proposed heating payments this winter

[Peckris 2]

7 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

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.  

1. I never heard that.

2. However, it seems a silly point (not you, I hasten to add) to 'prove' climate change. I accept the explanation, but cannot see that it in any way 'disproves' climate change.

[1949threepence]

4 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

1. I never heard that.

2. However, it seems a silly point (not you, I hasten to add) to 'prove' climate change. I accept the explanation, but cannot see that it in any way 'disproves' climate change.

Why have you studiously ignored all of Old Copper's posts on this thread?

Especially the ones quoting you - some very detailed rebuttals.

Yet you choose to take issue with the very short and unarguable post I made about houses in Canada. 

 

 

[Peckris 2]

3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Why have you studiously ignored all of Old Copper's posts on this thread?

Especially the ones quoting you - some very detailed rebuttals.

Yet you choose to take issue with the very short and unarguable post I made about houses in Canada.

His posts are not visible to me.

[1949threepence]

By the way, can I just say that nobody is trying to "disprove" climate change. We know it's a fact in being in terms of increasing temperatures.

At the risk of repeating myself the argument is purely about the underlying cause, whether:-

a) solely down to Co2 emissions and it's completely and utterly impossible for any other factors to have any influence, because we say so.

b) partly down to Co2 emissions, and partly down to other factors such as the Sun.

c) completely unconnected with Co2 emissions and would have happened anyway.

As far as I and many others are concerned that debate remains firmly open and we (me certainly) have no intention of being browbeaten and bullied into accepting the current orthodoxy.       

   

[Peckris 2]

Ok, that's reasonable. But I would say the debate is really over a) or b).

I wouldn't say that presenting facts is either 'browbeating' or 'bullying'.

[1949threepence]

5 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Ok, that's reasonable. But I would say the debate is really over a) or b).

I wouldn't say that presenting facts is either 'browbeating' or 'bullying'.

It is when the assertions are open to debate but any questioning view is dismissed as the work of conspiracy theorists or climate change deniers.  

[Peckris 2]

1 minute ago, 1949threepence said:

It is when the assertions are open to debate but any questioning view is dismissed as the work of conspiracy theorists or climate change deniers.  

The problem is that both factions exist - you can't blame the average person for thinking that questioning the current scientific consensus could be evidence of them. However, I accept that you are not part of that whole scene.

[1949threepence]

1 minute ago, Peckris 2 said:

The problem is that both factions exist - you can't blame the average person for thinking that questioning the current scientific consensus could be evidence of them. However, I accept that you are not part of that whole scene.

Well that's just the thing. I don't think the average person does think that. The average person retains an open mind. 

[Peckris 2]

17 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Well that's just the thing. I don't think the average person does think that. The average person retains an open mind. 

I think we'll have to leave it that your definition of 'open mind' and mine, are different. Can we leave it there?

[1949threepence]

9 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

I think we'll have to leave it that your definition of 'open mind' and mine, are different. Can we leave it there?

If you wish.

It's odd you can't see @oldcopper's posts.

 

[copper123]

The funny thing is many uses  of fossil fuel  (admitedly over a long time ) seem really  tame compared with things the earth does to itself yet life goes on , we might make life on earth more difficult for our offspring but I doubt we will ruin the earth just by ourselves - the big exception is nuclear war I surpose....

[blakeyboy]

oops I'll try that again

Edited August 20, 2022 by blakeyboy

[blakeyboy]

11 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

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

Exactly.

As was the argument over lead additive in petrol.

But not conspiracy theories...

[Peckris 2]

5 hours ago, blakeyboy said:

Exactly.

As was the argument over lead additive in petrol.

But not conspiracy theories...

Agreed. Though there are conspiracy theory adherents who claim the whole climate change thing is a hoax, but there are some very strange people around. QAnon and Anti-Vaxxers just for starters! And don't get me going on the whole Twin Towers 'brought down by the Bush administration', or 'Paul is dead' thing...

[copper123]

40 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Agreed. Though there are conspiracy theory adherents who claim the whole climate change thing is a hoax, but there are some very strange people around. QAnon and Anti-Vaxxers just for starters! And don't get me going on the whole Twin Towers 'brought down by the Bush administration', or 'Paul is dead' thing...

And not a mention of Elvis who works in a chippy near me

[Peckris 2]

11 minutes ago, copper123 said:

And not a mention of Elvis who works in a chippy near me

There's a guy works down the hip shop swears he's Pelvis.

[Rob]

9 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Agreed. Though there are conspiracy theory adherents who claim the whole climate change thing is a hoax, but there are some very strange people around. QAnon and Anti-Vaxxers just for starters! And don't get me going on the whole Twin Towers 'brought down by the Bush administration', or 'Paul is dead' thing...

