Climate Change

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

You misspelled ‘straw-man’.

I’m just posting an amusing picture you’re mistaken my post for someone having an agenda 

[Guided Missile]

I would like to state, after many, many years of experience, that scientists lie. The ethics involved in the lies, we have all been told, by "scientists" and their gormless supporters, (usually self serving politicians or corporations), have been rapidly increasing. They have recently been related to: the origins of covid, the need and effectiveness of the lockdown, the efficacy and safety of quickly developed vaccines and the subject of this thread, human induced climate change. This particular ethical bind was described as early as 1989 by prominent Stanford climate researcher, Stephen Schneider, like this:

“On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working, to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

My advice, for what it's worth, is read the data, don't rely on someone to interpret it for you. If you can't be bothered or feel unable to, your opinion is not worth much to the debate. Oh and for the scientists you do believe, follow the money, the root of all evil. At least the corporations involved are honest about their motives.

[Guided Missile]

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

— Paul Watson, Cofounder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

— Timothy Worth, President of The UN Foundation

“Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.”

— Daniel Botkin, Former Chair of Environmental Studies at the University of Calfiornia at Santa Barbara

[Guided Missile]

• “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
• “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
•  “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
   

[aintforever]

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Nah. It rained here yesterday and its summer. Climate change is bollocks innit

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

• “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
• “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
• “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
•  “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
   

The three quotes I could be bothered to research all date from 1998-2000. Have you any idea how lame and weak undermining your own case by resorting to 25 year old quotes is? Of course you don't

[Guided Missile]

The advantage of the ignore function allows me to guess what my trolls will have posted. My guess is total bullshit and self-aggrandisement, as in "listen to me, I'm an expert." Still, in the hope that nottooclevertim is willing to engage in the scientific method of debate (not that I've read what the arsewhipe posted), here's an example of scientific lying to try and prove a point:

The National Climate Assessment (NCA2014) stated this:
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.
The following graph is included, with a sharp upward rising trend, to suggest the severity of the problem.

This is cherry-picked information that is misinforming – it is completely factual but not factually complete. When you zoom out and reframe the same data into a longer climatically relevant time period, the result looks less compelling and certainly less alarming.

 I call the above data, an example of a scientist lying, deliberately.

 

[Guided Missile]

I can just see a climate scientist playing roulette in Vegas, making a note of the winning numbers to predict his next bet.

[Whitey Grandad]

15 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

The advantage of the ignore function allows me to guess what my trolls will have posted. My guess is total bullshit and self-aggrandisement, as in "listen to me, I'm an expert." Still, in the hope that nottooclevertim is willing to engage in the scientific method of debate (not that I've read what the arsewhipe posted), here's an example of scientific lying to try and prove a point:

The National Climate Assessment (NCA2014) stated this:
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.
The following graph is included, with a sharp upward rising trend, to suggest the severity of the problem.

This is cherry-picked information that is misinforming – it is completely factual but not factually complete. When you zoom out and reframe the same data into a longer climatically relevant time period, the result looks less compelling and certainly less alarming.

 I call the above data, an example of a scientist lying, deliberately.

 

Atlantic hurricanes undergo a 50 to 70 year cycle known as the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”. Or they may not.

[Guided Missile]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Atlantic hurricanes undergo a 50 to 70 year cycle known as the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”. Or they may not.

The United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization (UN WMO) is pretty clear about the science of hurricanes as well,

“Any single event, such as a severe tropical cyclone [hurricane or typhoon], cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the current status of scientific understanding.”

— World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 is slightly less clear but scientifically says the same thing,

“Confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

— IPCC, AR5

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I would like to state, after many, many years of experience, that scientists lie.

Says a scientist.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

The United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization (UN WMO) is pretty clear about the science of hurricanes as well,

“Any single event, such as a severe tropical cyclone [hurricane or typhoon], cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the current status of scientific understanding.”

— World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR5 is slightly less clear but scientifically says the same thing,

“Confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”

— IPCC, AR5

My point was that there is a long term pattern which predates modern climate change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane

[Whitey Grandad]

37 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Says a scientist.

Scientists don’t necessarily lie. They are just economical with the truth.

[badgerx16]

24 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Scientists don’t necessarily lie. They are just economical with the truth.

To quote Pontius Pilate confronting Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar";

"But what is truth ?

Is truth unchanging law ?

We both have truths,

are mine the same as yours ?"

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

 I call the above data, an example of a scientist lying, deliberately.

