Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
copper123

proposed heating payments this winter

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

And just imagine the total effect on the enviroment of that bloody war in the ukraine the mind boggles.

They don't seem to have much imagination as well with a scorched earth policy (And sod the civilians), I can imagine putin saying "Well it worked against the nazis".

And "We save loads on all those pensions with all those  pensioners we have killed"

Edited by copper123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

The climate has varied enormously over the millennia.

It's not that we have affected the climate that offends me.

It's the arrogance that asserts that _all_ climate  change is all down to Man's activities that offends me,

because this clearly is not true.

I simply cannot believe the climate change deniers in this forum. Even knowing your politics, I still cannot believe it. Even Boris Johnson was so concerned about it that he passed a law banning new petrol driven cars from 2030, and has promoted energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

You know, does it matter a damn whether climate change is caused by man (yet the facts point very clearly to it)? The average global temperature has steadily increased since it started being measured. And the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during the same period. Ice caps are melting. Coincidence? Obviously not.

Ok, let's indulge ourselves in the climate equivalent of Pascal's wager:

1. Climate change is happening (whether caused by man is not relevant)

2. We can spend trillions trying to prevent or even reverse it.

1. True. 2. True. result: a positive impact on the climate, which improves the lives of every creature on the planet

1. True. 2. False. result: things get worse and worse, and the habitable areas on the planet diminish, with severe fires, floods, storms, etc becoming more and more frequent

1. False. 2. False. result: things stay much as they are now

1. False. 2. True. result: the world economy goes into the same recession as covid caused, and all for no good reason.

This shows that the second alternative is by far the worst. I'd rather be proved wrong on climate knowing that even so we did our best in case (as the science indicates) it was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm....read again.

We have affected the climate, and changed it. This is obvious.

OK?

What is ridiculous and arrogant is to assert that ALL climate change is down to us.

Forces far greater than we can really imagine have been fighting each other for millions of years,

the result being a constantly shifting climate.

 

All we have done is added a warming bias to this, but who knows what the climate would have done anyway?

Was it about to go into a warmer period, which we have now exaggerated, or was it about to enter a cooler period, which we have stopped?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I simply cannot believe the climate change deniers in this forum. Even knowing your politics, I still cannot believe it. Even Boris Johnson was so concerned about it that he passed a law banning new petrol driven cars from 2030, and has promoted energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

You know, does it matter a damn whether climate change is caused by man (yet the facts point very clearly to it)? The average global temperature has steadily increased since it started being measured. And the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during the same period. Ice caps are melting. Coincidence? Obviously not.

Ok, let's indulge ourselves in the climate equivalent of Pascal's wager:

1. Climate change is happening (whether caused by man is not relevant)

2. We can spend trillions trying to prevent or even reverse it.

1. True. 2. True. result: a positive impact on the climate, which improves the lives of every creature on the planet

1. True. 2. False. result: things get worse and worse, and the habitable areas on the planet diminish, with severe fires, floods, storms, etc becoming more and more frequent

1. False. 2. False. result: things stay much as they are now

1. False. 2. True. result: the world economy goes into the same recession as covid caused, and all for no good reason.

This shows that the second alternative is by far the worst. I'd rather be proved wrong on climate knowing that even so we did our best in case (as the science indicates) it was true.

Congratulations! Textbook stuff.

Let's run through it. "Deniers" - great start. Shoehorned that into the first sentence ie anyone who looks at something from a different angle to you or has a different opinion is a "denier". Then the made-up (as usual) amazement that people are pointing out..., well what are they pointing out? You ignore the elephant in the room and despite looking very closely I can't see the word China anywhere in your post. But where's "Daily Mail" - you used it last time but missed a trick here. That killer riposte is taking a break I see. 

