IPCC report: Why is no one on Mumsnet talking about climate change?

[WillPenn]

Was very surprised to see hardly any talk about climate change on here, following on from the latest IPCC report. Are none of you worried about your kids' future or is everyone just sticking their heads in the sand?

It makes me panic to think what lies ahead for my DC if no one acts. Come on Mumsnet, how about a ground up campaign to try and get the govt. and the nation to tackle this elephant in the room head on?

As a family, we are doing what we can to cut back on energy usage - but we are just four people and I'm feeling pretty hopeless about the whole situation at the moment when nobody else seems to care about the future.

@ninjasquirrel thanks for being a voice of reason. I might try and PM you, though never done it before myself either. I do get mailings from Friends of the Earth but don't find them that useful.

Claig, are we even living on the same planet?!

Sorry, but earths climate has been changing all by itself for millions of years. Man can't change that, although we probably are making it faster.
People don't worry about the long term right now because they're worried about keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table.
If we think we can reverse climate change, we're more stupid than we think. It's a natural process.
As an aside, if you build houses close to water, it is a natural conclusion that in the event of heavy rainfall, your house will get flooded.

because those that care already do what they can? Mumsnet really doesn't have a lot of influence.

You could try to encourage meat-free Mondays, that we all become vegetarian, lobby for more research like this phys.org/news/2013-05-diet-methane-cows.html and/or for subsidies for foods that mean cows produce less methane

The earth's climate is changing all the time, its what it does, we are still coming out of a mini ice age from the 1700s so it's no surprise things are getting warmer. In Roman Britain they grew grapes in York, in the 1100s the Vikings kept cattle in Greenland.

The IPCC are continually having to rack back their overblown claims from a few years back, their models are wrong.

'their models are wrong'

That's putting it politely!!!!!

It's depressing isn't it, WillPenn.

@MrsJohnHarrison - if all you worry about is keeping the roof over your head and food on the table now, you may well find that your roof is underwater and your table bare in 50 years time. Being short termist is the worst thing you can do.

@alreadytaken - we are down to meat once or twice a week, so doing our bit there.

@thisisaeuphemism - it certainly is.

See? It's incredibly frustrating when you have such a well-researched and peer-reviewed body of investigation and someone dismisses it with, 'oh, the climate is always changing'.

I've explained so often on these threads why this is different, but no-one gives a shit, frankly, they just want to live in their happy little bubble.

I get irritated by the arrogance of people who have made no effort to look into the facts in any way, but think they can just dismiss all this evidence with some vague hand-waving and platitudes.
Do you not think the IPCC might, just might, have considered the possibilities you're mentioning?

Sometimes I think the human race is so fucking stupid and selfish that wiping ourselves out is no more than we deserve. God knows the other species on earth would be grateful.

I'm very sceptical about climate change. Of course there will be periods of colder weather and periods of warmer weather. I think using up the earth's resources and over-population and feeding everyone is far more to worry about.

Claig, MJH & Vivennemary are perfect examples of why I don't want to read threads like this.

@nicetabard - if you read those repost they all state air pollution is only makes a very small contribution to the cause of death but is not responsible for any of the deaths - that to me says no one has died because of bad air pollution - you have very much bent the truth to suit your argument.

WillPenn

@MrsJohnHarrison - if all you worry about is keeping the roof over your head and food on the table now, you may well find that your roof is underwater

That would mean - assuming MrsJohnHarrison lives at sea level - a sea level rise of 25 feet in 50 years.

What is the actual estimated sea level rise by 2100 according to the climate models? Is it 25 feet?

No. The IPCC's 2007 AR4 publication advised a sea level rise by 2100 of between 7 and 12 inches.

and your table bare in 50 years time. Being short termist is the worst thing you can do.

Given that plants require warmth, water and CO2 to grow could you explain why a warmer, wetter climate with a higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global starvation in 50 years time?

I find people who have just swallowed the anthropomorphic climate change story are the ones most likely to have done no research of their own.

It is shot through with bad research, wrong models and special interest pleading - which is why it's having to be massively backtracked as it fails to get things right.

lazyjaney can you explain a bit more? I thought that anthropomorphism is when people give human attributes to animals and other things.

Is there a line of climate change theory that thinks the climate is behaving like a person in some way? I have not heard that one and it sounds interesting, if odd!

peggy I'm not having an "argument". I know what my views are and am quite happy with them. I do think that if there is a contributing factor to thousands of deaths which could be reduced then reducing it is no bad thing. Of course people with asthma and other respiratory problems will benefit as well. Personally I think that if something can be done to reduce suffering then why not do it. Of course (as this thread shows) not everyone agrees with that line of thinking. But I am comfortable with feeling that way.

