England’s first ever red warning for extreme heat on Monday and Tuesday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

You're wasting your time mate. Kudos for trying but seriously, in this heat, watch your blood pressure. I have to.

Side Note: White Castle Vineyard based in Abergavenny has received two silver awards at the 2022 International Wine Challenge - one for its Sparkling white wine vintage 2018 and one for vintage 2019 Pinot Noir précoce reserve. What have the Romans ever done for us?

---

Roads!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

It’s right it’s questioned by people who know what they’re talking about. This whole thread is questioning facts with stuff that’s been answered a million times before.

It’s the same old challenges that have been brought up and answered 1000s of times as long as I can remember. It’s even been the same people who are raising the same incorrect points they raised last time this discussion happened.

They’re not willing to understand if or do actual reading into it they just want to bury their head in the sand and use incorrect reasoning to make themselves feel either better or above everyone else.

More access than ever to genuine info yet people would rather watch YouTube videos and use confirmation bias to back up their “opinions”

I might as well start questioning gravity and the composition of the air we breath if science is meant to be questioned in this way.

---

That's the nature of the internet unfortunately. There is a truth for everyone out there if you look hard enough..

One thing I would say; the attempts to shut down debate aren't always successful or relevent.

For example, the coal mine in Cumbria that supplies a neaby steel mill, that has been in the news in the last couple of years. My understanding is that without the coal mine, then coal is imported at a much greater environmental (and monetary) cost. The ultimate alternative being that the steel mill moves to China and uses Chinese coal - again, at a much greater environmental (and social) cost.

There are debates to be had around the edges of the issue that don't question the fundemental science but are nuanced and sometimes it does feel as if these kind of important debates aren't allowed by some - I mean the Extinction Rebellion types, who label any alternative opinion as unfathomable. I don't think thats helpful.

You have to take people with you ultimately, and unfortunately there are some very closed minds on both sides.

As for those who question all the science, well sometimes it's best to just say they are entitled to their opinion and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

That's the nature of the internet unfortunately. There is a truth for everyone out there if you look hard enough..

One thing I would say; the attempts to shut down debate aren't always successful or relevent.

For example, the coal mine in Cumbria that supplies a neaby steel mill, that has been in the news in the last couple of years. My understanding is that without the coal mine, then coal is imported at a much greater environmental (and monetary) cost. The ultimate alternative being that the steel mill moves to China and uses Chinese coal - again, at a much greater environmental (and social) cost.

There are debates to be had around the edges of the issue that don't question the fundemental science but are nuanced and sometimes it does feel as if these kind of important debates aren't allowed by some - I mean the Extinction Rebellion types, who label any alternative opinion as unfathomable. I don't think thats helpful.

You have to take people with you ultimately, and unfortunately there are some very closed minds on both sides.

As for those who question all the science, well sometimes it's best to just say they are entitled to their opinion and move on.

---

Agree with you about the Cumbria coal mine. Steel making seems like it's going to be one of the hardest areas to clean up. If we are going to need the coal them we may aswell mine it ourselves. Personally I'd like to see all the tax money paid by the mine to be ring-fence and spent on clean energy and carbon reduction projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

One thing I would say; the attempts to shut down debate aren't always successful or relevent.

---

We have some experts on doing that, difference of opinion automatically means they are right and you are wrong and the default for some on here when they appear to be losing the argument is ad hominem attacks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

That's the nature of the internet unfortunately. There is a truth for everyone out there if you look hard enough..

One thing I would say; the attempts to shut down debate aren't always successful or relevent.

For example, the coal mine in Cumbria that supplies a neaby steel mill, that has been in the news in the last couple of years. My understanding is that without the coal mine, then coal is imported at a much greater environmental (and monetary) cost. The ultimate alternative being that the steel mill moves to China and uses Chinese coal - again, at a much greater environmental (and social) cost.

There are debates to be had around the edges of the issue that don't question the fundemental science but are nuanced and sometimes it does feel as if these kind of important debates aren't allowed by some - I mean the Extinction Rebellion types, who label any alternative opinion as unfathomable. I don't think thats helpful.

