# Heatwave



## Jacob (17 Jul 2022)




----------



## gog64 (17 Jul 2022)

This is NASAs GISTEMP infographics isn’t it? The base data set is 1951-1980, so the first infographic is literally comparing a subset of itself to itself. Meaningless. The second infographic has meaning, but trying to make a comparison between a meaningless infographic and a meaningful one isn’t telling me anything? Or maybe it’s the heat getting to me.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jul 2022)

gog64 said:


> This is NASAs GISTEMP infographics isn’t it? The base data set is 1951-1980, so the first infographic is literally comparing a subset of itself to itself. Meaningless. The second infographic has meaning, but trying to make a comparison between a meaningless infographic and a meaningful one isn’t telling me anything? Or maybe it’s the heat getting to me.


Apparently - yes Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
So a picture of higher and more widespread anomalies in 2022 compared to 1976 is not meaningful?


----------



## danst96 (17 Jul 2022)

Comparing a single year to another single year is basic at best.

Plus what I don't get is many older people I have spoken to often say, "back in my day young laddie, we had summers like this all the time"


----------



## Jacob (17 Jul 2022)

danst96 said:


> Comparing a single year to another single year is basic at best.


The point of 1976 was that there was a heatwave with record temperatures, in the UK at least.
The comparison is between two UK heat waves.



danst96 said:


> Plus what I don't get is many older people I have spoken to often say, "back in my day young laddie, we had summers like this all the time"


Much of this is unprecedented Forest fires rage across Europe as heatwave sends temperatures soaring


----------



## julianf (17 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> View attachment 139738




These, so called, scientists keep talking about "Global Warming", but say that it was 1000 trillion degrees C straight after the big bang.

I don't know about you, but that sounds more like global cooling to me?


----------



## thetyreman (17 Jul 2022)

some years are hotter than others, it's been this way for thousands of years.


----------



## Adam W. (17 Jul 2022)

I guess you can all continue to pretend that it's not warming up :eyesrolled: and all that.


----------



## Billy_wizz (17 Jul 2022)

Given the unusually high numbers of sunspots and the knowledge that there is a connection between the number of sun spots and the average temperature on earth it's far more complicated than most think!


----------



## Jacob (17 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> Given the unusually high numbers of sunspots and the knowledge that there is a connection between the number of sun spots and the average temperature on earth it's far more complicated than most think!


Really? Who knew that!




__





IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change







www.ipcc.ch





Are people still choosing not to believe in CC? How strange I thought that had finished.
What are they waiting for - to see it actually happening? 
er - well it actually is!


----------



## Tris (17 Jul 2022)

Boiling a frog springs to mind


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Really? Who knew that!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It always has.  4,000,000,000+ years.


----------



## Spectric (17 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Are people still choosing not to believe in CC? How strange I thought that had finished.
> What are they waiting for - to see it actually happening?


For many believing is having the full experience and in this case that point is way past trying to resolve the issue. We did have good summers, they were warm and predictable without wild swings from day to day, yes when it rained it drizzled for days on end but then when the sun came out it was warm for days but now we are seeing extremes over ever shorter time spans. 

Do you think the captain of the Titanic would have still hit that iceburg had he known about it just to confirm it was real! I think the facts are all around us, ever increasing population, more industry and more and more destruction of the enviroment to make way for farming, HS2, housing and palm oil.


----------



## julianf (17 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Really? Who knew that!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've been vegetarian since I was a child. I'd worked out that animals were not all that dissimilar to us, that they felt pain and probably some sort of emotions, and causing them distress them simply to make our food taste different seemed a little selfish.

More or less every adult, if they were honest with themselves, knows that some pretty rotten stuff happens to animals (again, sentient creatures, not that dissimilar from us) in order to make their dinner taste different.

I mean some would say it didn't, they would deny it wholly, but most would accept the truth of the matter, but, at the end of the day, conclude that somthing else suffering to make their dinner taste different was a price they were willing to pay.

Of course, "they" are not paying the price at all, another animal is.

Climate change stuff is exactly the same. There's some that honestly don't believe it, but, for most, there's a degree of convenient / deliberate lack of thought so they don't feel to blame for someone else's suffering.


----------



## Spectric (17 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> More or less every adult, if they were honest with themselves, knows that some pretty rotten stuff happens to animals (again, sentient creatures, not that dissimilar from us) in order to make their dinner taste different.


If you eat meat then you should at least see it being killed, that is how it once was when people hunted for their food and now we have a production killing machine that farms death, quote:

How many animals are slaughtered in the UK? Every year in the UK approximately *2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds* are slaughtered for human consumption. 

Is that really something we just want to turn a blind eye to? We grow food to feed these animals to eat, cut out the middle bit and just grow food to eat.

This is exactly how many people view climate change, they will make excuses because they don't want to rock the boat and carry on ignoring the facts that we are cooking the planet and many peoples grandchildren today will never see old age as a result.


----------



## Droogs (17 Jul 2022)

Most of the meat I eat, is killed by me, butchered by me & cooked by me apart from haddock. That comes from the chippie


----------



## Tris (17 Jul 2022)

_Too far off topic so deleted _


----------



## gog64 (17 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Apparently - yes Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4)
> So a picture of higher and more widespread anomalies in 2022 compared to 1976 is not meaningful?



No, because the first infographic compares 1976 to a dataset that includes 1976. It’s literally meaningless. All you needed to show was the second infographic. That compares the present day to a set of years INCLUDING 1976. Does that make sense now? BTW I’m not saying that the GISS analysis isn’t important, it is.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jul 2022)

gog64 said:


> No, because the first infographic compares 1976 to a dataset that includes 1976. It’s literally meaningless. All you needed to show was the second infographic. That compares the present day to a set of years INCLUDING 1976. Does that make sense now? BTW I’m not saying that the GISS analysis isn’t important, it is.


Right. Not convinced!
If the first image is meaningless why did they put it up? If it means nothing they may as well have left it blank.


----------



## DrPhill (17 Jul 2022)




----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2022)




----------



## julianf (17 Jul 2022)

DrPhill said:


>



"Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine."


----------



## Scruples (18 Jul 2022)

danst96 said:


> Comparing a single year to another single year is basic at best.
> 
> Plus what I don't get is many older people I have spoken to often say, "back in my day young laddie, we had summers like this all the time"


No, we didn't. We just think we did. We remember the long, warm, sunny days of summer during school holidays that seemed to last forever and forget the wet ones.


----------



## Keith Cocker (18 Jul 2022)

danst96 said:


> Comparing a single year to another single year is basic at best.
> 
> Plus what I don't get is many older people I have spoken to often say, "back in my day young laddie, we had summers like this all the time"


We didn’t. I’m 69. Is that old enough?


----------



## Keith Cocker (18 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> Given the unusually high numbers of sunspots and the knowledge that there is a connection between the number of sun spots and the average temperature on earth it's far more complicated than most think!


We had a student at College that said that sunspots cause all sorts of things. He was widely regarded as a loonie.


----------



## niemeyjt (18 Jul 2022)

OK

European Industry is now using more and more renewable and "green" energy. Meanwhile, China and India are opening new coal-fired power stations to power their industry.

So who is prepared to stop supporting Chinese Industry built on polluting energy?

So that is stop buying the various rebadged machines from Axminster, Record and others. Stop buying Milwaukee, Ryobi, Green Bosch etc etc.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

niemeyjt said:


> OK
> 
> European Industry is now using more and more renewable and "green" energy. Meanwhile, China and India are opening new coal-fired power stations to power their industry.
> 
> ...


They say they are having to do a massive catch up with the west but at the same time are massively investing in renewables.
It's likely that our solar panels, batteries and other green gubbins will be supplied by the Chinese, along with woodwork tools and squeaky toys.


----------



## stuart little (18 Jul 2022)

The latest sign of 'warming' - Italian Dolomite glacier 'calving' .


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


>



 What do expect to find if you watch videos put together by loonies and fruitcakes?


----------



## Fergie 307 (18 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> "Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine."


Dr Phil 's chart is interesting. Shows a 5° increase from the beginning to about 9000BC. This had nothing to do with human activity. If you go back further I am sure you would see even greater swings up and down that were entirely natural phenomena. I seem to recall a documentary where they theorized that the most likely explanation for historical changes in temperature was changes in solar activity, which seems sensible. So my view is that yes we are contributing enormously to global warming, not least of all in the speed of the changes, and we need to stop doing so. But we may also be seeing this superimposed as it were on an underlying natural upward trend. If this is the case then thinking can stop it entirely is delusional.
Would be interesting to see a similar chart covering a longer period.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Dr Phil 's chart is interesting. Shows a 5° increase from the beginning to about 9000BC. This had nothing to do with human activity. If you go back further I am sure you would see even greater swings up and down that were entirely natural phenomena. I seem to recall a documentary where they theorized that the most likely explanation for historical changes in temperature was changes in solar activity, which seems sensible. So my view is that yes we are contributing enormously to global warming, not least of all in the speed of the changes, and we need to stop doing so. But we may also be seeing this superimposed as it were on an underlying natural upward trend. If this is the case then thinking can stop it entirely is delusional.
> Would be interesting to see a similar chart covering a longer period.


The whole point of the science is to identify and distinguish the human contribution from other factors. They have not been ignored! Scientists really are not that stupid!
There's another argument that the holocene (11000 year long period of relative stability just ending) is itself a result of human activity (steady move from hunter-gatherer to farmer) so it works both ways and is in our power to influence, should we choose to.


----------



## Scruples (18 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> We had a student at College that said that sunspots cause all sorts of things. He was widely regarded as a loonie.


How about the fact that the temperature of the inner atmosphere is warmer than the outer atmosphere, indicating that the gasses building up in the lower atmosphere are causing heat generated on Earth to be retained rather than being lost to space? We are warming up, there is no doubt. It is now up to science to determine how much is natural change and how much is man-made change and is there's anything, realistically, that we can, and want, to do about it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> What do expect to find if you watch videos put together by loonies and fruitcakes?


How on earth did I guess you'd say that?


----------



## John Brown (18 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> We didn’t. I’m 69. Is that old enough?


We didn't, either. And I'm also 69.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Jul 2022)

There is always a danger that data is selected to prove a preconceived point rather than develop a coherent theory. Temperature for the period from 1000AD to present day shows the medieval warming period with temperatures similar to today interrupted by the 17th C little ice age.

I am not in denial - I do believe human activity is having a major impact on climate and the wider environment. So I ask the question - "why am I bothered". Over the next:

20 years - the outcome may very directly affect me - in 30 years I will likely be history
60 years - I would prefer my children enjoy a happy, fulfilling, safe existence
100 years - my grandchildren able to enjoy that which their parents and grandparents had
Thereafter any personal link with the future will be completely severed. My concern for periods thereafter diminishes rapidly. 

Strapline on todays TV news program - "by the end of the century temperatures such as this will be commonplace". By 2100 the youngest viewer now alive will be over 80, and experience temperatures which are already common in Mediterranean and tropical climes. So what?

The answer to the question "am I bothered" is "not very much". Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies are the easy bit if the will is there - although immediate crises often take priority, 

Overpopulation is the fundamental driver of environmental impacts (climate, resources, pollution etc) and resides in the much too difficult to do anything about category. Apologists find data supporting the proposition that in developed countries, populations are stabilising or even reducing slightly. 

IMHO this is complacency masquerading as rationality. Without addressing population, all climate change actions will achieve is (at best) a delay in increasing global temperatures.


----------



## Fergie 307 (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> The whole point of the science is to identify and distinguish the human contribution from other factors. They have not been ignored! Scientists really are not that stupid!
> There's another argument that the holocene (11000 year long period of relative stability just ending) is itself a result of human activity (steady move from hunter-gatherer to farmer) so it works both ways and is in our power to influence, should we choose to.


I agree scientists are not generally stupid, but they also often disagree. I wasn't aware that there was any consensus on what the underlying trend is, or what exactly determines it.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I agree scientists are not generally stupid, but they also often disagree. I wasn't aware that there was any consensus on what the underlying trend is, or what exactly determines it.


You've got some catching up to do then!
Met office is a good starting point. What is climate change?


----------



## John Brown (18 Jul 2022)

There is a well known thing often referred to as the backfire effect, whereby people who have taken sides on an issue, when presented with contradictory evidence, react by further entrenching their position. So, as it gets hotter, expect the denial to become louder and shriller.


----------



## John Brown (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I agree scientists are not generally stupid, but they also often disagree. I wasn't aware that there was any consensus on what the underlying trend is, or what exactly determines it.


That's hilarious! You weren't aware of any consensus!


----------



## whereistheceilidh (18 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> Given the unusually high numbers of sunspots and the knowledge that there is a connection between the number of sun spots and the average temperature on earth it's far more complicated than most think!


That one has already been sorted Billy .... many times...the best was a Dutch study from 1994 ish that differentiated the change in solar flux from sun spots with overall warming...ie global rise minus changes in incoming radiation( sorry, too busy today to find ref). There is still excess warming not covered by changes in external radiation. The Daily Telegraph reported the study as all warming was due to sun spots so if you choose sources like DT, D Mail etc then you may have a different view of climate change. 
Atmospheric CO2 levels .... and other adsorbant chemicals are increasing. They take in a range of solar wavelengths & give out heat.... climate change!
As far as I can see it is fairly straight forward, unless you are being paid by some fossil fuel company to make it seem different.
&...... as Jacob's maps show.... it is occurring globally.....now!


----------



## Fergie 307 (18 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> That's hilarious! You weren't aware of any consensus!


If people bothered to read stuff completely and in context. My observation was that I was not aware of any consensus on what the NATURAL underlying trend is, as opposed to our contribution, and it's exact causes. Our contribution is not in doubt, not is the fact that in the short term, by which I mean the last say 100 years, our behaviour has been the biggest factor driving this.


----------



## guineafowl21 (18 Jul 2022)

Someone’s dietary choices are a private matter, but I’m moved to comment when things start to get preachy.



julianf said:


> More or less every adult, if they were honest with themselves, knows that some pretty rotten stuff happens to animals (again, sentient creatures, not that dissimilar from us) in order to make their dinner taste different.


I don’t quite get it. Do laying hens and dairy cows not count?
-How many (male) chicks are slaughtered in the production of laying hens? Millions. 
-Almost all laying hens are slaughtered well before their natural lifespan (usually about 1 year old).
-Ditto dairy cows.

The slaughter happens in exactly the same facilities as those which process the animals for meat. You don’t happen to eat the resulting muscle and fat tissue, but the process nonetheless continues to make your food.


Spectric said:


> Is that really something we just want to turn a blind eye to? We grow food to feed these animals to eat, cut out the middle bit and just grow food to eat.



Again, I assume you eat eggs and milk which is the ‘middle bit’. If we all went vegetarian there would be no-one eating the spent hens and cows, which would be a tremendous waste.

Eggs are nutritionally different from wheat, and both form part of a balanced diet. Meat is nutritionally different from grass, the major diet of all ruminants. I would concede that farming has got a little obsessed with grain feeding cattle in recent times. We should switch over to more grass-reared stock, since grass is extremely easy to grow, and requires hardly any fossil fuel input compared to cereal crops.

Issues of poor welfare and sustainability are not necessary parts of meat production (which is the same as dairy/egg production, but the meat is not consumed). It can be improved rather than just stopped.

It’s unlikely I’ll change your world views, of course, but you both subscribe the the same industry that you’re arguing against. Animals are reared and slaughtered for your dinner; you simply ‘don’t inhale’. That is no basis for sanctimony.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> If people bothered to read stuff completely and in context. My observation was that I was not aware of any consensus on what the NATURAL underlying trend is, as opposed to our contribution, and it's exact causes. Our contribution is not in doubt, not is the fact that in the short term, by which I mean the last say 100 years, our behaviour has been the biggest factor driving this.


Non-human causes and effects are under continuous study - El Nino, solar activity etc. There's no great conflict of opinion on these - or on an overall separate "NATURAL underlying trend"
The "consensus" is that taking into account all that is known then the current indications of CC are largely anthropogenic.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> Someone’s dietary choices are a private matter, .......


Not according to George Monbiot George Monbiot: “Agriculture is arguably the most destructive industry on Earth”


----------



## Fergie 307 (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Non-human causes and effects are under continuous study - El Nino, solar activity etc. There's no great conflict of opinion on these - or on an overall separate "NATURAL underlying trend"
> The "consensus" is that taking into account all that is known then the current indications of CC are largely anthropogenic.


I agree, my observation is simply that there must be an underlying natural trend, so what is it, and what are it's causes? This is important. We can, if there's the will, stop out own contribution, and even reverse some of the consequences of the damage we have done. But if there is a longer term natural upward trend then this will also have consequences, which we may not be able to influence. In practical terms I entirely agree that our own immediate emphasis needs to be on putting our own house in order. Any underlying natural trend, whatever it may be, is likely to be much slower. The speed with which we are damaging our own home is breathtaking. So I agree we need to get out various governments to take this much more seriously. It's all very well for governments to put measures off because they may have a short term adverse economic effect or, God forbid, cost them votes, but if we don't get a grip then the long term effects are likely to be catastrophic.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I agree, my observation is simply that there must be an underlying natural trend, so what is it, and what are it's causes? .....


Well you tell us! Why should there be an underlying trend in the first place? 
Lots of variable causes and effects over time don't amount to a trend unless there *is* an identifiable trend


----------



## guineafowl21 (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Not according to George Monbiot George Monbiot: “Agriculture is arguably the most destructive industry on Earth”


I disagree with George Monbiot, whose opinion is one of many (roughly, say 7 billion) and who is a vegan campaigner with a book to sell. I would love to have a debate with him, starting with:

Compare the soil health, biodiversity and sustainability of-
- A 7-year grass ley, fertilised with animal dung, with that of 
- A cereal (monoculture) field that is rattled to crumbles and dust every year, and fertilised with industrial NPK, then sprayed with herbicide, fungicide, insecticide and growth regulators.


----------



## Lorenzl (18 Jul 2022)

I wonder if there is enough productive land available to feed every one as a vegetarian?

