Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Climate change: The huge opinion gap in the US – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 1 in General
imageClimate change: The huge opinion gap in the US – politicalbetting.com

As the world’s focus moves to the Glasgow climate change conference YouGov US has published the above polling which I find quite shocking. The figures for college graduates show the huge gulf that exists with just 21% of Republican ones agreeing with the statement compared with 95% of Democrat college grads.

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    First. Like Bonnie the Glasgow seal.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,411
    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,668
    edited November 1
    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,411

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the world was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...



    Maybe I was catatrophising. Find the continuing excuses for doing close to bugger all very frustrating.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,668
    edited November 1
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the world was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...

    Maybe I was catatrophising. Find the continuing excuses for doing close to bugger all very frustrating.
    I've never really believed that it would be possible to solve this politically. I recall saying such in 1989 in the only bit of actual English I had to write for my degree.

    Technologically, yes, it probably is, but only by making _better_ things than we already have. People are very reluctant to give anything up.

    We'll end up having to adapt. Things might change a bit, but life will go on.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,668

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    Something which is going to be a problem fairly soon (historically speaking) with or without man doing anything.

    We suffer from having short racial memories and a short history. We have lived through a relatively stable period that has allowed civilisation to grow in an extremely unusual period of climate stability. This has meant we have planted much of our population in places where we should not have done. Places that would flood in the not too distant future even if man had never appeared on the planet. Moreover our failure to understand or ignore processes such as isostatic readjustment - and to take steps that have made it even worse in places like New Orleans means that we have simply added to our woes.

    We are a short lived species lacking a proper sense of how much the world changes of its own accord. As such we will continue to believe we can do something to change it and will remain woefully unprepared for when it is finally realised that we can't.
    Yes, I agree. I don't think we are helping ourselves here, but whether we pump CO2 into the atmosphere or not, there is no right to expect everything to stay as it is.

    Change is normal, stasis is not. Adapt or die, as they say.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,411
    The only good thing about this World Series is that one of these deeply unlikeable teams will lose.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 704
    I always think these sorts of graphs should have bubbles underneath them showing the proportion of population they represent. One of the reason Republican college grads are so extreme is that after recent realignments there aren't many left. In London, the university educated, professional environment I worked in had a good mix of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. In the US, it was already 80-20 Democrats. Post-Trump that 20% of Republicans has all become swing voters or even ardent Dems. The fact the leading intellectual in the GOP these days is Tucker Carlson says a lot.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    After you…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    edited November 1
    Interesting poll. Now order those same groups by per-capita carbon footprint.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,743

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    Something which is going to be a problem fairly soon (historically speaking) with or without man doing anything.

    We suffer from having short racial memories and a short history. We have lived through a relatively stable period that has allowed civilisation to grow in an extremely unusual period of climate stability. This has meant we have planted much of our population in places where we should not have done. Places that would flood in the not too distant future even if man had never appeared on the planet. Moreover our failure to understand or ignore processes such as isostatic readjustment - and to take steps that have made it even worse in places like New Orleans means that we have simply added to our woes.

    We are a short lived species lacking a proper sense of how much the world changes of its own accord. As such we will continue to believe we can do something to change it and will remain woefully unprepared for when it is finally realised that we can't.
    There are sound economic reasons why human society has developed largely around coasts and rivers. How exactly do you propose to undo that?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,504

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    Can I suggest Weyerhaeuser stock: 12.4m acres owned in the Northern US and a further 14m long-term leased in Canada.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    Can I suggest Weyerhaeuser stock: 12.4m acres owned in the Northern US and a further 14m long-term leased in Canada.
    Hasn’t Bill Gates also been buying up millions of acres of the central USA?
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-gates-climate-crisis-farmland
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,693

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the world was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...

    Maybe I was catatrophising. Find the continuing excuses for doing close to bugger all very frustrating.
    I've never really believed that it would be possible to solve this politically. I recall saying such in 1989 in the only bit of actual English I had to write for my degree.

    Technologically, yes, it probably is, but only by making _better_ things than we already have. People are very reluctant to give anything up.

    We'll end up having to adapt. Things might change a bit, but life will go on.
    Mitigation is better than treatment. The world is sleepwalking into catastrophe - we have all been warned!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    Glad to hear there’s no serious injuries from the train derailment in Salisbury. I’ve been through that tunnel hundreds of times. Thankfully it’s a slow section of line on the approach to the station, but it’s also the cue for alighting pax to stand up and get their bags.

    The City traffic will all be driving themselves to Andover right about now, no way they want to be on a replacement bus service!
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,459
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    Can I suggest Weyerhaeuser stock: 12.4m acres owned in the Northern US and a further 14m long-term leased in Canada.
    Current market cap $27BN !
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    On the subject of the previous thread - one disadvantage of the UK changing the clocks, is that it takes PB an hour longer to wake up in the morning. :)

    That, and the midweek football matches finishing at 01:45 instead of 12:45.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    .
    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Sandpit said:

    Glad to hear there’s no serious injuries from the train derailment in Salisbury. I’ve been through that tunnel hundreds of times. Thankfully it’s a slow section of line on the approach to the station, but it’s also the cue for alighting pax to stand up and get their bags.

    The City traffic will all be driving themselves to Andover right about now, no way they want to be on a replacement bus service!

