This is what people should really be worrying about ...

[shedview]

Even if you haven't been worried (yet) by current increases in extreme weather events, this should ring alarm bells. These currents are what keep the UK and other northern European countries relatively warm compared to Greenland. : BBC News - Antarctic ocean currents heading for collapse- report
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65120327

@Raggletagglegypsy a very quick Google shows that D-O events have been associated with purge-binge ice melting, ocean current destabilization etc. There's a serious danger of anthropogenic climate change being the trigger for the next. This is not a good thing.

Does it? I am aware that a minority of UK businesses are required to report their GHG emissions (for most it is voluntary) - but what is the statutory requirement placed on all businesses to actually implement reductions, with penalties for non-compliance? That, surely, is what would be necessary to force compliance.

EU Carbon Trading, still applicable in the UK (for the time being). It applies in different ways in different sectors and business a size.

Also search extended producer responsibility, this is a legal requirement in the automotive sector and will definitely be translated

Gas boiler bans.

ICE bans.

Compulsory EPDs in the construction industry.

IATA regs.

IMO EEXI and CII.

The (voluntary) climate disclosure project - scope 1.

Environdec database for EPDs

It'll be interesting to read the government policy released today, all 1000+ pages.

The National Grid future scenarios is very in depth.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point. We are repeatedly told that current rates of warming are unprecedented with respect to natural climatic changes - yet examples such as Dansgaard-Oeschger events seem to undermine this assertion.
Also, if you're interested, research the problems associated with trying to compare the smoothed palaeoclimatic data (derived from proxy temperature records) with modern instrumental data. A case can be made that current warming is not as significant as that which occurred during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The IPCC's comparison of instrumental data over decadal periods, with multi-century proxy data is disingenuous, to say the least.

There's also no consensus on the cause, they were also not, that I can see, interglacial period events. It in no way whatsoever throws doubt on the science and seriousness of anthropogenic climate change.

@Daftasabroom
"they were also not, that I can see, interglacial period events."

What about the temperatures reached in the Eemian interglacial?

I agree. We need to drastically reduce human population, even if it causes us short-term economic and logistical problems.

Yes I agree. But in China and SoutnKorea they are worried about the birth rate declining and trying to make people have more children.
Whether they will succeed in this I don’t know.

God I can't cope with Canadian weather year round

How does any of that disprove anthropogenic climate change?

It doesn't - I was simply responding to your point that the Dansgaard-Oeschger events didn't take place during an interglacial. However, there were warmer periods during the Eemian and the current Holocene. But you are right - there can be no absolute proof against the theory of anthropogenic global warming (but, equally, there can be no definitive proof for it). The parameters of the predicted range of possible outcomes are just too wide - and also overlap with the predictions made by alternative theories. What has to be recognised is that scientists who question the current paradigm risk their careers and it is socially unacceptable to appear sceptical. This is powerful when combined with the fact that economies are being restructured to operate within this established narrative.
I consider myself an environmentalist, I have long fought against the negative aspects of global capitalism, 'big oil' etc...and yet the more I research, the more sceptical I become about fundamental aspects of the science underpinning the anthropogenic global warming narrative In my youth, I used to shrug off such thoughts - presuming there was no harm in exercising the precautionary principle. However, even at the most simplistic level, carbon dioxide is important as a natural fertiliser (and I worry that our fruitless attempts to control the climate might have their own damaging and unintended consequences, as well as distracting from more significant environmental concerns).
Anyway, I wish I wasn't sceptical - it would be so much easier to be on the righteous side - and, ultimately, the side that will make sure that it proves itself to be correct! Anyway, don't worry - I almost always keep my views to myself (slipped up this evening - and as soon as I did, I knew that I risked being labelled as an unthinking, uncaring idiot!). There are plenty more expert than me who find it impossible to be heard - that is how powerful paradigms work.🙂

@Raggletagglegypsy so no evidence, just a conspiracy theory. Right ho!

Oh dear - you have made my point. There is plenty of conflicting evidence - but clearly it will always be labelled in the silly way that you have chosen to label it. Hum ho! Time to go! 😉

There's always something in the news and media to 'worry' us, and always someone doom-mongering and telling us the world's going to end soon. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I really don't give a shit anymore, and am sick of scaremongering, and reading the same shit, different day.