I suppose we could cut all the forests down to provide more if required.


----------



## Sideways (18 Jul 2022)

"Intelligence is not a winning survival trait”
(Netflix Love Death & Robots" short animation)

Seems true to me. It simply gives us greater capability to destroy our environment faster and faster.

Frankly we're a plague on the planet and we're going to wipe ourselves back to the stoneage.
Nothing wrong with that. Species populations rise and fall. Nature will grow back over millennia.
Maybe the Octopii will do a better job of it next time around.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> I disagree with George Monbiot, whose opinion is one of many (roughly, say 7 billion) and who is a vegan campaigner with a book to sell. I would love to have a debate with him, starting with:
> 
> Compare the soil health, biodiversity and sustainability of-
> - A 7-year grass ley, fertilised with animal dung, with that of
> - A cereal (monoculture) field that is rattled to crumbles and dust every year, and fertilised with industrial NPK, then sprayed with herbicide, fungicide, insecticide and growth regulators.


He's an environmental campaigner yes, being vegan is secondary. 
One thing is certain - the 7 year grass ley can't feed many people, and in the real world meat comes at a cost of massive deforestation
The alternative you describe isn't the only alternative.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Sideways said:


> "Intelligence is not a winning survival trait”
> ....


Has its ups and downs! The good news is that reproduction is good for species survival, if not for the individual.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Lorenzl said:


> I wonder if there is enough productive land available to feed every one as a vegetarian?
> 
> I suppose we could cut all the forests down to provide more if required.


 It's the other way around.
Vegetarian diet uses about a tenth* of the land required for meat equivalent. Not least because massive acreages are given over to animal feed production.
*PS it says 25% here If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. Either way - very large differences


----------



## guineafowl21 (18 Jul 2022)

Lorenzl said:


> I wonder if there is enough productive land available to feed every one as a vegetarian?
> 
> I suppose we could cut all the forests down to provide more if required.


A good question. What to fertilise the ground with, considering the 3-fold hike in fert prices this year? And where does the excess cereal straw go? How about giving to to livestock as ‘bed and breakfast’, then chucking it back on the field to improve the soil?


Jacob said:


> He's an environmental campaigner yes, being vegan is secondary.
> One thing is certain - the 7 year grass ley can't feed many people, and in the real world meat comes at a cost of massive deforestation
> The alternative you describe isn't the only alternative.


In my experience, the veganism disproportionately comes forward in one’s views.
No the grass patch won’t feed as many, but there’s much more land that can grow grass than can grow crops. Cereal monocultures are a biodiversity wasteland, and it makes no sense to turn over our grazing paddocks to it.

Yes, the meat industry needs to improve. No, it doesn’t make sense to ban it. As above, objective reasoning seems to move me towards mixed farming, a cycle.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> A good question. What to fertilise the ground with, considering the 3-fold hike in fert prices this year? And where does the excess cereal straw go? How about giving to to livestock as ‘bed and breakfast’, then chucking it back on the field to improve the soil?
> 
> In my experience, the veganism disproportionately comes forward in one’s views.
> No the grass patch won’t feed as many, but there’s much more land that can grow grass than can grow crops. Cereal monocultures are a biodiversity wasteland, and it makes no sense to turn over our grazing paddocks to it.
> ...


Unfortunately you are quite wrong, and I'll miss lamb chops just as much as anybody else.
The _4 times area_ crops up here too Chart Shows What the World’s Land Is Used For … and It Explains Exactly Why So Many People Are Going Hungry
Every study says similar. It's not exactly news.


----------



## guineafowl21 (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Unfortunately you are quite wrong, and I'll miss lamb chops just as much as anybody else.
> The _4 times area_ crops up here too Chart Shows What the World’s Land Is Used For … and It Explains Exactly Why So Many People Are Going Hungry


Sheep are perfect for grazing land that cannot be tilled, and don’t respond well to intensive (grain-based) diets. Pretty much all lamb is grass-fed. They are an excellent example of sustainable livestock farming.

If the world went vegan, we would have no dung for the fields, and rely entirely on industrial fertiliser. There would be nowhere for the cereal straw to go, nor for waste products such as draff/brewers’ grains. The article assumes that 1 billion hectares of monocultures (and sprays...) is necessarily better than 4 billion of mixed. It’s certainly arguable.


----------



## Tris (18 Jul 2022)

Current estimates are 5x the land area is required to produce 1kg of meat protein compared to plant protein. This is for protein only, not total mass.
Current ag policy is incentivising a reduction in grain feed to ruminants.
Talking to the guys who do crop bagging here they were saying that a lot of their customers are growing crops for anaerobic digester s rather than feed, although much of that acreage has come out of rapeseed production


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Tris said:


> Current estimates are 5x the land area is required to produce 1kg of meat protein compared to plant protein. This is for protein only, not total mass.
> Current ag policy is incentivising a reduction in grain feed to ruminants.
> Talking to the guys who do crop bagging here they were saying that a lot of their customers are growing crops for anaerobic digester s rather than feed, although much of that acreage has come out of rapeseed production


Bio gas from waste sounds OK. 
*Growing* crops for bio gas sounds like bringing on the catastrophe!





Feedstocks | Anaerobic Digestion


» Feedstocks | The Official Information Portal on Anaerobic Digestion




www.biogas-info.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> Sheep a...... are an excellent example of sustainable livestock farming.
> 
> ......


..... if true, a very rare example. 
But much of highland Britain could be seen as a sheep grazed desert and also highly destructive of the massive "carbon sink" of peatland ecosystems.


----------



## guineafowl21 (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> ..... if true, a very rare example.
> But much of highland Britain could be seen as a sheep grazed desert and also highly destructive of the massive "carbon sink" of peatland ecosystems.


‘Very rare’? Lamb is a major meat type. As is venison, and cattle could be reared the same way. In short, yes the meat industry needs to improve, no, I don’t agree that because crops are more efficient, we should stop meat production. It’s a rather negative and somewhat extremist view. The middle way is normally the best way.

Grazing of heathlands maintains them. If it didn’t happen, you would have regen forests (and you’d have to cull out the deer as well). This is happening very near to me. Projects to improve things like this are more convincing to me than people who have decided not to eat meat telling everyone else not to, for spurious reasons.


----------



## John Brown (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> If people bothered to read stuff completely and in context. My observation was that I was not aware of any consensus on what the NATURAL underlying trend is, as opposed to our contribution, and it's exact causes. Our contribution is not in doubt, not is the fact that in the short term, by which I mean the last say 100 years, our behaviour has been the biggest factor driving this.


I apologize for quoting you out of context.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> ‘Very rare’? Lamb is a major meat type.


Tiny, compared to poultry, pig and beef. Meat and Dairy Production


guineafowl21 said:


> ......, no, I don’t agree that because crops are more efficient, we should stop meat production.


That isn't the reason. Its more than meat production creates a huge demand for animal feed and the vast acreage needed to grow it - the main reason for de-forestation everywhere and particularly in S America


guineafowl21 said:


> It’s a rather negative and somewhat extremist view. The middle way is normally the best way.


CC is a game changer. The cards are off the table! The middle way is what has got us here. Massive changes are on the way whether we like it or not.
I think a lot of people just haven't caught on yet.


guineafowl21 said:


> Grazing of heathlands maintains them. If it didn’t happen, you would have regen forests


Regen forest and peat is what we need. LIFE Peat Restore - Restoring Peatlands, Sequestering Carbon


guineafowl21 said:


> (and you’d have to cull out the deer as well).


Yep. Or bring back the wolf! And the beaver whilst you are at it! Rewilding and beavers.


guineafowl21 said:


> This is happening very near to me. Projects to improve things like this are more convincing to me than people who have decided not to eat meat telling everyone else not to, for spurious reasons.


Most of them are doing it for good reasons. Not me personally yet!


----------



## Fergie 307 (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Well you tell us! Why should there be an underlying trend in the first place?
> Lots of variable causes and effects over time don't amount to a trend unless there *is* an identifiable trend


Global temperature has changed significantly over millions of years, so what were the causes? I dont know but it seems foolish to suppose that whatever factors caused these changes are no longer in play. Take tectonic plate movement for example, something that will alter ocean currents and so on. We dont notice this because it takes place so slowly, and in the blink of an eye that humans have existed we dont percieve any great change, but they are still moving and will continue to do so
Now of course you could argue that these natural phenomena are typically very slow acting, so it might take thousands of years to see a change of a few degrees. But unless you have complete stability then there will be a trend in one direction or another. The reality I suspect is that the whole conversation is arguably pretty pointless. We are a selfish, destructive species and i think short term self interest will prevent politicians from taking the necessary steps to address the problem until its far too late. We will probably have become largely extinct long before any natural phenomena have an effect. The sad thing to contemplate is how many other species we will destroy along the way.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Global temperature has changed significantly over millions of years, so what were the causes? I dont know but it seems foolish to suppose that whatever factors caused these changes are no longer in play. ,,,,,,


But nobody said that!
Rather - it seems foolish to imagine that CC science is ignoring other factors affecting CC.


----------



## Fergie 307 (18 Jul 2022)

Sideways said:


> "Intelligence is not a winning survival trait”
> (Netflix Love Death & Robots" short animation)
> 
> Seems true to me. It simply gives us greater capability to destroy our environment faster and faster.
> ...


Have to agree, being "intelligent" has made us by far the most destructive species ever to have existed.


----------



## julianf (18 Jul 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> Someone’s dietary choices are a private matter, but I’m moved to comment when things start to get preachy.
> 
> 
> I don’t quite get it. Do laying hens and dairy cows not count?
> ...



I remember, as a teenager, going out to shut up the fowl one evening. A friend was with me.


Some of the batams would spend the night outside, and some in barns. Their choice. 


My friend who was with me exclaimed (when seeing the birds up the trees), "But how do we get them down?!?"


I'm not sure if he had considered that they KFC box was actually from a bird, that might actually be able to fly.


For you to base your justification on "spent animals" is somewhat dishonest, as we both know very well that ex battery hens do not end up in the human food chain.

The comment attaining to there not being enough arable land to supply the food industry without the inefficient energy transfer to meat first shows a lack of understanding of very basic physics.

My initial comment was not intended to convert people to a plant based diet, but to highlight the reasons for lack of interest in environmental consciousness.

Again, I wasn't looking for a row, but considering the flurry of posts you have just made on the subject that, you yourself, rather ironically I might add, open by stating as a "private matter" (its in the very text I've just quoted from you) it does rather look to me as if you are, indeed, looking for some sort of debate on the matter.

I'm not sure I want to get involved to be honest. You've made statement that you know to be untrue, and you've made statement that any GCSE level physics student knows to be incorrect (others have already pulled you up on this).

Remember I've been dealing with people like you and their ignorant and / or intentionally dishonest comments almost my entire life. A sensible debate can sometimes still be interesting, but I somewhat fear that you're not at that level, especially in light of the contradiction in your very own text.

I honestly think I'd just be running through the same tedium with you, so I'll leave it to an enthusiastic teenager instead.


----------



## rogxwhit (18 Jul 2022)

Sideways said:


> Frankly we're a plague on the planet and we're going to wipe ourselves back to the stoneage.
> Nothing wrong with that. Species populations rise and fall. Nature will grow back over millennia.


Well perhaps the thing wrong with that is the amount of suffering involved ...??

The planet, of course, is itself 'doomed' in the long run - when the sun dies out the Earth's had it, whether or not humanity's self-destructed long before then. 

I can't help feeling though that the nature of the universe will always remain much beyond our ken - and who knows what the nature of consciousness is or what realms of existence are possible?


guineafowl21 said:


> Grazing of heathlands maintains them. If it didn’t happen, you would have regen forests (and you’d have to cull out the deer as well).


So there you are - more carbon capture and ecological diversity along with a replacement meat source ... ;-)


----------



## guineafowl21 (18 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> For you to base your justification on "spent animals" is somewhat dishonest, as we both know very well that ex battery hens do not end up in the human food chain.


To some extent, battery hens are used for processed meat, and should be more. Spent dairy cows certainly end up being eaten, and again should be more. The vegetarian diet rides on the coat tails of the meat industry.


julianf said:


> you yourself, rather ironically I might add, open by stating as a "private matter"


There was a ‘but’ straight afterwards.


----------



## Garno (18 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Scientists really are not that stupid!



That depends on what thread we reading, I recall scientists being called stupid many a time on here.


----------



## Oldnut (18 Jul 2022)

It is all down to the milankowitz cycles! The world is indeed warming but not man made, same as co2, billions of years ago we had 12% co2 we had the largest mammals and trees ever on the planet, we are allowed to work 8 hours at i think 10%


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Oldnut said:


> It is all down to the milankowitz cycles! The world is indeed warming but not man made, same as co2, billions of years ago we had 12% co2 we had the largest mammals and trees ever on the planet, we are allowed to work 8 hours at i think 10%


Phew that's a relief! So everything is OK then?








Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




climate.nasa.gov


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Jul 2022)

Several posters have made an argument for a vegetarian diet vs the consumption of meat which requires many times the land area and is therefor a greater contributor to climate change.

If the land were not used for meat production, it would not somehow become sterile. Instead it gets covered in grass, plants and trees which grow , die and rot. Livestock from the small (ants, mice etc) to large (sheep, deer, elephants etc) colonise. They eat, defecate, f*rt, die, rot etc just as occurs with livestock farming.

Thus it seems a vegetable based diet may enable a greater part of humanity to be properly fed, but seems to make little difference to climate change.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Several posters have made an argument for a vegetarian diet vs the consumption of meat which requires many times the land area and is therefor a greater contributor to climate change.
> 
> If the land were not used for meat production, it would not somehow become sterile. Instead it gets covered in grass, plants and trees which grow , die and rot. Livestock from the small (ants, mice etc) to large (sheep, deer, elephants etc) colonise. They eat, defecate, f*rt, die, rot etc just as occurs with livestock farming.
> 
> Thus it seems a vegetable based diet may enable a greater part of humanity to be properly fed, but seems to make little difference to climate change.


 Yebbut we don't deforest half the world to grow millions of tons of food to feed the farting denizens of the natural world, as well as our farting selves!
Which of course leads to the methane component of farm animal farts, in turn a major greenhouse gas!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Jul 2022)

> Yebbut we don't deforest half the world to grow millions of tons of food to feed your farting denizens of the natural world, as well as our farting selves!


Precisely the point. 

A vegan diet may likely preserve a more diverse and abundant natural flora and fauna, and improve food supply.

It has little or nothing to do with climate change - the principal common argument for its adoption.

I will sleep better as a carnivore knowing that I am not contributing to ever rising global temperatures!


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Precisely the point.
> 
> A vegan diet may likely preserve a more diverse and abundant natural flora and fauna, and improve food supply.
> 
> ...


No you've missed the point completely.








Is eating meat bad for the environment? | 6 global impacts - FutureLearn


We take a look at how global meat production is bad for the environment. Find out why we eat meat and how it impacts the planet.




www.futurelearn.com


----------



## powertools (18 Jul 2022)

On youtube there is a channel called Harrys Farm he gives a good idea of what is happening from a farmers point of view.


----------



## Oldnut (18 Jul 2022)

Absolutely, Harry telks it the way it is, beef grown on land not suitable for cultivation is absolutely sustainable, the US style feed lot style is not sustainable, but the bald facts are that whatever we as hunans do has little or no impact on global warming, it would still happen if man was not here, just the same as we will have a mini ice age every +/- 50,000 years and a major ice age about 100,000 years, never mind the tilt of the earth and the north south magnetic poles reversing, as it does, now that would throw a real curve ball! Now, if we are talking emmissions in city centres, then yes we are, can, should be doing something about that, but don't kid yourself, until we have 100% renewable all you are doing is moving the emmissions out of town into the countryside


----------



## niemeyjt (18 Jul 2022)

Lorenzl said:


> I wonder if there is enough productive land available to feed every one as a vegetarian?


I am sure there is. However, whether the environmentalists will approve of ploughing up meadows and other marginal lands to plant human edible vegetables is a different matter.


----------



## Jacob (18 Jul 2022)

niemeyjt said:


> I am sure there is. However, whether the environmentalists will approve of ploughing up meadows and other marginal lands to plant human edible vegetables is a different matter.


No need. We just use the land already used for growing animal feed for human feed instead.

Interesting this thread - the number of people still in denial about it, even though it's happening all around them now, in front of their faces, and all around the globe!


----------



## Tris (18 Jul 2022)

Yebbut, it's worth more for biomass/bioethanol. That's why no US politicians will endorse a switch to food production

Last place I worked used to do a daffodil open garden day for charity, when they started in the 50s it was 2nd week of April, by mid 00s it was early March. Daffs are temp sensitive and the winter of 2010 put it back to April again. 
Phenology will provide lots of similar examples


----------



## Billy_wizz (18 Jul 2022)

whereistheceilidh said:


> That one has already been sorted Billy .... many times...the best was a Dutch study from 1994 ish that differentiated the change in solar flux from sun spots with overall warming...ie global rise minus changes in incoming radiation( sorry, too busy today to find ref). There is still excess warming not covered by changes in external radiation. The Daily Telegraph reported the study as all warming was due to sun spots so if you choose sources like DT, D Mail etc then you may have a different view of climate change.
> Atmospheric CO2 levels .... and other adsorbant chemicals are increasing. They take in a range of solar wavelengths & give out heat.... climate change!
> As far as I can see it is fairly straight forward, unless you are being paid by some fossil fuel company to make it seem different.
> &...... as Jacob's maps show.... it is occurring globally.....now!


I wasn't inferring that it was being caused just by sunspots I meant that sunspots are a contributing factor and that the interplay between multiple interconnected causes makes it very complicated to determine exactly what is causing it!


----------



## Molynoox (19 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> These, so called, scientists keep talking about "Global Warming", but say that it was 1000 trillion degrees C straight after the big bang.
> 
> I don't know about you, but that sounds more like global cooling to me?


I think you are mixing up universe and planet with that line of reasoning.


----------



## julianf (19 Jul 2022)

Molynoox said:


> I think you are mixing up universe and planet with that line of reasoning.



