Food for thought - Climate Change

[Linas.P]

51 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

As I understand it, you were educated in a different country, and so the fact that you saw less well off families push their kids more may not be true here. There are a variety of cultural differences across nations, not least relating to the family, which is why I believe the problem is social rather than finanancial.

I don't know the answer to our social problems, or even why some other countries/cultures don't face the same ones. Perhaps then it's worth looking at some things we do differently.

Let's start with a simple one, like Germany, where in many places shops still don't open on a Sunday. This is at least in part because they feel it's more important to have some leisure time, spent with one's family, than it is to traipse around IKEA scoffing meatballs. Does this make a difference? Who knows, but it can't hurt when it comes to providing a stable family structure.

Some countries still have at least some form of national service, whilst others have only given it up fairly recently compared to us. Does that make a difference? It certainly must help in terms of instilling a sense of pride, discipline, structure, purpose and responsibiliity into a young person's life, before they become a parent.

Many countries/cultures seem to put far more emphasis on the value of the family than we do. In the UK Asian cultures are a good example, where children from such backgrounds consistently fare better academically, regardles of their location or economic status.

There are probably many more examples of differences, which are all things worthy of researching, even if they only lead to being dismissed as making no meaningful difference.

You also raise an important point about kids who come from incomplete families having the worst of it. That's true, as by virtually every meaningful metric, children from single parent households fare worse than those from two parent ones. At 21%, the UK is apparently the second highest country (behind the US) for single parent households. Given that the vast majority of prisoners, drug abusers, teen pregancies, youth suicides and runaway homeless children come from single parent families, how much does that add to our problems? Is it just the relatve poverty, or the additional parental burden that causes issues, or is it more than that? Most of these children are raised by their mothers, and with both the teaching and social services professions being predominantly female, it means that many children, especially from less fortunate backgrounds, have no positive male influence in their lives. How does that affect things, if at all?

You say we should study things before acting when talking of climate change. You say don't ban cars without understanding if they're the problem, and yet would ban private education, without looking into all these other factors first. In many ways you're using the same argument to oppose private education that you accuse climate change promoters of, with even lesss evidence that it's to blame; which seems logically inconsistent. What I'm saying is that we apply the same degree of scientific rigour that we have to climate change because, for the UK at least, there are host of things to be researched and examined before we blindly leap to banning private schools, and that those things are largely social, and not financial.

I grant you, the private school system provides no direct benefit to those who don't have access to it, but to do away with it means you need to demonstraate that it's the cause of the problem, and not simply a symptom, as it could just as easily be a cure to it for some.

Many good points there - just to be clear I never said "ban private education", I just said it is undesirable and unnecessary in principle... IF public education is is provided in decent standard. 

I agree that societal problems are far deeper than just education and even best education system in the world may not solve all the issues in UK.

However, my argument is that having private education and system where to send kids to decent school costs fortune just makes it worse. Because apart of all sort of issues in society you add financial burden on top. I never said private education created these problems, quite specifically I said private education is just a symptom of wider problem, so your statement/conclusion is out of place here and not in line what I have said. Basically, I agree with you here - but hat is because I never said anything to contrary.

It is a cure for those with money to spend - yes!

[Malc1]

An awful lot of “ hot air “ being bandied about with this thread …….. clearly exacerbating the Climate Change problems 🤩

Malc 

[Boomer54]

7 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

An awful lot of “ hot air “ being bandied about with this thread …….. clearly exacerbating the Climate Change problems 🤩

Malc 

Good example of too much writing and not enough drinking.

[Bluemarlin]

On 10/15/2023 at 2:25 PM, Linas.P said:

Many good points there - just to be clear I never said "ban private education", I just said it is undesirable and unnecessary in principle... IF public education is is provided in decent standard. 

I agree that societal problems are far deeper than just education and even best education system in the world may not solve all the issues in UK.

However, my argument is that having private education and system where to send kids to decent school costs fortune just makes it worse. Because apart of all sort of issues in society you add financial burden on top. I never said private education created these problems, quite specifically I said private education is just a symptom of wider problem, so your statement/conclusion is out of place here and not in line what I have said. Basically, I agree with you here - but hat is because I never said anything to contrary.

It is a cure for those with money to spend - yes!

My apologies if I've misinterpreted what you said Linas.  However, I don't see how having a private system makes things worse.

If anything it at best provides a target for public education to aim for and aspire to, and at worst can be seen as an additional "tax" on those who can afford it.

Perhaps then you could clarify how you think that the existence of private schools prevents the state from providing better public ones.

[Linas.P]

15 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

My apologies if I've misinterpreted what you said Linas.  However, I don't see how having a private system makes things worse.

If anything it at best provides a target for public education to aim for and aspire to, and at worst can be seen as an additional "tax" on those who can afford it.

Perhaps then you could clarify how you think that the existence of private schools prevents the state from providing better public ones.

By allowing useless and dumb kids to get ahead in life by simply means of their parents paying the price. That is not to say all, nor even most, not even many privately educated people are dumb, that is not what I am saying - but like for like taking identically smart child with the same IQ will allow them to achieve more in life if they go to private school. It introduces unfairness based on parents wealth (or willingness to sacrifice), not on merit.

