# COP26 progress or same old



## Spectric (6 Nov 2021)

Well they are well into COPOUT26 and there have been some murmours and grunts but nothing really solid from the major contributors, more words and vague promises but coal and oil will still be consumed and who is going to count all those trees to actually see if the countries who claim that they will stop deforestation will actually do so. They will certainly not be able to claim this meeting has been carbon neutral considering how they all got there and give it a few months and it will just fade into history as they start talking about COP27.



Terry - Somerset said:


> The big changes will come from government - eg: banning sales of ICE from 2030, banning gas boilers from 2035 would not have happened without legislation.
> 
> IMHO the government needs to go much further to have any prospect of zero carbon - mandating better new build standards, increasing (2, 3, 4 fold) taxes on energy consumption and plastics to influence consumer decisions, taxing embedded imported energy etc.


 
This is why there is so little actually happening and with major players absent then even if the UK was perfect and we all drive electric cars and no gas boilers then it would still not make a huge difference globally. If our government was really serious then you would have seen new build standards being improved and not still fitting gas boilers and laying new gas pipelines, positive decisions on new oil and coal extraction and really leading by example rather than kids who won't do something unless someone does it first. The leaders all have conflicting interest, they are also mostly of an older generation which although they should also be wiser does mean they will not see the worst of what is coming so are they really fully invested in the issues.

I suppose Thumberg summed it up that not only has nothing really changed since the french meeting, nothing has really changed due to the last 25 meetings, so how can leaders actually deliver action without massive impacts on their economies and populations and what will actually deliver the will power required, I think it will be nature delivering something that hits the message home with such force it cannot be ignored.


----------



## Droogs (6 Nov 2021)

When Beijing becomes the new Venice and New York reverts to being New Amsterdam, we _might _see a bit of action


----------



## Adam W. (6 Nov 2021)

Probably a bit too late then as low lying countries like Bangladesh will be underwater and the great migration will be well underway.


----------



## niemeyjt (6 Nov 2021)

Given many key polluters were absent and others showed zero interest in practising what they preach I anticipate little change.

I also think that people will get green fatigue - especially if a set of green cost increases hits at the sane time as the next recession.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Nov 2021)

Little long term (decadal) reduction in greenhouse gases is likely in global terms until the need for action is abundantly self evident. Democracies typically have elections every 4 or 5 years driving short term agendas.

Wealthy individuals and countries will make only limited sacrifices in pursuit of a long term climate goals.

Poorer nations and individuals have to put food on the table tomorrow. They need funding to transition to zero carbon - or forests will burn and coal dug to meet the immediate.

Whilst the scientific community and many others may be convinced of the need for action, alarmist or remote tales of, loss of coral reefs, drought in sub-saharan africa, pacific islands flooded, stripping the rainforest etc are far removed from UK realities. 

The prompt for radical change will need to be very eveident and material - eg: London flooded after Thames barrier overwhelmed, Fenland under water for 6 months following winter storms, wind turbines in the west ripped from foundations due to strong winds etc.

The reality is the UK is wealthy enough to largely adapt and evolve - catastrophic impacts may be many decades away. The media so consistently exaggerate all issue in pursuit of viewers and circulation they now largely have the impact of comics - the public just believe the bits they choose and ignore the rest.


----------



## Chris152 (7 Nov 2021)

I think too much business in the developed world is hard-wired to value profit, expansion, domination and so on to allow them to make significant change. It's a very deep-rooted set of values. From the little I've followed on the news of COP 26, there seems to be a series of reasonable proposals (adequate or not) but a lack of sanctions against those who don't follow through on agreements. So the culture as it's stood for many decades will continue to blight green ambitions, businesses pursuing 'success' (profit) and compromising the required rate of change.

Maybe I've watched too many Hollywood films over recent years, but I feel pessimistic about the world our kids/ grandkids will grow up in. My advice to them is to avoid urban centres by as far as possible, work for themselves manufacturing something people need, and be ready to be self-sufficient. That said, that'd be my advice with or without global warming.


----------



## Billy_wizz (7 Nov 2021)

Until the world as a whole realize that the biggest problem is due to overpopulation and agree the need for a worldwide 1 and done system for the next 4-5 generations nothing much will be achieved!


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2021)

Billy_wizz said:


> Until the world as a whole realize that the biggest problem is due to overpopulation and agree the need for a worldwide 1 and done system for the next 4-5 generations nothing much will be achieved!


If overpopulation is the issue then we should start by reducing the wealthy portion 








World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam


Charity says world’s fast-shrinking carbon budget should be used to improve lot of poorest




www.theguardian.com












Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International







www.oxfam.org












Private Planes, Mansions and Superyachts: Calculating Billionaires' Massive Carbon Footprint - EcoWatch


Altogether, the world's billionaires saw their wealth surge over $1.9 trillion in 2020. Those are astronomical numbers, and it's hard to get one's head around them without some context. As anthropologists who study energy and consumer culture, we wanted to examine how all that wealth translated...




www.ecowatch.com












Global rich must cut their carbon footprint 97% to stave off climate change, UN says


Preventing the worst effects of global warming requires dramatic reductions from the people that pollute the most.




www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Spectric (7 Nov 2021)

Billy_wizz said:


> Until the world as a whole realize that the biggest problem is due to overpopulation and agree the need for a worldwide 1 and done system for the next 4-5 generations nothing much will be achieved!


Not only that but to work globally as one and instead of spending billions on tools that destroy, invest in sustainable technology and projects that deliver for the masses. Nature will more than likely resolve the issue of overpopulation as the planet cooks and droughts cause famine.



Chris152 said:


> I think too much business in the developed world is hard-wired to value profit, expansion, domination and so on to allow them to make significant change. It's a very deep-rooted set of values.



That is going to require massive changes in the way we all think and live our lives, let's just go back to a time when people made the decision on what and when to buy rather than this marketing driven system where companies can make a fast buck by using the word "designer" which is just a commercial con like fashion.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2021)

Optimistic as ever Terry!


Terry - Somerset said:


> Little long term (decadal) reduction in greenhouse gases is likely in global terms until the need for action is abundantly self evident.


By which time it will be too late, if it isn't already


> .Wealthy individuals and countries will make only limited sacrifices in pursuit of a long term climate goals.


True if we relied on charity but it will have to be more about having no choice


> Poorer nations and individuals have to put food on the table tomorrow. They need funding to transition to zero carbon - or forests will burn and coal dug to meet the immediate.


They are already closest to zero carbon - they will need funding for fairness so that global economies become more equitable


> Whilst the scientific community and many others may be convinced of the need for action, alarmist or remote tales of, loss of coral reefs, drought in sub-saharan africa, pacific islands flooded, stripping the rainforest etc are far removed from UK realities.


Totally inaccurate. It is a global phenomenon and no part of the globe will be untouched


> The prompt for radical change will need to be very eveident and material - eg: London flooded after Thames barrier overwhelmed, Fenland under water for 6 months following winter storms, wind turbines in the west ripped from foundations due to strong winds etc.


And too late. "Last week, London was flooded for a third time within weeks." London flood map shows areas of city at risk of being underwater


> The reality is the UK is wealthy enough to largely adapt and evolve - catastrophic impacts may be many decades away.


Depends where you live. Have you seen the accounts of flooding in recent years? Unprecedented and becoming the new normal. But wrong anyway - the UK is not remotely self sufficient and depends on global trade


> The media so consistently exaggerate all issue in pursuit of viewers and circulation they now largely have the impact of comics - the public just believe the bits they choose and ignore the rest.


Absolutely wrong. The media have largely derided the whole issue, even the BBC with so-called "balance". They are only just starting to catch up.
Even this thread on this forum would have been impossible 2 years ago but people are starting to take notice at last.


----------



## Droogs (7 Nov 2021)

A pity it has taken 50 years since the first scientifically based warnings were given to the fossil fuel and plastics industries by their own research teams for those and all the subsequent ones to be noticed and believed. If we had taken action went it was first shown to be a provable fact rather than obfuscate and lie about it by the ones causing the harm for the most part it would probably be either resolved or possibly averted by now.

If COP26 achieves anything, I will be surprised, I think it more likely that we will see a rise in Eco-terorrism with increasingly violent attacks on the polluting industries and governments of the world. After all if your parents don't actually care enough to save you from death by thirst, hunger or pollution induced disease or slow suffocation then as a member of the first generation who will actually suffer these things you might be inclined to be a teeny weeny bit extremist in your actions.

_edit typos_


----------



## Chris152 (7 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> If COP26 achieves anything, I will be surprised, I think it more likely that we will see a rise in Eco-terorrism with increasingly violent attacks on the polluting industries and governments of the world.


This, together with mass migrations and possibly national conflicts resulting from them. There's potentially a lot of anger brewing away in this - flooding and famine could well become just catalysts for even more destructive human behaviour. It does sound like one of those disaster movie plots, let's hope that's all it is.
Meanwhile, I've been working away in the garage, making some wooden jewellery.


----------



## Chris152 (7 Nov 2021)




----------



## DrPhill (8 Nov 2021)

Gtreta Thunberg thinks it a waste of time.
"Global North Greenwash Festival".


----------



## Sandyn (8 Nov 2021)

I don't think there will be anything significant from COP26. There are some great ideas, such as 'One Sun, One World & One Grid', but that's long term.


----------



## Awac (9 Nov 2021)

Spectric said:


> Not only that but to work globally as one and instead of spending billions on tools that destroy, invest in sustainable technology and projects that deliver for the masses. Nature will more than likely resolve the issue of overpopulation as the planet cooks and droughts cause famine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is going to require massive changes in the way we all think and live our lives, let's just go back to a time when people made the decision on what and when to buy rather than this marketing driven system where companies can make a fast buck by using the word "designer" which is just a commercial con like fashion.



If this workshop forum can talk more sense than the leaders of the world, then either everyone on this site is a genius or the politicians don’t really, deep down give a dam. Hey, that’s a close call!

Seriously, they know, but they are going to keep blagging it, because they are comfortable and betting they will die before it gets to bad for them.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Nov 2021)

I read an amusing article the other day suggesting that we are at peak climate hysteria. It's all downhill from here. All the doom laden hockey stick projections run far too hot (and they don't know why), and the longer Chicken Little runs around screaming that the sky is falling without any actual proof, the fewer people will pay any attention, so the louder _they_ will have to shout. BBC's Click program showing us the future in delicious, nutricious insect based cuisine would be a fine example of the genre. 

{Cue Jacob with his Guardian inspired end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it lunacy.}

Electric bus for the win? How climate sensitive is this:






One day, if you are very lucky, (and have the requisite permissions from the Climate Travel Authority) you may be on a cross chanel ferry that does the same, with a thousand lithium batteries all cheek by jowl. But we saved the planet, so that's OK. 

To be fair there are some good things coming out of COP26:









Financial System Makes Big Promises on Climate Change at COP26 Summit


The global finance industry, its regulators and investors pledged trillions in funding to reduce carbon emissions.




www.wsj.com





No funding for petroleum projects, coal or nuclear means we will run out in about 5 years, not because there isn't any, but because there isn't any capital for development. Rekon we are ready to go carbon free? Because you will, like it or not. There is a view (Goldman Sachs) that oil will be at $200 a barrel next summer purely because of lack of supply. $80 a barrel creates an instant global recession. Oh dear. What's the price apt the moment?

The Third World is to be brutalised even more than usual by economic imperialism - no fossil fuels to drag _them_ out of poverty thank you very much. A 30% cut in methane basically means a 30%reduction in farming. What could possibly go wrong? COP 26: Methane madness - CFACT

It's an alternative view, I agree, and I know that lots of people will be very upset with me for mentioning that the clever ideas to reduce climate change seem to mean, owing to "unintended" consequences, killing millions if not billions of people. We are certainly living in interesting times.

I'm now off to pick some olives, to make some olive oil which will will be shipped to a supermarket near you. Do enjoy it, because it may be illegal to buy soon (unless you are are billionaire, obviously - different rules apply to them, and no one seems to mind).


----------



## Chris152 (9 Nov 2021)

Yep, the fossil-fuel industries, lazy-minded politicians and on-line conspiracists seem to have helped make a dreadful situation even worse through the doubts and delays they've created. All a bit of a rush now and no doubt many will suffer, it's just a question of creating the path of least destruction and yes, self-interest will pay a large part in how it unfolds. 

Personally, I'm quite happy to eat insects if that's part of the plan - I've not knowingly tried them (except the odd inhaled mossie), but reckon they'll be mini versions of the seafood I enjoy muchly - mini lobster thermidors, locust bouillabaisse and so on.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I read an amusing article the other day suggesting that we are at peak climate hysteria. It's all downhill from here. All the doom laden hockey stick projections run far too hot (and they don't know why), and the longer Chicken Little runs around screaming that the sky is falling without any actual proof, the fewer people will pay any attention, so the louder _they_ will have to shout. BBC's Click program showing us the future in delicious, nutricious insect based cuisine would be a fine example of the genre.


It's more a case of people beginning to face the facts, the MSM including the BBC having been CC sceptical or in denial for a long time.
People are alarmed - and about time too - the thing that the science has been warning about since 1856 has slowly come to pass. Nothing has happened to suggest that the science (on the broad front) is mistaken, the evidence is with us.
Picking at random from the doomsday scenarios; New climate models suggest faster melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet - Carbon Brief do you simply believe that all this stuff is not true and they are just making it up?


> ..
> It's an alternative view, I agree, and I know that lots of people will be very upset with me for mentioning that the clever ideas to reduce climate change seem to mean, owing to "unintended" consequences, killing millions if not billions of people. We are certainly living in interesting times.


Well it's a point of view - let CC rip and take it on the chin, if that is what you mean.
CC is likely to kill millions if not billions. What COP26 and the whole climate change issue is about how to stop this from happening

PS the science; until recently there was an optimistic guess that CC would trigger a new ice age which would restore the balance, albeit inconveniently. This idea has been discarded as the science has developed, though there may be local effects such as slowing of the gulf stream and cooling climate along the NE Atlantic coast, affecting the British Isles in particular. Just another detail!

PPS Why do you think Olives would be banned? I guess Brexit might have made imports more difficult but we know who to blame for that (the Brexitards!!). Are you at all disturbed that olive oil is a big favourite with veggies and vegans?


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

How's the ozone doing? Along with "Save the Whales", it seems to have become a forgotten cause, displaced by the new, in vogue causes with catchy taglines like Net Zero and Climate Change. Did banning CFC help the hole it had created to heal up? Or was the problem slightly over-egged, a Currie-esque salmonella in the solar system? 

Although a young child at the time, I remember the summer of '76, the unusually hot and dry summer we all enjoyed despite news reports of people having to fetch water in buckets like some third world country, photos of dried up and cracked riverbeds and warnings of "the end is nigh" - I remember John Craven saying as much on Newsround.

I remember a well-liked and highly respected teacher introducing me to the term 'Global Warming" with the promise that 'in the future' we would have more summers like that of 76 which - as a child who wanted to be outdoors all the time - sounded great to me. That said, same teacher also told me that we were the only country in the world to drive on the left and one or two other things that have subsequently proved false. That's not to say I think he lied or wantonly tried to deceive me, more that he passed on misinformation he'd been fed.

In later years, studying for a degree, I would learn that throughout its c4.5billion year life, planet earth had undergone many periods of climate change, warming up, cooling down, all backed up by scientific facts and data. I also learned that throughout history, other scientests had proved beyond doubt that the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe; thank heavens for Copernicus. 

Along the way, I have also learned that fact and scientific data can be 'modelled' to suit a preferred pattern, perhaps depending on who is footing the bill and what their desired outcome might be. It can be made sexed up, like a report on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Consequently, I'm a little sceptical of the things people - particularly politicians - pass of as 'fact'.

In the 45 years since that long hot summer of '76, I haven't experienced too many others like it, maybe two at most, 1990 and possibly 2010. John Craven and myself, while both a little heavier and a lot greyer, we're still here. I'd like to think my teacher is too and I know for sure the planet's still here, still turning. And politicians are still creating more hot air and bullsh1t then the entire bovid population. Like Cummins demonstrated with his 528 mile round trip to an opticians, they don't even attempt to show any pretence to believing what they say is true. At the same time, the media was full of reports of how a few weeks without millions of cars clogging up the roads and planes poisoning the skies, Planet Earth had started to heal herself, with wildlife returning to habitats from which they had been absent for many, many years and I believe there was even a rare sighting of a unicorn, even rarer than an honest politician. If any of this is even remotely true, it poses a number of questions, one being is the situation really as bad as is it is currently being made out to be? Another is given that the world's cattle population numbers didn't change by much if any, are they really such a threat to the planet?


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> How's the ozone doing? Along with "Save the Whales", it seems to have become a forgotten cause, displaced by the new, in vogue causes with catchy taglines like Net Zero and Climate Change. Did banning CFC help the hole it had created to heal up? Or was the problem slightly over-egged, a Currie-esque salmonella in the solar system?
> 
> Although a young child at the time, I remember the summer of '76, the unusually hot and dry summer we all enjoyed despite news reports of people having to fetch water in buckets like some third world country, photos of dried up and cracked riverbeds and warnings of "the end is nigh" - I remember John Craven saying as much on Newsround.
> 
> ...


Good questions - easy to google a few answers! 
You are not entitled to jeer and be sceptical just because you can't be bothered to find things out for yourself!
Ozone layer 'rescued' from CFC damage








The Effects of Climate Change


Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Long-term effects of global climate change in the United States.




climate.nasa.gov












Cattle/cow population worldwide 2012-2022 | Statista


How many cattle are in the world? The global cattle population amounted to about one billion head in 2022, up from approximately 996 million in 2021.




www.statista.com












Interactive: What is the climate impact of eating meat and dairy?


Food production accounts for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It takes up half of the planet’s habitable surface.




interactive.carbonbrief.org












Saving the whales


Whale extinction avoided – for now…




wwf.panda.org


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Good questions - easy to google a few answers!
> You are not entitled to jeer and be sceptical just because you can't be bothered to find things out for yourself!
> Ozone layer 'rescued' from CFC damage
> 
> ...



The questions were purely rhetorical.

As previously noted, Planet Earth has experienced 'climate change' mumerous times in its existence. It will have done so before man walked its surface and will likely continue long after we're extinct; the whales will probably still be here though.

So a 1.1% increase in cattle (compared to 1.05% in humans) and still a few weeks without cars and planes saw a dramatic improvement in the environment? That does rather contradict the link claiming they are responsible for 25% of emmissions.

And great as the success of the 'Save the Whale' undoubtedly is, let's remember that the threat they faced wasn't from cows, global warming or any other 'natural' disaster but from the actions of man. The world would survive perfectly well without man but the reverse is not true. We're not so highly evolved as we like to think we are, look how many people thought the key to survival was toilet roll.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> The questions were purely rhetorical.


You mean you didn't want to know the answers?


> As previously noted, Planet Earth has experienced 'climate change' mumerous times in its existence. It will have done so before man walked its surface and will likely continue long after we're extinct; the whales will probably still be here though.


True. But this time it is "anthropogenic" and there is a chance we can do something about it as we caused it in the first place


> So a 1.1% increase in cattle (compared to 1.05% in humans) and still a few weeks without cars and planes saw a dramatic improvement in the environment? That does rather contradict the link claiming they are responsible for 25% of emmissions.


Check it out for yourself. Google "How much does the meat industry contribute to carbon emissions?" and you get https://www.google.com/search?q=How...hUKEwiJ8-3mnov0AhVMQMAKHVR4CXcQ4dUDCA4&uact=5


> And great as the success of the 'Save the Whale' undoubtedly is, let's remember that the threat they faced wasn't from cows, global warming or any other 'natural' disaster but from the actions of man.


True. Nobody said it wasn't


> The world would survive perfectly well without man but the reverse is not true. We're not so highly evolved as we like to think we are, look how many people thought the key to survival was toilet roll.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> You mean you didn't want to know the answers?True. But this time it is "anthropogenic" and there is a chance we can do something about it as we caused it in the first placeCheck it out for yourself. Google "How much does the meat industry contribute to carbon emissions?" and you get https://www.google.com/search?q=How+much+does+the+meat+industry+contribute+to+carbon+emissions?&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB924GB924&sxsrf=AOaemvLG-228-isTu0Pgypv0HCO65C4B8Q:1636459528040&ei=CGSKYYnPAcyAgQbU8KW4Bw&oq=How+much+does+the+meat+industry+contribute+to+carbon+emissions?&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsAMyBwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABQAFgAYNKCA2gEcAJ4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAMgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiJ8-3mnov0AhVMQMAKHVR4CXcQ4dUDCA4&uact=5True. Nobody said it wasn't



No, it meant I already had answers. Don't get me wrong, I might not got as far as wearing a Save the Whale t-shirt or chaining myself to a tree but I have been into protecting the environment and its wildlife for a very long time, long before it became 'fashionable' to do so. It was this interest that lead to a biology degree with an emphasis on ecology and environment. Prior to that I did an 'A' level in statistical analysis which is every bit as boring as it sounds but it played a far greater part in my degree studies than a microscope ever did and the key thing it taught me was how statistics can be manipulated to suit the argument. Lies, damned lies and statistics, really is a case of coming down to which set of figures you chose to believe.

A while back, I read an interview with David Bellamy. It was quite an eye-opener as I believed he had been dead for years by that point. An early advocate for climate change, he later described it as 'poppycock' and no more than part of the natural cycle I was taught during my studies. Because that didn't fit with the favoured narrative of certain bodies - such as Wildlife Trust and that bastion of integrity the BBC, the former replacing him as president after ten years in the role and the latter scrapping his programmes - he was effectively silenced. 

Seems to me that things like climate change, sustainability, covid, even electric cars serve only to create divisions because a divided and frightened public are much easier to manipulate.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 Nov 2021)

That climate has varied materially in the past is not a reason for complacency now. Speed of change is critical - changing more in 200 years than it may have done previously in 2000++. 

Neanderthal man was more intelligent than normally painted, but would be unaware of changes occurring over millennia, or of a world beyond the local. We now know better! 

There are a number of potential futures.

The first - greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to levels which deliver climate stability and universal happiness through successful, globally endorsed actions - reduced meat eating, green energy, well insulated homes, famine eliminated, infrastructure for all. A hugely attractive outcome - but in my view implausible.

The second - despite fine words, actions actually initiated have limited impact. Individually and nationally people fight to protect their own interests. International cooperation will be secondary. The rich and powerful will win (or at least not lose as much), the poor suffer. Not an attractive outcome, but rather more likely than the first.

The third - recognition that the second is failing. Action will be urgent and material. Radical controls over personal freedoms to minimise enviromental impacts - like battery farmed animals confined to very limited areas, fed a nutritionally balanced engineered diet, social interaction limited to zoom, facebook etc.

Potential role reversal - forests regenerated and animals free to roam preserving bio-diversity. 

Jacob has commented that I am less than optimistic for the future of humanity. Population control could limit stresses on the system to improve the probability of better outcomes. Nonetheless it is probably better to act in hope that the best outcome is forthcoming, but plan for the worst of eventualities


----------



## Sandyn (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> As previously noted, Planet Earth has experienced 'climate change' mumerous times in its existence. It will have done so before man walked its surface and will likely continue long after we're extinct; the whales will probably still be here though.


Take 7 1/2 minutes and watch David Attenborough's COP26 presentation. He talks about these fluctuations, then how the earth experienced a period of stability allowing humans to develop.


----------



## Droogs (9 Nov 2021)

The biggest fallacy in all the arguments both for and against is that it's about saving the planet. It's not. It's about saving modern civilization and lifestyles. If we screw it up (and we probably will), our extinction or massive culling that will arise will give the planet plenty of time to recover a good level of diversity and stability.


----------



## Spectric (9 Nov 2021)

Take this from another direction, put billions of humans on a planet with limited resources, drive around in vehicles that consume oxygen and produce CO amongst other byproducts, cut down trees that help stabilise our climate and then consume the planets resources without due thought and then ask yourself if we may be having an adverse impact on our planet or is it just part of a normal cycle. To me it is obvious that we must be having an impact because once upon a time humans lived on this planet with nature, now we are fighting nature and having to consume micro plastic as part of our diets.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> .....it taught me was how statistics can be manipulated to suit the argument.....


It should also have taught you how statistics should be used properly for research.


> ........
> A while back, I read an interview with David Bellamy. It was quite an eye-opener as I believed he had been dead for years by that point. An early advocate for climate change, he later described it as 'poppycock' and no more than part of the natural cycle I was taught during my studies. Because that didn't fit with the favoured narrative of certain bodies - such as Wildlife Trust and that bastion of integrity the BBC, the former replacing him as president after ten years in the role and the latter scrapping his programmes - he was effectively silenced.


Well he had had a good run for his money but was well past his best by date, and very wrong on climate change.
In so far as we can do anything about it at all the deniers and sceptics are dangerously wrong


> Seems to me that things like climate change, sustainability, covid, even electric cars serve only to create divisions because a divided and frightened public are much easier to manipulate.


The cunning plot theory! Very popular with the sceptics.  
Who are the manipulators? Not the govt they are natural sceptics and have been reluctant to do anything much so far.


----------



## Spectric (9 Nov 2021)

Droogs has hit that nail, if it was about saving the planet and not lifestyles then changes would have happened, it is a case of we want our cake and eat it.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ....
> 
> Jacob has commented that I am less than optimistic for the future of humanity. .....


No I thought you were over optimistic - I wasn't trying to be sarcastic!