I tell you what amazes me - that anyone in their right mind can assert that the intermittent renewable energy sources of wind and solar (not nuclear, but that's going nowhere fast at present) can in any way be a substitute for fossil fuels. You can't run any industry, especially heavy industry, on an intermittent energy source, much of society's needs will depend on a high carbon-footprint manufacture and installation technology which supplies low and fickle electricity, and these solar panels and wind turbines will last 15-20 years then be chucked away. Fridges, ovens, building heating - all required reliable energy. And you won't be able to drive anywhere if last night wasn't windy enough. Or is every household going to have a massive toxic Chinese-produced battery the size of a chest of drawers to give stability of energy supply? Eco-friendly or what!

But don't worry, massive improvements in renewables technology will come along and save us just in the nick of time - we just have to take your word for that, but even your illusory massive improvements won't change the whole flawed concept of renewables I'm afraid. Nuclear excepted again, yet 30 years of non-investment into nuclear has buried that one for the foreseeable future. But here comes Bill Gates, nuclear plant manufacturer par excellence......he's got an idea you say?

"I'd rather be proved wrong on climate" - no you wouldn't and you're quite prepared to sacrifice our economy and standard of living in a pointless gesture to give you the satisfaction that "at least we tried". so hang the consequences, so long as your media and government primed conscience is satisfied. That's the important thing of course.

If any of the politicans or XR idiots actually really believed in the link between CO2 and global warming, wouldn't they be banging down China and India's doors to express their terror at what the world's major polluters were ramping up. That they couldn't care less says it all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Hmm....read again.

We have affected the climate, and changed it. This is obvious.

OK?

What is ridiculous and arrogant is to assert that ALL climate change is down to us.

Forces far greater than we can really imagine have been fighting each other for millions of years,

the result being a constantly shifting climate.

 

All we have done is added a warming bias to this, but who knows what the climate would have done anyway?

Was it about to go into a warmer period, which we have now exaggerated, or was it about to enter a cooler period, which we have stopped?

 

 

Indeed so, and if you happen to be even slightly at odds with/or question the mainstream narrative, you're labelled a climate change "denier". 

In fact, we know the global temperature has gone up - that is hard quantitative fact. The debate lies in what precisely has caused it. Co2 is just one of a whole range of possibilities. But among the mainstream scientific community, only one is allowed any headroom, that relating to Co2. Nothing else: which to my way of thinking is manifestly unintelligent.

The temperatures have been rising for a lot longer than is ever discussed. Glaciers formed in the ice age have been in continuous retreat for centuries. 

I've got a book first published in 1943 called, oddly enough "The Weather". It's a Penguin book by G.H.Kimble. In it there is a chapter called "Is our climate changing?" I wish I could reproduce it all here, but I obviously can't. In the chapter there are headings such as "When Greenland was greener" (11th century) and "The vineyards of England". The author mentions that in Scandinavia and the British Isles rises of the order of 1 to 2 degrees F (so about 1 degree C) occurred between about 1843 and 1943.

At Washington DC during the 20 year period ending 1892, there was a total of 354 days with freezing temperatures (overnight minimums). For the 20 year period ending in 1933, that had dropped to 237. 

In Oslo the temperature rose nearly 4 degrees F, so about 2 degrees C between about 1850 and 1943. In Spitsbergen the average December temperature in 1943, was more than 10 degrees F higher then it was  in 1913.

Sadly we are confronted by completely closed minds who literally attribute all warming to Co2 emissions.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Hmm....read again.

We have affected the climate, and changed it. This is obvious.

OK?

What is ridiculous and arrogant is to assert that ALL climate change is down to us.

Forces far greater than we can really imagine have been fighting each other for millions of years,

the result being a constantly shifting climate.

 

All we have done is added a warming bias to this, but who knows what the climate would have done anyway?

Was it about to go into a warmer period, which we have now exaggerated, or was it about to enter a cooler period, which we have stopped?

 

 

Yes, it's true that the Earth has gone through extremes of climate change. During the past x billion years, the planet has been totally frozen over, while at other times it has been a fiery desert. In both extremes life almost died out apart from a few critical bacteria which survived.

