The Weather

[GetIntoEm]

Dale Vince (Forest Green Rovers) has called for climate denial to become a criminal offence, it sounds like we all should be careful and its just another thing we won't be able to talk about. Luckily he has no vested interests in the green agenda. Just like the oil industry in burning the black stuff. As a child of the seventies, I'm still waiting for the ice age we were promised.

Bloody hell, that's a reason to go against if any

[Alan Young]

I don't believe any man made changes are going to make a significant difference, the data shows that the increase in temperature we are seeing now is any different to what we have seen in the past.

If you're talking about geo engineering to change the future of the planet I'm fair game for it, but blaming the public and trying to get people to change their habits isn't the way. It'll make no difference. History shows us that.

I'm a scientist, I follow data. Nothing suggests we are on any different path to what earth has followed before

What sort of scientist, out of interest?

[GetIntoEm]

What sort of scientist, out of interest?

Data based geologist

[BleedingClaret]

We need more nuclear stations

Aren’t Rolls Royce and the like waiting on the go ahead for this but it never comes

[GetIntoEm]

Aren’t Rolls Royce and the like waiting on the go ahead for this but it never comes

Yep their mini nuclear stations are ready to go. Will happen

There seems to be loads of opposition currently to battery stations too

[Burnley1989]

Aren’t Rolls Royce and the like waiting on the go ahead for this but it never comes

The SMR project will ramp up now RR have won the contract, ive been slightly involved in the prototype build at the AMRC, still very early days though

[Bow]

Data based geologist

He counts the pot holes that need fixing

[GetIntoEm]

He counts the pot holes that need fixing

I'm still waiting for someone to present a decent argument to the science

[Dazzler]

I'm still waiting for the ice age we were promised.

I was led to believe we were still recovering from the last ice age.

[helmclaret]

Data based geologist

Matt le Tissier or Right Said Fred?

[Dazzler]

Scotland Rising, England Sinking.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ce-age-spt

[spamalittle]

I'm still waiting for someone to present a decent argument to the science

"The science" great argument.
In my opinion, when an alternative is offered it always starts "the science", "conspiracy theorist" or "populist". The main problem as I see it, is that many more "normal" people do not believe a word we are told, rightly or wrongly. I was told buying a diesel car was great for the environment, but now it's not. In seventies I was told prepare for ice age. Venice was meant to be under water. Buy an electric car, but next they get taxed.
There are many more, I see a pattern, however I'm not scientist and as a adult I have my right to express it, until I don't.

[No Ney Never]

Are 'we' saying that no matter what side of the argument you are on, you agree that globally we are warming?
The argument therefore appears to be about whether we we can slow down the inevitable through taking action.
My question would be, should we spend our time and resources trying to slow it down, or preparing for it's inevitably?

[spamalittle]

In my opinion, as an old bloke, we've been told every scenario. Hot, cold, luke warm and unfortunately nothing resonates with the masses due to the ever changing "new thing". I would go on, but there is no point, because unfortunately society is now irrevocably divided by sides that could meet but won't.
I'm willing to believe "stuff" is happening, but previous experience tells me not.

[Wile E Coyote]

they were saying 20 odd years ago that unless we addressed this issue head on we were at a tipping point from which there would be no coming back.
I havent a clue where we are at in 2025, but we have all heard very serious stuff from those who make a living studying these things, polar ice melting, core samples from the deep ice showing high levels of pollutants, china, India and others apparantly oblivious to the problems of hurling several millions tons of **** into the atmosphere each year.
But even though there are forest fires, flash floods, increasingly higher temperatures and erratic weather patterns , nobody seems to want to put the brakes on. Despite all the talk of protecting the environment for future generations, not only do we ignore the science, we actively seem to increase levels of harmful toxins choking the planet.
billions of tons of plastic in the ocean,, coral reefs destroyed, and yet somehow its all down to whether or not we as science dimwits choose one camp or another. as if it were like picking a team to support.

