A little truth for a change.

[RobinBHM]

A very odd thing to say - it obviously makes it easier to do independent research

How do you know your research is independent?

Scientists, research groups, media groups all get funding, how do you know you aren’t reading bias?

 

[Jacob]

How do you know your research is independent?

You have to make an intelligent judgement of the facts as presented. And not read Daily Mail, Telegraph, or watch GB news etc.

Scientists, research groups, media groups all get funding, how do you know you aren’t reading bias?

Media groups don't get CC funding, except the media coming from the research itself of course.
Why on earth would CC research be "biased", except of course research coming from parts of the fossil fuel industry and it's off shoots.
Many don't understand the science of course but that doesn't mean that the massive research done over many years by a very large body of intelligent and science-educated people, is some sort of fraud.

 

[RobinBHM]

You have to make an intelligent judgement of the facts as presented. And not read Daily Mail, Telegraph, or watch GB news etc

Universities are funded
Scientists are funded
Researchers are funded
Social media is funded
Think tanks are funded
Green peace is funded
Desmog is funded
Climate change denier sites are funded

How do you know what you read is not biased?

 

[RobinBHM]

Why on earth would CC research be "biased"

Err vested interests.

Fossil fuels on one side
Green technology on other side.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

n.b. population growth isn't the main issue, most of excess CO2 generation comes from the "first world".

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/mythbusters

Historically this is absolutely correct.

Looking forward it is developing nations that will contribute to the growth in emissions as they pursue developed standards of living, and populations grow.

Since 1990 CO2 emissions per capita in India have increased 300% from 0.6 tons to 1.8 tons. China has increased 400% from 2 tons to 8 tons.

Emissions per capita in developed countries have fallen over the same period - some of this is no doubt due to off-shoring of manufactured goods, but evidences the solution to CO2 emissions is:

• developed high emissions countries need to modify behaviours
• developing countries need to modify aspirations to avoid progression to over consumption

Total emissions = population x emissions per capita. A very simple sum in which both components are variable and can be managed should the will exist.

Current forecast is for global populations to increase ~25% by 2050. People contribute to CO2 emissions. Other environmental damage - deforestation, pollution, mining, over fishing etc etc - is also substantially proportionate to their numbers.

 

[Cabinetman]

Not sure about the population increase figure quoted, I read that it’s downhill all the way and it’s already started.
I believe the reason western governments don’t appear able to deal with immigration is that they don’t want to as they know the people are needed to replace the shrinking home populations, the demographic timebomb has already started to fizz!

 

[NickDReed]

I’m in favour of a “National Reconstruction Tax” on all who voted Brexit!! Why should the rest of us pay for their mistake!!!

Consider it a privilege of living in a democratic society.

 

[Jacob]

Historically this is absolutely correct.

Looking forward it is developing nations that will contribute to the growth in emissions as they pursue developed standards of living, and populations grow.

Since 1990 CO2 emissions per capita in India have increased 300% from 0.6 tons to 1.8 tons. China has increased 400% from 2 tons to 8 tons.

Emissions per capita in developed countries have fallen over the same period - some of this is no doubt due to off-shoring of manufactured goods, but evidences the solution to CO2 emissions is:

• developed high emissions countries need to modify behaviours
• developing countries need to modify aspirations to avoid progression to over consumption

Total emissions = population x emissions per capita. A very simple sum in which both components are variable and can be managed should the will exist.

https://www.unfpa.org/world-population-trends#readmore-expand
Population growth is by and large a reaction to population stresses and instability. It's a basic survival mechanism throughout the living world, ensuring continuation of the species itself in spite of death and destruction of large numbers of the individuals thereof!

Current forecast is for global populations to increase ~25% by 2050. People contribute to CO2 emissions. Other environmental damage - deforestation, pollution, mining, over fishing etc etc - is also substantially proportionate to their numbers.

Yes people contribute to CO2 emissions and the biggest factor by far is fossil fuel use. But this is a "first world issue" and much of the global population is relatively carbon neutral.
Good news in that the cause is a simple issue, but the remedy is not so simple - it means massive changes. They are happening anyway but not in a way we would like (floods, drought, etc etc).

 

[Scruples]

I’m in favour of a “National Reconstruction Tax” on all who voted Brexit!! Why should the rest of us pay for their mistake!!!

It wasn't a mistake. It was a democratic decision made by the electorate. I suppose Remainers still smart at the reality.

 

[Scruples]

Universities are funded
Scientists are funded
Researchers are funded
Social media is funded
Think tanks are funded
Green peace is funded
Desmog is funded
Climate change denier sites are funded

How do you know what you read is not biased?

Consensus and peer reviews?

 

[Jacob]

Err vested interests.

Fossil fuels on one side
Green technology on other side.

The third option is to listen to the science. You can be pretty sure that the fossil fuel and green tech lobbies are both paying very close attention to it. So should everybody.
And of course to take notice of the changing climate - whatever else you think about it, it seems that the science is largely correct and things are happening as forecast.
How else would you account for this?

 

[Jacob]

It wasn't a mistake. It was a democratic decision made by the electorate. I suppose Remainers still smart at the reality.

"smart" isn't the right term - the remainers simply don't like the outcome because of the complete failure of the whole project to achieve anything worthwhile, as they warned from the start. The brexiters are also suffering the economic effects however much they try to deny it.
It wasn't entirely a democratic decision - it was an opinion seeking referendum and there was no obligation to simply proceed head down and brain off the way we did.

 

[Daniel2]

It wasn't a mistake. It was a democratic decision made by the electorate. I suppose Remainers still smart at the reality.

It was also a tremendous example of how democracy can be manipulated
and abused.

 

[JimJay]

I’m in favour of a “National Reconstruction Tax” on all who voted Brexit!! Why should the rest of us pay for their mistake!!!

So presumably you also favour people being forced to pay a similar tax because the government they elected - (or perhaps simply supported in principle without voting?) - made a hash of the economy/infringed your "rights"/put up your taxes or injured/offended you in some other way? Do you likewise favour the principle of you paying the same tax when "your" government is voted out of office for the same reasons and some other shower gets to muck things up?

 

[selectortone]

The well-mannered, on topic debate was nice while it lasted.

 

[Adam W.]

☝︎ Indeed....It's going downhill faster than Jean Claude Killy.

 

[JimJay]

It was also a tremendous example of how democracy can be manipulated
and abused.

By its very nature, Democracy is ALWAYS manipulated. Perhaps we should go back to first principles: only men (and only those men rich enough to have the spare time to attend debates and participate in voting) are franchised, while the slaves and women get on with whatever work is needed to keep the home running, the fields producing and the wheels of commerce turning? Or should we just settle for an extensive examination to sort the hoi polloi from those who are well-educated and well-informed enough to make grown-up decisions for everyone?

 

[Keith Cocker]

Consider it a privilege of living in a democratic society.

It’s not.

 

[Keith Cocker]

It wasn't a mistake. It was a democratic decision made by the electorate. I suppose Remainers still smart at the reality.

Of course it was a mistake. Look at the facts. You are out of date and left behind.

 

[John Brown]

It wasn't a mistake. It was a democratic decision made by the electorate. I suppose Remainers still smart at the reality.

Of course we smart at the reality!
So do a lot of those who voted to leave, the ones who are brave and honest enough to admit that they were duped. What opportunities did the other Jacob actually identify, in his short tenure as Minister for Brexit opportunities (a role that has been quietly dropped since), apart from being able to sell wine in pints, and noisier vacuum cleaners?
It's a genuine question, I'd really feel a lot better if I could perceive some advantage other than blue passports.