    I wonder how many will go back to working from home this week?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump involved in the debate.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    edited November 1
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Glad to hear there’s no serious injuries from the train derailment in Salisbury. I’ve been through that tunnel hundreds of times. Thankfully it’s a slow section of line on the approach to the station, but it’s also the cue for alighting pax to stand up and get their bags.

    The City traffic will all be driving themselves to Andover right about now, no way they want to be on a replacement bus service!

    I wonder how many will go back to working from home this week?
    I just looked at the timetables, and they’ve actually cancelled all the trains for the next few hours, not enough time to organise buses as well as deal with all the taxis and hotels they’ve had to arrange overnight.

    Drive to Amazingstoke, Southampton or Exeter>Taunton>Westbury>Pewsey>Newbury if you really need to get to London today, otherwise a couple of days WFH is on the cards for everyone West of Salisbury.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    moonshine said:

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    Something which is going to be a problem fairly soon (historically speaking) with or without man doing anything.

    We suffer from having short racial memories and a short history. We have lived through a relatively stable period that has allowed civilisation to grow in an extremely unusual period of climate stability. This has meant we have planted much of our population in places where we should not have done. Places that would flood in the not too distant future even if man had never appeared on the planet. Moreover our failure to understand or ignore processes such as isostatic readjustment - and to take steps that have made it even worse in places like New Orleans means that we have simply added to our woes.

    We are a short lived species lacking a proper sense of how much the world changes of its own accord. As such we will continue to believe we can do something to change it and will remain woefully unprepared for when it is finally realised that we can't.
    There are sound economic reasons why human society has developed largely around coasts and rivers. How exactly do you propose to undo that?
    And environmental ones. Humans need fresh water. More difficult to pump that up to the top of a hill than just extract it from a river.

    I remember everyone with a brain fell about laughing when Parmjit Dhanda, the then MP for Gloucester (who lived in Chelsea) said that the Mythe treatment works should be rebuilt on a hilltop so it wouldn’t be flooded again causing the loss of Gloucester’s water supply.

    What’s really funny is he couldn’t see why that wasn’t really an option…even when it was explained to him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,932
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides…..
    Precisely - on both sides.
    Which is why a cool headed assessment would ignore such emotions as a metric or judging the science.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.
  • @BethRigby
    NEW: PM spox contradictory read-out on Macron/BJ bi-lat
    - PM told Macron to withdraw threats
    - Should Fr enact threats & break treaty UK ‘stands ready to respond’ [trigger trade dispute mech)
    - PM hasn’t agreed (measures to ease tensions. Deesculation must come from Fr side
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1454778157748326403

    Deesculation? I hope she doesn't think she rides on the esculator..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the world was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...

    Maybe I was catatrophising. Find the continuing excuses for doing close to bugger all very frustrating.
    I've never really believed that it would be possible to solve this politically. I recall saying such in 1989 in the only bit of actual English I had to write for my degree.

    Technologically, yes, it probably is, but only by making _better_ things than we already have. People are very reluctant to give anything up.

    We'll end up having to adapt. Things might change a bit, but life will go on.
    Yes, just change your username to @coastal_shelf and job done.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465

    @BethRigby
    NEW: PM spox contradictory read-out on Macron/BJ bi-lat
    - PM told Macron to withdraw threats
    - Should Fr enact threats & break treaty UK ‘stands ready to respond’ [trigger trade dispute mech)
    - PM hasn’t agreed (measures to ease tensions. Deesculation must come from Fr side
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1454778157748326403

    Deesculation? I hope she doesn't think she rides on the esculator..

    ...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    Sandpit said:

    Glad to hear there’s no serious injuries from the train derailment in Salisbury. I’ve been through that tunnel hundreds of times. Thankfully it’s a slow section of line on the approach to the station, but it’s also the cue for alighting pax to stand up and get their bags.

    The City traffic will all be driving themselves to Andover right about now, no way they want to be on a replacement bus service!

    The railway got very lucky last night; that could have been much nastier. Glad to hear everyone's relatively okay.

    It's a reminder that whilst our railways are safer than they have ever been (*), much is down to luck. The fatal crash near Aberdeen last year (Carmont) was very unlucky - the derailment occurring just before a large underbridge. This could have been worse.

    Having said that, AIUI the number of serious *potential* incidents has also fallen considerably over the last couple of decades - i.e. we are being lucky from a smaller pool, despite more traffic on the rails.

    Time for some pure guesswork: there are rumours that there were two distinct failures; if the root cause of this was due to the recent weather, then it leads to more questions for Network Rail, especially after Carmont, and also how we protect our infrastructure from the effects of climate change.

    (*) Cue arguments on privatisation ...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104
    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    If finance is anything like education, I'm assuming you don't get to the top unless you have no integrity at all?

    But even by those standards this one sounds bad.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    edited November 1
    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump involved in the debate.
    The same can be said for many political debates, but this is particularly true for climate change.

    What can be observed is that there has been a broad scientific consensus on man made climate change for at least 20 years. However, even though they accept this; people are not willing to change their habits of consumption in any significant way. People still like cruises, cars, flights, new electronic gadgets etc etc, and this will continue to be the case, however bad the situation gets.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    dixiedean said:

    World is screwed. Will continue to be screwed. We have,no right to survive.

    World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot.

    500 million years ago, the Earth was almost entirely covered in ice. If it hadn't been for a few volcanoes emitting CO2, it would have been stuck as an ice world pretty much forever.

