Ban on airtravel

[Jacob]

This isn't comparable in my view. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of a sovereign territory. It was an act of aggression with severely damaging consequences for Ukraine. the Russian forces have been guilty of appalling acts. At a pragmatic level allowing Putin to get away with this puts a whole range of European countries from Finland to Moldavia at risk. We cannot allow him to get away with this otherwise the stability of Europe and the freedom of millions of people will be threatened. Its is already having a huge impact on the world economy, on food supplies, fuel costs and prices generally. The west should not appease Putin or shy away from this situation. We should be pouring resources into Ukraine to support them in every way possible. Not to do so is a much greater risk.

There's a lot of Putin apologists out there who say it was provoked - NATO expansionism etc.
But even if it was provoked the barbaric and brutal Russian reaction doesn't fit the narrative. They have enormous global economic power through fuel and food resources and could serve their ostensible interests far better through diplomacy or even peaceful economic bullying.
It makes the alternative narrative more convincing; that Putin, a crazed dictator in his dying days, is having megalomaniac fantasies about reclaiming the lost Russian empire of Peter the Great.
There could be no end to that, until he drops dead or the Russians have had enough of him.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I fully buy in to climate change concerns - simply consuming carbon based fuels at a rate ~1,000,000 times faster than they were created will cause disruption. It is also completely unsustainable - total reserves are effectively fixed - as with other resources.

Climate has constantly changed. This is not to diminish the concern, but expecting the pre-industrial era climate, if that is your datum, to remain forever unchanged is a nonsense.

The real issue is how quickly changes occur, their magnitude, and the ability to adapt.

• the UK lies in the middle of what is usually defined as "temperate" - tropics 23 degrees, artic circle 66 degrees, UK ~53 degrees. It seems unlikely that the UK will be unable to adapt to plausible climate changes given time.
• as a fairly wealthy country the UK can adapt to slower changes. "Slow" is context related - hard infrastructure may take (say) 25-100 years, agricultural output more easily flexed.

The Met Office usually define climate as an average over 30 years. Climate (tipping points aside) does not change rapidly, but over multi-decadal timescales. Using record weather statistics to prove or disprove climate change is not defensible.

Many parts of the globe, which already experience more extreme climates cannot take so relaxed a view. Gross over population means that the poorest will suffer most. Blindingly obvious to my mind but the basic instinct to reproduce evidently renders it far too difficult to be addressed.

With technologies now available, a much smaller global population could thrive on green energy and (almost) infinite resource availability given effective recycling. Concerns for the future would be several generations into the future - more speculation than real threat.

 

[Limey Lurker]

That and staying in power with lies and misrepresentation. If Johnson told me it was raining I would look out the window to check.

I'd first check to see if he'd sold the window!

 

[Limey Lurker]

Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.

I AM a true lefty. What we DON'T need are the crooks and lying toads that comprise this present Government.

 

[Jonm]

There you go - a classic piece of climate change scepticism! Flawed is the word!
Normal "climate extremes" are not the same as "climate change", which is bringing about abnormal climate extremes.
Even if our UK climate remains temperate (which it isn't doing - it's hotting up) we will be hit by secondary effects - fossil fuel usage, global food supplies etc etc.
The science isn't about "simple interpretation of short term trends" in fact is looking at evidence in the very long term, though geological time - ice core studies being just one.
Anyway you are looking at the wrong Met office page Terry. Understanding climate change

I think if you look at what Terry actually wrote you might find far less to disagree about.

for example

This is not to suggest we should be complacent about climate change

Are you suggesting we should be complacent about climate change?

Another example

Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed

are you suggesting that we should look at simple interpretations of short term trends.

 

[johna.clements]

I fully buy in to climate change concerns - simply consuming carbon based fuels at a rate ~1,000,000 times faster than they were created will cause disruption. It is also completely unsustainable - total reserves are effectively fixed - as with other resources.

Climate has constantly changed. This is not to diminish the concern, but expecting the pre-industrial era climate, if that is your datum, to remain forever unchanged is a nonsense.

The real issue is how quickly changes occur, their magnitude, and the ability to adapt.

• the UK lies in the middle of what is usually defined as "temperate" - tropics 23 degrees, artic circle 66 degrees, UK ~53 degrees. It seems unlikely that the UK will be unable to adapt to plausible climate changes given time.
• as a fairly wealthy country the UK can adapt to slower changes. "Slow" is context related - hard infrastructure may take (say) 25-100 years, agricultural output more easily flexed.

The Met Office usually define climate as an average over 30 years. Climate (tipping points aside) does not change rapidly, but over multi-decadal timescales. Using record weather statistics to prove or disprove climate change is not defensible.

