State the bleedin obvious!

[binky]

the thing with all this, and its something i have wondered about for years is this, we had an ice age millions of years ago and all life on the planet was wiped out, ok I accept this, however when you look at the argument put out by the activists that its all the cars and stuff that cause the change (they don't agree it's a cyclical event) then that begs another question, which is this, placed in a block of ice, how come a wooly mammoth just gets frozen solid, but an engine disappears?

Now before anyone thinks I've gone mad, well madder than I am, lol, seriously it makes sense doesn't it, I mean, if we accept that climate change is caused by emmisions and stuff then how come they only find the remains of things like wooly mammoths and not old ford escorts, see what I mean?

I'm still around the farms and lately one of the farmers went to a meeting  that was sort of hijacked by these climate change people, going on about how farm animals were damaging the planet, and that we shouldn't grow crops because that was harmful too! I wish I'd been there, I'd have shut them up the way I always do, tell them the way to save massive amounts of energy is to shut down the internet! Think about it, the amount of power used worldwide, not only for the servers but also to run the PC's and laptops, charge the smart devices and mobile phones, think how much less energy we'd use, but they don't like that idea, no we can all starve but we must keep the internet, well it shows the logic of the younger generation, lol.

Farming animals produces large amounts of methane, plus in countires like Brazil they are chopping down the rain forest to farm ****e beef for burgers. They way we farm cereal crops is also detrimental to wildlife and the CO2 emissions as it is reliant on fertilsers, pesticides and diesel. However you have encountered a load of winkers who are more conserned about everyone going vegan and are just zealots. They are completely missing the point that farm animals are also great for insect life and hence bio-diversity. That doesn't mean reducing the amount of meat we eat could be very helpful to reducing global warming, as my own opinion, we should be reducing the import of cheap meat. One good thing you can do is eat Brazil nuts - eh what! Brazil nuts grow in the rainforest and cannot successfully be commercially farmed, so eating Brazil nuts protects the rainforest by giving farmers of nuts the money to protect their interests. 

The interent does use a lot of energy, but many servers are now powered by green tech - increasingly so. Biggest issue is Bitcoin mining, which has effectively wiped out a lot of the recent energy savings - money is the root of all evil! 

 

[Sharpend]

I’ve never understood why people mine for something that don’t exist? 
Yet insist they don’t believe in what they can’t see? 

 

[binky]

I’ve never understood why people mine for something that don’t exist? 
Yet insist they don’t believe in what they can’t see? 

Nowt so queer as folk! 

Money is a concept, digital money is an extension of that concept

 

[UNG]

What I find interesting is we supposedly have a global emergency with climate change at the forefront of it and carbon emissions as the major cause, yet nobody seems to have considered that we are a small planet among a few others travelling around the sun at different speeds, best estimates suggest the next close alignment of all the planets will be in 2492 ok it is quite likely we won't be around then but I would not totally discount it, but what effect will that have on the planet weather wise

With the current dramatic hype it is difficult to understand the agenda of the published accepted science and the rapidly decried alternative science. A lot of science is generally funded by interested parties who are looking for an outcome that matches their agenda and business projects so unbiased science is very difficult to come by

Given that for many decades governments and companies have redistributed large parts of our planet from it's origin how has this affected the gyro stability of the planet and it's positioning in the solar system, has anyone checked if this has changed our position relative to the sun and even closer to home the moon

A lot of the science reminds me of an EU proposal to monitor the background levels of ethylene gas in the atmosphere and tax companies producing ethylene gas and releasing it to the atmosphere. I would have loved to have seen how they were going to achieve this given how much the ethylene gas levels can vary depending on how good or bad the fruit harvest is and fruit being a natural producer of ethylene gas a good harvest will naturally raise the ethylene gas levels. The thing is ethylene gas is used in a lot of post harvest situations and depending on the crop can be used to promote or retard the ripening of it so allowing all year round fruit and veg

What if we follow all the climate hysteria and reduce all the emissions how long will it be before we know it is working if we start heading to another ice age will the mantra turn and we have to create more emissions to stop it happening

A final thought why did nature give us all this coal, natural gas, wood and oil if we weren't supposed to use it?

 

[binky]

we have no planet 'B', do you really want to ignore the 'hype' and find out what happens next? 

 

[Sharpend]

we have no planet 'B', do you really want to ignore the 'hype' and find out what happens next? 

the question is: do we want to be conscious of the state of the planet and what we may or may not be contributing to its demise for the future of our grandchildren and their children etc or are we happy being selfish to our own satisfaction not withstanding what the future may or may not hold for our descendants. 
every passing day is a day that we can’t get back regardless of our beliefs so do we use each day to improve or procrastinate? 

