Reply With QuoteIf you're interested, the Met Office has a good article on El Nino and historical stats https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/researc...so-descriptionOriginally Posted by the other bob wilson
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
If you're interested, the Met Office has a good article on El Nino and historical stats https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/researc...so-description
I have been in Milan today and it was horrible. Too hot to sight see.
However I don't recognise those temperatures. Have a look at the Met Office app. Mid 30s. It might get that hot but it isn't at the moment.
I'm not a climate change denier. I'm just very dubious about some of these claims.
There's not enough red on the chart it needs more red!
This is getting pretty scary, we're warming up at a much faster rate than expected.
For the denialists as I know you're coming, unless you can explain what the physical process scientists say is causing climate change and what specifically you disagree with about that process then your opinion doesn't really matter.
It comes to something when even the weather is now a culture war. The Right have lost their minds. Can’t even see something staring them in the face.
It's public knowledge that oil companies have been performing disinformation campaigns since the 70s. I'm not shocked that many on here (particularly the older users) are in complete denial and have fallen for right wing media hook line and sinker.
Don't forget something basic like masks stopping viruses was turned into a culture war, they're completely nuts.
What are you two going on about? No one has said either of those things?
Are you programmed to blurt out some generic post about right-wing media in your second post on every thread, irrespective of what is being discussed.
Climate change is real. A degree of media alarmism is probably real, hypocrisy is definitely real, and how to deal with it in a socially and economically sustainable way is also very real.
It very much does seem as if north African type weather is creeping ever more northwards.
It’s almost a year to the day when the temperature hit forty one degrees in the UK and I can remember there were those on here (mostly members of the gifted and talented set) dismissing the notion of global warming even then.
i,m still stuck in USA with hot temperatures but the reporting of hot weather here is worst than the UK so dramatic .I was in a place called hood river last week and seen first hand forest fires and recorded on my phone but the locals here saying its a normal situation and has been for years
of course it's always a concern with hot temperatures but i get a sense that there is an agenda being played out here
with the term climate change does this include cold weather ?
saw some data a few days ago relating to deaths in cold weather around the world which far outweighs deaths in hot weather
think this topic will rumble on and on ...............
Lmao. Did you get a tingle down your spine that I'd posted and you just had to login at 2am to respond?
You're talking rubbish as usual. Every thread on climate change on here is full of denialism. There is a commen trend in right wingers denying science.
If you were alive during ww2 you'd have said 'we must deal with hitler in an economically responsible way'.
You are honestly such a twat.
Doucas. This is very easy. And let’s be sensible and open-minded, instead of close-minded and tribal, shall we?
The climate is changing, and it changes over time, and has waves and cycles. Equally there are solar cycles, extraneous to our planet. That really is scientific fact, and not the pseudo-science and selective data provided by the Green lobby. But that is not to say it is man made, which is the scare stories we are given by the anti-capitalist Green lobby.
Before posting an article I read over ten years which swayed me, I provide two big counterfactuals to the fact is is man-made climate change.
1. There has always been global flooding. The theory of Atlantis , as evidenced by Graham Hancock’s discovery of underwater Doggerland offshore the North Sea/Netherlands, the cities underwater that are still viewable from previous civilizations such as Tartessos, The Minoans underwater city offhore of Greece, offshore Malta, offshore of the Doñana zone in South West Spain near Gibraltar, offshore Cardigan with the underwater forest and the old story of the King of Seithenin and the recent discovery offshore south East England. Much of this was speculated to have happened 2,000-4000 BC, and covered first by Greek writer, Plato.
There were certainly no oil production nor Chinese manufacturing back then. So climate change isn’t man made.
2. Take a look at the Sahara. What was once lush green forests and lakes is now one of the biggest, driest deserts on the planet. Why did it change? One theory is that the earth’s axis changed and exposed it to different temperatures.
There were certainly no oil production nor Chinese manufacturing 50,000 years ago. Nor was it caused by cow’s farting to provide us with our handsome steaks. Nor, as far as I am aware, can humans be fingered for spraying their armpits with Lynx deodorant 50,000 years ago I am sure.
So this time an example of climate change isn’t man made, but an example of global warming.
Like the volcanic eruptions that have happened since the dawn of time, like the creation of the ice age, the melting of the ice age, and the global flooding of 2,000-4000 years ago, the planet is always changing. Global warming? Certainly. Man made? Certainly not.
But hey, it allows Socialists and left-wing scientists and a few dumb actors to play the anti-growth and anti-capitalist card to change the way we live. If that makes you feel better, go for it, Mary. But it doens’t fool me.