My partner always warns me that, when satire becomes too subtle, too close to what people actually say, that I just start to look like a "believer" myself.

"... 'em" I say, "if it goes that far, there's enough crazies out there that ill just blend in"


(technically, however, I'm not mixing up the two - its thought that in the first fractions of a second post "bang" the temperature was as i quoted - our "globe" would not have been as we know it, but was either part of that matter spewed out, or formed from the stars that were, themselves, formed, so to say that "it" cooled 1000 trillion degrees c is not exactly inaccurate - the whole universe, of which the planet, kind of, was part of [well, how could it not be] cooled)


----------



## Molynoox (19 Jul 2022)

I actually wondered if you were joking and then figured nah, probably just another crazy guy 

Your last paragraph however is eroding the sentiments established in your first two - or was that some even more nuanced satire?


----------



## Keith Cocker (19 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> How about the fact that the temperature of the inner atmosphere is warmer than the outer atmosphere, indicating that the gasses building up in the lower atmosphere are causing heat generated on Earth to be retained rather than being lost to space? We are warming up, there is no doubt. It is now up to science to determine how much is natural change and how much is man-made change and is there's anything, realistically, that we can, and want, to do about it.


Science has already done that work. The results are clear and very widely understood. You are right that we have to decide what to do about it. It’s clear that if we choose not to things will get worse over time.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> Science has already done that work. The results are clear and very widely understood. You are right that we have to decide what to do about it. It’s clear that if we choose not to things will get worse over time.


That's it. The party is over. 
The projections made over the last 30 years or so are coming true. Sooner than forecast - science has been a bit over cautious against the backdrop of shrieking CC sceptics!
We are in phase two with major changes on the way.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Jul 2022)

The projections made over the last 30 years or so are coming true?









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


----------



## Jacob (19 Jul 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The projections made over the last 30 years or so are coming true?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You think this heatwave is not happening?
You just need to look at the world around you instead of burying your head in websites for nutters!
It'll cool off of course, today even - and the nutters will all say false alarm.
Then there will be another one along, possibly even worse, if not this year then next.

explainer: your website is put together by CC sceptics and they have selected _*outlier*_ opinions and casual comments, which were evidently wrong, or just parodied and distorted.
You can find comments and opinions like that on any topic you chose, so it's more important to look at the _*consensus*_, especially if it is informed by the science.


----------



## tibi (19 Jul 2022)

As a bystander, I assume that creating a new thread about the environmental and climate impacts of the selected sharpening method would create so much heat, that It would raise world temperatures by another 5 degrees.


----------



## AJB Temple (19 Jul 2022)

I do believe global warming is a fact. 
I also believe that the media invariably exaggerates bad news and disaster stories.
Human kind is largely indulging in its favourite past time: allocation of blame. No one ever thinks it is their fault so inevitably it is always a problem for someone else.
This is similar to "tomorrow never comes". Hence, we see miniscule human intervention.


----------



## julianf (19 Jul 2022)

Molynoox said:


> I actually wondered if you were joking and then figured nah, probably just another crazy guy
> 
> Your last paragraph however is eroding the sentiments established in your first two - or was that some even more nuanced satire?



It has been this hot before, there's no doubt about it.

I think the fastest I've ever travelled, relative to the surface, was about 500mph.

We gradually got up to that speed, and gradually slowed down again.

I walked away from the process.


If you were to accelerate to 500mph too rapidly, your brain would, irreparably, knock against the back of your skull. If you accelerated quick enough you would, basically, turn to lumpy soup.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jul 2022)

AJB Temple said:


> I do believe global warming is a fact.
> I also believe that the media invariably exaggerates bad news and disaster stories.


Except when they are debunking them, as with CC.


AJB Temple said:


> Human kind is largely indulging in its favourite past time: allocation of blame. No one ever thinks it is their fault so inevitably it is always a problem for someone else.
> This is similar to "tomorrow never comes". Hence, we see miniscule human intervention.


----------



## quintain (19 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> We didn’t. I’m 69. Is that old enough?


y
You youngsters sometimes have short memories, but on this occasion I agree with you.


----------



## Crazy Dave (19 Jul 2022)

I've done my best over the years to conserve resources since I learned of CC back in the 70s when I was at school.
At the request of my water supplier to save water I haven't watered my lawn at all this year, my choice of course.
My neighbours however on either side both have paddling pools full of water and are playing outside in 40c heat with the hose running all day and they're having a great time laughing and playing.
The neighbor next to them waters his garden twice a day with his water hose.

Why do I even bother to make a difference when all around me people couldn't care less.
I may as well sell my EV and buy a thumping great V8 and enjoy my final years and join the ranks of the "Don't care" folks.

And this is the problem, we all have to make an effort to make a difference or sadly just give up trying.
We're staring right in the face of the point of no return, this current heatwave is a stark warning to us all but who's seeing it for what it is.

So, might as well give up trying to save the planet for future generations and party 'til the end. 

Anyone looking to buy a KIA e-Niro?


----------



## Billy_wizz (19 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> I've done my best over the years to conserve resources since I learned of CC back in the 70s when I was at school.
> At the request of my water supplier to save water I haven't watered my lawn at all this year, my choice of course.
> My neighbours however on either side both have paddling pools full of water and are playing outside in 40c heat with the hose running all day and they're having a great time laughing and playing.
> The neighbor next to them waters his garden twice a day with his water hose.
> ...


No thanks on the Kia it's currently just moving pollution not saving any!


----------



## Tris (19 Jul 2022)

Just outside my back door, in the shade


----------



## Crazy Dave (19 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> No thanks on the Kia it's currently just moving pollution not saving any!


Really? Please educate me.


----------



## John Brown (19 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> No thanks on the Kia it's currently just moving pollution not saving any!


That's not true.


----------



## Billy_wizz (19 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> Really? Please educate me.


How many days a year is the UK's energy needs met completely by renewable energy sources? And that's before you get onto the pollution from lithium mining for a relatively short lived energy holding device! It quite possibly is the future but needs a much cleaner source of battery storage and a big increase in renewable power sources before it achieves it!


----------



## John Brown (19 Jul 2022)

Let's all just sit on our hands and complain that there's nothing we can do!
As it happens, I charge our PHEV from our PV panels.


----------



## John Brown (19 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> How many days a year is the UK's energy needs met completely by renewable energy sources? And that's before you get onto the pollution from lithium mining for a relatively short lived energy holding device! It quite possibly is the future but needs a much cleaner source of battery storage and a big increase in renewable power sources before it achieves it!


I don't believe we have so far had any days when the UKs electricity needs are met by renewables, let alone "energy". I believe we sometimes exceed 50% on electric, though. Just need to build more, and find a way to store it.


----------



## Crazy Dave (19 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> How many days a year is the UK's energy needs met completely by renewable energy sources? And that's before you get onto the pollution from lithium mining for a relatively short lived energy holding device! It quite possibly is the future but needs a much cleaner source of battery storage and a big increase in renewable power sources before it achieves it!


In Quarter 1 2022, renewable share of total generation was 45.5 per cent. This is the second highest quarterly share on record and the highest since Quarter 1 2020.30 Jun 2022.

If we were to wait for the very latest battery technology to arrive before buying into it, it would simply be unaffordable.
We have to invest in current technology for there to be any data available for further product development to occur.
So simply finding fault with technology that is currently available to the masses and expecting progress to happen all on it's own is foolishness, progress doesn't happen overnight and progress doesn't stop so you will wait forever.

Look at F1 technology and how that filters down into our domestic transportation for example.
Technology is in motion and it never stops.

PS For what it's worth I run my Car AND House on solar energy with all excess going to the grid for no FIT payment (feed in tariff), energy companies are selling the energy that I've provided for free. But you don't hear me complaining because it's all for the greater good.
@Billy_wizz What are you doing to help?


----------



## bertterbo (19 Jul 2022)

What infuriates me so much about the whole situation is that we could change our habits in a very short period of time, but we don't, because that affects profits.

- Why can't we completely remove cheap meat? why do we think we have the right to eat meat every single day? meat should cost as much as it needs to, to be sustainable and humane, this would rapidly drive down meat consumption, and what are the negatives? I don't see any. Sure there might be a transition period where businesses will have to adapt, but that's a relatively small cost considering.

- Why when we knew things were going downhill didn't we put a limit on the amount of air travel instead of just allowing it to rise and rise?

- Why when plastics were being brought into production wasn't there a plan of action in how to deal with the waste *before* they were allowed to be produced at mass scale?

- Why is it still allowed to produce non recyclable packaging? we've know about the issues they cause for a LONG time. Why wasn't there a deadline set for their banning a LONG time ago?

- Why aren't the companies that make the biggest contribution to Climate Change taxed through the roof encouraging them to find alternative methods?

- Why is there so little foresight????

Humans can be so amazingly clever yet amazingly stupid at the same time.

By the way, I know the answer to all the above questions, greed and corruption, but I still need to vent.


----------



## Yojevol (19 Jul 2022)

bertterbo said:


> What infuriates me so much about the whole situation is that we could change our habits in a very short period of time, but we don't, because that affects profits.
> 
> - Why can't we completely remove cheap meat? why do we think we have the right to eat meat every single day? meat should cost as much as it needs to, to be sustainable and humane, this would rapidly drive down meat consumption, and what are the negatives? I don't see any. Sure there might be a transition period where businesses will have to adapt, but that's a relatively small cost considering.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should read 
Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist​*by Kate Raworth*​


----------



## John Brown (19 Jul 2022)

bertterbo said:


> What infuriates me so much about the whole situation is that we could change our habits in a very short period of time, but we don't, because that affects profits.
> 
> - Why can't we completely remove cheap meat? why do we think we have the right to eat meat every single day? meat should cost as much as it needs to, to be sustainable and humane, this would rapidly drive down meat consumption, and what are the negatives? I don't see any. Sure there might be a transition period where businesses will have to adapt, but that's a relatively small cost considering.
> 
> ...


And why haven't house builders been forced to build low energy houses for the last twenty years?


----------



## Jacob (19 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> And why haven't house builders been forced to build low energy houses for the last twenty years?


Government inertia. 
Individuals are doing a lot but it has to come from the top on every front.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ns-i-may-quit-if-new-pm-dumps-net-zero-pledge - he should be a leadership contender himself!


----------



## Jameshow (19 Jul 2022)

4 years ago we had a summer which was hot from May to September yet for the past two days we get hot under the collar over a couple of days of high temps!!


----------



## John Brown (19 Jul 2022)

Jameshow said:


> 4 years ago we had a summer which was hot from May to September yet for the past two days we get got under the collar over a couple of days of high temps!!


Speak for yourself. Some people have been concerned for a long time. I think the current heatwave has just set people talking about it more.


----------



## rogxwhit (19 Jul 2022)

bertterbo said:


> Why when plastics were being brought into production wasn't there a plan of action in how to deal with the waste *before* they were allowed to be produced at mass scale?


Quite, and the same across all of industry. But the answer is that industry is business-led, ie profit is the engine, largely bereft of any ethical concern. That's unlikely to change! You'd have to have predictive monitoring by government agency - only government has the power to legislate - and that's unlikely to happen either. It's a tough world and it often seems that the only action is a rearguard one. :-(


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

What a lot of fuss and ridiculous media hype about a couple of days of hot weather. 
This is how it was done in the 70's







And now






Why does everything seem to be such a drama these days.


----------



## DrPhill (19 Jul 2022)

Maybe this would provide a better comparison: UK Met office forecast for last monday Twatter linkView attachment 139854


----------



## Crazy Dave (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> What a lot of fuss and ridiculous media hype about a couple of days of hot weather.
> This is how it was done in the 70's
> View attachment 139851
> 
> ...


Come down south and see for yourself.
It's alright for you up in Scotland, you're just having a warm day.
I measured 40.5c in my Garden.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Jul 2022)

Come a bit further south, it was relatively cool -16c lower than that.


----------



## julianf (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> What a lot of fuss and ridiculous media hype about a couple of days of hot weather.
> This is how it was done in the 70's
> View attachment 139851
> 
> ...



Why did you use a graphic showing the temperatures 10c lower than they have been?


----------



## John Brown (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> What a lot of fuss and ridiculous media hype about a couple of days of hot weather.
> This is how it was done in the 70's
> View attachment 139851
> 
> ...


Way back when, I did some IT work at the met office, and I managed to blag a few of those magnetic weather symbols as in the top pic. I gave them to the two sons of one of my old friends, and they stuck them on their fridge door. I'll have to ask my friend if he still has them... I'd forgotten all about it!


----------



## Molynoox (19 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> Way back when, I did some IT work at the met office, and I managed to blag a few of those magnetic weather symbols as in the top pic. I gave them to the two sons of one of my old friends, and they stuck them on their fridge door. I'll have to ask my friend if he still has them... I'd forgotten all about it!


That would be a brilliant thing to own


----------



## Phil Pascoe (19 Jul 2022)

You couldn't make it up -

The weather was too hot for solar panels on Tuesday as soaring temperatures reduced their efficiency.

As the heatwave pushed the mercury above 40C for the first time ever in Britain, solar output remained well below the levels usually reached at peak times in spring ...

Solar panels become less efficient when temperatures rise above 25C, meaning energy generation drops off, with efficiency decreasing by around 0.35 percentage points for every degree above this level.


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

It's nothing to do with the temperatures. its about how it's presented these days. If you look at the first image, it's 27C in Aberdeenshire and it's just shown as nice sun with a 27 in it. No drama. If you look at the second image from Monday. it's cooler than that everywhere north of Hull and it's marked with warning colours. It's media hype. every program has to be a drama these days, even the weather forecast. Why can't they just present the facts in a professional manner instead of the endless hype they create.


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> Why did you use a graphic showing the temperatures 10c lower than they have been?


To emphasise the point I was making. My comment is nothing to do with absolute temperatures, It's about the way they present things now.


----------



## julianf (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> To emphasise the point I was making. My comment is nothing to do with absolute temperatures, It's about the way they present things now.



Right. So your problem with global warming isn't that its happening, but in the colour schemes used in the graphics?

Have I got that right?


----------



## Billy_wizz (19 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> In Quarter 1 2022, renewable share of total generation was 45.5 per cent. This is the second highest quarterly share on record and the highest since Quarter 1 2020.30 Jun 2022.
> 
> If we were to wait for the very latest battery technology to arrive before buying into it, it would simply be unaffordable.
> We have to invest in current technology for there to be any data available for further product development to occur.
> ...


So we should buy an inferior product that doesn't live up to the claims of being greener to enable them to create a better product? Perhaps they should use the profits from current sources to develop a better product?
As much as I'd like to benefit from the savings of solar (although some of the reports suggest that panel degradation could mean that it costs rather than saves money) I don't have 10's of thousands to invest so the point is mute!


----------



## Droogs (19 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> Come down south and see for yourself.
> It's alright for you up in Scotland, you're just having a warm day.
> I measured 40.5c in my Garden.


We had 38.4C just 30 miles away from my flat. It was 34 in the shade in my garden today 200m from the North Sea with an offshore wind in Leith.


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> Right. So your problem with global warming isn't that its happening, but in the colour schemes used in the graphics?
> 
> Have I got that right?


No, nothing to do with colours or global warming. its just about how the weather is presented these days. the same temperatures (27C) as in the 70's seem to be more hazardous now.


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> Come down south and see for yourself.
> It's alright for you up in Scotland, you're just having a warm day.
> I measured 40.5c in my Garden.


I wanted a bit of that 40C high, I pre-empted the temperature differential, so I spent the morning re-arranging everything in my poly tunnel where it was 41.9. I love hot weather and love exercising in really hot weather. It's such a nice change from winter exercise, down about freezing and rain.


----------



## Jameshow (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> I wanted a bit of that 40C high, I pre-empted the temperature differential, so I spent the morning re-arranging everything in my poly tunnel where it was 41.9. I love hot weather and love exercising in really hot weather. It's such a nice change from winter exercise, down about freezing and rain.
> 
> View attachment 139866


I hate exercising in hot weather in fact I don't run as it's too hot, bike above 20c. 

Running in the snow on the moors is lush. 

Riding on snow / Ice is stupid!!


----------



## julianf (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> No, nothing to do with colours or global warming. its just about how the weather is presented these days. the same temperatures (27C) as in the 70's seem to be more hazardous now.



I guess a bit like smoking. Was fine in the 70s, but now things have moved on a little, people, mostly, realise its a bad idea, and the packing represents that.

1970s looks kind of fun - 






Current - 








Which is more accurate though? I mean is a pack of lucky strike more likely to make you look cool, and get you a motorcycle, or give you mouth cancer?


And then should we be celebrating rapidly rising temperatures, or should be display them with some amount of concern?

Are you saying that dangerous things shouldn't be represented as dangerous, because that's not how we did things in the 1970s?


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

Jameshow said:


> I hate exercising in hot weather in fact I don't run as it's too hot, bike above 20c.
> 
> Running in the snow on the moors is lush.
> 
> Riding on snow / Ice is stupid!!


When I used to run, I just loved extremes of weather. Florida, full mid-day sun, or winter in the hills, horizontal snow. I remember on a hill run. it was a real blizzard. I was just in shorts and a helly top. I met some hill walkers in full mountain gear, snow goggles, walking poles, backpacks, lol. When we met, we just sort of stopped and looked at each other. They were way overdressed  I used to do some fairly extreme winter running in the snow and dark. I really miss running


----------



## Adam W. (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> When I used to run, I just loved extremes of weather. Florida, full mid-day sun, or winter in the hills, horizontal snow. I remember on a hill run. it was a real blizzard. I was just in shorts and a helly top. I met some hill walkers in full mountain gear, snow goggles, walking poles, backpacks, lol. When we met, we just sort of stopped and looked at each other. They were way overdressed  I used to do some fairly extreme winter running in the snow and dark. I really miss running


Chasing sheep?


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> Are you saying that dangerous things shouldn't be represented as dangerous, because that's not how we did things in the 1970s?


