Lots of hot air

[Rorschach]

We had a hot july and currently have a cold august in the UK.

Amount of rainfall over 12 months in the UK has changed very little in 100 years. Potentially we have heavier storms some times but lets not pretend that never happened in the past.

Yep I had to go to London, normally this time of year I would avoid it at almost any cost because it is hot, humid and smelly in the summer. It was very pleasant, actually rather chilly in the mornings, very comfortable indeed. So cool in fact the children wore jumpers and didn't even complain about being hot.

 

[Selwyn]

I quite enjoy the 'devil's advocate' approach, Tn - in fact, I think it's important for us all to consider alternative accounts. What bothers me is when people latch on to an alternative account of things and bark on about it endlessly as if they've somehow - without having any expertise in the field - divined the truth. I see governments and businesses etc conspire to shape our consciousness and behaviour all the time, and they are enormously successful in that. It's not so tricky to observe how those conspiracies have developed historically if you study them. But that doesn't mean, for example, that the UN IPCC experts who have been sharing their findings are working on behalf of governments to deceive us. Of course, they might be but to convince me of that, you'd need an awful lot of evidence, and certainly not a general statement about govts lying. Not seen the Pink Floyd vid since I was a teenager, made sense then - to a teenage mind.

A lot of the aim of politics at a practical level is to keep people "alarmed", thereby needing the politicians to lead them to safety. We have some good examples of this

 

[Trainee neophyte]

But that doesn't mean, for example, that the UN IPCC experts who have been sharing their findings are working on behalf of governments to deceive us.

I am of the opinion that the government (all governments) require a fearful population who look to their leaders for safety and salvation. In the old days (up until perhaps 100 years ago) we had good old religion to keep the congregation frightened and compliant. Now that religion has been sidelined we need other things to be scared of.

Climate change is the new religion, requiring faith, and needing tithes, sacrifices and obedience.

Covid serves a similar purpose, with all its arbitrary, ever - changing rules, requirements and beliefs.

Is the climate changing? Of course - it's what climates do. Is it all the fault of humans? Probably not, given that the climate changed for billions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for billions of years after we have gone. Is there a small portion of change that might be attributed to humans? Perhaps. Maybe. The IPCC says (I think - it's hard to tell) that human are responsible for 5% of annual CO2 planetary output. If you removed all the humans from the planet, you might be able to make a small change to the climate...or you might not. Hard to say.

As to outright lies by climate scientists - remember "Climategate"?

Here's an alternative view of the current hockey stick graph and the underlying data that makes it so scarey:
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
Roger will be along shortly to tell us that this is a heretic site run by unbelievers, and must be expunged from the record immediately. No different to any other religion.

As a farmer, it is far more important for me to work out what is actually going to happen, as opposed to what the "experts" claim is going to happen. For the moment I think globally we might be in for a bout of cooling which will cause me far more problems than a trivial bit of warming. Look to the southern hemisphere winter weather for a hint of what we will be getting this winter - it's not looking good so far, but one winter doesn't make a climate trend. I'll be proven right or wrong by 2030, hopefully.

 

[Jacob]

We had a hot july and currently have a cold august in the UK.

Amount of rainfall over 12 months in the UK has changed very little in 100 years. Potentially we have heavier storms some times but lets not pretend that never happened in the past.

nobody is pretending they didn't happen in the past, especially in the UK which has very varied weather.
The issues are frequency and intensity UK extreme events - Heavy rainfall and floods

 

[Jacob]

I am of the opinion that the government (all governments) require a fearful population who look to their leaders for safety and salvation. In the old days (up until perhaps 100 years ago) we had good old religion to keep the congregation frightened and compliant. Now that religion has been sidelined we need other things to be scared of.

Climate change is the new religion, requiring faith, and needing tithes, sacrifices and obedience.

Covid serves a similar purpose, with all its arbitrary, ever - changing rules, requirements and beliefs.

Is the climate changing? Of course - it's what climates do. Is it all the fault of humans? Probably not, given that the climate changed for billions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for billions of years after we have gone. Is there a small portion of change that might be attributed to humans? Perhaps. Maybe. The IPCC says (I think - it's hard to tell) that human are responsible for 5% of annual CO2 planetary output. If you removed all the humans from the planet, you might be able to make a small change to the climate...or you might not. Hard to say.