    50 million years ago, there was a period when it was about 10 degrees warmer than the present day. The _increase_ in biological activity this caused eventually brought the temperature down by dumping carbon in the deep oceans.

    There's no runaway happening here - either way - otherwise such a thing would already have happened.


    The big issue for _us_ is what happens when a large proportion of the world's cities are flooded and lots of people have to move.

    Perhaps the empty spaces of Siberia will become easier to live in...
    "World is not screwed. World will be fine, at least until the sun gets too hot."
    Yes world will be OK, humans on the other hand will have big problems if a tipping point is reached - such as the permafrost melting significantly and releasing huge amounts of methane which sets off much faster warming etc.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    One thing that I learned recently is that cruise ships have twice the carbon footprint per passenger mile as flying, so maybe not a great move.

    I always take my summer holiday with family on the IoW, but do crave a bit of winter sun. Madeira is lovely then.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,743
    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    It was alluded to up thread but it is highly irritating that the biggest preachers of global warming action are jet setting millennials that think it’s their human right to have a “travel experience” several times a year.
  • My local city is planning its transition away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/the-road-to-net-zero-aberdeen-looks-to-a-future-without-oil

    The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”

    How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    I mentioned that I have twice made overland trips to Scandinavia. However, when I added up the combined carbon footprint of long distance rail travel, hotels and ferries it came out worse than flying, even using the questionable methodology employed by these carbon footprint calculators.

    If you go on a new plane that is completely full, then flying isn't bad. If you are a serious environmentalist, what you really need to do is stop travelling completely, which of course no one wants to do.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    edited November 1
    The key figures here are 57% of US voters overall agree climate change is caused by human activity as do 86% of Democrats but just 32% of Republicans do.

    That suggests the GOP could be out of power for a generation, certainly at presidential level, unless they move back in tune with the majority of US voters who want action on climate change and believe it is man made.

    The fact the few Republicans who did back action on climate change eg the late John McCain's wife, Kasich and Schwarzenneger all backed Biden over Trump in 2020 makes their position even more difficult, Trumpism has driven moderates out of the party.

    Long gone are the days when a Republican President could sign an agreement to take action to solve climate change, as Bush Snr did at Rio in 1992
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    One thing that I learned recently is that cruise ships have twice the carbon footprint per passenger mile as flying, so maybe not a great move.

    I always take my summer holiday with family on the IoW, but do crave a bit of winter sun. Madeira is lovely then.

    Didn't realise that about cruise ships; in that case agree, not an option. We like the Algarve or the Canaries; Madeira is a bit too 'up and down' for us now. Looks like our next trip might be West Wales in springtime; do a bit of family history research there, as well as enjoy the scenery and the wild life.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    I mentioned that I have twice made overland trips to Scandinavia. However, when I added up the combined carbon footprint of long distance rail travel, hotels and ferries it came out worse than flying, even using the questionable methodology employed by these carbon footprint calculators.

    If you go on a new plane that is completely full, then flying isn't bad. If you are a serious environmentalist, what you really need to do is stop travelling completely, which of course no one wants to do.
    Interesting post; thanks. Another example of the obvious not always being the right answer.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump involved in the debate.
    The same can be said for many political debates, but this is particularly true for climate change.

    What can be observed is that there has been a broad scientific consensus on man made climate change for at least 20 years. However, even though they accept this; people are not willing to change their habits of consumption in any significant way. People still like cruises, cars, flights, new electronic gadgets etc etc, and this will continue to be the case, however bad the situation gets.
    The problem of climate change is the tragedy of the commons, writ very large indeed. The motivation for any individual is opposite to the interests of all. There can be no enclosure movement to address it either.

    Without binding international agreements there can be no success at stopping the catastrophe (and it will be so for much of humanity) but too many selfish carbon emitters in the world on both an individual and national basis for this to be anything more than the lowest common denominator.

    So might as well see the world before it gets destroyed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    It was alluded to up thread but it is highly irritating that the biggest preachers of global warming action are jet setting millennials that think it’s their human right to have a “travel experience” several times a year.
    I think that a pretty trite stereotype. Concern over the environment is very evenly spread across classes, ages and regions of the country.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    One thing that I learned recently is that cruise ships have twice the carbon footprint per passenger mile as flying, so maybe not a great move.

    I always take my summer holiday with family on the IoW, but do crave a bit of winter sun. Madeira is lovely then.

    I have flown into Madeira.. We nearly got diverted to Faro. It can be very windy there and landing a bit hairy! Not for the fainthearted!!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    Who would have thought lying mischaracterising the facts to a regulator was a bad idea?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    It was alluded to up thread but it is highly irritating that the biggest preachers of global warming action are jet setting millennials that think it’s their human right to have a “travel experience” several times a year.
    They provide valuable income and work for local communities.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    edited November 1
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump involved in the debate.
    The same can be said for many political debates, but this is particularly true for climate change.

    What can be observed is that there has been a broad scientific consensus on man made climate change for at least 20 years. However, even though they accept this; people are not willing to change their habits of consumption in any significant way. People still like cruises, cars, flights, new electronic gadgets etc etc, and this will continue to be the case, however bad the situation gets.
    This is where the zealots of the climate change lobby get it wrong.

    Changing consumption vis a vis liking cruises, cars, flights etc won't affect climate change.

