Climate change.

[hoppyscotty]

Yes you are, your agenda is the one bought and paid for by the oil industry. Funny how climate change deniers always bang on about scientists inventing it for monetary gain when the oil companies are raking in trillions…

oil companies are not raking in trillions individually....hundreds of millions yes, but not trillions, but they are also investing hundreds of millions every year on developing new 'sustainable technologies' - they have no desire to go out of business any time soon so are moving with the times and delivering the technologies that they need to to survive. That what companies do.

However you also have not considered that 'climate change' and 'net zero' is now an industry in itself that is worth trillions globally and employs millions of people globally, and has the backing of global politicians who are gambling their entire political reputations and futures on, and some questionable characters like Professor Klaus Schwab:

So what makes the global climate alarmist/net zero industry any better or ethical than any other industry out there that is just looking to protect their own interests?

So the question now is that IF you are a climate scientist who is doing good work that doesn't support or fit the mainstream narrative (and there are plenty of them out there) then how do you get those millions of people globally that are now tied up in an industry of climate alarmism and net zero to take heed of the science? especially when you cant get your papers published, preventing the process of science happening, struggle to get funding and are ostracised by alot of your colleagues.

The problem we are all facing is that we want to understand, we want to make good choices, but this is hard....it is difficult and requires a demanding level of investment of time to read up and understand what is going on. The problem is most of us don't have that time so we trust other sources to tell us the answer....the mainstream media, politicians, various organisation that are funded by anonymous people with agenda's we know nothing about. The general public are ignorant of complicated, science based topics like this. And politicians know this and wield science as a propoghanda weapon to coerce us and direct our behaviour - just look up the governments 'Behavioural Insights Team' set up by David Cameron and used to be called the 'Nudge Unit'. We saw it in action clear as day with COVID with the terms 'we're following the science' and 'the science is settled'. We should have smelled a rat right at that point. If anyone tells you the science is settled then ignore them going forward because it never is - that is against the very essence of science and what it is to be a sceintist.

 

[GhostShip]

The clue was in the statement "that humans were responsible for current climate change"

So 125,000 years ago, the warming of the planet was entirely natural whereas now it's all down to the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[hoppyscotty]

Yes you are:

This is a conspiracy theory.

Really....

This tactic is being employed by the BBC also I've noticed (image above is not of the BBC so this tactic is being widely deployed). Also in the recent Mediterranean heat wave reporting by them the BBC were caught out peddling inflated temperature numbers that were ground temperature measurements and not the usual air temperature measurements used in meteorological reporting, so a good 5 - 10 degrees hotter, sufficient to inflate the temperatures from relatively normal summer Mediterranean temperatures well into the 40's, which are on the hotter side for the Med...but still not unheard of. Caught red handed in pedalling a state of fear I'd say....well the BBC at least.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I heard the BBC pays their correspondents to start wildfires.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Why is the word clìckbait censored?

Because a certain member kept calling threads c*******t it was reported and the decision was made to remove the word rather than the person.

 

[Clarence]

I'm far more inclined to believe in the 'state of fear' agenda of keeping the populace cowering, terrified and controllable.

This is a conspiracy theory.

Really? So every alarmist headline in the media is absolute truth?

Interesting. Why do you want it to appear that the second quote a necessary consequence of my contention that the first quote shows you really are a conspiracy theorist? It's not a consequence, in fact they're not even related, let alone logically.
Equally, by following your "reasoning (?)" I can quite properly assert that your left arm is a lobster!

 

[Druss]

This is a conspiracy theory.

Interesting. Why do you want it to appear that the second quote a necessary consequence of my contention that the first quote shows you really are a conspiracy theorist? It's not a consequence, in fact they're not even related, let alone logically.
Equally, by following your "reasoning (?)" I can quite properly assert that your left arm is a lobster!

I meant that alarmist media headlines (humans caused climate change, the oceans will swallow us all next week, the end is nigh etc) are clearly following an agenda.

