Climate change

[VWD]

On 15/06/2019 at 00:49, Lee01 said:

Go on then. Indulge me. 

Quote

You all think you know better than experts.

Road safety, I'm quoting from sites done by folks looking at the "stats" dredged up by the experts you profess to have faith in, but where sites likehttp://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/index.php . oR

https://www.abd.org.uk/

find a lot of problems with the so called facts the "experts " dredge up. Then we can relate the facts to a Government campaign run by a Labour Government  desperate for a new cash influx. Global warming, and the effect cars have on it- so lets punish drivers for wanting the cars that Government ministers should drive- like Jags( all two of them).

[wonkyewok]

On 13/06/2019 at 22:53, VWD said:

Climate change- seems to me to be in the same boat as the water companies policy on hosepipe bans. One year in Warks, we had Severn Trent posing the question of hosepipe bans, when local river was at highest it's been for a long time. This time last year, we were told we'd have progressively  hotter summers. This year it's possibly one of the wettest. That's from computer models. But as motorists we all know about road safety predicted by computers. I'd suggest the garden Gnome is better placed to predict weather and road safety ,than some of the "Experts". But thn, perhaps the BBC weather folks need ( but can't afford) a new bit of seaweed.

I remember when I was young the forecast was ok ish for maybe 1 day ahead. Now it's good for 3-4 often. But beyond that there's loads of noise. So global warming is predicted as trends over a few years on average, not precise individual events. 

casinos make money knowing there'll be reverses in the short term but probability is on their side in the long term. 

 

[VWD]

wonkyewok- I often look at the midland weather on BBC Text in the morning for the day ahead. and out of curiosity ( to see how much it's changed ) a few hours later. Often the changes are very remarkable.

[Ryeman]

Stuff you won’t read in a Murdoch rag -

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/19/himalayan-glacier-melting-doubled-since-2000-scientists-reveal

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-20/mount-everest-expedition-to-collect-environmental-data/11219992

[wonkyewok]

On 12/05/2019 at 18:08, SkodaVRS1963 said:

The IPCC has recently pronounced that global carbon dioxide emissions must virtually halve within 12 years to avoid a calamitous loss of coral reefs and Arctic ice, as well as intense floods and droughts.

 

Since there isn’t the remotest possibility that these emissions can be halved in so short a period of time, one might be tempted to curl up in bed with a cup of cocoa and wait for Armageddon to arrive.

 

Except that the IPCC, and other supposedly knowledgeable international bodies, have produced dire warnings in the past which have not borne fruit.  They specialise in making the hairs stand up on the back of our necks.

 

For example, in 2005 the WWF - formerly the World Wildlife Fund - exceeded even the IPCC’s pessimism at the time, and suggested that all Arctic ice might melt within five years. 

 

It’s still there, fourteen years later.

 

In the same year, the United Nations Environmental Programme forecast that within five years some 50 million ‘climate refugees’ would be fleeing large areas of the globe which would have been rendered uninhabitable by the effects of climate change.

 

This hasn’t happened yet.  Fourteen years on.

 

The International Energy Agency informed us in 2011 that we had five years to start slashing carbon emissions, or give up the game.

 

They weren’t cut, and in 2018 the IPPC said we have another 12 years.

 

So from 2016 to 2030 in the blink of an eye.

 

And let's not get onto the subject of "ClimateGate".

 

Never heard of it?  Well, basically, it involved the doctoring of data to present a more favourable position for the Climatic Research Unit (who were receiving massive Government grants to investigate so called "global warming").

 

But the thing is (and here's the punchline).......if you are in possession of undeniable data that supports your viewpoint then why, why, why, would you feel the need to fiddle with it?

 

Nail, meet coffin.

Can you give links for these?

thanks 

[Lady Elanore]

On 09/06/2019 at 17:42, fatscoleymo said:

Convenient for who? And why at this apparently convenient time? People win Lotteries with odds as great...are they faking it as well? 

 

Funnily enough the number quoted earlier got me thinking, were did it come form? So I did a quick sum. If you were to look (ie scan or ping a radio wave of some sort) every second for 8 years exactly, you would have 'looked' 252 million times ( and a bit of chump change). Very similar number to the 235 million to 1 odds quoted.  Funny how it took so long using that metric  extra 17,000,000 'peeps'. They must be using slow equipment 🤣    

[SkodaVRS1963]

19 hours ago, wonkyewok said:

Can you give links for these?

thanks 

IPCC link HERE

 

WWF link HERE

 

Embarrasing UNEP climbdown HERE

 

And if you Google "ClimateGate" you'll get to read all about Phil Jones antics where he boasted in an email about using something called "Mike's Nature Trick" along with many other underhand tactics to present data that, basically, was false.

 

I keep repeating (and no-one will answer): if you have data that supports your cause, why would you feel the need to doctor it?

[@Lee]

On 01/06/2019 at 19:04, SkodaVRS1963 said:

Maybe if politicians hadn't

 

(a) perpetrated the absurd myth that six times we landed men on the moon and safely returned them 50 years ago using the "technology" available then and

(b) hadn't also perpetrated the equally absurd myth that the moon would be colonised by the 21st century

 

then we wouldn't have this blase attitude to global warming climate change.  After all, as you say, we'll all be living 245,000 miles away by then, who cares?