    It is the Prisoner's Dilemma scaled to seven billion participants, even though if every single one of us changed their consumption it would, we know that is never going to happen. So we quite logically are not prepared to either.

    The only viable solution is clean technology. Switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity, dirty cars to clean cars, dirty flights to clean flights, etc

    The entire effort we need to put into this is both finding clean alternatives and putting them in place, or mitigation. Stopping consumption is barking up the wrong tree.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    edited November 1

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    One thing that I learned recently is that cruise ships have twice the carbon footprint per passenger mile as flying, so maybe not a great move.

    I always take my summer holiday with family on the IoW, but do crave a bit of winter sun. Madeira is lovely then.

    Didn't realise that about cruise ships; in that case agree, not an option. We like the Algarve or the Canaries; Madeira is a bit too 'up and down' for us now. Looks like our next trip might be West Wales in springtime; do a bit of family history research there, as well as enjoy the scenery and the wild life.
    Ships mostly burn very thick tar fuel, they’re horrible for the environment. IIRC one recently new cruise ship was experimenting with using more standard diesel fuel.

    By contrast, planes have got continually more efficient over the past few decades, and the space allocated to each person has got a lot smaller than it used to be!

    I’m happy to be doing my bit, not been on a plane in 21 months!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852

    My local city is planning its transition away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/the-road-to-net-zero-aberdeen-looks-to-a-future-without-oil

    The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”

    How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.

    Isn’t that what the Freeport in your old stomping ground is focused on? Not sure when Demark started focusing on wind, but I suspect that around when we missed a trick
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Good morning everybody. Looks as though we're in for a pleasant day here, although cool.

    Trick and treaters out in force around 6pm last night.

    On climate change, I suspect that we, as a family, will make some small changes, although Younger Son's carbon footprint will still be large.
    The effect of the pandemic will, perhaps, mean he travels a bit less, though.

    The toughest bit for me is giving up flying. I am not at that point yet. It is a very tough area to decarbonise.

    No trick or treaters round my way. The local parents organised a Halloween party instead. Better all round.
    I suspect we'll take less short-haul trips, although if we're actually going to visit Younger Son & his family, flying is really the only practicable option.
    I shall miss some really warm weather, though. I recall reading that Lloyd-George bought a house in Surrey later in life, as he wanted somewhere warmer in winter than NW Wales.

    Cruising is always an option, but crossing the Bay of Biscay isn't always 'fun'!
    One thing that I learned recently is that cruise ships have twice the carbon footprint per passenger mile as flying, so maybe not a great move.

    I always take my summer holiday with family on the IoW, but do crave a bit of winter sun. Madeira is lovely then.

    I have flown into Madeira.. We nearly got diverted to Faro. It can be very windy there and landing a bit hairy! Not for the fainthearted!!
    Yes, my last visit was a bit hairy! The pilot made two attempts, but pulled out each time as the wind made too much dead air. Third time he landed going away from Funchal. There is an emergency strip at Puerto Santo where they put down if it really is unlandable on Madeira itself and transfer by boat. On a calm day the scenery landing is quite something.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    My local city is planning its transition away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/the-road-to-net-zero-aberdeen-looks-to-a-future-without-oil

    The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”

    How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.

    That is right but it will take joined-up thinking from government (and banks) if we are to develop new industries here rather than in China, Germany or the United States because in the short term, imports will be cheaper and easier. I have made the same observation about government use of cloud computing where it feels like Jeff Bezos' mum must have a senior job in Whitehall. It goes back, perhaps, to the 1980s pivot to services and away from manufacturing. We do not need to make everything but we do need to make some things.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    The BBC has worse grasp of irony than Alanis Morissette. What we had yesterday was autumn, not climate change.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    I'm updating my CV as we speak.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,853

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
  • Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    Who would have thought lying mischaracterising the facts to a regulator was a bad idea?
    Never ever piss off the regulators, much like never piss off the TSA staff, both can probe you senseless.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930

    My local city is planning its transition away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/the-road-to-net-zero-aberdeen-looks-to-a-future-without-oil

    The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”

    How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.

    That is right but it will take joined-up thinking from government (and banks) if we are to develop new industries here rather than in China, Germany or the United States because in the short term, imports will be cheaper and easier. I have made the same observation about government use of cloud computing where it feels like Jeff Bezos' mum must have a senior job in Whitehall. It goes back, perhaps, to the 1980s pivot to services and away from manufacturing. We do not need to make everything but we do need to make some things.
    Licensing data centre technology from Amazon is probably a good thing at the moment, the data centre itself will be in the UK and isolated from the wider Internet, and it’s a proven platform.

    The French, well they’re trying to roll their own government cloud computing platform, I’m going to take a random guess that they can’t find enough good people for the offered salaries, and that the project runs very late and very over budget.

    Doesn’t mean government shouldnt be investing in this sort of thing though, but as a longer-term project rather than to satisfy an immediate need.
  • Regarding the previous thread, I never knew so many people got triggered by the clocks going forwards/backwards.

    If a country as vast as China can have one time zone then so can Europe.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    edited November 1
    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
    The science is clear, we need to do something about climate change and it is to science we look to renewable energy in particular as a solution.

    There is also a high crossover between anti Vaxxers and climate change deniers (both of whom are disproportionately GOP and Trump supporters, hence the chart figures).