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> The biggest fallacy in all the arguments both for and against is that it's about saving the planet. It's not. It's about saving modern civilization and lifestyles. If we screw it up (and we probably will), our extinction or massive culling that will arise will give the planet plenty of time to recover a good level of diversity and stability.


It's about saving human lives and livelihoods, but not unsustainable lifestyles.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (9 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Well he had had a good run for his money but was well past his best by date, and very wrong on climate change.



Says you, based on a lifetime of scientific study and qualification in precisely what? The correct use of two push sticks? I'm actually with you on that one but not sharing your opinion - for that's all it is - on climate change does not make me wrong.

Droogs hasn't just nailed it, he's sliding dovetail precision nailed it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> do you simply believe that all this stuff is not true and they are just making it up?


A fine question. It appears that quite a lot of research follows the funding, and the funding follows catastrophe. Is the Greenland ice sheet melting? Your research says yes! Unequivocally, and we will all die as a result. Is it true, though? Are the doomsayers actually right? Will sea levels rise by huge amounts in the next couple of years? They haven't yet, but it might happen at any moment! So quick, send money now to stave of the disaster! greenland ice sheet growing at DuckDuckGo
By the way, all glaciers melt, all the time (well, in the summer, anyway). They grow or shrink depending upon how much snow precipitates in the middle, not how hot it is. Melting because warm is a good story, but it's a bit simplistic. Shrinking means less snow - why is that? Is it because of warming, or climate variability, or something else?



Jacob said:


> CC is likely to kill millions if not billions. What COP26 and the whole climate change issue is about how to stop this from happening


Actions have consequences. Not taking any action also has consequences. Which consequences will be worse? None of the discussion I have seen here has considered what happens when you remove fossil fuels without any stable, dependable replacement. Reduce methane by 30% means, for most of the 100 plus countries that signed the agreement, reduce agriculture. By 30%. What will the consequences of that be? Import more grain from Russia? No fuel for transport means what? Annoyingly being trapped at home with the wife? No food deliveries, empty shelves and food riots? Somewhere in between? Again, no one seems to be considering the downside to Greta's "How dare you".



Jacob said:


> Why do you think Olives would be banned?


Food miles. More importantly, transport costs. Your dream of reinventing the energy economy may mean you _can't_ get food that isn't local. It also wouldn't suprise me in the least that the communism inspired do-gooders will be delighted to enforce food localism as a policy, for your edification and delight of course. If in doubt, force people to be poorer, more insecure and more dependent on the government. Enjoy your turnip suprise.

So my position regarding climate is this: ambivalent. 

If CO2 actually controls the greenhouse effect and actually does make the temperature increase dramatically, then we should know fairly shortly. After all it is a good 50 years since the first climate alarmism started, and 40 years since they switched from feezing to boiling alarmism - at some point you have to admit that the climate really isn't changing much, or come up with proper evidence that it is (please don't post 400 examples of when it rained - raining is normal, even in large, sudden amounts).

_If_ the sun actually controls the climate, then we have _already_ entered a period of cooling. Again, we will know for sure fairly soon. Your cataclysmic flooding/drought/fire/biblical endtimes weather events are equally possibly from cooling events (big El Niño /La Niña events which are the actual proximate cause of last summer's interesting weather - check out the southern hemisphere's appalling winter for dramatic cooling evidence, but one winter is weather, not climate).

Oh, and have a look at how water provides an automatic cooling response across the oceans - a far more important and much more prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2 that self - regulates surface sea temperatures absolutely everywhere. As just one example of how fabulous water molecules are, did you know that it is virtually impossible for the sea temperature to increase above 32°C? You just get an instant tropical thunderstorm and surface cooling, with lots of heat transported to the upper atmosphere and radiated out to space. It's all very clever, and works automatically. They even keep it running at the weekends anywhere there is water.

A couple more years and we should know one way or the other. I tend toward the hypothesis that the sun variability affects rainfall in a cyclical pattern and we are moving to more cloud which means higher albedo therefore a cooling process. If this hypothesis is right, it is much, much worse than the tiny increase in night time low temperatures we have seen with the warming climate catastrophe so far. Fingers crossed that I'm wrong. Famines, wars, revolution etc are the usual result of significant cooling.

If anyone actually made it to the end of this screed you are more of a man than I am - I nodded off half way through.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> Says you, based on a lifetime of scientific study and qualification in precisely what? The correct use of two push sticks? I'm actually with you on that one but not sharing your opinion - for that's all it is - on climate change does not make me wrong.
> 
> Droogs hasn't just nailed it, he's sliding dovetail precision nailed it.


Nothing to do with me I just guess that the opinion of 99% of the worlds scientists is probably nearer the truth than opinions of D Bellamy and one or two other CC denying eccentrics. Or Trainee neophyte, see above  
It says 97% here but later studies say 99% Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Todays news even worse, 2.4º on the cards. Cop26: Extinction Rebellion starts 24-hour vigil outside JP Morgan- day eight live


----------



## powertools (9 Nov 2021)

Things need to change but no point in the likes of us cutting all emissions by exporting the problem to other countries who have no interest in being involved.
I also remember the winter of 1963.


----------



## Jameshow (9 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Nothing to do with me I just guess that the opinion of 99% of the worlds scientists is probably nearer the truth than opinions of D Bellamy and one or two other CC denying eccentrics. Or Trainee neophyte, see above
> It says 97% here but later studies say 99% Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
> 
> Todays news even worse, 2.4º on the cards. Cop26: Extinction Rebellion starts 24-hour vigil outside JP Morgan- day eight live


What happens if belief in climate change religion is required to get a post in a university???

Obviously everyone believes.....


----------



## DrPhill (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> A while back, I read an interview with David Bellamy. It was quite an eye-opener as I believed he had been dead for years by that point. An early advocate for climate change, he later described it as 'poppycock' and no more than part of the natural cycle I was taught during my studies. Because that didn't fit with the favoured narrative of certain bodies - such as Wildlife Trust and that bastion of integrity the BBC, the former replacing him as president after ten years in the role and the latter scrapping his programmes - he was effectively silenced.



He was silence by the arguments, live on tv, by George Monbiot.


----------



## DrPhill (9 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> at some point you have to admit that the climate really isn't changing much, or come up with proper evidence that it is







__





Warming stripes | Climate Lab Book






www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk


----------



## DrPhill (9 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> _f_ the sun actually controls the climate, then we have _already_ entered a period of cooling.


And your evidence is?


----------



## DrPhill (9 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Oh, and have a look at how water provides an automatic cooling response across the oceans - a far more important and much more prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2 that self - regulates surface sea temperatures absolutely everywhere. As just one example of how fabulous water molecules are, did you know that it is virtually impossible for the sea temperature to increase above 32°C? You just get an instant tropical thunderstorm and surface cooling, with lots of heat transported to the upper atmosphere and radiated out to space. It's all very clever, and works automatically. They even keep it running at the weekends anywhere there is water.


Your evidence is?

You are entitled to your opinions. But if you make unsubstantiated claims then I am entitled to challenge them.


----------



## Chris152 (9 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Nothing to do with me I just guess that the opinion of 99% of the worlds scientists is probably nearer the truth than opinions of D Bellamy and one or two other CC denying eccentrics.


Agree.
Once again, a potentially interesting discussion is reduced to 'it's not real' etc. Bizarre how people with little or no knowledge think their opinion outweighs overwhelming consensus among the scientific communities. Such is the delusional wonder of the internet.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> ..... not sharing your opinion - for that's all it is - on climate change does not make me wrong.....


No it is not all it is. You also are choosing to disbelief the science, for no obvious reason, which begs the question - are you really claiming "a lifetime of scientific study and qualification"?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Nov 2021)

DrPhill said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it hasn't warmed up. Your stripes start in 1772 when it was _cold_ - the little ice age and all that. Thank god it did warm up because that way we stopped having revolutions and resource wars, and started the industrial revolution instead, so we could have proper, modern, mechanised resource wars. Humans - what can you do with them?




DrPhill said:


> And your evidence is?


Freely available to any who choose to look.

In other words, there is no point turning this thread into a cage fight when I don't actually care enough one way or the other. I leave that to the proselytising born - again alarmists. Who still, incidentally, don't seem to want to consider the consequences to their actions.


DrPhill said:


> You are entitled to your opinions. But if you make unsubstantiated claims then I am entitled to challenge them.


Challenge away - that's how science works (supposedly). However, you can see from those who read the Guardian that the science is settled, temperatures are spiralling out of control, there will be divers floods and rains of blood and fishes, ash will fall from the sky and...{insert your own catastrophic endtimes prophesy here}, and if you don't believe all that, you are just..well...completely wrong. And stupid. And probably a Nazi, to boot.

Having done this all before a couple of years ago, I don't see the point in going there again. I'm not religious about all this so it is just interesting. There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet. I will leave you to research on your own, if you want to. Entirely up to you.


----------



## stuartpaul (10 Nov 2021)

Could we not just superglue Jacob and TN together and then glue them to the road? At least then they’d have some use as a speedbump!


----------



## Keith Cocker (10 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> Says you, based on a lifetime of scientific study and qualification in precisely what?



Says hundreds of Scientists based on extremely well respected careers and study.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> Says hundreds of Scientists based on extremely well respected careers and study.


Exactly. And if Lonsdale73 really has a lifetime of scientific study and qualification it doesn't mean he is entitled to believe any old rubbish off the top of his head.


----------



## Tris (10 Nov 2021)

All the debate about anthropogenic climate change is fairly pointless. The planet is still operating within the limits of previous extremes as far as we can tell.

Population dynamics would suggest we are likely to use up available resources or fall to the next pandemic long before the only bits of the planet that is habitable by humans are the poles.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ...... There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet. .......


Really? I thought they were not timid at all, in fact very vocal. There are even creationists amongst them!
And science is never quite "settled" it's a continuous process and may involve future paradigm shifts.


----------



## Jones (10 Nov 2021)

Tris said:


> All the debate about anthropogenic climate change is fairly pointless. The planet is still operating within the limits of previous extremes as far as we can tell.
> 
> Population dynamics would suggest we are likely to use up available resources or fall to the next pandemic long before the only bits of the planet that is habitable by humans are the poles.


The debate about anthropogenic climate change is relevant because if we did it there's a chance we can undo it. Certainly current climate variations are small compared to geological past but then humans could not survive in many of those conditions.


----------



## Lonsdale73 (10 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Exactly. And if Lonsdale73 really has a lifetime of scientific study and qualification it doesn't mean he is entitled to believe any old rubbish off the top of his head.



I wasn't making any such claim, I was querying precisely what makes you qualified to assert that your opinion is the right one? If you cannot interpret that accurately then how on earth can you be trusted to interpret scientific data correctly? And you are 100% wrong with regards to my entitlement to believe whatever I damn well like and in this instance I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> I wasn't making any such claim, I was querying precisely what makes you qualified to assert that your opinion is the right one? If you cannot interpret that accurately then how on earth can you be trusted to interpret scientific data correctly? And you are 100% wrong with regards to my entitlement to believe whatever I damn well like and in this instance I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.


OK so you are saying that 99% (apparently) of the world's scientists are not interpreting scientific data correctly. Have you told them? 

PS what do you think of the latest gloomy 2.4º forecast?








Far from where Cop26 needs to be: dismay at 2.4C ‘reality check’


Amid shock, climate projection creates push for annual emission cut pledges




www.theguardian.com




Are they wrong? Have you spotted incorrect interpretations of scientific data?
The whole world would be very pleased and highly relieved to hear from you, if things really aren't as bad as they say.


----------



## John Brown (10 Nov 2021)

Earth Temperature Timeline







xkcd.com




I know I've posted this before, but to be fair, pretty much everything in this thread has also been said many times.


----------



## John Brown (10 Nov 2021)

Yes, it shows correlation but not causation. It could be that non-anthropogenic warming somehow induces a desire to burn fossil fuels. Just like having a genetic predisposition to lung cancer also carries an increased desire to smoke cigarettes.
I'm not a gambling man, but if I were, I know which way I'd bet.


----------



## John Brown (10 Nov 2021)

DrPhill said:


> He was silence by the arguments, live on tv, by George Monbiot.


That's embarrassing to watch. On a level with the best of Hitch.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> That's embarrassing to watch. On a level with the best of Hitch.


Poor old Bellamy just sounds senile and demented


----------



## DrPhill (10 Nov 2021)

I am not fond of ad-hominem attacks, but if he is their best proponent.....

TN suggests that there are plenty of scientists that deny climate change:


Trainee neophyte said:


> There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet.


But neglects to mention any names. Does not seem any more persuasive than David Bellamy, I am afraid.


----------



## Spectric (10 Nov 2021)

But who is paying these scientist their wages, maybe they are in the oil & gas industry but anyone with the ability of basic comprehension can only conclude that the human race must be having an impact on the planet, just maybe not the exact outcome. Perhaps the cycle of come and go is what it is all about, you get a time slot on the planet and then when the time is up you become extinct to make room for the next inhabitants, so dinosaurs, humans then what!


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

Spectric said:


> But who is paying these scientist their wages, ....


There aren't really many of them about. 
Coal/oil interests were fighting hard and bringing out false science not so long ago but even they have changed their tune.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> I wasn't making any such claim, I was querying precisely what makes you qualified to assert that your opinion is the right one? If you cannot interpret that accurately then how on earth can you be trusted to interpret scientific data correctly? And you are 100% wrong with regards to my entitlement to believe whatever I damn well like and in this instance I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.


Who are these scientists and where can we read them?
There's Piers Corbyn. Is that it then?  Piers Corbyn disrupts climate debate featuring brother Jeremy
He's also anti vaccination, Covid sceptic and voted for brexit! 
Being several sandwiches short of a picnic seems to be par for the course!!


----------



## transatlantic (10 Nov 2021)

It infuriates me that the people with the most control in dealing with the matter won't .. because it will affect their profit margins.

Do they not have children? grand children? ... can't they see that it doesn't matter how much profit they make now if it will adversly affect the lives of their descendants several years from now?

Another annoyance I have is with the sudden realisation people have had with non recyclable plastics. Surely, ... surely!!! the moment they were invented, the question of how we would deal with the waste has to have arisen? it's not hindsight ... its common sense.


----------



## doctor Bob (10 Nov 2021)

I'm not going to enter the debate, but my opinion is you only have to take a good look around at everyday life and realise we are now on course to screw it all up. I'm really working hard to do my bit, but I doubt it will make any difference in the big scheme.


----------



## Flynnwood (10 Nov 2021)

*Elon Musk- “The Universe Appears To Be 13.8 Billion Years Old.”*
50 seconds >>>>


----------



## Jameshow (10 Nov 2021)

Flynnwood said:


> *Elon Musk- “The Universe Appears To Be 13.8 Billion Years Old.”*
> 50 seconds >>>>



Id never thought if that ....! 

Probably why I'm not a billionaire!?


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2021)

Yanis puts his finger on it? Cop26 is doomed, and the hollow promise of ‘net zero’ is to blame | Yanis Varoufakis


----------



## Flynnwood (10 Nov 2021)

Jameshow said:


> Id never thought if that ....!
> 
> Probably why I'm not a billionaire!?



A Million seconds is 11 days. 
A Billion seconds is 33 years.
A Trillion seconds is 32,000 years (depending if there are leap years involved).


----------



## D_W (10 Nov 2021)

transatlantic said:


> Another annoyance I have is with the sudden realisation people have had with non recyclable plastics. Surely, ... surely!!! the moment they were invented, the question of how we would deal with the waste has to have arisen? it's not hindsight ... its common sense.



I think we need to be a little bit more realistic about what the real problem is with plastics. In the US, about 1 unit out of 7 of recyclable plastics finds a taker. That means the other 6 go to the dump. All the while the recycling farce makes people believe that they are buying these plastics and then they're just getting put back into the system when they're done. The waste collectors and recycling centers like it because they get paid to handle the stuff, and it's an obligatory charge for us (in our garbage). 

Realistically, what should we do, worry about some units of non-recyclable? There shouldn't be most of it in the first place. Really - bottled water? It's trash, but not the right kind - it's filth - complete waste. Why does anyone who is not standing next to a well full of parasites need to drink water out of a bottle? Did they have bottled water on the tables at this event? I'll bet they did. 

This is yet another instance where thrift beats virtue signaling. Why pay for water in the first place when it costs $10 for a charcoal filter that will filter 300 gallons from the utility leaving nothing to throw away?


----------



## D_W (10 Nov 2021)

Displacement at the Katowice Climate Change Conference in December 2018 (COP 24)


In 2015, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) was mandated by the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to create a Task




disasterdisplacement.org





of course - stylish plastic water bottles on the table. I wonder what % get recycled - and I don't mean go to the recycling center, but that actually returned into the consumer goods market. 

In the US, it's cheaper to get blanks from virgin plastics than it is to get secondary market plastics and make bottles. It's a farce. 

We never used that stuff when I was a kid - I think we had the same cups for the last 14 years of my pre-college life. And there was nothing "eco" about my parents. We burned our paper instead of sending it to the dump, recycled the steel and aluminum and had not much garbage left over.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Who are these scientists and where can we read them?
> There's Piers Corbyn. Is that it then?  Piers Corbyn disrupts climate debate featuring brother Jeremy
> He's also anti vaccination, Covid sceptic and voted for brexit!
> Being several sandwiches short of a picnic seems to be par for the course!!


Any more CC sceptical scientists? Just Bellamy and Corbyn? Is that it then? Nigel Lawson doesn't count he's not a scientist.

Google doesn't help much it just shows paid lobbyists (or nutters):









Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers


A colorful cast of characters has made a living out of denying the science of climate change. These so-called “experts” often start out their statements with “I’m not a climate scientist, but…” before launching into a series of carefully rehearsed talking points meant to confuse the public on...




www.beforetheflood.com













Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.



skepticalscience.com


----------



## John Brown (11 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> I think we need to be a little bit more realistic about what the real problem is with plastics. In the US, about 1 unit out of 7 of recyclable plastics finds a taker. That means the other 6 go to the dump. All the while the recycling farce makes people believe that they are buying these plastics and then they're just getting put back into the system when they're done. The waste collectors and recycling centers like it because they get paid to handle the stuff, and it's an obligatory charge for us (in our garbage).
> 
> Realistically, what should we do, worry about some units of non-recyclable? There shouldn't be most of it in the first place. Really - bottled water? It's trash, but not the right kind - it's filth - complete waste. Why does anyone who is not standing next to a well full of parasites need to drink water out of a bottle? Did they have bottled water on the tables at this event? I'll bet they did.
> 
> This is yet another instance where thrift beats virtue signaling. Why pay for water in the first place when it costs $10 for a charcoal filter that will filter 300 gallons from the utility leaving nothing to throw away?


We are lucky in that our tap water is potable. I know a lot of people buy bottled, but it is no better in most cases, sometimes worse.


----------



## J-G (11 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> We are lucky in that our tap water is potable. I know a lot of people buy bottled, but it is no better in most cases, sometimes worse.


Not only 'not better' - it is apparently positively worse. I understand that there is little or no bottled water which would be allowed to be provided to our taps - Perrier has (apparently) 7 times too much salt, and another brand 50 times too much Uranium!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Nov 2021)

The spoof Perrier advert in Private Eye 20 years or so ago - carcin eau genic.


----------



## John Brown (11 Nov 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The spoof Perrier advert in Private Eye 20 years or so ago - carcin eau genic.


And yet, amazingly, they shrugged it off, apparently with little damage to their popularity.
I was likewise amazed at how either Coke or Pepsi (I can't remember which)recovered from the DasaniGate.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Nov 2021)

I can buy the proposition that humanity is changing the climate and the environment:

we are burning as fossil fuels in the space of a few hundred years that which took a few hundred *million *years to lay down
we are changing the surface of the planet through mining and building roads, cities, cutting down trees, polluting rivers and oceans etc etc.
These habits will make planet earth a far less pleasant place for human survival. 

Climate models are hugely complex with multiple feedback loops which are very sensitive to embedded assumptions - eg: the interaction between the natural carbon cycle which generates about 95% of CO2 vs human activity 5%. 

Weather (rain, wind, cloud cover etc) is driven by heat all of which increase due to greenhouse gases. Increased precipitation is apparently not falling as snow and thus glaciers retreat, increased cloud cover is not reflecting more sunlight, desertification is increasing despite more rainfall. Some of this is counter-intuitive (but not necessarily wrong).

Output is unremittingly negative with no attention to positive aspects of climate change - eg: northern Canada and Russia become more fertile, fish can swim to populate new breeding grounds as oceans warm, more rainfall may be welcome in many places, agricultural practice and crops can evolve to suit changed growing conditions etc etc.

The balance of impacts may still be negative - but more balanced reporting and analysis may encourage greater acceptance of changes needed. Consistently skewed output promotes denial, not rational debate.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I can buy the proposition that humanity is changing the climate and the environment:
> 
> we are burning as fossil fuels in the space of a few hundred years that which took a few hundred *million *years to lay down
> we are changing the surface of the planet through mining and building roads, cities, cutting down trees, polluting rivers and oceans etc etc.
> ...


I think "the science" knows this better than anybody!


> Weather (rain, wind, cloud cover etc) is driven by heat all of which increase due to greenhouse gases. Increased precipitation is apparently not falling as snow and thus glaciers retreat, increased cloud cover is not reflecting more sunlight, desertification is increasing despite more rainfall. Some of this is counter-intuitive (but not necessarily wrong).


Desertification is increasing due to decreasing rainfall - or intermittent rainfall with desertification followed by flash floods and rapid run off


> Output is unremittingly negative with no attention to positive aspects of climate change - eg: northern Canada and Russia become more fertile, fish can swim to populate new breeding grounds as oceans warm, more rainfall may be welcome in many places, agricultural practice and crops can evolve to suit changed growing conditions etc etc.
> 
> The balance of impacts may still be negative - but more balanced reporting and analysis may encourage greater acceptance of changes needed. Consistently skewed output promotes denial, not rational debate.


I don't think there is skewed output. There is even a reluctance to look at worst case scenarios. You may not like what you are hearing but that doesn't mean it's skewed. Scepticism and reluctance to look at the facts have slowed the popular debate down and severely delayed action.
Positive changes sound good - but as change progresses already there are negative change elsewhere. More to the point - there's no knowing where change may stop - it may be brilliant for migratory fish but disastrous for us.
We need to listen to the science and not second guess.


----------



## D_W (11 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> We are lucky in that our tap water is potable. I know a lot of people buy bottled, but it is no better in most cases, sometimes worse.



Same here - tap water is potable and heavily regulated/tested. The market has done a good job of convincing people that it's "more convenient" to have plastic bottled water and that the taste of tap water is somehow bad (given the dispensing points in most houses are behind charcoal filtration, that's nonsense). 

But I guess my question in the plastics is whether or not the UK and continental europe do a better job actually recycling them. In the US, when people get upset about nonrecyclable plastic, my first two questions are:
* why do you accept goods that shouldn't be plastic in the first place, especially if they're to be discarded
* do you know if much of your recycled plastic is being recycled? 

If the answer to the second bullet point is "1/7th is being recycled and the rest goes to the dump", there's a bigger problem than a portion of the plastics being nonrecyclable. 

I just checked our stats in the US to make sure that was accurate. The EPA says 2018 - 35MM tons of plastics created, 27MM tons of plastics disposed of in landfills. Here's the bogus part of that number reading further 3mm tons of the 8 above were recycled. 5.6MM tons were considered "recycled" because they were "combusted with energy harvested from the combustion". 

Abysmal. 

(I looked up what happens in the UK - apparently the government likes to state that 55% of plastic is collected but "45% is still thrown in landfills" so collection needs to be improved. 

10% of the plastics sold in the UK actually get recycled, and the unconsumed sorted plastics get burned or sent to another country to dispose of. 

This is part of the farce. Claiming a "recycling rate" based on collection, doing nothing with the collection and then admonishing the people who throw plastic away as if there was a consumer for it. It shouldn't be used in the first place.


----------



## D_W (11 Nov 2021)

Plastic Recycling


Nearly all types of plastics can be recycled, however the extent to which they are recycled depends upon technical, economic and logistic factors. As a...




www.bpf.co.uk





Pages like this (and the government sponsored recycling pages) do zero to inform you regarding how much of the sorted material is being recycled. Greenpeace says the actual rate for the UK is 10%. 

I wonder how many people would cut back on plastic use if they knew most of it was getting burned, put in a landfill or sent to another country (where they'll pile it up or burn it).

Old cars come to mind to me. There's a creek here with an old car in the bottom of it. I fish the creek. The car is so old that it's rusted to pretty much the engine block and a couple of old tire fragments and a plastic wire harness. The rest of it oxidized and was reclaimed by nature (I'm guessing any glass bits broke and are buried in the silt or have been sanded smooth into harmless bits by now. )

What will happen with the car that I'm driving that's got 100s of pounds of plastics and plastic foam in it? It won't be reclaimed so quickly.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2021)

One answer to the plastic problem is to use it to fill old mines/quarries and "sequester" the carbon. Start laying up for a new "carboniferous" era.
Not a popular idea as it's too low tech!


----------



## D_W (11 Nov 2021)

Plus, you're burying garbage. 

I'm more than willing to pay an extra penny for a blank if there is a requirement that 90% of all recyclable material must be used. 

the idea that 10% is recycled (and probably some percentage of that in the US is incinerated at a generation plant and considered "recycled" by doing that) is farce. 

It shouldn't be used and most people have no clue that their diligent recycling is likely wasting more in truck/energy costs for a second collection truck (none of this even accounts for making separate streams, handling them, etc, when they're all low density but the equipment handling them is heavy and consumes a lot of energy). 