 

And if a certain Phil Jones hadn't done what he did (fiddle the figures) then people might have been more accepting of the notion that the planet is warming up......but Mr Jones did what he did and effectively trashed the whole "the planet is warming up" concept.

 

Unless you're very, very gullible and believe what your Government tells you.

 

And you're not so stupid.  Are you?

 

[SkodaVRS1963]

Lee: what do think about Phil Jones antics where he boasted in an email about using something called "Mike's Nature Trick" along with many other underhand tactics to present data that, basically, was false?

 

I assume you're ok with what he did?  Or do you, like me, believe that if you've got data that supports your cause then why would you need to falsify it?

 

Interested in what you have to say.

[@Lee]

3 hours ago, SkodaVRS1963 said:

Interested in what you have to say.

I'm not interested in what you have to say, nor am I interested in a 20 odd year old paper. I'm interested in the here and now and in the here and now climatologists, scientists, experts etc are almost universally agreed that climate change is real and we need to act. Unless you hate your children that is.

[Ryeman]

First theorised in the 1800s

 

From a qualified scientist who possibly knows a thing or two -

 

http://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

 

oh, and a declaration - funded by taxpayers .......certainly NOT oil funded think tanks!

Edited 23 July, 2019 by Ryeman

[@Lee]

I'm sure this is due to a spot of weather...
 

Quote

BERLIN (AP) — The heat wave that smashed high temperature records in five European countries a week ago is now over Greenland, accelerating the melting of the island’s ice sheet and causing massive ice loss in the Arctic.

https://apnews.com/65694195c91d4b62b275bd14a6955b4c
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/11-billion-tons-of-ice-melted-greenland-just-one-day/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/02/images-show-staggering-extent-melting-greenland-ice-sheet-due-heat-wave/?utm_term=.a02368f67795

[lol-lol]

Lloyds of London insurance now including climate change modelling in their insurance premium rises.

[PetrolDave]

9 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Lloyds of London insurance now including climate change modelling in their insurance premium rises.

Hope they're not using the "Hockey Stick" model...

[KenONeill]

12 minutes ago, PetrolDave said:

Hope they're not using the "Hockey Stick" model...

Well, everyone now knows the lacrosse stick model is more accurate...  

[moley]

10 hours ago, lol-lol said:

Lloyds of London insurance now including climate change modelling in their insurance premium rises.

Do you have a link to this? 

[shyVRS245]

Had we all been born 10,000 years ago in Europe our chances of survival would have been extremely slim due to several hundred metres of ice and snow covering the land. Only a few caves on the southern coast of Spain could support human life due to the severe cold and harsh conditions. There were no farmers planting crops because nothing grows in ice and cold temperatures (that you would want to eat). There is a reason why early humans could survive and prosper in Africa and that is because it was warm enough for us and animals (that we hunted for food and clothing) to survive and multiply. There have been severe droughts over the last 5,000 years which have resulted in large cities and even whole civilisations dying out. The destruction of the Amazon rain forest is the biggest ecological disaster we are facing today because what happens there affects the whole planet as the poor people of the Bahama's have recently suffered from a tropical storm with winds of upto 185mph.

Edited 4 September, 2019 by shyVRS245
WRONG WORD

[shyVRS245]

More sad news from the Amazon as an enviromentalist is shot dead trying to protect trees from being felled by farmers.

[@Lee]

 

[Kandy]

Well worth reading back through the past articles here to see how the climate change industry operates and who is funding it.

 

https://climatelitigationwatch.org/

 

e.g.

 

https://climatelitigationwatch.org/genesis-of-a-shakedown-new-records-expose-childrens-marches-as-long-planned-component-of-litigation-campaign/

 

https://climatelitigationwatch.org/now-thats-a-timeline/

 

https://climatelitigationwatch.org/behind-the-scenes-of-climate-industry-week/

 

The Exxon case has shrunk to nothing and the rest of the claim will crumble to dust, not surprising as the whole case is entirely bogus.

 

The scandal is the perversion/funding of the AGs and the production of BS climate attribution 'studies' to order.

 

[mac11irl]

Yeah, that website just reads like a climate denier's shouting pedestal tbh..

[@Lee]

Quote

Like other fossil fuel companies, it has long been accused of understanding, decades ago, what its product would do to the planet but continuing to expand and profit anyway, and all the while questioning the science of global warming.

It is against that backdrop that after four years of investigation and multiple attempts to stop it happening, the company finds itself on trial in New York for misleading investors about climate change.

https://news.sky.com/story/exxonmobil-climate-change-court-case-money-power-and-politics-on-trial-11842601

[Guest]

I wonder who will be the first Local Authority to include asthmatics in their ULEZ's?

 

Just a thought.....

 

Asthma carbon footprint 'as big as eating meat' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50215011
 

[shyVRS245]

Asthma seems more common amongst kids these days compared to when I was at school 40 years ago. Never saw anyone with an inhaler in the 1970's and 1980's despite leaded fuel in my youth. Unless it's the rise of the deadly diesel encouraged by one Gordon Brown when Chancellor of the Robbery Department.

[Ootohere]

Getting your tonsils out was the thing,

then gromets in the ears,

and then asthma inhalers were dished out like they were making someone lots of money. 

Some drugs for ADHA for the kids when it might be the parents that need a bit of trearment. 

 

& that was just down the pub.