Climate Change or Changing Climate

[39TDS]

From being outside for 60 years I am convinced the climate is changing and already has.

What I see hear and read I am also confident it is on a global scale.

Not so convinced it is entirely down to fossil fuel use but definitely can see big changes in this country since coal went out of fashion. Don't really think anyone can realistically argue with that one.

The race for net zero in this country makes net zero of sense. How is bankrupting ourselves going to save the planet? Planting trees on good farmland to offset carbon footprints is pretty much criminal. Planting a tree so you can carry on as you were doesn't solve anything.

Any net zero in this country is hypocritical if all you do is shift your pollution to elsewhere. No heavy industry is not a win if you just rely on heavy industry in China for your goods and then add shipping pollution to the equation.

Get your methane cycle worked out properly. Cows are not the issue, they are part of the cycle they are not the cause. Banning cows while keeping jets, ships and cars is just dumb. If cows are the problem how come the vast herds of buffalo, bison weren't? 

Most of it is a massive con for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and iit is astonishing more don't see this. I'm not some socialist bemoaning the rich but the con is obvious isn't it?

[discobob]

4 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

Most of it is a massive con for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer

and that is what the WEF are achieving - a new form of communism. To them, we are cattle, and our produce is cash that they want. It will however get to a point that we will earn nothing and everyone will be given a Universal Basic Income...

[Penelope]

17 hours ago, discobob said:

As has rightly been pointed out by @johnphilip on another thread that has gone doing the usual PigeonWatch Drift onto other matters so I thought I would raise that drift into its own topic.

So, are we undergoing Climate Change that will be the end of the world if we don't go back to living in caves and cowering at night in them and never straying more than a short distance away from them (15 minute city style et al - something like The Croods) - or are we living through a period of natural warming in a cycle that has been scientifically proven has been happening since the planet developed a climate and no matter what we do it will have no measurable effect on the cycle

Well worth a watch. 3 hours or so, but very interesting, particularly the Greenland ice core stuff.

 

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

Most of it is a massive con for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and iit is astonishing more don't see this. I'm not some socialist bemoaning the rich but the con is obvious isn't it?

It is to people who think rationally and objectively, but most are too tired, disillusioned, or just plain thick to imagine that what they see on the TV, might not be unbiased, or indeed, the truth. 

Society is numb, we are told things, and made to think questioning the narrative isn't 'normal', if you are a 'denier' of man made climate change, or indeed, a denier of any official narrative, then you are obviously a nutter who thinks the worlds flat, and lizards rule us. 

 

[Westward]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

I don't think climatologists (?) aas polarised, yes the climate changes, but are we having a big effect on natural cycles of temperature, without a doubt we are. 

But there is doubt Henry. Ask yourself if the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.04% could possibly affect climate. It's what's called a trace gas which by definition means it has no significant effect. There are several other trace gases and all together they amount to less than 1% of the atmosphere.

The best science around at the moment describes magnetic cycles of the sun which fluctuate in 40-50 year periods. They directly affect the earth's cloud cover which in turn changes surface temperature.

The late 19th century and early 20th was at least as hot as the present day. In the 1920s, wildfires in Australia were several times larger than the so called "record breaking" fires of 2021/22. During  the mid 20th, temperatures cooled bringing the freezing winters of 1948 and 1962/63. I could quote reports in the Guardian and NY Times in 1970 quoting scientists warning about crop failures, famine, mass migration, wars etc. due to climate change. Exactly what we read today, except that in 1970 the panic was over climate cooling and predictions of a new ice age! Whether deliberately or not, the climate hysterics always compare today's temperatures with the 1950s or 60s, never with the early 1900s.

The real science, which is carefully ignored by the sensation loving media and the "climatologists" making fortunes from governments panicked by the IPCC, indicates that we are about to enter a new cooling phase which, looking at the weather for the next few days, may have already started.

 

[Penelope]

16 hours ago, Spr1985 said:

I believe it’s just Mother Earth going through the motions of heating and cooling in a natural cycle that been going on since before records where a thought in someone’s brain. I read recently that the earth is on average one degree above the coldest it’s ever been in 10k years and 2 degrees below the hottest it’s ever been in the same time frame (if I can find the article I’ll post it at a later date). 
 