As to outright lies by climate scientists - remember "Climategate"?

Here's an alternative view of the current hockey stick graph and the underlying data that makes it so scarey:
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
Roger will be along shortly to tell us that this is a heretic site run by unbelievers, and must be expunged from the record immediately. No different to any other religion.

As a farmer, it is far more important for me to work out what is actually going to happen, as opposed to what the "experts" claim is going to happen. For the moment I think globally we might be in for a bout of cooling which will cause me far more problems than a trivial bit of warming. Look to the southern hemisphere winter weather for a hint of what we will be getting this winter - it's not looking good so far, but one winter doesn't make a climate trend. I'll be proven right or wrong by 2030, hopefully.

That site is complete drivel from the very first paragraph: Although climate scientists keep telling that defects in their “hockey stick” proxy reconstructions don’t matter – that it doesn’t matter whether they use data upside down, that it doesn’t matter if they cherry pick individual series depending on whether they go up in the 20th century, that it doesn’t matter if they discard series that don’t go the “right” way (“hide the decline”), that it doesn’t matter if they used contaminated data or stripbark bristlecones, that such errors don’t matter because the hockey stick itself doesn’t matter

 

[Chris152]

The IPCC says (I think - it's hard to tell) that human are responsible for 5% of annual CO2 planetary output. If you removed all the humans from the planet, you might be able to make a small change to the climate...or you might not. Hard to say.

'The figure below from the IPCC report illustrates why 96–97% of climate science experts and peer-reviewed research agree that humans are the main cause of global warming.'
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing
I agree completely that governments seek to create a docile, compliant populace, and they do it in ways and to an extent that the populace isn't generally aware of. But simply saying that the science that governments respond to and take into account in policy, laws and so on - precisely the science that the broader scientific community have consensus on - is corrupt in all cases by virtue of the fact governments are referring to it, is lazy. Offering anecdotal evidence, picking out moments from the past when climate events happened as if the scientists hadn't taken them into account is utterly subjective and by itself certainly not the way knowledge is achieved.
I enjoy doubting, wondering if there are other ways of seeing things as much as you seem to, but when it comes to things that I know next to nothing about, I'm quite happy to accept what the experts in the field have to say - unless, of course, there's clear evidence that the information that the consensus of expert opinion is corrupt, which isn't the case here.

Again, it's not possible to talk about ways of responding to climate change because discussion gets stuck on whether or not it's real etc. We could do the same with making a table - is this wood I see before me, out there in the world, or is it a construction of my mind? - but we tend not to treat wood in that way, all evidence suggests it's real, and has the potential to be a table. So we talk about the best joints etc. We can doubt everything, but doing so without good reason leads to madness.

 

[Selwyn]

nobody is pretending they didn't happen in the past, especially in the UK which has very varied weather.
The issues are frequency and intensity UK extreme events - Heavy rainfall and floods

Look they only record floods when it happens. Lots of areas used to flood and no one ever recorded it if it was on farmland. Now we have tarmaced so much more. This is not a "climate crisis"

Its alarmism

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Weather is what is happening now or in the last few days/weeks. A forecast has a timescale - usually the next few days or weeks. Climate is usually defined as what has happened (or will happen) over a 30 year period.

A few execeptionally hot/cold/windy days is not proof of climate change. Repeated events and trends probably are!

However it is increasingly clear debate is futile. Apparently some are willing to believe that analysis by world leading scientists is corrupted by funding and personal career aspirations.

They also seem to believe that their personal views and those of selected (obviously gifted and knowledgeable) journalists with no real scientific credibilty should carry equal weight.

One has to question whether certainty in the views of the clearly uninformed, and often ill-informed, should be carried through into daily life.

Why bother with the doctor when the supermarket shelf stacker claims to know all about chest pain and bowel movements. The local joiner is much cheaper than a qualified dentist - no need for several years study when chisel, pliers and Black and Decker can do the job. And when buying your new house get the local hairdresser to take a good look at the lease before signing on the bottom line.

Or perhaps they are simply trolling - a bit of fun to raise blood pressure and stimulate debates.

 

[Selwyn]

Ok lets put it another way.

Is it ethical for those who are worried about climate change and see it as terrible to have children? At the end of the day such actions cause harm to the planet.

 

[Rorschach]

Ok lets put it another way.