Many parts of the globe, which already experience more extreme climates cannot take so relaxed a view. Gross over population means that the poorest will suffer most. Blindingly obvious to my mind but the basic instinct to reproduce evidently renders it far too difficult to be addressed.

With technologies now available, a much smaller global population could thrive on green energy and (almost) infinite resource availability given effective recycling. Concerns for the future would be several generations into the future - more speculation than real threat.

The rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere is rapid. When it has changed this rapidly before there has been global changes.

Very few people expect the climate to change to pre-industrial, that is a redherring on your part.

The UK is a trading nation. If the nations we trade with are effected by climate change our economy will be effected. We can not become like North Korea and cut ourselves off.

People who do not want to act are borrowing from their children in just the same way as people who want to cut income tax to zero and borrow the money.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

 

[Jonm]

I AM a true lefty. What we DON'T need are the crooks and lying toads that comprise this present Government.

One does not have to be a “true leftie” to dislike this government. We know that all politicians lie or at least twist the truth at times but I think that Johnson is amoral. Blaming problems with sending kippers through the post on the EU when it was a UK regulation, nothing to do with the EU. Kipper rules Boris Johnson blamed on EU are actually British, says Brussels
More seriously he told the DUP there would be no border down the Irish Sea and promptly signed an agreement which did exactly that.
The lies go back at least to when he was a journalist and just continue.

 

[Spectric]

This isn't comparable in my view. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of a sovereign territory. It was an act of aggression with severely damaging consequences for Ukraine. the Russian forces have been guilty of appalling acts. At a pragmatic level allowing Putin to get away with this puts a whole range of European countries from Finland to Moldavia at risk. We cannot allow him to get away with this otherwise the stability of Europe and the freedom of millions of people will be threatened. Its is already having a huge impact on the world economy, on food supplies, fuel costs and prices generally. The west should not appease Putin or shy away from this situation. We should be pouring resources into Ukraine to support them in every way possible. Not to do so is a much greater risk.

Nobody is saying that it was not an unprovoked attack or that there is any justification to any form of war or conflict but we need to be honest with ourselves and be realistic. This has been brewing for some time and Nato along with the west are not squeaky clean in all of this, they could have put a lot more effort into diplomacy which is the only way we can all live in peace. You always need to look at the worst possible outcome in any decision making process and then base your actions upon whether this is something acceptable and you can live with, in this case you will not live with it because you may well be dust.

Russia cannot lose this conflict, whether we like that or not is irrelevant because it is fact, they may not win but if they lose then we will all lose and that is where my lifeboat analogy comes from. We supply the weapons to keep this war going and we get closer and closer to an unstopable escalation where the next level of weapons will be used, and even some Americans do realise the potential outcome, quote

"And if you think about just Virginia, where I happen to live, if there were a nuclear war—and keep in mind, they also have a very large and effective fleet of nuclear submarines that lie off the coast of the United States. They have a great number of nuclear-tipped missiles, and they can evade any defenses we have. So just in Virginia, if you look at it, all of Northern Virginia would be essentially annihilated. There would hardly be any human life remaining in Loudoun County, Prince William County, Fairfax County, Arlington, Alexandria. The Pentagon lies in in Arlington County: The Pentagon would simply be a glowing mass of molten sand. There would be no human life there. And there would be no human life for many miles around it. Just across the Potomac, the nation’s capital, there would be no life remaining in the nation’s capital. The Capitol building would disappear forever. All of the monuments, all of these glorious things—nothing would remain.

If you go to the coast of Virginia, you have the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, you have the Port of Norfolk. You have you have the greatest accumulation of naval power on the face of the Earth. This is where we park all of our aircraft carriers, our nuclear submarines, all of those things. There would be nothing remaining. There would be nothing remaining of any of those shipping industries there. "

It that could happen in the USA then in comparison we are nothing more than a canoe, so is doing the right thing really doing the right thing knowing what could happen, are a million lives worth several billion, this is not a decision about what is right or wrong, about doing the moral thing but a simple question of survival, prevention of a possible extinction event.

 

[Fergie 307]

But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?

Ah the old appeasement argument, I'm OK **** everyone else. That's worked so well in the past.

 

[Fergie 307]

Nobody is saying that it was not an unprovoked attack or that there is any justification to any form of war or conflict but we need to be honest with ourselves and be realistic. This has been brewing for some time and Nato along with the west are not squeaky clean in all of this, they could have put a lot more effort into diplomacy which is the only way we can all live in peace. You always need to look at the worst possible outcome in any decision making process and then base your actions upon whether this is something acceptable and you can live with, in this case you will not live with it because you may well be dust.

