Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Barra333]

I have. And yet again, those types of conversations can be done remotely.

I have no idea what field of work you are in but it must function very differently to this one, because claiming that a scientific conference is just as useful online as in person is a load of crap.

 

[Adamgp]

I have no idea what field of work you are in but it must function very differently to this one, because claiming that a scientific conference is just as useful online as in person is a load of crap.

Claiming it can't be done remotely is a load of crap. Scientists communicate remotely all the time.

 

[Barra333]

Claiming it can't be done remotely is a load of crap. Scientists communicate remotely all the time.

AFTER THEY KNOW EACH OTHER.

 

[Adamgp]

AFTER THEY KNOW EACH OTHER.

THEY DON'T NEED TO KNOW EACH OTHER.

 

[Barra333]

THEY DON'T NEED TO KNOW EACH OTHER.

I'm done here. You clearly have no clue how a scientific collaboration works.

 

[Adamgp]

I'm done here. You clearly have no clue how a scientific collaboration works.

Apparently research collaboration is only done by people who have met in person over coffee.

 

[UKMikey]

Apparently research collaboration is only done by people who have met in person over coffee.

Nobody actually said that. Several people have said face to face meetings are a lot more effective, especially when getting lots of like minded people together.

 

[Danoff]

Claiming it can't be done remotely is a load of crap.

It doesn't matter.

I'm sure a lot of it is being done remotely - but this is as much political as anything else. It matters that it makes an impact, and not just on the people who are there. But it doesn't actually matter whether it could all be done on zoom. If we could get to the point where keeping our climate conferences as green as possible could actually make a dent in carbon emissions, we'd have made a ton of progress.

You're just trying to be hypercritical, picking at something meaningless as a diversion from what is meaningful.

 

[Touring Mars]

From yesterday:



I mean, seriously?

For the record, that is António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN and Sir David Attenborough (who is 95 years old) sitting near Johnson who refused to wear a mask as he attended COP26 yesterday....

 

[PeterJB]

From yesterday:



I mean, seriously?

For the record, that is António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN and Sir David Attenborough (who is 95 years old) sitting near Johnson who refused to wear a mask as he attended COP26 yesterday....

I genuinely thought that was Jimmy Carter next to him at first, and old BoJo looks about as enthused as Biden was...

 

[VBR]

I'd like to see the option to change your vote added to the poll, as I wonder how many people have changed their minds since they first voted, I know I have...

EDIT: Would also like to see an "Other" option added to the poll, as the options in the poll are quite limited.

 

[Adamgp]

Nobody actually said that. Several people have said face to face meetings are a lot more effective, especially when getting lots of like minded people together.

Look 4 posts above the one you quoted. Barra went on about it for a while.

It doesn't matter.

I'm sure a lot of it is being done remotely - but this is as much political as anything else. It matters that it makes an impact, and not just on the people who are there. But it doesn't actually matter whether it could all be done on zoom. If we could get to the point where keeping our climate conferences as green as possible could actually make a dent in carbon emissions, we'd have made a ton of progress.

You're just trying to be hypercritical, picking at something meaningless as a diversion from what is meaningful.

I don't have time today to continue the same damn argument, at least not until I get home tonight.

Yes it can be done remotely. Whether they do or not, I don't give a crap. Frankly, I find it hilarious and ironic that they don't and instead opt to fly private jets and drive gas guzzlers to a climate conference. Kinda like holding a weight loss convention at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

 

[Barra333]

I'd like to see the option to change your vote added to the poll, as I wonder how many people have changed their minds since they first voted, I know I have...

EDIT: Would also like to see an "Other" option added to the poll, as the options in the poll are quite limited.

Interested to know what your "other" opinion is. The options there cover everything from "It's all on us" to "It's complete BS". It would be interesting to know how many folks have changed their view since voting.

 

[Barra333]

Look 4 posts above the one you quoted. Barra went on about it for a while.