No I'm not worried about this, because I am sick and tired of worrying.

I'm not saying what I read/what is peddled is all fake news, just that I don't give a shit anymore. Sick of being scared - and worrying. No more. I do everything I can to help the planet and the climate, and I try to be a good person. That's enough for me. I refuse to buy into any hysteria.

Arrrrrhhh, what evidence you haven't shown any.

I sometimes watch him on GB News.I enjoy his monologues. His theories are mad as a box of frogs, but he always says at least one thing that makes me think. And his voice is lovely.

@Daftasabroom so frustrating. Love your posts.

There's so much scientific consensus, based on masses of painstaking and rigorous research. Without that consensus it would be "oh well, there's still doubt", but with it, we get "dissenting voices aren being silenced".

For anyone getting caught in the science weeds, it's not that hard really. If I had a glass jar of carbon dioxide and left it on a sunny window ledge it'd get way hotter than a glass of air. Bit like when you burn your mouth on a pizza, it's always the cheese and never the tomato bits, because the cheese is better at holding heat.

We've nearly doubled the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times.

(This is a proper explanation of how CO2 warms us up https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/)

😂

That’s a ridiculous statement and rather racist.

Either you want our working cultures / imperial machines to be able to perpetuate ourselves, or you don’t. There isn’t much of a middle ground.

Those who spent so long spinning us bullshit about how culture didn’t matter and it doesn’t matter where in the world you come from are suddenly revealing their true colours.

Theres a lot of bull on this website just lately, but that takes the biscuit!

It might make you more likely to vote for a candidate or party that was going to do more to fix the problem? And educate your kids etc to care about the planet? Lots of things.

There are lots of things we can do.

Is everyone did this, the impact would be huge! Good for you.

Check out the research carried out by Dr Judith Curry (https://judithcurry.com/) and Prof. Richard Lindzen (eg - ) for starters (plenty of other reputable critical scientists out there, who have been prepared to stick their heads above the parapet).
For clarity, my position is not critical of the physics underpinning the properties of GHGs, such as CO2, as radiative forcing agents - nor am I contesting the assertion that an element of warming is caused by human activity. I am dubious that the impression created about the proportion that can be directly attributed to human versus natural cyclical causes correctly represents the scientific uncertainty. I am also concerned about the degree to which climate catastrophism reflects an overarching political agenda (which permeates the language and narrative adopted by the IPCC).
Regardless of all of this, if the extreme projections and underpinning science are correct, then there is diddly-squat that the western economies can do (in the context of overall global GHG production, our output is simply not significant enough) - shutting down our economies will just reduce our ability to implement the sort of climate resilience measures that would be needed to cope with the climatic challenges that have been predicted.
Anyway, this statement presented to a US House of Representatives hearing by Dr Judith Curry provides a pretty good summary of the type of uncertainty that exists within the scientific community and is a useful counterbalance to the political narrative that tends to dominate the airwaves...https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/curry-testimony-house-natural-resources.pdf As she avers within that report "the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people" and "scientific progress is driven by uncertainty and disagreement; working to resolve these uncertainties and disagreements drives the knowledge frontier forward. Attempts by government policy makers to intimidate climate scientists whose research or public statements are perceived to be in opposition to a preferred policy narrative are enormously detrimental to scientific progress.".
So, maybe we all need to be open to debate that is a little more nuanced - although this sort of social media platform seems to encourage the overly simplistic polarization of positions.

@Raggletagglegypsy Judith Curry "[agreed] that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic" this is the same Judith Curry?

Judith Curry doesn't challenge the science of climate change or it's consequences, she challenges the politics or whether we should attempt to limited it rather than mitigate the consequences.

One swallow does not a summer make.

If you read the document that I linked to, you will be able to determine whether it is the "same Judith Curry". She recognises (in the hearing report that I reference) that "there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the recent warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, whether warming is ‘dangerous’, and whether radically reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will improve the climate and human well being in the 21st century." It is a nuanced argument of degree, which has serious ramifications regarding the best course of action and the extent to which it should be catastrophised. There is a wide range of scientific opinion and debate should always be a possibility - it is all very interesting and clearly is indicative of the sort of evidence that you previously asked for - suggesting that the science should be viewed as far from settled.