Russia cannot lose this conflict, whether we like that or not is irrelevant because it is fact, they may not win but if they lose then we will all lose and that is where my lifeboat analogy comes from. We supply the weapons to keep this war going and we get closer and closer to an unstopable escalation where the next level of weapons will be used, and even some Americans do realise the potential outcome, quote

"And if you think about just Virginia, where I happen to live, if there were a nuclear war—and keep in mind, they also have a very large and effective fleet of nuclear submarines that lie off the coast of the United States. They have a great number of nuclear-tipped missiles, and they can evade any defenses we have. So just in Virginia, if you look at it, all of Northern Virginia would be essentially annihilated. There would hardly be any human life remaining in Loudoun County, Prince William County, Fairfax County, Arlington, Alexandria. The Pentagon lies in in Arlington County: The Pentagon would simply be a glowing mass of molten sand. There would be no human life there. And there would be no human life for many miles around it. Just across the Potomac, the nation’s capital, there would be no life remaining in the nation’s capital. The Capitol building would disappear forever. All of the monuments, all of these glorious things—nothing would remain.

If you go to the coast of Virginia, you have the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, you have the Port of Norfolk. You have you have the greatest accumulation of naval power on the face of the Earth. This is where we park all of our aircraft carriers, our nuclear submarines, all of those things. There would be nothing remaining. There would be nothing remaining of any of those shipping industries there. "

It that could happen in the USA then in comparison we are nothing more than a canoe, so is doing the right thing really doing the right thing knowing what could happen, are a million lives worth several billion, this is not a decision about what is right or wrong, about doing the moral thing but a simple question of survival, prevention of a possible extinction event.

The point being that Putin ought to know that if he pressed the button then he had better have his popcorn ready as Russia will also be a smouldering ruin minutes later. Given what we have seen of the state of the Russian military in Ukraine you have to wonder how many of their missiles would even function of called upon, so The likelihood is they would probably end up worse off, although in this context that is debatable. Putin might be mad enough to order such a thing, hopefully those who would be responsible for carrying it out might have more sense than to obey it.

 

[Jacob]

I fully buy in to climate change concerns - simply consuming carbon based fuels at a rate ~1,000,000 times faster than they were created will cause disruption. It is also completely unsustainable - total reserves are effectively fixed - as with other resources.

Climate has constantly changed. This is not to diminish the concern, but expecting the pre-industrial era climate, if that is your datum, to remain forever unchanged is a nonsense.

In fact the holocene is notable for steady state with little change - and arguably anthropogenic

The real issue is how quickly changes occur, their magnitude, and the ability to adapt.

• the UK lies in the middle of what is usually defined as "temperate" - tropics 23 degrees, artic circle 66 degrees, UK ~53 degrees. It seems unlikely that the UK will be unable to adapt to plausible climate changes given time.

Even if it was true that isn't the issue. We live a global life and are utterly dependent on globally sourced food and energy (including Russian gas!)
But it isn't necessarily true in the first place. We have had record floods in recent years for example. And we can't escape rising sea levels.

• as a fairly wealthy country the UK can adapt to slower changes. "Slow" is context related - hard infrastructure may take (say) 25-100 years, agricultural output more easily flexed.

The Met Office usually define climate as an average over 30 years. Climate (tipping points aside) does not change rapidly, but over multi-decadal timescales. Using record weather statistics to prove or disprove climate change is not defensible.

Many parts of the globe, which already experience more extreme climates cannot take so relaxed a view. Gross over population means that the poorest will suffer most. Blindingly obvious to my mind but the basic instinct to reproduce evidently renders it far too difficult to be addressed.

In point of fact the world's poor contribute least to climate change. The problem is with over consumption in the wealthy first world.

With technologies now available, a much smaller global population could thrive on green energy and (almost) infinite resource availability given effective recycling. Concerns for the future would be several generations into the future - more speculation than real threat.

Yes but we want to choose how we make the transition to a green economy and not just wait until populations are wiped out.
One of the biggest single issues is animal farming. We could in theory support the current population with a vastly reduced carbon footprint if we go largely vegetarian. This fact (and George Monbiot) enrage climate change sceptics but seems inescapable!

 

[Spectric]

the Russian military in Ukraine you have to wonder how many of their missiles would even function of called upon,

Thats probably where the term russian roulette comes from, but these days why waste money on conventional military hardware, just get the biggest & fastest nukes you can then you are in a good position to take no shieete from anyone.

I think a lot of people must be realising that the whole concept of nuclear weapons is just utter stupidity, all it can deliver is the end so all rather pointless, like a big game of poker until someone thinks he has bigger balls than the others and takes a chance, what we need is total global nuclear disarmament because don't we have enough to worry about with global warming as it is.

Ah the old appeasement argument, I'm OK **** everyone else.

It is so much more than that, you have to realise when you cannot win and take the right course of action in the interest of the majority, just basic survival skills. It is a bit like gamblers who are just so happy to win a tenner even though it has cost them sixty.

