Brexit Thread 2

[BID0]

Without being hyperbolic, we are quite literally at the end of the world. Or at least life on this planet.

If you are saying that all life on the planet is going to die in the near future then that’s extremely hyperbolic.

We are losing around 100 species a day. Sure cockroaches might survive but you're taking a joking hyperbolic comment literally

• Crops are failing across the world already
• The Syrian Civil War has been linked to climate collapse
• We are losing more or less 100 species per day. Normally scientists would expect the figure to be 5-6... for an entire year
• As above, it's already too late to stop the damage completely as it's already begun but there will be the runaway point which (at current rates) is predicated to occur in roughly 12 years time
• When we hit that tipping point and we know nothing (that we care about) can be saved, mildly intelligent people will stop saving money/pensions. Your pension pot is paid out not by the money you saved, but by current savers. If the current workforce isn't saving then you have no pension/savings. This would be the point which we would see societal collapse. Followed by crop failures and such.

Extreme conditions produce extreme reactions.

[Moggy]

You literally said it wasn’t hyperbolic and now are claiming it was a joking hyperbolic comment?

I don’t think all life on Earth will die out and I don’t just mean cockroaches. I don’t think humanity is likely to die out any time soon (unless there’s a meteorite or nuclear war).

Climate change is real and is strawberry floating serious. It needs to be taken seriously and action taken. But screaming “it’s the end of the world” is just as unhelpful as climate deniers screaming “it’s fine, burn oil!”

[Preezy]

I'd say the exact same thing I'd say to a crazy guy in the park claiming that the end is nigh because the aliens are coming - prove it.

I don't believe we are losing 100 species a day. Please can you provide evidence for the species lost in the last 5 days, which I assume would be a list at least 500 items long.

[Moggy]

I'd say the exact same thing I'd say to a crazy guy in the park claiming that the end is nigh because the aliens are coming - prove it.

I don't believe we are losing 100 species a day. Please can you provide evidence for the species lost in the last 5 days, which I assume would be a list at least 500 items long.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826898

[That]

@Preezy: Humans are currently causing a mass extinction event, most properly called the Holocene-Anthropocene extinction. Our current time shares many ecological features with previous mass extinctions, such as the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. There is a similar biodiversity crisis: if we say there are around 10,000,000 species on the planet, then we are probably losing around 10,000 each year (around 30 a day). It could be higher than 100 a day, or lower than 10 a day. It's hard to know for sure as we don't know exactly how many species there are to begin with, but what really matters is that it's far in excess of how many species "should" be going extinct.

The Earth as a life-bearing entity has bounced back from worse. The great oxygenation event and the frozen Earth that followed was worse for the life then than climate change is for life now. The Chicxulub impactor that caused mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous was worse for the planet than even a nuclear war would be.

That's not an argument I would dwell on, as it misses the point. Civilisation as we know it is on course to end. The human species might even kill itself off. Those are both within the parameters of current scientific understanding. "All life" won't end, but it's still going to be a catastrophe of absolutely geological proportions that has only been rivalled a handful of times in Earth's whole history.

[Preezy]

I'd say the exact same thing I'd say to a crazy guy in the park claiming that the end is nigh because the aliens are coming - prove it.

I don't believe we are losing 100 species a day. Please can you provide evidence for the species lost in the last 5 days, which I assume would be a list at least 500 items long.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826898

Interesting read, thanks, Mog.

As the article states:

It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500.

Species extinction is real, it happens, but it's not at the level and rate that some would like to make it out to be.

[BID0]

These are the CliffsNotes of the most recent UN Climate conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Unit ... Conference

And the most recent study used by the UN/WWF is here in brief form: http://wwf.panda.org/our_work/biodivers ... diversity/

Anyway, back to the original point of politics... a large portion of the human population will die, with the remainder (we can argue if there will be anyway) being massively affected. That's going to affect migration, wars and by extinction politics in a big way.

[That]

Species extinction is real, it happens, but it's not at the level and rate that some would like to make it out to be.

I don't really like that rhetoric as it makes people concerned about biodiversity sound like malicious conspirators.

There is an unavoidable range of variance in scientific models. 100/day is a perfectly valid scientific estimate - probably on the high side of the error bars - and the article itself explains why we will never know the names of most species that go extinct -- we haven't named most species which are extant!

Frankly most people who aren't scientists shouldn't worry about the exact numbers, which don't particularly matter, and instead just internalise a simple take-home message: "we're causing lots of extinctions and that's bad".