    Indeed some of the most hardline evangelicals are both and are not bothered about climate change at all as they see it as the End Times being near, leading to the Rapture and reunion of humanity with Christ
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    I doubt that v much. If your car is not EU 6 compliant it will be chucking out filth especially if its a diesel.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump involved in the debate.
    The same can be said for many political debates, but this is particularly true for climate change.

    What can be observed is that there has been a broad scientific consensus on man made climate change for at least 20 years. However, even though they accept this; people are not willing to change their habits of consumption in any significant way. People still like cruises, cars, flights, new electronic gadgets etc etc, and this will continue to be the case, however bad the situation gets.
    This is where the zealots of the climate change lobby get it wrong.

    Changing consumption vis a vis liking cruises, cars, flights etc won't affect climate change.

    It is the Prisoner's Dilemma scaled to seven billion participants, even though if every single one of us changed their consumption it would, we know that is never going to happen. So we quite logically are not prepared to either.

    The only viable solution is clean technology. Switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity, dirty cars to clean cars, dirty flights to clean flights, etc

    The entire effort we need to put into this is both finding clean alternatives and putting them in place, or mitigation. Stopping consumption is barking up the wrong tree.
    The political miscalculation is that low income people are willing to absorb the increased costs of clean alternatives, which are associated with the preferences of wealthy people, and some of which are of dubious environmental merit. The problem is that this will almost inevitably lead to a reaction, setting the whole project back.

    Indeed, we have already had one government cutting the "green crap" in the last recession; why do people think this won't happen again? Is it really different this time?





  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    Absolutely. Apart from the worst of the cheating diesels, keeping old cars running is better for the planet than buying new cars. Not that you’d know that from government actions like ULEZ.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
    The problem is the science and technology isn't with the zealots though.

    They are a great example of the fallacy "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".

    Thankfully after a false-start in Blair's years in putting everything into taxation that actually led to no real fall in CO2 at all, simply exporting our CO2 to other nations instead, we've in recent years got things more on a sensible footing both in this country and abroad.

    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,853

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    I doubt that v much. If your car is not EU 6 compliant it will be chucking out filth especially if its a diesel.
    Any ICE is chucking out filth combined with the filth and carbon footprint associated with the manufacture of a new vehicle, never mind multiple new vehicles.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    Regarding the previous thread, I never knew so many people got triggered by the clocks going forwards/backwards.

    If a country as vast as China can have one time zone then so can Europe.

    Of course we could. But is it optimal to do so?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    I doubt that v much. If your car is not EU 6 compliant it will be chucking out filth especially if its a diesel.
    That’s an air quality issue. But back in the 2000s, the government’s chief scientific adviser was telling everyone that climate change was a bigger threat than terrorism (what a moron). So we all bought diesels.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,481
    What I find particularly concerning about the spending agenda revealed in the Budget is that it seems to owe everything to political calculation and next to nothing to economic strategy.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/31/will-take-crisis-force-boris-johnson-radical-economic-reform/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,180
    I have to tell you now no such undertaking has been received, and consequently..

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1455079284285087747?s=21
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,853
    edited November 1
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    If finance is anything like education, I'm assuming you don't get to the top unless you have no integrity at all?

    But even by those standards this one sounds bad.
    There was a study which showed that a lot of people at the top had similar traits to psychopaths. Some are in fact psychopaths.

    All leaders (even of small teams) have to have an element of ruthlessness and a willingness to take tough decisions about them. (I include myself in that.) But you can still do that and have integrity.

    The trouble with Jes Staley was that he was allowed to think himself indispensable - by the Board and the FCA. See here -

    https://barry-walsh.co.uk/seeing-the-bigger-picture/

    and

    https://barry-walsh.co.uk/setting-the-right-example/

    for my thoughts on the fundamentally weak and very bad decision the FCA made a few years ago about him, one which dismayed pretty much everyone in compliance in the City. The FCA lost a golden opportunity to send out a really important message.

    Barclays itself has had a pretty poor culture over the years - despite endless inquiries and fine words. Its investment banking arm, Barclays Capital, pays well, but is a hideous place to work by all accounts. The whole bank is at the top very very political. I was once approached to work there. A half day of interviews was enough to convince me that the bulk of the working day would be spent trying to avoid the knives that everyone would be trying to stick in your back.

    I'll be interested to read the FCA Notice even though it will tell - at best - half the story.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
    The problem is the science and technology isn't with the zealots though.

    They are a great example of the fallacy "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".

    Thankfully after a false-start in Blair's years in putting everything into taxation that actually led to no real fall in CO2 at all, simply exporting our CO2 to other nations instead, we've in recent years got things more on a sensible footing both in this country and abroad.

    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.
    Indeed Boris clearly recognises climate change is an issue and is pushing action on it, hence today Boris is speaking in almost Greta terms on the world being at 'one minute to midnight' having run down the clock on climate action.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59114871

    Hence Boris and the Tories are still in power and Trump and the US Republicans are not
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535
    Aslan said:

    I always think these sorts of graphs should have bubbles underneath them showing the proportion of population they represent. One of the reason Republican college grads are so extreme is that after recent realignments there aren't many left. In London, the university educated, professional environment I worked in had a good mix of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. In the US, it was already 80-20 Democrats. Post-Trump that 20% of Republicans has all become swing voters or even ardent Dems. The fact the leading intellectual in the GOP these days is Tucker Carlson says a lot.