What that agenda might be and to what end, I don't know, but it is clearly alarmist and therefore inaccurate.

By this logic, my scepticism springs forth, I take everything I hear about such matters with a hefty pinch of salt.

QED.

 

[lancon]

Really....

View attachment 89782

This tactic is being employed by the BBC also I've noticed (image above is not of the BBC so this tactic is being widely deployed). Also in the recent Mediterranean heat wave reporting by them the BBC were caught out peddling inflated temperature numbers that were ground temperature measurements and not the usual air temperature measurements used in meteorological reporting, so a good 5 - 10 degrees hotter, sufficient to inflate the temperatures from relatively normal summer Mediterranean temperatures well into the 40's, which are on the hotter side for the Med...but still not unheard of. Caught red handed in pedalling a state of fear I'd say....well the BBC at least.

have you been watching the entertainment channel GBN?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66314338

 

[stripeyjoe]

Alarmist or just an inconvenient fact?

 

[hoppyscotty]

OK maybe I should have put the work 'allegedly' ahead of the claim.....but, the BBC's reported temperatures didn't line up with any of the forecasts for the areas - appreciate forecasts can differ from realities, but you also get massive temp variations over area so potentially misleading to link temperature with the fires that were ongoing at the time. Back in July it was reported the UK hit the highest ever recorded temperature but it was measured at RAF Conningsby next to a runway....not inconceivable that the reading could be unrepresentative of the broader area.

I don't routinely watch any of the mainstream media news channels, but why would you assume that the BBC is any more credible than GBN? or the Guardian any more credible than the Daily Mail? all these sources have their own political biases, own agendas, own narratives, own sources of funding, own target audiences, own way of sensationalising headlines to fight for your attention etc. to argue one is any more credible than the other is futile...they're all as bad as each other and equally compromised and distort the narrative to suit their own interests.

We have lost our own individual ability for critical thinking and are just lapping up the narrative from our own chosen source based purely on convenience and our own political biases and automatically disregard sources that don't agree with the narrative they choose to follow - its confirmation bias. We're all guilty of it - it's part of the human condition. It's a complicated world and easy to unquestionably go along with what you're being told, especially if it aligns nicely with your own biases is nice and convenient and the more people agree with you is like a nice cozy blanket around you protecting you from the complicated realities of the world. How often do any of us really challenge our own biases?

 

[Clarence]

Equally, by following your "reasoning (?)" I can quite properly assert that your left arm is a lobster!

I meant that alarmist media headlines (humans caused climate change, the oceans will swallow us all next week, the end is nigh etc) are clearly following an agenda.

Alarmist headlines
1- Humans caused climate change. (fair enough it's alarming). The fact that not all climate change, in fact very little, historically, has been caused by humans has no bearing on the fact that humans done it this time round.
2- The oceans will swallow us all next week. Never seen that in any newspaper. Is the Daily Sport still going and I missed it. Is this in the same category as "aliens ***** my hamster"?
3- The end is nigh! The end is always nigh it just depends on your perspective of time. "Winter is coming is of the same ilk.

Putting 2 and 3 next to 1 is a feeble attempt to undermine the weight of 1. We're all savvy to that, it's so passé nowadays.

The first quote, above, allegedly from Clarence just goes to show how wise my poor sainted mother was when she said "Young Clarence, never try to reason with a crustacean. It'll just pinch your nose and scuttle off to a safe distance where it can stick its tongue out at you." Full of wisdom, the old Ma!

 

[An Ankoù]

Lots of chat about (man made and catastrophic) climate change. An interesting question would be to ask of those who accept the science, what would we be prepared to sacrifice to try to put planet back on an even keel?
For me, quite a lot, actually, provided everybody else chipped in the same so that it actually makes a difference. The car would be a problem as I live out in the sticks and would be pretty much isolated. But a weekly shopping trip with one or two neighbours would cut down my usage buy more than half. I think my personal greatest contribution to global warming is probably the energy I use making beer!