And I think this hurts majority of "average kids" the most... the really smart kids will succeed either way, maybe it will be harder in public school, but geniuses will be geniuses even in public school. The really really dumb ones with fail either way as well, just going to private school not going to guarantee the success, once can still fail it, but it is easier to succeed there. But for "average" person that creates enough difference where it could make a difference between failure and success, between getting that university place, between choosing the subject you like, between getting the graduate position and not getting it, between developing career in the field you want and having to work unqualified job in the field you don't care about... overall between succeeding in life and being happy or living pack check to pay check and being miserable. And if this would be based on merit and academic achievements... sort of slipping average into lower tier average and higher tier average. The lower tier defaulting to losing out to those who were better and smarter than them on their merit and academic achievements, but this should not be the difference of parents paying or not paying for it.

But... you are indeed right to point this out - nothing prevents government from providing better public schools. Their argument will be lack of funds, and their argument is that tax on private education could be used to further fund public education and I accept it at the face value. But in principle, if they they prioritised the education and if they wanted to make it work, they could do it with or without tax on private schools - that is true. 

[Malc1]

Have we yet covered the age old concept of caning the kids that can’t be bothered to do well at school ?? And maybe disrupt the other kids trying so so hard to achieve 

Especially when parents put so much into trying so hard to help their kids achieve ….. State or Private education 

Malc 

[Bluemarlin]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

By allowing useless and dumb kids to get ahead in life by simply means of their parents paying the price. That is not to say all, nor even most, not even many privately educated people are dumb, that is not what I am saying - but like for like taking identically smart child with the same IQ will allow them to achieve more in life if they go to private school. It introduces unfairness based on parents wealth (or willingness to sacrifice), not on merit.

And I think this hurts majority of "average kids" the most... the really smart kids will succeed either way, maybe it will be harder in public school, but geniuses will be geniuses even in public school. The really really dumb ones with fail either way as well, just going to private school not going to guarantee the success, once can still fail it, but it is easier to succeed there. But for "average" person that creates enough difference where it could make a difference between failure and success, between getting that university place, between choosing the subject you like, between getting the graduate position and not getting it, between developing career in the field you want and having to work unqualified job in the field you don't care about... overall between succeeding in life and being happy or living pack check to pay check and being miserable. And if this would be based on merit and academic achievements... sort of slipping average into lower tier average and higher tier average. The lower tier defaulting to losing out to those who were better and smarter than them on their merit and academic achievements, but this should not be the difference of parents paying or not paying for it.

But... you are indeed right to point this out - nothing prevents government from providing better public schools. Their argument will be lack of funds, and their argument is that tax on private education could be used to further fund public education and I accept it at the face value. But in principle, if they they prioritised the education and if they wanted to make it work, they could do it with or without tax on private schools - that is true. 

I agree with you that it's grossly unfair that dumb kids are advantaged simply because they have the wealth to go to private schools, I just don't believe that taking that away from them will enable poorer kids to fare better.

As I've said all along, I believe it's a social issue rather than a financial one. I don't just mean with regards to the issues I pointed out in my last post, I mean regarding the wider social issues of poverty in general, and bringing up the income levels of working people. If people were paid a fair amount for their work, that enabled them to comfortably provide for their families, then the problem would solve itself. Before people can begin to have aspirations of better careers and improved lifestyles, they need to have hope, if not a belief, that their efforts, no matter what their level, will be fairly rewarded.

People will get better education if they want it, and to want it means they have to believe it's not only possible, but will make a difference. Pointing to the unfairness of dumb rich kids doesn't make that possible, and only gives people an excuse not to try. Eliminating that advantage might make the playing field seem more fair, but the aspirations and privilege of those better off will always be higher than those of the less well off, simply because it's what they're accustomed to. That won't change until you give others something to aspire to, the tools to achieve it, and a realisic expectation that it will be worth their while.

[First_Lexus]

2 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Have we yet covered the age old concept of caning the kids that can’t be bothered to do well at school ?? And maybe disrupt the other kids trying so so hard to achieve 

Especially when parents put so much into trying so hard to help their kids achieve ….. State or Private education 

Malc 

Funny thing. Corporal punishment existed when I was at school in the 1970s. The cane was in the Headmaster’s private study. To my knowledge he only used it once - possibly progressive for the time, and it was a deeply traditional school, but he preferred to engage with the children and present positive reasons for us to conform. We all did. Perhaps it was the threat in the background of the cane. I’d prefer to think it was the collegiate style of the Headmaster and his staff who respected us, and we respected them as well as their rules.

Even so, I have to post these classics…

 

[Bluemarlin]

On 10/15/2023 at 2:16 PM, Linas.P said:

Same for you Bill - do you have any peer reviewed scientific data that climate change causes "catastrophes"? An not think you interpret as "catastrophe" like actual rise of sea level, melting ice, rise of temperature, but actual direct link to "catastrophe" - let's say massive landslide, tsunami, tornado, volcanic eruption etc. 

My statement does not need scientific study thought - is very simple math. The problem here is that you do not understand what "2C target" is. You wrongly believe that it is enough to just "cut the use of fossil fuels" to achieve it, I really not sure what you want me to prove here.  Do you understand what word "excess" means? Humans contribute 90% to the excess, but nature contribute another 10%. Meaning excess will be there regardless and all things you want to prevent will happen regardless. Any excess, even 1%, will result in climate change, be it slower climate change, but it would still change.

Do you agree with statement that climate change is natural process? 

Do you agree with statement that humans are not causing it just accelerating it?

As such does it makes sense that even if we eliminate all humans the climate change still going to happen and it will go beyond 2C?

I am concentrating on 2C target here as this is clear impasse in our discussion if you can't understand the meaning of it. And it matters because all the restrictions nowadays are specifically made to achieve it. So you can't understand the decisions, if they are good or if they are bad if you don't understand what they are aiming to achieve, nor how inadequate they are to achieve it (and inadequate is huge understatement). 