    There are a fair number of right wing lawyers in the US, and I assume they are all graduates.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,602

    Regarding the previous thread, I never knew so many people got triggered by the clocks going forwards/backwards.

    If a country as vast as China can have one time zone then so can Europe.

    They also get by just fine with no civil rights.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,853
    Anyway my 1.25 naturally aspirated petrol engine shits all over modern highly sprung turbo engines (note: objectively not)
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746
    Charles said:

    My local city is planning its transition away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/the-road-to-net-zero-aberdeen-looks-to-a-future-without-oil

    The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”

    How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.

    Isn’t that what the Freeport in your old stomping ground is focused on? Not sure when Demark started focusing on wind, but I suspect that around when we missed a trick
    One of the current issues with offshore wind power is that the new designs are bigger than the old ones so there is a pressing need for new (larger) manufacturing sites to handle the bigger blades and turbines.

    Which is why GE are opening on Teesside.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Understandable, but completely illogical.
    I think David Hume would disagree there, even if Mr Spock wouldn’t.

    Climate change is actually a pretty good example of where passion tends to rule ahead of reason, on both sides. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump involved in the debate.
    The same can be said for many political debates, but this is particularly true for climate change.

    What can be observed is that there has been a broad scientific consensus on man made climate change for at least 20 years. However, even though they accept this; people are not willing to change their habits of consumption in any significant way. People still like cruises, cars, flights, new electronic gadgets etc etc, and this will continue to be the case, however bad the situation gets.
    This is where the zealots of the climate change lobby get it wrong.

    Changing consumption vis a vis liking cruises, cars, flights etc won't affect climate change.

    It is the Prisoner's Dilemma scaled to seven billion participants, even though if every single one of us changed their consumption it would, we know that is never going to happen. So we quite logically are not prepared to either.

    The only viable solution is clean technology. Switch from dirty electricity to clean electricity, dirty cars to clean cars, dirty flights to clean flights, etc

    The entire effort we need to put into this is both finding clean alternatives and putting them in place, or mitigation. Stopping consumption is barking up the wrong tree.
    The political miscalculation is that low income people are willing to absorb the increased costs of clean alternatives, which are associated with the preferences of wealthy people, and some of which are of dubious environmental merit. The problem is that this will almost inevitably lead to a reaction, setting the whole project back.

    Indeed, we have already had one government cutting the "green crap" in the last recession; why do people think this won't happen again? Is it really different this time?





    Yes.

    Some green crap is stupid. Charging everyone in order to pay others to install solar panels with exaggerated feed in tariffs, was a good example. The UK's energy demand comes from heating etc in the winter when solar panels are least useful, they're not a viable solution to the UK's energy demand even if they're perfect for sunny nations which use air conditioning in the summer.

    In order to be a viable alternative, the alternative needs to be affordable, but that is increasingly possible. Wind power can now be cheaper than coal and is far cheaper than gas if I recall correctly, so its eminently sensible to invest in it.

    The issue of course is reliability but that's being worked on too and the cost of storage is coming down massively each year.

    Similarly electric cars are coming down massively in cost each year and new electric cars should very soon be cheaper than new ICE cars. Once that happens it won't take many years ideally for second-hand electric cars to be cheaper than second-hand ICE cars too.

    We don't need green crap, we need green stuff that works.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Sandpit said:

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    Absolutely. Apart from the worst of the cheating diesels, keeping old cars running is better for the planet than buying new cars. Not that you’d know that from government actions like ULEZ.
    ULEZ is about petrochemical and particulate smog, not CO2 admissions. Poor air quality is a killer. In my city the petrochemical smog sits as a brown haze over the city in the summer. Leicester is in a shallow bowl and normally gets little wind.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893



    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.

    Well unless commercial aviation powered by renewable energy with zero cost increase arrives tomorrow people are definitely going to be taking less flights.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    As I said, I don't really like the emotional response but you have to admire their PR: https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/climate_action_now_loc/
  • eekeek Posts: 15,746

    Aslan said:

    I always think these sorts of graphs should have bubbles underneath them showing the proportion of population they represent. One of the reason Republican college grads are so extreme is that after recent realignments there aren't many left. In London, the university educated, professional environment I worked in had a good mix of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. In the US, it was already 80-20 Democrats. Post-Trump that 20% of Republicans has all become swing voters or even ardent Dems. The fact the leading intellectual in the GOP these days is Tucker Carlson says a lot.

    There are a fair number of right wing lawyers in the US, and I assume they are all graduates.
    That's because the right wing spends a lot of money on lawyers - especially their "own" lawyers.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    edited November 1

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    I have sympathy with that post and personally can think of an older person who travels business class for long distance holidays and then campaigns on trivial side issues re the environment.

    However I disagree with the Brexit comment. Brexit has only minimal impact on the ability to travel. The big impact is freedom of movement which impacts the young more than the old, and is not a climate change issue.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    I'm updating my CV as we speak.
    To apply for the job, or to clarify some issues with it?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
    The problem is the science and technology isn't with the zealots though.

    They are a great example of the fallacy "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".

    Thankfully after a false-start in Blair's years in putting everything into taxation that actually led to no real fall in CO2 at all, simply exporting our CO2 to other nations instead, we've in recent years got things more on a sensible footing both in this country and abroad.

    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.
    I don't see these as alternatives Philip. We need both.
  • DavidL said:

    Regarding the previous thread, I never knew so many people got triggered by the clocks going forwards/backwards.