Let me clarify... when I said coffee in any of my posts, it was meant as shorthand for 'informal interaction between official sessions, where people may get a drink, snack, fresh air, or all of the above while making small talk with other attendees" But that was a bit long-winded.

 

[Adamgp]

Let me clarify... when I said coffee in any of my posts, it was meant as shorthand for 'informal interaction between official sessions, where people may get a drink, snack, fresh air, or all of the above while making small talk with other attendees" But that was a bit long-winded.

UK didn't mention coffee. He was referring to your claim that scientists need to meet in person and know each other.

 

[Danoff]

I don't have time today to continue the same damn argument, at least not until I get home tonight.

Yes it can be done remotely. Whether they do or not, I don't give a crap. Frankly, I find it hilarious and ironic that they don't and instead opt to fly private jets and drive gas guzzlers to a climate conference. Kinda like holding a weight loss convention at an all-you-can-eat buffet.

As explained to you multiple times already, we're going to have to spend carbon to stop spending carbon. This is a good use of carbon, even if it's just to put faces and speeches in front of people. Repeating your same point, which we all get, and which is wholly unconvincing in light of the response you keep getting, is well... pointless.

 

[UKMikey]

UK didn't mention coffee. He was referring to your claim that scientists need to meet in person and know each other.

He said "more useful", not "need". They can meet online and probably have already done so, but they won't get as much done.

I have no idea what field of work you are in but it must function very differently to this one, because claiming that a scientific conference is just as useful online as in person is a load of crap.

 

[Adamgp]

As explained to you multiple times already, we're going to have to spend carbon to stop spending carbon. This is a good use of carbon, even if it's just to put faces and speeches in front of people. Repeating your same point, which we all get, and which is wholly unconvincing in light of the response you keep getting, is well... pointless.

As explained before, I don't care if they do it remotely or not. I find it rather funny that they have to spew out "good" carbon to meet up and discuss "bad" carbon emissions.

Also funny that the guy who doesn't care offered up a more environmentally friendly alternative and you guys who do seem to care are so against it. Basically I'm saying they should practice what they preach.

He said "more useful", not "need". They can meet online and probably have already done so, but they won't get as much done.

Gotta make sacrifices to save the planet.

 

[Touring Mars]

The estate where I live was completely inaccessible to vehicles from around lunchtime onward yesterday, with no notice.

A construction crew working on repairing some blocks on my estate were trapped until 11.30 pm, and are now refusing to return to the site until after COP26 is finished. Great news for the people whose apartments are being worked on...

Of course, anyone expecting a delivery, a maintenance call out etc. would have been scuppered as well. It may also not be the last such unannounced closure too, so it makes making any plans rather difficult at the moment.

-

The police have apologised for advising people that the only way they could get home was to walk through Kelvingrove Park in the pitch dark, but there's no mention of the fact that some elderly people were effectively trapped for hours.

My walk home is almost exactly 2 km, but last night I had to walk 7.7 km. Annoyingly, I walked 1.6 km and was only 400 m from home, but had to take a 6 km diversion just to get to the other side of the street!! Easy for a fit young man, but not so easy for everyone.

 

[Danoff]

I find it rather funny that they have to spew out "good" carbon to meet up and discuss "bad" carbon emissions.

Why? This is quite obviously going to be the case, and has analogies in tons of other fields. You have to spend money sometimes to keep from spending a lot more money. You have to spend time to free up time. If your workforce is overworked, they have to work harder to train new people before they can do less work. It's constant, pervasive, and universal in life. Why would this strike you as odd in this one particular instance?

Also funny that the guy who doesn't care offered up a more environmentally friendly alternative and you guys who do seem to care are so against it.

Your proposed solution ignores the goal.

Basically I'm saying they should practice what they preach.

I get it. I got it a long time ago. It's not thought through.

 

[Adamgp]

Why? This is quite obviously going to be the case, and has analogies in tons of other fields. You have to spend money sometimes to keep from spending a lot more money. You have to spend time to free up time. If your workforce is overworked, they have to work harder to train new people before they can do less work. It's constant, pervasive, and universal in life. Why would this strike you as odd in this one particular instance?