I will now post the article I read in 2010 that made me think of these counterfactuals. If it is TLDR, please don’t try starting a serious subject only to then cry “TLDR”. If it is as serious as you say, give it the time and thought it merits, not a one off graphic from TV.
The article. Now you can see the many non-facts, bias, vested interests and general shithousery of the lobbyists behind this nonsense.
"Global warming a New Religion"
by
Brian Durrant
March 10th, 2008
Bits of News
There was an article in Newsweek which reported that 'there are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and these changes may portend a dramatic decline in food production with serious implications for just about every nation on earth'. 'What's new about this?’ you might ask. After all, we are bombarded daily with scare stories about the future of the planet. But this article is significant because it came out in April 1975 - and the fear expressed in the text was not about global warming, but about global cooling!
For several years in the 1970s the fear of global cooling continued to inspire a spate of articles and books, including Climate Change and World Affairs, by British diplomat Crispin Tickell. But then quite suddenly, around 1978, global temperatures began to rise again. The panic over global cooling quickly evaporated.
There is a simple explanation for this temporary hysteria. In imagining the future, human beings like to extrapolate an exaggerated version of a tendency they are experiencing at the time. What commentators were noticing in the 1970s was that the average temperature of the earth had been in decline for 30 years. But the one certain thing about the climate
is that it is always changing.
Ten years on from the end of the global cooling panic, scientists were saying unless urgent and drastic action was taken to curb CO2 emissions, the temperature rise would soon be so great as to unleash catastrophic consequences. The ice caps would melt. Sea levels would rise. Deserts would expand. The world's climate systems would be thrown into chaos. The fear of global warming was born.
And it was truly remarkable how quickly this became the prevailing orthodoxy. So strong were the convictions of the adherents that their case was so self-evident that scientifically it was no longer open to question. The transcendent importance of the cause was buttressed by insisting repeatedly that their view was supported by the overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists.
But 'consensus' is a political concept, not a scientific one. Consensus finds a way through conflicting opinions and interests. Consensus is achieved when the outcome of discussion leaves everyone feeling they have been given enough of what they want. The accomplished politician is a negotiator and conciliator. The process of scientific enquiry could not be more different. The accomplished scientist is an original, an extremist and iconoclast. Good science requires perpetual open debate, in which every objection is aired and dissents are sharpened, not smoothed over.
The response to the threat of global warming has been a political one. In 1988 the United Nations assumed responsibility for the collective response of the human race to this threat. The UN set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unbelievably, an active lobbyist for the planned IPCC had been Sir Crispin Tickell, previously of global cooling fame.
In 1989 a group known as the 'Union of Concerned Scientists', which originally campaigned for nuclear disarmament, organised a petition urging the recognition of global warming as potentially the greatest danger to mankind. Of the eventual 700 signatories, amongst whom included Nobel Prize winners, only three or four were climatologists. The consensus of scientists was a purely political contrivance.
The cause quickly became fashionable with Hollywood, with the likes of Robert Redford, Barbara Streisand and Meryl Streep jumping on the bandwagon. Suddenly there was a great deal of money available for research into climate change, particularly for those who could make the case for man-made global warming. At the same time those who came up with inconvenient results were ostracised. The self-proclaimed high priest of global warming, Al Gore, compared 'true believers' such as himself to Galileo, bravely standing for the truth against the blind orthodoxy of the time.
In 1990 the IPCC produced its first assessment report. The summary was an exercise in spin that Alistair Campbell would have been proud of. It largely ignored grave reservations by some contributors and presented the expectation of substantial man-made warming as firmly based in science. The summary spawned the 1992 Rio Earth summit, which in turn paved the way for the Kyoto agreement in 1997, which called for carbon emissions to be scaled back.
The global warming lobby works on the following principles: Global warming is a fact. It is caused by man's activities. If mankind could be persuaded to alter his behaviour the planet would be saved. The goodies are those who are committed to saving the planet, the baddies are the deniers. The simplicity of the argument makes it a favourite topic in primary schools across the country.
Alarmist activists operating in well-funded advocacy groups have a lead role in creating an unbalanced story. In many cases they manipulate public perceptions with emotive and fiercely judgmental 'scientific' pronouncements, adding a tone of danger and urgency to attract media coverage.
Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, is a case in point. Our government and the educational establishment appeared to be quite relaxed about this being shown in our secondary schools. That is, until a school governor from Kent contested it in the High Court. Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors, and said that some of Mr Gore's claims had arisen in the context of alarmism and exaggeration. He went on to say that the apocalyptic vision was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Specifically he took issue with the claim that sea levels could rise 20 feet 'in the near future', when such a rise would only take place after over 1,000 years.
Sexing up the global warming story is seen as a legitimate tactic to hog media attention. If you exaggerate a story enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. This leaves little space for alternative views to be aired.
However, there is an inconvenient truth for Mr Gore. Astronomers have noted in 1998 that Triton, Neptune's largest moon, seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989. Moreover, in 2002 it was reported that the temperature on Pluto had risen by two degrees Celsius in 14 years. Furthermore, in 2005 NASA confirmed that the CO2 'ice caps' near Mars' South Pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Warming, yes. Man-made? Certainly not.
Evidence that warming is taking place throughout the solar system, even though the mechanism is unclear, implies a common cause may be at work that it not limited to events on this planet. And it is the man-made element to the story that gives climate change activists their real motivation.
But one thing keeps puzzling me. The supporters of the global warming orthodoxy are only too happy to proclaim that unless drastic steps are taken to combat the threat, the earth is heading for catastrophe. However, surveying the measures that are actually being advocated, they are astonishingly trivial. Low energy light bulbs, switching your TV off at night, wind power and carbon emissions trading. Even if the aspirations of the Kyoto protocols are met in their entirety, this would only supposedly delay the global temperature rise predicted for 2100 by just six years.
To understand the emergence of the global warming activists, you have to look at the dynamics of politics, or indeed religion, rather than science. It may be no coincidence that the emergence of global warming as an issue came at the same time the Cold War ended. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 finally demonstrated the superiority of market-based economies over command economies in delivering prosperity. For those of a left wing disposition who thought Marxism would deliver a socialist utopia, this was tough to take. The solution was to jump on the global warming bandwagon. This helps explain the peculiar passion with which many enthusiasts for the man-made global warming thesis argued their case and advanced policy solutions. The ideological pattern is familiar. Just as blame for industrial squalor and deprivation was laid on capitalism, the blame for the ruin of our planet was laid on the greed and materialism of the developed world, particularly the US. And just as the Marxist solutions involved confiscation of the wealth of the rich, the new orthodoxy clamour for restrictions on rich lifestyles; their gas guzzling 4X4s , their polluting air travel and all other examples of self-indulgent consumption at the cost of the planet.
There is no doubt that environmentalism fulfils a political and indeed spiritual need among its adherents. The global warming narrative embraces a myth of the Fall; the loss of harmony between man and nature caused by our materialistic way of life. In reality this Eden never existed. It reminds me of one of my favourite cartoons of two cavemen talking "clean air, no pollution, unadulterated food... how come we don't live over 30?" The apocalypse myth is equally familiar. 'Our wickedness has damaged our inheritance and only immediate reform can save us'. For a long time environmentalists lacked the Apocalypse myth. The fear of acid rain came and went. But global warming fits the bill. This is why environmentalists attach so much importance to the assertion that the world is not just warming up, which is true at the moment, but that the warming is mainly our fault, which still should be a matter of debate. The connections between rising carbon dioxide concentrations and the growth of industrial society, provides a convenient link between the sins of our past and a catastrophic future. This narrative does not depend exclusively on factual accuracy.
Now as I have pointed out above, the solutions of wind power and cycling to work, etc. are insignificant, in practical terms, for heading off the predicted catastrophe. But this is why environmentalism is a religion. Every religion needs rituals of observance which demonstrate the commitment of the adherents. So the committed evangelicals, with time on their hands, sit on runways or on the roof of the Houses of Parliament or spend their Bank holidays outside power stations, while busy pop stars can buy carbon offsets. It's a broad church.
Moreover, it is interesting that governments in developed countries are treating environmentalism not as a threat posed by Marxism, but like another religion. Governments have not opposed the environmentalist creed, just as they do not question the tenets of other faiths. Indeed, like other religions, environmentalism has been a force for good, leading to cleaner air and rivers and the phasing out of fluorocarbons. And like other religions, governments are using it for their own purpose when it suits, and ignoring it when it doesn't. So the Government is using the threat of global warming as a cover for raising new taxes it could not otherwise get away with. A good example is the phoney government environmentalism that provided the pretext for the 'fuel escalator' that saw petrol prices surging above inflation year on year. But at the same time its green credentials are only skin deep, as it is not standing in the way of increased airline capacity at Heathrow.