We cannot know what the climate will do in 1000 years. We can know what is affecting it - and has affected it since the Industrial Revolution - in recent centuries. We know:

- the effect of industrialisation on the production of CO2

- the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere

- the effect of HCFCs on the ozone layer hole

- the effect of massive destruction of the rainforests

Yes, there are also natural factors. This, from the Met Office's website:

  •  

Natural changes to the climate

The leading cause of climate change is human activity and the release of greenhouse gases. However, there are lots of natural causes that also lead to changes in the climate system.

Natural cycles can cause the climate to alternate between warming and cooling. There are also natural factors that force the climate to change, known as 'forcings'. Even though these natural causes contribute to climate change, we know that they are not the primary cause, based on scientific evidence.

Some of these natural cycles include:

  • Milankovitch cycles – As Earth travels around the sun, its path and the tilt of its axis can change slightly. These changes, called Milankovitch cycles, affect the amount of sunlight that falls on Earth. This can cause the temperature of Earth to change. However, these cycles take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and are unlikely to be causing the changes to the climate that we are seeing today.
  • El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – ENSO is a pattern of changing water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. In an 'El Niño' year, the global temperature warms up, and in a 'La Niña' year, it cools down. These patterns can affect the global temperature for a short amount of time (months or years) but cannot explain the persistent warming that we see today.

Natural forcings that can contribute to climate change include:

  • Solar irradiance – Changing energy from the sun has affected the temperature of Earth in the past. However, we have not seen anything strong enough to change our climate. Any increase in solar energy would make the entire atmosphere of Earth warm, but we can only see warming in the bottom layer.
  • Volcanic eruptions – Volcanoes have a mixed effect on our climate. Eruptions produce aerosol particles that cool Earth, but they also release carbon dioxide, which warms it. Volcanoes produce 50 times less carbon dioxide than humans do, so we know they are not the leading cause of global warming. On top of this, cooling is the dominant effect of volcanic eruptions, not warming.
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Indeed so, and if you happen to be even slightly at odds with/or question the mainstream narrative, you're labelled a climate change "denier". 

In fact, we know the global temperature has gone up - that is hard quantitative fact. The debate lies in what precisely has caused it. Co2 is just one of a whole range of possibilities. But among the mainstream scientific community, only one is allowed any headroom, that relating to Co2. Nothing else: which to my way of thinking is manifestly unintelligent.

The temperatures have been rising for a lot longer than is ever discussed. Glaciers formed in the ice age have been in continuous retreat for centuries. 

I've got a book first published in 1943 called, oddly enough "The Weather". It's a Penguin book by G.H.Kimble. In it there is a chapter called "Is our climate changing?" I wish I could reproduce it all here, but I obviously can't. In the chapter there are headings such as "When Greenland was greener" (11th century) and "The vineyards of England". The author mentions that in Scandinavia and the British Isles rises of the order of 1 to 2 degrees F (so about 1 degree C) occurred between about 1843 and 1943.

At Washington DC during the 20 year period ending 1892, there was a total of 354 days with freezing temperatures (overnight minimums). For the 20 year period ending in 1933, that had dropped to 237. 

In Oslo the temperature rose nearly 4 degrees F, so about 2 degrees C between about 1850 and 1943. In Spitsbergen the average December temperature in 1943, was more than 10 degrees F higher then it was  in 1913.

Sadly we are confronted by completely closed minds who literally attribute all warming to Co2 emissions.    

I don't know why you choose to go against over 90% of the scientific community who state unequivocally that greenhouse gases are the prime cause of the climate change we are experiencing.

Those other historical factors you mention are due to the "mini Ice Age" the planet went through from the late medieval period to the 19th Century. This, from Wikipedia:

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region, that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[2] It was not a true ice age of global extent. The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[3] The time period has been conventionally defined as extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[4][5][6] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[7] to about 1850.[8][9][10]

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.[6] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered that the timing and the areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[11]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (such as from the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact[12]).

