UK and US main barriers to addressing climate change, survey finds

[caervek]

Doesn't matter in the slightest what the average person thinks, the UK is a world leader in wind power, which is pretty impressive considering we only emit 1.47% of global CO2 anyway.

[Kalis]

WILL.

Solar energy technology has been following a very predictable path for decades. We're very close now to see the start of widespread adoption of solar power.

Where are you getting that from? All I can find is predictions of 35-80% of energy in 2035 being all renewables, with much of that dependent on implementing policies that aren't yet in place.

[Deleted]

Global warming crazies ASSERT that scientists can accurate projection the climate by 2100. BUT, when they project solar power will complete replace fossil fuels in 20 years, they ASSERT that is incorrect. That is where they are utterly nuts. The global warming crazies are showing you its just stupid politics. They don't give a crap about the climate.

Do you have some sources for those studies about solar power?

[Elegiac]

Anglophone white people ruin everything.

More at 11.

[Dsonsion]

Colour me shocked about the US and the UK.
Now, what is unsettling to me is the amount of """skeptics""" in the Nordic countries. I didn't know there was such a trend in there.

[Deleted]

Nobody is going to give a shit about climate change until freak weather phenomena are going to occur on a relatively frequent basis. Climate change is still a somewhat intangible concept for many.

Climate change is a topic people should learn about from a very early age, in a very meticulous manner and with great urgency. Otherwise people will continue to be indifferent until it's too late.

[Daelak]

Are the majority of scientist making doomsday predictions? Otherwise we'll survive.

No, but they are speaking about how higher global average temperatures and higher sea levels will force billions of people to migrate away from the coastal areas of Indonesia, which is guaranteed to cause massive political instability in a region of the world that have nuclear warheads. Higher global average temperatures invariably mean higher ocean temperature, decreasing the temperature gradient between cold currents and warm currents in the deep ocean, slowing down currents and causing the ocean to become a large pond, devoid of life except for phosphorus emitting plankton.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop lying. I'm agreeing with the scientists.

1. I AGREE if we keep burning fossil fuels like this, there WOULD be lots of global warming.
2. I AGREE with the scientists that we won't be burning much fossil fuels in 20 years.

I completely agree with all scientific projections.

Its the global warming crazies that are cherry-picking. They refuse to believe #2. And that's because politics.

But we will be burning fossil fuels in 20 years. No accord has been made to completely reduce CO2 emissions to the point of no return. We have already past it.

[Stormdash]

What point did you make?

"There was a massacre, thank god nothing was done about it afterwards"

Thank God we didn't adopt a bunch of already-existing regulatory proposals that had little if any bearing on the heinous crime in question question? Sorry the pile of bodies didn't reach high enough for the anti-2A lobby to climb to the regulatory summit. Except for the being sorry part. Never let a good crisis go to waste, and all that.

Not much different with global doooom!-ing; can't make a rational argument for the unjust and fairly tyrannical economic policy and regulatory authority you want? Scare people into thinking the world will end if they don't give it to you. Magical thinking turned into a governing doctrine.

[Garnier Fructis]

Here's the brief version of the Global Warming lie:

1. Projections show that IF IF IF we continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate, global warming will rise substantially in the 21st century.
2. Global Warming alarmists and crazies cling to this fact and consider it gospel.
3. Projections ALSO show that solar power is getting cheaper and more efficient and will provide 100% of our power needs by 2035. If we do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, fossil fuels will be largely obsolete in 20 years. Scientists have done projections of THIS scenario too. The global temperature rises maybe 1 more degree, briefly, and then begins to DROP.
4. Global warming alarmists and crazies DENY THE SCIENCE in #3. They cherry-pick the scientific studies they accept. This is because they aren't trying to solve a problem. They are trying to win elections for democrats.
5. The end game for global warming alarmists and crazies is to get some minor legislation passed in the next 20 years that doesn't really do a damn thing about global warming. They will then ride in on a white horse and STRONGLY ASSERT their legislation saved humanity to justify their craziness.

/ drops mic

You know, every time I ask Grummgug for a single source which states that solar will replace everything in 20 years, he never does. Must have me on ignore or something. You'd think that if it was proven, he'd be able to pony up the proof? Also, why 2035? Wasn't it supposed to be 2030?