We had a neighborhood picnic on halloween - there was no recycling bin at the park, and everyone threw their garbage in the cans. My mrs. volunteers for everything, so we were cleaning up. One of the neighborhood folks who has "climate now!!" signs all over their yard was picking all of the plastic bottles out of the trash. I said to her "I wouldn't bother with the plastics, just pull the aluminum - the plastic is going to the dump, anyway - there's no consumer for the recycled plastic beyond the first seventh that we discard". 

I don't think she believed me. 

It's always been viable to collect aluminum - people collected and turned in the cans here long before there were formal recycling programs. I remember as a kid, dropping off our cans for the year at the metals center down the road, along with the odd house part here or there that had been replaced (like screen door frames, etc).


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> Plus, you're burying garbage.
> .......


Burying high carbon garbage in a way which does not allow it to decay, is sequestering carbon. Would also have to be replacing plastic with sustainable alternatives, but this was never a problem in the past. Modern plastic products were virtually unknown when I was a kid.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> And yet, amazingly, they shrugged it off, apparently with little damage to their popularity.
> I was likewise amazed at how either Coke or Pepsi (I can't remember which)recovered from the DasaniGate.




Coca Cola.


----------



## D_W (11 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Burying high carbon garbage in a way which does not allow it to decay, is sequestering carbon. Would also have to be replacing plastic with sustainable alternatives, but this was never a problem in the past. Modern plastic products were virtually unknown when I was a kid.



How complicated is it to get filtered water out of a tap? Something like milk is a little bit different where the dairy had a bottling setup and would sterilize the bottles and then deliver them. 

Our recycler has now requested that we no longer give them glass. We used to have a huge bottle making plant in the city where I live, but it's no longer there, so there is no customer for glass. And the recycler, who is bound by contract to take it, has requested we not put it in, anyway, as they say that when it breaks, all of the other mixed recycling just gets automatically baled and sent to the dump instead. 

the whole recycling thing is a farce. There are customers for steel and aluminum and there always were. Those were set aside before recycling because people could get paid for them. I don't remember getting too much else in plastic as a kid other than milk. 

FTR, I don't buy bottled drinks other than brandy once every couple of months (call me a lightweight if you want) - it still irks me to throw away a brandy bottle every month or two. The reason I don't buy bottled drinks is two-fold - one, it's a waste of money, and two, it bothers me that the plastic ends up going to the dump and people think it's getting recycled. I remember as a kid, we burned our paper trash, recycled aluminum, steel and glass (there was a "mission" down the road that would take all of it- sometimes, we'd haul the metal bits a mile the other way as the aluminum would yield a few bucks). The remaining bits would go to the dump. I also remember being admonished that "if you burn plastics, it will ruin the environment". 

I doubt the amount of carbon you're talking about sequestering amounts to anything in the grand scheme. Save the mines for something more valuable.


----------



## transatlantic (11 Nov 2021)

I've said it before. Plastics should not have even entered production until we had a solution for how to deal with the waste.

If not for long lasting products (which is a joke by todays standards), but most certainly for products that are bought and thrown away daily (food wrapping etc).

It's like the whole microbeads issue. How an earth did that get as far as it did? the companies must have known the issues, but I suspect profit came first and they took a gamble on it. It's infuritating.


----------



## Spectric (11 Nov 2021)

I can remember someone talking about some old quarries in Derbyshire that were landfilled with old tyres in the sixties and they were now going to have to remove them because of water pollution, so what may seem like a good idea at the time can have consequences for the next generations.


----------



## DrPhill (11 Nov 2021)

Up until a couple of years ago I used bottled water - because I like the fizzy stuff. Finally I decided that my preferences did not justify the plastic waste and started buying fizzy water in bottles. Then I figured that the transport of water and glass was too expensive for environment. I miss fizzy water, and it is my drink of choice at pubs and restaurants......

I *would* bother with every bit of plastic - it might not be recycled but if it is burnt then at least it wont be choking turtles or whatever. 

I do agree that some of the greenwash is nauseous though. I have come across "this packaging is recyclable where facilities exist". Oh well that is alright then. Which planet do I send it to?
I do like the idea of burying plastic - it came from under the ground so I see no problem putting it back. It may break down eventually, but perhaps slower than above ground, and it wont be choking turtles. Of course there will be those that use this as justification for digging a new coal mine - think of all the plastic we can bury.

Unfortunately most of the 'solutions' are really just tackling the symptoms of the real problem. The human species overall is too greedy and too destructive in satisfying its greed. (Yes, I know its mostly due to a very small minority of super-consumers but that takes us too near politics, and I like this thread).


----------



## Terry - Somerset (11 Nov 2021)

Does Somerset win the prize for the most recycling miles - a sort of offset for reduced food miles:

paper sent ~225 miles to Kings Lynn
glass - 220 miles to Nottingley, West Yorkshire
cardboard and cartons - 100-200 miles to Kent or West Midlands
steel - 70 miles to South Wales
other metals - aluminium - 120-200 miles Warrington or the Midlands 
plastics - 200 miles to Manchester
Creates the illusion of green policies whilst burning diesel driving around the motorway network in large diesels. Or does the UK simply have an inadequate recycling infrastructure.

Collecting it seems easy compared to actually doing something environmentally sound.


----------



## D_W (11 Nov 2021)

DrPhill said:


> I *would* bother with every bit of plastic - it might not be recycled but if it is burnt then at least it wont be choking turtles or whatever.



I'm the complainer here, but I still put all of the plastic in the recycle bin. *all* of it. But when someone doesn't or no can is available, I don't fret it. If you look at my statistics, the chance that any excess that you provide gets burned is basically zero. There's already a consumer for a certain amount of burned material (and it probably takes grants to make it worth handling the plastics and then burning them as they likely aren't energy dense enough to beat a source even like wind or solar). So what you pain to pick up either gets landfilled or shipped to another country where it's most likely landfilled, or maybe burned with no control on emissions. 

Most plastics _will_ degrade over several hundred years, so it's not automatically better to burn it. there are also enzymes that will eat certain plastics, and in some cases, some insects (though it'd be a real stretch to dream that they'll ever be big enough in quantity to eat a large amount). 

I don't have a great answer other than not to use it. 

and like the post above mentioned, I've gone through times where fizzy water is really a preference (but we get it in cans now, they'll be re-used at least since aluminum always has residual value) - but it takes not more than a couple of days to wean off of it and go to the filtered outlet on the fridge.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Nov 2021)

I read an article by a scientist who said (and admitted he'd get shot down in flames for saying it) that ALL plastic should incinerated to fuel purpose built power plants, rather than recycled. He reckoned that as half of all plastic collected went for either incineration or to landfill anyway (for one reason or another) and the transportation, sorting, reprocessing of the rest is so energy consuming that it makes more sense


----------



## DrPhill (11 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> I'm the complainer here, but I still put all of the plastic in the recycle bin. *all* of it. But when someone doesn't or no can is available, I don't fret it. If you look at my statistics, the chance that any excess that you provide gets burned is basically zero.


For sure, and I was not intending to criticise you. However landfill/incinerate/recycle all take it out of random environment maybe saving turtles. Unless the plastic decomposes faster or more obnoxiously in the landfill, it is producing no more pollutant than if it were strangling turtles. A big pile of plastic decomposing will produce a higher concentration of pollutants with more noticeable adverse side effects though.
But the answer is to stop using them for everything.
I am trying to reduce my dependency on plastic, but it is a difficult challenge. For some problems it is an excellent engineering solution. For example I use leather footwear, but plastic soles seem way better than leather ones.


----------



## D_W (11 Nov 2021)

You and I are in the same boat - it's not really an environmentalist consideration for me. I don't much care about global warming, it's not something I can affect further reasonably than what I already do, but things of ease that are inconsiderate....

...for example, for me to continue to use plastic bottles for drinks when they are both more expensive and more misleading for everyone (I can get fined for not putting plastic bottles in my recycling bin, but there is no recourse if the contracted recycling center finds no buyer for any and throws them in the garbage)....that's a matter of being inconsiderate. 

In the US, they won't strangle turtles, and unless something has changed, they won't find their way to birds (most of the stuff in the ocean was cast off not by a barge off of new jersey, but by countries that print labels in other languages). The ease things strikes me, though. It is easy for me to not use plastic bottles for everything other than milk. Is it always easier to stop for a second with the kids and fill bottles when we're in a rush to go somewhere? No. But it's not that much harder. Just as it's not hard to live relatively close to work and take vacations that don't require more than a moderate drive. 

Not sure where excess plastics in England go. Greenpeace makes it sound like those sent to recycling but not recycled can end up being shipped to other countries. That's not cool. If it's done with US plastics, same. It's being lazy and inconsiderate. 

People at the point of use and purchase should be aware of how little of their plastics are actually returned to service as plastic again later. the lobbying agencies for "recycling" are operating at best on idealism when they ignore reality and encourage people to continue use and recycling.


----------



## DrPhill (11 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> People at the point of use and purchase should be aware of how little of their plastics are actually returned to service as plastic again later. the lobbying agencies for "recycling" are operating at best on idealism when they ignore reality and encourage people to continue use and recycling.


That could seem to be a deception - people who believe that the problem is being addressed are less likely to modify their behaviour or call for change.
How much of the deception is cynically planned for that purpose? I have no idea....


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2021)

DrPhill said:


> ......
> I do like the idea of burying plastic - it came from under the ground so I see no problem putting it back. It may break down eventually, but perhaps slower than above ground, and it wont be choking turtles. Of course there will be those that use this as justification for digging a new coal mine - think of all the plastic we can bury.
> ......


No need to dig new holes we could just backfill the old ones. I live about half a mile from this hole - typical of many in Derbyshire. 
I envision it being carefully and scientifically filled with plastic and other sorts of high carbon waste - even grow timber to drop in. Alternating with flooding and careful cultivation of peat bog in layers to stabilise it, until it reaches a height to be landscaped back to how it was.
It would hold millions of tons and be the start of the post anthropocene neo-carboniferous era!


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2021)

We would also plant fast-growing carbon-capturing trees to be felled and dropped int'ole at the most appropriate stage of growth.




__





10 Carbon-Storing Trees and How to Plant Them


Solutions for Sustainable Living




learn.eartheasy.com




Deep vertical mine shafts could be reserved for 'gravity battery' purposes. Gravity battery - Wikipedia


----------



## TRITON (12 Nov 2021)

I burn plastic bags, it makes them last longer when buried in the garden.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

Lonsdale73 said:


> ........... I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.





Trainee neophyte said:


> ....There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet. I will leave you to research on your own, if you want to. Entirely up to you.


Could do with some help on this.
So far I've only managed to dig up Bellamy and P Corbyn. Not very convincing.
Other than that there seem to be just paid lobbyists and fruitcakes. Must be more to it than that? 

Edited - got my Patrick Moores mixed up. The well known astronomer was innocent of climate change scepticism as far as I know.
The other one was head of Greenpeace and probably a paid lobbyist and dodgy dealer. Possibly the most influential sceptic in recent years Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia








Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Nov 2021)

There is always a scientific fringe with more radical theories to add to a debate.

Often they are scientists who have yet to, or are unlikely to ever, achieve fame and glory. They want their chance in the spotlight. There are those once in the public spotlight whose star has now faded, and desperately want to return (a bit llike "D" list celebrity masterchef etc).

Their one hope is that they will challenge the consensus and with the benefit of hindsight later be proven right. They dream of Nobel prizes, public acclaim, etc which they are unlikely to achieve through intellect alone.


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There is always a scientific fringe with more radical theories to add to a debate.
> 
> Often they are scientists who have yet to, or are unlikely to ever, achieve fame and glory. They want their chance in the spotlight. There are those once in the public spotlight whose star has now faded, and desperately want to return (a bit llike "D" list celebrity masterchef etc).
> 
> Their one hope is that they will challenge the consensus and with the benefit of hindsight later be proven right. They dream of Nobel prizes, public acclaim, etc which they are unlikely to achieve through intellect alone.



I think it probably goes deeper than that, but both the consensus and objector groups are a study in human nature. 

For example, you can end up with someone switching from consensus to fringe because they have a serious legitimate question and are told to keep it to themselves for various reasons. 

Consider the plastic discussion on here - there's an enormous disconnect between the ideal and practice and consensus will generally be "well, it's no big deal, it's the way we need to go", but with no analysis of whether or not there's actually a benefit from recycling beyond what was already recycled due to economic interest (copper, aluminum, bulk steel - like car bits, etc). Rubber is recycled here in large volume (old tires) as it's easier to find a use for shredded tires or tires as generation fuel than it is just to discard them "in a big pile". 

But the odds debate (I'm a big fan of odds based on professional and life experience - if you want to have a likely outcome, you have to deal with what the odds are. Spending life choosing a low-odds outcome time and again in every instance requires detaching yourself from measuring outcomes and comparing them to pre-outcome assertions.)

Not debating there aren't glory seekers - in the US, you see them not just in scientists, but MDs - often MDs who just want more money, who try to skirt the rules and assert things that aren't provable or are shown by data to actually be false. 

But I think there's a cohort of folks who don't like the tendency of consensus builders to give one-sided speech and squash anyone who brings up reasonable deficiencies in the current consensus that should be addressed. Either side likes to paint the other with a wide brush ("they just go along with the establishment because it pays more and its easier, so they don't care about ____", or "anyone who doesn't go along with the consensus or who brings up any objection is a crackpot, just like _____".


----------



## Droogs (12 Nov 2021)

DrPhill said:


> Up until a couple of years ago I used bottled water - because I like the fizzy stuff. Finally I decided that my preferences did not justify the plastic waste and started buying fizzy water in bottles. Then I figured that the transport of water and glass was too expensive for environment. I miss fizzy water, and it is my drink of choice at pubs and restaurants......



Get a SodaStream and fizz your own. Use your empty pop bottles to put it in and keep it in the fridge. *DO NOT* however try to fizz milk, unless you want a new kitchen. I experimented with this as a kid (the SodaStream exploded) and the resulting residual smell even after everything was washed down made my parents totally redo the kitchen. 
I suppose up here we are very lucky, in that we probably naturally have the best council juice from the tap in Europe. The Swiss have some good water but it is a little bit hard and to me has a bit of a tang in the aftertaste. Water in England to me tastes rank from the tap and in France & Germany has a mettalic tang.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

As someone with a degree in Geology/Geophysics, obviously a subject that appeals to me, I have to say that while there is some truth regarding climate change, there is also a lot of bull-whotsit thrown about by these so called CC experts but the problem is that any scientist/academic who challenges some of the ludicrous and alarmist claims is immediately censored and marginalised by the CC extremists and those 'academic scientists' who rely upon CC grants proving that it exists to keep them in the life in which they are accustomed.

There is a whole industry built up around GW as it was first named. They don't want the data they use to be questioned or challenged and will deliberately leave out facts that would bring into question their hypothesis and modelling.

Anyone who followed Mann's questionable 'Hockey Stick' presentation of the so called facts will know to what I'm referring.

Of course GW or whatever they call it these days, exists. We're in an interglacial period and it's only just over 8000 years since the North Sea first formed from melt waters as the last of the ice advance finally retreated. Sea levels and temperatures have never been stable. 

Alarmists say the sea is rising at one or two cms per year. Just imagine how the people of that time around 8300 years ago who lived on the then landmass that lies between what is now the UK and the continental Europe must have felt when the sea to the North gradually transgressed southward and they saw their lands and villages slowly disappearing before their very eyes as the waters rose. Now that was what GW can really do.
While the effects of GW are no doubt catastrophic for some, just imagine how such as the Northern Hemisphere would be affected if the ice began to advance once again which it could do in the space of a lifetime and given that we are in an interglacial period, probably the only thing standing in the way of a return of the ice at the moment is the temperature increases attributed to human-kind.

If we were to see ice advancing as it did at the beginning of the last ice age, then many parts of Northern Europe and the likes would be totally uninhabitable with quite possibly many hundreds of millions being displaced which would no doubt result in famine and wars so, the CC bods need to be careful for what they wish for as the alternative could be far worse.


----------



## DrPhill (12 Nov 2021)

Did you follow this to the bottom?


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> ........
> 
> There is a whole industry built up around GW as it was first named. They don't want the data they use to be questioned or challenged and will deliberately leave out facts that would bring into question their hypothesis and modelling.
> ......


They are questioning and challenging the data at every stage. That is what science is about.
The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief if you could prove them wrong. There could be Nobel prizes in it! You should get together with Trainee neophyte and Lonsdale73?
Does make me laugh the way people keep popping up and accusing 99% of the world's expertise of lying, cheating and making money out of it, but can't provide an iota of evidence


ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> They are questioning and challenging the data at every stage. That is what science is about.
> The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief if you could prove them wrong. There could be Nobel prizes in it! You should get together with Trainee neophyte and Lonsdale73?
> Does make me laugh the way people keep popping up and accusing 99% of the world's expertise of lying, cheating and making money out of it, but can't provide an iota of evidence
> 
> ...



Well if that is your opinion I'll bow to your superior knowledge, you clearly have more information than I have.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Well if that is your opinion I'll bow to your superior knowledge!


Do you think the scientific world should bow to your superior knowledge?
It's the opinion of 99% of the scientists on the case. The crafty bas terds have tricked me into believing them and will be laughing all the way to the bank!
M Mann and the Hocky Stick here, hope that helps. Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Well if that is your opinion I'll bow to your superior knowledge, you clearly have more information than I have.


I think this is where these 'discussions' go wrong. Knowing a bit more about something than someone else on a woodworking forum means nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. The best bet of the deniers is to come up with a really good conspiracy theory - 'follow the money' etc doesn't cut it, you'll need to try harder. Meanwhile, the rest of us numpties will carrying on believing the overwhelming scientific consensus because, well, in the absence of significant evidence to call that into question, to do otherwise is just daft.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Do you think the scientific world should bow to your superior knowledge?
> It's the opinion of 99% of the scientists on the case. The crafty bas terds have tricked me into believing them and will be laughing all the way to the bank!
> M Mann and the Hocky Stick here, hope that helps. Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message



You might want to check out the University of East Anglia emails of Mann et al regarding about leaving out the Little Ice age etc as it wouldn't fit with their claims.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> I think this is where these 'discussions' go wrong. Knowing a bit more about something than someone else on a woodworking forum means nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. The best bet of the deniers is to come up with a really good conspiracy theory - 'follow the money' etc doesn't cut it, you'll need to try harder. Meanwhile, the rest of us numpties will carrying on believing the overwhelming scientific consensus because, well, in the absence of significant evidence to call that into question, to do otherwise is just daft.



I'm not a denier. I studied Geology/Geophysics at university and have closely followed the debates and studied the available data over the past 32 years and I think that at least qualifies me to some extent to legitimately question many questionable claims which I believe are wrong or misleading.

That is entirely different to being a denier!


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

Your argument seems to be that climate change is happening, but that it's natural and not man-made? In which case, you're a man-made climate change denier? Just looking at the tone of your dismissal of the scientists in question (those whose work is informing the ambitions of COP 26) and your attention to long-term natural shifts in climate in contrast to that. Very happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
My understanding of Mann et al is that his emails were hacked and deliberately edited to misrepresent what he was writing.


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

Which of you guys thinks you're going to get somewhere arguing about climate change? Are you gearing up to go to your wife tonight and tell her everything that she says to you that's unfair and you can prove it? Let me know how that turns out.


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> Which of you guys thinks you're going to get somewhere arguing about climate change? Are you gearing up to go to your wife tonight and tell her everything that she says to you that's unfair and you can prove it? Let me know how that turns out.


No idea what you've written there DW, but my hope is that I'll understand things in the thread better by asking questions and occasionally writing what I think.


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

I'm just joshing (not sure if that's an american term). I've apparently become someone for jacob to persuade because I think the earth is warming and if I had to bet at lloyds, I'd have to say at least some significant part of it is caused by carbon (and possibly methane, or any number of other things). 

But it's not something I worry about when I wake up or go to bed, and it's often used as a way to try to cast aside immediate issues (and then, as I mentioned with all of the plastics stuff, nobody seems to really want to solve it. If we get climate action that's like plastics recycling, we might as well just forget it - costly with no material benefit, but it is or at least was a big virtue signal....recycling itself got its push before every tom, dick and cora was on the internet (that's my way of saying even the old people are on now, and I'm getting into becoming one of them), so it escaped any reasonable review for a while. 

But further on this, what I think doesn't really matter that much. I've not seen anyone change their mind about climate stuff, and I've learned the hard way that talking to the mrs. about mapping outcomes vs. criticism....well, you might as well fart in church and ask for praise for it, instead. The odds of the latter are more in favor.


----------



## Spectric (12 Nov 2021)

Heres a better suggestion, Copout26 is nearing it's end and despite all the huge fanfare during the leadup it has become a damp squid and no solid outcome apart from some draft proposal that provides plenty of get out clauses so can be ignored. We are little people that cannot make the changes needed and the people who can are of the older generation who don't want to rock the boat and make any impact on lifestyles so are just blagging there way forward. So at least we can just carry on and enjoy wood butchery until we either lapse or need to head to the high ground, but could also build an ark if requested.


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

These conventions don't involve problem solvers. They involve problem users - the kinds of people who overrule problem solvers and call them simpletons for "not understanding how nuanced politics are". 

_"you'd never get elected". _

"well sir, you made an error thinking that it's something I'd attempt".


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> *Your argument seems to be that climate change is happening, but that it's natural and not man-made?* In which case, you're a man-made climate change denier? Just looking at the tone of your dismissal of the scientists in question (those whose work is informing the ambitions of COP 26) and your attention to long-term natural shifts in climate in contrast to that. Very happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood.
> My understanding of Mann et al is that his emails were hacked and deliberately edited to misrepresent what he was writing.



Wrong!


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> You might want to check out the University of East Anglia emails of Mann et al regarding about leaving out the Little Ice age etc as it wouldn't fit with their claims.


You are about 12 years behind.
You might want to see the film The Trick (TV Movie 2021) - IMDb or just google the history 'Climategate' - FactCheck.org 




__





Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




Ignorance is no excuse!
Hope that helps.
PS are you also anti vaccination, covid sceptic and pro brexit? It's a syndrome. askin for a friend


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> You are about 12 years behind. You might want to see the film The Trick (TV Movie 2021) - IMDb or just google the history 'Climategate' - FactCheck.org. Ignorance is no excuse!
> Hope that helps.



Jacob, we still haven't heard about your personal commitment to limit carbon emissions. Recall my comments previously - I don't poll people I know on climate issues because it's not something on my radar, but would bet I could find a gaggle of folks who don't believe that it's even occurring yet still have a very low carbon footprint. 

I see factcheck.org is now allowing journalists to conflict with John Campbell's discussion that the pfizer pill and ivermectin have some similarities (they are protease inhibitors). More or less in the situation now where "fact checking" is done by journalists trying to run around and collect opinions to see if they can overrule more qualified individuals. 



Hilarious - scientific fact checks done by "journalists" including one with a BA in Journalism. And a communications professor.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> Jacob, we still haven't heard about your personal commitment to limit carbon emissions. Recall my comments previously - I don't poll people I know on climate issues because it's not something on my radar, but would bet I could find a gaggle of folks who don't believe that it's even occurring yet still have a very low carbon footprint.


Er - so what?
It would make no difference to anything if I personally was driving around in a Humvee and taking trips to the moon, or living naked in a cave eating insects. My position is very much in between these. Hope that helps.
PS Dr John Campbell is a PHD not a medical doctor, if his bio is to be believed. 
He may be a nutter - there are signs, most conspicuously calling himself "Doctor", which he is entitled to do but most PHDs would not, unless it was particularly relevant. 
In heath care settings PhDs avoid using the term “doctor” so as not to confuse the issue.
But I have no opinion either way.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> You are about 12 years behind.
> You might want to see the film The Trick (TV Movie 2021) - IMDb or just google the history 'Climategate' - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> ...



LOL. Someone quoting wikipedia says it all. 
It's the resource for the hard of thinking.

Anyway, I've given you my credentials and background history on the subject of GW, I'm just waiting for you to show us yours credentials.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> LOL. Someone quoting wikipedia says it all.
> It's the resource for the hard of thinking.
> 
> Anyway, I've given you my credentials and background history on the subject of GW, I'm just waiting for you to show us yours credentials.


We are all waiting for you to show us the faults in the consensus CC argument, as you are obviously an expert. Where did they get it wrong and what really will happen, in fact, not opinion?


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> We are all waiting for you to show us the faults in the consensus CC argument, as you are obviously an expert. Where did they get it wrong and what really will happen, in fact, not opinion?



I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. You it seems are the real expert here so I'll bow to your expert knowledge which you obviously have.


----------



## John Brown (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. You it seems are the real expert here so I'll bow to your expert knowledge which you obviously have.


That sounds like a roundabout way of conceding that you are unable to pinpoint the errors in the 99% concensus.


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Er - so what?
> It would make no difference to anything if I personally was driving around in a Humvee and taking trips to the moon, or living naked in a cave eating insects. My position is very much in between these. Hope that helps.
> PS Dr John Campbell is a PHD not a medical doctor, if his bio is to be believed.
> He may be a nutter - there are signs, most conspicuously calling himself "Doctor", which he is entitled to do but most PHDs would not, unless it was particularly relevant.
> ...



sure, no opinion. You don't like that he exposed factcheck.org as unreliable by literally proving what they assert isn't factually true and then noting that they have journalists supposedly "fact checking" people with phDs who have literally worked in medicine. 

Generally, anyone who is a doctor here will have MD. in healthcare, if someone else has a doctorate, they will not be called doctor in the clinic but will be referred to as a "doctor" or "with a doctorate" outside of a clinic. I've never seen him call himself a medical doctor. 