Things are a lot better in london since the low emissions zone was introduced - you don't come back with a nose full of black snot any more - but still if more can be done (and it can) then why not.

Also can be called Anthropogenic - ie climate change from/by human activity.

nicetabard I suppose you could describe the Gaia theory as anthropomorphic...

Thing is, the only way we could irrefutably prove climate change 100% is by having two earths, and racking up the CO2 on one while keeping it constant on the other. Which ain't gonna happen.

So you have to personally decide how close to certain those climate change scientists need to be, to convince you to take action.

Working on the basis that risk is probability times consequence; the consequences of getting this wrong are fucking huge, so actually even a small probability that the vast majority of scientists are right should be enough to take action.

I, personally, believe that the odds that the vast majority of scientists are correct about this are very high.

This thread will not go well.

Unfortunately people like claig always find the environmental threads and give people the excuse they want not to have to think about it because it's all a conspiracy designed to get extra taxes out of them

To be honest I think we're all fucked. But there's no way I want to be one of those people who thing "Oh well, we're fucked so I'll do anything I want anyway because no one else cares." At the end I want to know I tried my best.

I dunno, Lazyjaney. Sounds like you're setting up your stall so no one can win, there.

BIL would probably come under your heading of 'swallowing the climate change story', but he's done rather a lot of the research too, so then I guess he's 'corrupted by scary political interests', given it's kind of hard to launch research satellites entirely independently.

Sigh.

'Given that plants require warmth, water and CO2 to grow could you explain why a warmer, wetter climate with a higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 will lead to global starvation in 50 years time?'

Fair question. Not my field, but at a hazard:
Flooding; drought; storm damage; pest and disease profile changes; acidification; erosion; changes in water table; movement of displaced people.

As I understand it, the predicted outcomes are regional, with some developing countries hit badly and many developed nations being much more able to compensate.

Exactly.. we can argue the causes until we're blue in the face. We can even argue whether the climate is warming or not. But the bottom line is that weather patterns in the UK are already shifting - no need for IPCC, just ask anyone with a garden - and we need to respond to that. Our traditional energy sources are also not infinite and, unless we want to crawl up Arabian and Russian backsides for the next few centuries and pay vast sums for the privilege, it's common-sense to find other ways of generating power.

I think the trouble is a lot of people me included aren't listening any more. Because there's always something to worry us. A few years ago half the planet was going to be wiped out by bird flu or swine flu. It didn't happen. I wish they'd stop this scaremongering. Because people are just going to stop believing anything they say.

I don't thibk its just about cost of making changes and big scary science but mostly about scales. Climate change is rarely portrayed at a local level, usually national and occasionally regional and obviously global but for people to engage, to really see the impact then CC predictions need to be made more applicable to every day life

Its also 'too big a problem', targets need to be better understood and options need to be more affordable. There a so many parts to the equation, food production and food miles, energy moving to green energy, water use, carbon footprint etc.

Finally often the CC groups are preaching to the converted, those that care are usually doing all they can. How to change public attitude to the environment (not just climate change) is a battle we're barely holding ground on, just look at Silent Spring (Rachel Carson) and the way we continue to use our resources.

Its not so much NIMBYism but not actually understanding what CC means to your back yard, the link between behaviours and repercussions is a long long time in CC, we ned to shorten that link and explore better means of communicating why we should use less water, walk more, eat local and tyrn down the thermostat.

the other reason some people no longer talk about it is that it has been discussed before, many times. There was even a campaign www.mumsnet.com/Talk/ethical_living/815010-10-10-climate-change-campaign I have a vague memory of discussions about the science, the accuracy of the models, the uncertainties and so on but I can't find the one I want on search as there are many shorter discussions.

One major message to help the planet was to have less children.

"explore better means of communicating why we should use less water, walk more, eat local and tyrn down the thermostat."

I don't know about anyone else but I find 'money' a big motivation. I do all of the above because I save cash, rather than the planet. The only communication I need to convince me is the one with 'BILL' in big letters at the top. My neighbours recently installed solar panels. Also not because they want to reverse climate change

There is no doubt the climate is changing, but it always has. There is also a long term warming trend, not surprising as we are coming out of a mini ice age, the UK has been a lot warmer in recoded history.

Human activity being a cause.....much more dubious evidence, that area has been captured in part by a bucolic planet green agenda, but without the data - with resultant data scandals, dodgy models and resultant IPCC backtracks etc etc.