Gotta kill the planet to save the planet. lol

Your proposed solution ignores the goal.


I get it. I got it a long time ago. It's not thought through.

My proposed solution eliminates a buttload of carbon emissions, which is the goal.

 

[Danoff]

Gotta kill the planet to save the planet. lol

No... this is intentionally dense. We, as a species, will have to burn fossil fuels, and emit carbon, to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions. That much is painfully obvious. Painfully.

My proposed solution eliminates a buttload of carbon emissions, which is the goal.

Your proposed solution eliminates a tiny amount of carbon emissions at the expense of a political and socially highly visible effort to reduce enormous national output. And that much should be clear, so why you're trying to re-wrap it in a misleading way is a bit beyond me. Do you even believe this attempt at deception? I don't. I doubt anyone here does. So why bother, it's fooling no one. I get that you want to believe it, but I doubt you actually do.

 

[Adamgp]

No... this is intentionally dense. We, as a species, will have to burn fossil fuels, and emit carbon, to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions. That much is painfully obvious. Painfully.

Yes, like I said. Kill the planet to save the planet. Spew out emissions to save some.

Your proposed solution eliminates a tiny amount of carbon emissions at the expense of a political and socially highly visible effort to reduce enormous national output. And that much should be clear, so why you're trying to re-wrap it in a misleading way is a bit beyond me. Do you even believe this attempt at deception? I don't. I doubt anyone here does. So why bother, it's fooling no one. I get that you want to believe it, but I doubt you actually do.

Why does it need to be visible?

And my solution still eliminates adding carbon. Yours adds to the problem.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, like I said. Kill the planet to save the planet. Spew out emissions to save some.

Like I said, intentionally dense.

Why does it need to be visible?

Because a big part of the goal (which you seem to be missing) is motivating change.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

He's knows it's crap, we know it's crap, and he knows that we know it's crap.

It's just pointless trolling at this point.

 

[Famine]

There is a good argument to be made that the attendees could at least have been seen to be doing as much as they can to minimise their carbon footprint while attending an event largely about carbon emissions, rather than being seen to be doing as little as they can.

Look at the US delegation. It has taken the most wasteful approach it can possibly take by the looks of it, by bringing Air Force One (55ish people on a 747 is a hell of a CO2-per-person cost), but then also flying over Marine One inside a C17, along with a couple of Black Hawks and around 80 cars... and because they've flown into Edinburgh instead of Glasgow, they've then driven up and down the 30 miles of the M8 in convoy every day with the Black Hawks overhead.

Obviously, the President of the USA needs his security, but really... 80 cars, three helicopters and two of the biggest aircraft in the world, plus 60 miles each way for most of them every day just... looks bad (and you shouldn't be doing things that make you look bad). Land at Prestwick (seriously, it's literally built for it; US military and security services routinely use Prestwick and have done for decades) and take the Beast and ten cars maybe?

The USA is hardly alone on this, it's just the most obvious and probably the most egregious example. There's over 400 private jets in Scotland at the moment for COP26 delegates, and - aside from your own personal, blue-white-and-gold 747 - that's about the most carbon intensive way to move about the planet. Our own PM has taken a "private" (charter) Airbus A321, despite the train line between London and Glasgow being one of the best in the country...


Just taking average figures, COP26 will result in the same CO2 emissions for the ten days its on as if the population of the city of Glasgow suddenly increased by 30% - roughly the annual CO2 emissions of 4,500 average UK citizens, or about 165,000 people for ten days - with about 80% of that being the flights to Scotland.

Yes, COP26 will hopefully result in a reduction of carbon emissions not only many times over but orders of magnitude more than it will cost, but when the attendees are not being seen to be mindful of their own carbon emissions in getting to it, the result is public cynicism.

You don't have to look far to see people saying "What's the point in me [insert carbon cutting activity here] if Joe Biden's going to emit more carbon in two weeks than I do in a year?".