The fact that you can't actually understand what he's saying and you think you just gave a response that has any legitimacy tells me that I need to recalibrate my expectations. Not only does he actually have qualifications, he went so far as to prove why in his prior video and then discuss it again. 

If I were you, I would actually make an attempt to understand scientific literature rather than telling people "factcheck.org bro!"

It's farce. They are probably right more than they're wrong but the fact that they'd allow journalists to determine what's fact or not in anything other than journalism is something that wouldn't hold up anywhere. Especially when there is no explanation of "what's not true" and "what really is.".


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. ...


Well tell us why the 99% of climate scientists are wrong. We are all agog!
What will really happen over the next few years? You should know (apparently  )


----------



## D_W (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Well tell us why the 99% of climate scientists are wrong. We are all agog!
> What will really happen over the next few years? You should know (apparently  )



The temperatures will go up a fraction, the sea level will rise a fraction, you will post 9000 posts about it, and you will tell us that fact checkers for medical information don't need to be more than journalists and communications professors - as long as they agree with what you want to see. 

I think that's pretty accurate. I'll ignore the rest of your posts as the response of "who cares" that journalists would literally mislead the public under a site called "factcheck" and you couldn't follow the substance is really ....i mean really bizarre. 

I have a degree in mathematics and some profession exposure to creating and using models (though it's not my day to day work). 

I just wonder why I ever wasted my time responding to any of your posts given that I thought you might have grasped some of what you constantly cut and paste (I never assumed that it would be with much certainty, but even people who sand windowframes can do things like write code in their spare time and get good at it vs. just being nutty and obsessed) but I'm not certain that you know it beyond cutting and pasting and the needle leans the other way. As much as you want everyone to think you're a credible voice, the only thing you can do is deflect.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> That sounds like a roundabout way of conceding that you are unable to pinpoint the errors in the 99% concensus.


It would do to someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about and accepts what they are told without question.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Well tell us why the 99% of climate scientists are wrong. We are all agog!
> What will really happen over the next few years? You should know (apparently  )



Like I've said already, it's pointless debating with someone who throws facts from wikipedia as the answer. Anyone with half a brain would know that wikipedia is the last place to look for a factual and creditable answer where the subject is so emotive. The information contained in wiki can be edited by ANYONE and therefore is open to bias. 
Heck even I could go onto Joe Biden's wikipedia page and say he's a really first rate president on top of his job. It wouldn't mean it was an accurate description.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> It would do to someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about and accepts what they are told without question.


We are questioning! 
We want you, the highly qualified team of experts gathered here (and Trainee neophyte), to tell us why 99% of scientists are getting it all wrong!
There are Nobel prizes to be won - come on get your act together! Could be a joint Nobel prize under the aegis of UK workshop?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Could do with some help on this.
> So far I've only managed to dig up Bellamy and P Corbyn. Not very convincing.
> Other than that there seem to be just paid lobbyists and fruitcakes. Must be more to it than that?
> 
> ...



There's no point discussing this with you, because you don't do discussion. Your incandescent righteous belief in the Catastrophic doomsday cult keeps you safe and secure from the evils of reality - the true knowledge is an incontrovertible god-given truth, and anyone who denies it must be brought down immediately.

Unbeliever! {Insert Monty Python clip of your choice}

The worry is that, being a good lefty, you are possibly enthusiastic to kill large numbers of people in order to save them. Your Varoufakis article (I'm quite fond of Varoufakis, by the way) suggested that all coal plants be closed immediately, and all new oil and gas exploration stops immediately. I immediately thought of the holodomor, the great leap forward, and any number of other diverse programs of communist-inspired genocides - all of which were perpetrated in order to benefit the millions who died. Yannis is a good Marxist, so suitably extreme in his views. I do wonder how tolerant _you_ are.

Your desperate attempt to have a fight is noted, and ignored.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> There's no point discussing this with you, because you don't do discussion. Your incandescent righteous belief in the Catastrophic doomsday cult keeps you safe and secure from the evils of reality - the true knowledge is an incontrovertible god-given truth, and anyone who denies it must be brought down immediately.
> 
> Unbeliever! {Insert Monty Python clip of your choice}
> 
> ...


Could you be more specific and point us to the errors in the current scientific consensus?


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

This is turning into another willy-waving contest. Pathetic. It's a serious issue and it's being reduced to 'I know better than you'.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> We are questioning!
> We want you, the highly qualified team of experts gathered here (and Trainee neophyte), to tell us why 99% of scientists are getting it all wrong!



Why? Such as you wouldn't understand it if I did!


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Why? Such as you wouldn't understand it if I did!


I wouldn't count on it. Tell us what it is you think you know.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> This is turning into another willy-waving contest. Pathetic. It's a serious issue and it's being reduced to 'I know better than you'.


It is a serious issue. Politics are being driven by the information and misinformation they receive which affects everyone with the decisions they make. Very, very few politicians actually understand the meaning of the data behind the arguments and accept this this without question just as most other people do on forums like this.

The for or against man-made GW stance is out of balance as no one is able to add some balance to the debate as is obvious on forums like this.
Anyone who disagrees is closed down and marginalised for doing so, mostly by those who from what I've seen do not understand what they are talking about


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> I wouldn't count on it. Tell us what it is you think you know.


I'll tell you what I think I know...you're full of patronising bull whotsit, in fact I don't just think it!


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> ....Anyone who disagrees is closed down and marginalised for doing so,


We are asking you to open up - what is it that you think you know?


> I'll tell you what I think I know...you're full of patronising bull whotsit, in fact I don't just think it!


Could you be more specific and point us to the errors in the current scientific consensus?
Just one detail that they have demonstrably got wrong? Anything at all? Er - nothing?


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> It is a serious issue. Politics are being driven by the information and misinformation they receive which affects everyone with the decisions they make. Very, very few politicians actually understand the meaning of the data behind the arguments and accept this this without question just as most other people do on forums like this.
> 
> The for or against man-made GW stance is out of balance as no one is able to add some balance to the debate as is obvious on forums like this.
> Anyone who disagrees is closed down and marginalised for doing so, mostly by those who from what I've seen do not understand what they are talking about


The thing is, nobody you're arguing with is trying to pretend to know better what they're talking about. We're looking for a reason not to believe the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that is describing climate change and its causes. It would be _truly_ wonderful to see. It's great that you did a degree 35 years ago and have followed some of the issues, but why on earth would I take your opinion over that overwhelming consensus of expert opinion? You either see their research as flawed, in which case point to the specifics and earn yourself that Nobel prize, or you need to point to some other, non-scientific reason why their flawed science is respected and being promoted - this is where you need to construct your conspiracy theory to account for it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Could you be more specific and point us to the errors in the current scientific consensus?


Why don't you apply the scientific method and disprove the hypothesis yourself. It would be good for you. See if you can find any cogent arguments that don't support the nine out of ten cats who expressed a preference narrative. It may be that there aren't any, in which case your hypothesis stands.

But here's the thing: you have to really, really try to disprove it. Honestly.

A very good read: Richard Feynman: 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.' Cargo-Cult Science speech, Caltech - 1974 — Speakola

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Why don't you apply the scientific method and disprove the hypothesis yourself. I.......


I'm not qualified! I'm just going along with the majority scientific opinion. It seems to hang together pretty well.
It's you lot telling us it's flawed, confidence trick, money making scam, etc etc but you haven't put any bones on it and it's not obvious why you are banging on about it endlessly.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (12 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> I'm not qualified! I'm just going along with the majority scientific opinion. It seems to hang together pretty well.
> It's you lot telling us it's flawed, confidence trick, money making scam, etc etc but you haven't put any bones on it and it's not obvious why you are banging on about it endlessly.


I'm off to bed. Good night.


----------



## John Brown (12 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> There's no point discussing this with you, because you don't do discussion. Your incandescent righteous belief in the Catastrophic doomsday cult keeps you safe and secure from the evils of reality - the true knowledge is an incontrovertible god-given truth, and anyone who denies it must be brought down immediately.
> 
> Unbeliever! {Insert Monty Python clip of your choice}
> 
> ...


Come on! None of us do discussion.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> The thing is, nobody you're arguing with is trying to pretend to know better what they're talking about. We're looking for a reason not to believe the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that is describing climate change and its causes. It would be _truly_ wonderful to see. It's great that you did a degree 35 years ago and have followed some of the issues, but why on earth would I take your opinion over that overwhelming consensus of expert opinion? You either see their research as flawed, in which case point to the specifics and earn yourself that Nobel prize, or you need to point to some other, non-scientific reason why their flawed science is respected and being promoted - this is where you need to construct your conspiracy theory to account for it.



I don't see all research as flawed nor do I have a need to construct a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can explain why Mann et al conveniently left out the period of the Little Ice Age from their Hockey Stick data which they presented to the IPCC?

I'd be interested to read your take on it!


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I don't see all research as flawed nor do I have a need to construct a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you can explain why Mann et al conveniently left out the period of the Little Ice Age from their Hockey Stick data which they presented to the IPCC?
> 
> I'd be interested to read your take on it!


You can read Mann's own account here. Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message
If you are interested in this sort of stuff you need to keep up.
I used to be an avid reader of Scientific American and New Scientist but have to admit that the day came when unopened copies were piling up around the flat and I had to cancel subs. Nice to be able to find it again on line.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2021)

D_W said:


> ..
> 
> I just wonder why I ever wasted my time responding to any of your posts ...


I wondered too. Why do you bother even trying?


----------



## Adam W. (12 Nov 2021)

It's LOVE.


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

Deleted - Just read Dr Bob's post and he's completely right. This has turned into childish nonsense.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Nov 2021)

Could some of you have a look at what you have posted in the last few days and maybe realise that what you have created is not a discussion but pure bickering and one upmanship. This seems to be the main problem with debate these days, it just seems very shouty and non productive because neither side listens and belief seems so deep rooted that opinions will not alter one jot regardless of any evidence presented. This goes for both sides of the party. Very depressing.
No wonder most cannot be bothered to take part and every thread ends up in the hidden nutters forum.
I'd like to join in but know full well it would be pointless, a lot of the argument is personal and continues from previous threads.


----------



## ey_tony (12 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> You continue to misunderstand. I have no take on the Little Ice Age. I'm not pretending to know anything. Your post (no 99 in this thread) clearly attacks the science that informs COP 26 (the first part of your post), and you chose to focus positively on natural climate change (the second part of your post). You may not have intended that, but that's what it does. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason whatsoever not to believe scientific consunsus - you've certainly offered no such reason in your post. It must be tricky thinking down to my level from your lofty heights, but if you can offer such reason here (apart from vague suggestions of corruption, vanity etc), it'd be great.
> Frankly, I'm far more interested in what COP 26 can or can't do to help resolve the crisis we're currently facing.


You admit to not knowing anything about a subject and yet you immediately seek to criticise others such as myself who dare to question the validity of the questionable manipulation of data such as in Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis. 
Sorry but I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as attacking it.


----------



## Jameshow (12 Nov 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> Could some of you have a look at what you have posted in the last few days and maybe realise that what you have created is not a discussion but pure bickering and one upmanship. This seems to be the main problem with debate these days, it just seems very shouty and non productive because neither side listens and belief seems so deep rooted that opinions will not alter one jot regardless of any evidence presented. This goes for both sides of the party. Very depressing.
> No wonder most cannot be bothered to take part and every thread ends up in the hidden nutters forum.
> I'd like to join in but know full well it would be pointless, a lot of the argument is personal and continues from previous threads.


As my mum would say now now children!!!


----------



## woodieallen (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I'm just someone who has happened to have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically. You it seems are the real expert here so I'll bow to your expert knowledge which you obviously have.


Um, so you keep saying but we only have your word for it. Show us the proof please. Where are your peer-reviewed papers into "Why Climate Change is not Manmade ?"


----------



## Chris152 (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as attacking it.


You clearly attack the motivations of the science in your opening paragraphs. But it's of no consequence, what you've written is familiar and adds nothing to the question of COP's success or otherwise.


----------



## John Brown (12 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Like I've said already, it's pointless debating with someone who throws facts from wikipedia as the answer. Anyone with half a brain would know that wikipedia is the last place to look for a factual and creditable answer where the subject is so emotive. The information contained in wiki can be edited by ANYONE and therefore is open to bias.
> Heck even I could go onto Joe Biden's wikipedia page and say he's a really first rate president on top of his job. It wouldn't mean it was an accurate description.


Yet if you look at the Wikipedia page on the hockey stick graph, there are 147 citations.
Let's see yours.


----------



## woodieallen (12 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Yet if you look at the Wikipedia page on the hockey stick graph, there are 147 citations.
> Let's see yours.


I think you will be waiting a VERY long time. It's so easy on a forum to say that you are brighter than Einstein and yet provide zero proof to support that viewpoint. Just keep on saying it and hope that you convince people. Or simply delusional.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Nov 2021)

Many ridiculed Al Gores film "An Inconvenient Trust" ~20 years ago. The title was prophetic - it still is an inconvenient truth, and not one that seems likely to be resolved:

politicians are elected for ~5 years (one party states excepted). Solving the climate challenge is multidecadal. Short term expediency trumps long term needs.
rarely are politicians world class scientists. Alok Sharma running COP26 - physics degree, chartered accountancy followed by banking. He has to rely on scientists.
better to "bet" on scientific consensus than an incoherent minority
the political establishment - UK and overseas - are no better intellectually equipped
individual nations protect their own interests - some may be corrupt, most have their national interest at heart.
commercial motivation runs on even shorter timescales than the electoral
COP26 will not deliver agreed action plans and roadmap to salvation. Expect a compromised aspirational document touted as success (peace) in our times (Chamberlain following a meeting with Adolf comes to mind).

I generally accept the scientific consensus, but I question why the "truth" matters. This leaves two strategies for the UK, neither of which need to be underpinned by "truth":

do that which is anyway sensible - legislate for green energy, recycling, less food miles, minimising global supply chains, limit fossil fuel use etc. Low risk if science is wrong, high benefit if science is right.
accept that we can react only on political timescales - stop wasting time and effort on 100% consensus. Apply the brains and energy to the first bullet.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2021)

4.30 am got woke up by the dog barking thought I'd pop down for a cup of tea.
Much warmer than last night I blame climate change!


ey_tony said:


> You admit to not knowing anything about a subject and yet you immediately seek to criticise others such as myself who dare to question the validity of the questionable manipulation of data such as in Mann's Hockey Stick hypothesis.


Not criticising you, just wondering why you can't/won't substantiate your claims.
What did you think of Mann's own account? Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message


> Sorry but I don't think we have anything further to discuss. Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as attacking it.


OK, so what questions did you ask and what answers did you find?
Did you read the wikipedia article through? It's a long read and seems to cover the issue pretty well. Where do you think it misrepresents the data, over and above the very thorough discussion of the errors/corrections/controversy and on-going research?








Hockey stick graph - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## TRITON (13 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> It would do to someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about and accepts what they are told without question.


I've read much of the thread and dont have a say in this, but the statement above Tony pretty much describes yourself.


----------



## David p marsh (13 Nov 2021)

It's the same old rubbish every time no body can see what's required to put things Wright before we distroy every living thing in the world on land, in the air, and sea's .So come on World Leader's let's get it to get her.


----------



## John Brown (13 Nov 2021)

David p marsh said:


> It's the same old rubbish every time no body can see what's required to put things Wright before we distroy every living thing in the world on land, in the air, and sea's .So come on World Leader's let's get it to get her.


Ain't predictive text marmalade!


----------



## Sandyn (13 Nov 2021)

Hopefully getting back to the discussion. Some figures I find interesting and possibly quite worrying are that Global CO2 emissions were cut by about 6.4% in 2020 compared to 2019 as a result of the pandemic.







However if you look at the measured value of CO2 in the atmosphere the 6.4% cut in CO2 production seems to have had little effect on the measured levels





" The *red* lines and symbols represent the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The *black* lines and symbols represent the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle."

I'm *not* trying to make any point here. I just expected to see some dip in the measured value of CO2 as a result of the 6.4% cut in production of CO2.

The 6.4% cut happened within an annual cycle of the CO2 level. I would have expected to see some change in the cycle for 2020? 

Apparently, we need to reduce emissions by about 7.6% per year over the next ten years to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, but a 6.4% one year reduction didn't seem to have reduced the measured CO2?


----------



## DrPhill (13 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I generally accept the scientific consensus, but I question why the "truth" matters. This leaves two strategies for the UK, neither of which need to be underpinned by "truth":
> 
> do that which is anyway sensible - legislate for green energy, recycling, less food miles, minimising global supply chains, limit fossil fuel use etc. Low risk if science is wrong, high benefit if science is right.
> accept that we can react only on political timescales - stop wasting time and effort on 100% consensus. Apply the brains and energy to the first bullet.


----------



## ey_tony (13 Nov 2021)

woodieallen said:


> Um, so you keep saying but we only have your word for it. Show us the proof please. Where are your peer-reviewed papers into "Why Climate Change is not Manmade ?"



Where is YOUR evidence that climate change is ENTIRELY man made?


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Where is YOUR evidence that climate change is ENTIRELY man made?


Pages and pages out there. Get googling! The come back and tell us why everybody is wrong!   









Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief


The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.




www.carbonbrief.org












Climate explained: how much of climate change is natural? How much is man-made?


More and more evidence has accumulated which shows that changes in global and regional climate over the last 50 years are almost entirely due to human influence.




theconversation.com












How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural


Despite the many climate “skeptics” in key positions of power today, 97 percent of climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity. Why are they so sure?




news.climate.columbia.edu


----------



## Daniel2 (13 Nov 2021)

.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Nov 2021)

Who thinks adding a laughing emoji strengthens their argument?
Maybe it's the modern way of strengthening your reason.
I wonder if Greta should have a fit of giggles after one of her passionate speeches


----------



## Dave Moore (13 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> Get a SodaStream and fizz your own. Use your empty pop bottles to put it in and keep it in the fridge. *DO NOT* however try to fizz milk, unless you want a new kitchen. I experimented with this as a kid (the SodaStream exploded) and the resulting residual smell even after everything was washed down made my parents totally redo the kitchen.
> I suppose up here we are very lucky, in that we probably naturally have the best council juice from the tap in Europe. The Swiss have some good water but it is a little bit hard and to me has a bit of a tang in the aftertaste. Water in England to me tastes rank from the tap and in France & Germany has a mettalic tang.


If you filter the water before fizzing with a Berkey it’s a lovely taste, fizzed or not.
Regards,
Dave


----------



## Dave Moore (13 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> As someone with a degree in Geology/Geophysics, obviously a subject that appeals to me, I have to say that while there is some truth regarding climate change, there is also a lot of bull-whotsit thrown about by these so called CC experts but the problem is that any scientist/academic who challenges some of the ludicrous and alarmist claims is immediately censored and marginalised by the CC extremists and those 'academic scientists' who rely upon CC grants proving that it exists to keep them in the life in which they are accustomed.
> 
> There is a whole industry built up around GW as it was first named. They don't want the data they use to be questioned or challenged and will deliberately leave out facts that would bring into question their hypothesis and modelling.
> 
> ...


Same cancelling and bullshit regarding treating covid. It’s all about the money. There are genuine cheap ways of preventing and/or treating covid.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2021)

Dave Moore said:


> .... There are genuine cheap ways of preventing and/or treating covid.


Really? Do we have another UKworkshop Nobel Prize winner in the offing or are you just talking about masks and distancing?


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> are you also anti vaccination, covid sceptic and pro brexit? It's a syndrome. askin for a friend



There we have it .................... took a few pages but we all knew it was coming.
He'll take his football home and tell his mum on you.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Really? Do we have another UKworkshop Nobel Prize winner in the offing or are you just talking about masks and distancing?


Common sense and taking precautions. I have found it quite simple to do this. Some struggle with common sense and ignore advice. Can I claim my medal?


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Nov 2021)

Litter, that boils my pish the most.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Where is YOUR evidence that climate change is ENTIRELY man made?


All quiet on this front? Have you cracked it yet ey tony?
Maybe this is the main problem that the deniers and sceptics have - they don't know how to find things out. It's easier than you think - just type in a question:






Then read through thousands of expert opinions



is climate change entirely man made - Google Search



Hope that helps


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Nov 2021)

well that proves you know how to ask google a loaded questions.
I am a believer by the way. I just find your belittling attitude distasteful.


----------



## Chris152 (13 Nov 2021)

The can moves a little further down the road...
'The pledges on emissions cuts made at the two-week long Cop26 summit in Glasgow fell well short of those required to limit temperatures to 1.5C, according to scientific advice. Instead, all countries have agreed to return to the negotiating table next year, at a conference in Egypt, and re-examine their national plans, with a view to increasing their ambition on cuts.'








Cop26 ends in climate agreement despite India watering down coal resolution


Glasgow climate pact adopted despite last-minute intervention by India to water down language on phasing out dirtiest fossil fuel




www.theguardian.com


----------



## ey_tony (13 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> All quiet on this front? Have you cracked it yet ey tony?
> Maybe this is the main problem that the deniers and sceptics have - they don't know how to find things out. It's easier than you think - just type in a question:
> 
> Hope that helps



You are funny! Every forum has its rectally verbose member(s) and it looks like I might have found one!
I read your post and it suddenly dawned me that I'd forgotten to clean out the cat's litter boxes....thanks for reminding me!


----------



## ey_tony (13 Nov 2021)

Chris152 said:


> The can moves a little further down the road...
> 'The pledges on emissions cuts made at the two-week long Cop26 summit in Glasgow fell well short of those required to limit temperatures to 1.5C, according to scientific advice. Instead, all countries have agreed to return to the negotiating table next year, at a conference in Egypt, and re-examine their national plans, with a view to increasing their ambition on cuts.'
> 
> 
> ...



What exactly are you hoping they will do?


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Nov 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> Who thinks adding a laughing emoji strengthens their argument



nobody, it’s just silly


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Nov 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> Litter, that boils my pish the most





ey_tony said:


> it suddenly dawned me that I'd forgotten to clean out the cat's litter boxes



fight


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Nov 2021)

Dave Moore said:


> There are genuine cheap ways of preventing and/or treating covid



Trump suggested one……..


----------



## Chris152 (13 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> What exactly are you hoping they will do?





ey_tony said:


> Sorry but I don't think we have anything further to discuss.


----------



## woodieallen (13 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Where is YOUR evidence that climate change is ENTIRELY man made?


I am not the one bigging it up about my alleged credentials but without any backup or verification whatsoever. So I will ask again...if you have spent so long becoming an expert in this then where is the evidence to support your assertions ? Peer-reviewed papers, for example?


----------



## woodieallen (13 Nov 2021)

Dave Moore said:


> ...There are genuine cheap ways of preventing and/or treating covid.


Care to share them with us ?


----------



## Kittyhawk (13 Nov 2021)

Quite an interesting debate and one that would benefit from less of the emotive.
I confess that I am on the side of the believers for no other reason that I accept the findings of the majority of the world's scientists and without, I might add, doing any investigation of my own.
To the sceptics this puts me firmly in the realm of stupid - one of the great horde of mindless sheeple that blindly follow whatever dictums that emanate from the mouths of those who claim to know better...
But I have two problems with this assessment - research and selectivity.
Concerning research, some years ago at age 60 I retrained and qualified in the field of emergency medicine and became the man in the back of the little yellow truck that everybody sincerely hopes they will never have to meet. As part of the study in Year Three I had to present a research paper on a related topic. I hasten to add that I did not do the research, I just had to write a paper supporting or rejecting a hypothesis based on research already available. The reason for this supposedly to demonstrate the students ability to present a reasoned argument based on and citing well founded research. At the time there was some discussion on the use of nitrates in the treatment of myocardial ischaemia so my paper was based on the use of glycerin trinitrate in patients presenting with acute chest pain and respiratory distress. Over the following months I read every paper known to man on the subject and didn't understand much of it at all. In spite of my years of study most of it was way above my head so the conclusion of my paper supported the generally accepted precepts with a few caveats thrown in to make me look intelligent.
So why, unlike medicine, given that I have absolutely no training at all in the earth sciences is it considered illogical that I accept the findings of those who have high levels of expertise in the field? Disclaimer: I don't do conspiracies.
And secondly concerning selectivity, why do climate sceptics expect believers to thoroughly investigate climate science, a science in which vast majority of us have no expertise and only the most rudimentary understanding and yet at the same time blithely accept personally unproven science on a continual daily basis?
Multiple times a day we slap a cellphone up against our heads choosing to believe the science that assures us that electro magnetic radiation is not cooking our brains.
Twice a day we brush our teeth trusting the science without personal evidence that the toothpaste is in fact strengthening the enamel and protecting from decay.
For those at risk of a cardiac event, we chew our daily aspirin blood thinner. Even if we understand the mechanism of action, do we bother to investigate the science that says aspirin works by preventing the aggregation of blood platelets thereby inhibiting the formation of thrombi on arterial walls? Or do we just accept what the manufacturers and drug pushers are telling us?
I conclude that trying to drag climate science into disrepute is based on fear. I have some fear that the future is going to bring undreamt of and unwanted changes but I prefer that fear to the fear that would make me shut my eyes and block my ears and hope like hell it all just goes away.
OK. Rant over. Now I'm going into the aircraftery to build a couple of Focke Wulf 190 D's.


----------



## Krome10 (14 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Ain't predictive text marmalade!



I vote this as the best post over the nine pages...

But the question remains... Is the planet toast?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (14 Nov 2021)

It isn't even that complicated. 