And this diagram should give you pause for thought:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

Yes, it's true that the Earth has gone through extremes of climate change. During the past x billion years, the planet has been totally frozen over, while at other times it has been a fiery desert. In both extremes life almost died out apart from a few critical bacteria which survived.

We cannot know what the climate will do in 1000 years. We can know what is affecting it - and has affected it since the Industrial Revolution - in recent centuries. We know:

- the effect of industrialisation on the production of CO2

- the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere

- the effect of HCFCs on the ozone layer hole

- the effect of massive destruction of the rainforests

Yes, there are also natural factors. This, from the Met Office's website:

  •  

Natural changes to the climate

The leading cause of climate change is human activity and the release of greenhouse gases. However, there are lots of natural causes that also lead to changes in the climate system.

Natural cycles can cause the climate to alternate between warming and cooling. There are also natural factors that force the climate to change, known as 'forcings'. Even though these natural causes contribute to climate change, we know that they are not the primary cause, based on scientific evidence.

Some of these natural cycles include:

  • Milankovitch cycles – As Earth travels around the sun, its path and the tilt of its axis can change slightly. These changes, called Milankovitch cycles, affect the amount of sunlight that falls on Earth. This can cause the temperature of Earth to change. However, these cycles take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and are unlikely to be causing the changes to the climate that we are seeing today.
  • El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – ENSO is a pattern of changing water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. In an 'El Niño' year, the global temperature warms up, and in a 'La Niña' year, it cools down. These patterns can affect the global temperature for a short amount of time (months or years) but cannot explain the persistent warming that we see today.

Natural forcings that can contribute to climate change include:

  • Solar irradiance – Changing energy from the sun has affected the temperature of Earth in the past. However, we have not seen anything strong enough to change our climate. Any increase in solar energy would make the entire atmosphere of Earth warm, but we can only see warming in the bottom layer.
  • Volcanic eruptions – Volcanoes have a mixed effect on our climate. Eruptions produce aerosol particles that cool Earth, but they also release carbon dioxide, which warms it. Volcanoes produce 50 times less carbon dioxide than humans do, so we know they are not the leading cause of global warming. On top of this, cooling is the dominant effect of volcanic eruptions, not warming.

I don't know why you choose to go against over 90% of the scientific community who state unequivocally that greenhouse gases are the prime cause of the climate change we are experiencing.

Those other historical factors you mention are due to the "mini Ice Age" the planet went through from the late medieval period to the 19th Century. This, from Wikipedia:

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region, that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[2] It was not a true ice age of global extent. The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[3] The time period has been conventionally defined as extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[4][5][6] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[7] to about 1850.[8][9][10]

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.[6] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered that the timing and the areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[11]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (such as from the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact[12]).

And this diagram should give you pause for thought:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

They can unequivocally state what they choose. 

I choose not to 100% agree with them and retain an open mind on the issue, as do many others. Until that becomes an arrestable offence I will continue to do so.

You choose to be brainwashed by orthodoxy. Your choice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

They can unequivocally state what they choose. 

I choose not to 100% agree with them and retain an open mind on the issue, as do many others. Until that becomes an arrestable offence I will continue to do so.

You choose to be brainwashed by orthodoxy. Your choice. 

 

I choose to believe the vast majority of scientists rather than follow conspiracy theories. Yes, my choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You choose to slightly misunderstand the vast majority of scientists, ( they don't understand or agree with each other 100%)

and think that the opposite of your actions has to involve conspiracy theories....

This doesn't make sense.

 

Not all change is caused by Man!!!!

That's where the problem lies- this mistake generated the idiocy of thinking it's easy to reverse global warming, going around telling everyone what to do.

There are positive feedback loops involved that we don't yet understand.

There are negative feedback loops involved that we don't yet understand.

The natural forces involved are beyond our comprehension.

We are a passenger in, not the driver of, this runaway vehicle.

Sure, we've had a play with the steering wheel, and we are increasingly being asked to do so,  but we have no control over the brakes....

