nothing else can.

Imploding Turtle wrote:There is no known cycle that explains the rapid warming seen over recent decades. It is essentially proven that it is caused by man-made emissions. It explains it perfectly while absolutely nothing else can.

Not in a position to argue the point IT. I don’t follow the ins and outs of climate change. But I know we are destroying nature, environments where nature exists, plants and species that cannot be replaced... many of which could be the only known antidote for some human disease etc. If we keep going at the rate we are I don’t think I’ll be that bothered if Earth turns into Mars.

I’ve certainly changed sides on plastic.