I'm really sorry, I think you are missing the point of what I was saying and somehow trying to pick an argument. I won't rise to it. Life is too short to argue.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (19 Jul 2022)

We have reached the point where net zero (or no more than say 10%?) is largely achievable given the right levels of investment. The tools that could be used to get there rapidly (a couple of decades at most) - grants, regulation, tax policy, finance etc etc exist. 

Homes can be built to the best thermal standards with water recycling and PVs, diets can change to largely exclude meat products, green energy generation and EVs can eliminate ICE, most air travel is discretionary, most packaging can be recyclable, etc etc.

The main barrier is us - the public. Business is profit motivated and in a free market will invest in that which the customer demands. They see regulation as a constraint and lobby accordingly but it is public demand (and short termism) which ultimately motivates their lobbying.

We prefer democracy to dictatorship. Governments seeking to implement regulations which deny freedom of choice, reduce the immediate standard of living, increase costs etc will rapidly find itself in opposition. This constrains the speed of change to that which is publicly acceptable.

The climate change lobby, despite being IMHO broadly correct in its projections, has failed to convince sufficient of the public that major changes are needed - their science may be excellent (9/10), their capacity to influence outcomes is poor (3/10). Must do better.


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

Adam W. said:


> Chasing sheep?


shhhhhhh!! don't tell anyone!


----------



## Jacob (19 Jul 2022)

gog64 said:


> No, because the first infographic compares 1976 to a dataset that includes 1976. It’s literally meaningless. All you needed to show was the second infographic. That compares the present day to a set of years INCLUDING 1976. Does that make sense now? BTW I’m not saying that the GISS analysis isn’t important, it is.


Have you cracked it yet? It isn't as difficult as you think.


----------



## Jameshow (19 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> We have reached the point where net zero (or no more than say 10%?) is largely achievable given the right levels of investment. The tools that could be used to get there rapidly (a couple of decades at most) - grants, regulation, tax policy, finance etc etc exist.
> 
> Homes can be built to the best thermal standards with water recycling and PVs, diets can change to largely exclude meat products, green energy generation and EVs can eliminate ICE, most air travel is discretionary, most packaging can be recyclable, etc etc.
> 
> ...


I think they have moved public opinion and purchasing remarkably quickly.. not bad to a grandad and a school girl!


----------



## Crazy Dave (19 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> So we should buy an inferior product that doesn't live up to the claims of being greener to enable them to create a better product? Perhaps they should use the profits from current sources to develop a better product?
> As much as I'd like to benefit from the savings of solar (although some of the reports suggest that panel degradation could mean that it costs rather than saves money) I don't have 10's of thousands to invest so the point is mute!


You'll never benefit from solar because you are clearly misinformed and your money is going to your energy provider.
I'll be going off grid completely soon and that's when the investment really pays for itself in just a few years because of the rising energy prices.
Simple really.


----------



## julianf (19 Jul 2022)

Sandyn said:


> I'm really sorry, I think you are missing the point of what I was saying and somehow trying to pick an argument. I won't rise to it. Life is too short to argue.



You were saying that "the media" was adding hysteria by turning the colours on the map red, and using a 1970s screen shot to demonstrate the lack of hysteria around similar temperatures then.

I pointed out that plenty of dangerous things had no hysteria attached to them in the 1970s and you've told me that I don't understand and that you will no longer talk to me.


If anyone else grasps Sandy's elusive "point" and can explain it to me, I would welcome the input.

Thank you.


----------



## Billy_wizz (19 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> You'll never benefit from solar because you are clearly misinformed and your money is going to your energy provider.
> I'll be going off grid completely soon and that's when the investment really pays for itself in just a few years because of the rising energy prices.
> Simple really.


So you have found a way to buy it without having a big chunk of cash upfront please do share!


----------



## Sandyn (19 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> You were saying that "the media" was adding hysteria by turning the colours on the map red, and using a 1970s screen shot to demonstrate the lack of hysteria around similar temperatures then.
> 
> I pointed out that plenty of dangerous things had no hysteria attached to them in the 1970s and you've told me that I don't understand and that you will no longer talk to me.
> 
> ...


I'm very sorry. Please just ignore what I said. I apologise for making the suggestion. My sense of humour is a bit odd at times.


----------



## gog64 (19 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Have you cracked it yet? It isn't as difficult as you think.



Well it’s hot and I’m tired after a long day, so it was tempting to reply to your condescending and sarcastic dig with an equally rude reply. However, I won’t. But I will have one last go at explaining what I mean. First of all, remember that I’m not disagreeing that climate change is real. I just think that using bad examples to prove a point is counterproductive. I also think that calling people who you think disagree with you stupid (as you clearly infer I am) is a bad thing to do, so I’ll treat you with respect and try to explain what I mean in a different way.

The infographic is generated from an applet on the NASA web site. Anyone can use it. It uses a set of data from 1951 to 1980. The developers have identified places on the earth with reliable temperature records for that time period, for example London. It takes an average of the temperatures over those years for that place by month. The applet then allows anyone to enter a year and month and generates an infographic that compares that month to the AVERAGE temperature for the same month, averaged between 1951 to 1980. A colour is used to show how much hotter or colder the ACTUAL temperature was compared to the average of the same month 1951 to 1980.

So the first infographic shows that in June 1976, in the UK it was hotter than the average temperature in all the Junes between 1951 and 1980. No dung Sherlock, I think we knew that. What relevance does that have to climate change? GIGO.

The SECOND infographic is relevant. It shows that in June 2022 there were widespread anomalies, i.e. based on AVERAGE temperatures in June between 1951 and 1980 the ACTUAL temperatures recorded were significantly different over a very widespread area. It could be argued that the data set that this is based on is too small to have any statistical relevance, but not by me.


----------



## Crazy Dave (20 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> So you have found a way to buy it without having a big chunk of cash upfront please do share


I buy second hand panels and new inverters from Bimble Solar


----------



## Billy_wizz (20 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> I buy second hand panels and new inverters from Bimble Solar


Cheers I'll have to look into it did it take much paperwork to hook the batteries and panels to the grid?


----------



## Crazy Dave (20 Jul 2022)

Billy_wizz said:


> Cheers I'll have to look into it did it take much paperwork to hook the batteries and panels to the grid?


I can't advise you any further sorry. Do what I did and research it as your circumstances will differ from mine.


----------



## Jacob (20 Jul 2022)

gog64 said:


> Well it’s hot and I’m tired after a long day, so it was tempting to reply to your condescending and sarcastic dig with an equally rude reply. However, I won’t. But I will have one last go at explaining what I mean. First of all, remember that I’m not disagreeing that climate change is real. I just think that using bad examples to prove a point is counterproductive. I also think that calling people who you think disagree with you stupid (as you clearly infer I am) is a bad thing to do, so I’ll treat you with respect and try to explain what I mean in a different way.
> 
> The infographic is generated from an applet on the NASA web site. Anyone can use it. It uses a set of data from 1951 to 1980. The developers have identified places on the earth with reliable temperature records for that time period, for example London. It takes an average of the temperatures over those years for that place by month. The applet then allows anyone to enter a year and month and generates an infographic that compares that month to the AVERAGE temperature for the same month, averaged between 1951 to 1980. A colour is used to show how much hotter or colder the ACTUAL temperature was compared to the average of the same month 1951 to 1980.
> 
> ...


No you have missed the point - which was to compare two notable UK heatwave months in the global context. It's simpler than you think.


----------



## Scruples (20 Jul 2022)

bertterbo said:


> What infuriates me so much about the whole situation is that we could change our habits in a very short period of time, but we don't, because that affects profits.
> 
> - Why can't we completely remove cheap meat? why do we think we have the right to eat meat every single day? meat should cost as much as it needs to, to be sustainable and humane, this would rapidly drive down meat consumption, and what are the negatives? I don't see any. Sure there might be a transition period where businesses will have to adapt, but that's a relatively small cost considering.
> 
> ...


The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, and it's a hot one. The real answer to all of your questions is just two words - Human nature.


----------



## Oldnut (20 Jul 2022)

Crazy Dave said:


> I've done my best over the years to conserve resources since I learned of CC back in the 70s when I was at school.
> At the request of my water supplier to save water I haven't watered my lawn at all this year, my choice of course.
> My neighbours however on either side both have paddling pools full of water and are playing outside in 40c heat with the hose running all day and they're having a great time laughing and playing.
> The neighbor next to them waters his garden twice a day with his water hose.
> ...


1976 was way longer heatwave than this, every bit as hot if not hotter, remember it well! How on earth we survived without all these dire warnings is beyond me!


----------



## Oldnut (20 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Phew that's a relief! So everything is OK then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think I said everything is ok, the point is that there is nothing we can do about it, we would be better focussing on things we can do, and yes we need to reduce pollution in cities, but until we have completely 'green' energy production you are moving the pollution elsewhere, lets instead deal with things like removing plastic from the oceans, or not even having plastic apackaging at all, educating third world folk, reducing corruption, providing drinking water in third world countries, ensuring an electricity supply to everyone. These things are acheivable but 'we' do not bang on about them but we could actually mend these, instead we bang on about stuff 'we' are not able to influence, it is not in our gift.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Jul 2022)

The record temperature here is still 1976. I worked twenty one consecutive nights in the middle of that summer - I went to bed in those three weeks only for purposes other than sleep, I slept every day on the beach.


----------



## Jacob (20 Jul 2022)

Oldnut said:


> I don't think I said everything is ok, the point is that there is nothing we can do about it, we would be better focussing on things we can do, and yes we need to reduce pollution in cities, but until we have completely 'green' energy production you are moving the pollution elsewhere, lets instead deal with things like removing plastic from the oceans, or not even having plastic apackaging at all, educating third world folk, reducing corruption, providing drinking water in third world countries, ensuring an electricity supply to everyone. These things are acheivable but 'we' do not bang on about them but we could actually mend these, instead we bang on about stuff 'we' are not able to influence, it is not in our gift.


I agree about your list. Just have to add reduce use of fossil fuels, increase carbon sequestration, with a view to carbon zero by 2050 or sooner,


----------



## Oldnut (20 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> I agree about your list. Just have to add reduce use of fossil fuels, increase carbon sequestration, with a view to carbon zero by 2050 or sooner,


Jacob, Co2 is a basic necessity, without it everything dies, as per an earlier post the world had 12% Co2 with largest animals and plants we have ever seen, we could actually burn all the fossil fuel we have and it would not affect rising temperatures, I agree we should reduce it where reasonably possible, but not to beggar ourselves in the process, it is not necesssary. And who suffers most in all this lemming like rush to carbon zero, the poorest people are the ones who suffer the most, is that what you wish? Btw Germany is currently building I think, about 13 new coal fired power plants in Eastern Germany powered by brown coal, they are uprooting whole towns to get at this product.


----------



## plum60 (20 Jul 2022)

Well I guess folk can chat all they want about climate changes but that time and energy is better spent working out how to live underground in the end. At this rate we will be joining the foxes and making dens not to mention scrabbling about trying to scavenge food. People should really start to grasp all the coming changes and that people with lots of spare cash won't be so badly affected for some time because insurance, food, changes to species ( mosquitos- sharks), and fuel will certainly rocket. If you wait for politicians to guide you you are really stuffed.


----------



## Lons (20 Jul 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> The record temperature here is still 1976. I worked twenty one consecutive nights in the middle of that summer - I went to bed in those three weeks only for purposes other than sleep, I slept every day on the beach.


We spent 2 weeks out of those 3 on holiday in your area, so that was you we saw bumming it on the beach Phil. 
A cracking holiday when the area was much less busy and it was hot.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Jul 2022)

Yes, it was probably busier the decade before as people didn't tend to fly abroad for holidays.


----------



## Jacob (20 Jul 2022)

Oldnut said:


> Jacob, Co2 is a basic necessity, without it everything dies, as per an earlier post the world had 12% Co2 with largest animals and plants we have ever seen, we could actually burn all the fossil fuel we have and it would not affect rising temperatures, I agree we should reduce it where reasonably possible, but not to beggar ourselves in the process, it is not necesssary. And who suffers most in all this lemming like rush to carbon zero, the poorest people are the ones who suffer the most, is that what you wish? Btw Germany is currently building I think, about 13 new coal fired power plants in Eastern Germany powered by brown coal, they are uprooting whole towns to get at this product.


"Carbon zero" doesn't mean no CO2 it means no _increase_ on CO2 over sustainable levels.
All the science says burning fossil fuel is the main cause of current rising temperature world wide. If you know differently you should tell them - they'd be really grateful and could do more useful things instead!
The poor suffer most in the rising temperatures. The rich suffer most in having to cut back - they are the biggest users with USA at top of heap.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Jul 2022)

Historically rises in CO2 have followed warm periods, not preceded them.


----------



## Droogs (20 Jul 2022)

For those arguing about 1976, have a read of this








Why The UK's Heatwave Is Not Much Like The Summer Of 1976


Experts are clear that the extreme weather is happening more often and with greater intensity.




www.huffingtonpost.co.uk


----------



## Molynoox (20 Jul 2022)

Droogs said:


> For those arguing about 1976, have a read of this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the article, have to admit I got a little frustrated with it. I actually agree with the outcome it's just that I think they need to present differently. More succinct, more actual data. That's what I respond to anyway


----------



## TRITON (20 Jul 2022)

Righto, emergency over. Everyone put away their sunscreen and remember to pack an umbrella instead.


----------



## Stanleymonkey (20 Jul 2022)

Oldnut said:


> 1976 was way longer heatwave than this, every bit as hot if not hotter, remember it well! How on earth we survived without all these dire warnings is beyond me!


I was wondering that - but the hottest 1976 day was way below this.

The article also states that 9/10 of the hottest days have occurred since the 1990s









UK heatwave: How do temperatures compare with 1976?


People have been comparing the current temperatures with 1976 heatwave. What does the evidence show?



www.bbc.co.uk






As for the heatwave and duration. We have had very little rain this spring and summer. It has been dry for months and months. I walk across a river bridge every day and it has been reduced to a trickle. After heavy rain you can hear the river from 20-30 metres away. Some days I wonder it is still flowing!


----------



## Stanleymonkey (20 Jul 2022)

I'm genuinely curious as to WHY people think climate change is not happening / just a natural thing that she shouldn't worry about. I'm curious to know what the thinking and reasoning is behind this.


----------



## dzj (20 Jul 2022)




----------



## John Brown (20 Jul 2022)

Stanleymonkey said:


> I'm genuinely curious as to WHY people think climate change is not happening / just a natural thing that she shouldn't worry about. I'm curious to know what the thinking and reasoning is behind this.


Conspiracy theory, innit?


----------



## Spectric (20 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> I pointed out that plenty of dangerous things had no hysteria attached to them in the 1970s and you've told me that I don't understand and that you will no longer talk to me.


Different world back then and we were allowed to have a childhood and wander free as all the weirdo's and sicko's we did not even know existed were locked up out of the way. The things we did were by todays standards life threatening and the places we played did not have padded soft floors but just hard tarmac or concrete and hence always having grazed knees but our bones rarely broke because we ate real food and did not consume pints of carbonised drinks that leech calcium out of your bones.


----------



## Jacob (20 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Different world back then and we were allowed to have a childhood and wander free as all the weirdo's and sicko's we did not even know existed were locked up out of the way. The things we did were by todays standards life threatening and the places we played did not have padded soft floors but just hard tarmac or concrete and hence always having grazed knees but our bones rarely broke because we ate real food and did not consume pints of carbonised drinks that leech calcium out of your bones.


Calcium int bones? Yer were lucky to av bones. Wen ar worra lad we slithered abaht ont tarmac like slugs - wen we ad tarmac that is....


----------



## John Brown (20 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Different world back then and we were allowed to have a childhood and wander free as all the weirdo's and sicko's we did not even know existed were locked up out of the way. The things we did were by todays standards life threatening and the places we played did not have padded soft floors but just hard tarmac or concrete and hence always having grazed knees but our bones rarely broke because we ate real food and did not consume pints of carbonised drinks that leech calcium out of your bones.


From what I've read, that's pineapples. There are no more weirdos, sickos or apostrophes around now than there were back then.
What is happening to this forum? Is it the long term result of sawdust inhalation or something? Maybe we should have a whip round for some PPE?


----------



## Jacob (20 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> From what I've read, that's pineapples. There are no more weirdos, sickos or apostrophes around now than there were back then.
> What is happening to this forum? Is it the long term result of sawdust inhalation or something? Maybe we should have a whip round for some PPE?


Biggest problem for kids today is cars. We could play in the middle of the street or walk 2 miles to school etc. We could clear off all day without parents even knowing where we were etc etc. Not joking!


----------



## Spectric (20 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> From what I've read, that's pineapples. There are no more weirdos, sickos or apostrophes around now than there were back then.


Correct but now they are not restrained, hence why we have to try and monitor their whereabouts and keep one eye on our kids, we used to go anywhere and I was never approached by any oddball. 



Jacob said:


> We could clear off all day without parents even knowing where we were etc etc. Not joking!


Yes that was the way it was, our parents knew we were safe and did not have to worry that some psycho was on the lose, today parents just cannot take the chance and you hear of so many incidents.


----------



## thetyreman (20 Jul 2022)

ah yes, I remember the mid-late 90s when privacy was still real, nobody knew where I was quite often, people seemed much happier then than they are now.


----------



## John Brown (20 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Correct but now they are not restrained, hence why we have to try and monitor their whereabouts and keep one eye on our kids, we used to go anywhere and I was never approached by any oddball.
> 
> 
> Yes that was the way it was, our parents knew we were safe and did not have to worry that some psycho was on the lose, today parents just cannot take the chance and you hear of so many incidents.


I was approached by a pervert, on more than one occasion. So were friends of mine.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (20 Jul 2022)

So you were all perverts? Sorry, couldn't resist. No offence meant.

We were warned when young whom not to be alone with - one was a church verger who was a promiscuous, predatory homosexual (homosexuality only just made legal) - one of my friends (at 15) decked him. The church (high Anglican) knew all about him but did nothing. A chap up the road had children whose mothers were his wife and his oldest daughter alternately. The main reason for the demolition of the local men's bogs was that they couldn't (or didn't want to attempt) to control what went on in them. Of course there's nothing new now, it just tends to be reported.