 

[UNG]

we have no planet 'B', do you really want to ignore the 'hype' and find out what happens next? 

I'd like to see a more complete and across the board scientific analysis and not have the alternative science suppressed because it is apparently not PC to question the mainstream Thunberg view whose efforts to save the planet are not too believable after her sailing trip to the US had a bigger carbon footprint than flying there

the question is: do we want to be conscious of the state of the planet and what we may or may not be contributing to its demise for the future of our grandchildren and their children etc or are we happy being selfish to our own satisfaction not withstanding what the future may or may not hold for our descendants. 
every passing day is a day that we can’t get back regardless of our beliefs so do we use each day to improve or procrastinate? 

Of course there is a need to be conscious of the state of the planet but it is pointless chasing a small portion of the science in the blind hope it will wholly reverse the current situation when there are other forces which are being ignored. Lets face it at this moment we are assuming the sun will shine tomorrow we have no control over whether it will or it won't, if the sun fails to shine that will be the end of life on earth anyway, if the sun shines and earth is moving towards it in a closer orbit it is more than likely the earth will burn up how does reducing carbon emissions help us then.

Unfortunately I don't believe there is only one solution as it is being promoted it is just that carbon science seems to have the ear of all concerned and is being pursued with a semi blind faith as the sole solution to the problem

 

[Sharpend]

Whilst I acknowledge your approach as being quite practically possible, these may just be an inevitable event in the course of natural development of the planetary system, something that any species of being is going to have absolutely no input too. What we are discussing is the here and now effects of what the species on this planet are having on the planet and what we can do to alter the course of what we are doing. 
 

on the grand scale of things our input may have little effect to stopping the inevitable, but the same could be said about building sea defences to prevent natural erosion but it doesn’t stop us from doing it to save those that occupy the areas nearer the coasts, or trying to build islands in the sea to provide additional land mass for us to use.

Why do we find it so hard to take responsibility for what we are doing to the planet, if we put as much responsibility into our planet as we do in paying the bills or having the latest tech, the over use of plastics etc then perhaps we’d reconsider what’s important to us? Truth is many of us want to use and enjoy the planet without giving it a second thought of what it is we are doing. It’s more important to jet around the planet for a bit of sunshine than it is to stop using plastics that are destroying our oceans, or to think of the damage the emissions of the very plane we fly on are doing. How many vehicles queue endlessly each day in our towns, cities and motorways that only have one occupant in pumping toxic gases into the air. Abolishing unnecessary vehicles into our cities will be a step in the right direction. Providing a cleaner more efficient public transport system would make a significant reduction in pollution. 
the reason nothing changes is two fold, 1) people expect everything to be convenient to themselves 2) governments are only interested in getting to the winning post at the next election. 
So without a massive shift in our collective approach then yes you’re right the little that is done will do nothing. 

 

[binky]

I'd like to see a more complete and across the board scientific analysis and not have the alternative science suppressed because it is apparently not PC to question the mainstream Thunberg view whose efforts to save the planet are not too believable after her sailing trip to the US had a bigger carbon footprint than flying there

Try investigating soucres like New Scientist magazine - they were talking about climate change over 30 years ago. It's F-all to do with being PC, and all Thunberg has actually said is read the data for yourself. As I said earlier, the reason CO2 is targeted is because it is directly related to burning fossil fuels, which has powered the industrial revolution and give us the comfortable lifestyle we have now. If you have been following climate change discussions for 30 years like I have, you will also understand just how much argument and discussion there has been over cause and effect of human activity. There's always alternative views with differing arguments, but these have been demonstrated by the wider scientific community to be horse manure. There's also differing camps amoungst the environmentalists, eg some in favour of nuclear energy, and others dead against it, but that doesn't change the fact we are destroying the world as we know it, and will cause mass migrations, and very likely mass deaths from starvation and war over resources like water supplies. 

As for Thunbergs sailing trip, I'm guessing someone worked out the boat used a lot of CO2 to be built, so how much CO2 goes into building an airplane. However once built, wind is free, airplanes burn fuel in large doses. 

 

[Murdoch]

it does get discussed, but not enough. The answer oddly enough is the emancipation of women. Women with education and careers have less children, and later in life.

the world population is growing by an estimated 78 million per year, so this is huge factor in the usage of the world’s precious resources

 

[Geoff1946]

Of course I'm concerned for the future. I have grandchildren and the next generation may not be far away.

