[Painted Wagon]

Climate Change. Another topic that divides opinion. Ranging from the one end of the just stop oil protesters to the head i in the sand deniers who say climate has always changed. If you follow the scientists then the news out today is not a welcome one where BP have said it will scale back green investments as profits drop.

[Misnomer]

Mate, with respect, this thread has been done before.

However, 'scientists'; which ones? The ones shut down for giving their honest opinions, which don't suit a narrative (also, see COVID), or the ones bought off or threatened into manipulating and extrapolating data to suit a pre-ordered narrative, that lines the pockets of the mega wealthy?

It's a topic hardly worth discussing anymore.

[Misnomer]

Misnomer, on 11 February 2025 - 11:04 AM, said:

Mate, with respect, this thread has been done before.

However, 'scientists'; which ones? The ones shut down for giving their honest opinions, which don't suit a narrative (also, see COVID), or the ones bought off or threatened into manipulating and extrapolating data to suit a pre-ordered narrative, that lines the pockets of the mega wealthy?

It's a topic hardly worth discussing anymore.

We have corruption at every level, and people know it. Yet, bizarrely, when it comes to certain personal subjective issues, as if by magic, there can't possibly be any corruption and it's as legit as day follows night.

[Valley Blues]

Apparently climate change is quite likely to make the UK a colder place, as reported very recently.

The melting of the ice caps brings freshwater into contact with the salt water moving up from the tropics and alters the whole system in the oceans which stops the warm ocean waters warming the atmosphere.

A simplistic version of events but the version given in the news to the layman for ease of understanding but a very probable scenario that much colder weather could be in store for the UK as climate change increases

This post has been edited by Valley Blues: 11 February 2025 - 01:41 PM

[Goku]

Valley Blues, on 11 February 2025 - 01:40 PM, said:

Apparently climate change is quite likely to make the UK a colder place, as reported very recently.

The melting of the ice caps brings freshwater into contact with the salt water moving up from the tropics and alters the whole system in the oceans which stops the warm ocean waters warming the atmosphere.

A simplistic version of events but the version given in the news to the layman for ease of understanding but a very probable scenario that much colder weather could be in store for the UK as climate change increases

Absolutely fuming, my house is cold, I was hoping climate change would save on my heating bills a bit ffs

[Blue roan lily]

Valley Blues, on 11 February 2025 - 01:40 PM, said:

Apparently climate change is quite likely to make the UK a colder place, as reported very recently.

The melting of the ice caps brings freshwater into contact with the salt water moving up from the tropics and alters the whole system in the oceans which stops the warm ocean waters warming the atmosphere.

A simplistic version of events but the version given in the news to the layman for ease of understanding but a very probable scenario that much colder weather could be in store for the UK as climate change increases

Well the one good thing if the UK does indeed get colder ( cant get much more surely ) is the BBC and Sly news will have to get rid of the weather forecast maps which in the summer at 20 degrees are bright red and look like the country is about to catch fire..
It it ends their propaganda bring on the ice age..

[Painted Wagon]

Valley Blues, on 11 February 2025 - 01:40 PM, said:

Apparently climate change is quite likely to make the UK a colder place, as reported very recently.

The melting of the ice caps brings freshwater into contact with the salt water moving up from the tropics and alters the whole system in the oceans which stops the warm ocean waters warming the atmosphere.

A simplistic version of events but the version given in the news to the layman for ease of understanding but a very probable scenario that much colder weather could be in store for the UK as climate change increases

I read that report too. The most accurate quote from that report were the words ?no-one really knows?

[Wooden Spoon]

Misnomer, on 11 February 2025 - 11:04 AM, said:

Mate, with respect, this thread has been done before.

However, 'scientists'; which ones? The ones shut down for giving their honest opinions, which don't suit a narrative (also, see COVID), or the ones bought off or threatened into manipulating and extrapolating data to suit a pre-ordered narrative, that lines the pockets of the mega wealthy?

It's a topic hardly worth discussing anymore.

I?ll take the ones who gather data from ice cores and measure CO2 levels and compare to temperatures in pre history over an opinion of a bobs board poster thanks



Did you watch the ?big oil? programs discussing Exxons data and predictions in the 1970s based on the oil companies own data?


I guess not

[spireitetoo]

World's been warming since the ice age, can't stop it warming.. another million yrs or so, might just see the end of the world, I might not be around to see that, but ya never know

[Wooden Spoon]

spireitetoo said:

1739303174[/url]' post='1874137']
World's been warming since the ice age, can't stop it warming.. another million yrs or so, might just see the end of the world, I might not be around to see that, but ya never know

You recognise the parts per million increase since the early 1800s?

[spireitetoo]

Wooden Spoon, on 11 February 2025 - 07:55 PM, said:

You recognise the parts per million increase since the early 1800s?

Things tend to warm faster as they heat up..