Like when you claimed that you were about to sell your company for £30m and asked me to delete a post? I deleted it. How did your mega sale turn out? still own the barely twitching moribund portacabin I believe? 

Edited 9 August, 2023 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, buctootim said:

Like when you claimed that you were about to sell your company for £30m and asked me to delete a post? I deleted it. How did your mega sale turn out? still own the barely twitching moribund portacabin I believe? 

Can you become a scientist if you have a degree in chemistry? 

[Whitey Grandad]

56 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Can you become a scientist if you have a degree in chemistry? 

Yes, eventually, but it takes more than just a degree.

[buctootim]

15 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

My point was that there is a long term pattern which predates modern climate change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane

No-one disputes that. Just because your body is constantly changing over time anyway is not a reason to ignore atheroscloris and suspected cancer.    

[Guided Missile]

10 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Yes, eventually, but it takes more than just a degree.

A degree, 40 years in research and over 40 patents may do it.

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

A degree, 40 years in research and over 40 patents may do it.

So, as you are a scientist, by your own definition - you lie.

[east-stand-nic]

17 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Scientists don’t necessarily lie. They are just economical with the truth.

I think an important fact to note here is that many scientists are government funded. Of course there is no way any scientist would ever lie, twist or extort facts to keep his/her funding. No sir.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

I think an important fact to note here is that many scientists are government funded. Of course there is no way any scientist would ever lie, twist or extort facts to keep his/her funding. No sir.

And many others are funded by the fossil fuel corporations. They are surely completely honest and above board.

[Whitey Grandad]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And many others are funded by the fossil fuel corporations. They are surely completely honest and above board.

With any scientific report the first and most important thing is to find out who commissioned it.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

I think an important fact to note here is that many scientists are government funded. Of course there is no way any scientist would ever lie, twist or extort facts to keep his/her funding. No sir.

Brilliant! Doctors are government funded and some of them lie - maybe we should all take up smoking?

[aintforever]

21 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I can just see a climate scientist playing roulette in Vegas, making a note of the winning numbers to predict his next bet.

To be fair, in 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius worked out that human-caused CO2 emissions would be large enough to cause global warming. Maybe he should have stuck a tenner on it?

[Whitey Grandad]

28 minutes ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, in 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius worked out that human-caused CO2 emissions would be large enough to cause global warming. Maybe he should have stuck a tenner on it?

And when would be win his tenner?

You can always cherry pick in order to find the results that you want.

[Whitey Grandad]

34 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Brilliant! Doctors are government funded and some of them lie - maybe we should all take up smoking?

Non sequitur 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Perhaps the hug a husky mob should tell us what the optimum global temperature should be for us all to live in peace & harmony. 
 

If I’m a sweaty & man made global warming increases the temperature in Scotland to Brittany levels, I would think that was a good thing. Surely there’s a trade off somewhere, if man’s making it hotter in Africa, then he’s also making it hotter in places where cold kills. Equally, if the world gets to net zero & it gets colder, more people will die of cold in cold countries. 
 

Should the climate be hotter, colder, or stay as it is now? 

[Guided Missile]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps the hug a husky mob should tell us what the optimum global temperature should be for us all to live in peace & harmony. 
 

If I’m a sweaty & man made global warming increases the temperature in Scotland to Brittany levels, I would think that was a good thing. Surely there’s a trade off somewhere, if man’s making it hotter in Africa, then he’s also making it hotter in places where cold kills. Equally, if the world gets to net zero & it gets colder, more people will die of cold in cold countries. 
 

Should the climate be hotter, colder, or stay as it is now? 

You forgot the benefits of increased CO2 on plant life and the dangers of a reduction below 150ppm. As Patrick Moore, a former Director of Greenpeace wrote a while ago:

Quote

Water is by far the most important greenhouse gas, and is the only molecule that is present in the atmosphere in all three states, gas, liquid, and solid. IPCC said this in 2007, "we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." Now they claim they can predict it!

Plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today [slide (at 24:35) shows greenhouse demonstration]. Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher. CO2 is the giver of life. We should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today. Beginning 540 million years ago many marine species of invertebrates evolved the ability to control calcification and to build armour plating to protect their soft bodies. Shellfish such as clams and snails, corals, phytoplankton, and zooplankton began to combine carbon dioxide with calcium and thus to remove carbon from the life cycle as the shells sank into sediments. The white cliffs of Dover are made of their calcium carbonate skeletons. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced by about 90% during the last 150 million years. If this trend continues CO2 will inevitably fall to levels that threaten the survival of plants, which require a minimum of 150 ppm to survive. If plants die all the animals, insects, and other invertebrates that depend on plants for their survival will also die. How long will it be at the present level of CO2 depletion until most or all of life on Earth is threatened with extinction by lack of CO2 in the atmosphere? If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, less than 2 million years from today! Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2. Let us have no ad hominem arguments about "deniers". I submit that much of society has been collectively misled into believing that global CO2 and temperature are too high when the opposite is true for both. Even when the fossil fuels have become scarce, we have the quadrillion tons of carbon in carbonaceous rocks, which we can transform into lime and CO2 for the manufacture of cement using solar energy or nuclear energy. The human species has made it possible to prolong the survival of life on Earth for more than 100 million years. We are not the enemy of nature but its salvation!

 

[Weston Super Saint]

5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

So, as you are a scientist, by your own definition - you lie.

Everyone lies. Watch an episode of "house" to find out more...

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

You forgot the benefits of increased CO2 on plant life and the dangers of a reduction below 150ppm. As Patrick Moore, a former Director of Greenpeace wrote a while ago:

 

On the other side of the fence:

"Take the 2015 video “The Truth about [Carbon Dioxide],” presented by Patrick Moore, whose title is “co-founder of Greenpeace,” and produced by Prager University. On the surface, it’s a well-made video about CO2, featuring sharp visuals and an authoritative voice presenting the information at hand from a source with “university” in the name.

But if you were to watch the video more fully, some elements might appear strange. Moore spends much of the video talking about the origins of CO2 in planetary history, making sweeping statements and implications that environmentalists want to eliminate all CO2 and carbon to the last atom. He says fossil fuels are “100% organic” and “were produced with solar energy,” which is technically true, but clearly misleading for a non-scientific audience.

He also makes the case that there should be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, drawing allusions to CO2 levels during the Cambrian explosion literally hundreds of millions of years ago before humans even existed. He even questions CO2’s status as a pollutant at all.

Moore does not mention the temperature increase on Earth due to recent carbon emissions or what that means for the planet, as he would have to explain why eras with higher CO2 emissions have temperatures several degrees hotter than pre-industrial times, or talk about the astronomical rise in emissions in just the last hundred years.

This kind of video, filled with dubious scientific information, would be incredibly easy to spread across the Internet. In fact, it already has been spread, accumulating millions of views. Fortunately, there are some critical steps that we can take to minimize the impact of climate misinformation, should you ever come across a post on climate change you’re not 100% sure is legitimately sourced or reported accurately."

https://climate360news.lmu.edu/how-to-tell-if-theres-climate-misinformation-on-your-feed/

 

[Turkish]

I’m overnight in Manchester tonight where it’s 26 degrees at 8.30pm, climate change is real people 

[badgerx16]

According to this report, whilst CO2 levels are far lower than they were 150 million years ago, ( as per GM's post ), there is no 'trend' of atmospheric depletion, as claimed, that indicates it would have fallen below levels necessary to support life.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

 

 

But then again, NASA are Government funded, so obviously this data has to be treated with suspicion. 😉

[badgerx16]

On 10/08/2023 at 08:28, Guided Missile said:

..... over 40 patents.....

Is this you ?

 

[Fan The Flames]

On 10/08/2023 at 13:09, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps the hug a husky mob should tell us what the optimum global temperature should be for us all to live in peace & harmony. 
 

If I’m a sweaty & man made global warming increases the temperature in Scotland to Brittany levels, I would think that was a good thing. Surely there’s a trade off somewhere, if man’s making it hotter in Africa, then he’s also making it hotter in places where cold kills. Equally, if the world gets to net zero & it gets colder, more people will die of cold in cold countries. 
 

Should the climate be hotter, colder, or stay as it is now? 

You get the 'oh bless' medal for taking part 😂

[Weston Super Saint]

Sir Kier is scrapping his plans for further ULEZ style zones once Labour get in to power - I guess he only cares about the lungs of the children in Central London....

[Whitey Grandad]

41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sir Kier is scrapping his plans for further ULEZ style zones once Labour get in to power - I guess he only cares about the lungs of the children in Central London....

ULEZ makes no difference to air quality. It’s only a money raising exercise.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

ULEZ makes no difference to air quality. It’s only a money raising exercise.

Really Whitey?