However what I observe is government making plans which will in a few decades impoverish Britain, cause a massive shortfall in energy availability, probably making it expensive and rationed, and restrict personal vehicles, (unless you count bicycles), and international travel, to the wealthy.  Conversely there is little sign of plans to develop our energy capability, review our flooding risks, or take any other protective measures. 

There is little sign that our leaders understand the effects of their plans. I think they believe that electricity comes from the sockets on the wall and that there must be plenty as long as we keep building wind farms. 

I consider we are entitled to ask for sound justification, without being dismissed as heretics who don't unquestioningly accept the new religion of climate hysteria.  Instead our media, and especially the BBC simply bombard us with repetitive statements of "facts", supported by reports of every weather event which would in earlier times have passed without comment.

 

[UNG]

Try investigating soucres like New Scientist magazine - they were talking about climate change over 30 years ago. It's F-all to do with being PC, and all Thunberg has actually said is read the data for yourself. As I said earlier, the reason CO2 is targeted is because it is directly related to burning fossil fuels, which has powered the industrial revolution and give us the comfortable lifestyle we have now. If you have been following climate change discussions for 30 years like I have, you will also understand just how much argument and discussion there has been over cause and effect of human activity. There's always alternative views with differing arguments, but these have been demonstrated by the wider scientific community to be horse manure.

It has everything to with being PC, if you argue against someones view and don't follow their line it is the norm these days to be accused of not being PC. While Thunberg says read the data why is it that you cannot challenge it as it is seen as being irrefutable and we are back to the PC thing

Yes I've followed climate change since I was at school and it could be argued that climate change has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, in May 1935 the country had snow and the summer of 1976 we had a heatwave lasting many weeks, weather is and has been a cyclic occurrence for possibly a million or more years with more than CO2 affecting it.

With regard to the horse manure we are back to the PC thing as it is so easily to use it to discredit anything that isn't the acknowledged and accepted party line whatever the contrary viewpoint is

There's also differing camps amoungst the environmentalists, eg some in favour of nuclear energy, and others dead against it, but that doesn't change the fact we are destroying the world as we know it, and will cause mass migrations, and very likely mass deaths from starvation and war over resources like water supplies.

The environmentalists are a group who use the internet, mobile phones and other tech to organise their protests yet if the government were to suggest shutting down the internet and mobile phone networks to reduce CO2 emissions they would vehemently protest against it so how much cake can you eat and how  much do you need. While the drive appears to be on renewable energy how reliable is the product when strong winds can shutdown wind turbines and cloudy days are not the best for PV. May be the earth needs or is due a reset and the modern day Noah is on the way but we haven't realised it yet

As for Thunbergs sailing trip, I'm guessing someone worked out the boat used a lot of CO2 to be built, so how much CO2 goes into building an airplane. However once built, wind is free, airplanes burn fuel in large doses. 

Your response is that of a typical eco warrior who chooses not to acknowledge what was widely published in the mainstream at the time regarding Greta's trip highlighted how uneco friendly it became with all crew flights to return the boat back to europe just to highlight one point we will never know if it was ignorance on her part or that of her backers or both. When you look at the cost of Greta's crusades you have to wonder who is funding them and what their agenda is, it is unfortunate that Greta has not realised yet how she is being used and manipulated to fit the agenda of others

 

[binky]

the world population is growing by an estimated 78 million per year, so this is huge factor in the usage of the world’s precious resources

Yep, rediculous isn't it.

 

[binky]

Of course I'm concerned for the future. I have grandchildren and the next generation may not be far away.

However what I observe is government making plans which will in a few decades impoverish Britain, cause a massive shortfall in energy availability, probably making it expensive and rationed, and restrict personal vehicles, (unless you count bicycles), and international travel, to the wealthy.  Conversely there is little sign of plans to develop our energy capability, review our flooding risks, or take any other protective measures. 

There is little sign that our leaders understand the effects of their plans. I think they believe that electricity comes from the sockets on the wall and that there must be plenty as long as we keep building wind farms. 

I consider we are entitled to ask for sound justification, without being dismissed as heretics who don't unquestioningly accept the new religion of climate hysteria.  Instead our media, and especially the BBC simply bombard us with repetitive statements of "facts", supported by reports of every weather event which would in earlier times have passed without comment.