----------



## sploo (20 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Correct but now they are not restrained, hence why we have to try and monitor their whereabouts and keep one eye on our kids, we used to go anywhere and I was never approached by any oddball.
> 
> 
> Yes that was the way it was, our parents knew we were safe and did not have to worry that some psycho was on the lose, today parents just cannot take the chance and you hear of so many incidents.


Basically, what Phil said.

Nothing new; just reported more now. You only have to look at the sheer number of historic abuse scandals (care homes, schools, political and entertainment figures, churches etc) that have only come to light years later.


----------



## John Brown (20 Jul 2022)

On the other hand, we have way fewer Loch Ness monster sightings these days.

Not that any of this is relevant to the thread.


----------



## Jacob (20 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Correct but now they are not restrained, hence why we have to try and monitor their whereabouts and keep one eye on our kids, we used to go anywhere and I was never approached by any oddball.


Maybe they just didn't fancy you! 


Spectric said:


> Yes that was the way it was, our parents knew we were safe and did not have to worry that some psycho was on the lose, today parents just cannot take the chance and you hear of so many incidents.


Total nonsense. The biggest outdoor danger to kids nowadays is road traffic. Made worse by the fact that parents take them to school in enormous SUVs where earlier generations would have walked or cycled.
Psychos and weirdos being loose on the streets is mainly a figment of the right wing press.


----------



## TRITON (20 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> Conspiracy theory, innit?




"Big Pharma"

I blame low intelligence and the interweb. 

'Im sorry Mr Smith, you've got cancer says the doctor' 'I disagree says Mr Smith, Jane on facebook says its a conspiracy by the medical profession to sell me chemo drugs.'


----------



## Crazy Dave (21 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Maybe they just didn't fancy you!
> 
> Total nonsense. The biggest outdoor danger to kids nowadays is road traffic. Made worse by the fact that parents take them to school in enormous SUVs where earlier generations would have walked or cycled.
> Psychos and weirdos being loose on the streets is mainly a figment of the right wing press.


I beg to differ, the biggest danger to kids nowadays is bloody mobile phones, I've lost count how many stupid kids have walked out in front of me while looking down at their phones instead of checking traffic before crossing the road, there's no crossing provided because its on the exit of a roundabout on the main Duel carriageway.


----------



## Blackswanwood (21 Jul 2022)

Stanleymonkey said:


> I'm genuinely curious as to WHY people think climate change is not happening / just a natural thing that she shouldn't worry about. I'm curious to know what the thinking and reasoning is behind this.


Here’s a few suggestions …

Wildfires, heatwaves and drought: the climate crisis is staring us in the face, but why can’t we believe it?Wildfires, heatwaves and drought: the climate crisis is staring us in the face, but why can’t we believe it?


----------



## MCTWoodwork (21 Jul 2022)

I love all these deep and meaningful discussions about woodwork. Can we all agree to disagree please and get back to making sawdust and pretty wooden objects!


----------



## Scruples (21 Jul 2022)

TRITON said:


> Righto, emergency over. Everyone put away their sunscreen and remember to pack an umbrella instead.


But get used to the hotter summers happening more frequently. 1976 was less hot, lasted longer, caused more disruption with low water supplies and rationing in some parts of the country. Imagine this last week lasting 3 months instead of 3 days.


----------



## bansobaby (21 Jul 2022)

Big business.
Profit.
Political inertia.
If the US cannot legislate against their kids being slaughtered on a regular basis, how on earth will they legislate against CC?
The same goes for just about every country on the planet for various reasons….
As others have mentioned, it’s ‘Human Nature’……


----------



## Oldnut (21 Jul 2022)

There are probably as many scientists who disagree about the whole climate situation, you do not hear too much from these folk as their opinion does not agree with the msm agenda. To get a little nearer a balanced account first check out where these scientists get their funding from, turkeys do not vote for christmas. A lot of very serious businesses are making a fortune from this current agenda. I personally agree there is climate change, there always has been and always will be, we are not really able to make a difference, but we can make huge differences in the areas mentioned previously, why do we choose not to?


----------



## Jacob (21 Jul 2022)

Oldnut said:


> There are probably as many scientists who disagree about the whole climate situation, you do not hear too much from these folk as their opinion does not agree with the msm agenda.


We hear from them all the time and the main stream media seeks them out and front pages them. But there aren't very many of them. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia.


Oldnut said:


> To get a little nearer a balanced account first check out where these scientists get their funding from, turkeys do not vote for christmas. A lot of very serious businesses are making a fortune from this current agenda.


Nonsense. A lot of serious businesses are opposing climate change agendas because they will lose money. Nobody has an interest in making it up.


Oldnut said:


> I personally agree there is climate change, there always has been and always will be,


Not true.There also have been long steady periods and we are just at the end of one - the 11000 year long "holocene"


Oldnut said:


> we are not really able to make a difference, but we can make huge differences in the areas mentioned previously, why do we choose not to?


Because of CC sceptics and deniers, such as yourself.


----------



## John Brown (21 Jul 2022)

Interestingly, some of the same PR names crop up in association with defending fossil fuels and past defence of the tobacco industry. Makes you think...


----------



## John Brown (21 Jul 2022)

MCTWoodwork said:


> I love all these deep and meaningful discussions about woodwork. Can we all agree to disagree please and get back to making sawdust and pretty wooden objects!


Feel free! Personally, I'm not supposed to carry anything heavier than a cup of coffee for twelve weeks, which rules out most woodworking activity.


----------



## stuart little (21 Jul 2022)

Rember July '21, we had flash floods. One extreme to t'other.


----------



## Tris (21 Jul 2022)

That's just it though, we are seeing extreme events with greater frequency. Things that used to be considered once in a century are now once a decade, and we need to adapt to that


----------



## bertterbo (21 Jul 2022)




----------



## bluemoon (21 Jul 2022)

Worth looking at - nice graphical way of showing what's happening.


----------



## julianf (21 Jul 2022)

Fossil fuels will not last forever. I've not looked at a graph recently but peak production is around now anyway.

Sure there will be new techniques, like fracking, but, ultimately, we are approaching peak supply with, assuming no alternatives, an ever increasing demand.


So, aside from any climate change stuff, an alternative is needed. Be that reducing demand for energy or increasing alternative supply.


Again, this is and will be the case regardless of any environmental concerns.


So why is it then that the climate change disbelievers are so keen on condemning non fossil fuels? I mean it's an absolute necessity to substitute a finite resource anyway.


What would they like to happen? That we burn all the oil and then wonder what to use to make "stuff" from when it's all gone? Not to mention what to use to turn the lights on and power the machines to make the "stuff".

I just don't get it. Again aside from any talk of climate change, what's the plan for when it all runs out? Should we put off developing new technologies and then do it all in a rush at the end, so we don't have to deal with all this "renewables" nonsense now?


The climate change disbelievers have made them selves known above, so, if possible, can you let me know what your plans are?

Thank you.


----------



## DrPhill (21 Jul 2022)

The concept of peak oil was based on analysis of actual oil extracted as historical data. The current estimates of oil in the ground are a fiction because oil in the ground is an asset that both affects share price and tax position. They are also a fiction because you cannot tell how much oil is actually in a well until it runs out.
See wikipedia:
3.5.1 Concerns over stated reserves
6 Criticisms
Or live science: https://www.livescience.com/38869-peak-oil.html


----------



## julianf (21 Jul 2022)

DrPhill said:


> The concept of peak oil was based on analysis of actual oil extracted as historical data. The current estimates of oil in the ground are a fiction because oil in the ground is an asset that both affects share price and tax position. They are also a fiction because you cannot tell how much oil is actually in a well until it runs out.
> See wikipedia:
> 3.5.1 Concerns over stated reserves
> 6 Criticisms
> Or live science: https://www.livescience.com/38869-peak-oil.html



Does all that translate as "it's going to last forever"?

If not, all that changes is the time scale. Which is not wholly relevant to the direction of the question.


----------



## Jacob (21 Jul 2022)

julianf said:


> Does all that translate as "it's going to last forever"?


Probably. But it gets increasingly expensive to extract and we've got to stop doing it *now* if we want to avoid the apocalypse.


julianf said:


> If not, all that changes is the time scale. Which is not wholly relevant to the direction of the question.


Makes no difference to anything.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (21 Jul 2022)

Peak oil is a moving proposition. Most estimates are based on known reserves and estimated future changes in consumption. Historically peak oil was always around 30 years from the present.

Peak oil may be defined as known (and expected) reserves that can be economically exploited. Oil which costs much more to extract than its market value is not an exploitable resource. If price and extraction cost is ignored, peak oil may be extended.

However there is no doubt (in my mind) that oil and gas are ultimately a limited resources. When other sources of energy become cheaper, it will no longer be the fuel of choice. It can then be used for that which science has yet to find a decent sustainable alternative - eg: plastics. 

There also seem to be several stereotypical reactions to climate change (IMHO it is real):

unbelievers - identification with data, reports, scientists supporting their preconceptions. Or they simply don't like the consequences of dealing with necessary change - denial
convinced - regulation, punishment, ridicule for all those who don't agree - like religious zealots - sanctimonious and insistent
most - they understand the general arguments and evidence, but nervous of unambiguous acceptance because of the impacts upon their stable existence.
Sadly those who shout largest sit in the first two bullets - we should do more to educate and re-assure, and be less tolerant of the intolerant extremities.


----------



## Jacob (21 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Peak oil is a moving proposition. Most estimates are based on known reserves and estimated future changes in consumption. Historically peak oil was always around 30 years from the present.
> 
> Peak oil may be defined as known (and expected) reserves that can be economically exploited. Oil which costs much more to extract than its market value is not an exploitable resource. If price and extraction cost is ignored, peak oil may be extended.
> 
> ...


There's another group which accepts the evidence and regards action as urgent and necessary, which includes virtually all of the scientific community. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia.
How do you think they should do more to educate and what on earth is there to be reassuring about?
I think they need to be more alarmist and if anything they've pulled their punches. Events have been taking place worldwide sooner than forecast - they haven't shouted loudly enough.


----------



## woodieallen (21 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Probably. But it gets increasingly expensive to extract and we've got to stop doing it *now* if we want to avoid the apocalypse.
> 
> Makes no difference to anything.


Sad to say, Jacob, but I think we are too late.


----------



## Crocks (21 Jul 2022)

The problem we have is the current increases are locked in for generations. Our efforts now will allow our grandchildren to see an improvement - if we are lucky. I’m no vegetarian or vegan but I’m realising I have to do what I can and that doesn’t include pretending it’s not real or questioning the vast majority of scientists who study this. If you want a laugh have a look at Brian Cox vs the Australian MP.


----------



## Molynoox (21 Jul 2022)

Crocks said:


> The problem we have is the current increases are locked in for generations. Our efforts now will allow our grandchildren to see an improvement - if we are lucky. I’m no vegetarian or vegan but I’m realising I have to do what I can and that doesn’t include pretending it’s not real or questioning the vast majority of scientists who study this. If you want a laugh have a look at Brian Cox vs the Australian MP.


Yes I've seen that, it's quite remarkable how people argue with scientists on matters of science, it's really bizarre actually. I don't claim to understand it all but I know when to listen and if there is a scientific consensus then I don't see what there is left to debate about, that's as close to fact as it gets so might as well just accept it. Surely.


----------



## julianf (21 Jul 2022)

Crocks said:


> I have to do what I can and that doesn’t include pretending it’s not real or questioning the vast majority of scientists who study this.



Ultimately, no one is perfect. I'm not religious in the slightest, but i like the idea of your life being weighed up at the Pearly Gates*. You do some good, and some bad, but you try and tip the scales in your favour. I guess i like the idea of some sort of ultimate judgement, although I'm well aware its not going to happen.

This is one of the reasons why i found the prior posts by (i cant be bothered to look up their name) above ranting about "vegetarianism" "riding on the meat industry" when a) it doesn't have to / doesn't always (i even gave an example, but i think it was too obtuse to be grasped) but ALSO, its a case of "every little helps". 

I mean, most of us, if we are honest, go a few miles over the limit in a 30 zone now and again. 32 / 33, whatever. Its not the same as going 60. 35 still increases the chance of death on impact by a fair amount, so, yes, its wrong, but there are degrees of wrongness. A reduction in wrongdoing is better than no reduction in wrongdoing. 34 is better than 55 if you hit a kid. Not as good as 30, sure, but better than 55.

Its not a hard concept (for most people) to grasp.


Some things are just so easy also. When we first swapped our power supplier to a "renewables only" tariff, it was actually cheaper than anything the "big six" were offering. Im not sure if it is currently, but still.

(and the amount of people who say "what, you have an electron filter on your door", clearly not understanding the motive force of money)


...to just trying to "consume" less. Do you really need that injection moulded "thing" that's been shipped from china? Will your new mobile phone really do anything different to your last one? Im sitting in a room here floored by old scaffold boards, rather than some new "stuff". It was cheaper, looks better, and has a lower carbon footprint. I mean, whats not to like?







Some things take more effort, more money, or whatever, but, whilst LiPO batteries are still a bit too rich for me, the last 4kw solar panel set that i bought was a grand total of £380. I mean at that sort of money, anyone with a roof should have solar. And, yes, i know that was cheap - the previous 3.5kw was about £600, so still affordable to way more people than would actually bother.


As you say, its incremental, not absolute. No-one is perfect, but most people know what's right and wrong, and you just try and tip the scales correct way.


*(I'm well aware it doesn't work like that in that particular religion - belief trumps a lifetime of sin, as was evident by heaven's first admission)


----------



## Crazy Dave (21 Jul 2022)

If you'll all permit me to throw another log on the fire. I believe that our only hope is Alien intervention, they've already demonstrated that they have the ability to disarm nuclear weapons and reset them minutes later so maybe they possess the ability to alter the atmosphere. Who knows.

I'm sure there's many disbelievers to the existence of Aliens also.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (22 Jul 2022)

No one is mentioning the interesting experiment being conducted by Europe at the moment. By choosing to reduce their oil and gas purchases by a significant amount, they may be able to singlehandedly save the world.

Of course it means no more manufacturing _or_ consuming, but that is a small price to pay to save the planet, surely? I am watching with interest to see what the consequences will be regarding life expectancy.


----------



## Jacob (22 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> No one is mentioning the interesting experiment being conducted by Europe at the moment. By choosing to reduce their oil and gas purchases by a significant amount, they may be able to singlehandedly save the world.
> 
> Of course it means no more manufacturing _or_ consuming, but that is a small price to pay to save the planet, surely? I am watching with interest to see what the consequences will be regarding life expectancy.


Not _no more_ manufacturing but _much reduced_ manufacturing - which looks like the future anyway.
It's another of the elephants in the room which gets ignored - a sustainable future entails massive unemployment in production of non sustainable goods and services.
But increased employment in lots of other ways - from having more bus drivers _with conductors on board! _to sheer handwork in place of machines. Invest in scythes now! And the production of sustainable energy of course.
Massive changes, much creative thinking required!


----------



## MCTWoodwork (22 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> Feel free! Personally, I'm not supposed to carry anything heavier than a cup of coffee for twelve weeks, which rules out most woodworking activity.


Oh no, I hope you are okay sir. Maybe a scotch or a pint of beer instead of coffee will aid the healing process?? Get well soon!


----------



## John Brown (22 Jul 2022)

MCTWoodwork said:


> Oh no, I hope you are okay sir. Maybe a scotch or a pint of beer instead of coffee will aid the healing process?? Get well soon!


Thanks! I'm having the occasional beer...


----------



## selectortone (22 Jul 2022)

The oil sector has been making $3 billion a day profit for the last 50 years. That's 55 thousand billion dollars. Profit. That might suggest why the fossil fuel lobby has a vested interest in debunking climate change.









Revealed: oil sector’s ‘staggering’ $3bn-a-day profits for last 50 years


Vast sums provide power to ‘buy every politician’ and delay action on climate crisis, says expert




www.theguardian.com


----------



## John Brown (22 Jul 2022)

selectortone said:


> The oil sector has been making $3 billion a day profit for the last 50 years. That's 55 thousand billion dollars. Profit. That might suggest why the fossil fuel lobby has a vested interest in debunking climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read that yesterday.
Not sure that "debunking" is the right word...


----------



## selectortone (22 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> I read that yesterday.
> Not sure that "debunking" is the right word...


How about 'covering up'?









Big oil and gas kept a dirty secret for decades. Now they may pay the price


With an unprecedented wave of lawsuits, America’s petroleum giants face a reckoning for the environmental devastation caused by fossil fuels




www.theguardian.com


----------



## John Brown (22 Jul 2022)

selectortone said:


> How about 'covering up'?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Debunking" implies that CC theory is bunk in the first place.
How about "attempting to discredit"?


----------



## Molynoox (22 Jul 2022)

bluemoon said:


> Worth looking at - nice graphical way of showing what's happening.



if that is based on real data then it's utterly brilliant.
when they showed that 3D version at the end it really levelled-up!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (22 Jul 2022)

Evidence exists from mid 20th century of the damage done to the planet from uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. This is now the consensus view, alternative theories are largely marginalised.

The US is "litigation central", and largely motivated by greed. Righting wrongs, attributing blame and punishment is secondary. Climate change action against the oil companies is about extracting wealth - preferably from the oil companies, their insurers, and finally the government.

Simply because something is bad and/or damaging does not change behaviours. Other examples - smoking, alcohol, betting - have been only partially regulated. Greed, envy, gluttony and the rest of the sin list is as evident today as in biblical times. They are an underlying behavioural constant.

A dictatorship can mandate without protest - although dictators often find it counter-productive. In a democracy protest manifests itself as an election lost rendering legislation ineffectual.

Shouting louder hoping the pubic will respond is futile. It evidently does not work - eg: few can be unaware of the dangers of smoking or excess alcohol, but they continue to consume. Dogmatic arguments risk outright rejection.