Or other statements needs discussion as well, but we can't even start before laying foundation - hydrogen, China's emissions (that is actually not a problem as per capita is low), China's EVs adoption (stats are fake)... I mean you already incorrectly pre-empting my stance there, I think we can discuss all those in more detail, but for now we can seem to agree even on basics.

Fair questions Linas, and so I'll try to answer them.

Regarding scientfic research on climate change and catastrophes, that falls into three parts.  One is the question of whether climate change is happening, another is whether such changes cause catastrophes, and the third is to what extent human activity, in particular CO2 emissions, is responsible for that. To answer your question, there's a mountain of scientific research that covers all of these areas, and so it's not my opinion or interpretation. In fact there's way too much to list individually, so here's a link that summarises of some it, provided by NASA.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Here's another paper from the Royal Society, that also links to further reading and scientific research:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

It would seem though, that the main area of difference that we have, is to what (if any) extent we can reduce the amount of human emissions to a point where it's felt it can mitigate these climate changes, or whether it won't make any difference at all. Coupled with your belief that CO2 levels, and climate change, are natural processes that we can affect neither positively or negatively.

Nor am I not understanding your references to a 2C target, and just disagree with the level of importance you place on it. So yes, I agree that climate change happens naturally, and also that humans are accelerating it. Regarding the latter though, we are causing it if our actions result in it occuring now, at a time when it wouldn't have otherwise occured. To ignore that is like saying that the sun will explode in 250 million years and destroy the planet, and so nuclear armageddon won't cause the death of the planet, and will just accelerate it. To further utilise your timing argument, one could equally apply that logic and say that one day fossil fuels will run out, so it makes no difference if we stop using them now, or some time in the future, as it will happen anyway, no matter what we do. What I'm therefore saying is that timing and timescales are fundamentally important; and our ability to slow down, if not eliminate such things, has an enormous impact on our ability to mitigate, adapt and pay for them.

It would be nice therefore if you could reciprocate, and provide some reputable scientific sources that support your mathemaatical theories and conclusions that whatever we do makes no difference.

I also take issue with the lack of importance you place on temperature rises, when you say things like we would just be a bit warmer if temperatures rose by 6C. Yes, we would, but the indirect effects are enormous. Other parts of the world would disappear under rising sea levels, or become too hot to live in. Additionally, under the right conditions we, along with other mammals, cant last for more than a few hours in temperatures around the high 30sC. The fact we do so when exposed to such temperatures is only because we can dissipate heat through sweating. Alter humidity sufficiently, to the point that we can't lose that heat, and we die. That might not be much of a risk for the UK, but a much lower rise than 6C would push tropical regions well beyond that threshold, meaning that over 3 billion people would be migrating north and knocking on your door to share your air conditioning. That would most definitely affect your lifestyle.

So, whilst you might place some importance on your individual claims, they only have merit when taken in isolation, which is subsequently lost when viewed in the wider context, as they fail to take into account the knock on effects of such things, which might not affect you or I directly, but the consquences of them certainly will.

For practical purposes then (which is what matters), slowing down any changes and effects has an enormous impact on the costs of mitigating those changes, or adapting to them. The question then simply becomes, is it more cost effective in the long run to spend money on trying to reduce CO2 emissions, or to spend money on simply adapting to the changes in climate and fixing the additional damage it might cause. I will grant you that that's an open question, with no definitive answer, and so there are things to consider on both sides of the argument. Given that it's where we seem to mostly differ, I'll focus on those in favour of acting now.

Firstly, we're well on the way to reducing the need for fosssil fuels and replacing them with cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Currently the UK generates around 60& of its energy from nuclear and renewables, without the sky falling in.

Technology is moving at such a rate that it's quite possible, if not probable, that burning fossils fuels will soon become a more expensive way of generating energy.

As I've stated before, the world is moving in that direction anyway. The do nothing ship has sailed, and the only one left in port is the reduce CO2 vessel. So, it's a case of get on board or be left behind on the dock.

You'll note that none of these refer to climate change, or the effects on the environment, and so I agree with you on one point. That being that governments are failing by focusing their efforts on forcing people to change through penalties, and instead should be incentivising the alternatives and promoting the benefits, so that people can choose for themselves. That would solve both of the main perceived problems, which are reducing human emissions, and negating any public opposition to change.

Much like the educatiom discussion, where I feel the issue is more social than financial, I see this as an economic issue as much, if not more than a scientific one. It just so happens that both the scientific argument, as well as the economic one, seems to be more and more leaning towards moving away from fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

[First_Lexus]

I think the stereotype of ‘thick posh children’ going to private school is just that - a stereotype and a cliche. Harry Enfield’s ‘Tim Nicebutdim’ for those with cultural references from the 1990s and ‘Whacko’ with Jimmy Edwards for those of an older vintage.

The majority of private schools have an entrance exam - Common Entrance - which is far from simple to pass to get to the better establishments. Many also add in interviews with both prospective students and parents. Worth noting that in the past thirty years many fee paying schools also partner with local state schools to try and raise standards, and almost all offer scholarships to the brightest. 

Granted, money has a place - but it isn’t a passport to a good school if the child doesn’t have the academic ability. For those students, a less well known and respected private school may offer little benefit over the better state provided options.

For me the issue is the approach. Academic rigour and education for its own sake isn’t fashionable in the state sector, perhaps because so many teachers are (with good intentions) left leaning. The result is unintended consequence, essentially a race to the bottom designed to ensure nobody feels left out and that nobody feels in any way superior to anybody else. That isn’t the real world and serves no child well.