Governments are the biggest issue as they lack political will to do anything - scared of upsetting the public/ whoever pays them money to keep them in power. I would also say this government has already impoverished the UK population, but that's going off topic. I do totally agree the wealthy will probably ignore anything other than making money, yet are the worst polluters of the lot, private jets, luxury yachts, second homes etc etc. This really pees me off as they can afford the green tech to offset their carbon footprints. At the same time it has to be said the likes of Musk can afford to pump money into Tesla cars and R&D some of the tech advances necessary to make the tech work and bring costs down. 

It is a concern that of mkne that 'saving the planet' will make poor people poorer, but that's a political issue as we are not short of millionares and billionares in the UK, who seem very good at avoiding paying UK tax. Either way, if the weather extremes get worse, food production will decrease ergo food will cost more, property and infrastructure damage will put insurance costs up and take tax money away from other services, sea defences cost shed loads - the cost of not going greener will definetly make the poor poorer. 

Energy generation - not invested in properly since Thatcher, but I do see lots of big wind farms popping up out at sea, which is good. It prevents fishing in these areas and creates artificial reefs for fish to breed, the turbines are massive, so less prone to gales and at a height that is less damaging to birds, and overall more reliable as a source of energy than smaller land based turbines. We will still need other sources of energy  as backup - my fave is nuclear.

The BBC reports stuff that is important, but doesn't write a lot of the content - don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like what they are saying. Sky now has a dedicated green spot at 8.30am, why not criticise them? 

 

[binky]

It has everything to with being PC, if you argue against someones view and don't follow their line it is the norm these days to be accused of not being PC. While Thunberg says read the data why is it that you cannot challenge it as it is seen as being irrefutable and we are back to the PC thing.

As I said before, the science is very well argued, researched and demonstratably actually correct - challenge it if you wish, you will be wrong.

Yes I've followed climate change since I was at school and it could be argued that climate change has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, in May 1935 the country had snow and the summer of 1976 we had a heatwave lasting many weeks, weather is and has been a cyclic occurrence for possibly a million or more years with more than CO2 affecting it.

With regard to the horse manure we are back to the PC thing as it is so easily to use it to discredit anything that isn't the acknowledged and accepted party line whatever the contrary viewpoint is

All points very well discussed if you care to go read the scientific press, but do look at the CO2 chart above and tell me what's natural about it.

The environmentalists are a group who use the internet, mobile phones and other tech to organise their protests yet if the government were to suggest shutting down the internet and mobile phone networks to reduce CO2 emissions they would vehemently protest against it so how much cake can you eat and how  much do you need. While the drive appears to be on renewable energy how reliable is the product when strong winds can shutdown wind turbines and cloudy days are not the best for PV. May be the earth needs or is due a reset and the modern day Noah is on the way but we haven't realised it yet

another ****e argument classic of the likes of the Daily Mail - no one is suggesting we go back to the stone age, or stand by a red telephone box on the corner of the street, or live in a tango'd cave

Your response is that of a typical eco warrior who chooses not to acknowledge what was widely published in the mainstream at the time regarding Greta's trip highlighted how uneco friendly it became with all crew flights to return the boat back to europe just to highlight one point we will never know if it was ignorance on her part or that of her backers or both. When you look at the cost of Greta's crusades you have to wonder who is funding them and what their agenda is, it is unfortunate that Greta has not realised yet how she is being used and manipulated to fit the agenda of others

 Another Daily Mail gammon argument, Greta was offered a lift on a boat that was crossing the Atlantic anyway, and whose crew would have flown back anyway. She could have made life easy for herself and flown, but chosses to live by a set of principles as best she can. As for being a puppet of others, more horse manure from the people who hate the fact a 15 year old girl is making them feel guilty and is correct. The only agenda is not destroying our one and only home and most of the wildlife on it. As I keep saying, go read the scientific press, or even just go listen to David Attenborough if you can't be bothered to wade through all the science, it's a lot quicker. 

 

[steptoe]

If this global warming is man made, 

Can someone explain to me who warmed up the planet at the end of the ice age,? 

 

[binky]

Ok challenge time, if you think I'm talking horse ****, PROVE ME WRONG! NB I will not accept idiots spout non sense on social media as proof, go find scientific papers. 

 

[binky]

If this global warming is man made, 

Can someone explain to me who warmed up the planet at the end of the ice age,? 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

no definitive answer on that one. 

 

[steptoe]

So it's a natural cycle of cooling down and heating up,? 

That would be my thoughts,

why is heating up this time any different,?

 

[Murdoch]

If this global warming is man made, 

Can someone explain to me who warmed up the planet at the end of the ice age,? 

IIRC this will help you

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/23degrees/2012/03/programme_3_orbit.html