I vaguely remember the only time Grummgug ever defended this crap was with something from Kurzweil.

[Stormdash]

Colour me shocked about the US and the UK.
Now, what is unsettling to me is the amount of """skeptics""" in the Nordic countries. I didn't know there was such a trend in there.

The more anything fails to actually happen, you'll see that number go up.

[Garnier Fructis]

Not much different with global doooom!-ing; can't make a rational argument for the unjust and fairly tyrannical economic policy and regulatory authority you want? Scare people into thinking the world will end if they don't give it to you. Magical thinking turned into a governing doctrine.

There's a logical error in assuming that things which sound really scary are only made that way to manipulate you instead of actually being that scary. It's really fucking sad watching some climate scientists pussyfoot around issues because they're afraid that they'll be labeled as scaremongers.

- - - Updated - - -

The more anything fails to actually happen, you'll see that number go up.

And why is that?

[Elegiac]

The more anything fails to actually happen, you'll see that number go up.

The primary counter to this being that said things are already happening.

Then again, it's never been a novelty that stupid people will fail to observe any trend that doesn't happen within the space of a single fiscal quarter.

[Daelak]

Not much different with global doooom!-ing; can't make a rational argument for the unjust and fairly tyrannical economic policy and regulatory authority you want? Scare people into thinking the world will end if they don't give it to you. Magical thinking turned into a governing doctrine.

There are plenty of rational and scientific-backed arguments for the reduction in CO2 emissions globally. There are also obvious reasons why rising sea levels in Indonesia will spark a large regional conflict in South East Asia due to the forced migration of billions of people inland.

[Garnier Fructis]

There are plenty of rational and scientific-backed arguments for the reduction in CO2 emissions globally. There are also obvious reasons why rising sea levels in Indonesia will spark a large regional conflict in South East Asia due to the forced migration of billions of people inland.

I'm also interested in the response to the people on the islands who might be misplaced by rising sea levels.

[Stormdash]

Really wish the rule about religious discussion applied to the modern secular/Gaia religion as well. Would simplify the board considerably.

[Elegiac]

Really wish the rule about religious discussion applied to the modern secular/Gaia religion as well. Would simplify the board considerably.

Things based in empirically or theoretically derived fact are not religious by definition.

[Garnier Fructis]

Really wish the rule about religious discussion applied to the modern secular/Gaia religion as well. Would simplify the board considerably.

Ironically enough, the skeptic position is much more akin to religion considering not a single scientific argument they have holds up to scrutiny, but that doesn't seem to matter at all, just like how contradictory passages in the Bible don't seem to phase those who take it to be literal truth.

The analogy is made even more rich when you consider that every skeptic has their own version of reality as well (lots of skeptic positions are mutually contradictory), just like how religion has all these branches that hold mutually contradictory truths. But that's ok right? Because the central tenant is still there: climate change is a lie (Jesus is the savior/Muhammad is the prophet). Damn the details.

[Rukh]

Ironically enough, the skeptic position is much more akin to religion considering not a single scientific argument they have holds up to scrutiny, but that doesn't seem to matter at all, just like how contradictory passages in the Bible don't seem to phase those who take it to be literal truth.

The analogy is made even more rich when you consider that every skeptic has their own version of reality as well (lots of skeptic positions are mutually contradictory), just like how religion has all these branches that hold mutually contradictory truths. But that's ok right? Because the central tenant is still there: climate change is a lie (Jesus is the savior/Muhammad is the prophet). Damn the details.

Ever since Karl Rove revolutionized the right's argument strategy, it's been standard tactics to call the other side what you expect them to call you or what they are calling you in the hopes of making the standard ignorant American use the "well both sides do it" argument.

[Garnier Fructis]

Ever since Karl Rove revolutionized the right's argument strategy, it's been standard tactics to call the other side what you expect them to call you or what they are calling you in the hopes of making the standard ignorant American use the "well both sides do it" argument.

True. False equivalence is particularly effective. More generally, false equivalence seems to be the goal in news reporting, where it's more important to report 'fairly' than it is to report correctly.

[Deleted]

I laughed hard when I read China cares and the UK doesn't.

Chinese cities are just about the worst place in the world for pumping out pollutants whilst the UK is a world leader in innovating green energy sources.

The OP reeks of "blame the white man".


What a joke thread.