How would the summer of 76 be described these days, back then we got on with stand pipes and water bowsers, if that happened now it would be the end of the world as we know it, it took over 40 yrs to have another summer anywhere close to that...

The only reason everywhere floods is cos the build on the flood plains pushing water into new places, horns bridge has been flooding since it was built, back then tho, you didn't have some tool, try squeeze thru in his bmw/Audi

[Wooden Spoon]

spireitetoo, on 11 February 2025 - 08:02 PM, said:

Things tend to warm faster as they heat up..

How would the summer of 76 be described these days, back then we got on with stand pipes and water bowsers, if that happened now it would be the end of the world as we know it, it took over 40 yrs to have another summer anywhere close to that...

The only reason everywhere floods is cos the build on the flood plains pushing water into new places, horns bridge has been flooding since it was built, back then tho, you didn't have some tool, try squeeze thru in his bmw/Audi

So your answer was NO


Never mind.

[Misnomer]

Wooden Spoon, on 11 February 2025 - 07:36 PM, said:

I?ll take the ones who gather data from ice cores and measure CO2 levels and compare to temperatures in pre history over an opinion of a bobs board poster thanks



Did you watch the ?big oil? programs discussing Exxons data and predictions in the 1970s based on the oil companies own data?


I guess not

Mate, you do that. But we both know, basing methodology on statistical modelling is completely flawed; the BBC and the government were both reprimanded for doing exactly this by the regulator, for the COVID bs they were spinning.

The problem with what you are referring to is, there's no transparency. You can link anything to anything, if you try hard enough and manipulate data.

As I've already pointed out, not one of Al Gore's claims has happened. Even his key scientist has said the models were just guess work and distanced himself. Yet, Gore has made a cool $300m from this emotive subject.

Sea levels were meant to seriously rise but, it didn't stop the likes of Obama and co, buying up properties in the exclusive Martha's Vineyard.

Can you not see the similarities between this and the COVID bs? Whilst we were being told if we left the house, we'd be killing folk, the fear mongering people telling us to stay put, were doing the exact opposite.

[Wooden Spoon]

Misnomer, on 11 February 2025 - 08:13 PM, said:

Mate, you do that. But we both know, basing methodology on statistical modelling is completely flawed; the BBC and the government were both reprimanded for doing exactly this by the regulator, for the COVID bs they were spinning.

The problem with what you are referring to is, there's no transparency. You can link anything to anything, if you try hard enough and manipulate data.

As I've already pointed out, not one of Al Gore's claims has happened. Even his key scientist has said the models were just guess work and distanced himself. Yet, Gore has made a cool $300m from this emotive subject.

Sea levels were meant to seriously rise but, it didn't stop the likes of Obama and co, buying up properties in the exclusive Martha's Vineyard.

Can you not see the similarities between this and the COVID bs? Whilst we were being told if we left the house, we'd be killing folk, the fear mongering people telling us to stay put, were doing the exact opposite.

Al gore isn?t a climate scientist.


Again I will take their data from ice cores on CO2 levels Parts per million going back over 800,000 years over Al Gore and his film

[Misnomer]

Wooden Spoon, on 11 February 2025 - 08:44 PM, said:

Al gore isn?t a climate scientist.


Again I will take their data from ice cores on CO2 levels Parts per million going back over 800,000 years over Al Gore and his film

No, but he used several and one in particular, to spin his moneymaking bs.

I would like to see the methodology and data for the CO? levels. That said, it doesn't mean CO? is the driver for increased temperatures.

Throughout its existence, the planet has cooled and warmed - in conjunction with natural increases and decreases in CO? levels. However, throw some man-made sh?t into the atmosphere and I'm sure it'll also have an impact, but to what end? It simply cannot be accurately measured and then singularly targeted as the sole cause. But it certainly can be used as a driver for fear and to make a lot of money.

Every science paper on this subject says: the belief is; the theory is; the prediction is; the modelling suggests; the hypothesis is....

Here's a classic example: 'In fact, before human-caused warming began, scientists believe the Earth was roughly due to enter a cooling cycle (although research to confirm this is ongoing).' Why make such a statement without having the evidence to substantiate the claim? Because, it makes the current narrative sound even worse - what, we were actually going into an ice age, and now humans have forced a warming trend!

For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13?C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07?C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global average temperature will rise by around 0.2?C (about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit) per decade. That's all great, but where's the transparency; where were the measurements taken, by what method, by what equipment, by who, etc, etc....

I'll keep going back to COVID; the science says.... and who is the 'science'. It's easy to claim anything without transparency.

[isleaiw1]

Misnomer, on 12 February 2025 - 12:45 PM, said:

No, but he used several and one in particular, to spin his moneymaking bs.

I would like to see the methodology and data for the CO? levels. That said, it doesn't mean CO? is the driver for increased temperatures.