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I choose to believe the vast majority of scientists rather than follow conspiracy theories. Yes, my choice.

It's not a conspiracy theory, simply a variance of scientific opinion.

read and learn

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I choose to believe the vast majority of scientists rather than follow conspiracy theories. Yes, my choice.

No, let's get this straight. You aren't choosing what to believe, that implies a reasoned open-minded attitude. You are being told what to believe, and even when contrary information is staring you in the face, you still cling to what you've been programmed to think.  Also, if the narrative changes or even flip-flops, you seamlessly adopt the new right-think without even being aware that what they were telling you some time ago with the same certainty, was very different.

The world is not run on principles, it is run on money, and those with the most money to dole out get the largest influence. Gates is the biggest financial contributor (if you include his GAVI alliance - he's second otherwise) to the WHO and he also funds much of the world's research into vaccines and other research institutes like Imperial College and thus people like Neil Ferguson, a big and very much officially promoted influence on our needless self-destruction of lockdown. Bil and Melinda have also given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Western media via their Foundation (all open information), and so we all think he's a great guy because that is all we are told about him. And he might be, but greasing the media's palms promotes that perception of him, and relegates any negative side. Why is he allowed to effectively bribe the world's media like this?

None of the above is "conspiracy theory", it is all information published openly giving what the B&M Gates Foundation has disbursed.

And Bill's overall wealth has increased by 26 billion dollars (a year ago) during the pandemic which has overall resulted in the largest wealth grab from the middle classes into the pockets of the hyper-rich. That information is from the investigative journalist Robert F Kennedy amongst others, and as a self-proclaimed left-winger you, as with the rest of us, should be appalled by that. But you wouldn't care even if you knew. That's not something you've been told to get concerned about. 

Who's Robert F Kennedy and can you believe him? Where's his proof? Fair question. Is it just another conspiracy theory? Well, firstly, no one's denied it and if anyone has got his recently published "The real Anthony Fauci" the level of corruption and deceit he uncovers spanning several decades at the top of the medical establishment in the US is staggering. OK, again how can you believe him? 

Because no one is even attempting to sue him for anything in this book. And he's having a go at some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. Butr these people are essentially untouchable so they don't care. The book lands like a big tree falling in the middle of the forest. The media studiously ignore it.

And both medicine and science in certain areas have been absolutely corrupted by money. Whoever pays for the research and controls the medicinal establishment will get the research or agreement they want, and this is kept in place by fear via this whole new hierarchy of morality where if you don't agree totally with the official narrative you acquire a bad name such as "denier" (with its intentional echo of holocaust denier) or an "anti-vaccer" or a this or a that,. This cements the groupthink. 

So Brian Stelter: But 97% of climate scientists think that global warming is  happening.

Meteorological guest: Because the government doles out 2.5 billion dollars a year into research into climate change and only funds the people who give them the answers they want.

Make of that what you will. And PS this e-mail hasn' been specifically written for Peckris. He probably stopped reading after 5 words. 

Edited by oldcopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

No, let's get this straight. You aren't choosing what to believe, that implies a reasoned open-minded attitude. You are being told what to believe, and even when contrary information is staring you in the face, you still cling to what you've been programmed to think.  Also, if the narrative changes or even flip-flops, you seamlessly adopt the new right-think without even being aware that what they were telling you some time ago with the same certainty, was very different.

The world is not run on principles, it is run on money, and those with the most money to dole out get the largest influence. Gates is the biggest financial contributor (if you include his GAVI alliance - he's second otherwise) to the WHO and he also funds much of the world's research into vaccines and other research institutes like Imperial College and thus people like Neil Ferguson, a big and very much officially promoted influence on our needless self-destruction of lockdown. Bil and Melinda have also given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Western media via their Foundation (all open information), and so we all think he's a great guy because that is all we are told about him. And he might be, but greasing the media's palms promotes that perception of him, and relegates any negative side. Why is he allowed to effectively bribe the world's media like this?