    If a country as vast as China can have one time zone then so can Europe.

    Of course we could. But is it optimal to do so?
    I'm sure it would be a net positive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389

    Aslan said:

    I always think these sorts of graphs should have bubbles underneath them showing the proportion of population they represent. One of the reason Republican college grads are so extreme is that after recent realignments there aren't many left. In London, the university educated, professional environment I worked in had a good mix of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. In the US, it was already 80-20 Democrats. Post-Trump that 20% of Republicans has all become swing voters or even ardent Dems. The fact the leading intellectual in the GOP these days is Tucker Carlson says a lot.

    There are a fair number of right wing lawyers in the US, and I assume they are all graduates.
    Trump got 47% of graduate voters in 2020 to 51% for Biden and Trump also got 37% of postgrad voters.

    On the face of it not too disastrous but still significantly below the 51% of graduates and 42% of postgrads Romney won in 2012 and well below the 52% of graduates and 44% of postgrads Bush won when he was re elected in 2004
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    There's another angle to climate change: it is an opportunity.

    The political will to combat climate change (*) is a massive disruptor. As such, it is a massive potential negative for people / organisations / countries stuck in the old way of thinking, and a great opportunity for those willing to think, and invest, in the new.

    Words are fine; and to be fair, the UK government has been doing more than just spouting platitudes. But I'd like to see much more investment in the potential technologies, from the near-term and less risky, such as solar panels and wind turbines, to the medium-term (perennially so in the case of wave, tidal), to the risky long-term, such as fusion.

    The opportunities are there.

    (*) Yes, I know ...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Dura_Ace said:



    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.

    Well unless commercial aviation powered by renewable energy with zero cost increase arrives tomorrow people are definitely going to be taking less flights.
    Aren't the Chinese opening something like one new airport every day in recent years?

    No "people" are not going to be taking less flights. Even if everyone in the UK never left our island, the trajectory of the number of people taking flights is only going up.

    Either we discover clean aviation, possibly through renewably-generated jet fuel, or we don't. If we do, we solve the climate issue with aviation, if we don't we're pissing on people and telling them its raining.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,853
    edited November 1
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    Who would have thought lying mischaracterising the facts to a regulator was a bad idea?
    Wasn't there also some suggestion about what exactly he had said to the Board, as well?

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    I'm updating my CV as we speak.
    Get in line!

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    Who would have thought lying mischaracterising the facts to a regulator was a bad idea?
    Never ever piss off the regulators, much like never piss off the TSA staff, both can probe you senseless.
    Pfft ..... see my earlier post about the pathetic way the FCA dealt with Staley last time.

    The financial relationship Epstein had with people interests me rather more than his sexual horrors, TBH. It is not looked into or talked about as much as it should be.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,389
    eek said:

    Aslan said:

    I always think these sorts of graphs should have bubbles underneath them showing the proportion of population they represent. One of the reason Republican college grads are so extreme is that after recent realignments there aren't many left. In London, the university educated, professional environment I worked in had a good mix of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. In the US, it was already 80-20 Democrats. Post-Trump that 20% of Republicans has all become swing voters or even ardent Dems. The fact the leading intellectual in the GOP these days is Tucker Carlson says a lot.

    There are a fair number of right wing lawyers in the US, and I assume they are all graduates.
    That's because the right wing spends a lot of money on lawyers - especially their "own" lawyers.
    Most of them will be corporate lawyers I would imagine, most trial lawyers and almost all public defenders will be Democrats
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Sandpit said:

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    Absolutely. Apart from the worst of the cheating diesels, keeping old cars running is better for the planet than buying new cars. Not that you’d know that from government actions like ULEZ.
    Until recently we had a 15 year old toyota that did 40mpg - sold it on and I have no doubt it will probably keep going for another 10 years. The MPG is similar to the marginally cleaner car we replaced it with.

    For me the decisive point about EV's is how long they last. In our experience, the expense with fixing up old cars comes with electrical issues where you have to take them to the main dealer to sort out. After a certain point it becomes uneconomic to fix them and they need to be scrapped. However, this is not much of a problem on old ICE cars where most issues can be patched up adequately by the garage on the local industrial estate.

    With EV's, as far as I can see, after the manufacturers warranty expires you are at the mercy of the main dealer who has no incentive to provide cheap repairs; they exist to sell new cars.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    Who would have thought lying mischaracterising the facts to a regulator was a bad idea?
    Wasn't there also some suggestions about what exactly he had said to the Board, as well?

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    I'm updating my CV as we speak.
    Get in line!

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, well. Barclays' chief, Jess Staley, leaving following an FCA investigation into what he said about his relationship with Epstein.

    He should IMO have been booted out over his conduct over a Barclays whistleblower a few years back.

    Who would have thought lying mischaracterising the facts to a regulator was a bad idea?
    Never ever piss off the regulators, much like never piss off the TSA staff, both can probe you senseless.
    Pfft ..... see my earlier post about the pathetic way the FCA dealt with Staley last time.

    The financial relationship Epstein had with people interests me rather more than his sexual horrors, TBH. It is not looked into or talked about as much as it should be.
    Indeed. Where did all his money come from? How did he keep his scams going for so long and on such a scale? Was it blackmail, extortion, fraud or all of the above? And what was the nature of the blackmail or extortion?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,853
    BTW for anyone who hasn't heard Alan Little's series on This Union: Two Kingdoms on BBC Sounds - about England and Scotland - it is a must listen. Very interesting.