If I get ill I go to a doctor. If I want confirmation of his/her opinion I can go and get a second. I don't ask the plumber however good he may be at fixing the central heating.

If I need to have someone deal with my tax affairs I go to a qualified accountant. I don't go to the local bookmaker because he knows how to do "sums"

If I have tooth-ache I go to a dentist who has completed several years training in the subject. My builder, despite proficiency with cordless tools, is not high up in the list of consultees.

If the brakes on my car need fixing I go to the dealer or brand specialist. Despite their mechanical skills, I do not go to the tree surgeon because he knows how to fix chainsaws.

If I want to know about climate change I listen to time served scientists with relevant experience and qualifications. Opinions of those who studied something slightly connected a few decades ago have more limited credibility.

This does not mean that professionals always get it right. But unless you have both time and intellectual capacity to become fully competent in a subject, relying on professional judgement tends to beat gut feel, amateur operatives or second/third rate advice.


----------



## Chris152 (14 Nov 2021)

I found this summary of what COP achieved/ failed to achieve and the dfferent positions on it helpful:








COP26: New global climate deal struck in Glasgow


The decision to phase down coal shows progress but pledges are not enough to cap temperature rises.



www.bbc.co.uk




Positives and negatives. Seems to me that the reasons for objections to 'phasing out' of coal by India and others won't be changing any time soon, so in the absence of viable alternative sources of energy at scale and reasonable cost, presumably their objections to that goal won't be stopping, either. 
I can't imagine trying to resolve the conflicts of interest, completely overwhelming. I'll go and plane some wood.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Nov 2021)

For the purposes of this discussion "belief" in Catastrophic Climate Change is irrelevant. Governments got together because they do "believe" in climate change, or rather more importantly their voters seem to, so they need to at least give it lip service. The real question for me is what will be the consequences of any agreement? How much poorer will I be, personally, after the next batch of arbitrary, draconian measures that will come down from on high. By the looks of it, not much will change but I will probably have to pay even more tax.


----------



## Chris152 (14 Nov 2021)

Yes, maybe increased taxation of those of us in the developed world who can afford it could be one part of a solution. We'd have less money to buy the excess carp we don't actually need, making its manufacture and thus draw on energy redundant, and at the same time accruing capital to facilitate support for and movement of those people most adversely affected by climate change. Obviously the voters won't go for it, such is our system of values.


----------



## John Brown (14 Nov 2021)

I'm not going to bother to argue with any of the climate deniers, as it's a waste of time. Those who do think there's something in it, however, might find the attached link interesting. I just listened to all bar the last episode, ironically while sitting in a tailback on the M4. Intriguing how the same names crop up in both the tobacco funded misinformation campaign and that funded by fossil fuel firms.
These people are very clever manipulators, up against scientists who are generally not so slick when presenting to the media.
It's BBC, a lot of you will immediately dismiss it as biased. Fair enough. Don't listen to it. Thankfully you won't be the ones making important decisions in these matters.









BBC Radio 4 - How They Made Us Doubt Everything


From smoking and cancer to climate change, this is the story of how to manufacture doubt.




www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> well that proves you know how to ask google a loaded questions.
> .........


Ask the question loaded the the way "is climate change *not* entirely man made" and you get much the same answers


is climate change not entirely man made - Google Search



Scroll down a bit and you get, guess what, Piers Corbyn! Well qualified, but still 100% fruitcake.
He makes interesting reading Piers Corbyn - Wikipedia
Also evidence that CC sceptic scientists are not very common, as we have seen - only David Bellamy getting a mention in this thread so far. They seem to be the leaders in this field!


----------



## Chris152 (14 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Also evidence that CC sceptic scientists are not very common, as we have seen - only David Bellamy getting a mention in this thread so far. They seem to be the leaders in this field!


As John's post above suggests, best not be derailed by engaging them at all - it's a clear, well documented strategy to create doubt and buy time and thus continued profits.
eta - just look at how successful the strategy's been in derailing this thread, repeatedly turning it into an 'it's not real/ yes it is' thread. same strategy in the pandemic threads: lockdowns etc are bad for the economy, so cast doubt on the whole thing as far as possible, get people back producing and consuming.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> I'm not going to bother to argue with any of the climate deniers, as it's a waste of time. Those who do think there's something in it, however, might find the attached link interesting. I just listened to all bar the last episode, ironically while sitting in a tailback on the M4. Intriguing how the same names crop up in both the tobacco funded misinformation campaign and that funded by fossil fuel firms.
> These people are very clever manipulators, up against scientists who are generally not so slick when presenting to the media.
> It's BBC, a lot of you will immediately dismiss it as biased. Fair enough. Don't listen to it. Thankfully you won't be the ones making important decisions in these matters.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that hadn't noticed it. Will listen.


----------



## isaac3d (14 Nov 2021)

Climate change being 100% man made or not is a red herring! What is clear from the measured data is that average global temperature is increasing and this corresponds with increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter a jot whether that is 100% our fault, or 98% or 50% or whatever. What is clear is that mankind is making a significant contribution to the increase in global temperature increase and that we could reduce this.
The physics of climate change doesn't care who or what releases the greenhouse gases. If mankind wants to avoid the (for us) unpleasant affects of global warming then we need to act to reduce our contribution to the increase.
It was sad to see this morning that COP26 has indeed become COPOUT26, with the watering down of the already insufficient response to the global warming problem.
Countries like India and China need to bite the bullet and accept that they are currently the worst polluters and significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the richer developed countries, UK included, need to bite the bullet and accept that aside from their current rate of pollution, the current high levels of greenhouse gases are in no small part due to them. So in addition to reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions they need to contribute much more financially than they currently do to the conversion of developing countries to greener energy systems.

Personally, I think a carrot and stick approach should be taken. The carrot would be financial backing of greener energy systems and the stick would be a "carbon tariff" on all goods produced by a country which produced more than an agreed level of pollution. The money taken in tariffs could then be used to partially offset to cost of the carrots, of course! Whilst some of this may already be in place, the scale needs to dramatically increased if mankind wants to avoid the looming climate catastrophe.
Countries like India and China need to accept that in the coming decades, they will face massive problems and humanitarian disasters if they do not act more decisively now.
I can only hope that the people who are children now and have no vote will, in the coming decade, vote out those politicians who are so dilatory in their response to the current climate crisis. Good luck to you kids, you're going to need it!


----------



## Krome10 (14 Nov 2021)

As an aside, and to satisfy my curiosity, when it comes to China being the worst culprit... Has anyone come across data which shows - or articles that discuss - how much of their carbon footprint is attributable to making the endless of amounts of goods we import into "the West"?


----------



## ey_tony (14 Nov 2021)

woodieallen said:


> I am not the one bigging it up about my alleged credentials but without any backup or verification whatsoever. So I will ask again...if you have spent so long becoming an expert in this then where is the evidence to support your assertions ? Peer-reviewed papers, for example?


I am NOT bigging myself up, I'm merely pointed out that I have some actual knowledge of the subject at academic level rather than simply regurgitating what I'd been told without question or fully understanding what I'm regurgitating.
l have also learned that it's actually pointless arguing with people of that ilk as they wouldn't be able to hold a valid discussion regarding the nuances of the claims from both sides. Most people wouldn't have a clue whether what they were told was actually fact or fiction.

The people who big themselves up are those who are clueless and have to resort to wikipedia for their shallow understanding but still ridicule those who are intelligent enough to actually question the data. Questioning data isn't bigging oneself up. 
Quoting from Wikipedia et al are not substitutes for understanding and highlights how little they know. Wikipedia is the last place to look for facts.

It's not a case that I'm a so called denier. Climatic changes have been going on for billions of years so it's not a new phenomenon and it would be difficult not to accept that the effects on our climate are contributed to by anthropogenic patterns of behaviour but, it is valid to question by how much which appears to go over the heads of the hard of thinking. 
I simply choose not to accept all of the data put out as truth, some of which is clearly questionable to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the principles behind the subject.
It's got to the stage where questioning the data is seen as heresy much akin to questioning religious beliefs. Only fools and the indoctrinated believe in such rubbish without question.

Just looking through scientific discoveries, the history of science is littered with so called 'consensus'. One only has to look at Darwin or Wegener to see who was correct, the consensus or them, so consensus means absolutely nothing. It's fact which does. 
They were ridiculed and treated as insane by many of their peers so to use the word consensus as if it is correct is quite amusing. It's a red flag when anyone brandishes the consensus argument.

Wegener for instance first proposed the theory behind continental drift around 1915 for which he was ridiculed by his peers. It was only in the 1960s that it was accepted as being correct. Up to that point the firm consensus was that he was wrong and it was only after others who weren't part of the consensus actually proved his theory.

With regard to anyone who describes me as a denier/sceptic or whatever, it doesn't bother me in the slightest as I don't value their opinions. 
I don't hope to change anyone's mind, as most people I find have already made up their mind. All I ask is that people at least critically question some of the claims rather than just accept one side's views.

Anyway, that's me done on the subject as it's pointless discussing it further.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I am NOT bigging myself up, I'm merely pointed out that I have some actual knowledge of the subject at academic level rather than simply regurgitating what I'd been told without question or fully understanding what I'm regurgitating.


That is what is known as "bigging yourself up", not to mention "complacent", "patronising" and "insulting"
We are not all idiots.

Re. Wegener and slow acceptance of what is now the consensus.
Wegener only had to wait 40 years or so for his theory to become accepted and become "the consensus", following various discoveries, mainly sea bed magnetic anomalies.
The theory that increases in greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in temperature was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.




__





History of the greenhouse effect and global warming


History of the greenhouse effect and global warming




www.lenntech.com




The mechanism of greenhouse gases was first proposed by Eugene Foot in 1856
Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect

It's taken 150 years for anthropogenic climate change theory to become the consensus - after massive research, still ongoing, accumulating mountains of evidence, with effects now experienced and plainly visible around us in various parts of the globe
It's not a shiny new theory which has popped up from nowhere - you are about 100 years behind the curve!
Your comments about Wikipedia are just silly.


----------



## Spectric (14 Nov 2021)

Well the conclusion has to be a cop out, China and India cannot agree to no more coal at this point in time as they have no alternatives to keep industry going and the lights on, so if you live on a small island then maybe time to move before the big rush and it becomes a stampede. As time moves on then the people who have questioned global warming will now be able to get hands on and experience it first hand providing they are not to old.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2021)

Spectric said:


> Well the conclusion has to be a cop out, China and India cannot agree to no more coal at this point in time as they have no alternatives to keep industry going and the lights on, so if you live on a small island then maybe time to move before the big rush and it becomes a stampede. As time moves on then the people who have questioned global warming will now be able to get hands on and experience it first hand providing they are not to old.


Just one more step! No point in being pessimistic and it's not too late to keep up the pressure.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> That is what is known as "bigging yourself up", not to mention "complacent", "patronising" and "insulting"
> We are not all idiots.


And that's you being reasonable, friendly, open minded and accepting. Not. You seem to have set yourself up as the Spanish Inquisition -perhaps you might recognise yourself in the following:









10 Creepy Reasons Climate Change Is Starting To Look Like A Religion - Listverse


Since the beginning of Earth's existence, the climate has changed. It has been influenced by the sun, geological factors, ecological factors, and perhaps




listverse.com





The idea that India could swap all of its coal generation to something else at the drop of a hat is insane. 70% of their electricity comes from coal, which they dig up themselves so it is cheap. What should they replace it with, and with how much of Jacob's pocket money?


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> And that's you being reasonable, friendly, open minded and accepting. Not.
> ....


Yes, definitely not! Well spotted!
Laughable the way these confused people brag about their education, jeer at anything they don't agree with and then top it all by getting it completely wrong themselves!


----------



## Sandyn (14 Nov 2021)

Krome10 said:


> how much of their carbon footprint is attributable to making the endless of amounts of goods we import into "the West"?



From here. Might be a bit out of date, but it gives an idea, China's total CO2 is 9.8 Billion Tonnes, so over a fifth is consumed outside China.


----------



## John Brown (14 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I am NOT bigging myself up, I'm merely pointed out that I have some actual knowledge of the subject at academic level rather than simply regurgitating what I'd been told without question or fully understanding what I'm regurgitating.
> l have also learned that it's actually pointless arguing with people of that ilk as they wouldn't be able to hold a valid discussion regarding the nuances of the claims from both sides. Most people wouldn't have a clue whether what they were told was actually fact or fiction.
> 
> The people who big themselves up are those who are clueless and have to resort to wikipedia for their shallow understanding but still ridicule those who are intelligent enough to actually question the data. Questioning data isn't bigging oneself up.
> ...


So every so often, a rank outsider wins the race. Nobody would deny that.
The relevant point to take away is that most of the time, they don't.


----------



## John Brown (14 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> And that's you being reasonable, friendly, open minded and accepting. Not. You seem to have set yourself up as the Spanish Inquisition -perhaps you might recognise yourself in the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Solar power. I understand that India has massive potential for this. Obviously the transition wouldn't be instantaneous, and maybe they could use a little help.
I doubt that Jacob's pocket money would accomplish much, apart from trivialising the issue.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> From here. Might be a bit out of date, but it gives an idea, China's total CO2 is 9.8 Billion Tonnes, so over a fifth is consumed outside China.
> 
> 
> View attachment 121952


I think China will end up leading the way. They've made a massive effort to catch up with USA industry and productivity (China still well behind on per capita carbon), making massive strides to sustainability and will be supplying the world with solar panels and other tech. 








CO2 Emissions per Capita - Worldometer


Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions per Capita for each Country in the world




www.worldometers.info




One dubious advantage of a totalitarian govt; they can listen to the science and do whatever is necessary


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Pages and pages out there. Get googling! The come back and tell us why everybody is wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Careful now Jacob, these are only phd level scientists who live, eat and breathe their subject and have decades of knowledge to rely upon. They are not Brenda from Facebook, so not too sure their evidence can be relied upon.


----------



## Kittyhawk (15 Nov 2021)

Maori is not widely spoken in NZ but a lot of words have entered into daily usage. On of these is the term 'hui' which translates as a gathering, a party, or a meeting.
A day or two ago I heard a politician on the radio responding to a question from the interviewer about the climate meeting in Glasgow.
'What's needed,' he said, 'is a little less hui and a lot more do-ee.'


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

TRITON said:


> Careful now Jacob, these are only phd level scientists who live, eat and breathe their subject and have decades of knowledge to rely upon. They are not Brenda from Facebook, so not too sure their evidence can be relied upon.


You mean they may "have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically.
and have degrees in Geology/Geophysics"? Phew! 
I wonder how well they know the writings of David Bellamy and the sterling work of Piers Corbyn?


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

One the biggest advances in identifying the causes of air pollution has been the discovery of the fallout from the rectal verbosity that emanates from such as these forums.
The only thing that will cure that is a good dose of education.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> One the biggest advances in identifying the causes of air pollution has been the discovery of the fallout from the rectal verbosity that emanates from such as these forums.
> The only thing that will cure that is a good dose of education.


I'm sure you are right. When are you starting the cure?


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> I'm sure you are right. When are you starting the cure?



I'd be quite happy to load up Zoom and do a live debate with you to see exactly how much you do know about the subject without access to a computer so that you can't cheat and then post a video of it on here! Would that suit you?

You can even take your trousers down behind a screen if you wish so that you wouldn't sound muffled to the viewers!


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I'd be quite happy to load up Zoom and do a live debate with you to see exactly how much you do know about the subject without access to a computer so that you can't cheat and then post a video of it on here! Would that suit you?
> 
> You can even take your trousers down behind a screen if you wish so that you wouldn't sound muffled to the viewers!


If you want to get up to speed on CC you really need to address a few of the 99% of research scientists who 'have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically and have degrees in x,y, z etc " They'd be happy to put you straight!


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> If you want to get up to speed on CC you really need to address a few of the 99% of research scientists who 'have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically and have degrees in x,y, z etc " They'd be happy to put you straight!



No! I don't need to read those papers, instead I'd like YOU personally to get me up to speed as you are quite happy to ridicule my intellectual integrity and believe I am wrong, so why not put me right, eh?.
You'll even have the bragging rights to impress the rest of your mates about it on the video!


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> as you are quite happy to ridicule my intellectual integrity and believe I am wrong


Everyone can be wrong.
I was wrong once.
Apparently 

Although I disagree with it.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> No! I don't need to read those papers, instead I'd like YOU personally to get me up to speed as you are quite happy to ridicule my intellectual integrity and believe I am wrong, so why not put me right, eh?.
> You'll even have the bragging rights to impress the rest of your mates about it on the video!


OK I'll try. You could start by looking more closely at the M Mann hockey stick controversy which you brought up. If you don't like wikipedia there are plenty of other sources e.g. Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
Actually the wiki article is pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial - so the next thing you need to do is fight your anti wikipedia prejudice along with your CC denial problem.
Hope that helps


----------



## Sporky McGuffin (15 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> So every so often, a rank outsider wins the race. Nobody would deny that.
> The relevant point to take away is that most of the time, they don't.



Indeed. There's an amusing trend for people to say "if 99% of qualified experts agree, they're probably wrong". I assume the people making such silly statements lose a lot of money if they go gambling.


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

TRITON said:


> Everyone can be wrong.
> I was wrong once.
> Apparently
> 
> Although I disagree with it.



I don't pretend to know everything. I do however have sufficient knowledge of the subject to at least be in a position to question many claims which quite frankly are questionable if one takes the time and trouble to actually look at them critically. 
Over the years I've come across some claims which are so flawed that even a second year A-level student should be able to question them and yet people are soaking up these claims without any question!

If one doesn't subscribe to that way of thinking then it's like being part of a religion which doesn't allow any form of dissent. Anyone who questions their beliefs is a heretic and that is how pro-anthropogenic CC bods behave.

I don't see why they object to healthy critical reviewing of many claims. If the claims are correct then what are they afraid of? 

These claims are what subject-ignorant politicians have to base their policies upon. It's not their fault as they don't know any better but any errors in the data or interpretation and modelling could have far reaching and dire consequences for many economies and people's lives if these figures are wrong or misleading.

That has got nothing to do with believing that mankind plays no part in GW. Of course it must do and as a matter of course, common sense tells us we have got to reduce such as carbon emissions substantially but there are many other factors which contribute to both CC/global warming and cooling although listening to the alarmist scientists etc, one wouldn't think so. 
The question is, how much does anthropogenic input actually affect climatic change? There are innumerable models bandied around, some accurate and some dubious but few actually quantify their claims and without those figures, how does one know if the measures to reduce carbon emissions are sufficient or not?


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2021)

Sporky McGuffin said:


> Indeed. There's an amusing trend for people to say "if 99% of qualified experts agree, they're probably wrong". I assume the people making such silly statements lose a lot of money if they go gambling.


Well maybe not. The difference is that the bookmakers adjust the odds accordingly. I'm not sure how that compares with CC denial.


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I don't pretend to know everything. I do however have sufficient knowledge of the subject to at least be in a position to question many claims which quite frankly are questionable if one takes the time and trouble to actually look at them critically.
> Over the years I've come across some claims which are so flawed that even a second year A-level student should be able to question them and yet people are soaking up these claims without any question!
> 
> If one doesn't subscribe to that way of thinking then it's like being part of a religion which doesn't allow any form of dissent. Anyone who questions their beliefs is a heretic and that is how pro-anthropogenic CC bods behave.
> ...


Could you kindly point me at one of these claims that a second year A level student could see through? One that is currently being relied upon by the scientific community concensus? I'm genuinely interested.


----------



## Spectric (15 Nov 2021)

All those in later years can relate to changes in many aspects of life, what there was compared to what it is now and just based on simple observations and experiences then probably like me you can only conclude that we are having a major impact on our enviroment and you don't need to be a scientist to know this, a scientist may have the ability for a deeper explanation and to raise theories but the average old joe can see their surroundings just as well. So what changes have I seen, well the most obvious are the seasons merging without the much clearer divide there once was, then I can remember seeing wildlife such as Hedgehogs and barn owls on a regular basis, along with many other song birds. The roads were much quieter, far less intrusion into the countryside by development and people lived a more realistic lifestyle without being so needy or materialistic so yes we are having a very big impact and no one really knows what is at the destination we have chosen to head for except it will be different.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I don't pretend to know everything. I do however have sufficient knowledge of the subject to at least be in a position to question many claims which quite frankly are questionable if one takes the time and trouble to actually look at them critically.
> Over the years I've come across some claims which are so flawed that even a second year A-level student should be able to question them and yet people are soaking up these claims without any question!
> 
> If one doesn't subscribe to that way of thinking then it's like being part of a religion which doesn't allow any form of dissent. Anyone who questions their beliefs is a heretic and that is how pro-anthropogenic CC bods behave.
> ...


If you really have anything interesting to say you'd do far better for your scientific reputation by winning an argument against experts in the field rather than losing it to somebody on a woodwork forum.
Hope that helps.

PS Re "the question is, how much does anthropogenic input actually affect climatic change?" the consensus says the current exceptional rate of change is 100% anthropogenic. There do not seem to be other forces at work, over and above normal variations.


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> global warming and cooling


I think your answer was fair up until this point here which youve added and is the crux of nay sayers who claim its all part of a natural process, one we humans cant influence. A cycle going back millions of years etc etc.

We have to listen to the science on this and to the men and women who as I said previously are qualified and live and breathe their subject
Its a bit like youre losing weight, feeling generally unwell and go to the doctor who takes blood and sends it off to to examined. The doctor calls you in and says Sorry, you have a cancer. We're putting you down for a round of chemo.
Would it be prudent to retort, well doc, Brenda on facebook disagrees and says by eating kelp i can cure the illness.
Obviously not,and in such circumstances we are more than happy to listen tot he science, but in the subject of global warming we can only do the same and to think otherwise is irrational.


----------



## Spectric (15 Nov 2021)

You will always have those who cannot face reality, so solution is to just deny and hope it goes away. Another way to hide a truth is confusion, don't just deny something as people will then speculate, much better to start lots of rumours so the masses end up burying the truth for you and casting so much doubt no one ends up believing.


----------



## Krome10 (15 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Could you kindly point me at one of these claims that a second year A level student could see through? One that is currently being relied upon by the scientific community concensus? I'm genuinely interested.



I second this. For all the 11 pages, there's such little substance. I'm open minded and like listening to both sides of subjects. So please, enough with the fighting and share some of your knowledge. People are eager to learn.


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

TRITON said:


> I think your answer was fair *up until this point here which youve added and is the crux of nay sayers* who claim its all part of a natural process, one we humans cant influence. A cycle going back millions of years etc etc.



Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today? 
If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to 

The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
The problem is that many of the scientific papers bend the facts to fit with what they are trying to prove, as in the case of Mann etc al being a perfect example of selective data manipulation. There are more holes in his work than a cullender but it suits the AGW lobby's narative. 

It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.

The GW mafia has it sewn up. It's big business all the way and just as corrupt as the tobacco and oil companies. 

The thing is I want to see large reductions in the pollution going into our atmosphere and biosphere as much as the next person as I want my grandchildren to have decent lives but what I don 't want is for them to be screwed by academics in the pockets of big businesses and governments in the process.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
> If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to
> 
> The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
> The problem is that many of the scientific papers bend the facts to fit with what they are trying to prove, as in the case of Mann etc al being a perfect example of selective data manipulation.There are more holes in his work than a cullender but it suits the AGW lobby's narative.


You haven't read up on the Mann "controversy" and what you are saying is completely untrue


> It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.
> 
> The GW mafia has it sewn up. It's big business all the way and just as corrupt as the tobacco and oil companies.
> 
> The thing is I want to see large reductions in the pollution going into our atmosphere and biosphere as much as the next person as I want my grandchildren to have decent lives but what I don 't want is for them to be screwed by academics in the pockets of big businesses and governments in the process.


So you are back to childish notions that it's all a big cover up and conspiracy and you haven't got anything to say which could prove this?
"They also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and their careers will be effectively over." Quite possible I suppose - like flat earthers, anti vaxxers, creationists - it doesn't fit the science and is almost certainly discreditable nonsense. Sack them!
PS and also dangerous if action is deferred.


----------



## PUtcvNqa (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.



Always seems to be the crackpots that have access to this sort of secret info regardless of the subject matter


----------



## Istrickl (15 Nov 2021)

"Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops." 

Einstein...


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> You haven't read up on the Mann "controversy" and what you are saying is completely untrue
> So you are back to childish notions that it's all a big cover up and conspiracy and you haven't got anything to say which could prove this?
> "They also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and their careers will be effectively over." Quite possible I suppose - like flat earthers, anti vaxxers, creationists - it doesn't fit the science and is almost certainly discreditable nonsense.



Yeah, yeah, yeah! Next you'll be telling me that you can only have one right angle in a triangle.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> "Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."
> 
> Einstein...


It hasn't stopped on this issue. Research is ongoing, worldwide. Nobody actually wants it to be true, in spite of the bonkers conspiracy theories.
There was a consensus on Newtonian physics but did it stop the thinking which led to relativity? Not even delayed it really - classical mechanics remains unchanged for normal purposes but was an essential step to relativity. It's all here in Wikipedia, which is itself a dubious disseminator of misinformation, according to the conspiracy nutters.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah! Next you'll be telling me that you can only have one right angle in a triangle.


1 in Euclidean up to 3 in spherical geometry.


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
> If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to
> 
> The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
> ...


Brilliant. So now you're trying to brand people who don't accept your pet conspiracy theory as flat-earthers. 
I have better things to do than reading such nonsense.


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Brilliant. So now you're trying to brand people who don't accept your pet conspiracy theory as flat-earthers.
> I have better things to do than reading such nonsense.