[Garnerssoap]

I remember when we used to plant a tree on the school playing fields to save the planet. It’s much better what we do now though

[NottsClaret]

Seriously, we all know the temperature is rising. We know we’ve caused it. It’s just nicer and easier to pretend otherwise. Humans love a bit of wishful thinking, whether it’s religion, climate denial or various conspiracy theories.

Anything which makes you feel more comfortable with the world. But either way, on some level, we do all know the truth. I’m not even preaching here. I drive a petrol car, I fly on foreign holidays and I swapped my heat pump for a gas boiler.

I know I’m contributing to it, as do we all, just be honest and say it, and like me, that you just don’t care enough to change your life for it.

[GetIntoEm]

That's the thing, we don't know we've caused it. Temperatures haven't rose any more on earth since humans existed to what they did before even cavemen.

[willsclarets]

That's the thing, we don't know we've caused it. Temperatures haven't rose any more on earth since humans existed to what they did before even cavemen.

We do know we've caused it. The data could not be more clear, the consensus is clear in the scientific community and the word "theory" is misunderstood by the general public. But when you have the leader of the free world saying it's fake, it tends to indicate that political will is the enemy of progress; sacrificing future prosperity of the Earth, it's nature and the people inhabiting it for the sake of short term economic gain.

There's lots of literature on the natural cycles you refer to. Here's an article from NASA for a kick off https://science.nasa.gov/science-resear ... t-warming/

There's so many instances on this thread alone of equating anecdotal experience to factual evidence. I think social media is in part to blame, promoting theories about just about everything without a shred of real evidence. We've learned to ignore scientific rigour, process and the closest thing we have to "facts" in favour of collecting ideas that are just based on ideology and a belonging to a certain way of thinking. Like evolution is the best theory we have and pretty close to "fact", man-made climate change has reached a similar level of status under equal scrutiny.

It's a scary thought with AI about to pervade our culture and flow of information, that we're already dismissing the value of science and scientific literacy. You only have to look at the incidence of measels in Europe to know how powerful ignorance of facts can be. A good portion of us are starting to believe vaccines are bad. And look what vaccines have done for us as a global community. Saved hundreds of millions of people's lives.

It's right that any science should be tested, retested, scrutinised and questioned. But at some point, you have to accept that what you have is the best idea and/or closest thing to fact we have. In the case of climate change, ask yourself this. What is the cost of ignoring the evidence and being wrong for our kids future. Disregarding the overwhelming evidence for a moment, why would we even take the chance that it wasn't real? If it was a 50/50 (which it isn't), you'd still want more action than is currently being taken, right?

[willsclarets]

Painful reading this thread.

Climate deniers are happy to use the results of rigorous scientific methods in their daily lives. Still, when it comes to this issue (and others), they put their trust in the conspiracy theorists.

Not one climate scientist denies that the Earth's climate has always fluctuated - what they say, and what the data shows, is that man-made emissions are affecting the climate beyond natural means.

Right now, we're hovering around a pivotal point that could see irreversible change. The Paris Climate Agreement was agreed as a method in which to try and limit the Earth's global temperature from rising above 2 degrees centigrade, and keeping it 'well below' that amount.

You don't want to be living on this planet if we suffered a rise above that threshold - it would be disastrous, with regular cataclysmic events.

Credentials here - studied this as part of MSc at a top research Uni.

"painful reading this thread"

I'll add terrifying to that mix. Science is a process of trying to prove yourself wrong, until you can't. I don't see many deniers trying to explain exactly how Milankovitch cycles account for rapid increases in temperature over the course of a mere century. Because they can't.

[CoolClaret]

"painful reading this thread"

I'll add terrifying to that mix. Science is a process of trying to prove yourself wrong, until you can't. I don't see many deniers trying to explain exactly how Milankovitch cycles account for rapid increases in temperature over the course of a mere century. Because they can't.

Yep -

I'd also like to add that this conspiracy that 'the government' is directing climate science for hidden agendas is just ridiculous.