    I'd be curious to hear what our Scottish posters make of it.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,535
    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    One of the nasty things about the obsession with climate change are older people, who have spent the last four or five decades travelling freely around the world, stating that 'we' (i.e. the young) have to travel less, to not have the same advantages they had. Often the same people who complain that Brexit means 'we' cannot travel as much ...

    I'm not someone particularly fond of flying, so it doesn't affect me much. But it might my son: and seeing people who have contributed to the mess now pretending to be environmentally conscious is a bit amusing.

    Like people who have the wealth to buy electric cars (and gaining from hefty subsidies from the government), sneering at poorer people who can only afford ICE cars. TBF, not an attitude seen much on here, but I've seen it a lot elsewhere.

    To be fair me keeping my 2007 Ford Fiesta on the road is doing more for climate change than someone who has had 4 new cars in the same time period, even if they are more marginally more fuel efficient.
    Absolutely. Apart from the worst of the cheating diesels, keeping old cars running is better for the planet than buying new cars. Not that you’d know that from government actions like ULEZ.
    Until recently we had a 15 year old toyota that did 40mpg - sold it on and I have no doubt it will probably keep going for another 10 years. The MPG is similar to the marginally cleaner car we replaced it with.

    For me the decisive point about EV's is how long they last. In our experience, the expense with fixing up old cars comes with electrical issues where you have to take them to the main dealer to sort out. After a certain point it becomes uneconomic to fix them and they need to be scrapped. However, this is not much of a problem on old ICE cars where most issues can be patched up adequately by the garage on the local industrial estate.

    With EV's, as far as I can see, after the manufacturers warranty expires you are at the mercy of the main dealer who has no incentive to provide cheap repairs; they exist to sell new cars.
    I always assumed that main dealers get most of their profit from servicing and repairing the cars they sell.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
    The problem is the science and technology isn't with the zealots though.

    They are a great example of the fallacy "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".

    Thankfully after a false-start in Blair's years in putting everything into taxation that actually led to no real fall in CO2 at all, simply exporting our CO2 to other nations instead, we've in recent years got things more on a sensible footing both in this country and abroad.

    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.
    Indeed Boris clearly recognises climate change is an issue and is pushing action on it, hence today Boris is speaking in almost Greta terms on the world being at 'one minute to midnight' having run down the clock on climate action.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59114871

    Hence Boris and the Tories are still in power and Trump and the US Republicans are not
    It would be an advantage if our present PM could be believed as acting in good faith and not grabbing at a passing, and possibly advantageous policy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    How interesting that Republican college grads and Democrat college grads are each representing extremes of their particular position. A sampling quirk, perhaps?

    I was thinking about my views on climate change the other day. My view is that it's happening, and it's man made. Of course that's my view. But it's a view which is increasingly challenging to hold in the face of the messianic fervour of its most vocal exponents. I don't think I'm alone in being generally suspicious of people trying to make me feel an emotion. I can't help wishing the climate change lobby would tone it down a bit.

    Absolutely. Less emotion, much less virtue signalling and a lot more science.
    The problem is the science and technology isn't with the zealots though.

    They are a great example of the fallacy "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done".

    Thankfully after a false-start in Blair's years in putting everything into taxation that actually led to no real fall in CO2 at all, simply exporting our CO2 to other nations instead, we've in recent years got things more on a sensible footing both in this country and abroad.

    Investing in clean technologies that work is the only fix, not wasting our time yammering about people taking flights.
    I don't see these as alternatives Philip. We need both.
    I do see them as alternatives.

    If we do find a clean alternative way to power aviation then stopping aviation becomes pointless.
    If we don't find a cleal alternative way to power aviation then dropping our own personal demand is meaningless on a global scale.

    The Chinese aren't going to stop flying just because we stop flyiing. They will adopt a clean alternative if we discover it and make it affordable.

    We emit next to nothing in this country on a global scale. What we do help lead on is science and technology. That needs to be our sole overriding focus.
  • It has finally happened, Laurence Fox has come out with a good idea.

    'No more Charles!' Laurence Fox makes brutal dig as he claims Queen should be last monarch

    https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1514370/Laurence-Fox-twitter-prince-charles-queen-G20-summit-rome-speech-cop26-news
  • Charles said:

    My local city is planning its transition away from oil: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/01/the-road-to-net-zero-aberdeen-looks-to-a-future-without-oil

    The shift to renewables is already on, and Aberdeen is already a hydrogen hub. Note the last paragraph: “It is, I expect, a huge political regret that we missed out on a manufacturing windfall from wind. We have massively invested in wind but we don’t make a lot of the kit here,”

    How is it we missed out on this? Half our energy generated by wind yesterday and all the turbines are imported. Subsidy is/was needed to get that industry going, we're supposedly hosing money at all kinds of fripperies so how about cash to get the Renewable UK sector competitive? Then we can be an exporter of our own technology instead of increasingly reliant on imports.

    Isn’t that what the Freeport in your old stomping ground is focused on? Not sure when Demark started focusing on wind, but I suspect that around when we missed a trick
    I am sure that there will be some wind there. Problem is:
    1. We missed the boat so to speak, our competitors did this years ago
    2. You don't need a Freeport to do so
    3. Even their own report shows that Freeports move jobs rather than creating jobs
This discussion has been closed.