Climate change

That’s not true on a global level. Regional variations exist but, on a global level, the planet is now hotter than it has been since the dawn of human civilization, and will get warmer.

🤣😂 No it’s not true. Hawking was a decent physicist, but he was no climatologist. 250C is more than double the boiling point of water. The Earth’s

In addition, the last time we definitely had no polar ice, was the Cretaceous period when dinosaurs roamed the Earth (plus crocodiles). The average temperature was 23C which is 8C above the 15C average that is our baseline. We are trying to limit the average to +1.5C , but that’s not likely. But as you see there is a lot of wriggle room to stop climate change before getting as hot as it was in the Cretaceous period.

Global action to date has likely been sufficient to prevent ‘apocalyptic’ climate change in the near future.

Humanity will survive, it’s more a question of the degree of shitness it will have to endure.

The climate has been warmer than it is now. Both in ancient ancient times and in (say) Roman times. The Romans grew grapes in northern England. Good luck with that now.

The climate is in constant flux. The earth is a living thing.

I'm not saying that big companies should be putting chemicals in the rivers (they shouldn't), but the whole co2 thing is nonsense - especially the idea that us little people making big sacrifices will make any jot of difference.

For one thing, there is a gas seam in Turkmenistan that mankind managed to set on fire decades ago. It it is still burning and emitting god knows how much co2 each year. There are Victorian coal mines that are still smouldering underground from over 100 years ago. But that's all fine apparently - no one cares about that co2. Or the co2 from billionaire's yachts. But the co2 you emit from living your life - now that's killing the planet....................

I forgot to mention Cancelled.

Jesus, the same people who misuse woke also misuse triggering. And Inclusivity and Woman and Essay and Hypocrite and News.🙄

I know its old fashioned but I do wish people would use the correct words for stuff.

Wonder why the word ‘woke’ is so triggering for the woke.

Ah right I get you now. Thankfully not everyone is consumed by misanthropic nihilism or laziness.

If there were no people living in cities then we wouldn't need to worry about the air quality there, because we wouldn't need the city in the first place.

Less children, means less need for places like cities, less pollution and a healthier planet.

I'm doing my part by not adding to the mess.

We don't. We need to provide existing children with better quality of life and education, and rescue the wealth disparity in the world.

Instead of churning out more kids like it's going out of fashion we should probably fix what's broken first, and encourage immigration to level out population levels.

Another viewpoint on the lightbulb - a lightbulb could actually have a much longer lifespan but greedy capitalists imposed planned obsolescence to make sure people buy more.

For every good invention sadly the greedy fuckers at the top find a way to exploit it, us, and the planet.

Eh?

Everyone taking a trip every now and again is not an issue.

People buying all inclusive but eating what they need is not the issue.

We don't all have to live like monks. This poster is vegan which already makes a fair impact on how sustainable their lifestyle is.

If we all took what we need and we're happy with a bit less, we'd be in a much better place. Were allowed to criticise grotesque overconsumption. It's not "woke". I find that mostly really stupid people with a lack of anything clever to say use "woke" to quickly align with more idiots like them.

What are you and your crack team of childless environmentalists doing? ULEZ isn't just about Climate change, its about improving the air quality for people in cities.

Well, that's my point, I don't really feel unusual because I've always been around the environmental movement and environment scientists, but I know I am and I really want to understand better what it's been like to only just be realising what's happening, because both groups need to understand each other better and communicate better.
My dh - age 76 - has been working in the field all his life, my best friend's father was one of the original scientists who discovered the hole in the ozone, I read stuff when I was in my early 20s about acid rain and immediately joined Friends of the Earth, which had just started in 1971, etc etc. So I've been embedded in environmentalism all my adult life and the question has always been how to communicate it to people who don't know, so I am endlessly interested in the perspective of people whose life experience has not included this knowledge but are only coming to it now.

I'm not saying I understood the detail that we now have, but that I've known for 50 years that our way of life was causing huge damage and we were not attending to the necessary changes. So I want to get more understanding of the mind of someone for whom this is all new.

This is wild! Someone's actually going to off herself for the sake of the climate and considers it a "small short term loss". What, you think you can come back @onefinemess ??!

Neither bitter nor an incell. Just realistic, but people aren't honest enough to say it. Much easier to fiddle about with ULEZ and Carbon Ofsetting, it helps to distract people, makes them feel less guilty.

Hahaha 🤣 bye then!

Again, a small, short term loss, for a MASSIVE gain.

😶nobody care if you suffer or not. Point is that at that stage you'll be surplus to requirements and if you expect to continue existing you'll need other people to be working. Those people are the kids you're telling everyone not to have.

@heldinadream You re pretty unusual if you ve been fully aware of the dangers to the human race from climate change for 50 years.

I first became aware of what was then called Global Warming in the early 90s and that was only because i used to date a Scandinavian scientist, as far as i can remember, talk of climate change etc was something centuries away and very much debated as to its causes - it certainly wasn't main stream here in the UK with the wider population.

He was of the opinion that it was too late to alter our trajectory and he wasn't going to have children because of this, he was also an advocate of something called "Climate flip" where we go from temperate to ice age or extreme heat in just a few years.

Your bitterness and nihilistic misanthropy is showing. Did you get lost on your way to the Reddit Incel forum?🤔

No it isn't. It's idiocy to compare children to a car. Its also idiocy to pretend that everyone who had children had a choice. And it is utterly moronic to claim parents and grandparents are hypocrites if they discuss, protest or try to do anything about climate change.🙄

I don't particularly care. I'm willing to suffer in old age if it means people having children.

We don't need anymore. Its just people's vanity, they want a little mini-me to fuss over, they don't give a flying fuck about the environment.

The world doesn't need your ego trip.

Well, it's like driving a big old diesel Landrover and complaining about vehicle emissions.

If you have children you have chosen to do something which will cause MASSIVE damage to the planet. You can't then talk about climate change without sounding like an idiot.

You didn't have to have children.

You caused damage to the planet, needless damage.

So yes, it's hypocrisy to discuss climate change if you have children.