The scientists leading this research work at universities and publish peer-reviewed papers—and I can't begin to explain how rigorous that process is. Getting published means multiple experts scrutinising every detail of your work. Not to mention the years of exams and research needed even to reach that level.

These researchers have dedicated decades to their craft. They then work with relevant government departments, who interpret the findings to develop policy. It's not the other way round.

I know people involved in this research personally—they're about as far from partisan as you could be. Data and evidence drive them.

They aren't lobbied to influence opinion with disinformation, like how the oil companies do with political parties/prominent political figures.

[Colburn_Claret]

Government has their heads stuck in dark places, to suggest they do a thing for the good of the people is laughable.
As for scientists, the same holds for them as any other human being. As a wise man once said 'if you look for the bad in people you will surely find it'. If you are looking for reasons why people are responsible for global warning then you'll find it, it suits the argument.
Now this isn't to say that programs to clean rivers, cut fossil fuel emissions and pollutants, or create greener energy aren't a good thing in their own right, they are. Just the idea that those goals will alter the climate of the planet are fanciful at best.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Government has their heads stuck in dark places, to suggest they do a thing for the good of the people is laughable.
As for scientists, the same holds for them as any other human being. As a wise man once said 'if you look for the bad in people you will surely find it'. If you are looking for reasons why people are responsible for global warning then you'll find it, it suits the argument.
Now this isn't to say that programs to clean rivers, cut fossil fuel emissions and pollutants, or create greener energy aren't a good thing in their own right, they are. Just the idea that those goals will alter the climate of the planet are fanciful at best.

It's pretty clear we are in the mitigation stage, tbh

[ollieclarets8]

Government has their heads stuck in dark places, to suggest they do a thing for the good of the people is laughable.
As for scientists, the same holds for them as any other human being. As a wise man once said 'if you look for the bad in people you will surely find it'. If you are looking for reasons why people are responsible for global warning then you'll find it, it suits the argument.
Now this isn't to say that programs to clean rivers, cut fossil fuel emissions and pollutants, or create greener energy aren't a good thing in their own right, they are. Just the idea that those goals will alter the climate of the planet are fanciful at best.

Scientists are much more honest and truthful than government so harsh to throw them into the same pot. You only need to look at Covid for that one.

And if you follow the science, just look at what I posted about there being no humans. Of course we can alter the climate. That's common sense - which humans unfortunately lack.

[dougcollins]

"The science" great argument.
In my opinion, when an alternative is offered it always starts "the science", "conspiracy theorist" or "populist". The main problem as I see it, is that many more "normal" people do not believe a word we are told, rightly or wrongly. I was told buying a diesel car was great for the environment, but now it's not. In seventies I was told prepare for ice age. Venice was meant to be under water. Buy an electric car, but next they get taxed.
There are many more, I see a pattern, however I'm not scientist and as a adult I have my right to express it, until I don't.

The Venice thing is happening, btw.

It's not difficult to find that data.

[Dazzler]

Richard Linzden - Atmospheric physicist at M.I.T.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

Alex Epstein - On Fossil Fuels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJWq1FeGpCw

[Belial]

Painful reading this thread.

Climate deniers are happy to use the results of rigorous scientific methods in their daily lives. Still, when it comes to this issue (and others), they put their trust in the conspiracy theorists.

Not one climate scientist denies that the Earth's climate has always fluctuated - what they say, and what the data shows, is that man-made emissions are affecting the climate beyond natural means.

Right now, we're hovering around a pivotal point that could see irreversible change. The Paris Climate Agreement was agreed as a method in which to try and limit the Earth's global temperature from rising above 2 degrees centigrade, and keeping it 'well below' that amount.

You don't want to be living on this planet if we suffered a rise above that threshold - it would be disastrous, with regular cataclysmic events.

Credentials here - studied this as part of MSc at a top research Uni.

It's the usual thing these days... it's trendy to try and come up with any possible or plausible excuses to disbelieve.

FWIW I don't necessarily agree with Net Zero and the impact on organisations and individuals, particualarly when there are so many issues globally that arent being addressed, but climate change is 100% real. The 'globe has always gone through hot and cold periods' argument is incomparable to the discussion around climate change - nobody is talking about changes over tens of thousands of years.