You have to take people with you ultimately, and unfortunately there are some very closed minds on both sides.

As for those who question all the science, well sometimes it's best to just say they are entitled to their opinion and move on.

---

I'm not sure that's the type of nuanced debate that happens here. There's none of that in this thread.

It's more the "if 99% of scientists say it's real, that's because they're being paid to say it". Why should anyone just move on from that and leave it unchallenged? I don't see how that's best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

We have some experts on doing that, difference of opinion automatically means they are right and you are wrong and the default for some on here when they appear to be losing the argument is ad hominem attacks

---

But in this case people are saying things that are completely wrong. Like I said if I started a thread saying gravity isn’t real I’d expect it to be pointed out that I’m ignoring all the evidence.

The whole both sides of the debate thing that’s been spread through the media is stupid. You don’t need both sides on every topic where one side is coming from a place of complete bollocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I'm not sure that's the type of nuanced debate that happens here. There's none of that in this thread.

It's more the "if 99% of scientists say it's real, that's because they're being paid to say it". Why should anyone just move on from that and leave it unchallenged? I don't see how that's best.

---

Exactly it’s a disingenuous argument. Debate should be encouraged on every topic is bollocks especially when one side is fed by malicious “evidence” trying to stop progress.

I don’t want to listen to someone saying climate change isn’t real because the earth’s temperature has always changed any more than I want to hear someone say the earth must be flat otherwise why aren’t all balls constantly rolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I'm not sure that's the type of nuanced debate that happens here. There's none of that in this thread.

It's more the "if 99% of scientists say it's real, that's because they're being paid to say it". Why should anyone just move on from that and leave it unchallenged? I don't see how that's best.

---

Yeah I agree. I have no time for the conspiracy theories on it - present the evidence at least.

But there are some unhelpful opinions associated with the climate debate on the 'green' side too, which probably fuels a bit of it all by not understanding some of the more legitimate nuanced issues or how some of what they propose will effect peoples lives.

The politics and hypocrisy of it all can grate too.

But we are discussing it being real and the facts supporting it here.

What unhelpful opinions have been presented in this thread?

Again it’s pointless disingenuous “both sides” bollocks

The actual problem is things like covid and climate change become needlessly politicised. The solutions may be political but the facts associated with it aren’t yet the useful idiots you can see in this thread parrot the idiotic “evidence” because they want to bury their heads in the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

But we are discussing it being real and the facts supporting it here.

What unhelpful opinions have been presented in this thread?

Again it’s pointless disingenuous “both sides” bollocks

The actual problem is things like covid and climate change become needlessly politicised. The solutions may be political but the facts associated with it aren’t yet the useful idiots you can see in this thread parrot the idiotic “evidence” because they want to bury their heads in the sand.

---

I'm not talking about the thread as such - I agree with you on that. I'm just saying, there has to be scope to criticise the science, there is nuance around the edges, and there is a rather extreme wing to some of the green agenda. Recognising that probably reduces the instances of people questioning the broader issue.

Which part of the science do you want to criticise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

Which part of the science do you want to criticise?

---

I don't.

Where is the nuance in the science here that you’re talking about then?

What do you even mean by the science?

We are talking about the evidence that climate change is real and what the implications of it being real are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

Where is the nuance in the science here that you’re talking about then?

What do you even mean by the science?

We are talking about the evidence that climate change is real and what the implications of it being real are.

---

I believe the science. I said that to begin with. I'm just saying, some don't, and you have to allow that and it's not a wholly bad thing.

I do think the media can sometimes veer into alarmism or sensationalism (as they do on many things) and I do think there are serious questions on how we adapt, and issues around the sidelines of the debate - i cite the coal mines to supply British steelmills, which actually may be a greener options...or we cease to have a steel industry, in which case, lets discuss it much more. There's also issues over electric vehicles, food affordability, economic impacts, social impacts of people holidaying closer to home to avoid flying etc etc..