Slightly at a tangent, but there's nothing new in conspiracy theorists/flat earthers/tree huggers/preppers. I found the attached in an auction catalogue recently. Enigmatically called Q and presumably dated 1970 given the 10p leaflet was published in that year. Is Qanon the latest incarnation of the league of nutters, or is it just that the letter Q has some magical quality for people of such mindsets that I haven't discovered yet? I blame it all on subversive behaviour by Russia and Trump.

[oldcopper]

On 8/20/2022 at 9:21 AM, 1949threepence said:

If you wish.

It's odd you can't see @oldcopper's posts.

 

Well of course he won't listen. He's not interested in opinions that conflict in any way with the narrative that he's been told to think. It's an article of faith, and easy in a way. No need to think about anything except which derogatory dog-whistle to use against those who have actually thought about these matters, and any area awkward for him to address like China's coal consumption, will be ignored, because he might have to think about that.

Anyway, here's the interesting thing to me about The Great Barrier reef tale that's been spun for us. Here's a graph of the coral cover over the last few decades since measurements began. Notice the slow variable drop from 2005-2010 followed by a sharper one from 2010-2012'ish. Now, I bet about the this time, this accelerated drop in coral was then computer modelled to continue dropping. So people like like David Attenborough fell for this over-simplified picture which conveniently gave the worst possible result. and he stated in 2018 that the GBR would be no more by the end of the century. Now according to the map, it was near to its previous high points in 2018.

All the experts etc would have agreed that things looked grim for the GBR, at that exact moment of time. But maybe they were taking a tiny timeframe and falsely extrapolating that the trend would continue. But it now looks cyclical, perhaps an El Nino phenomenon or some such. So perhaps nothing to do with long-term global warming. The question is: did these experts or the media publicise its regrowth, especially in the years after 2015 where the coral cover was bouncing back? And if not, why not?

Edited August 22, 2022 by oldcopper

[oldcopper]

Fancy a cricket anyone?!

I don't know if anyone has been following what has been going on with the Dutch farmers and thier massive demonstrations. All despite the Netherlands being the second largest exporter of food in the world just behind the US. Some papers have carried small news reports on it. Done in the name of climate change of course, in this case ammonia emissions.

He mentions the absurdity of China's record and forecast re their CO2 emission amongst other things, to show that no one in power is seriously enacting this craziness to lower CO2. And the fact that it will just result in everyone from our energy-poor economies importing yet more from the massive carbon-emitting China. I think he has a point! Worth watching. OK, the interviewer has a cowboy hat on but I think we can forgive him that.

 

 

[Mr T]

Sorry wrong thread - please delete.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Mr T

[1949threepence]

On 8/23/2022 at 4:34 PM, oldcopper said:

Fancy a cricket anyone?!

I don't know if anyone has been following what has been going on with the Dutch farmers and thier massive demonstrations. All despite the Netherlands being the second largest exporter of food in the world just behind the US. Some papers have carried small news reports on it. Done in the name of climate change of course, in this case ammonia emissions.

He mentions the absurdity of China's record and forecast re their CO2 emission amongst other things, to show that no one in power is seriously enacting this craziness to lower CO2. And the fact that it will just result in everyone from our energy-poor economies importing yet more from the massive carbon-emitting China. I think he has a point! Worth watching. OK, the interviewer has a cowboy hat on but I think we can forgive him that.

 

 

The farming issue in the Netherlands - ordering the amount of food production to be reduced - is just pure insanity in a hungry world - link

Pleased to hear that their agricultural minister got a load of slurry dumped on his doorstep.  

It's time there was a PROPER face to face debate on climate change without those who dare to disagree being closed down. I believe GB News are trying to arrange one.

 

 

[copper123]

Personally I think that germany will face the most problems with gas this winter along with poland and france with all countries in europe  badly scared  this also will leave many parts of europe very much open to virtual blackmail from Russia.

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (the bond film) now a russian reality 

THE PROPHET

[Peckris 2]

5 hours ago, copper123 said:

Personally I think that germany will face the most problems with gas this winter along with poland and france with all countries in europe  badly scared  this also will leave many parts of europe very much open to virtual blackmail from Russia.

THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (the bond film) now a russian reality 

THE PROPHET

Except that the biggest European countries have been storing gas. We don't have that capacity and buy gas as and when we need it. I think we will end up no less scared than anywhere else.

[copper123]

17 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Except that the biggest European countries have been storing gas. We don't have that capacity and buy gas as and when we need it. I think we will end up no less scared than anywhere else.

I strongly suspect whatever they are storeing will not last long

[Peckris 2]

6 hours ago, copper123 said:

I strongly suspect whatever they are storeing will not last long

Well, longer than what we are not storing...