And I also have an MSc in an associated subject and have articles written in journals (but hey, it was hot in 1976 apparently so no need to have any concern for future generations)

[CoolClaret]

It's the usual thing these days... it's trendy to try and come up with any possible or plausible excuses to disbelieve.

FWIW I don't necessarily agree with Net Zero and the impact on organisations and individuals, particualarly when there are so many issues globally that arent being addressed, but climate change is 100% real. The 'globe has always gone through hot and cold periods' argument is incomparable to the discussion around climate change - nobody is talking about changes over tens of thousands of years.

And I also have an MSc in an associated subject and have articles written in journals (but hey, it was hot in 1976 apparently so no need to have any concern for future generations)

My personal belief is always to adopt a pragmatic approach, and if we do make a drastic shift, ensure that it is both robust and viable.

Not only that, harnessing energy from the wind/the sun is an absolute no-brainer. It's literally right there waiting for us to take it!

[Colburn_Claret]

Scientists are much more honest and truthful than government so harsh to throw them into the same pot. You only need to look at Covid for that one.

And if you follow the science, just look at what I posted about there being no humans. Of course we can alter the climate. That's common sense - which humans unfortunately lack.

Politicians lie deliberately, scientists have an agenda they believe in. There will be scientists in the world, with just as many credentials, who don't believe in Global Warming. Now, I'm not saying one is more right then the other, the fact is I have no idea, but common sense leads me to believe that Global warming is something the planet has seen before, and it obviously had nothing to do with the excesses of mankind the first time, or the second time....

[willsclarets]

Politicians lie deliberately, scientists have an agenda they believe in. There will be scientists in the world, with just as many credentials, who don't believe in Global Warming. Now, I'm not saying one is more right then the other, the fact is I have no idea, but common sense leads me to believe that Global warming is something the planet has seen before, and it obviously had nothing to do with the excesses of mankind the first time, or the second time....

I'm sorry this is just incorrect. There are not just as many scientists with the same credentials who don't believe in man made climate change. Its just a fact. There is consensus.

"Common sense" might lead you to believe something, but that's nothing to do with scientific process. And scientists don't have an agenda, though some people outside of science may pedal that crap. Scientists try to prove themselves wrong, that's what they do. They don't have an agenda or believe in a theory they haven't tested and sought tangible evidence to prove (given every bit of information at their disposal)

There might be the odd bad apple, or scientist that genuinely doesn't believe in climate change. But to say that they generally have an agenda or that there's equal amounts of credible scientists denying climate change is just false. And it just about sums it up.

[bobinho]

Anyone still talking about the opening in the ozone layer that’s going to kill is all?

Look, there are many kinds of scientists, but the two listed below are important in this discussion.

1. Govt sponsored, and as such the information delivered to us all is presented in a certain way. Not suggesting its lies, but it needs to portray a certain perspective, to the detriment of all others. It’s the government, so it must be ok right?

2. Independent, and presented on the internet as it’s an easy way to get information in the public domain.

Being on one side or the other is a bit like trying to get any sense out of Burnley v basturds fans when describing the other club/team/town.

If you follow 1, everything else is fake news pumped out to the masses of conspiracy theorists who can’t wait to lap it up, by crackpot crazy mad scientists with an axe to grind.

If you follow 2, everything else is govt sponsored spin designed to control us all to the point of us no longer having free thought.

The truth of course is out there… lots of recent evidence of governments lying to get their way, lots of conspiracy theorists finding issues where there are none.

GW is happening - no question.
Net zero for us won’t stop it, or even slow it down as long as all the main players keep pumping out their emissions.
Net zero for the entire planet won’t stop it.
What net zero WILL do, is make us all poorer, which will bring its own problems.

If you want the truth, or should I say, if you want to be hoodwinked, look at Ed Miliband everytime he’s challenged on it. Look at his face, and listen to his replies.

I rest my case…