I also think some climate activists are hypocrites and arseholes.

But nope, no issues with the science, and if it was accompanied more with an acknowledgement of the other issues I mention above, I suspect we would get less questioning of it.

Ok so nothing to do with the discussion going on in this thread

The media shouldn't give platforms to people who are scientifically illiterate to talk about science related topics.

If there's a person who says the sky is blue and another who says the sky is green we shouldn't be giving them equal time, the media should just say the sky is blue.

Anyone remember the debate on good morning Britain between a flat earther and an astronaut? What is the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

The media shouldn't give platforms to people who are scientifically illiterate to talk about science related topics.

If there's a person who says the sky is blue and another who says the sky is green we shouldn't be giving them equal time, the media should just say the sky is blue.

Anyone remember the debate on good morning Britain between a flat earther and an astronaut? What is the point.

---

The BBC did a lot of damage with that. I think they had Nigel Lawson on, giving the anti-climate change view, a few times. That was the best they could do, but it immediately frames it as something that is up for debate, and gives credibility to nonsense.

I hadn't heard of the astronaut interview, but that is nothing less than an insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

The BBC did a lot of damage with that. I think they had Nigel Lawson on, giving the anti-climate change view, a few times. That was the best they could do, but it immediately frames it as something that is up for debate, and gives credibility to nonsense.

I hadn't heard of the astronaut interview, but that is nothing less than an insult.

---

Here you go https://www.indy100.com/viral/flat-e...e-astronaut-tv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

Since the start of the industrial revolution the earth’s temperature has increased exponentially above and beyond the averages throughout the whole of history.

Which part of that do you think is a geopolitical phenomenon?

I suppose it isn’t even worth discussing with someone who has ridiculous opinions on covid too. It seems like you just get your opinions out of thin air to support whatever narrative you want.

---

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

---

Because you ignored it before, I'll ask again

What do you hear/see when you see the fact that 99% of scientists say this is happening due to man.

Do you not believe the 99% figure? I'm trying to understand how anyone can see that and just dismiss it as easily as you do. What's the thought process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

---

It’s nothing like that. There is genuine evidence of climate change, it is fact. Which bit do you not agree with?

It just goes to show how little grasp people have of the subject when they say it’s just 2 days of hot weather.

There are effects of climate change seen around the world every day.

It’s like covid all over again people make there minds up without considering any evidence and then are too stubborn to change their minds.

There’s plenty of evidence and reading out there and obviously you can’t be bothered with any of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

It just goes to show how little grasp people have of the subject when they say it’s just 2 days of hot weather.

There are effects of climate change seen around the world every day.

It’s like covid all over again people make there minds up without considering any evidence and then are too stubborn to change their minds.

There’s plenty of evidence and reading out there and obviously you can’t be bothered with any of it.

---

Where I disagree strongly is when people try and explicitly say that today and tomorrow are down to climate change. That's really crap science in itself. An individual event is just that, it could be caused by climate change and it could not be. Climate change can be judged by looking at longer term patterns. Those longer term patterns show it is a real thing, they also suggest that we will be in for many more days like this than we otherwise would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

---

It's not about opinions and i-reckons.

Intelligent people from all over the world have studied it for decades and they are unanimous. It doesn't matter how many people with no idea about it think it's bollocks, because they think it's just about 2 days of weather.

If 99% of heart surgeons recommended you need surgery, and the people you chat to down the pub said "nah, that's bollocks, I haven't had surgery and I'm fine", who would you trust?

Actually, don't answer that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Where I disagree strongly is when people try and explicitly say that today and tomorrow are down to climate change. That's really crap science in itself. An individual event is just that, it could be caused by climate change and it could not be. Climate change can be judged by looking at longer term patterns. Those longer term patterns show it is a real thing, they also suggest that we will be in for many more days like this than we otherwise would be.

---

The fact today is a hot day isn’t due to climate change it’s due to winds from bringing heat from Saharan Africa.

The fact it’s bringing heat hotter than ever before is due to climate change.