 

[Fergie 307]

I agree very much with your first point. Unfortunately we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons.
On your second point we can confront these situations, rather than appease. Think of the Cuban missile crisis, the USA could have let them get on with it, rather than risk a nuclear confrontation. Instead they chose to call their bluff, and The USSR backed down. The reality is that we should have taken the sort of measures against the Russians we are now when they first started misbehaving. Instead the world huffed and puffed but did nothing, effectively the very sort of appeasement you are advocating. What happened was that Putin not unreasonably came to the conclusion that he could do whatever he liked, and all we would do is talk. Had we reacted more positively years ago and made it clear to him that this behaviour would not be tolerated, then I doubt we would be having this conversation, and the world would be a safer place, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives that would have been saved.

 

[Fergie 307]

I think if you look at what Terry actually wrote you might find far less to disagree about.

for example


Are you suggesting we should be complacent about climate change?

Another example


are you suggesting that we should look at simple interpretations of short term trends.

I agree Terry makes some good points. The most extreme examples of climate change in the past, the comings and goings of the numerous ice ages for example, had nothing to do with human activity. The fact is the climate changes over millenia, and always has done. Are we exacerbating the problem, most certainly, and we should do everything we can to minimise our own impact, and we are by far the most destructive species that has ever existed. But my concern is that if we are seeing the beginning of a naturally occurring warmer period, albeit accelerated by our own activities, then we are deluding ourselves if we think we will be able to control it.

 

[Jacob]

I agree Terry makes some good points. The most extreme examples of climate change in the past, the comings and goings of the numerous ice ages for example, had nothing to do with human activity.

Actually the holocene is thought to be anthropogenic - we caused it, unknowingly, 12000 relatively stable years.
All the evidence says the current crisis is anthropogenic and we could in theory reverse it, basically by total stop on fossil fuel use.

 

[Fergie 307]

You may well be correct in some respects But the numerous ice ages, when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice kilometres thick, and it's subsequent thawing had nothing to do with humans, there simply weren't enough of us. These were far more extreme events than anything currently predicted, and were entirely natural phenomena. So climate change is very real, and we are undoubtedly contributing to it very significantly. Just not sure what the underlying trends are. We do tend to be a very conceited species and often forget that the whole of human existence is the merest blink of an eye in terms of the planet's history.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

I agree very much with your first point. Unfortunately we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons.
On your second point we can confront these situations, rather than appease. Think of the Cuban missile crisis, the USA could have let them get on with it, rather than risk a nuclear confrontation. Instead they chose to call their bluff, and The USSR backed down. The reality is that we should have taken the sort of measures against the Russians we are now when they first started misbehaving. Instead the world huffed and puffed but did nothing, effectively the very sort of appeasement you are advocating. What happened was that Putin not unreasonably came to the conclusion that he could do whatever he liked, and all we would do is talk. Had we reacted more positively years ago and made it clear to him that this behaviour would not be tolerated, then I doubt we would be having this conversation, and the world would be a safer place, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives that would have been saved.

Interesting that you use the "Cuban Crisis" as an example: what you don't seem to know is that the USSR responded to the American provocation of putting nuclear missiles in Turkey, on the border with the USSR. The crisis was created by American/NATO expansion and aggression, just like the current crisis. Fun to see how reality is often diametrically opposed to the agreed upon narrative du jour.
From wikipedia :

The Cuban Missile Crisis, also known as the October Crisis of 1962 (Spanish: Crisis de Octubre), the Caribbean Crisis (Russian: Карибский кризис, tr. Karibsky krizis, IPA: [kɐˈrʲipskʲɪj ˈkrʲizʲɪs]), or the Missile Scare, was a 35-day (16 October – 20 November 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which escalated into an international crisis when American deployments of missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba​

 

[Jacob]

You may well be correct in some respects But the numerous ice ages, when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice kilometres thick, and it's subsequent thawing had nothing to do with humans, there simply weren't enough of us. These were far more extreme events than anything currently predicted, and were entirely natural phenomena. So climate change is very real, and we are undoubtedly contributing to it very significantly. Just not sure what the underlying trends are. We do tend to be a very conceited species and often forget that the whole of human existence is the merest blink of an eye in terms of the planet's history.

It's not conceit to be bothered about our own survival, however brief and pointless!

 

[Fergie 307]

The point I sought to make was simply that you can confront behaviour you find unacceptable, you don't have to just go along with it. And of course you could argue that the deployment of missiles in Turkey and elsewhere was no different to the missiles the USSR had in Eatern Russia, just across the water from Alaska. The USSR had prepared it's intended based in Cuba in great secrecy, presumably intending to represent the USA with a fair accompli. When the plan was rumbled they were forced to back down and abandon the plan.