[Boomer54]

30 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

I think the stereotype of ‘thick posh children’ going to private school is just that - a stereotype and a cliche. Harry Enfield’s ‘Tim Nicebutdim’ for those with cultural references from the 1990s and ‘Whacko’ with Jimmy Edwards for those of an older vintage.

The majority of private schools have an entrance exam - Common Entrance - which is far from simple to pass to get to the better establishments. Many also add in interviews with both prospective students and parents. Worth noting that in the past thirty years many fee paying schools also partner with local state schools to try and raise standards, and almost all offer scholarships to the brightest. 

Granted, money has a place - but it isn’t a passport to a good school if the child doesn’t have the academic ability. For those students, a less well known and respected private school may offer little benefit over the better state provided options.

For me the issue is the approach. Academic rigour and education for its own sake isn’t fashionable in the state sector, perhaps because so many teachers are (with good intentions) left leaning. The result is unintended consequence, essentially a race to the bottom designed to ensure nobody feels left out and that nobody feels in any way superior to anybody else. That isn’t the real world and serves no child well.

Agree with all the above. However, my main thrust of disagreement with this whole private education argument is one of relevance. I explain thus, the reason I like Paretos' Law is not because it is a precision tool it isn't ,but because it forces one to analyse issues in terms of hard data. In this case when you know that private schools account for just 5% of primary education and 8% at secondary level then to be frank you do well to just close the book on it for a source of extra funding for state education. The volume of revenue you could realistically raise from those institutions and divert to state schools is not going to make any appreciable difference to outcomes in the latter. However, it may be enough to divert children out of private into state with all the implications that has for already overstretched resources. It's that sort of situation where you end up finding you raised a pound ,but it cost you 3 to do it. Pretty nonsensical.

[Linas.P]

24 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

I think the stereotype of ‘thick posh children’ going to private school is just that - a stereotype and a cliche. Harry Enfield’s ‘Tim Nicebutdim’ for those with cultural references from the 1990s and ‘Whacko’ with Jimmy Edwards for those of an older vintage.

The majority of private schools have an entrance exam - Common Entrance - which is far from simple to pass to get to the better establishments. Many also add in interviews with both prospective students and parents. Worth noting that in the past thirty years many fee paying schools also partner with local state schools to try and raise standards, and almost all offer scholarships to the brightest. 

Granted, money has a place - but it isn’t a passport to a good school if the child doesn’t have the academic ability. For those students, a less well known and respected private school may offer little benefit over the better state provided options.

For me the issue is the approach. Academic rigour and education for its own sake isn’t fashionable in the state sector, perhaps because so many teachers are (with good intentions) left leaning. The result is unintended consequence, essentially a race to the bottom designed to ensure nobody feels left out and that nobody feels in any way superior to anybody else. That isn’t the real world and serves no child well.

I hope you not suggesting that I am pedalling this stereotype? 

As well I think you identified one more issue which is important - that academia in general, not only schools but at all levels... are left leaning and in right leaning government there is fundamental misalignment of values, friction and that further complicates improving education. By the way it is not necessary fault of right leaning government either, but left and right wing politics are damaging to education which fundamentally has to be apolitical and seeking the truth no matter the party. So it is the problem that academia is left leaning as much as it is a problem that goverment is right leaning. I would point out that education was still failure even under Labour, values may have been more aligned, but overall polarisation of the educations does not help. I am not even going to start to mention the issues with certain topics our friends from the lefts tries to teach kids nowadays, as this would surely get this thread locked. You see - it is alright to teach 7 years old that, but it would get one banned on adults forum - go figure.

You as well pointed out another problem - no allowing idiots fail and trying to make everyone a winner, so instead of getting good education kids get participation trophies. This is just unhealthy and further damages the education. Sure there is a little bit nuance in that - if the education fails to interest the kids and motivate their strengths there is risk of turning "different" kids into idiots. Left has it's hand in this pie as well where certain character traits are turned into failed grades despite the child being rather smart.

52 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I agree with you that it's grossly unfair that dumb kids are advantaged simply because they have the wealth to go to private schools, I just don't believe that taking that away from them will enable poorer kids to fare better.

As I've said all along, I believe it's a social issue rather than a financial one. I don't just mean with regards to the issues I pointed out in my last post, I mean regarding the wider social issues of poverty in general, and bringing up the income levels of working people. If people were paid a fair amount for their work, that enabled them to comfortably provide for their families, then the problem would solve itself. Before people can begin to have aspirations of better careers and improved lifestyles, they need to have hope, if not a belief, that their efforts, no matter what their level, will be fairly rewarded.

People will get better education if they want it, and to want it means they have to believe it's not only possible, but will make a difference. Pointing to the unfairness of dumb rich kids doesn't make that possible, and only gives people an excuse not to try. Eliminating that advantage might make the playing field seem more fair, but the aspirations and privilege of those better off will always be higher than those of the less well off, simply because it's what they're accustomed to. That won't change until you give others something to aspire to, the tools to achieve it, and a realisic expectation that it will be worth their while.

Above I think I have already covered few of your point - in short I agree that just education alone can't fix wider societal problems. There is loads to unpack, but I still believe private education does not help anything and exists as simple workaround instead of fixing the problem. Sometimes eliminating unfairness, even just giving impression of more level playing field can a positive effect. 

Even if we say is just an excuse, it is undeniable that it could be highly demotivating for kids to go to public school if they know that in private school they would be treated better. They may still fail even in private school, but why have this excuse if we can remove it.