Is it ethical for those who are worried about climate change and see it as terrible to have children? At the end of the day such actions cause harm to the planet.

All those making a fuss appear to have kids.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

@Chris152 thankyou for the reasoned and polite replies. It's unusual with this topic, so much appreciated.

One point - I was talking about the percentage of CO2 attributed to human sources, vs "natural" sources - not the percentage of warming attributed, which is not the same.

Another point - consensus is irrelevant: it takes just one proof to demolish a hypothesis, not a committee, as Einstein was keen to point out. Science isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a collection of religious cults, with the one with the most believers winning the day. Max Planke suggested science advances one funeral at a time, and I don't think things have improved since his day.

And no, I won't abrogate my duty to consider things just because I haven't spent the required number of years obtaining the required certificates to confirm my initiation into the holy mysteries. I'll continue to think for myself, even if I don't do it conventionally. Everyone needs a hobby, and it's indoor work with no heavy lifting. I can even do it when it's raining.

Future historians, assuming there are such things, will have some interesting things to say about the early 21st century. Possibly similar to what they say about the Dutch tulip mania or South Sea Bubble. We live in interesting times.

 

[Chris152]

@Chris152 thankyou for the reasoned and polite replies.

Hedging my bets for SUPing at your gaff in the small window that may yet open after Covid restrictions and before armageddon.

 

[woodieallen]

All those making a fuss appear to have kids.

Interesting statement. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement ? I don't have a view either way but when someone makes a black and white statement like that, I'm always interested in the provenance.

 

[Jacob]

@Chris152 thankyou for the reasoned and polite replies. It's unusual with this topic, so much appreciated.

One point - I was talking about the percentage of CO2 attributed to human sources, vs "natural" sources - not the percentage of warming attributed, which is not the same.

........

% of the extra warming 951 to 2010 due to man made CO2 is reckoned at over 100% according to this. The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing? | Dana Nuccitelli
Sounds illogical but that's because without human input there would have been a natural cooling, so over 100% is possible. You can see it on the hockey stick graph - CO2 and temperatures were falling in the past
I presume the figure for extra CO2 in the atmosphere would also be well over 100% as we have deforested worldwide so non human CO2 production would be declining. The figures will be around somewhere.
It is obviously impossible to identify the separate sources in real terms, so these figures are calculated from research.
Two things appear to be certain - that there is an increase on anthropogenic CO2, producing an increase in global temperatures, which is happening now.

 

[rafezetter]

There are several ways to change behaviours to achieve reduced consumption of fossil fuels. If you think all is OK so why bother - don't waste time reading the rest of this post.

Legislation limiting consumption - eg: gas central heating boilers, EV and ICE banned from 2030. This can work if alternative technologies allow a fairly smooth transition. Measures need to be easily enforcable. Will not change all behaviours.

Allow the market to decide when/if it actually becomes a problem - the less able will be driven into poverty or worse. Wealthy and educated will survive relatively unscathed. Risk of chaos and societal meltdown, needs active police or military enforcement.

Possible solution - tax carbon consumption, not income. Will make consumers rethink their own spending and priorites. Assume a very average income of £30k pa, £1000 domestic energy and 12000 miles pa in a small car. Other VAT etc unchanged:

• current total tax bill is income tax £3500, NI £2450, VAT on household energy £50, VAT and duty on fuel £900 = total £6900
• reduce income tax rate fom 20% to 10%. Increase personal allowance to £15k. Halve national insurance, increase VAT on domestic energy to 100%, increase fuel duty and VAT to £2700 = total £6700.

Detail needs refinement - eg: tax imported goods on their embedded energy. Individual groups may get vocal about different elements - low paid and domestic energy costs, trades needing vans/transport etc. Changes to be phased over say 10 years as a consistent policy.

The main message is that without burdening people with more tax (generally) their behaviours would change markedly. Suddenly home insulation and efficiency would be important and worth investment. Small cars and less driving for non-essential purposes would preferred.

Those staying ahead of the environmental game would benefit with more disposable income and a tax regime encouraging "green" activities. Those who don't care or won't change will be penalised - tough isn't it!!