A week of higher temperatures and a few house fires will have changed some minds. But today the airports are overloaded, delays in Dover, demand for flights exceeds capacity, etc etc. Evidently vast swathes of the UK population are not persuaded to change their personal behaviours.

Were the general public surveyed with a question like "if you suddenly received £2000 would you (a) take a holiday abroad, (b) change the car, (c) buy some new clothes/TV or (d) improve the insulation in your house" I suspect those honestly opting for (d) would be below 10%. 

Sadly things will have to get very bad before behaviours and actions follow - and by then it may be too late.


----------



## selectortone (22 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> "Debunking" implies that CC theory is bunk in the first place.
> How about "attempting to discredit"?


Ah, OK. 'Attempting to discredit' it is. I certainly wasn't implying that CC is bunk. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2022)

Big Oil Vs The World – could this be the most important documentary of the year?


After this week’s record-breaking heatwave, this BBC documentary explores how we got to this point in the climate crisis.




www.stylist.co.uk


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ...... Climate change action against the oil companies is about extracting wealth - preferably from the oil companies, their insurers, and finally the government.


No it is not. It's about taking measures to avoid climate change which means curtailing oil companies activities top of the list.


Terry - Somerset said:


> Simply because something is bad and/or damaging does not change behaviours. Other examples - smoking, alcohol, betting - have been only partially regulated.


All these are trivial compared to CC and however lethal don't threaten the whole planet. But Smoking has been severely regulated with a lot of attention to the science, with rules and regulations about advertising, other legal limitations, massive taxation, etc etc and has been highly successful. Betting and alcohol similarly.


Terry - Somerset said:


> .... It evidently does not work - eg: few can be unaware of the dangers of smoking or excess alcohol, but they continue to consume.


see above - it does work


Terry - Somerset said:


> Dogmatic arguments risk outright rejection.


Nothing dogmatic about CC science - it's intensively research based


Terry - Somerset said:


> A week of higher temperatures and a few house fires will have changed some minds. But today the airports are overloaded, delays in Dover, demand for flights exceeds capacity, etc etc. Evidently vast swathes of the UK population are not persuaded to change their personal behaviours.


It needs top down government action. But many individuals are taking action anyway


Terry - Somerset said:


> Were the general public surveyed with a question like "if you suddenly received £2000 would you (a) take a holiday abroad, (b) change the car, (c) buy some new clothes/TV or (d) improve the insulation in your house" I suspect those honestly opting for (d) would be below 10%.


Actually £2000 wouldn't be enough in even a small house, just insulation alone would be more


Terry - Somerset said:


> Sadly things will have to get very bad before behaviours and actions follow - and by then it may be too late.


Sadly things HAVE got very bad - haven't you not been following the news? And yes it may be too late


----------



## Droogs (23 Jul 2022)

Confiscate the cost for dealing with CC on a £ for £ basis by taking the money to pay for it from the wealth of every person who has received a paycheck or profits bonus from the industries that caused the rubbish being pumped into the eco-system in the first place. If they are retired take their house and cars etc & put them in a council house and let them live on a basic state pension until they die. The actions of these industries is diabolical as they have known at least since the end of the 50's what they were doing to us, just like the tobacco companies. They cared not a jot for the well-being of others, only about sort term profit and the hope of making so much that they could pay their way out of harms way while the rest of us suffer the consequences of their lies and actions.


----------



## Recky33 (23 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> We hear from them all the time and the main stream media seeks them out and front pages them. But there aren't very many of them. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia.


Wikipedia is a bit of a one horse race, he who controls Wikipedia gets to have an opinion


Jacob said:


> Nonsense. A lot of serious businesses are opposing climate change agendas because they will lose money. Nobody has an interest in making it up.


A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon along with the LGBGT brigade


Jacob said:


> Not true.There also have been long steady periods and we are just at the end of one - the 11000 year long "holocene"


Prey tell what you thought the end of an 11000 year long "holocene" should be ? Unicorns roaming freely on the M6, "Blue sky's through the trees" like the end of Rocky horror picture show, Yes I know there's no answer to it yet as it's not been discovered and written up in Wikipedia but it can't be long, can it


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2022)

Recky33 said:


> ........
> 
> A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon along with the LGBGT brigade


  What, climate change is an LGBGT conspiracy? Go back to sleep!
We need serious businesses to "jump on the band wagon" - but not in the form of "green washing" whereby they just go through the motions


Recky33 said:


> Prey tell what you thought the end of an 11000 year long "holocene" should be ? Unicorns roaming freely on the M6, "Blue sky's through the trees" like the end of Rocky horror picture show, Yes I know there's no answer to it yet as it's not been discovered and written up in Wikipedia but it can't be long, can it


It can't be long, in fact arguably it is all ready over and we are currently into the "anthropocene".
Look it up in Wikipedia. Oh praps not it's probably an LGBGT conspiracy.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Jul 2022)

> Confiscate the cost for dealing with CC on a £ for £ basis by taking the money to pay for it from the wealth of every person who has received a paycheck or profits bonus from the industries that caused the rubbish being pumped into the eco-system in the first place. If they are retired take their house and cars etc & put them in a council house and let them live on a basic state pension until they die. The actions of these industries is diabolical as they have known at least since the end of the 50's what they were doing to us, just like the tobacco companies. They cared not a jot for the well-being of others, only about sort term profit and the hope of making so much that they could pay their way out of harms way while the rest of us suffer the consequences of their lies and actions.



With respect - completely bonkers IMHO. One may equally well apply the same penalties to all who in the last 30 years have (a) taken a flight, (b) owned a car, (c) fired up a gas CH boiler, (d) eaten airfreighted veg, (e) had a BBQ. Not a soul would be left unpunished.

The objective is to change future behaviours, not penalise past actions which are irretrievable.


----------



## John Brown (23 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> With respect - completely bonkers IMHO. One may equally well apply the same penalties to all who in the last 30 years have (a) taken a flight, (b) owned a car, (c) fired up a gas CH boiler, (d) eaten airfreighted veg, (e) had a BBQ. Not a soul would be left unpunished.
> 
> The objective is to change future behaviours, not penalise past actions which are irretrievable.


Ok, there's a small difference between owing a car, and pushing fossil fuels when you know the downsides.


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 Jul 2022)

Recky33 said:


> A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon along with the LGBGT brigade


Who are the LGBGT brigade?


----------



## Recky33 (23 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> What, climate change is an LGBGT conspiracy? Go back to sleep!


A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon. just the same as a lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the LGBGT band wagon, there you go simple English



Jacob said:


> We need serious businesses to "jump on the band wagon" - but not in the form of "green washing" whereby they just go through the motions


This planet has burned and frozen millions of times over it's existence, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it doing it again when ever it wants to no matter how many "big " businesses get involved,


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Who are the LGBGT brigade?


Not sure. Is it anything to do with The Boy's Brigade?Home - The Boys Brigade


----------



## John Brown (23 Jul 2022)

Recky33 said:


> A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon. just the same as a lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the LGBGT band wagon, there you go simple English
> 
> 
> This planet has burned and frozen millions of times over it's existence, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it doing it again when ever it wants to no matter how many "big " businesses get involved,


Guy on woodwork forum only person who truly understands the problem!

Give me strength...


----------



## Tris (23 Jul 2022)

As far as I understand it there are moves afoot to classify big businesses as legal entities with the same rights and responsibilities as any individual, legal personhood if you will. The upshot of this will be to enable the prosecution of these entities for activities that negatively impact others, eg Shell in the Niger Delta.
Until this takes effect the only legal responsibility for global businesses and their directors is to make money, only if 'green credentials' are seen to be beneficial to the bottom line will any company pay them heed, otherwise it is business as usual.

If you want to know more look up the late Polly Higgins and her work on ecocide


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Jul 2022)

Corporations have a distinct legal identity and carry obligations similar to individuals. 

Dieselgate apparently cost VW the thick end of $40bn. May cost Mercedes $2bn and upwards.

Big business can be, and is, and is, liable for its actions. There are two issues - big business can afford big lawyers, and the law only works in relatively incorruptible jurisdictions. They will often only pay up if the not doing so is more costly. 

Shell and Niger Delta - who has the capacity to bring a case, where would the case be held, and under what jurisdiction. Possibly unfairly, I would classify Nigeria as corrupt and disorganised. It may take decades to get to a US court - if ever. 

In a perfect world the UN or other international court may have capacity to judge and compel the offender to pay compensation if proven guilty. But the real world is not perfect.


----------



## TRITON (24 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> We need serious businesses to "jump on the band wagon" - but not in the form of "green washing" whereby they just go through the motions


They only act when they know thats where the money is. 

A bit like Shell.
Apparently they've really gone big for green renewable energy, and have I believe received contracts for supplying the UK with it. The figure i've heard was 20 billion.
Personally I think Shell and the other oil/gas/energy companies should be made to pay ten times that and i'm sure they would do, though grudgingly.
The reason is Shell and the others see their business model and product diminishing, so now, only when forced to do so because of the worlds new reluctance to use oil/gas are they willing to diversify,but if they dont, they may as well shut up shop entirely.
This is why I think we can force them to pay considerably more and invest a greater amount, because if they dont, again the outlook for them means they're out of business and the money carousel stops turning.


----------



## Droogs (24 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> With respect - completely bonkers IMHO. One may equally well apply the same penalties to all who in the last 30 years have (a) taken a flight, (b) owned a car, (c) fired up a gas CH boiler, (d) eaten airfreighted veg, (e) had a BBQ. Not a soul would be left unpunished.
> 
> The objective is to change future behaviours, not penalise past actions which are irretrievable.


I think we would be able to cover the cost of mitigating CC for a lot less than the $55K billion the fossil fuel industry alone has made over the last century and a half. And yes that is how much they have made in profit. People who bought their products like petrol etc were for the most part totally unaware of the harm being caused until evidence started to mount and be publically available in the late 70's. The producers were totally aware as their own research which they accepted as correct in the 50's told them. They just buried it for profit. 

The general populace in the 50's would not have been so eager to buy those products , if they had been fully aware of the damage/harm they would cause to their children such as turning them into living Barbie and Ken dolls full of micro plastic, skewing and damaging the normal chemical/hormonal state of the body causing lower and lower sperm counts and dysmorphia leading to damaged DNA. Material that off gasses poisonous VOCs promoted as the perfect thing to line the interior of you home so that it gradually causes both physical and mental disorders, but hey look at all the pretty colours you can now have.


----------



## Keith Cocker (24 Jul 2022)

Recky33 said:


> A lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the band wagon. just the same as a lot of serious businesses are simply jumping on the LGBGT band wagon, there you go simple English
> 
> 
> This planet has burned and frozen millions of times over it's existence, there is nothing you or anyone else can do to stop it doing it again when ever it wants to no matter how many "big " businesses get involved,


I was going to use the simple English word Twaddle but I see that it’s bigoted Twaddle as well.


----------



## plum60 (24 Jul 2022)

It's my guess climate change is a bit like driving so turning the steering wheel a bit and you can end up going off road, it happens. To stop climate change and possibly try to get back tolerable weather patterns you would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases altogether and then wait a long long time before it could start to slow down and stop it's current course of heating up.... but ... I don't think it's likely as getting hotter will mean more ice becomes water, you would have to wait for a period of freezing, the opposite of the heating up to re-establish an acceptable climate for humans. In the end it could be a bit like a Netflix disaster movie where some start to try to get rid of other people that want money at the cost of environmental welfare.


----------



## johna.clements (24 Jul 2022)

plum60 said:


> It's my guess climate change is a bit like driving so turning the steering wheel a bit and you can end up going off road, it happens. To stop climate change and possibly try to get back tolerable weather patterns you would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases altogether and then wait a long long time before it could start to slow down and stop it's current course of heating up.... but ... I don't think it's likely as getting hotter will mean more ice becomes water, you would have to wait for a period of freezing, the opposite of the heating up to re-establish an acceptable climate for humans. In the end it could be a bit like a Netflix disaster movie where some start to try to get rid of other people that want money at the cost of environmental welfare.


And like driving if you want to change lane it is easy to avoid something in the road ahead by turning the steering wheel slightly when you first see it. If you you wait to make sure it will damage the the car before taking action the steering will be more severe.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Jul 2022)

> I think we would be able to cover the cost of mitigating CC for a lot less than the $55K billion the fossil fuel industry alone has made over the last century and a half.


I am not defending the fuel companies, nor denying impacts associated with climate change. We are profligate in our use of fossil fuels which are far too cheap.

Even had the risks been fully understood and communicated it may have made limited difference. Fossil fuels for electricity generation, transport and materials technology have enabled better food production, light, heat, advances in medicine, clean water, waste treatment, consumer durables (although not durable enough), clothing, etc etc.

Even if the risks and consequences been known, it may have been regarded as a sensible use of resources. Without fossil fuels mankind would never have progressed from relative poverty of the rural 18th century . Technology means we now have an opportunity for an alternative future.


----------



## Jameshow (24 Jul 2022)

> I think we would be able to cover the cost of mitigating CC for a lot less than the $55K billion the fossil fuel industry alone has made over the last century and a half. And yes that is how much they have made in profit. People who bought their products like petrol etc were for the most part totally unaware of the harm being caused until evidence started to mount and be publically available in the late 70's. The producers were totally aware as their own research which they accepted as correct in the 50's told them. They just buried it for profit.
> 
> The general populace in the 50's would not have been so eager to buy those products , ifully aware of the damage/harm they would cause to their children such as turning them into living Barbie and Ken dolls full of micro plastic, skewing and damaging the normal chemical/hormonal state of the body causing lower and lower sperm counts and dysmorphia leading to damaged DNA. Material that off gasses poisonous VOCs promoted as the perfect thing to line the interior of you home so that it gradually causes both physical and mental disorders, but hey look at all the pretty colours you can now have.




You had all better give you pensions back over the past 50years!!


----------



## Jacob (30 Jul 2022)

Too little too late








‘Soon it will be unrecognisable’: total climate meltdown cannot be stopped, says expert


Blistering heatwaves are just the start. We must accept how bad things are before can we head off global catastrophe, according to a leading UK scientist




www.theguardian.com


----------



## John Brown (30 Jul 2022)

Jameshow said:


> You had all better give you pensions back over the past 50years!!


I don't think many of us are old enough to have been drawing a pension for 50 years.


----------



## johna.clements (30 Jul 2022)

John Brown said:


> I don't think many of us are old enough to have been drawing a pension for 50 years.


I think the proposition is that those who received their pension during the last 50 years should repay it. Could be one year or 49 etc years.


----------



## John Brown (30 Jul 2022)

johna.clements said:


> I think the proposition is that those who received their pension during the last 50 years should repay it. Could be one year or 49 etc years.


Strikes me as a fairly stupid proposition. Most people didn't get much say in how their pension was invested. Indeed, as Phil P. has pointed out elsewhere, state pension contributions have merely gone to pay the current crop of recipients. The big oil companies, on the other hand, are as guilty as the tobacco industry, in that they knew the score, but suppressed information. Not really a valid comparison in my opinion.


----------



## Jameshow (30 Jul 2022)

I wasn't seriously saying that we should repay pensions just the point that oil companies profits pay our pensions. So we are somewhat complicit in the pollution, not to mention the cars we have brought over past decades...


----------



## Jacob (31 Jul 2022)

2021 wasn't too exceptional but still trending upwards.








UK climate continues to change in 2021


The latest annual report shows the continuation of warmer than average years and increasing rate of sea level rise around the UK.




www.metoffice.gov.uk


----------



## Jacob (31 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> ..... Technology means we now have an opportunity for an alternative future.


but technology (wasted) is the cause of the problems and offer no solutions to rising sea levels, extreme weather events, fires, floods, droughts, disruption of supply lines, or any of the CC issues impacting on people now.
Over dependance on technology also makes us especially vulnerable to technological failure at so many levels, from communications to nuclear power. "Technological" solutions could be the trap which finishes us all off quickly!


----------



## stuart little (31 Jul 2022)

Droogs said:


> I think we would be able to cover the cost of mitigating CC for a lot less than the $55K billion the fossil fuel industry alone has made over the last century and a half. And yes that is how much they have made in profit. People who bought their products like petrol etc were for the most part totally unaware of the harm being caused until evidence started to mount and be publically available in the late 70's. The producers were totally aware as their own research which they accepted as correct in the 50's told them. They just buried it for profit.
> 
> The general populace in the 50's would not have been so eager to buy those products , if they had been fully aware of the damage/harm they would cause to their children such as turning them into living Barbie and Ken dolls full of micro plastic, skewing and damaging the normal chemical/hormonal state of the body causing lower and lower sperm counts and dysmorphia leading to damaged DNA. Material that off gasses poisonous VOCs promoted as the perfect thing to line the interior of you home so that it gradually causes both physical and mental disorders, but hey look at all the pretty colours you can now have.


Add to that all the wars over the years, especially of C18 ,C19, & present Century # nuuclear testing , burning oil wells just for starters.


----------



## Jacob (1 Aug 2022)

Climate endgame: risk of human extinction ‘dangerously underexplored’


Scientists say there are ample reasons to suspect global heating could lead to catastrophe




www.theguardian.com





Yup. Looks like we up sh*t creek without a paddle. Good job the globe is heavily populated - at least a few should survive and carry our species forwards. Or backwards, depending on your point of view.
Might start pencilling in some contingency plans. Any suggestions?
PS this just popped up Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: National Emergency Zoom Meeting . After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.


----------



## stuart little (2 Aug 2022)

Back in the late '50's / early '60's there was a film "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" (Peter Finch & Janet Munro) which now looks like a very accurate prediction!


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

stuart little said:


> Back in the late '50's / early '60's there was a film "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" (Peter Finch & Janet Munro) which now looks like a very accurate prediction!


Started a lot earlier! 
Back in the 1850s the cause of climate change was being discovered and the first predictions were being made This Woman Scientist Discovered Signs Of Climate Change In 1856 — And No One Listened


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Aug 2022)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/


There's still a lot of sceptical nutter misinformation going around. Some things never change!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Aug 2022)

Funny how everything you disagree with is written by a nutter, isn't it?