I guess it is similar to immigration and job market (sorry for dropping another bomb on this thread) - most the people that complain about "migrants thanking their jobs" would not work those jobs themselves, but because there is perceived unfairness and lack of transparency in the system they feel left out.

So even perceived issues could be quite serious... it may be wrong to say that "rich kids have grades for free", but it still has negative effect on the education, it may be wrong to say that "immigrants takes jobs away (...and yet somehow as well are lazy, do not work and just live on benefits somehow)", but it still creates distrust in societal problems.

[Linas.P]

59 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Agree with all the above. However, my main thrust of disagreement with this whole private education argument is one of relevance. I explain thus, the reason I like Paretos' Law is not because it is a precision tool it isn't ,but because it forces one to analyse issues in terms of hard data. In this case when you know that private schools account for just 5% of primary education and 8% at secondary level then to be frank you do well to just close the book on it for a source of extra funding for state education. The volume of revenue you could realistically raise from those institutions and divert to state schools is not going to make any appreciable difference to outcomes in the latter. However, it may be enough to divert children out of private into state with all the implications that has for already overstretched resources. It's that sort of situation where you end up finding you raised a pound ,but it cost you 3 to do it. Pretty nonsensical.

That is good argument and probably the one you should have LED with... although to be fair I could have done more research myself and I am still taking it at face value, if it is really under 10% of education (I had an impression it is more, but simple google search probably would have revealed such basic and crucial information) then I think it would be fair to say this is more of just a "virtue signalling" than it is a real sustainable policy. Yet that somewhat pivots back closer to original topic - private cars are only 2.4% of pollution yet most of the climate policy focuses on them!

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

Fair questions Linas, and so I'll try to answer them.

Regarding scientfic research on climate change and catastrophes, that falls into three parts.  One is the question of whether climate change is happening, another is whether such changes cause catastrophes, and the third is to what extent human activity, in particular CO2 emissions, is responsible for that. To answer your question, there's a mountain of scientific research that covers all of these areas, and so it's not my opinion or interpretation. In fact there's way too much to list individually, so here's a link that summarises of some it, provided by NASA.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Here's another paper from the Royal Society, that also links to further reading and scientific research:

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

It would seem though, that the main area of difference that we have, is to what (if any) extent we can reduce the amount of human emissions to a point where it's felt it can mitigate these climate changes, or whether it won't make any difference at all. Coupled with your belief that CO2 levels, and climate change, are natural processes that we can affect neither positively or negatively.

Nor am I not understanding your references to a 2C target, and just disagree with the level of importance you place on it. So yes, I agree that climate change happens naturally, and also that humans are accelerating it. Regarding the latter though, we are causing it if our actions result in it occuring now, at a time when it wouldn't have otherwise occured. To ignore that is like saying that the sun will explode in 250 million years and destroy the planet, and so nuclear armageddon won't cause the death of the planet, and will just accelerate it. To further utilise your timing argument, one could equally apply that logic and say that one day fossil fuels will run out, so it makes no difference if we stop using them now, or some time in the future, as it will happen anyway, no matter what we do. What I'm therefore saying is that timing and timescales are fundamentally important; and our ability to slow down, if not eliminate such things, has an enormous impact on our ability to mitigate, adapt and pay for them.

It would be nice therefore if you could reciprocate, and provide some reputable scientific sources that support your mathemaatical theories and conclusions that whatever we do makes no difference.

I also take issue with the lack of importance you place on temperature rises, when you say things like we would just be a bit warmer if temperatures rose by 6C. Yes, we would, but the indirect effects are enormous. Other parts of the world would disappear under rising sea levels, or become too hot to live in. Additionally, under the right conditions we, along with other mammals, cant last for more than a few hours in temperatures around the high 30sC. The fact we do so when exposed to such temperatures is only because we can dissipate heat through sweating. Alter humidity sufficiently, to the point that we can't lose that heat, and we die. That might not be much of a risk for the UK, but a much lower rise than 6C would push tropical regions well beyond that threshold, meaning that over 3 billion people would be migrating north and knocking on your door to share your air conditioning. That would most definitely affect your lifestyle.

So, whilst you might place some importance on your individual claims, they only have merit when taken in isolation, which is subsequently lost when viewed in the wider context, as they fail to take into account the knock on effects of such things, which might not affect you or I directly, but the consquences of them certainly will.

For practical purposes then (which is what matters), slowing down any changes and effects has an enormous impact on the costs of mitigating those changes, or adapting to them. The question then simply becomes, is it more cost effective in the long run to spend money on trying to reduce CO2 emissions, or to spend money on simply adapting to the changes in climate and fixing the additional damage it might cause. I will grant you that that's an open question, with no definitive answer, and so there are things to consider on both sides of the argument. Given that it's where we seem to mostly differ, I'll focus on those in favour of acting now.

Firstly, we're well on the way to reducing the need for fosssil fuels and replacing them with cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Currently the UK generates around 60& of its energy from nuclear and renewables, without the sky falling in.

Technology is moving at such a rate that it's quite possible, if not probable, that burning fossils fuels will soon become a more expensive way of generating energy.

As I've stated before, the world is moving in that direction anyway. The do nothing ship has sailed, and the only one left in port is the reduce CO2 vessel. So, it's a case of get on board or be left behind on the dock.