 

[Chippy_Tea]

But a weekly shopping trip with one or two neighbours would cut down my usage buy more than half

Its about time supermarkets stopped charging to deliver to encourage shoppers to try shopping online as shoppers are not going to pay several pounds for delivery if they are only buying a few items.
I don't understand why the car parks are always so full why do people insist on visiting stores when they can have it delivered.

 

[stripeyjoe]

As I've said from the get go, I'm a sceptic, there has been no evidence put forward to date that convinces me that human activity has been a deciding factor in the changing climate of the planet.

Well there’s quite a good correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global average temperature…

 

[Cwrw666]

Its about time supermarkets stopped charging to deliver to encourage shoppers to try shopping online as shoppers are not going to pay several pounds for delivery if they are only buying a few items.
I don't understand why the car parks are always so full why do people insist on visiting stores when they can have it delivered.

Well it's probably just as well that most people do still visit the stores as I'm fairly sure that supermarkets don't have sufficient vehicles to be delivering to 60 odd million customers
Anyway, some of us actually like doing the shopping.

 

[hoppyscotty]

Alarmist or just an inconvenient fact?

Neither. It says nothing. It's just data. But the title is alarmist. 'Rocketing' is a very provocative word and indeed over a 1 million year timescale it does look odd....but 1 million years is not even a split second in terms of geological timescales, so to put that into context you have to look over a longer scale and what a different picture it shows.

quarter of a billion years ago CO2 was approaching 4000ppm and averaged over the last half a billion years the CO2 level has probably been around the 2,000 to 2,500ppm level, so at our current levels of CO2 the planet is practically starved of CO2 which is an essential gas for life on earth. And where has the apocalyptic predictions come from from a modest increase CO2? we know what the earth was like when CO2 levels were alot higher than they are now...we've been there before and according to fossil and geological records life on earth was booming. The earth was green, lush and life thrives in land, sea and air. So why the doom and gloom?

And yes...the planet is warming....as per the normal cycles we've observed for last half a million years or so...and we've been warming over a period far longer than we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and it actually looks like we're current at an interglacial maximum judging by the last half a million years worth of metronomic warming and cooling cycles so why do we think that with a very modest increase in CO2 levels and temps the the next few decades or century wont follow the same cycle? why do some people think we're going to deviate from that cycle? what's different? where's the evidence that something new and unprecedented is going to happen?

And looking over a much longer period the last million years has been unusually cool on planet earth...

However the current rate of increase in CO2 levels IS alot faster than previous warming periods so that is likely down to human activity, but is a 180ppm to 440ppm rise that detrimental in the context of the last half a billion years?? This is the content I'm after...the world is warming.....so what? There are benefits to a warmer world with more CO2 floating about. It will certainly solve the issue of world hunger for a start as deserts return to being lush green and fertile pastures as they once were only a short time ago (geologically speaking).

Also let's not forget what is driving alot of the narrative....modelling. The narrative for net zero is completely driven by modelling and our ability to model the clmante is very rudimentary at best. We've been modelling the climate for a fair few decades now and though they've 'improved' over the years we now have enough actual measured and observed data to compare to climate model predictions and the results are.....not great for climate modeling:-


So there is lots of data out there to absorb but how you use it is the key. and you can chop and change and cherry pick any data set you want to push whatever narrative that suits your agenda.

I don't know what's going happen in the future...I don't have enough knowledge or information. I have no fixed opinion on it either way...but I am suspicious. I'm suspicions that this is not being driven by science, but political rhetoric. And when politicians push things then it means they have something to gain and the harder they push the more they have to gain.

 

[welly3]

Really....