Meanwhile, businesses are treating the environmental movement as it treats other trends in consumer behaviour. The companies themselves do not have to believe in the doctrines, but have found it commercially expedient to acknowledge the apparent rapid increase in awareness in this area.
However there are unsavoury areas where the global warming brigade mirrors the worst excesses of organised religion, namely hypocrisy and intolerance. Al Gore, the high priest of climate change, has a 20-room mansion in Nashville that uses 20 times more electricity than the average American house. Yet he has exhorted his fellow citizens to reduce their carbon footprint. Gore's defence is that he bought renewable energy credits to offset his carbon use. In the Middle Ages, the wealthy members of the church bought 'indulgencies' or relics to speed their passage through purgatory. Nothing new there then.
It is nearly 20 years since Al Gore cast himself in the role of Galileo. But now the boot is on the other foot. Global warming is the orthodoxy and with it comes intolerance. You are always going to get outrageous comments from the overzealous foot soldiers in any religion. The worry is when intolerance comes from senior figures that should know better.
Bjorn Lomborg is no climate change denier, nor does he quarrel with the view that man-made influences are a cause. However in his latest book, Cool It, he argues that the costs of imposing radical carbon abatement measures are very high and the benefits are limited. Scarce resources could be better spent combating malaria in Africa and so forth. Lomborg's analysis is calm, civil and even-handed. In response Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, told a newspaper "If you should follow the thinking of Lomborg, then possibly what Hitler did is right." Meanwhile, the Guardian's environmental correspondent, George Monbiot in 2006 said: "Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and unacceptable as Holocaust denial."
In 30 years time, if we are found to be wrong to be sceptical about the IPCC's line on climate change... can we expect to be the accused in a show trial and then burned at the stake as heretics?
Regards,
Brian Durrant
[Brian Durrant has a Masters degree in economics from Cambridge University, followed by nearly 25 years' experience in the City. In the 1980s Brian worked with Tim Congdon in the economics department of stockbrokers, L. Messel & Co. And in the 1990s he was Head of Research at GNI, the leading futures and options broker, specialising in exotic options strategies in foreign exchange markets.
Brian Durrant has been the Investment Director of The Fleet Street Letter since 1999.]
I was up at 2am as I couldn't sleep. Is that okay?
I'm not talking rubbish. No one had said the things you said. You literally couldn't get a better example of a strawman argument. No one said it, but someone pulled the string on your back and you droned on about 'right-wing media' anyway, cos it's the only play you know.
It's hard to think of two situations more different than how to deal with climate change and how to deal with Hitler.
You clearly don't get my point but a few months ago you would have been moaning (a common theme) about the cost of living when everyone demanded cheap fuel irrespective of where it came from. You don't do this n an economically and socially sustainable way and you get voted out. That's why it's important
As stated before, such a mindless insult as your last point, I just take as confirmation that you either don't understand or can't refute what I'm saying.
Now if you care so much, get off your phone cos you making things up on the internet uses batteries that need charging.
All you have done here is shown that you clearly have no understanding of WHY climate scientists think that climate change since the industrial revolution is man made and why it is going to be such a problem.
I don't think it is usually your modus operandi to form an argument from such a point of ignorance.
Also while I'm at it, Graham Hancock did not discover doggerland, nor is he someone who should be taken seriously. His theories are entertaining but he lacks any kind of rigour. It's like the WWE version of history documentaries.
I'm not scared.
Clear answers above.
You really are showing your ignorance here. You don't think climate scientists aren't aware that there have been natural cycles in the earth's climate in the past?
Why don't you ask yourself why they think that this instance is different from all of the previous ones, and what evidence is there for that?
From the reading I have seen they don't give satisfactory answers, rather, speculative conclusions and running fast and loose with selective data. I have never seen any convincing answer for the above. It keeps getting asked but the answers are unsatifactory.
Until I see it, I will conclude that they are just another bunch of Gamma males and Gamma females, hunkering together, patting each other on the back. But like all Gamma males I see in the world of work, failing to answer a direct line and being man enough to acknowledge they are slowly being found out. And like all Gamma males they are getting a little bit nasty and namecalling about it when put under pressure.
I've asked this several times on here, to others who seem to doubt the existence of man made climate change - could you describe what the "case" for man made climate change is, and why you don't think it is correct?
Nobody has ever provided a response.
You’ve captured the essence of it all there - you won’t get a worthwhile answer to your questions.
Told you.
This is what they sound like.
EtaO3ZYXUAEbpxP.jpg
They are most likely ground temperatures.
Problem, reaction, solution. What's the solution?
Posting Permissions