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143807/ulez-expansion-london-dramatically-reduces-air-pollution-says-new-report/#:~:text=According to the report%2C the,have been without the scheme.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/london-low-emissions-zone-pollution/

Edited 13 August, 2023 by sadoldgit
Add text

[egg]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Really Whitey?

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143807/ulez-expansion-london-dramatically-reduces-air-pollution-says-new-report/#:~:text=According to the report%2C the,have been without the scheme.

Here's a summary of the report, with a link to the full report at the bottom. The big drop is the big reduction in nitrogen oxide levels, but I don't think that they were at a level that was dangerous to begin with, but stand to be corrected.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report#air-pollutant-emissions-165734-title

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Here's a summary of the report, with a link to the full report at the bottom. The big drop is the big reduction in nitrogen oxide levels, but I don't think that they were at a level that was dangerous to begin with, but stand to be corrected.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report#air-pollutant-emissions-165734-title

Haven't NO2 levels been controlled in diesel cars since 2016 with the compulsory use of ad-blue?

[egg]

39 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Haven't NO2 levels been controlled in diesel cars since 2016 with the compulsory use of ad-blue?

Very good point...I can't imagine that there's a report which tells us how much of the reduction is down to adblue, and any changes to vehicles. 

[buctootim]

The main benefit of the ULEZ is a reduction of traffic volume which leads to a better physical environment. Many major cities across the world are restricting traffic in ceratin zones, either all week or on weekends. Having walkable cities leads to a lot of benefits, including left field stuff such as knowing more neighbours, reduction in crime, more independent shops rather than chains. I think it is fair in part to say ULEZ is a tax, but the purposes its being raised for I agree with. 

  https://citymonitor.ai/community/neighbourhoods/reimagining-pedestrianised-london  

Edited 13 August, 2023 by buctootim

[egg]

17 minutes ago, buctootim said:

The main benefit of the ULEZ is a reduction of traffic volume which leads to a better physical environment. Many major cities across the world are restricting traffic in ceratin zones, either all week or on weekends. Having walkable cities leads to a lot of benefits, including left field stuff such as knowing more neighbours, reduction in crime, more independent shops rather than chains. I think it is fair in part to say ULEZ is a tax, but the purposes its being raised for I agree with. 

  https://citymonitor.ai/community/neighbourhoods/reimagining-pedestrianised-london  

And the contra argument is that less access to cars equals less customers for all traders. As an asthmatic I love the fact that air is cleaner, but society needs a balance and business and commerce is definitely impacted by the attempt to price out drivers. 

[buctootim]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

And the contra argument is that less access to cars equals less customers for all traders. As an asthmatic I love the fact that air is cleaner, but society needs a balance and business and commerce is definitely impacted by the attempt to price out drivers. 

True, it needs to be done well and skillfully. Most of central London would be a far better place with more pedetrianisation because the distances between places are quite small and there are tubes and trains everywhere. I also think you can close of a lot of streets in residential areas across the country to through traffic. But reducing capacity of trunk roads when there are no public transport alternatives is crazy       

Edited 13 August, 2023 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Really Whitey?

https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143807/ulez-expansion-london-dramatically-reduces-air-pollution-says-new-report/#:~:text=According to the report%2C the,have been without the scheme.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/london-low-emissions-zone-pollution/

“A new study commissioned by the GLA”
Didn’t I mention this above?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

True, it needs to be done well and skillfully. Most of central London would be a far better place with more pedetrianisation because the distances between places are quite small and there are tubes and trains everywhere. I also think you can close of a lot of streets in residential areas across the country to through traffic. But reducing capacity of trunk roads when there are no public transport alternatives is crazy       

According to such arguments why not just pedestrianise the whole lot?

[buctootim]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

According to such arguments why not just pedestrianise the whole lot?

Your reasoning has really dropped. By your logic why not pave the lot. Then we could have unlimited unconstrained traffic flow to a place no-one wants to go to anymore.     

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Your reasoning has really dropped. By your logic why not pave the lot. Then we could have unlimited unconstrained traffic flow to a place no-one wants to go to anymore.     

Not my logic. It is the logic of the extremist. The dictator who overrides local needs and wishes.

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not my logic. It is the logic of the extremist. The dictator who overrides local needs and wishes.

Well thats you and your mate who wants to be able to drive his van free of charge through central London. Most Londoners dont want that. Only 42% of residents in the central boroughs even own a car and of those that do the large majority dont use them daily, they rely on trains tubes and walking and biking. Chocker roads makes that slower, harder and more unpleasant.