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Funny how everything you disagree with is written by a nutter, isn't it?


Not just me it's something close to 100% of the world of science.
The idea that they are all involved in some sort of global money-making conspiracy is insane!
There's masses of evidence increasing every year that what was forecast is coming about, generally sooner than forecast. Yes and I do know that there were plenty of outlying forecasts which did not come true - an impending ice age being most often quoted.
Look at the evidence Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society


----------



## Spectric (2 Aug 2022)

Climate change is real, global warming is fact because we have the evidence that it us that has increased carbon emisions and industrialisation is the root cause, the problem is that it is also a major source of wealth and too many wealthy people have the attitude of I am all right jack and sod the future generations.

I believe we are past the point of preventing the results of this problem because we are happy to just talk about it but not willing to take the action needed that will at least start to put the brakes on. If and when the UK becomes carbon neutral it will have little impact because we are such a minor contributor, it needs the biggest contributors to act and effect the biggest change to make any difference but and this is the big but, we will all need to make massive lifestyle changes to achieve this. People will then bleat on about their rights and resist any change, but change is what is needed and no one is going to like these changes because it could well feel like we are going back in time. The throwaway attitude needs to go, many of the big money spiners like fashion will have to go and the days of being materialistic will be over so life will become very different but the other option will be far worse.


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

Spectric said:


> ..... If and when the UK becomes carbon neutral it will have little impact because we are such a minor contributor, it needs the biggest contributors to act and effect the biggest change to make any difference .....


It needs all and everybody to make the changes and that includes unilateral action by UK - to set an example at least but also to be developing strategies and even profiting by them.
It looks like China will eventually be leading the way in renewable technology and the rest of the world left behind and dependent.


----------



## John Brown (2 Aug 2022)

The Heartland institute.


Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[4][5]: 233–234 [6] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[7][8]

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Spectric (2 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> It looks like China will eventually be leading the way in renewable technology and the rest of the world left behind and dependent.


But America is already showing it's not happy with the growth and power of China even though they cannot change what will be inevitable, everyone including the Uk must accept and have a re-shuffle at that top table which will mean embracing China rather than trying to alienate them. Another spaner in the works will be if we get a female Pm, she will throw her weight around and cause diplomatic chaos unless someone can reign her in, Maggie had the falklands and so what will Truss want.


----------



## johna.clements (2 Aug 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/


from wiki

*""The Heartland Institute* is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.[3]

Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[4][5]: 233–234 [6] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[7][8]""


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Aug 2022)

They follow the money. As do many of the scientists who depend on an income. No one in their right mind is going to go out of their way to find figures that go against their paymasters wishes and beliefs.


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> They follow the money. As do many of the scientists who depend on an income.


Most scientists pursue science and are paid to do just that, however improbable or unpopular the outcome.


Phil Pascoe said:


> No one in their right mind is going to go out of their way to find figures that go against their paymasters wishes and beliefs.


Very bizarre. Do you really believe that nearly 100% of the worlds scientists are being paid to tell lies? Not just lies but huge elaborate global hoax on a scale never seen before?
In any case most self respecting "scientists" would not work for such a paymaster - though there's always a tiny minority who would sell themselves; defending the tobacco or asbestos lobby, selling quack remedies, etc.
Stark account from OZ: Impacts of Climate Change. Do you think these things are not happening and they are all lying?
The greenhouse effect of CO2 was discovered 120 years ago and has been tested many times in laboratories. Is this a 120 year long confidence trick and they were all lying and being paid for it, from the beginning?


----------



## shed9 (2 Aug 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> They follow the money. As do many of the scientists who depend on an income. No one in their right mind is going to go out of their way to find figures that go against their paymasters wishes and beliefs.


I see this argument a lot, however it is (as with most counter arguments to reality) rarely thought through beyond the soundbite itself.

Less than 4.7% of global research funding is climate related. Taking the US as one example as they are generally pointed to as the climate cash cow, you will find data that suggests the US government allocates billions to climate related funding within their respective federal departments. However, that's deeply misleading as nuclear power development can be (and is) classed as climate research. Only around 6% of that US government climate funding actually has a connection to climate change research. From an academic perspective, if you were to take the collective US academic funding research for climate change over the last 30 years, you would still be looking at a bigger number if you looked at the turnover for M&M's in the US alone in any given year in the last five.

This isn't a cabal of funding dependent lying professionals suckling on the teat of their paymasters. It's just science.


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

What about this lot then? Is "being fictional" just a cover?
Mad scientist - Wikipedia 








They are all the same you know.


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Funny how everything you disagree with is written by a nutter, isn't it?


Not as funny as the way you keep digging out nut-case websites!
I hope you don't really take them seriously.


----------



## Scruples (3 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> There's still a lot of sceptical nutter misinformation going around. Some things never change!


There is a lot of disbelief around. I put it down to fear. The science has gone from suspicions to fact but there are some who still deny the truth. Luckily, most of the world is taking more notice.


----------



## Jacob (3 Aug 2022)

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119


----------



## johna.clements (3 Aug 2022)

Scruples said:


> There is a lot of disbelief around. I put it down to fear. The science has gone from suspicions to fact but there are some who still deny the truth. Luckily, most of the world is taking more notice.


I think there are many reasons other than fear.

The people who were warning about climate change were often also supporters of CND etc. People who disagreed with CND etc assumed that they were also wrong about climate change. 

If people have come out publicly and said something is rubbish it can be difficult to change stance. They have to accept that they were wrong. Then they have to be willing to say so.

Then there is greed. Many people do not care what will happen after they are dead if it will cost them money now.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (3 Aug 2022)

James Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis - *that Earth and its biological systems behave as a huge single entity. This entity has closely controlled self-regulatory negative feedback loops that keep the conditions on the planet within boundaries that are favourable to life.*

He also postulated that the earth could support ~0.5bn people at an acceptable standard (6% of current levels). Alternative estimates suggest that 5 earths would be needed to support the global population at US levels of consumption.

A working proposition may be that the planet is overpopulated by a factor of (say) 10.

Climate change is just one element of environmental degradation, caused largely by human consumption. A return to a simpler less damaging lifestyle embraced by (or forced on) all, may not mean a full return to (say) 19th century living standards as technology has evolved.

Whilst for the UK and many developed countries a simpler, greener existence may be attractive, for much of the world it would still be aspirational. The global overpopulation factor of 10 may reduce to 3-5. Can anything else can be done:

"green" initiatives (energy, recycling, insulation, food production etc) will prolong the window for action but not avoid impending population stresses.
the urge to reproduce is a fundamental characteristic of all animals. Global populations are projected to continue increasing to 11.2bn by 2100.
third world and developing countries understandably aspire to developed country standards including housing, food, clean water, lighting, refrigerators, education, choice etc. 
Limiting populations is the only realistic solution to long term sustainable existence, but is not even on the agenda. Instead some religions still believe contraception intrinsically evil, and pro-life who think abortion a punishable act. The "one child" policy in China has been dismantled because even they could not make it work.

The probability of the next 100 years passing without events materially reducing human populations is low. It may be conflict over increasingly scarce resources (water, food, materials), pandemic, war (lebensraum!), climate change making some parts of the world uninhabitable. 

It will not be the end of humanity - many millions (possibly a billion or two) will survive. They will be those with education, skills, contingency plans etc - the weak as always will perish. An uncomfortable, but probably objective, outcome.


----------



## Jacob (3 Aug 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> .......
> Limiting populations is the only realistic solution to long term sustainable existence, .....


as long as you start by limiting the per person high consumers first?








Carbon emissions per person, by country


Looking at a country's total carbon emissions alone doesn't tell the full story of the country's contribution to global warming




www.theguardian.com




USA, Australia, Europe, UAE, Quatar, Japan, etc, all should be decimated immediately!


----------



## kwigly (4 Aug 2022)

Low intensity carbon emissions are not a severe problem as surrounding nature can readily tolerate/absorb it.
If Jacob would look at carbon emissions "per hectare" instead of per person, he would see that the UK needs to clean up well before some of the other places he mentions.


----------



## Jacob (4 Aug 2022)

kwigly said:


> Low intensity carbon emissions are not a severe problem as surrounding nature can readily tolerate/absorb it.


Could be true if it wasn't for the wind. We share the same atmosphere. We get dominant SW winds here and could be breathing your Ontario air from last week!


kwigly said:


> If Jacob would look at carbon emissions "per hectare" instead of per person, he would see that the UK needs to clean up well before some of the other places he mentions.


It's one measure - others are per capita, per nation etc. Per capita makes most sense, as we share the same atmosphere however far apart we are.


----------



## Droogs (4 Aug 2022)

per acre would be better as we have a finite amount of land on which to produce it and the population is about to half anyway


----------



## kwigly (4 Aug 2022)

Carbon emission per hectare (or per acre) is a better gauge, as it considers the consumption/sequestration of carbon by surrounding vegetation etc, and is closer to measuring the net carbon input to the atmosphere.


----------



## Jacob (4 Aug 2022)

kwigly said:


> Carbon emission per hectare (or per acre) is a better gauge, as it considers the consumption/sequestration of carbon by surrounding vegetation etc, and is closer to measuring the net carbon input to the atmosphere.


Better gauge than what?
The net global carbon change of net input is measured from comparisons of air samples of the atmosphere over time. Local details slightly irrelevant; global increase is the issue.


----------



## kwigly (4 Aug 2022)

Net carbon emissions are widely considered on an industry by industry basis with carbon credits calculated etc. It would be reasonable to do the same net carbon emission analysis on a country by country basis.


----------



## Jacob (4 Aug 2022)

kwigly said:


> Net carbon emissions are widely considered on an industry by industry basis with carbon credits calculated etc. It would be reasonable to do the same net carbon emission analysis on a country by country basis.


Doesn't work by all accounts. Not surprising really.
At best it's just "greenwashing" propaganda.
"Commodifying" carbon emissions is pretty cynical to start with. It'd be like tobacco companies trading lung cancer deaths.
It's too important an issue to leave it to market forces.
I suspect that for an airline passenger to bear the cost of offsetting his CO2 by any zero sum form of carbon sequestration, would be impossibly expensive and the end of air travel i.e. destination new reality!








The biggest problem with carbon offsetting is that it doesn’t really work | Greenpeace UK


Airlines and oil companies love talking about carbon offsetting. But to be serious about tackling climate change, they need to stop carbon emissions.




www.greenpeace.org.uk


----------



## johna.clements (4 Aug 2022)

kwigly said:


> Carbon emission per hectare (or per acre) is a better gauge, as it considers the consumption/sequestration of carbon by surrounding vegetation etc, and is closer to measuring the net carbon input to the atmosphere.


It is far easier to estimate the future carbon output of buildings and machines than it is for the consumption/sequestration surrounding vegetation.

If Canada gets warmer dryer summers there will be more forest fires which will produce CO2.
What happens if the permafrost starts releasing methane. 
What about new pests killing off trees etc.

Part of the problem with predicting the future CO2 level is how much will be taken up and released by all those hectares. It far easier to measure and then control the input (amount of CO2 produced) rather than measure the output (change in vegetation). Your suggestion is a bit like controlling a car by measuring the number of crashes rather than the speed.


----------



## Spectric (4 Aug 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Part of the problem with predicting the future CO2 level is


The issue is like a giant flywheel, as it gets moving it wants to keep moving and gets much harder to stop so as more energy is produced you can end up with run away and then you have a whole new set of problems.


----------



## sawtooth-9 (5 Aug 2022)

I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
That is not the debate.
Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
We should not be so arrogant as to claim we can explain this with our rather "primitive" science. ( speaking as a trained "scientist" )
There are an awful lot of people with a commercial vested interest in "pushing" this argument. And, our children are being "brainwashed" into believing this is FACT.
Politicians have found, yet another vehicle to influence and effect the way people think.
The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
It's also interesting, that climates radically change with the reversal of the magnetic poles. Pole reversals are well documented in core samples. We are " overdue " for a pole reversal, based on core sample chronology.
Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.


----------



## Jacob (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
> Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.


No. It's about listening to the science and observing what is actually happening to the world around you, or ignoring them both. Climate crisis | The Guardian


sawtooth-9 said:


> .....
> Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
> ........


Not of itself.
But it does give you reason to suspect causation. If subsequent investigations demonstrate possible processes then you are approaching proof. If forecasts turn out to be correct than you probably have it.
Climate change has been forecast for 100 years or more and the processes are now well known.








History of climate change science - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Basically you've started thinking about it a bit late sawtooth-9, as has most of the world, which is now catching up as events impose themselves!
If you really think you've found flaws in the science then you should get in touch with the IPPC - they would be very pleased to know that it's all a fuss about nothing!

PS It seems they are aware of the polar shift issue - it wasn't overlooked! Flip Flop: Why Variations in Earth's Magnetic Field Aren't Causing Today's Climate Change – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Is there anything else you think they might have missed?


----------



## Blackswanwood (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> Just imagine if climate change was not a result of human activity - this would have been the biggest "con" in human history.



... or just imagine it is and we do nothing about it - this would have been the biggest "missed opportunity to do the right thing for those who come after us" in human history.


----------



## shed9 (5 Aug 2022)

Hmm, that old situation between 99% of all actual scientists concluding that climate collapse is inevitable vs the woodworking forum keyboard warrior who claims to be......


sawtooth-9 said:


> ( speaking as a trained "scientist" )


It was this little nugget right here that lead me to believe the veracity of that trained science......


sawtooth-9 said:


> Climate does - and has ( *and probably always will* ) - change



For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now.

Utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Aug 2022)

shed9 said:


> Hmm, that old situation between 99% of all actual scientists concluding that climate collapse is inevitable vs the woodworking forum keyboard warrior who claims to be......
> 
> It was this little nugget right here that lead me to believe the veracity of that trained science......
> 
> ...



This turns out not to always* be the case: Abrupt climate change - Wikipedia

"Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10 °C (+18 °F) within a timescale of a few years.[7] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C (+7.2 °F) on Greenland 11,270 years ago[8] or the abrupt +6 °C (11 °F) warming 22,000 years ago on Antarctica.[9] By contrast, the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum may have initiated anywhere between a few decades and several thousand years."


shed9 said:


> Utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided


I was always taught that if I didn't have anything nice to say, saying nothing at all was the preferred option.



* No grammar was hurt during the splitting of this infinitive .


----------



## shed9 (5 Aug 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> This turns out not to always* be the case: Abrupt climate change - Wikipedia
> 
> "Timescales of events described as 'abrupt' may vary dramatically. Changes recorded in the climate of Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas, as measured by ice-cores, imply a sudden warming of +10 °C (+18 °F) within a timescale of a few years.[7] Other abrupt changes are the +4 °C (+7.2 °F) on Greenland 11,270 years ago[8] or the abrupt +6 °C (11 °F) warming 22,000 years ago on Antarctica.[9] By contrast, the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum may have initiated anywhere between a few decades and several thousand years."
> 
> ...


Apologies, I should have been more specific in my retort;

For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now *without any definitive rationale*.

Abrupt changes require a catalyst and when it comes to temperature shifts involved with periods such as the YD phase, this requires a catastrophic catalyst which is why the hypothesis' of massive failure of glacial ice dams or the more recent impact hypothesis are involved in that conversation. When people suggest the climate has always changed within the context of human interaction, it is implied that climate shift is natural thereby humans have no impact.

I agree that conversation should be civil however when it comes to discussing established science which is entirely predicated on the survival of our species and probably most others, I think pleasantries were exhausted a long time ago.

So yet again, it is utterly staggering that fully formed adults still argue that climate change is undecided


----------



## Jacob (5 Aug 2022)

shed9 said:


> Apologies, I should have been more specific in my retort;
> 
> For the record, and for the billionth time to the same endless moronic argument; yes it it has changed in the past, but over millennia, not over the short time spans we are experiencing now *without any definitive rationale*.
> 
> ...


Well yes but I also blame the media and the politicians. Sawtooth-9 is in Oz and particularly badly served on both fronts


----------



## shed9 (5 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> Well yes but I also blame the media and the politicians. Sawtooth-9 is in Oz and particularly badly served on both fronts


Yeah, I watch Australian media to better understand the ignorance that spills over in the climate discussion.


----------



## Stanleymonkey (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
> Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
> That is not the debate.
> Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
> ...



The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.

What proof would you need to link the two? Also - do you not think it would be wise to take some precautions in case it is caused by human activity?


----------



## Spectric (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.


I thought that this must be fairly obvious, would we have the current levels of CO and greenhouse gases if the planet had 75% less people living on it. Another viewpoint is that we have a global population approaching 8 billion, 1.5 billion cars, millions of HGV's, dozens of coal fired power stations and the planet covered in industry, are we saying none of this has any impact on our climate!


----------



## Jacob (5 Aug 2022)

Spectric said:


> I thought that this must be fairly obvious, would we have the current levels of CO and greenhouse gases if the planet had 75% less people living on it. Another viewpoint is that we have a global population approaching 8 billion, 1.5 billion cars, millions of HGV's, dozens of coal fired power stations and the planet covered in industry, are we saying none of this has any impact on our climate!


And 40% of land surface cultivated and deforested.
How could these things NOT have an effect?


----------



## John Brown (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
> Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
> That is not the debate.
> Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
> ...


Actually, you've been brainwashed into thinking that the science is suspect by PR firms and lobbyists who not only have sound financial reasons for wanting to do so, but also, if you've been following this stuff at all, turn out to be the very same people who tried to whitewash the tobacco industry. Why do you think it's in the government's interest to try and deceive you? The current bunch are pretty much on your side, as green policies cost money, and don't line the pockets of the rich.


----------



## woodieallen (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> I have really tried to stay away from this subject.
> Why ? because the debate seems to revolve around those who believe in "climate" change - and those who don't.
> That is not the debate.
> Climate does - and has ( and probably always will ) - change
> ...


I'm guessing that you probably think Covid is also mass hysteria and a massive con by WhoKnowsWho. Vaccinated ? No chance...not having that Bill Gates chip inside me....no sirree.


