Climate change

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
2,999
Reaction score
2,299
Location
Colne
Good to hear Woodsy.

I'm no 'conspiracy theorist', however I was brought up to question things, so I do.

I find things interesting and often ask myself 'why?'.

The one thing I do know, as soon as money and power are involved, the truth generally goes to the dogs in society these days.

To put that into a fishing context, one only has to look at the debacle over fish farming in the UK. The dirty truth hidden by the firms, the Govt. and those peddling the fish. M&S and their fictitious 'Lochmiur' brand. See, money, and power to propagate lies.

The climate is going through change. Whether that's anthropogenic or just mother earth doing here own thing remains, in my mind, to be seen. Certainly there is human impact in a vastly overloaded planet. Lockdown one showed that to an extent (and also nicely disproved the theory that cows farting were the cause of holes in the ozone layer :ROFLMAO: )

I grew up in a time when the BIG scare story was that we were heading into a new Ice Age. That was back in the '70's. There is also growing evidence that the North Atlantic is actually cooling again (should be great for us salmon fishers). However, that doesn't suit many agendas so will be shuffled to one side.


The likes of Greetin' Thunderburgfart have a LOT to answer for.
Oh for sure the Salmon farming thing is just straight up corrupt. I’ve noticed how they tell us trust “the” science, which means whatever science backs up salmon farms as if no other studies have found these places to be absolute cess Pitts and that we as fisherman have no idea about the places we love and fish?
I get so annoyed at needless packaging on things.
Those who bang on about it like Harry n Meghan who just spent millions on a magazine cover that shows Harry behind the empowering woman and have opinions on us small folk are the very worst.
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,685
Reaction score
2,649
Location
Cheshire
I find things interesting and often ask myself 'why?'.
A very good question which isn't asked often enough.
Like you I like to challenge things, partly because I'm naturaly antagonistic, but mainly because I want to understand.
Unfortunately, 'why' seems to be drummed out of kids in school at an early age.

Besides asking why, I also like to ask 'what if', trying to understand the bigger picture or the consequence.

UK government implements tax rebates for companies providing hybrid company cars. Companies take the tax rebates, employees drive the cars and at the end of the lease return them with the charging packs unused.

The government incentivise drivers in London to drive electric cars. More demand means more batteries, produced in china using power derived from fossil fuels. Good London car drivers. Bad china.🤔

Unintended consequences uncovered when you look at the bigger picture.

Next one on the list, veganism.
More crops demanding more fertiliser. Producing fertiliser uses large ammounts of energy and produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Unintended consequences.

Quite often we get hung up on the actions, and lose sight we're actually trying to acheive causing as many problems as we're solving.
 

ian74

Active member
Messages
288
Reaction score
175
Location
Probably doon the water.
UK government implements tax rebates for companies providing hybrid company cars. Companies take the tax rebates, employees drive the cars and at the end of the lease return them with the charging packs unused.

The government incentivise drivers in London to drive electric cars. More demand means more batteries, produced in china using power derived from fossil fuels. Good London car drivers. Bad china.🤔

Unintended consequences uncovered when you look at the bigger picture.

1634383885636.jpeg
 

westie4566

Well-known member
Messages
9,857
Reaction score
4,916
Location
Aberdeen
A very good question which isn't asked often enough.
Like you I like to challenge things, partly because I'm naturaly antagonistic, but mainly because I want to understand.
Unfortunately, 'why' seems to be drummed out of kids in school at an early age.

Besides asking why, I also like to ask 'what if', trying to understand the bigger picture or the consequence.

UK government implements tax rebates for companies providing hybrid company cars. Companies take the tax rebates, employees drive the cars and at the end of the lease return them with the charging packs unused.

The government incentivise drivers in London to drive electric cars. More demand means more batteries, produced in china using power derived from fossil fuels. Good London car drivers. Bad china.🤔

Unintended consequences uncovered when you look at the bigger picture.

Next one on the list, veganism.
More crops demanding more fertiliser. Producing fertiliser uses large ammounts of energy and produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
Unintended consequences.

Quite often we get hung up on the actions, and lose sight we're actually trying to acheive causing as many problems as we're solving.
Re veganism. You missed out the classic elephant in the room.