None of the above is "conspiracy theory", it is all information published openly giving what the B&M Gates Foundation has disbursed.

And Bill's overall wealth has increased by 26 billion dollars (a year ago) during the pandemic which has overall resulted in the largest wealth grab from the middle classes into the pockets of the hyper-rich. That information is from the investigative journalist Robert F Kennedy amongst others, and as a self-proclaimed left-winger you, as with the rest of us, should be appalled by that. But you wouldn't care even if you knew. That's not something you've been told to get concerned about. 

Who's Robert F Kennedy and can you believe him? Where's his proof? Fair question. Is it just another conspiracy theory? Well, firstly, no one's denied it and if anyone has got his recently published "The real Anthony Fauci" the level of corruption and deceit he uncovers spanning several decades at the top of the medical establishment in the US is staggering. OK, again how can you believe him? 

Because no one is even attempting to sue him for anything in this book. And he's having a go at some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. Butr these people are essentially untouchable so they don't care. The book lands like a big tree falling in the middle of the forest. The media studiously ignore it.

And both medicine and science in certain areas have been absolutely corrupted by money. Whoever pays for the research and controls the medicinal establishment will get the research or agreement they want, and this is kept in place by fear via this whole new hierarchy of morality where if you don't agree totally with the official narrative you acquire a bad name such as "denier" (with its intentional echo of holocaust denier) or an "anti-vaccer" or a this or a that,. This cements the groupthink. 

So Brian Stelter: But 97% of climate scientists think that global warming is  happening.

Meteorological guest: Because the government doles out 2.5 billion dollars a year into research into climate change and only funds the people who give them the answers they want.

Make of that what you will. And PS this e-mail hasn' been specifically written for Peckris. He probably stopped reading after 5 words. 

Here's a personal experience of science and politics mixing, and guess which came off worse? 35 years ago, the cloud from Chernobyl was crossing the UK and a bloke in my shared house worked in a junior position for an environmental monitoring company. They were contracted by the government's MAFF to pick up sheep droppings in the Lake District and measure their radioactivity. So off he went, bagged it all up and sent his samples off to be measured and then the company wrote a report to MAFF on their findings.

Some time later the report got returned by MAFF and large chunks of it had been crossed out in red! I remember my housemate talking about resigning (he didn't in the end). He was not at all happy about it. 

Presumably the actual radiation figures were deemed politically unacceptable by MAFF so the report had to be altered to play down these levels, like missing out the higher levels found and just concentrating on the lower readings. So no one would have worried too much about the radiation in the fall out, as the government would have assured them that all the research showed how low level it all was.

Moral in that case - if science and politics mix, science comes off worse. And for some reason, both climate change and Covid are now political footballs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stumbled across an interesting article on the subject.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nick said:

Stumbled across an interesting article on the subject.

I looked at that, and googled further about the 'World Climate Declaration' scepticism mentioned in that article (published in a Sceptic journal!). I uncovered this, which 1) shows that there is mining and oil company involvement in the organisation behind the Declaration (Clintel), and 2) quite a lot of questioning the scientific status of the signatories.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/who-are--scientists-professionals-who-say-no-climate-emergency/11734966?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

It's not a conspiracy theory, simply a variance of scientific opinion.

read and learn

When the leading sceptical opinion involves oil companies paying certain scientists to deny the role of fossil fuels in climate change, then that's pretty much anybody's definition of a conspiracy.

watch and learn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

When the leading sceptical opinion involves oil companies paying certain scientists to deny the role of fossil fuels in climate change, then that's pretty much anybody's definition of a conspiracy.

watch and learn

Oh, c'mon, that is BS writ large. Considering that the orthodoxy on Co2 emissions being solely responsible for higher global temperatures, has got a complete and total strangle hold over the MSM and political leaders worldwide, I truly cannot lend credence to your link. 