I find it strange that the indoctrinated are so easily whipped up into mass hysteria and offended when their world and what they believe in is questioned.

If it wasn't for people questioning beliefs and science, then we'd still be back in the 18th Century with regard to medicine and physics and most of us would still be creationists.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I find it strange that the indoctrinated are so easily whipped up into mass hysteria and offended when their world and what they believe in is questioned.
> 
> If it wasn't for people questioning beliefs and science, then we'd still be back in the 18th Century with regard to medicine and physics and most of us would still be creationists.


Questioning; good. Getting the wrong answers; bad.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Nov 2021)

NASA : Facts And Consensus - Re-editing the facts.


https://realclimatescience.com/2021/05/nasa-facts-and-consensus/




woolly-macadamia-8ce.notion.site













(PDF) Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO 2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma


PDF | The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO 2... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




www.researchgate.net













Inconvenient Tornado Data Disappears


By Paul Homewood For years NOAA have included this page on the tornado section of their website: One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or evidenc…




notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com














Newly Published Scientific Paper tears Global Warming and the IPCC to Shreds - Electroverse


The UN's politicizing of "climate change" has made it difficult to take another look at the subject's scientific & academic status, but this paper tackles them head-on.




electroverse.net













Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute


Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...




cei.org


----------



## Ozi (15 Nov 2021)

I'm not interested in joining the argument, just want to say that there is a lot of progress being made that people just don't here about. I work for a major car manufacturer, I won't name them they don't like us to. I'm not pretending their green but they are seriously trying to make improvements. We have targets on the whole life cycle to reduce pollution in all forms, water and energy consumption. Since 2013 the power consumed from the grid on production lines has been cut by 79%, mainly by installing renewable generation recovering heat and reducing waste, that's full life cycle it includes the consequences of manufacturing the solar and wind systems. Other targets are also making good progress. 

Companies don't publish this sort of thing and if you read the reactions to the article published by Volvo showing the carbon balance for one of their electric vehicles you will know why. They made huge improvements but pointed out that if Europe doesn't clean up it's power generation there is only so much that can be achieved by users. The reactions can best be summed up as "See it's all rubbish, knew they were lying I will keep driving my Diesel". 

You still hear that "turbine blades can't be recycled" applied to early GRP blades, modern ones are more like an aircraft wing but naysayers jump on any fact that fits there story and never look to see if problems are getting fixed - any many are. 

I know the world is still burning coal etc. etc. but the speed of change depends on consumers as much as manufacturers - all of us. Change something you do, even if it's small, change your light bulbs, plan a bit better and avoid two trips into town when it can be one, save your self some money in the process, all the little things add up and help influence attitudes. 

Rant over i'll go back to muttering in my corner.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> NASA : Facts And Consensus - Re-editing the facts.
> 
> 
> https://realclimatescience.com/2021/05/nasa-facts-and-consensus/
> ...


We know it's out there Phil but it's still b.....x!


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> ...
> 
> Rant over i'll go back to muttering in my corner.


No keep muttering and ranting!
Monbiot is saying something similar - govt and business won't do it but people power might. After the failure of Cop26, there is only one last hope for our survival | George Monbiot


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Questioning good - getting the answers wrong bad.



Well you can show me where I'm wrong when you Zoom me and discuss the nuances in real time and put me right. Just think as your knowledge has no bounds, you'll have your bragging rights when I post the resultant video on here and YouTube.


----------



## John Brown (15 Nov 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> NASA : Facts And Consensus - Re-editing the facts.
> 
> 
> https://realclimatescience.com/2021/05/nasa-facts-and-consensus/
> ...


Thanks, Phill. Now why ey_tony couldn't have posted links like these is beyond me. 
I will take a look.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Well you can show me where I'm wrong when you Zoom me and discuss the nuances in real time and put me right. Just think as your knowledge has no bounds, you'll have your bragging rights when I post the resultant video on here and YouTube.


No - you have to show us *where* and_* how/why*_ they are wrong. You have completely failed on this so far. You don't even seem to be up to date - still muttering about Mann and the hockey stick - that was 12 years ago.
Do some revision. This is a good place to start: Hockey stick graph - Wikipedia


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
> If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to
> 
> The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
> ...


Thats all well and good Tony, but the real contentious issue many of us face here on UKworkshop is how do you stand on the Sawbench versus the Tracksaw question ?


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

TRITON said:


> Thats all well and good Tony, but the real contentious issue many of us face here on UKworkshop is how do you stand on the Sawbench versus the Tracksaw question ?


Perhaps divert him into a sharpening thread? That could keep him busy.


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

TRITON said:


> Thats all well and good Tony, but the real contentious issue many of us face here on UKworkshop is how do you stand on the Sawbench versus the Tracksaw question ?


Well if it had been prior to my illness around 7 years ago I would have argued why does one need either? I learned my woodwork skills through my time as an organ builder so I used to do and cut everything by hand. Looking back now, I do wonder why but I enjoyed using hand tools!

The only electric tools I had were an electric drill and a 1/4" router. I bought a used radial arm saw once but it's still in the corner unused but after becoming ill I did buy a planer, a saw bench, mitre saw and lots of electrical goodies which allowed my to continue with woodworking which would have been beyond me had I not bought the tools.

The consensus of the medical experts around September/October 2014 was that I would be very lucky to even see that Christmas, let alone the new year.
It was touch and go and after a blood clot on my lung and some weeks later followed by pneumonia, I proved the experts wrong and I'm still here today. 

The only person who disagreed with the top physicians dealing with me was my own GP who disagreed with their views and guess who was right so I never automatically assume that experts are always right!


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> No - you have to show us *where* and_* how/why*_ they are wrong. You have completely failed on this so far. You don't even seem to be up to date - still muttering about Mann and the hockey stick - that was 12 years ago.
> Do some revision. This is a good place to start: Hockey stick graph - Wikipedia



I don't have to show you anything! You disagree and I think you're full of bull-whotsit. End of! Your post say it all.
Posting up links from the internet means or proves nothing unless you actually understand what you're talking about and I don't believe you do! Prove me wrong!


----------



## TRITON (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Perhaps divert him into a sharpening thread? That could keep him busy.


Thats a terrible thing to say Jacob, I'd never burden anyone with such a thing.


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

TRITON said:


> Thats a terrible thing to say Jacob, I'd never burden anyone with such a thing.


What is so special about the sharpening thread?


----------



## Istrickl (15 Nov 2021)

Just wondering...perhaps the experts (those more educated than I) on this forum could enlighten us as to what targets of co2 we're aiming for


----------



## Daniel2 (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> What is so special about the sharpening thread?



You should try it.


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Daniel2 said:


> You should try it.



Sounds ominous! I'm not sure I want to as I've come across threads like that before and no doubt I'll discover that I've have been doing it wrong for over 50 years and I find it difficult enough to sleep as it is without worrying about whether or not I'm sharpening my tools correctly!


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> What is so special about the sharpening thread?


Parallel universe!
Those who know that the official methods are flawed know that "if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and their careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true."


----------



## ey_tony (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Parallel universe!
> Those who know the official methods are flawed know that "if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and their careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true."



Sorry but I can't take anything you say seriously. Anyone who continually quotes and sticks religiously to a flawed piece of garbage science without even questioning it is not worthy of me entering into debate with them.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Sorry but I can't take anything you say seriously. Anyone who continually quotes and sticks religiously to a flawed piece of garbage science without even questioning it is not worthy of me entering into debate with them.


You have to tell us why you think the science is flawed garbage. Just shouting "flawed garbage" is not enough.
It's pretty clear by now to everybody that you don't really know what you are talking about at all.
If I were you I'd just stop burbling on inanely. 
Have you any questions to ask about woodwork? Or anything? What are you making at the minute?


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Just wondering...perhaps the experts (those more educated than I) on this forum could enlighten us as to what targets of co2 we're aiming for











Infographic: What has your country pledged at COP26?


With the annual climate change summit over, what have world leaders achieved at COP26?




www.aljazeera.com


----------



## Istrickl (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Infographic: What has your country pledged at COP26?
> 
> 
> With the annual climate change summit over, what have world leaders achieved at COP26?
> ...


Thanks for coming back to me Jacob but I don't appear to see what the target figure is for co2 amongst this very useful information?


----------



## Istrickl (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Infographic: What has your country pledged at COP26?
> 
> 
> With the annual climate change summit over, what have world leaders achieved at COP26?
> ...


This is what I can't quite get my head around... How much co2 do we have, how much did we have, and what are we aiming for? 
Thank you 
Cheers


----------



## Ozi (15 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> No keep muttering and ranting!
> Monbiot is saying something similar - govt and business won't do it but people power might. After the failure of Cop26, there is only one last hope for our survival | George Monbiot


Don't call it a failure just yet, average voters opinion although in the short term as volatile as hell has at it's core a massive inertia, the best of our elected overlords can only lead it by the slightest margin. Just as in my industry there is no point in making the most environmentally sound vehicles we could as at this point in time, we would sell to about 1 in 100,000. Steady pressure gets gradual results. Government when we elect the disreputable will pretend to give us what they assume we want, the contempt of the likes of BJ and Gove openly show to us is abhorrent but amongst the dross we send to parliament there are a few decent people actually trying to improve the state of this country, personally I don't see them as concentrated in any party. I firmly believe we get what we deserve and the only power the people of this country have is to try to deserve better. If you vote and we all should don't blindly vote for a colored rosette read what they publish where you can look at what they vote for and vote for the candidate you believe to be the best option even when they have no hope of success. Where you believe them to be scoundrels you can at least have the satisfaction of behaving better than them. Don't assume business won't help, business is just large groups of people, constrained by economic reality and share holder opinion, you may be a share holder, express your opinion, you are a consumer what you buy is the economic reality.


----------



## ey_tony (16 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> You have to tell us why you think the science is flawed garbage. Just shouting "flawed garbage" is not enough.
> It's pretty clear by now to everybody that you don't really know what you are talking about at all.
> If I were you I'd just stop burbling on inanely.
> Have you any questions to ask about woodwork? Or anything? What are you making at the minute?



I never shout anything. I state things!
I don't have to tell you anything as it's clear from your posts that it's you who knows everything and anyone who doesn't agree with you is subject to derision simply because you believe you are right and anyone with a different opinion is wrong.

Unlike you I'm not so arrogant or crass as to believe that of myself, I just happen to disagree with some of the garbage science that is around at the moment and I have sufficient formal education to at least challenge some of the claims, that doesn't mean I know everything like you appear to do. 

As I've already said, I can't take anything you say seriously as nothing convinces me that you are someone who is worthy of entering into debate. 
Whatever your opinion of me, it really doesn't bother me simply because I don't value it!


----------



## Sandyn (16 Nov 2021)

Oh dear!!!! Some of the posts on this thread are examples of the VERY worst in human behaviour. Rude, ignorant, arrogant, intolerant of others people's views.


----------



## Ozi (16 Nov 2021)

TheyWorkForYou: Hansard and Official Reports for the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, and Northern Ireland Assembly - done right


Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates.




www.theyworkforyou.com





have a look at this site, see what you MP voted for.


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Nov 2021)

Apparently there were 500 fossil fuel lobbyists in Glasgow whilst COP26 was on


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I don't have to tell you anything as it's clear from your posts that it's you who knows everything and anyone who doesn't agree with you is subject to derision simply because you believe you are right and anyone with a different opinion is wrong



I believe it was you who called Jacobs posts “flawed garbage”

I would call that derision.


----------



## John Brown (16 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> TheyWorkForYou: Hansard and Official Reports for the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, and Northern Ireland Assembly - done right
> 
> 
> Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates.
> ...


My MP has consistently voted against legislation to address climate change. Up until now. There's a whole lot of bandwagon jumping going on right now.
Boris, if you recall, said wind turbines couldn't blow the skin off a rice pudding(showing a spectacular ignorance of how a wind turbine works). Now he's trying to position himself as the jolly green clown/saviour of the universe.
Let's hope it's a genuine change of heart, and not just more political manuevering, like his last minute Brexit support decision, which got him the PM position.


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> I never shout anything. I state things!
> I don't have to tell you anything as it's clear from your posts that it's you who knows everything and anyone who doesn't agree with you is subject to derision simply because you believe you are right and anyone with a different opinion is wrong.
> 
> Unlike you I'm not so arrogant or crass as to believe that of myself, I just happen to disagree with some of the garbage science that is around at the moment and I have sufficient formal education to at least challenge some of the claims, that doesn't mean I know everything like you appear to do.
> ...


Have you bothered to catch up on the M Mann hocky stick story yet? You have to start somewhere and that's as good as any. Behind the Hockey Stick
In fact googling 'Scientific American / hocky stick / climate change" brings up a lot of stuff.
I suppose you think Scientific American is also in the cunning plot to deceive the world.


----------



## ey_tony (16 Nov 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> I believe it was you who called Jacobs posts “flawed garbage”
> 
> I would call that derision.


You might see it that way but if you actually bothered to take the time to read what I wrote, then you would glean that I was referring to a certain scientific study which has been debunked and yet he hangs onto it as evidence. I never referred to his posts as flawed garbage.

Every post he has made so far with me in mind has been derisory, even inferring that I'm an anti-vaxxer. He's a keyboard warrior of the worst kind.
As it happens I actually survived a SARS infection back in 2003 which left me with severe COPD so I don't take any risks and I don't need internet bigots assuming that because I don't indulge their prejudiced views that I must be an anti-vaxxer or the likes.


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> This is what I can't quite get my head around... How much co2 do we have, how much did we have, and what are we aiming for?
> Thank you
> Cheers


300 parts per million looks 'normal' peak. 
Current level 417ppm takes us into territory unknown for the last 100,000 years or so 
Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> You might see it that way but if you actually bothered to take the time to read what I wrote, then you would glean that I was referring to a certain scientific study which has been debunked .....


It hasn't though. It's a myth. 
You need to catch up - do yourself a favour - it's all interesting stuff.








Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong


Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it




www.newscientist.com


----------



## Droogs (16 Nov 2021)

Ozi said:


> Just as in my industry there is no point in making the most environmentally sound vehicles we could as at this point in time, we would sell to about 1 in 100,000.



That is one of the biggest logical fallacies I have read in this "debate". If you and all the other car manufacturers made the most eco cars you could and stopped making any dino burners at all people would buy them. After all if you wanted to buy oranges but they were now extinct (no longer available or grown for the market) and could only get mandarins or satsumas then that is what you would buy or go without. You are basically saying, it's too hard and we can't be bothered so will do as little as we can get away with and still maximise profits. Complete tosh


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> That is one of the biggest logical fallacies I have read in this "debate". If you and all the other car manufacturers made the most eco cars you could and stopped making any dino burners at all people would buy them. After all if you wanted to buy oranges but they were now extinct (no longer available or grown for the market) and could only get mandarins or satsumas then that is what you would buy or go without. You are basically saying, it's too hard and we can't be bothered so will do as little as we can get away with and still maximise profits. Complete tosh


People forget about the massive popularity of the small economical offerings over the years, from Ford model T onwards. The Mini was one of the best in recent years. Even the Reliant Robin was popular. The Trabant was a brilliant concept but badly executed. The industry has too many Jeremy Clarksons!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Nov 2021)

Market forces are excellent in promoting innovation and technical development. This is certainly true in the car industry.

These benefits only arise given the freedom to innovate. Legislation constraining freedoms will inevitably retard development.

There is a spectrum of positions between the extremes of "let market forces dominate" through to "legislate all to ensure coherence with the fixed strategy". Neither extreme has been proven to work well, fairly or consistently - a balance or compromise is required.

Personally I favour limited legislation only to avoid gross excesses of market forces. Others may embrace legislation which seeks to avoid any excess.

For cars, the current approach in the UK of increasing incentives backed by legislation restricting the sale of new ICE by 2030 seems a sensible balance. 

Politicians are elected every ~5 years. Transition to a low/zero carbon is multi-decadal. No political party of either persuasion will go much faster than public opinion finds acceptable as it simply eliminates their re-election chances.

Pragmatism rules - the UK public (generally) are aware of climate change, accept that it is an issue, but are thus far almost entirely unfamiliar with its impact. 

Flooding and drought events several thousand miles away may elicit sympathy but no sense the UK is imperilled. Most have never seen a coral reef! UK flooding and storms are of trivial consequence - a few hundred (out of 20m+) flooded, the odd roof blown off.


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> You might see it that way but if you actually bothered to take the time to read what I wrote, then you would glean that I was referring to a certain scientific study which has been debunked and yet he hangs onto it as evidence. I never referred to his posts as flawed garbage.
> 
> Every post he has made so far with me in mind has been derisory, even inferring that I'm an anti-vaxxer. He's a keyboard warrior of the worst kind.
> As it happens I actually survived a SARS infection back in 2003 which left me with severe COPD so I don't take any risks and I don't need internet bigots assuming that because I don't indulge their prejudiced views that I must be an anti-vaxxer or the likes.


Another link for ey-tony here Why the hockey stick graph will always be climate science's icon
Not difficult to find these things out. No need to be 20 years behind the curve.
Or is New Scientist also part of a huge world-wide confidence trick?


----------



## DrPhill (16 Nov 2021)

New Scientist said:


> Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see _The great hockey stick debate_).
> 
> 
> Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let’s skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.
> ...


----------



## Ozi (16 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> My MP has consistently voted against legislation to address climate change. Up until now. There's a whole lot of bandwagon jumping going on right now.
> Boris, if you recall, said wind turbines couldn't blow the skin off a rice pudding(showing a spectacular ignorance of how a wind turbine works). Now he's trying to position himself as the jolly green clown/saviour of the universe.
> Let's hope it's a genuine change of heart, and not just more political manuevering, like his last minute Brexit support decision, which got him the PM position.


You assume a hart - I admire an optimist


----------



## Istrickl (16 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> 300 parts per million looks 'normal' peak.
> Current level 417ppm takes us into territory unknown for the last 100,000 years or so
> Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change


Just doing a little own research and it seems we have records of 7000 ppm. In fact it looks like we're almost at historic lows at the moment. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Sandyn (16 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Just doing a little own research and it seems we have records of 7000 ppm. In fact it looks like we're almost at historic lows at the moment. Or am I missing something?


To get those levels, I think you have to go back 500 million years. What has been highlighted is that for thousands of years the CO2 level stabilised around 300ppm. At the same time the temperature of the earth stabilised, climate stabilised so humans could predict weather patterns, sow seeds, grow food, and eventually develop technology. It allowed humans to go forth and prosper.


----------



## Istrickl (16 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> To get those levels, I think you have to go back 500 million years. What has been highlighted is that for thousands of years the CO2 level stabilised around 300ppm. At the same time the temperature of the earth stabilised, climate stabilised so humans could predict weather patterns, sow seeds, grow food, and eventually develop technology. It allowed humans to go forth and prosper.


Looking at a graph, admittedly one that goes back a long time, you would be forgiven for thinking that there is absolutely no correlation between temperature and the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Not exactly in living memory but definitely whilst human kind has been trotting about on the planet, we've had much colder temperatures and considerably higher concentrations of co2 - again, am I missing something?


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Looking at a graph, admittedly one that goes back a long time, you would be forgiven for thinking that there is absolutely no correlation between temperature and the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Not exactly in living memory but definitely whilst human kind has been trotting about on the planet, we've had much colder temperatures and considerably higher concentrations of co2 - again, am I missing something?


Good question. Explanations here; Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)
It's not simple and the answer seems to be the sea; _"More than 90% of global warming goes into heating the oceans, while less than 3% goes into heating the atmosphere"_.


----------



## Sandyn (16 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Not exactly in living memory but definitely whilst human kind has been trotting about on the planet, we've had much colder temperatures and considerably higher concentrations of co2 - again, am I missing something?


I don't think you are missing anything. CO2 levels and temperatures did fluctuate in the past, but eventually stabilised. for about 10 thousand years. In the last 100+ years, the CO2 level has increased more than anything seen in the previous 800,000 years.


----------



## RobinBHM (16 Nov 2021)

It may be difficult to isolate climate change from natural climate variation…..

however, we do know:

human population has gone from £25b in 1950 to 7.5BT now
we know carbon levels are massive
we know the huge numbers of animals have become extinct
we know natural habitat is disappearing
we know rainforests are disappearing
we know the world is going to struggle to feed itself


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Nov 2021)

CO2, climate and sea levels have changed substantially in geological timescales. Flora and fauna no doubt evolved over extended periods. That which was unable became extinct and is mostly lost to the historical record. This is all completely irrelevant to current debates.

What happens 1k or 1m or 1bn years from now is equally unimportant. Life on earth will evolve and adapt. Some species will be lost, others emerge. Neither I nor any descendants that I may feel any responsibility for will be alive.

I feel no sense of anger in the actions of recent generations. Reality is now - we have some reasonable knowledge of likely outcomes if we continue on current paths. It is that for which I feel some responsibility or concern.

I would prefer my children and grandchildren are able to live fulfilling lives relatively unconcerned about adverse changes to the climate for which I was part of the generation responsible. The only important timeframe is therefore the next 100-150 years.

I will be as irrelevant to my great, great grandchildren as my predecessors born in mid Victorian times - of possible academic interest only.


----------



## Istrickl (17 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> I don't think you are missing anything. CO2 levels and temperatures did fluctuate in the past, but eventually stabilised. for about 10 thousand years. In the last 100+ years, the CO2 level has increased more than anything seen in the previous 800,000 years.


Er, OK, but at no other time other than since that in living memory (OK, maybe my great granny) has there been any visible relationship between co2 and temperature and if you accept some of the graphs of much longer time periods that I found on the Internet (and so far I don't see anyone challenging these data) then, even as only a trainee scientist, you'd be hard pressed to completely justify a temp/co2 structure based on cause and effect. Indeed, now that I've got interested and delved a bit further, I'm struggling to see where the evidence is for signicant global warming caused by anthropogenic action based around co2 emissions. It looks from what I've read (this hockey stick graph) that the first IPCC report was heavily based on fraud? Further, the 97% of cats that prefer it is well dodgy in the best tradition of statistics being presented as facts to support the preferred view of - I haven't quite got to the bottom of who yet - any ideas anyone? Do like a good conspiracy  

Ps according to NASA data, the world is greening up because of increased co2. I didn't realise but co2 is pumped into commercial greenhouses to increase growth - didn't realise it was quite such influential plant food! Also, I just read somewhere that there are certain types of plants that die when co2 concentration drops to around 200 ppm (which it was very close to before the industrial revolution). This is actually quite an interesting subject isn't it when you start digging  
Cheers


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> ...... I'm struggling to see where the evidence is for signicant global warming caused by anthropogenic action based around co2 emissions.


Keep struggling and you will get there eventually. Try this - I posted it a bit back Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)


> It looks from what I've read (this hockey stick graph) that the first IPCC report was heavily based on fraud?


 We've just been going over (and over and over) that with ey_tony if you read back a bit. It's not true. Read more about it Hockey stick graph - Wikipedia


> Further, the 97% of cats that prefer it is well dodgy in the best tradition of statistics being presented as facts to support the preferred view of - I haven't quite got to the bottom of who yet - any ideas anyone?


Not dodgy at all but not easy to understand a complex picture. It's the truth they are after, and what to do about it.


> Do like a good conspiracy
> 
> Ps according to NASA data, the world is greening up because of increased co2. I didn't realise but co2 is pumped into commercial greenhouses to increase growth - didn't realise it was quite such influential plant food! Also, I just read somewhere that there are certain types of plants that die when co2 concentration drops to around 200 ppm (which it was very close to before the industrial revolution).


Yes you are right on these. In fact "greening" looks likely to be a big part of the solution. "Plant food" - it's much more basic than that, look up "Carbon cycle" carbon cycle - Google Search


> This is actually quite an interesting subject isn't it when you start digging
> Cheers


Certainly is!
But don't be distracted by the deniers and sceptics. The chances of you, or any of them, finding a huge "mistake" in the story so far, or even more unlikely; finding a massive fraud involving millions of scientists, is extremely remote. Prove it and you'd save the world from a lot of bother and probably get a Nobel Prize!

As for the deniers' and sceptics' "conspiracy" it's more a case of mass superstition, in fact very traditional. If you read about peasant societies (Russian novels especially) you find them full of suspicion, doubt, belief in witches, warlocks, evil spirits, evil plots, signs and portents, etc etc because they can't understand the world. Things are often not easy to understand and can be scary, but it doesn't mean that there are evil spirits at work, that three magpies portends a disaster, that anything you don't understand is an attempted fraud... and so on.


----------



## Droogs (17 Nov 2021)

@Istrickl Though CO2 is the poster boy of the CC debate, it is only in conjunction with the other far more "active" gases released alongside and as a result of human industrialization and fossil fuel use that we can say the problem is man made. Yes these swings and changes happen all the time, the problem is that the much bigger swings in the past have been gradual and for most have taken a couple of millenia to occur. The current problem is that we have caused this swing to happen so quickly that the flora and fauna are unable to adapt and this is a big problem for us as we live off them. People in general are also unaware that the use of fossil based fertilizers in farming while actually increasing yields over the last few decades have been the major cause of soil degredation and depletion. There are a large number of qualified people within the farming industries who are postulating that unless drastic changes are made, farming as is has at most 20 years left in the UK before desertification ends it.

Our problem is we have been too successful as a species in our rising ability to change the world as we want without knowing what it will do long term and in our ability to prolong life and provide safe secure living space, which has made use multiply at an unprecedented rate. After all it took several million years for the population of the UK to reach 20 million and then 5 decades to reach 60 million. Something had to give and the planet is showing us that it is starting to.