Throughout its existence, the planet has cooled and warmed - in conjunction with natural increases and decreases in CO? levels. However, throw some man-made sh?t into the atmosphere and I'm sure it'll also have an impact, but to what end? It simply cannot be accurately measured and then singularly targeted as the sole cause. But it certainly can be used as a driver for fear and to make a lot of money.

Every science paper on this subject says: the belief is; the theory is; the prediction is; the modelling suggests; the hypothesis is....

Here's a classic example: 'In fact, before human-caused warming began, scientists believe the Earth was roughly due to enter a cooling cycle (although research to confirm this is ongoing).' Why make such a statement without having the evidence to substantiate the claim? Because, it makes the current narrative sound even worse - what, we were actually going into an ice age, and now humans have forced a warming trend!

For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13?C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07?C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century. In the next 20 years, scientists project that global average temperature will rise by around 0.2?C (about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit) per decade. That's all great, but where's the transparency; where were the measurements taken, by what method, by what equipment, by who, etc, etc....

I'll keep going back to COVID; the science says.... and who is the 'science'. It's easy to claim anything without transparency.

But isnt the issue that, if we dont do something to resolve what may be the problem, now it will be too late to solve it. And if it turns out to not be the problem, well cutting CO gases wont have done irrepairable damage.... But doing nothing may have.

Same with COVID, we could have waited to see what the outcome was if we didnt do what was done - but the negative from that was, on the whole, potentially worse than the negative from doing something...

So we do something based on what we think we know as the worst case scenario of the doing nothing option might be too catastrophic... which is what your option is regarding waiting till we do know. That's how decision making works - if you dont know everything, work with what you do know and what the worst case scenario is of each option and work with that!

[Misnomer]

isleaiw1, on 12 February 2025 - 01:18 PM, said:

But isnt the issue that, if we dont do something to resolve what may be the problem, now it will be too late to solve it. And if it turns out to not be the problem, well cutting CO gases wont have done irrepairable damage.... But doing nothing may have.

Same with COVID, we could have waited to see what the outcome was if we didnt do what was done - but the negative from that was, on the whole, potentially worse than the negative from doing something...

So we do something based on what we think we know as the worst case scenario of the doing nothing option might be too catastrophic... which is what your option is regarding waiting till we do know. That's how decision making works - if you dont know everything, work with what you do know and what the worst case scenario is of each option and work with that!

To some degree I agree with the essence of your argument; however, you are still buying into their narrative, that their argument is factually based, without transparency that allows scrutiny.

The same applied to COVID. Any scientist that challenged the narrative was immediately discredited and removed from the field of discussion.

[joe]

Misnomer, on 11 February 2025 - 08:13 PM, said:

Mate, you do that. But we both know, basing methodology on statistical modelling is completely flawed; the BBC and the government were both reprimanded for doing exactly this by the regulator, for the COVID bs they were spinning.

The problem with what you are referring to is, there's no transparency. You can link anything to anything, if you try hard enough and manipulate data.

As I've already pointed out, not one of Al Gore's claims has happened. Even his key scientist has said the models were just guess work and distanced himself. Yet, Gore has made a cool $300m from this emotive subject.

Sea levels were meant to seriously rise but, it didn't stop the likes of Obama and co, buying up properties in the exclusive Martha's Vineyard.

Can you not see the similarities between this and the COVID bs? Whilst we were being told if we left the house, we'd be killing folk, the fear mongering people telling us to stay put, were doing the exact opposite.

Like the tobacco companies who constantly funded papers to prove smoking was good for you. I think the oil lobbies are the ones with the money -not Al Gore.

[isleaiw1]

Misnomer, on 12 February 2025 - 01:25 PM, said:

To some degree I agree with the essence of your argument; however, you are still buying into their narrative, that their argument is factually based, without transparency that allows scrutiny.

The same applied to COVID. Any scientist that challenged the narrative was immediately discredited and removed from the field of discussion.

Given I was responsible for H&S I was also saying to stick to the rules. Not because I thought a healthy 20 something (most of our staff) would die if they didnt but because when there is a crisis you have to make rules and take action - sitting and debating the exact nature of the science and whether it should apply to all, and what the exact best approach might be for the next 6 month was a risk we didnt need to take.

I see climate the same... I'd liky my grandkids and their grandkids to have a world that can still support them like it has me, and whilst everyone is arguing about what is exactly happening and the solutions, it MIGHT be going further to ratshit...


I never trust the ruling classes, its always do as I say not as I do. But I'll look at what the options are, assess the risks and go with the one that sounds the most sensible based on risk exposure...

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 12 February 2025 - 03:48 PM

[fishini]

spireitetoo, on 11 February 2025 - 07:46 PM, said:

World's been warming since the ice age, can't stop it warming.. another million yrs or so, might just see the end of the world, I might not be around to see that, but ya never know

It's not that it is warming up as the world does in cycles. It's the rate it is happening. The speed doesn't give nature the time to evolve. If the worst happens and the world collapses, rest assured it will recover but we won't be around to see it. All imo of course