So you're vegan because you want to save animals from an untimely death? What about the millions of insects, ground nesting birds and small mammals killed every year in the production and harvesting of your food?

They never seem to be able answer that one :ROFLMAO:
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,685
Reaction score
2,649
Location
Cheshire
Re veganism. You missed out the classic elephant in the room.

So you're vegan because you want to save animals from an untimely death? What about the millions of insects, ground nesting birds and small mammals killed every year in the production and harvesting of your food?

They never seem to be able answer that one :ROFLMAO:
Ive raised this point with vegetarians before.
No issue with vegetarians, its their lifestyle choice.
Some do take a holier than though attitude and try and ram it down your throat.
As you rightly highlight, innocent creatures not being humanely killed but torn apart by heavy machinery with no value to the food chain.
 

charlieH

Well-known member
Messages
3,385
Reaction score
949
Re veganism. You missed out the classic elephant in the room.

So you're vegan because you want to save animals from an untimely death? What about the millions of insects, ground nesting birds and small mammals killed every year in the production and harvesting of your food?

They never seem to be able answer that one :ROFLMAO:
Quite a lot of substitutes for animal products aren’t very environmentally friendly. Almonds (both for almond milk and consumption just as nuts) require large amounts of water, and soya beans (which make soya milk and tofu) are one of the biggest drivers of deforestation. Avocados aren’t a meat substitute as such, but seem to be much favoured by vegetarians and vegans, and again are a cause of deforestation and use large amounts of water. And of course all these products have to be shipped long distances to reach our shores.

Compare that, for example, to British hill-grown lamb. That uses land which isn’t suitable for other agricultural crops, require little in the way of artificial inputs, and can be sourced quite locally by many of us (certainly not requiring shipping around the world). Game is the same. From an environmental point of view, I can’t help thinking that it would be better to include those meats in a diet.

I suspect that it would be healthier for the consumer, too. I was recently on holiday with some friends who have become more or less vegan, and I witnessed the handfuls of pills they ate to make up for the deficiencies of a vegan diet. In fact the wife of the couple in question was advised by her doctor to eat a small quantity of meat for the sake of her health!
 

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
1,983
Reaction score
1,522
I have no idea what the agenda of the cop26 meeting would be, but I would hope that the destruction of wildlife habitat would be as high on the agenda as trying to get us into electric cars or burning less fossil fuels.
There would be little point in having clean air if deforestation, bad farming practices, overfishing etc is allowed to continue to destroy the planet and its inhabitants.
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
2,999
Reaction score
2,299
Location
Colne
Quite a lot of substitutes for animal products aren’t very environmentally friendly. Almonds (both for almond milk and consumption just as nuts) require large amounts of water, and soya beans (which make soya milk and tofu) are one of the biggest drivers of deforestation. Avocados aren’t a meat substitute as such, but seem to be much favoured by vegetarians and vegans, and again are a cause of deforestation and use large amounts of water. And of course all these products have to be shipped long distances to reach our shores.

Compare that, for example, to British hill-grown lamb. That uses land which isn’t suitable for other agricultural crops, require little in the way of artificial inputs, and can be sourced quite locally by many of us (certainly not requiring shipping around the world). Game is the same. From an environmental point of view, I can’t help thinking that it would be better to include those meats in a diet.

I suspect that it would be healthier for the consumer, too. I was recently on holiday with some friends who have become more or less vegan, and I witnessed the handfuls of pills they ate to make up for the deficiencies of a vegan diet. In fact the wife of the couple in question was advised by her doctor to eat a small quantity of meat for the sake of her health!
They do look quite ill imo. An ex of mine who went Vegan spends so much time pouting for the camera and posting the pics for all to see. Really weird behaviour imo
 

tenet

Well-known member
Messages
2,989
Reaction score
992
Location
cotswolds
The biggest polluters of co2 are USA, India and China creating probably 50% of the world's output compared to the UK producing just 1% . In order to reduce this paltry amount to net zero we are to embark upon a seismic change to our way of life. Air source or ground source heat pumps with the associated cost of insulation amounting to circa £10,000 to £20,000 plus per household with just minimal grants. Phasing out of the ICE car in favour of electric at, currently, vast expense and no more Sunday roast.
All of this plus massive infrastructure changes will put the current cost of living problems into the shade. Meanwhile China et al will be laughing at our gullibility.
 