Tax carbon consumption - I like that idea a lot, (but then I'm a low purchase person) each item comes with it a "carbon rating / amount" whatever and just like tax you get an allowance, over that and you have to pay, so all those idiots onthier 3rd phone in 3 years, or designer shoes, or basically every "luxury" item INCLUDING holidays, gets taxed. Yes some companies will have to hike prices in order to stay in business and others will fold, but thats the point right? A HEAVY Reduction of wastful consumerism, make it last longer not built in obsolescence, fix instead of buying new - basically a reset of consumerism to about 50 - 100 years ago. - and a bonus is China will get cut off at the knees, losing a lot of thier stranglehold on the worlds manufacturing, and thus losing a lot of economic and therefore Govt power.

it's a win for everybody, except the greedy *******s who got us here in the first place chasing profit at the cost of the planet.

 

[rafezetter]

I think you answered your own question. As for that "joke" it makes no sense since if the person went to heaven after refusing all other things, then he was saved?? The irony of the ignorant. Anyway im not here to preach, like i said before, i have my belief, you are entitled to your own and as much as we like to trash each other for believing something different it really isnt that bad.

You are 100% correct though it is mans stupidity and greed we are in this mess. The earth and resources was created to be used by man but not abused to the extent it has been.

But errmmmm.... don't christians beleive that all mans (meaning humans) actions are divined by God? .... err..... yeah - and this is where it all falls apart.

"the folly of man" - pretty much sums up all that's wrong with your point. - see also "Gods divine plan" - and cross reference that with my previous point about "God loves all his children" - unless (to restate myself) you are saying that his Divine Plan was to poison us all along....

We don't know if he was "saved" or not, it wasn't the point of the joke as you well know - frankly if I was God and I knew that person had willfully ignored the help of the other people (having been divined by God) I'd be disinclined to grant entry to heaven. We also know St Peter is just the mouthpiece of God, (no I don't mean the Metatron) and the joke doesn't work if we get into the nitty gritty of where that person is standing when he gets judged for his (or her) stupidity, also lets not get tied up in theological semantics.

 

[Rorschach]

Interesting statement. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement ? I don't have a view either way but when someone makes a black and white statement like that, I'm always interested in the provenance.

Most have mentioned it here, I was talking about forum members, though quite possibly true worldwide as well, most people do have children.

 

[Jacob]

Tax carbon consumption - I like that idea a lot, (but then I'm a low purchase person) each item comes with it a "carbon rating / amount" whatever and just like tax you get an allowance, over that and you have to pay, so all those idiots onthier 3rd phone in 3 years, or designer shoes, or basically every "luxury" item INCLUDING holidays, gets taxed. Yes some companies will have to hike prices in order to stay in business and others will fold, but thats the point right? A HEAVY Reduction of wastful consumerism, make it last longer not built in obsolescence, fix instead of buying new - basically a reset of consumerism to about 50 - 100 years ago. - and a bonus is China will get cut off at the knees, losing a lot of thier stranglehold on the worlds manufacturing, and thus losing a lot of economic and therefore Govt power.

it's a win for everybody, except the greedy sprouts who got us here in the first place chasing profit at the cost of the planet.

Yes I think you've got the idea! To some extent at least.
It's glaringly obvious what needs to be done i.e. to reduce fossil fuel use to zero and to expand carbon capture by reforestation and any other means. The problem is in mitigating the outcomes in terms of peoples' livelihoods and lifestyles and mitigating the effects of climate change itself, which is already with us and will take many years to slow and reverse.
Can't blame the Chinese they don't have a stranglehold - nobody is obliged to buy anything from them and they don't have any monopolies. Except the Chinese are well ahead in sustainable energy technology and the rest of the world may end up having to buy Chinese. The future is looking definitely Chinese.

 

[Suffolk Brian]

So their wasn't a Roman warm period? Are you sure?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/
And my favourite: Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

The problem with fact checking is that the fact checkers are just gatekeepers. They cheat, lie and change their facts just as much as everyone else, but they smugly claim to have the sole repository of all knowledge at the same time.

That being said, I quite agree that I should have paid more attention and put up the New Scientist link instead - can't argue with New Scientist, now, can you.

history is always written by the winners.

 

[Jacob]

....

Another point - consensus is irrelevant: it takes just one proof to demolish a hypothesis,

97% (or some such figure) of the science community have been desperately looking at the hypotheses and have not been able to demolish them.
This isn't a "cult" or a "consensus" it's just a fact.
The "cults" are to be found in what you call the "alternative science", which is a contradiction in terms - there is no "alternative" to science except ignorance and nonsense.