I don’t think anyone could find a good reason for not trying to lower levels of pollution simply for the benefit of man, but, when it comes at the detriment of man/nature (other than the select few pocketing the proceeds of course)  and causing catastrophic damage to the planet (mining for lithium etc for the so called green vehicle movement) it’s wrong on so many levels. 
 

correct me if I’m wrong but I also recall reading that the U.K. is responsible for either 1% or 2% of the worlds pollution and if we where to sink into the ocean tomorrow it wouldn’t make one iota of difference to the worlds pollution increasing. It’s the emerging/poorer nations South America India china etc that will determine the levels of future pollution and the likelihood that they care over the possible monetary gain in my eyes is a big fat zero. 

Be fun when the poles swap over; that's regular, too. I wonder how the power with politicise and look how to control us over that one!!

[Penelope]

27 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

From being outside for 60 years I am convinced the climate is changing and already has.

What I see hear and read I am also confident it is on a global scale.

Not so convinced it is entirely down to fossil fuel use but definitely can see big changes in this country since coal went out of fashion. Don't really think anyone can realistically argue with that one.

The race for net zero in this country makes net zero of sense. How is bankrupting ourselves going to save the planet? Planting trees on good farmland to offset carbon footprints is pretty much criminal. Planting a tree so you can carry on as you were doesn't solve anything.

Any net zero in this country is hypocritical if all you do is shift your pollution to elsewhere. No heavy industry is not a win if you just rely on heavy industry in China for your goods and then add shipping pollution to the equation.

Get your methane cycle worked out properly. Cows are not the issue, they are part of the cycle they are not the cause. Banning cows while keeping jets, ships and cars is just dumb. If cows are the problem how come the vast herds of buffalo, bison weren't? 

Most of it is a massive con for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and iit is astonishing more don't see this. I'm not some socialist bemoaning the rich but the con is obvious isn't it?

It's all about control. Control the energy, control the world's populace. That is the end goal.

[ditchman]

Jermy Corbyns brother has an interesting view on climate change.........(that when he is not being arrested)

[henry d]

3 hours ago, johnphilip said:

Why have you quoted me in this reply , care to move it .

Sorry I tried when I posted but for some reason it won't delete it, don't know why?

[henry d]

5 hours ago, discobob said:

You didn't see my comment later - or you didn't want to.

Yes I did see it, what am I supposed to say about nexus, or winter fairs?

[12gauge82]

6 hours ago, henry d said:

 If you don't do anything about how we live and it is just a minor warming up then all is good for our grandchildren, if not and we are really ramping it up then we should be apologising now because they take on our debt. Somewhere in the middle and it still isn't good. 

You seriously think it will wait for our grandchildren. The human race could be toast within less than a decade and your staking our future on a strawman argument!

[Penelope]

3 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

The human race could be toast within less than a decade

Seriously, through 'climate change'? Biden, Vlad and Jinping, maybe.

[Bigbob]

But will it matter what the little man does ?. When you see what America and China are spewing out out the chimneys of there power stations ?. 

[oowee]

Climate change or not zero carbon and single planet living has to be the way to ensure sustainability. For too long we have been dumping carp into our own backyard and treating our home like a itinerant caravan site. Whatever way you look at it is shameful. If we love the world we live in we should all do more to look after it. 

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

treating our home like a itinerant caravan site. Whatever way you look at it is shameful.

GYPSY-IST ! 

Mods , forgive him , for he knows not what minority he has offended

[discobob]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Yes I did see it, what am I supposed to say about nexus, or winter fairs?

er - did you?? 

[henry d]

31 minutes ago, discobob said:

er - did you?? 

But nothing about using straw man argument and polarising possible choices. 

[discobob]

11 minutes ago, henry d said:

But nothing about using straw man argument and polarising possible choices. 

Read the title of the thread, and the first post was done a bit light hearted but also to highlight the opposing sides of the argument hoping to begin the discussion on the matter (which has cropped up on a number of threads) .