Cascade

Active member
Messages
461
Reaction score
144
The biggest polluters of co2 are USA, India and China creating probably 50% of the world's output compared to the UK producing just 1% . In order to reduce this paltry amount to net zero we are to embark upon a seismic change to our way of life. Air source or ground source heat pumps with the associated cost of insulation amounting to circa £10,000 to £20,000 plus per household with just minimal grants. Phasing out of the ICE car in favour of electric at, currently, vast expense and no more Sunday roast.
All of this plus massive infrastructure changes will put the current cost of living problems into the shade. Meanwhile China et al will be laughing at our gullibility.
Sounds like UK government would be better "offsetting" our carbon emissions by paying India to reduce their emissions. US and China are rich enough to sort themselves out.
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
Sounds like UK government would be better "offsetting" our carbon emissions by paying India to reduce their emissions. US and China are rich enough to sort themselves out.
China's got rich in CO2 debt because it's an exhortation racket. Youl'd need to be a mug not to see or know this doesn't include deliberate UN policy. Hey, a 'pandemic'?

UN Policies esesntially filter down via so-called activist movements, or precursor movements towards deliberately enabled or funded political aims. Low and behold, a so-termed pressure group - via funding - a so-called issue becomes an increasing governmental agenda - 'cos gov folks promoted it in the first place via a calc route. There's a history of this similar tyranny that predecesses these times that never included such restrictions - never - imposed via any former government, let alone a deliberateley manufactured 'response'.
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
Sounds like UK government would be better "offsetting" our carbon emissions by paying India to reduce their emissions. US and China are rich enough to sort themselves out.
According to last years energy figs via IEA, 80.7% of all global energy was fossil fueled.

That's energy, not electricity which was guess how much in terms of actual power delivered to your home or business
 

Nigel Passmore

Well-known member
Messages
600
Reaction score
986
Just out of interest, how many on here have actually read the latest IPCC report?

Spoiller alert I have been through all the hundreds of pages of it. You know what they say about the Devil being in the detail. So all those bandying arround words like ‘denier’ and ‘sceptics’ now is your opportunity to tell us what the report actually says because of course you’ll have taken the trouble to read it.. I mean surely that’s not too much to ask?

Regards

NHP
 

tenet

Well-known member
Messages
2,989
Reaction score
992
Location
cotswolds
Not a denier but a realist - as said above the UK only produces 1% of the worlds CO2 yet we have embraced with great zeal a path which will impoverish millions of folk given the proposed timescales involved. We, the general public need the costs associated with the proposed changes within our great country to be fully explained. At the moment this is being evaded. If COP 26 gets a firm commitment from the big Three and we work in harmony then all well and good but if we, as a country, charge headlong on a path hoping all will follow then I suspect we shall be seriously deluded. Nobody votes to make themselves poorer - and to answer your question, I have only read snippets of the report here : https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,786
Reaction score
3,231
I have no idea what the agenda of the cop26 meeting would be, but I would hope that the destruction of wildlife habitat would be as high on the agenda as trying to get us into electric cars or burning less fossil fuels.
There would be little point in having clean air if deforestation, bad farming practices, overfishing etc is allowed to continue to destroy the planet and its inhabitants.
There are targets for everything - check out the UN’s SDGd - but the emissions are felt to be most pressing, as the scientists that believe that human activity is accelerating the earth’s natural climate changes at a pace that we will not be able to adapt to, state that unless we slow it down there won’t be any point in saving wildlife habitats. Or rather, we won’t be here to muck the Earth up any more and it’ll sort itself out. I happen to agree with them but I know many don’t - not much bothered about debating it either - but it’s why you’ll see increasing emphasis on reducing emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels. And yes it’s a huge money making venture. Many people will get richer from the transition to alternative power sources. But apparently money is the only thing that motivates anyone to make a change these days. I don’t consider the money-making angle a conspiracy theory as much as a deeply depressing insight into the motivations of mankind.
 