Addendum
Desertification in this instance has nothing to do with water and refers to the loss of microbial biodiversity needed to create more topsoil. Fertilisers basically kill off these microbes and along with weathering we lose a layer of nutrient rich topsoil every time we fertilize with modern chemicals. It takes around 7 years for these microbes to create an inch of good soil and we are losing about half an inch a year currently.


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Keep struggling and you will get there eventually. Try this - I posted it a bit back Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?) We've just been going over (and over and over) that with ey_tony if you read back a bit. It's not true. Read more about it Hockey stick graph - WikipediaNot dodgy at all but not easy to understand a complex picture. It's the truth they are after, and what to do about it.Yes you are right on these. In fact "greening" looks likely to be a big part of the solution. "Plant food" - it's much more basic than that, look up "Carbon cycle" carbon cycle - Google Search Certainly is!
> But don't be distracted by the deniers and sceptics. The chances of you, or any of them, finding a huge "mistake" in the story so far, or even more unlikely; finding a massive fraud involving millions of scientists, is extremely remote. Prove it and you'd save the world from a lot of bother and probably get a Nobel Prize!
> 
> As for the deniers' and sceptics' "conspiracy" it's more a case of mass superstition, in fact very traditional. If you read about peasant societies (Russian novels especially) you find them full of suspicion, doubt, belief in witches, warlocks, evil spirits, evil plots, signs and portents, etc etc because they can't understand the world. Things are often not easy to understand and can be scary, but it doesn't mean that there are evil spirits at work, that three magpies portends a disaster, that anything you don't understand is an attempted fraud... and so on.



By all means seek to discredit the UEA emails and hacking and label them as fakes, perhaps you might want to explain in your own words why Mann et al effectively chose to and went to great lengths to effectively delete or treat as a none events both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age from his Hockey Stick hypothesis?


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> @Istrickl Though CO2 is the poster boy of the CC debate, it is only in conjunction with the other far more "active" gases released alongside and as a result of human industrialization and fossil fuel use that we can say the problem is man made. Yes these swings and changes happen all the time, the problem is that the much bigger swings in the past have been gradual and for most have taken a couple of millenia to occur. The current problem is that we have caused this swing to happen so quickly that the flora and fauna are unable to adapt and this is a big problem for us as we live off them. People in general are also unaware that the use of fossil based fertilizers in farming while actually increasing yields over the last few decades have been the major cause of soil degredation and depletion. There are a large number of qualified people within the farming industries who are postulating that unless drastic changes are made, farming as is has at most 20 years left in the UK before desertification ends it.
> 
> Our problem is we have been too successful as a species in our rising ability to change the world as we want without knowing what it will do long term and in our ability to prolong life and provide safe secure living space, which has made use multiply at an unprecedented rate. After all it took several million years for the population of the UK to reach 20 million and then 5 decades to reach 60 million. Something had to give and the planet is showing us that it is starting to.


Well yes except if the swing is big enough it doesn't swing back - we enter a new era altogether i.e. we don't get repeats of the triassic, carboniferous, etc. we get something different.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> By all means seek to discredit the UEA emails and hacking and label them as fakes, perhaps you might want to explain in your own words why Mann et al effectively chose to and went to great lengths to effectively delete or treat as a none events both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age from his Hockey Stick hypothesis?


Perhaps you could explain in your own words how/why the so-called fraud was debunked years ago?
Or have you spotted something new in the data?
You'd have to read up a bit on it first and I've given you enough links already.
Is this your only issue or have you spotted other flaws? You don't seem to answer questions - you just ask them in a mindless rhetorical sort of way.
You have nothing to lose but ignorance itself!


----------



## John Brown (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> By all means seek to discredit the UEA emails and hacking and label them as fakes, perhaps you might want to explain in your own words why Mann et al effectively chose to and went to great lengths to effectively delete or treat as a none events both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age from his Hockey Stick hypothesis?


To be honest, the MWP and the LIA pale into insignificance when compared with recent changes.
Of course I'm only basing that on currently available data. I don't have access to whatever the he double hockey sticks you're looking at.


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Perhaps you could explain in your own words how/why the so-called fraud was debunked years ago?
> Have you spotted something new in the data?
> You'd have to read up a bit on it first and I've given you enough links already.
> Is this your only issue or have you spotted other flaws? You don't seem to answer questions - you just ask them in a mindless rhetorical sort of way.
> You have nothing to lose but ignorance itself!



Well the question is simple and certainly not mindless.

As a Mann fan-boi you are very vocal as to the provenance of his Hockey Stick hypothesis therefore why do you suppose he chose to effectively leave out two significantly important events?


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> To be honest, the MWP and the LIA pale into insignificance when compared with recent changes.
> Of course I'm only basing that on currently available data. I don't have access to whatever the he double hockey sticks you're looking at.



Would you care to expand on why those two events are insignificant?


----------



## John Brown (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Would you care to expand on why those two events are insignificant?


Because they are the equivalent of me taking a dump in the graph of my medium term weight gain.
I've gained around a stone since last year, but my weight did drop by a couple of pounds last Thursday after a trip to the loo...


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Because they are the equivalent of me taking a dump in the graph of my medium term weight gain.
> I've gained around a stone since last year, but my weight did drop by a couple of pounds last Thursday after a trip to the loo...


At least your insignificant bowel movement wasn't responsible for mass deaths, famines, wars, plagues, witch hunts and attendendent ritual murders, revolutions, complete overturn of the social order and quite possibly the industrial revolution. That's an impressive list of effects for something with as trivial an impact as a mid-week evacuation.

But I expect you are right - the little ice age is trivial, and probably only exists in the minds of climate conspiracy theorists - if Dr Mann didn't find it in a bristle cone pine, it probably never happened. I wonder why all those people died?


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Well the question is simple and certainly not mindless.
> 
> As a Mann fan-boi you are very vocal as to the provenance of his Hockey Stick hypothesis therefore why do you suppose he chose to effectively leave out two significantly important events?


If you can't be bothered to read up on the outcome of the Mann controversy there's no point in you even having an opinion.
You should also try to drop that supercilious tone it just makes you sound even more irrelevant.
At least TN (above) doesn't claim to "have studied the subject in the past both academically and post academically and have degrees in Geology/Geophysics"


----------



## John Brown (17 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> At least your insignificant bowel movement wasn't responsible for mass deaths, famines, wars, plagues, witch hunts and attendendent ritual murders, revolutions, complete overturn of the social order and quite possibly the industrial revolution. That's an impressive list of effects for something with as trivial an impact as a mid-week evacuation.
> 
> But I expect you are right - the little ice age is trivial, and probably only exists in the minds of climate conspiracy theorists - if Dr Mann didn't find it in a bristle cone pine, it probably never happened. I wonder why all those people died?


I never said it was trivial, or that it didn't affect anyone. I never said it doesn't didn't exist, I merely said that from the graph of average global temperature over the centuries, it pales into insignificance besides the recent increase.


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> If you can't be bothered to read up on the outcome of the Mann controversy there's no point in you even having an opinion.
> You should also try to drop that supercilious tone it just makes you sound even more irrelevant.


Pretentious tone? You've made derisory comments about me and my views on some of the questionable science held up as fact since I first posted my views. You've also been hailing Mann as the new Messiah of the Hockey Stick religion and yet you can't be bothered to look up the outcome when you've suggested it as reading material for me? 
Surely you don't need to look it up as it's me according to you who is behind the times and you're the one with the up to date info?

Asking a valid question is not pretentious. making scathing comments about someone who questions the validity of science put up as fact is!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> it pales into insignificance besides the recent increase.


And yet, Europe hasn't lost a third of its population in the last 50 years. Isn't it odd? Warming is so destructive it is going to make the planet uninhabitable any day now, just not quite yet - for the moment we are all doing suprisingly well. Cooling on the other hand kills indiscriminately, even when the amount of cooling is "insignificant". I suppose the big question to ask is: just how cold is the right amount of cold? How many degrees colder do we need for the planet to bask in the perfect temperature? Have we asked Goldilocks?


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> Because they are the equivalent of me taking a dump in the graph of my medium term weight gain.
> I've gained around a stone since last year, but my weight did drop by a couple of pounds last Thursday after a trip to the loo...



Well your analogy is no worse than some of the other s**t explanations I've come across, that's for sure.


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> If you can't be bothered to read up on the outcome of the Mann controversy there's no point in you even having an opinion.
> You should also try to drop that supercilious tone it just makes you sound even more irrelevant.


Pretentious tone? You've made derisory comments about me and my views on some of the questionable science held up as fact since I first posted my views. You've also been hailing Mann as the new Messiah of the Hockey Stick religion and yet you can't be bothered to look up the outcome when you've suggested it as reading material for me?
Goodness me! Surely you don't need to look it up as it's me according to you who is behind the times and you're the one with the up to date info?

By the way, asking a valid question is not pretentious. Making scathing comments about someone who questions the validity of science put up as fact, is!


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Pretentious tone? You've made derisory comments about me and my views on some of the questionable science held up as fact since I first posted my views. You've also been hailing Mann as the new Messiah of the Hockey Stick religion and yet you can't be bothered to look up the outcome when you've suggested it as reading material for me?
> Goodness me! Surely you don't need to look it up as it's me according to you who is behind the times and you're the one with the up to date info?
> 
> By the way, asking a valid question is not pretentious. Making scathing comments about someone who questions the validity of science put up as fact, is!











Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong


Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it




www.newscientist.com


----------



## Spectric (17 Nov 2021)

This is soundling like a case of Nero playing the fiddle whilst Rome burnt, and that is also questionable because the fiddle had not yet been invented in the first century AD.


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
> 
> 
> Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it
> ...



Posting links is not going to get you off the hook after you have been so scathing about me. I'll keep asking you questions like that every time you make a derisory comment about me.

Now the question remains is: why do you suppose an eminent academic such as Mann whom you obviously hold in high regard, thought it necessary to leave out the glaring anomalies of the MWP and LIA? You're obviously familiar with his work so it will be interesting to see your take on it!


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Posting links is not going to get you off the hook after you have been so scathing about me. I'll keep asking you questions like that every time you make a derisory comment about me.
> 
> Now the question remains is: why do you suppose an eminent academic such as Mann whom you obviously hold in high regard, thought it necessary to leave out the glaring anomalies of the MWP and LIA? You're obviously familiar with his work so it will be interesting to see your take on it!


It's a poser who to believe!
Scientific American? New Scientist? 99% of the world's scientists?
Or a supercilious geezer on a woodwork group who nobody has ever heard of and obviously hasn't read a lot on the subject?   









Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong


Despite repeated claims that the famous temperature reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, all the evidence supports it




www.newscientist.com












Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message


On the 20th anniversary of the graph that galvanized climate action, it is time to speak out boldly




blogs.scientificamerican.com








__





The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines: Mann, Michael: 9780231152556: Amazon.com: Books


The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines [Mann, Michael] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines



www.amazon.com












The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org






https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/book-review-michael-manns-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars/2012/05/25/gJQAIYzQqU_story.html


----------



## Droogs (17 Nov 2021)

Perhaps he left them out as the MWP has not been fully agreed upon to be regarded as in fact having truly happened as there is nowhere near enough consencous on the evidence for it. The LIA was possibly left out as the general agreement is that is was an abberation caused by a particularly violent but short lived period of vulcanosity in the SW Pacific and had no overall lasting or appreciable effect on the longterm numbers. Could be wrong could be right. But the LIA was definitely a shortlived blip the driver of which was dust particles in the upper atomospere not greenhouse gases


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's a poser who to believe! Scientific American? New Scientist?
> Or some geezer on a woodwork group who nobody has ever heard of and obviously hasn't done a lot of reading?



Well you see I'm asking a geezer of a woodwork forum who has done a lot of reading in order to be enlightened. 
I'll repeat the question....Why did Mann et al, leave out those two important factors when he devised his hockey stick hypothesis?


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Droogs said:


> Perhaps he left them out as the MWP has not been fully agreed upon to be regarded as in fact having truly happened as there is nowhere near enough consencous on the evidence for it. The LIA was possibly left out as the general agreement is that is was an abberation caused by a particularly violent but short lived period of vulcanosity in the SW Pacific and had no overall lasting or appreciable effect on the longterm numbers. Could be wrong could be right. But the LIA was definitely a shortlived blip the driver of which was dust particles in the upper atomospere not greenhouse gases


At least a reasoned and measured reply. 
However, I wouldn't call either of them a blip. They've been played down by those who support Mann but many others don't agree.


----------



## Chris152 (17 Nov 2021)

Perhaps this thread could be retitled 'Pointless bickering about whether or not man-made climate change is happening'?
Anyone got any thoughts about the impact of deck chair arrangement on the Titanic on the ship's eventual fate? Could be another fascinating thread.
eta - in fact, I'm having doubts the Titanic ever existed.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (17 Nov 2021)

I am personally happy to accept conclusions reached by Scientic American and New Scientist - as it seems are most credible scientists. 

As I undertand it the Mann hockeystick was the first (or early) temperature reconstruction. That subsequent analysis based on improved data changed the analysis is unsurprising. Mann may also have (deliberately or otherwise) skewed the statistical analysis for effect. 

Neither matters - the general conclusions have not changed. 

But an exchange of insults is clearly more fun than rational discussion and debate on subjects about which we may all benefit through being better informed.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> ...
> ... many others don't agree.


David Bellamy and Piers Corbyn? 

MWP - read all about it: 'Medieval Warm Period' Wasn't Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says - Inside Climate News
More here: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
It seems to MWP and LIA were deduced from historical information but were local, not global -as subsequently verified by ice research etc. In any case they fitted in with the broad spread of the Hockey graph range and would not have altered the conclusion even if found to be global.


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> David Bellamy and Piers Corbyn?
> 
> MWP - read all about it: 'Medieval Warm Period' Wasn't Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says - Inside Climate News
> More here: Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
> It seems to MWP and LIA were deduced from historical information but were local, not global -as subsequently verified by ice research etc. In any case they fitted in with the broad spread of the Hockey graph range and would not have altered the conclusion even if found to be global.



Believe what you want, it really doesn't bother me.
As I've previously stated, your credibility is nil as far as I'm concerned. It says it all when anyone quotes Wikipedia as a reliable source of information! 
It's open source information and there are people out there who can deliberately edit the content, depending upon their narrative to skew the facts so that people such as you believe it to be true.
It might be a useful resource for some subjects like history etc but where emotive subjects such as AGW and politics are concerned, it's dreadful and the content should never be trusted without first checking the facts.

Your assertions regarding the MWP and the LIA according to the papers I've read don't agree with your view, therefore I'd argue you are wrong on both counts but you are welcome to believe whatever you wish.


----------



## John Brown (17 Nov 2021)

I have no desire to hurl insults at anyone(except perhaps JRM), or indeed, to have them hurled at me. I just want to understand why some people think 97%(I know that's contested, but I think it's fair to say the vast majority) of climate scientists are either plain wrong, or just "following the money". I think there's a lot more money in dodgy PR dressed up as science and paid for by fossil fuel interests.
This is of no relevance to TN, if course, as he seems to believe that climate change would be a good thing. He may be right, for all I know, but that's a different argument.


----------



## John Brown (17 Nov 2021)

Wikipedia is not perfect, but it does often include citations, and folks in all sides of the debate have access for editing, as I understand things.
It is, however, in my opinion, a lot safer than getting your "facts" from Facebook.. or Twitter, or some bloke at the filling station whose friend once cleaned the windscreen of a scientist's car.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Nov 2021)

John Brown said:


> . I think there's a lot more money in dodgy PR dressed up as science and paid for by fossil fuel interests.


Have a look at how much money is available to "consensus" Climate science, and where the funding comes from (hint: carbon credits). The idea that "_our_" scientists are good, honest researchers innocently discovering the machinations of the universe, but "_their_" scientists are dishonest, bought and paid for, thieving liars is laughable. Why would one set of scientists be pure, and another have entire careers of tawdry corruption, and it just happens that the scientists you agree with are pure and perfect, and the ones you disagree with are corrupt? There's got to be a logical fallacy there somewhere.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Have a look at how much money is available to "consensus" Climate science, and where the funding comes from (hint: carbon credits). The idea that "_our_" scientists are good, honest researchers innocently discovering the machinations of the universe, but "_their_" scientists are dishonest, bought and paid for, thieving liars is laughable. Why would one set of scientists be pure, and another have entire careers of tawdry corruption, and it just happens that the scientists you agree with are pure and perfect, and the ones you disagree with are corrupt? There's got to be a logical fallacy there somewhere.


You really believe that 99% of world science is corrupt and dishonest and just a tiny 1% are straight?


ShieldSquare Captcha


Very odd. Not much you can say really. It's a pity there's no evidence.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> .......
> 
> Your assertions regarding the MWP and the LIA according to the papers I've read don't agree with your view,


What papers are these? Can we have links?


> therefore I'd argue you are wrong on both counts


I'd argue that these papers of yours don't exist and you are just making it up on the hoof


> but you are welcome to believe whatever you wish.


That is clearly your position but personally I don't believe whatever I wish - I make some effort to find out facts. You should try it! You have nothing to lose!


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> You really believe that 99% of world science is corrupt and dishonest and just a tiny 1% are straight?
> 
> 
> ShieldSquare Captcha
> ...



AGW has been like manna from heaven for countless thousands of academics worldwide in the form of almost limitless research grants over the past two or more decades.

Why on earth would they want to change the current status quo by questioning the facts surrounding the GW god and its resultant religion?
If they did that then they would be effectively unemployed and to do so would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. They just aren't going to do it which is why they are locked into the current line of thinking.

I'll wager if there was no further grants available to prove that GW is anthropogenic in origin, we'd immediately see a huge drop in the consensus you keep repeatedly beating the drum about.

Too many of the so called scientists are bought and paid for. The GW lot are just the same as those who are bought and paid for by the oil and tobacco industries.


----------



## John Brown (17 Nov 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Have a look at how much money is available to "consensus" Climate science, and where the funding comes from (hint: carbon credits). The idea that "_our_" scientists are good, honest researchers innocently discovering the machinations of the universe, but "_their_" scientists are dishonest, bought and paid for, thieving liars is laughable. Why would one set of scientists be pure, and another have entire careers of tawdry corruption, and it just happens that the scientists you agree with are pure and perfect, and the ones you disagree with are corrupt? There's got to be a logical fallacy there somewhere.


Firstly, there are ninety nine people competing for the "concensus" money, as opposed to one for the fossil fuel money.
Secondly, I did say PR dressed up as science.

But I'm not arguing with you any more, TN. You think climate change is a good thing, so whether you think it's false, man-made or natural, is irrelevant.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> AGW has been like manna from heaven for countless thousands of academics worldwide in the form of almost limitless research grants over the past two or more decades.
> 
> Why on earth would they want to change the current status quo by questioning the facts surrounding the GW god and its resultant religion?
> If they did that then they would be effectively unemployed and to do so would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. They just aren't going to do it which is why they are locked into the current line of thinking.
> ...


What there are no honest scientists anywhere at all? Except yourself presumably? How strange! Stranger and stranger!!! 
Oh there was Bellamy and Piers Corbyn - that's three of you against the world!  (and TN!).
I think I'll press the ignore button, enough of this silliness!
Actually not entirely wasted - I found a lot of the links really interesting but I see non of them were supplied by yourself (or TN!) nor anything else thing interesting either.
Tata for now!


----------



## ey_tony (17 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> What there are no honest scientists anywhere at all? Except yourself presumably? How strange! Stranger and stranger!!!
> Oh there was Bellamy and Piers Corbyn - that's three of you against the world!
> I think I'll press the ignore button, enough of this silliness!
> Actually not entirely wasted - I found a lot of the links really interesting but I see non of them were supplied by yourself, nor anything else thing interesting either.
> Tata for now!



By all means press it. I have too much to do and too little time to waste it trying to debate with someone with entrenched views so you will be doing me a favour.


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I am personally happy to accept conclusions reached by Scientic American and New Scientist - as it seems are most credible scientists.
> 
> As I undertand it the Mann hockeystick was the first (or early) temperature reconstruction. That subsequent analysis based on improved data changed the analysis is unsurprising. Mann may also have (deliberately or otherwise) skewed the statistical analysis for effect.
> 
> ...


Mm, so you're suggesting that pretty much the only data that the initial IPCC report was based on and that has subsequently been proven to be fraud, is not important because the conclusions, what, don't need the data anyway? I'm just getting in to this subject, and I'm not a 'denier' (why are we using this religious terminology - I think it has no place in science), but why does using fraudulent data not affect the conclusion?


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> What there are no honest scientists anywhere at all? Except yourself presumably? How strange! Stranger and stranger!!!
> Oh there was Bellamy and Piers Corbyn - that's three of you against the world!  (and TN!).
> I think I'll press the ignore button, enough of this silliness!
> Actually not entirely wasted - I found a lot of the links really interesting but I see non of them were supplied by yourself (or TN!) nor anything else thing interesting either.
> Tata for now!


Actually, further investigation looks like there is considerable scepticism about 'the climate emergency ', but it doesn' t get much reported by MSM. It also seems that anyone opposing the mainstream message, which now seems to be bordering on religious hysteria, gets cancelled. This can't be right... Can it? It's obviously a subject where passions run high, just look at the personal attacks here, on a bloody woodworking forum for goodness sake. I tried to bring it up in the pub the other day, and just for doing so, there were particular types that leapt to conclusions and got quite angry. There appears to be a fair subset of our society that is losing its marbles over this...it's quite unpleasant and definitely unproductive


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Mm, so you're suggesting that pretty much the only data that the initial IPCC report was based on and that has subsequently been proven to be fraud, is not important because the conclusions, what, don't need the data anyway? I'm just getting in to this subject, and I'm not a 'denier' (why are we using this religious terminology - I think it has no place in science), but why does using fraudulent data not affect the conclusion?


It wasn't fraudulent. It was an estimate, improved upon in subsequent revisions.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Actually, further investigation looks like there is considerable scepticism about 'the climate emergency ', but it doesn' t get much reported by MSM. It also seems that anyone opposing the mainstream message, which now seems to be bordering on religious hysteria, gets cancelled. This can't be right... Can it? It's obviously a subject where passions run high, just look at the personal attacks here, on a bloody woodworking forum for goodness sake. I tried to bring it up in the pub the other day, and just for doing so, there were particular types that leapt to conclusions and got quite angry. There appears to be a fair subset of our society that is losing its marbles over this...it's quite unpleasant and definitely unproductive


There is no 'considerable scepticism' amongst scientists. Nor is it likely that they are co-operating in a massive world wide fraud - perhaps the single most insane idea coming from the denial side.
Passions run high on the denial side. It's difficult to understand quite why they are so anxious to be proved right. They have been fighting the science from the start and effectively delayed action.
As the evidence gets reported one consistent theme is that things seem to be happening sooner than forecast. To that extent the science has been slow off the mark, too timid in raising the alarm, taken too much notice of the uninformed opposition. 
If you are interested you could work your way through some of the links posted up in this thread - no point in going through it all again!.


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> It wasn't fraudulent. It was an estimate, improved upon in subsequent revisions.


I'm not sure that's right. Ball alleged, and looking at information on further contemporary data sources it would appear to be credible, that Mann had manipulated/ignored data in order to present his "hockey stick" in support of a desired narrative. This was brought to a head with the leaking of many emails from the UEA. Mann sued Ball for libel - Ball won and was awarded damages. Mann refuses to release information to this day on how he produced the now infamous hockey stick. I reckon there's at least something not quite right here. I think it's at the very least enough to discredit it as the mainstay of the IPCC report don't you?


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> I'm not sure that's right. Ball alleged, and looking at information on further contemporary data sources it would appear to be credible, that Mann had manipulated/ignored data in order to present his "hockey stick" in support of a desired narrative. This was brought to a head with the leaking of many emails from the UEA. Mann sued Ball for libel - Ball won and was awarded damages. Mann refuses to release information to this day on how he produced the now infamous hockey stick. I reckon there's at least something not quite right here. I think it's at the very least enough to discredit it as the mainstay of the IPCC report don't you?


Already well covered - read some of the links already posted.
Ball did not win and was not awarded damages.








Tim Ball Pleads For Mercy As An Irrelevant Sick Old Man, Gets It, Declares Victory


If you’ve been cruising the denial highway over the past week or so, you may have come to believe that Dr. Michael Mann has lost his defamation lawsuit--the British Columbia court ruled in favor of Canadian Tim Ball and forced Mann to pay Ball’s court...




www.dailykos.com




In the meantime climate is changing, much as forecast, but faster.


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Passions run high on the denial side. It's difficult to understand quite why they are so anxious to be proved right. They have been fighting the science from the start and effectively delayed action
> The whole issue is being taken over by the evidence unfortunately. We all wish it wasn't!
> If you are interested you could work your way through some of the links posted up in this thread


I've read heaps and watched videos since coming across this thread. I'm convinced that there is some level of anthropogenic influence on the climate but to what degree is the obvious question. I'm not prepared, right now, to ascribe a level of threat to the planet from co2 that is generally the only narrative available to the general public. There is a shocking lack of available debate and the consequences for those that have attempted to do so have been severe - cancel culture at its worst! Surely, this matter is potentially so serious that we should promote, no, insist, that voices are heard. Well, the fact that Greta whatserface gets more press than a good body of scientists, seems indicative of the problem, not just of 'climate emergency' but also generally of our society as a whole. Phew, profound or what... 
Am I now officially a denier...


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

[


Istrickl said:


> ...
> Am I now officially a denier...


Good luck with that then!