You'll note that none of these refer to climate change, or the effects on the environment, and so I agree with you on one point. That being that governments are failing by focusing their efforts on forcing people to change through penalties, and instead should be incentivising the alternatives and promoting the benefits, so that people can choose for themselves. That would solve both of the main perceived problems, which are reducing human emissions, and negating any public opposition to change.

Much like the educatiom discussion, where I feel the issue is more social than financial, I see this as an economic issue as much, if not more than a scientific one. It just so happens that both the scientific argument, as well as the economic one, seems to be more and more leaning towards moving away from fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

First of all - I appreciate you answering these three parts, but as clearly stated we already agree on most of the facts in two out of three of them - I agree that climate change is happening and that human activity is accelerating it. To what degree? I said 90%... so even I am saying humans contribute greatly.

So the only point of contention - does it or does it not cause "catastrophes". I have looked to both of your links and have found no evidence of so called "catastrophe". I can only speculate, but I need your confirmation here - do you use "catastrophe" as synonym for "temperature rise", "sea level rise"? If so - then no, they are not "catastrophes", if no - then I still can't see any consensus or any evidence of any climate change caused "catastrophes".

Although I found this image which encapsulates the issue quite well:

If one needs any evidence that information in this discussion is inadequate, then this just shows how utterly horrible unbelievably inadequate it is! They taking COMMON BASELINE for temperature for years 1951-1980! This is so ridiculous that I can hardly believe it - for the climate processes that takes literally tens to hundreds of thousands of year they use the 39 year period as baseline! What you expect then? Now on top of that - the video which started this discussion specifically points in temporary Methane event which may be temporarily contributing to climate change, so in such a short timescales it may as well be relevant for "temperature anomaly" as shown in the picture above.

The 2C target is important, because the climate policy we are subjected to are based on premise of achieving this target i.e. your "ship of doing nothing sailing away", that is based on this 2C target. So the reason I am taxed to drive my car £300 a year is directly linked to this target, the 2030 (or 2035) ICE ban is directly linked to this, the 55% of tax I pay on flights is directly linked to that, the ULEZ and many many things that impact me directly are ALL linked to this target. So - yes it is important indeed.

I never said we make no difference, this is just incompatible statement to what I have said - I said we contribute 90%, so obviously we make a difference. The mathematical point is strictly relevant to 2C target and as you hopefully now can appreciate why it is important it makes more sense?

I really don't care about temperature rising, because temperature is not rising because of us, we only make it rise faster, same for sea levels - ice will eventually melt with our without our activity, and the new ice age eventually will start with or without our activity. If you looking for science to support that - I suggest looking to my very first post (and maybe few following posts), it is all there with the temperature and co2 levels for last 300,000 years, which conclusively proves that this fluctuation we are experiencing and currently accelerating is just periodical process.

So basically it is two different and completely independent processes and they are both true - humans are increasing Co2 levels in atmosphere, as result temperature raises faster and ice melts faster, that is true. What is also true is that at this stage of glaciation the temperatures are also raising naturally, co2 level increases naturally and ice melts naturally. The end result is the same, we just going to get there faster with human activity.

[Malc1]

Caning generated excess  heat …… I personally know ……. our Headmaster was very accomplished, every day whacking us errant kids for some imaginary misdemeanour or other ……. could that have affected Climate Change, all that heat from the whacking !
 

Glad it’s now proscribed if only for the Climate Heat reduction

Malc  

[Boomer54]

34 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Caning generated excess  heat …… I personally know ……. our Headmaster was very accomplished, every day whacking us errant kids for some imaginary misdemeanour or other ……. could that have affected Climate Change, all that heat from the whacking !
 

Glad it’s now proscribed if only for the Climate Heat reduction

Malc  

Tines do change don't they. Doubt our sports teacher would get away with his sawn off cricket bat nowadays.

English teacher just a plimsoll (wimp), and the old head 'bend over duckie' (yeh that would sound well I don't think) just your standard everyday cane. I have definitely in the words of Forest Gump got the hardest 'butt...ocks' known to cane, cricket bat and Plimsoll ( I used to annoy him just by whistling through it)

[Bluemarlin]

17 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Above I think I have already covered few of your point - in short I agree that just education alone can't fix wider societal problems. There is loads to unpack, but I still believe private education does not help anything and exists as simple workaround instead of fixing the problem. Sometimes eliminating unfairness, even just giving impression of more level playing field can a positive effect. 

Even if we say is just an excuse, it is undeniable that it could be highly demotivating for kids to go to public school if they know that in private school they would be treated better. They may still fail even in private school, but why have this excuse if we can remove it.

I guess it is similar to immigration and job market (sorry for dropping another bomb on this thread) - most the people that complain about "migrants thanking their jobs" would not work those jobs themselves, but because there is perceived unfairness and lack of transparency in the system they feel left out.

So even perceived issues could be quite serious... it may be wrong to say that "rich kids have grades for free", but it still has negative effect on the education, it may be wrong to say that "immigrants takes jobs away (...and yet somehow as well are lazy, do not work and just live on benefits somehow)", but it still creates distrust in societal problems.

I suppose I can boil it down to agreeing that educaation alone can't fix the wider social problems, and that addressing the social problem won't solely fix education.  They're both intrinsically linked, and so need to be tackled together.

 

[Bluemarlin]

16 hours ago, Linas.P said:

First of all - I appreciate you answering these three parts, but as clearly stated we already agree on most of the facts in two out of three of them - I agree that climate change is happening and that human activity is accelerating it. To what degree? I said 90%... so even I am saying humans contribute greatly.