Trends are based on individual things. If today was a one off isolated thing fair enough but it isn’t.

I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here tbh. What do you mean crap science?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

It just goes to show how little grasp people have of the subject when they say it’s just 2 days of hot weather.

There are effects of climate change seen around the world every day.

It’s like covid all over again people make there minds up without considering any evidence and then are too stubborn to change their minds.

There’s plenty of evidence and reading out there and obviously you can’t be bothered with any of it.

---

It’s a characteristic of this board that you can see a political thread starting and know how the likely contributors to it will respond (this is equally true on both sides of the political divide). It’s true in this thread as well - using myself as an example, I think it would have come as no surprise to anyone who reads political threads on here what side I support.

That said, this is a strange one because I struggle to see what point the so predictable group of naysayers are trying to make. Say there was no such thing as global warming and it was forecast that there would be a spell of two or three days which could see the UK’s highest recorded temperature occur, are they saying that precautions shouldn’t be taken with a view to protecting those in the population who would be most vulnerable in these exceptional temperatures? Should the oldest and sickest just be left to get on with it as best they can?

To belong in one of the tribes in this ridiculously tribal society we live in currently, it seems you have to be implacably opposed to global warning even to the extent that you have to harrumph and say we’ve been through worse when the forecasters are telling us we, almost certainly, haven’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

The fact today is a hot day isn’t due to climate change it’s due to winds from bringing heat from Saharan Africa.

The fact it’s bringing heat hotter than ever before is due to climate change.

Trends are based on individual things. If today was a one off isolated thing fair enough but it isn’t.

I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here tbh.

---

You've actually illustrated my point quite well with your reply. It's really bad science to pin this weather today on climate change. There's a strong likelihood that it is, but you can't say that for definite. Freak events will always occur. It's the long term trends that show climate change is happening, picking and choosing individual days to justify it is really poor science.

31 degrees in sunny Grangetown!!
Edit: no vineyards though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

You've actually illustrated my point quite well with your reply. It's really bad science to pin this weather today on climate change. There's a strong likelihood that it is, but you can't say that for definite. Freak events will always occur. It's the long term trends that show climate change is happening, picking and choosing individual days to justify it is really poor science.

---

Well, you should perhaps have a word then with the Climate Attribution Scientist at the Met Office who appears to suggest ad-hoc extreme temperatures are actually a direct phenomenon we should anticipate with Climate Change.

“We hoped we wouldn’t get to this situation but for the first time ever we are forecasting greater than 40°C in the UK. “Climate attribution scientist at the Met Office, Dr Nikos Christidis, said “In a recent study we found that the likelihood of extremely hot days in the UK has been increasing and will continue to do so during the course of the century, with the most extreme temperatures expected to be observed in the southeast of England.

“Climate change has already influenced the likelihood of temperature extremes in the UK. The chances of seeing 40°C days in the UK could be as much as 10 times more likely in the current climate than under a natural climate unaffected by human influence. The likelihood of exceeding 40°C anywhere in the UK in a given year has also been rapidly increasing, and, even with current pledges on emissions reductions, such extremes could be taking place every 15 years in the climate of 2100.”

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-u...e-heat-warning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

You've actually illustrated my point quite well with your reply. It's really bad science to pin this weather today on climate change. There's a strong likelihood that it is, but you can't say that for definite. Freak events will always occur. It's the long term trends that show climate change is happening, picking and choosing individual days to justify it is really poor science.

---

But it isn’t a freak event we’ve had heatwaves caused by this forever but the extra high temperature is able to be reached due to the effects of climate change as is the fact that freak events like this are more common. It’s the increasing likelihood and increasing temperatures of days like today that’s being driven by climate change.

Climate scientist agree with this, I’ve done research in this area and would use today as a data point to show the effects climate change of climate change.

What’s your background? What makes you so confident to say this? It isn’t bad science to use an almost definite thing as evidence is about as close to good science as you can get.