----------



## Sandyn (18 Nov 2021)

People may argue about the cause, but does anyone still deny there is climate change happening?


----------



## planesleuth (18 Nov 2021)

Hey moderators! Isn't it about time you took down online off topic posts like this. It's hardly working wood is it ?? !!!! I really don't want to be distracted by this, thanks.


----------



## ey_tony (18 Nov 2021)

planesleuth said:


> Hey moderators! Isn't it about time you took down online off topic posts like this. It's hardly working wood is it ?? !!!! I really don't want to be distracted by this, thanks.


I hadn't realised that forum members were obliged to read every thread and every post? I thought the clue was in the title... 'Off-Topic'!


----------



## planesleuth (18 Nov 2021)

Haven't read it much Mr ey tony don't flatter yourself


----------



## ey_tony (18 Nov 2021)

planesleuth said:


> Haven't read it much Mr ey tony don't flatter yourself


Flatter myself? Not in the least.
I've only recently joined the thread, it was well underway long before I arrived on the scene. The content interested me so I joined in. If you aren't interested in the debate then fair enough. I myself don't read every thread or have any interest in many of the thread contents but I wouldn't want others stopped from participating or making their views heard.

Why would you want others who are interested in the debate stopped from participating if as you suggest you haven't been reading it? You aren't obliged to read any posts so simply ignore threads that don't interest you. I've always done it and it saves wasted time.


----------



## Daniel2 (18 Nov 2021)

planesleuth said:


> Hey moderators! Isn't it about time you took down online off topic posts like this. It's hardly working wood is it ?? !!!! I really don't want to be distracted by this, thanks.



I know it can be a really difficult concept to grasp, but have you actually tried not reading a thread
that doesn't interest you ?


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> People may argue about the cause, but does anyone still deny there is climate change happening?


Can't quite see what your point is? The climate, from my recently educated perspective, would appear have always be changing. It's an interesting topic. What isn't remotely interesting is how boorish and pseudo religious some folk can be when attempting to have a reasoned debate about it...


----------



## selectortone (18 Nov 2021)




----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Can't quite see what your point is? The climate, from my recently educated perspective, would appear have always be changing. It's an interesting topic. What isn't remotely interesting is how boorish and pseudo religious some folk can be when attempting to have a reasoned debate about it...


Not changing a lot during the holocene, which is rather the whole point. Holocene - Wikipedia
The "anthropocene" seems to be ushering in change which almost certainly will not be welcome, but as we caused it can we reverse it? Anthropocene - Wikipedia.
That is the question, friends, romans and countrymen!
I agree about the boorishness of the deniers, they really have nothing useful or interesting to say about anything - as you can see from this thread.
It's always been like this, flat earthers, creationists, anti vaxxers, covid sceptics, brexiters. "“The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11)"


----------



## Sandyn (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Can't quite see what your point is?


 It was just a question. 
I wondered if there were still people who don't believe that climate change is happening? 
If everyone accepts it is, we have to do whatever we can to reverse it. One of the things which is under our control is the reduction of CO2. We should start to see the effect on the measured CO2 within a couple of years. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility of the Global CO2 production starting to reduce for years. 

I believe the scientists who have shown what is causing climate change, unfortunately it's not the same people who decide how we actually achieve CO2 reduction, I have no faith in those people.


----------



## ey_tony (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Not changing a lot during the holocene, which is rather the whole point. Holocene - Wikipedia
> The "anthropocene" seems to be ushering in change which almost certainly will not be welcome, but as we caused it can we reverse it? Anthropocene - Wikipedia.
> That is the question, friends, romans and countrymen!
> I agree about the boorishness of the deniers, they really have nothing useful or interesting to say about anything - as you can see from this thread.
> It's always been like this, flat earthers, creationists, anti vaxxers, covid sceptics, brexiters. "“The poor you will always have with you” (Matthew 26:11)"


Talking of boorish.
Can you explain why over the last 15,000 years there have been around 10 sudden climatic reversals documented in the the proxy records which clearly did not involve anthropogenic CO2 production?


----------



## DrPhill (18 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Can you explain why over the last 15,000 years there have been around 10 sudden climatic reversals documented in the the proxy records which clearly did not involve anthropogenic CO2 production?


Please supply your evidence for these climatic reversals.
This link provides a good representation of temperature over that period. I see no rapid changes.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> Talking of boorish.
> Can you explain why over the last 15,000 years there have been around 10 sudden climatic reversals documented in the the proxy records which clearly did not involve anthropogenic CO2 production?


Yes very easy to explain. We weren't generating CO2 in great quantities until very recently!!!
Sort of obvious really. They could not have been due to mass exploitation of coal and oil because this had hardly started until about 300 years ago
I thought you would have spotted it yourself.  
n.b. They weren't quite "reversals" - homo sapiens survived, expanded and spread during this period
There is a hypothesis that the stability of the holocene might actually have been anthropogenic through other human influences - agriculture and extinctions Holocene extinction - Wikipedia which is all very interesting.
It's all so much more interesting than the boringly dull deniers would have you believe.
But I suppose it's useful having them ask questions
Hope that helps - don't hesitate to ask another!


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> 300 parts per million looks 'normal' peak.
> Current level 417ppm takes us into territory unknown for the last 100,000 years or so
> Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change


This is true but given 10s of thousands of years is a mere hiccup in climate terms, it would seem sensible to take into account a wider range of data that's available and doesn't appear to be too contentious to the various waring factions. In that case, you could suggest that the amount of co2 in the atmosphere has been in steady decline for millions of years from a much higher concentration compare with where we are today. Given that there are plants (I'm told) that actually die at 180 ppm then you could certainly argue a case for the industrial revolution doing mankind a favour in co2 terms, ignoring of course the other positive and negative factors associated with this period. It's certainly beyond reasonable dispute that the planet is getting greener as a result of more co2. 
What d'you think?


----------



## ey_tony (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Yes very easy to explain. We weren't generating CO2 in great quantities until very recently!!!
> Sort of obvious really.
> I thought you would have spotted it yourself.
> n.b. They weren't quite "reversals" - homo sapiens survived, expanded and spread during this period
> There is a hypothesis that the stability of the holocene might actually have been anthropogenic through other human influences - agriculture and extinctions Holocene extinction - Wikipedia which is all very interesting.


So show the quantifiable relationship between CO2 and warming and explain the 'reversals' as found in proxy records in terms of CO2.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> ..... It's certainly beyond reasonable dispute that the planet is getting greener as a result of more co2.
> What d'you think?


In local areas yes, but not enough to match the desertification in other areas, including the sea.
In fact it's probably how life will continue, treelines rising etc, but not necessarily including ourselves as rates of change could be too steep. Life is unstoppable but nature has no preferences over species, even less over individuals.


----------



## ey_tony (18 Nov 2021)

DrPhill said:


> Please supply your evidence for these climatic reversals.
> This link provides a good representation of temperature over that period. I see no rapid changes.



A cartoon drawn by Friends of the Hockey Stick Lovers if I'm not mistaken. 
The name Katharine Hayhoe at the foot of the page, Mann's sidekick, tells me all I need to know.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> So show the quantifiable relationship between CO2 and warming and explain the 'reversals' as found in proxy records in terms of CO2.


Don't be lazy you can track down information just as easily as the rest of us.
Though I see it could be difficult if you think you already know it all!


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> In local areas yes, but not enough to match the desertification in other areas, including the sea.
> In fact it's probably how life will continue, treelines rising etc, but not necessarily including ourselves as rates of change could be too steep. Life is unstoppable but nature has no preferences over species, even less over individuals.


Mm, well yes, that's what I would have thought too, but apparently not according to NASA that says there has been a significant net increase according to its MODIS Vegetation Index


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2021)

Istrickl said:


> Mm, well yes, that's what I would have thought too, but apparently not according to NASA that says there has been a significant net increase according to its MODIS Vegetation Index


Can you show the links to this? Found MODIS Web but it doesn't say anything about increase or decrease. There must be press releases and comments somewhere.


----------



## Istrickl (18 Nov 2021)

Have to be later. Dad's taxi service required


----------



## ey_tony (18 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Don't be lazy you can track down information just as easily as the rest of us.
> Though I see it could be difficult if you think you already know it all!



Classic.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

Sandyn said:


> People may argue about the cause, but does anyone still deny there is climate change happening?


Seems to be nobody then?
The deniers are in a bit of a dilemma as in spite of their dismissal of the science as an elaborate fraud, it seems to be happening anyway, pretty much as forecast!
Or are all the reports we get also faked and exaggerated?


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-record-rainfall-graphics-1.6254271


----------



## ey_tony (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Seems to be nobody then?
> The deniers are in a bit of a dilemma as in spite of their dismissal of the science as an elaborate fraud, it seems to be happening anyway, pretty much as forecast!
> Or are all the reports we get also faked and exaggerated?
> 
> ...



As an unswerving believer, you must believe that anthropogenic generated CO2 is entirely responsible for any observable shift in our climate that we see today, am I correct?


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> As an unswerving believer, you must believe that anthropogenic generated CO2 is entirely responsible for any observable shift in our climate that we see today, am I correct?


Nothing to do with "belief" it's about the science. You are the one with the unswerving faith in nonsense.
No you are not correct. In fact if anything the holocene was cooling gradually - have a look at the hockey stick graph. The big anthropogenic shift of recent years actually reversed a cooling trend and sent it leaping to unprecedented heights. But it could also be that other human activities were the cause of the slow decline preceding the modern rise, or may even have done the opposite and delayed it.
Lotsa details here in this randomly googled item *The Holocene temperature conundrum *which how difficult it has been to reach a consensus. It shows how sceptical the science itself is - we have no need of uber sceptics like Piers Corbyn, or the daft berks you find on the internet
But the evidence is now with us loud and strong which seems to prove the general hypothesis, whatever the details, and the deniers are melting away, rather like the ice caps and the glaciers (except in David Bellamy's never-never land  !)


----------



## ey_tony (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Nothing to do with "belief" it's about the science. You are the one with the unswerving faith in nonsense.
> No you are not correct. In fact if anything the holocene was cooling gradually - have a look at the hockey stick graph. The big anthropogenic shift of recent years actually reversed a cooling trend and sent it leaping to unprecedented heights. It could be that other human activities were the cause of the slow decline preceding the modern rise.



OK. So based on your comments and unswerving faith in science, it's safe to assume from what you say that if it wasn't for the intervention of anthropogenic origin CO2 and its effect on the climate, then we would could well be in the grip of an ice advance right now...is that how you see it?

Speaking of the Hockey Stick graph, you still haven't explained why Mann et al thought it necessary to leave out of the Hockey Stick hypothesis, both the MWP and the LIA?
Those events are recorded not only in the Northern Hemisphere which were effectively dismissed as localised non-events by Mann et al in order to make the Hockey stick analogy fit with his flawed data, but those same non-events are evident in proxy studies in several countries in the Southern Hemisphere too where studies were carried out, showing that they are synchronous with these so called 'non-events in the Northern Hemisphere.

How do you explain that?


----------



## Droogs (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> As an unswerving believer, you must believe that anthropogenic generated CO2 is entirely responsible for any observable shift in our climate that we see today, am I correct?


no, but it is exacerbating it at an exponential level. It is foreshortening the period of change in a way that the bioshpere can not cope with.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> OK. So based on your comments and unswerving faith in science, it's safe to assume from what you say that if it wasn't for the intervention of anthropogenic origin CO2 and its effect on the climate, then we would could well be in the grip of an ice advance right now...is that how you see it?


Have a look at the graphs. Do you see them leading to an ice age if not for the modern sudden uplift?


> Speaking of the Hockey Stick graph, you still haven't explained why Mann et al thought it necessary to leave out of the Hockey Stick hypothesis, both the MWP and the LIA?


Read the links again. It's not that difficult to understand and it's been gone over at great lengths now for 20 years. You shouldn't still be struggling with it!


> Those events are recorded not only in the Northern Hemisphere which were effectively dismissed as localised non-events by Mann et al in order to make the Hockey stick analogy fit with his flawed data, but those same non-events are evident in proxy studies in several countries in the Southern Hemisphere too where studies were carried out, showing that they are synchronous with these so called 'non-events in the Northern Hemisphere.
> How do you explain that?


True or false - makes no difference to the general hypothesis and the evidence is now with us.
I suspect false as you are very anxious to prove fraud, even though the evidence is now with us loud and strong that the hypothesis was correct. How do you explain that?
And 99% of the world's science agrees with the current hypothesis. How do you explain that?
You really need to do bit of reading if you want to get up to speed on these things - it's a bit futile asking trick questions in a supercilious manner on a woodwork forum.
You could instead try actually answering some of the genuine questions which people raise - after all you claim to know about these things.
You don't seem able to answer simple questions - how do you explain that?
Have you written to the IPCC explaining how mistaken they are? If not - how do you explain that?


----------



## ey_tony (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Have a look at the graphs. Do you see them leading to an ice age if not for the modern sudden uplift?Read the links again. It's not that difficult to understand and it's been gone over at great lengths now for 20 years. You shouldn't still be struggling with it!True or false - makes no difference to the general hypothesis and the evidence is now with us.
> I suspect false as you are very anxious to prove fraud, even though the evidence is now with us loud and strong that the hypothesis was correct. How do you explain that?
> And 99% of the world's science agrees with the current hypothesis. How do you explain that?
> You really need to do bit of reading if you want to get up to speed on these things - it's a bit futile asking trick questions in a supercilious manner on a woodwork forum.
> ...



I'm not asking trick questions. I'm not anxious to prove anything, I'm merely questioning some the science held up as fact and the beliefs of people like yourself who attempt to shut down anyone who dares to even question the data and modelling and who place everyone in the denier pigeon hole when in fact they are nothing of the sort and are simply just asking reasoned questions. Very Orwellian to say the least.

In terms of real and factual science, Mann's HS hypothesis is akin to believing everything a Snake Oil salesman tells you. 
To be fair, I have to give him credit in that he and his chums were able to effect a coup of the IPCC which is definitely worthy of recognition but certainly not for his contribution to accurate science. 

If reasoned questions can't be asked without derision and insults from those like yourself who follow their AGW beliefs religiously, then they are no better than the follower of any mainstream crack-pot religion which says more about the people who issue the insults than about those who have valid questions.

The reason I ask these questions is not because I'm a denier as you seem to think. I am just as concerned about mankind's negative input into the planet's biosphere and atmosphere as the next person but we have to determine exactly what the anthropogenic contribution actually is rather than base it on the models of Snake Oil science. The actions we take in the near future could impact negatively upon billions of people worldwide for generations to come, particularly the poor if our actions to address the alleged imbalance are based on flawed science. 

It's clear you're not going to answer any of the questions I've asked nor are you going to explain why Mann did what he did so it's utterly pointless wasting my time with you as you just throw up links in an attempt to deflect the questions so let's leave it at that.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> ... you just throw up links in an attempt to deflect the questions ...


No. They amount to answers to the questions. Mann even answers your question himself in the Scientific American article. You choose to deflect them by ignoring them.


----------



## ey_tony (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> No. They amount to answers to the questions. Mann even answers your question himself in the Scientific American article. You choose to deflect them by ignoring them.


As far as I'm concerned Mann is the Andrew Wakefield of climate science!


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> As far as I'm concerned Mann is the Andrew Wakefield of climate science!


Wakefield was an eccentric nutter and fraud, found guilty and struck off. 
He still has many anti vax followers and they also tend to be CC deniers. It's a syndrome, linked to creationists, brexiters, libertarians and other strangeness!
Mann was neither, was not found guilty of anything, was exonerated by almost the whole of the scientific community from the hysterical claims of the CC deniers, and the hockey stick graph is still the salient feature of the CC science.
You just need to catch up on your reading.
The reality is just so much more interesting than the crackpot burblings emanating from the deniers. They attract masses of attention, waste millions of hours and have effectively slowed down any efforts to ameliorate CC.
If the science is to blame for anything it is in being too slow and cautious to spell out reality, but then they had a media frenzy of stupidity to contend with.


----------



## selectortone (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Wakefield was an eccentric nutter and fraud, found guilty and struck off.
> He still has many anti vax followers and they also tend to be CC deniers. It's a syndrome, linked to creationists, brexiters, libertarians and other strangeness!
> Mann was neither, was not found guilty of anything, was exonerated by almost the whole of the scientific community from the hysterical claims of the CC deniers, and the hockey stick graph is still the salient feature of the CC science.
> You just need to catch up on your reading.
> ...


Next you'll be telling us the earth isn't flat!


----------



## Spectric (19 Nov 2021)

Well bumbling Borris has made a small step in the right direction, scrapping some of HS2 has saved some of our countryside, ancient woodlands and prevented a devastating impact on some peoples lives. Maybe he will realise London is not a destination on peoples minds who live up North and that having local employment is enviromentally better and also gives more family time. 



selectortone said:


> Next you'll be telling us the earth isn't flat!


If you live in Norfolk or Holland you could be forgiven for thinking that!


----------



## Jameshow (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Wakefield was an eccentric nutter and fraud, found guilty and struck off.
> He still has many anti vax followers and they also tend to be CC deniers. It's a syndrome, linked to creationists, brexiters, libertarians and other strangeness!
> Mann was neither, was not found guilty of anything, was exonerated by almost the whole of the scientific community from the hysterical claims of the CC deniers, and the hockey stick graph is still the salient feature of the CC science.
> You just need to catch up on your reading.
> ...


I really think the tone here is very bigotted! 

Those who believe in creationism, brexit etc have a right to do so without malice from those who don't. 

Many thanks

James


----------



## Chris152 (19 Nov 2021)

Being one of the brainwashed, I take the threat of climate change seriously. Not remotely interested in the tiny minority who think they know better than the overwhelming scientific consensus. I'm currently making plans for a location and lifestyle that might just help protect my family from the extremes of human bahviour that I think may well result. I can't mitigate changes in climate, obviously, but I think the kinds of mass migration of people that could result will make the current conflict on the Belarus/ Poland border look like a scale model.
I also think that public opinion/ action now matters more than ever. Governments are looking for compromises between economic success and climate that we probably can't afford to make. I think this article by Monbiot is rather good:








After the failure of @Cop26, there’s only one last hope for our survival: It’s too late for incremental change. By mobilising just 25% of people, we can flip social attitudes towards the climate - George Monbiot - Coyote Gulch


From The Guardian (George Monbiot): Now it’s a straight fight for survival. The Glasgow Climate Pact, for all its restrained and diplomatic language, looks like a suicide pact. After so many squandered years of denial, distraction and delay, it’s too late for incremental change. A fair chance of...




coyotegulch.blog


----------



## ey_tony (19 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Wakefield was an eccentric nutter and fraud, found guilty and struck off.
> He still has many anti vax followers and they also tend to be CC deniers. It's a syndrome, linked to creationists, brexiters, libertarians and other strangeness!
> Mann was neither, was not found guilty of anything, was exonerated by almost the whole of the scientific community from the hysterical claims of the CC deniers, and the hockey stick graph is still the salient feature of the CC science.
> You just need to catch up on your reading.
> ...


.
Do you really think I'd put myself up for ridicule from pompous asses who are clueless but who think they know everything because they've read an editorial on Wikipedia or in some other science magazine? That's not how I work. I research the facts and data evidence first and then decide if the data fits the claims. Mann's DIDN'T!

If you believe otherwise then you are free to do so but not free to ridicule others if they hold differing beliefs. 

I can't get my head around anti-vaxxers nor do I believe in a god even the CC god that people like you worship. I'm NOT a denier of GW and if someone voted for Brexit, good for them! That is their right and they should be free of patronising pratts singling them out for ridicule because they have differing views.

That is their choice and no one including you has the right to take a contemptable prejudiced and bigoted tone and ridicule them.

Now I would like to engage you in a battle of wits but judging by the evidence emanating from your posts so far, it would be unfair as you're clearly unarmed, so it's pointless further arguing with you.


----------



## Daniel2 (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> .
> Do you really think I'd put myself up for ridicule from pompous asses who are clueless but who think they know everything because they've read an editorial on Wikipedia or in some other science magazine? That's not how I work. I research the facts and data evidence first and then decide if the data fits the claims. Mann's DIDN'T!
> 
> If you believe otherwise then you are free to do so but not free to ridicule others if they hold differing beliefs.
> ...



Stop posturing and give us some actual information.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (19 Nov 2021)

I blame the scientists for ineffectually communicating the real risks of climate change. 

Had they done a better job, climate deniers would have a more difficult time in persuading others of their point of view, and governments may have taken more immediate and forceful action.

But as with vaccines, folk should be at liberty to ask questions, believe that which they choose, and need to accept the consequences of their poor judgement.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> .
> Do you really think I'd put myself up for ridicule from pompous asses who are clueless but who think they know everything because they've read an editorial on Wikipedia or in some other science magazine? That's not how I work. I research the facts and data evidence first and then decide if the data fits the claims. Mann's DIDN'T!


So you keep saying. But you are wrong.
You need to catch up you are years out of date. 'Hockey stick' graph creator Michael Mann cleared of academic misconduct




__





Michael Mann Cleared (Again)


One of the world's leading climate scientists has yet again been cleared of unfair charges of misconduct brought by change deniers. A scientific ruling with political ramifications.




www.theatlantic.com












Federal Investigators Clear Climate Scientist, Again


The Inspector General of the National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into climatologist Michael Mann after failing to find any evidence of misconduct




www.scientificamerican.com




Even if Mann was a total fraud it would not have made an iota of difference - the data was compiled from many sources, by many people, and subsequently revised, up-dated, over the intervening 20 years, with the addition of masses of new research into past climates and accumulating evidence of CC itself actually happening. His "errors" wilful or otherwise would have been completely over-ridden, revised, lost without trace.
You really are flogging a dead horse! 99% of world science is not conducting a massive fraud.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

Jameshow said:


> I really think the tone here is very bigotted!
> 
> Those who believe in creationism, brexit etc have a right to do so without malice from those who don't.
> ....


They are not immune from criticism and comment though.
n.b. "we" get slated and insulted all the time: "woke, snowflake, guardian reader, politically correct, hard left"..etc...
Can't say I'm bothered really, don't feel the need for special treatment! People who don't like the heat should stay out of the kitchen?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Nov 2021)

Ffs mods - lock this tedium or move it to the padded cell.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Ffs mods - lock this tedium or move it to the padded cell.


I agree!


----------



## Keith Cocker (20 Nov 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> But as with vaccines, folk should be at liberty to ask questions, believe that which they choose, and need to accept the consequences of their poor judgement.



Fair enough if I didn’t have to accept the consequences of their poor judgment but I do. I and millions more for example are already suffering the consequences of the poor judgment of those who voted to leave the EU. It’s no consolation to know that “we are all in it together “


----------



## ey_tony (20 Nov 2021)

Keith Cocker said:


> Fair enough if I didn’t have to accept the consequences of their poor judgment but I do. I and millions more for example are already suffering the consequences of the poor judgment of those who voted to leave the EU. It’s no consolation to know that “we are all in it together “


It's just a pity that those who were so vocal about remaining in the EU weren't also so vocal with regard to the effect the uncontrolled migration policies of the EU had on many of the poorest already living in our society!
The poorest arguably were the ones who bore the brunt of the demand for the already depleted housing stock and generally underfunded social infrastructure, not to mention the struggle in an almost unlimited and over-supplied unskilled labour market which drove down wages. It might have benefitted employers but not those who had to survive on low wages..

After all, it wasn't those living in comfortable leafy suburbs who had to compete for housing, jobs and other infrastructure who were disadvantaged by uncontrolled immigration, it was mostly the poorest in our society who had to live with it and when they aired their often very valid concerns and grievances, they were shouted down, marginalised and called racists, stupid etc etc by those who wished to remain in the EU....Hmmmmm...now where have I heard that sort of behaviour before?

We all have to live with the consequences of actions, sometimes not of our personal choosing or liking but it's called living in a democracy.


----------



## Chris152 (20 Nov 2021)

Trump. Shall we do Trump again everyone? Obviously of no relevance to the thread and belongs in the padded cells, but who cares? Just free associate.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2021)

ey_tony said:


> It's just a pity that those who were so vocal about remaining in the EU weren't also so vocal with regard to the effect the uncontrolled migration policies of the EU had on many of the poorest already living in our society!
> ........


Govt found it easy to blame poverty on migrants, as a vote winner with racists and xenophobes. Now we know this was not true and we are all worse off for it.
Oddly there has been a benefit for the boat people - we can no longer send them back to the EU Brexit has made it easier for small boat crossings to reach UK, refugees say
This means we are severely short of migrants coming here freely for work but have an increase in migrants coming here because they are simply desperate.


----------



## ey_tony (20 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> Govt found it easy to blame poverty on migrants as a vote winner with racists and xenophobes. Now we know this was not true and we are all worse off for it.


So the vast majority who voted for the Conservatives at the last election were effectively all racists and xenophobes? Hmmm an interesting perspective!


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2021)

No comment. I thought better of it!


----------



## selectortone (20 Nov 2021)

Oh oh. The 'B' word has raised its ugly head. Goodbye aud thread, I knew ye well.


----------



## ey_tony (20 Nov 2021)

Jacob said:


> It's turning into a battleground against Duds Army!
> Definition: "Duds Army" is the large body of people struggling in society who have mentally manacled themselves to some very dud ideas.



Yeah, like the huge majority who voted for the Conservatives are all racists and xenophobes!


----------



## Adam W. (20 Nov 2021)

Boring!

Meanwhile someone makes something nice out of wood.


----------



## MikeK (20 Nov 2021)

This thread has run its course for this forum. Oh well...I look forward to the COP27 thread.


----------