Genuine scientists disagreeing with the current climate change opinions are not "conspiracy theorists". They just disagree with other scientists.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

Oh, c'mon, that is BS writ large. Considering that the orthodoxy on Co2 emissions being solely responsible for higher global temperatures, has got a complete and total strangle hold over the MSM and political leaders worldwide, I truly cannot lend credence to your link. 

Genuine scientists disagreeing with the current climate change opinions are not "conspiracy theorists". They just disagree with other scientists.     

Oh wow. You watched all 3 one-hour episodes in the few minutes it took you to post your reply? And you wonder (no, you probably don't..) why I don't take you seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

When the leading sceptical opinion involves oil companies paying certain scientists to deny the role of fossil fuels in climate change, then that's pretty much anybody's definition of a conspiracy.

watch and learn

Try changing  "oil" to "tobacco",     "fossil fuels" to "smoking",      and "climate change" to cancer"......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys. Remember this is a Coin Forum and don't get personal. Leave it to Rebecca Vardy and Colleen Rooney.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nick said:

Stumbled across an interesting article on the subject.

Thanks - I see someone unsurprisingly is applying the stereotyped smear of attacking the participants rather than listening to and addressing their point. He can't help it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, secret santa said:

Come on guys. Remember this is a Coin Forum and don't get personal. Leave it to Rebecca Vardy and Colleen Rooney.

Fair point, I understand not wanting it to get too snarky of course, but this discussion involves winter heating payments and thus its climate change rationale which is trying to remove or minimise fossil fuels from our lives. This is in a part of the forum which is not specifically about coins and which I personally find interesting and a very important discussion to have. We're all grown-ups on here, and no one wants the discussion to get bad-tempered, but it's important to get your point or points out there, and not allow the political discussion to be dominated by people who, in your opinion, are talking nonsense. 

 

Edited by oldcopper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy reading the different viewpoints and evidence but I don't enjoy personal attacks. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And two of the big poster-children for global warming have crashed and burnt:

Second record year for coral cover (since records began 36 years ago) in the Great Barrier Reef.

Polar bear populations are now estimated at 25-30 thousand up from 5-6 thousand in the 1960's.

Neither of these observations is disputed, but both these iconic images were used to scare people into thinking that climate change was makng polar bears go extinct (no sea ice you know) and coral reefs bleaching then dying out. What was never mentioned was that coral reefs usually recover quickly from bleaching episodes - where was that comment in all the doom? This is how it works - we're given only the partial information that fits the narrative. Other information or factors that don't are ignored or downplayed as much as possible.

This is not to say climate change isn't happening, it's just that the evidence for it that was shoved in our faces to produce an emotional reaction turns out to be wrong.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

And two of the big poster-children for global warming have crashed and burnt:

Second record year for coral cover (since records began 36 years ago) in the Great Barrier Reef.

Polar bear populations are now estimated at 25-30 thousand up from 5-6 thousand in the 1960's.

Neither of these observations is disputed, but both these iconic images were used to scare people into thinking that climate change was makng polar bears go extinct (no sea ice you know) and coral reefs bleaching then dying out. What was never mentioned was that coral reefs usually recover quickly from bleaching episodes - where was that comment in all the doom? This is how it works - we're given only the partial information that fits the narrative. Other information or factors that don't are ignored or downplayed as much as possible.

This is not to say climate change isn't happening, it's just that the evidence for it that was shoved in our faces to produce an emotional reaction turns out to be wrong.

 

The other thing that was once shoved in our faces as evidence of global warming, was pictures of wooden houses in Northern Canada, some of which were leaning at a crazy angle. It was said that they were sinking into the ground because the ground beneath was melting.

I later discovered from a Canadian that the real reason was because the heating/cooking stoves inside the dwellings, were not properly insulated from the ground and/or the stilts were too short/non existent. So the melting was purely down to that. Hence why only some of the houses were affected.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Try changing  "oil" to "tobacco",     "fossil fuels" to "smoking",      and "climate change" to cancer"......

Of course. Both are real! Documented evidence of big commercial interests protecting profits above all else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×