You, however, do seem to have me in your sights at the moment.

[old man]

Thinking on, as is a total waste of energy.

The bankruptcy scenario could give any ruling politicos the final piece of the jigsaw?

The reason and ability to institute total control of the sheeple?

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, old man said:

Thinking on, as is a total waste of energy.

The bankruptcy scenario could give any ruling politicos the final piece of the jigsaw?

The reason and ability to institute total control of the sheeple?

'What will this new social order have to be like? Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods. In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry'

Can anyone guess where this text comes from ?

It echoes parts of the WEF doctrine, which relies heavily on society being controlled from above , by those 'responsible' enough to administer said society , and control sustainable development, part of which, is climate change and net zero targets.
Echoes of 1984 , and a virtual enslavement of the lower classes ? WEF - 'You will own nothing , but you will be happy'

 

For those unfamiliar , the text is from the Communist party manifesto, a doctrine responsible for more mass murder, starvation, and criminal subjugation of mankind, than any other book besides religious texts.

[Weihrauch17]

8 hours ago, 39TDS said:

From being outside for 60 years I am convinced the climate is changing and already has.

What I see hear and read I am also confident it is on a global scale.

Not so convinced it is entirely down to fossil fuel use but definitely can see big changes in this country since coal went out of fashion. Don't really think anyone can realistically argue with that one.

The race for net zero in this country makes net zero of sense. How is bankrupting ourselves going to save the planet? Planting trees on good farmland to offset carbon footprints is pretty much criminal. Planting a tree so you can carry on as you were doesn't solve anything.

Any net zero in this country is hypocritical if all you do is shift your pollution to elsewhere. No heavy industry is not a win if you just rely on heavy industry in China for your goods and then add shipping pollution to the equation.

Get your methane cycle worked out properly. Cows are not the issue, they are part of the cycle they are not the cause. Banning cows while keeping jets, ships and cars is just dumb. If cows are the problem how come the vast herds of buffalo, bison weren't? 

Most of it is a massive con for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and iit is astonishing more don't see this. I'm not some socialist bemoaning the rich but the con is obvious isn't it?

This totally agree.

[dogone]

  Longer colder winters, growing seasons shorter: Exactly what I remember from the late sixties All forecast to be happening shortly. But it never did. 
    How do so many people forget so quickly?

We are drowning in bull****. 

[Mungler]

20 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Ooh look! A hot summer? Global warming sir... 

Ooh look! A mild winter? That'll be global warming sir... 

Ooh look! A colder than usual summer? Err, that's global warming sir... 

 

Errrr no, that’s when ‘global warming’ got rebadged to ‘climate change’.

Climate change is another manifestation of what a society does when it’s gone so far and then wants to eat itself. How we now consume ourselves over gender identity affecting but a mere fraction of a fraction of the global population, is another example. It’s Nero fiddling as Rome burnt.

Back on topic, as people who have had all their basic needs met then seek to find a problem or a big cause to be a part of, they overlook the small stuff in the here and now.

The poverty and effects of chasing something daft like net zero will affect millions as we economically and competitively cripple ourselves against the emerging poorer nations who will throw up as many coal fired power stations as it takes to get themselves to a point where their basic needs are met and so their societies can then search out small problems affecting an fraction of a fraction of their populations….

 

 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well, certainly the seasons have moved backwards, but everything else is people chasing pointless causes for minorities!

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, Rewulf said:

'What will this new social order have to be like? Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods. In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry'

Can anyone guess where this text comes from ?

It echoes parts of the WEF doctrine, which relies heavily on society being controlled from above , by those 'responsible' enough to administer said society , and control sustainable development, part of which, is climate change and net zero targets.
Echoes of 1984 , and a virtual enslavement of the lower classes ? WEF - 'You will own nothing , but you will be happy'

 

For those unfamiliar , the text is from the Communist party manifesto, a doctrine responsible for more mass murder, starvation, and criminal subjugation of mankind, than any other book besides religious texts.

And that is the fundamental cold, plain truth!!