 

[Danoff]

You don't have to look far to see people saying "What's the point in me [insert carbon cutting activity here] if Joe Biden's going to emit more carbon in two weeks than I do in a year?".

Realistically, it's very much to be expected that POTUS is going to emit far more carbon in a very short period of time than most people do in a year. Maybe you think the optics isn't good, but the reality would be far worse, because POTUS controls the entire executive branch of the US government and military. The decisions he makes on the operations of those absolute gobs of people and resources results in major carbon emissions. If POTUS was going to cut the easiest possible carbon emissions for him, he could probably just cancel some minor military activities. There's probably a military satellite launch going up any minute that could be canned by the president.

Security is absurd these days, but it kinda has to be. There is a sizeable chunk of the US that has effectively declared civil war and is advocating violence against Biden and other Americans. A big security presence is not surprising to me. I don't know what the viability of alternatives is, but I'm not really in a position to fully understand the security implications of every move.

I get the sentiment that people complaining about climate change should do their part. Especially when that sentiment is directed at wealthy people who otherwise live extravagant lifestyles. But the US President (and leaders of other countries) are probably not the right place to direct this sentiment. A successful assassination attempt could have a staggering carbon footprint.

Our own PM has taken a "private" (charter) Airbus A321, despite the train line between London and Glasgow being one of the best in the country...

I get that BoJo is a lightning rod for ire, but I can think of a lot of valid reasons for this.

 

[Touring Mars]

There is a good argument to be made that the attendees could at least have been seen to be doing as much as they can to minimise their carbon footprint while attending an event largely about carbon emissions, rather than being seen to be doing as little as they can.

Look at the US delegation. It has taken the most wasteful approach it can possibly take by the looks of it, by bringing Air Force One (55ish people on a 747 is a hell of a CO2-per-person cost), but then also flying over Marine One inside a C17, along with a couple of Black Hawks and around 80 cars... and because they've flown into Edinburgh instead of Glasgow, they've then driven up and down the 30 miles of the M8 in convoy every day with the Black Hawks overhead.

Obviously, the President of the USA needs his security, but really... 80 cars, three helicopters and two of the biggest aircraft in the world, plus 60 miles each way for most of them every day just... looks bad (and you shouldn't be doing things that make you look bad). Land at Prestwick (seriously, it's literally built for it; US military and security services routinely use Prestwick and have done for decades) and take the Beast and ten cars maybe?

The USA is hardly alone on this, it's just the most obvious and probably the most egregious example. There's over 400 private jets in Scotland at the moment for COP26 delegates, and - aside from your own personal, blue-white-and-gold 747 - that's about the most carbon intensive way to move about the planet. Our own PM has taken a "private" (charter) Airbus A321, despite the train line between London and Glasgow being one of the best in the country...


Just taking average figures, COP26 will result in the same CO2 emissions for the ten days its on as if the population of the city of Glasgow suddenly increased by 30% - roughly the annual CO2 emissions of 4,500 average UK citizens, or about 165,000 people for ten days - with about 80% of that being the flights to Scotland.

Yes, COP26 will hopefully result in a reduction of carbon emissions not only many times over but orders of magnitude more than it will cost, but when the attendees are not being seen to be mindful of their own carbon emissions in getting to it, the result is public cynicism.

You don't have to look far to see people saying "What's the point in me [insert carbon cutting activity here] if Joe Biden's going to emit more carbon in two weeks than I do in a year?".

At least Biden is saying the right things and bothered to show up, but yes, the 'optics' are not great when they are so obviously in contrast with the core message of the event itself.

However, the conference will see some 25,000 delegates from across the globe meeting and making vital connections - perhaps if the world leaders appeared via Zoom and everyone else carried on as normal, that would work better, since half of them don't want to be there anyway. That could, however, potentially lead to Dr. Evil-esque scenarios...

-

What was crazy last night was that the police completely sealed off the road between the conference and the gala dinner, so much so that I had to walk some 6 km just to get to the other side of the street...