You’re using the Russel Brand mistake of thinking open mindedness and not make specific claims means you’re right or have some kind of high ground which to me always comes across as shallow and non committal way of discussing things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

Well, you should perhaps have a word then with the Climate Attribution Scientist at the Met Office who appears to suggest ad-hoc extreme temperatures are actually a direct phenomenon we should anticipate with Climate Change.

“We hoped we wouldn’t get to this situation but for the first time ever we are forecasting greater than 40°C in the UK. “Climate attribution scientist at the Met Office, Dr Nikos Christidis, said “In a recent study we found that the likelihood of extremely hot days in the UK has been increasing and will continue to do so during the course of the century, with the most extreme temperatures expected to be observed in the southeast of England.

“Climate change has already influenced the likelihood of temperature extremes in the UK. The chances of seeing 40°C days in the UK could be as much as 10 times more likely in the current climate than under a natural climate unaffected by human influence. The likelihood of exceeding 40°C anywhere in the UK in a given year has also been rapidly increasing, and, even with current pledges on emissions reductions, such extremes could be taking place every 15 years in the climate of 2100.”

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-u...e-heat-warning

---

Not quite sure where he contradicts what I'm saying. He says that the likelihood of extreme weather is growing at a worrying rate.

That's what makes climate change such a worrying issue and one that I hope we get on top of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

It’s nothing like that. There is genuine evidence of climate change, it is fact. Which bit do you not agree with?

---

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

But it isn’t a freak event we’ve had heatwaves caused by this forever but the extra high temperature is able to be reached due to the effects of climate change as is the fact that freak events like this are more common. It’s the increasing likelihood and increasing temperatures of days like today that’s being driven by climate change.

Climate scientist agree with this, I’ve done research in this area and would use today as a data point to show the effects climate change of climate change.

What’s your background? What makes you so confident to say this? It isn’t bad science to use an almost definite thing as evidence is about as close to good science as you can get.

You’re using the Russel Brand mistake of thinking open mindedness and not make specific claims means you’re right or have some kind of high ground which to me always comes across as shallow and non committal way of discussing things.

---

Completely disagree. It's the fact that we are breaking the UK temperature record year on year that is the extremely strong indicator that something is going very wrong. To pick out individual days or blocks of days within that is nowhere near as strong an indicator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

---

All those things you mention concern climate scientists though?

What makes you think climate change isn’t a real danger to the planet?

What’s your evidence it isn’t man made? Do you think the exponential increase of temperatures the like of which have never been seen post industrial revolution is just a coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Completely disagree. It's the fact that we are breaking the UK temperature record year on year that is the extremely strong indicator that something is going very wrong. To pick out individual days or blocks of days within that is nowhere near as strong an indicator.

---

You’re just being deliberately obtuse. Today is another point on that pattern, the fact today is happening is driven by climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Not quite sure where he contradicts what I'm saying. He says that the likelihood of extreme weather is growing at a worrying rate.

That's what makes climate change such a worrying issue and one that I hope we get on top of.

---

Well, he also seems to be linking the current record high temperatures directly to climate change. Which I understood you thought was poor science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

---

So do you not think Co2 causes a greenhouse effect? Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rudy gestede

All those things you mention concern climate scientists though?

What makes you think climate change isn’t a real danger to the planet?

What’s your evidence it isn’t man made? Do you think the exponential increase of temperatures the like of which have never been seen post industrial revolution is just a coincidence?

---

What's the evidence it's man made ? And the 'exponential' increase you refer to is something like 1 degree in 220 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

Well, he also seems to be linking the current record high temperatures directly to climate change. Which I understood you thought was poor science.

---

Maybe you read it differently to me. But my reading of it he appears to be saying that climate change makes these events more likely to happen. He doesn't say that today is 100% climate change, he says that climate change makes it probable we will experience lots of days like this.

I didn't blow this point up, yourself and rudy decided to seize on it. I can't see where what I said is that far different from the article you link. Trends show climate change is real, not an individual day or 2. Those trends are happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

---

It's just so strange to me that you can list a number of things that are man made threats to the planet but be so confident that climate change isn't one of them.