View attachment 89782

This tactic is being employed by the BBC also I've noticed (image above is not of the BBC so this tactic is being widely deployed). Also in the recent Mediterranean heat wave reporting by them the BBC were caught out peddling inflated temperature numbers that were ground temperature measurements and not the usual air temperature measurements used in meteorological reporting, so a good 5 - 10 degrees hotter, sufficient to inflate the temperatures from relatively normal summer Mediterranean temperatures well into the 40's, which are on the hotter side for the Med...but still not unheard of. Caught red handed in pedalling a state of fear I'd say....well the BBC at least.

 

[hoppyscotty]

View attachment 89822
Well there’s quite a good correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global average temperature…

It's not a super tight correlation is it. It shows cooling of about 0.3 degrees from 1850 to 1920 despite rising CO2 levels (and based on the slope of the curve CO2 levels were on the rise before 1850 and temperature was cooling), then we appeared to have a bit of a cessation of warming between 1940 and about 1970 despite co2 levels continuing to rise, then temps started to rise again until about 2015 or so and it actually suggests we're currently seeing a bit of cooling, again despite CO2 levels rising. Go on, it's a tiny snapshot of data and difficult to draw any conclusions from, but generally temperatures and CO2 levels are on the rise, but not necessarily joined at the hip.

We have been coming out of a mini ice age that occurred in the 1600's and 1700's where we had biting snowy winters and were skating on the Thames so its been warming for the last 300 years as we recover from that. Global temps and CO2 levels have been tied for at least the last half billion years. that is not a shock, but correlation is not proof of causation....it tells us nothing about wether this is a cause or affect. The Pro-climate apolocypse people will purport that Co2 is the main lever that influences the climate, and the climate skeptics will ascertain there are other effects and CO2 is a minor secondary or tertiary influencer. There are climate scientists in both of these camps. So clearly the science is far from settled.

And it tells us nothing about if a few degrees of warming is actually 'dangerous' or detrimental to life on earth - life has certainly got better over this time period - due to increasing CO2 levels the earth has greened by 15% (an area the size of the USA), crop yields have increased and the global population has gone from about 2 billion to 7billion. There is half a billion years worth of evidence that tells us life thrives at around 2000ppm of Co2 and global temps around 5 - 8 degrees higher than they are now. Why is the future going to be different? Why the urgent need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees to avoid a zombie apocalypse? its an extraordinary claim to make in the context of the last half a billion years.

Anyway if we are at an interglacial peak (as it seems we might be) then we're most likely facing another ice age...and that would be bad for life on earth. The last ice age nearly wiped out life on earth as it sucked so much Co2 out of the atmosphere, thank god for rising co2 levels since then, but they're still very low compared to the last half billion years.

 

[pilgrimhudd]

What you're forgetting though is that yes whilst levels of co2 in the atmosphere have been much higher, and indeed temperatures too. These levels increased over long periods of time, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. The dinosaurs were around when average summer temps were 27c. Much warmer than now and with higher co2 levels but once that meteor hit, those that survived the blast died very quickly. Animals that could adapt did. The earth survived, nobody is saying the earth will die, the earth will survive, many of us may not.

We have been coming out of the last ice age for many thousands of years. The mini ice age of the 17th century, was a blip. It was also one of the bloodiest centuries in human history, caused by climate change. Some think the mini ice age was caused by man made climate change. The reforestation of arable fields in much of Mexico, central America, and northern South America after the absolute decimation of the inca and aztec empire and loss of 95% of indigenous population. This cooling was very rapid and we didnt deal with it very well. Perhaps we won't deal with rapid temperature rises well either.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Well it's probably just as well that most people do still visit the stores as I'm fairly sure that supermarkets don't have sufficient vehicles to be delivering to 60 odd million customers
Anyway, some of us actually like doing the shopping.

If they all started free delivery tomorrow i imagine foot fall at stores would drop but i doubt significantly maybe they would be able to cope with their existing fleet as we dont know if every van is on the road all day every day eventually they may have to employ more drivers and buy more vans which is a good thing if it gets lots off cars off the road.

There will always be people who get some strange pleasure out of visiting these awful places i can honestly say i haven't been inside one in years and i intend to keep it that way.