So the only point of contention - does it or does it not cause "catastrophes". I have looked to both of your links and have found no evidence of so called "catastrophe". I can only speculate, but I need your confirmation here - do you use "catastrophe" as synonym for "temperature rise", "sea level rise"? If so - then no, they are not "catastrophes", if no - then I still can't see any consensus or any evidence of any climate change caused "catastrophes".

Although I found this image which encapsulates the issue quite well:

If one needs any evidence that information in this discussion is inadequate, then this just shows how utterly horrible unbelievably inadequate it is! They taking COMMON BASELINE for temperature for years 1951-1980! This is so ridiculous that I can hardly believe it - for the climate processes that takes literally tens to hundreds of thousands of year they use the 39 year period as baseline! What you expect then? Now on top of that - the video which started this discussion specifically points in temporary Methane event which may be temporarily contributing to climate change, so in such a short timescales it may as well be relevant for "temperature anomaly" as shown in the picture above.

The 2C target is important, because the climate policy we are subjected to are based on premise of achieving this target i.e. your "ship of doing nothing sailing away", that is based on this 2C target. So the reason I am taxed to drive my car £300 a year is directly linked to this target, the 2030 (or 2035) ICE ban is directly linked to this, the 55% of tax I pay on flights is directly linked to that, the ULEZ and many many things that impact me directly are ALL linked to this target. So - yes it is important indeed.

I never said we make no difference, this is just incompatible statement to what I have said - I said we contribute 90%, so obviously we make a difference. The mathematical point is strictly relevant to 2C target and as you hopefully now can appreciate why it is important it makes more sense?

I really don't care about temperature rising, because temperature is not rising because of us, we only make it rise faster, same for sea levels - ice will eventually melt with our without our activity, and the new ice age eventually will start with or without our activity. If you looking for science to support that - I suggest looking to my very first post (and maybe few following posts), it is all there with the temperature and co2 levels for last 300,000 years, which conclusively proves that this fluctuation we are experiencing and currently accelerating is just periodical process.

So basically it is two different and completely independent processes and they are both true - humans are increasing Co2 levels in atmosphere, as result temperature raises faster and ice melts faster, that is true. What is also true is that at this stage of glaciation the temperatures are also raising naturally, co2 level increases naturally and ice melts naturally. The end result is the same, we just going to get there faster with human activity.

It was probably my fault for not being clear, but I didn't mean that the 2C wasn't important, just that I disagree with your overall premise that there's no point doing anything because temperatures will eventually rise anyway, whatever we do. As I've stated, the issue is not just about the economic and environmental impact of those changes, but the timing of them and, in that regard, any slowing down saves lives and money. As I said before though, there's no definitive answer as to the cost of either approach. I will also concede that the targets might be unrealistic. My main gripe is that it's a logically inconsistent argumement, that I suspect you wouldn't apply to other areas of your life. For example, your car engine will die one day, whether you change your oil or not, so why spend money changing it? The answer is that we think it's cheaper and less damaging in the long run, and that's the belief here too, regardless of the short term cost.

I'll highlight the importance of timing, along with why more recent baselines have relevance, with a quote from one of the articles I linked:

"All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes LED to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt...Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C. That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO 2 has risen more than 40% in just the past 200 years, much of this since the 1970s, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 1 °C. If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale."

I would also disagree with your claim that most climate policy focuses on private cars. As I pointed out, industries have massively reduced emissions, and we already generate more than 60% of our energy from nuclear and renewables. However this doesn't rile people up so much, and so the media focus on cars.

I classify catastrophes as flooding, hurricanes, drought, heatwaves etc, all of which cost lives and money, and all of which are increasing in recent years. I believe the detail in some of the links illustrated this but, if not, here's another article from the WMO, that states: “The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change,” says WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas."

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/weather-related-disasters-increase-over-past-50-years-causing-more-damage-fewer

In conclusion, I agree that the climate changes regardless of what we do, and that what we're doing only makes it faster. The point I'm making, along with that made by the scientific community in the links I provided, is that the speed of those changes matters as much, if not more than the extent or existence of them. It's like saying that if a car is coming at you at 20mph, you have time to get out of the way, and mitigate any harm, but if it's doing 80mph you're going to sustain more damage. You wouldn't tell the driver to keep his foot on the gas, just because he's going to get here anyway.

I could understand if you simply didn't believe in climate change, or that human activity is the main cause of accelerating it, but you concede those in your first sentence. As such, I'm struggling to see how you don't appreciate that the speed of it is what matters most, as that's pretty much the entire reason for why it's an issue to handle.

 

[Linas.P]

2C is just basic condition on which the policy and restrictions are based. It is like having fines over any speed above 0 miles per hour - simply cannot be complied with and as long as you not standing still. You said - "nobody says humans should stop living", what I am saying - to achieve 2C goal we have to stop living and even that is not enough. We can still agree that trying to slow down the climate change is desirable, but this 2C goal has to be removed altogether as it is no compatible with continued human life on earth - that is all.

The next point - I understand you are just messenger, so I am not attacking you, but lets look at what is being stated... you just take it at face value without analysing and questioning data at all. Let's start with this statement- "Past climate changes LED to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation." So everyone agrees that natural climate processes are causing all this and have caused all this many times in the past, as such none of that could be classed as "catastrophe", it is just natural occurrence related to climate change. 