----------



## sawtooth-9 (5 Aug 2022)

Stanleymonkey said:


> The debate should be whether HUMAN activity has CAUSED the change, or NOT.
> Just because you get correlation between human activity and changes in climate, DOES NOT ESTABLISH whether it is cause or effect.
> 
> What proof would you need to link the two? Also - do you not think it would be wise to take some precautions in case it is caused by human activity?


I agree that precautions are wise, and I agree that human activity has harmed our environment - really badly.
The myopic focus on CO2 emissions and their reduction, assumes this is the major factor.
If it is, then it's the right precaution to take. Of course, if CO2 is not the major factor - then we will have done nothing to "fix the problem"
Keeping an open mind ( myself included ) may just contribute to a fuller understanding of the issues and lead to an effective result.
BTW I am not questioning the link between CO2 and climate - I just question whether it is cause or effect.


----------



## Jacob (5 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> I agree that precautions are wise, and I agree that human activity has harmed our environment - really badly.
> The myopic focus on CO2 emissions and their reduction, assumes this is the major factor.
> If it is, then it's the right precaution to take. Of course, if CO2 is not the major factor - then we will have done nothing to "fix the problem"
> Keeping an open mind ( myself included ) may just contribute to a fuller understanding of the issues and lead to an effective result.
> BTW I am not questioning the link between CO2 and climate - I just question whether it is cause or effect.


All the evidence is that CO2 is the cause of climate change. 
It's not an assumption it's the conclusion of massive research and observation over a long period. 
The basic science of "greenhouse" gasses was discovered 150 years ago.
You just need to read about it a bit rather than guessing myopically.
You just haven't been paying attention!


----------



## sawtooth-9 (6 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> All the evidence is that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
> It's not an assumption it's the conclusion of massive research and observation over a long period.
> The basic science of "greenhouse" gasses was discovered 150 years ago.
> You just need to read about it a bit rather than guessing myopically.
> You just haven't been paying attention!


This comment is not worthy of a reply, beyond I have never questioned the "science" of greenhouse gasses.
I am gld you are happy with your views.


----------



## Jacob (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> This comment is not worthy of a reply, beyond I have never questioned the "science" of greenhouse gasses.
> I am gld you are happy with your views.


If you have never questioned the science why do you not believe what the science is now telling us? You can't have it both ways.
It's worrying that you are happy with your views!


----------



## John Brown (6 Aug 2022)

It's difficult to discern what your views are, sawtooth, apart from liking quotation marks and upper case emphasis. 
Firstly you say you believe in Climate change, but question whether it's anthropogenic, and suggest that this distinction has been largely overlooked until you raised it. Then you agree that humans have badly damaged the environment (,our environment - there are probably organisms that will thrive in elevated temperatures), but question whether CO2 is the problem, or whether the scientists have confused cause and effect.
On top of which you claim we've been brainwashed by the government for reasons that are not clear to me.
Why don't you set down what it is you actually believe. That way you won't have to waste time denying stuff.

So, do you believe the climate is changing?
If so, do you believe it is partly caused by human activity?
If so, what do you think is the mechanism for that partial cause? Is it CO2, or something else?
Do you think it's worth trying to do anything about climate change, or should we sit on our hands and blame the Chinese, or population growth or sunspots or something?


----------



## sawtooth-9 (6 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> If you have never questioned the science why do you not believe what the science is now telling us? You can't have it both ways.
> It's worrying that you are happy with your views!


You raised ONE point, which I happen to agree with.
Then you extend this to the WHOLE question.
I am not worried about your beliefs / views - they just differ from mine - so don't stress.
I am happy , you are happy - isn't that great


----------



## Jacob (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> You raised ONE point, which I happen to agree with.
> Then you extend this to the WHOLE question.
> I am not worried about your beliefs / views - they just differ from mine - so don't stress.
> I am happy , you are happy - isn't that great


The whole question revolves around that one point. If you accept the greenhouse gas effect, as demonstrated in lab experiments, why do you imagine it would not also occur on the macro scale of the whole globe?


----------



## sawtooth-9 (6 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> The whole question revolves around that one point. If you accept the greenhouse gas effect as demonstrated in lab experiments why do you imagine it would not also occur on the macro scale of the whole globe?


My last reply on this
Of course it can - and have never doubted this.
My only question has always related to Cause or effect

I have never attempted to change anyones mind - just to raise a discussion point.
Time to end this


----------



## Jacob (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> My last reply on this
> Of course it can - and have never doubted this.
> My only question has always related to Cause or effect
> 
> ...


So you accept the cause but don't believe it has an effect? Some confusion here!


----------



## sawtooth-9 (6 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> So you accept the cause but don't believe it has an effect? Some confusion here!


You are the one who is confused - but have a nice day anyway


----------



## Jacob (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> You are the one who is confused - but have a nice day anyway


Try answering the question? 
If you accept that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect in Lab conditions and is hence proven and demonstrable, why do you think it would not be the cause of the greenhouse effect on the larger global scale? 
You would need to show some convincing science to be able to explain this contradiction - not to mention the fact that it does appear to be having exactly the effect the science predicts. 
Is there another process at work as yet unknown to science?


----------



## sawtooth-9 (6 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> Try answering the question?
> If you accept that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect in Lab conditions and is hence proven and demonstrable, why do you think it would not be the cause of the greenhouse effect on the larger global scale?
> You would need to show some convincing science to be able to explain this contradiction - not to mention the fact that it does appear to be having exactly the effect the science predicts.
> Is there another process at work as yet unknown to science?


My last reply to you
Greenhouse gases are real
Greenhouse gasses trap heat
Trapped heat ( over time ) effects climate
Nothing denied here
Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet


----------



## Jacob (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> My last reply to you
> Greenhouse gases are real
> Greenhouse gasses trap heat
> Trapped heat ( over time ) effects climate
> Nothing denied here


But then you are denying it! Make your mind up!


sawtooth-9 said:


> Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet


But why and how could it NOT be CO2 generated by burning of fossil fuels contributing to climate change?
How could your "_increased CO2 levels .. a result of a warming planet" _come about? Could this be demonstrated in a laboratory?


----------



## shed9 (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> Question is whether an increase in CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels ( one of many greenhouse gasses ) is the primary cause of climate change or whether the increased CO2 levels are a result of a warming planet


There is a direct relationship between released GHG's and the change in climate, therefor it is cause. I get your point in raising this as a discussion but nearly every direct and indirect peer reviewed climatology research paper on the subject has reached the same conclusion, to debate it further without new credible evidence is just enabling the argument against human influenced climate collapse - that's why you are getting the hostility to your point.


----------



## johna.clements (6 Aug 2022)

sawtooth-9 said:


> My last reply to you
> Greenhouse gases are real
> Greenhouse gasses trap heat
> Trapped heat ( over time ) effects climate
> ...


The effect of increase in CO2 has been modeled and seems to match the observed increase in temperatures. The models (there are more than one) are being continuously updated to take into account of the observations and research.

And to answer your question about cause and effect it works both ways. As you note burning stuff, not just fossil fuels, releases CO2 which traps the heat from the sun. A hotter climate, will unless it is also wetter, result in more wild fires in Canada. The burning Canadian trees will release more CO2 making it hotter.


----------



## Tris (6 Aug 2022)

Burning fossil fuels is only one source, intensive farming since WW2 has released massive amounts of co² (not to mention methane), along with mass destruction, by burning, of rainforests for cheap soya, beef and palm oil. The 'green revolution' in Africa led to more pollution as western style farming was implemented in the wrong climate.
We should be wary of focusing on only one source for co² emissions.

The Gaia theory was mentioned earlier in this thread, if the planet is an organism, what do most organisms do to get rid of infection? Heat up!


----------



## Spectric (6 Aug 2022)

Does anyone round here think our weather patterns are the same as they were say forty years ago? Are we not seeing more extreme weather patterns and reaching new temperature records?

So we have an effect, an output from the system so what if not human is the input causing this output? We can rule out volcanic activity because we are really in a quiet phase of volcanic activity compared to millenia ago, so are we going to just blame the cows for excess belching or accept that millions of internal combustion engines are removing oxygen from the atmosphere and producing carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen and along with other fossil fuel burning processes they must be having an effect, we cannot as an inteligent species just believe all this has no effect on our planet unless we are happy to just bury our heads and let someone else or future generations worry for us by which time it will be too late.


----------



## Tris (6 Aug 2022)

Absolutely, out of season flooding, higher winds, powerful storms. Things that were recorded perhaps once a century are now once a decade. Energy that took millennia to store has been released over a couple of centuries. How can that not have an effect? Climate is driven by complex interactions of energy and temperature so adding more energy to the mix must amp up the effects.
As for cows, if we weren't around to feed them soya and cereals there'd be a lot less if them and all grazing grass and dieing naturally, rather than being transported hundreds of miles, sawn up, packed in plastic and freighted all around the globe.



Rant over


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Aug 2022)

Denial of anthropogenic climate change is probably mistaken - specious arguments to defend inaction. A warming planet is just one anthropogenic abuse. Over fishing, pollution, deforestation, consumption of limited minerals, to name but a few.

A universal intent to moderate human behaviours creating a stable, sustainable environment is needed, but unlikely. The first world can (and should) change, those less fortunate understandably aspire to adequate food, clean water, shelter, and material wealth enjoyed by the prosperous.

It may matter little whether one personally believes or denies - it will make little difference to the outcome. Record high temperatures in the UK recently would be unremarkable in many places and caused only limited problems - in the long term adaptation is both affordable and feasible.

Universal sustainable behaviours may only be adopted if/when catastrophe is evident - eg: major cities flooded by sea level rise, persistent high temperatures killing millions, agricultural collapse. 

The sacrifice most of the 1st world (certainly UK) is making is either inconsequential or laughable:

we object to wind turbines spoiling the view, 
think we are playing our part by turning down the heating 1 degree,
we still consume vast quantities of imported and sometimes airfreighted food,
live in houses with spare rooms (contrast with those living 6 to a room with open sewers)
we still take foreign holidays and fly, 
insist on the right to drive rather than walk or cycle
the list could go on for several pages!!
If one accepts the above is a sad reality, the personal response at an extreme is the "prepper" route - off-grid, self sufficient and weaponised. For most, a practical response is education, awareness, access to resources, supporting a local community, live in a temperate land well above sea level.


----------



## Jacob (6 Aug 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Denial of anthropogenic climate change is probably mistaken - specious arguments to defend inaction. A warming planet is just one anthropogenic abuse. Over fishing, pollution, deforestation, consumption of limited minerals, to name but a few.
> 
> A universal intent to moderate human behaviours creating a stable, sustainable environment is needed, but unlikely. The first world can (and should) change, those less fortunate understandably aspire to adequate food, clean water, shelter, and material wealth enjoyed by the prosperous.
> 
> ...


Becoming a weaponised prepper could misfire (literally) as if you haven't already shot yourself accidentally you could become prime target for the weaponised prepper next door! With a bit of luck they'd all just shoot each other, American fashion.
Probably be much more constructive to go the unarmed "community" route? That's what civilisation is all about really.
The unpreppers "shall inherit the earth and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Psalms 37:11


----------



## Scruples (7 Aug 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Denial of anthropogenic climate change is probably mistaken - specious arguments to defend inaction. A warming planet is just one anthropogenic abuse. Over fishing, pollution, deforestation, consumption of limited minerals, to name but a few.
> 
> A universal intent to moderate human behaviours creating a stable, sustainable environment is needed, but unlikely. The first world can (and should) change, those less fortunate understandably aspire to adequate food, clean water, shelter, and material wealth enjoyed by the prosperous.
> 
> ...


Reverting back to the wild west days of the US is not really a sensible option. But finding ways to all the things we need to do and enjoy doing to continue those activities. The changes have started. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, reducing CO²/CFCs in the atmosphere and intensive scientific and technological attention to other causes of climate change are happening.

It appears, from the current research, that the Earth has seen a significant and non-linear temperature change since the industrial revolution that can't be explained by natural, and normal, climate change.

The lower atmosphere is hotter than the upper atmoshere, a change that shows that heat is being trapped within the lower atmosphere and the change isn't caused by fluctuations in solar activity or Earth's wobble.

It matters not that some don't believe in the science but it does matter that the scientists convince the politicians around the world that man-made climate change is real.


----------



## Jacob (7 Aug 2022)

Scruples said:


> ..........
> 
> It matters not that some don't believe in the science .........


Not so sure. If it was an issue at the ballot box the politicos would really start paying attention. 
Progress has never come from the top throughout history, it's always been pressure from below.
Sounds far fetched but if threads like this change a few peoples minds it could the most useful thing we can do - the same conversation is going on all over the world.


----------



## Scruples (7 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> Not so sure. If it was an issue at the ballot box the politicos would really start paying attention.
> Progress has never come from the top throughout history, it's always been pressure from below.
> Sounds far fetched but if threads like this change a few peoples minds it could the most useful thing we can do - the same conversation is going on all over the world.


Although some southern states of America might grasp the concepts of climate change I think that, generally, the electorate in other western countries do understand the consequences of the recent climatic changes and would support their leaders. Obviously, like any mass, there is inertia but, like most inetiaa the few will see the light one day. 
The autocratic countries, on the other hand, may not see the truth beyond their own ideaologies, and therein lies a problem.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Aug 2022)

> Not so sure. If it was an issue at the ballot box the politicos would really start paying attention.
> Progress has never come from the top throughout history, it's always been pressure from below.


It would be nice were it true.

Behaviours with negative consequences abound - gluttony, alcohol, gambling, smoking etc. Politicians reluctantly legislate fearing negative electoral impacts. Behaviours continue largely unchanged until confronted with the consequences - eg: heart attack, lung cancer,

I expect limited public demand for action until climate change impacts hit people hard - eg: water shortages, large scale woodland fires, coastal flooding etc. There are higher priorities:

energy prices - bizarre in that energy consumption is a root cause of climate change
cost of living - particularly food
interest rates and housing adequacy
job security and income
acquisition of material consumer goods and leisure spend (holidays etc)
As swift action is needed, legislators will need to regulate against the superficial wishes of voters and put in place the framework for a lower carbon economy to flourish. EVs are a start. Far better housing standards, much higher taxes on energy consumption, remove barriers to green energy generation (eg: Severn barrage, wind turbines) etc.

It is easy for the "comfortable" to be positive about the need for action - but for those whose lives are a succession of difficult priority choices today is far more important than an opaque future.


----------



## Spectric (7 Aug 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> cost of living - particularly food


Also impacted by climate change, many of our current crops could become unsuitable for the new weather patterns.

One of the big barriers to change is that governments do not want to upset their backers like property developers and business that generate wealth for the economy, but to progress to a lower carbon economy is going to require some pretty drastic changes. The one thing that would make dealing with the global warming crisis much easier would be if everyone on planet earth could just get on with each other and stop all conflicts and then direct there efforts into the issues that impact us all, we all live on the same boat and if it sinks we all go down so we all should work as one to keep it afloat.


----------



## Jacob (7 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> Not so sure. If it was an issue at the ballot box the politicos would really start paying attention.
> Progress has never come from the top throughout history, it's always been pressure from below.
> Sounds far fetched but if threads like this change a few peoples minds it could the most useful thing we can do - the same conversation is going on all over the world.


Maybe this could be the ballot box threat which could get our zombie politicians thinking?








The Tories have failed to ‘get climate done’ – so I’ve launched a new centre-right party | Ed Gemmell


My Climate party will take on 110 Conservative candidates in the next election, says Ed Gemmell, leader of the Climate party




www.theguardian.com





It's another of the many open goals that Sir Keith bollard has missed so far. 
The trouble is he just doesn't seem to have the brain power, let alone the imagination.
If he came out with a very strong green agenda he might regain some of the 1000s of lost members and do a lot better at the ballot box.


----------



## DrPhill (7 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> Maybe this could be the ballot box threat which could get our zombie politicians thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting link. It sounds as if you need to start a center-left 'other climate party' to attack the complacent left climate ignorers.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Aug 2022)

Jacob said:


> Maybe this could be the ballot box threat which could get our zombie politicians thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So the poor old working many is in for another punishment beating? 

1) Maggie destroyed his well paid manual job. 

2) New labour flooded the new service industry "hi tech" economy with imported labour. 

3) Now and even more so going forward we going to tax them on emissions which they cannot afford, which they cannot affect due to social housing, and haven't made in the main, apart from a day trip to Bridlington....

Labour will never get back into power and kier knows that!!


----------



## Spectric (7 Aug 2022)

Jameshow said:


> Labour will never get back into power and kier knows that!!


So are we saying it will be a hung parliament, no one will vote for the conservatives after such a long and drawn out fiasco and they will get blamed for the economic crisis, taking little action with the climate as well as a total failure to make any reduction in immigration so lib dems anyone, maybe it is time for them to have a go because they cannot make a worse mess so at least the potential for something positive. The absolute worst case is we have to endure truss as pm, ok only for a few years but a return of thatcher


----------



## woodieallen (11 Aug 2022)

DrPhill said:


> Interesting link. It sounds as if you need to start a center-left 'other climate party' to attack the complacent left climate ignorers.


Bloody splitters ....with apologies to Life of Brian


----------



## woodieallen (11 Aug 2022)

Spectric said:


> So are we saying it will be a hung parliament, no one will vote for the conservatives after such a long and drawn out fiasco and they will get blamed for the economic crisis, taking little action with the climate as well as a total failure to make any reduction in immigration so lib dems anyone, maybe it is time for them to have a go because they cannot make a worse mess so at least the potential for something positive. The absolute worst case is we have to endure truss as pm, ok only for a few years but a return of thatcher


Nowt wrong with Margaret.


----------



## bluemoon (12 Aug 2022)

Molynoox said:


> if that is based on real data then it's utterly brilliant.
> when they showed that 3D version at the end it really levelled-up!


It is based on real data...


----------



## whereistheceilidh (12 Aug 2022)

woodieallen said:


> Nowt wrong with Margaret.


Not now Woodie.
.....just to throw more logs on the fire ...... we have the benefit of the SNP alternative here rather than having to swither about Tory or Labour.....or Lib Dem. There are other parties.......


----------