[Moggy]

Maybe we should have a climate change thread?

[Pedz]

If the UK went completely green, and emitted as little emissions as possible how big of an effect would it have on a global scale? How many extra years would the tipping point be pushed back?

I know it isn't going to happen, I'm just wondering if this small country will make that much of a difference when you have places like the US, China, India and other places 100s of times the size of the UK pumping gooseberry fool into the atmosphere. I'm also not saying we as a country shouldn't bother reducing stuffs. I'm just curious, is all.

[Preezy]

Frankly most people who aren't scientists shouldn't worry about the exact numbers, which don't particularly matter, and instead just internalise a simple take-home message: "we're causing lots of extinctions and that's bad".

Sure, I agree with that. I just don't buy into hyperbolic end-of-the-world predictions that are based on data which by its very nature is hard (or impossible) to be accurate, that's all.

[Preezy]

Species extinction is real, it happens, but it's not at the level and rate that some would like to make it out to be.

I don't really like that rhetoric as it makes people concerned about biodiversity sound like malicious conspirators.

I can't help the way you interpret it, but that wasn't my intention.

[That]

Species extinction is real, it happens, but it's not at the level and rate that some would like to make it out to be.

I don't really like that rhetoric as it makes people concerned about biodiversity sound like malicious conspirators.

I can't help the way you interpret it, but that wasn't my intention.

Sure, fair enough. Your other comment about potential hyperbole is kind of fair enough as well. It's of course possible that some given claim about climate change isn't accurate on a scientific level. I don't think it's, like, "bad" to say that or whatever -- as long as we're all precise about what we mean!

My hope is just that people won't dismiss claims like "civilisation will collapse" as hyperbole, because it's not really. There is actually no way our civilisation in its current form can survive what's coming. We can either bring about the necessary changes to our society now, through radical action, or have those changes forced upon us by the global break-down and collapse over the coming decades.

[BID0]

If the UK went completely green, and emitted as little emissions as possible how big of an effect would it have on a global scale? How many extra years would the tipping point be pushed back?

I know it isn't going to happen, I'm just wondering if this small country will make that much of a difference when you have places like the US, China, India and other places 100s of times the size of the UK pumping gooseberry fool into the atmosphere. I'm also not saying we as a country shouldn't bother reducing stuffs. I'm just curious, is all.

Well we are one of the worst polluters as we consume so much stuff. While countries like India and China have large populations, they don't consume on the scale we do (food and clothing being 2 of the biggest populating industries)

We are also in that situation where people in other countries say the same thing... "what's the point, what will we really be able to change". If one country makes a radical change then that should be enough for other countries to follow, and if they don't follow then we are strawberry floated anyway. At least we tried.

And if we survive this climate problem then we have do deal with the automation and AI problem hopefully those can be used to aide the climate issue.

[Hexx]

twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1134044837148274688

[Preezy]

Who or what is Andrew Lilico and why should we care what this clearly idiotic muppet has to say?

[Hexx]

Who or what is Andrew Lilico and why should we care what this clearly idiotic muppet has to say?

BrexitSchill

https://brexitcentral.com/author/andrew-lilico/

Right wing contributor etc

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... utrageous/

[Tomous]

That's some take. Who is his father? Was he murdered by a right wing terrorist?

Also, didn't the Leave campaign ignore the pause anyway or am I misremembering that?

[Squinty]

Who is his dad?

[Pedz]

If the UK went completely green, and emitted as little emissions as possible how big of an effect would it have on a global scale? How many extra years would the tipping point be pushed back?

I know it isn't going to happen, I'm just wondering if this small country will make that much of a difference when you have places like the US, China, India and other places 100s of times the size of the UK pumping gooseberry fool into the atmosphere. I'm also not saying we as a country shouldn't bother reducing stuffs. I'm just curious, is all.

Well we are one of the worst polluters as we consume so much stuff. While countries like India and China have large populations, they don't consume on the scale we do (food and clothing being 2 of the biggest populating industries)

We are also in that situation where people in other countries say the same thing... "what's the point, what will we really be able to change". If one country makes a radical change then that should be enough for other countries to follow, and if they don't follow then we are strawberry floated anyway. At least we tried.

And if we survive this climate problem then we have do deal with the automation and AI problem hopefully those can be used to aide the climate issue.

As I said, I wasn't saying what's the point, I was merely asking how long would the UK going green push back the tipping point?