That rate of climate change is as claimed - "This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale" is simply false! Look at the speed of warming between ~150,000 -120,000 years, or ~350,000-340,000, we can even look in recent years and it is OBVIOUS, that the statement is plainly false - the temperature raise between ~20,000-10,000 years ago (i.e. since last ice age, which is incorrect terminology as we are still technically in the ice age) was significantly faster and just ~10,000 plateaued. When looking at it from correct perspective it again is obvious that change since industrial evolution and since 1970s is so tiny that it doesn't even appear on the graph. Again - I am not picking on you, but the claims made in the links and quotes you have provided is provably wrong. 

The problem with Co2 data from UK is that we import a lot of Co2 i.e. we net importers, cars, electronics etc. majority is made abroad and we do not count that as our Co2, so this gives wrong impression on how clean we are and what causes the most pollution in UK.

I classify catastrophes the same - I can see you provided list of catastrophes, which is very good, but link between catastrophes and climate change is speculation at best. Look at the graph above again - we are now at the point where we were at ~135,000; ~250,000; ~340,000; ~425,000 years ago... So to say that natural disasters and catastrophes are MORE FREQUENT now we need to prove the number is higher than it was 100s of thousands of years ago. There is no such proof, we don't even have proof that they are more common now than they were 1000, 2000, 5000, 20000 years ago. That they are becoming more common in last 50 years, is first of all irrelevant, because it is too short period to correlated with climate change which again takes 10s to 100s of thousands of years, not 50 years and secondly here is no proven correlation this is climate related at all. It could be simply statistical or data error. For example maybe there was drought in Ethiopia 400 years ago, but because humans didn't live in that area of the country back then... nobody died. Now they live in the environment susceptible for draughts and complain that climate change is causing deaths?! No - their choice of habitat is what is causing deaths, not climate. 

So all the "catastrophes" are at best cherry picked data and hypothesis that correlation between frequency of these events and temperature raise is related. It could be related, I would argue it is likely related, but this is not proven and other thing is not proven is that these "extreme weather events" are not just natural for the temperatures we living in. And we won't be able to prove it unless we can travel in time 100,000 of years and document frequency of extreme weather events for 100s of thousands of years.

Do you even realise how flawed are these statements from scientific perspective? They basically saying - we only started recording the "extreme weather event" for last few 100 years, and properly for last few decades and based on this extremely inadequate and extremely too short data set we making conclusions. This is just bad science - if you tried to submit such claim in basic university research project it will be marked as 0, because it is nothing more than hypothesis.  

 

[Malc1]

Oh my.   How does one divert away from such complexity ……. and bring the convo “ down “ to the level of us mere mortals ? 
 

CLIMATE CHANGE and running a Ls400

….. btw my first petrol refuel on my Mk1 1991 Ls400 on my mega miles distance to Wales and around ….. the 2nd day of the 5 …… tells me I’m averaging some 27.35mpg for these some first 316 miles …… I think that’s quite good for lots of motorway with Welsh hills and valleys too 👌

with local E5 at 156.9p ltr 

Malc 

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

Oh my.   How does one divert away from such complexity ……. and bring the convo “ down “ to the level of us mere mortals ? 
 

CLIMATE CHANGE and running a Ls400

….. btw my first petrol refuel on my Mk1 1991 Ls400 on my mega miles distance to Wales and around ….. the 2nd day of the 5 …… tells me I’m averaging some 27.35mpg for these some first 316 miles …… I think that’s quite good for lots of motorway with Welsh hills and valleys too 👌

with local E5 at 156.9p ltr 

Malc 

Convo down to I have just fired up my two woodburners. Cut my wood for this winter earlier in the year timed to coincide with Arthritis holiday courtesy of cortisone of course. My bit for the countries bid for energy independence plus no radiator looks so good as one of these flaming up.

[Sundance]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

Convo down to I have just fired up my two woodburners. Cut my wood for this winter earlier in the year timed to coincide with Arthritis holiday courtesy of cortisone of course. My bit for the countries bid for energy independence plus no radiator looks so good as one of these flaming up.

Oh envy be my friend (excl cortisone of course) 😊 .

[Boomer54]

7 hours ago, Sundance said:

Oh envy be my friend (excl cortisone of course) 😊 .

My 3rd winter with the Burley woodburners. 90 % efficient ,no ashpan, barely makes any so it only needs a scoop out once a month. So far spent zero £ on wood. All scavenged 'cos once a Yorkshireman always a Yorkshireman ! ironic splittlng kindling and logs . Truly deja vu as my first proper job earning was 2 evenings and one Saturday a week in the local woodmill. Doubt if today they would allow a 12yr old kid to work with that kind of equipment. Life can be quite circular coming back to something 50 plus yrs later. Why no Sundays you ask ,because I used my first pay to buy a Sunday newpaper round £5, but what price that when you deliver the Times and get a half crown tip ! More than the cost of the paper itself.

 

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Boomer54 said:

My 3rd winter with the Burley woodburners. 90 % efficient ,no ashpan, barely makes any so it only needs a scoop out once a month. So far spent zero £ on wood. All scavenged 'cos once a Yorkshireman always a Yorkshireman ! ironic splittlng kindling and logs . Truly deja vu as my first proper job earning was 2 evenings and one Saturday a week in the local woodmill. Doubt if today they would allow a 12yr old kid to work with that kind of equipment. Life can be quite circular coming back to something 50 plus yrs later. Why no Sundays you ask ,because I used my first pay to buy a Sunday newpaper round £5, but what price that when you deliver the Times and get a half crown tip ! More than the cost of the paper itself.

 

Half a dollar! My how times have changed 😊

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

Half a dollar! My how times have changed 😊

Indeed they have. I should have been a contender. I could have been a contender. I will never be a contender. I am a contented sheep out to pasture.