.. and yet, on my way back, I managed to get street-side right in front of the banquet location, and was just feet away from world leaders as they past in their various motorcades. I even made (brief) eye contact with flippin' Angela Merkel as she went past in the back of a Range Rover.

 

[Famine]

Realistically, it's very much to be expected that POTUS is going to emit far more carbon in a very short period of time than most people do in a year.

Definitely, but British people don't care when he's doing it day to day. When he's locking out lane three of the M8 twice a day to go to a conference about carbon, they do

Also lane-hogging. Tch.

Security is absurd these days, but it kinda has to be. There is a sizeable chunk of the US that has effectively declared civil war and is advocating violence against Biden and other Americans. A big security presence is not surprising to me. I don't know what the viability of alternatives is, but I'm not really in a position to fully understand the security implications of every move.

Probably makes Glasgow a safer place for him.

Which might be the first time that sentiment has ever been expressed.

I get that BoJo is a lightning rod for ire, but I can think of a lot of valid reasons for this.

Given that he was at G20 in Rome on Sunday, we can probably point at that (though he is reportedly planning to return to London the same way; at least it won't be flying empty, which is what charters do roughly half the time anyway).

Nonetheless, while the general public is being beaten out of their cars and into largely crap public transport, the optics of even the guy whose country the event is in spending five-figures of public money to charter a plane instead of... well, probably spending high fours of public money to lock out a train carriage is "good enough for thee, but not good enough for me" - whether it has a reasonable explanation or not.


The public is getting climate fatigue now, and this sort of thing doesn't help - especially as the dodgier newspapers which fuelled Brexit, and lockdown scepticism, and anti-vaxxers, will just wave it about.

I even made (brief) eye contact with flippin' Angela Merkel

My condolences.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

There is a good argument to be made that the attendees could at least have been seen to be doing as much as they can to minimise their carbon footprint while attending an event largely about carbon emissions, rather than being seen to be doing as little as they can.

Look at the US delegation. It has taken the most wasteful approach it can possibly take by the looks of it, by bringing Air Force One (55ish people on a 747 is a hell of a CO2-per-person cost), but then also flying over Marine One inside a C17, along with a couple of Black Hawks and around 80 cars... and because they've flown into Edinburgh instead of Glasgow, they've then driven up and down the 30 miles of the M8 in convoy every day with the Black Hawks overhead.

Obviously, the President of the USA needs his security, but really... 80 cars, three helicopters and two of the biggest aircraft in the world, plus 60 miles each way for most of them every day just... looks bad (and you shouldn't be doing things that make you look bad). Land at Prestwick (seriously, it's literally built for it; US military and security services routinely use Prestwick and have done for decades) and take the Beast and ten cars maybe?

The USA is hardly alone on this, it's just the most obvious and probably the most egregious example. There's over 400 private jets in Scotland at the moment for COP26 delegates, and - aside from your own personal, blue-white-and-gold 747 - that's about the most carbon intensive way to move about the planet. Our own PM has taken a "private" (charter) Airbus A321, despite the train line between London and Glasgow being one of the best in the country...


Just taking average figures, COP26 will result in the same CO2 emissions for the ten days its on as if the population of the city of Glasgow suddenly increased by 30% - roughly the annual CO2 emissions of 4,500 average UK citizens, or about 165,000 people for ten days - with about 80% of that being the flights to Scotland.

Yes, COP26 will hopefully result in a reduction of carbon emissions not only many times over but orders of magnitude more than it will cost, but when the attendees are not being seen to be mindful of their own carbon emissions in getting to it, the result is public cynicism.

You don't have to look far to see people saying "What's the point in me [insert carbon cutting activity here] if Joe Biden's going to emit more carbon in two weeks than I do in a year?".

You make reasonable points. But even if Biden had flown coach on Spirit airlines, people would still complain about how it demonstrated some sort of double standard. At some point the problem is the cynicism itself...