Jockiescott

Well-known member
Messages
10,624
Reaction score
6,275
I sort of find "renewable energy" wholly depressing.

Wind turbines, hydro schemes and biomass facilities are simply vanity projects for me and have the potential to be far more destructive to nature and the environment around them. Granted, the energy they produce might be cleaner than burning coal but the destruction of habitats to put those things in place seems to be swept under the carpet, or not seen as as important, rather than the smug grin government representatives get from patting themselves on the back while pointing to the abominations on what we're once some of our last truly wild landscapes.

We are told that bog land and Heather moorlands hold as much carbon as the rainforests and they must be protected. A few months later, the same moorlands are dug out and stoned to make roads to install wind turbines. Huge quantities of peat removed from moorlands so 60 cubic metres of concrete can be poured to put up a single turbine. Moorlands drained so that they can no longer store the rainfall they once did so more flash flooding and devastation in places that hadn't flooded before.

Rivers running lower than they used to because the moors can no longer store water. Less water means less flows. But, let's stick a few hydros on those same rivers. When they tested the new hydro in Omagh, Co. Tyrone, a few years back, fish were left high and dry or stuck in shallow puddles between the dam and the outflow of the screw.

Anaerobic digestion and the waste material getting spread on fields that runs off into watercourses and eventually our rivers. Another one was given the go ahead in the River Finn valley just last week.

As I said, the actual energy being produced is probably cleaner but how anyone can support the abhorrent destruction of habitats to put those schemes in place? It just all stinks of hypocrisy to me.
 

midgydug

Well-known member
Messages
439
Reaction score
284
Location
Fife
The biggest air polluting country per person is Australia. 70% of their power is from coal burning power stations. Every state has coal mines so they are just using their resources like any oil rich countries use theirs.
If we stopped this new Cambo oilfield, all went electric (which is impossible) and the whole of britain cycled to work, it wouldn't change a thing to the climate
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,786
Reaction score
3,231
The rest of the world should start by boycotting Chinese goods.
It’s very disingenuous of us to point to China as being the biggest polluter when we made the conscious decision in the 80s to kill off British manufacturing and buy our stuff in. Chinese emissions are also our emissions. You’re right that those concerned about their carbon footprint should boycott their goods. And not turning up to COP is unhelpful. But we put them in the world driving seat. We reap what we stopped sowing.
 

Nigel Passmore

Well-known member
Messages
600
Reaction score
986
Postscript to above - China and Russia are to boycott COP26.
As are India and Brazil. So the full BRIC in other words. I urge you to read the IPCC report. It tells us there is possibly going to be material climate change in 5000 years time. Yes you read that right. It's a load of complete B/S.

Possibly the most terrible act of Self-harm mankind (well the Western Liberal part of it - BRIC are just laughing at us) will ever inflict on itself. Of course, the change of mantra from Global Warming to Climate Change is a complete con trick.

You can't argue against Climate Change because clearly over the centuries our World has been hotter and colder at times and often materially so, but that has the square root of zero to do with man-made Carbon emissions. We could grow grapes for red wine in Yorkshire in Roman Times. Perhaps it was the horse pooh from all those man-made chariots that caused that. Seas rise and fall because the Earth's core through the 7 main Tectonic plates is continuously shifting - rising and falling actually. It has been going on for Millions of years.

This sums up the sheer lunacy of all this perfectly:

Thunberg Meme.jpg


If you've ever listened to the spokes people for XR and IB they are, - or for that matter the Swedish Hobgoblin - , frankly, deranged cultists - how very dare I say that. They make Clockwork Orange Droogies look like sane rational people. These are people who think it is acceptable for a stroke victim to die becasue their ambulance was stuck on the M25 because of IB as happened last week.

One week these weirdos are telling us the World is cooking, the next it's so cold people are dying because of it - so which way is it? BTW Every year 10 people in the world die of cold for every one that dies of excessive heat.

Regards

NHP

p.s Out of interest, how many of you are aware, Globaly, Polar Bear populations are actually increasing
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
371
Reaction score
275
Location
Wild west of Wales
As are India and Brazil. So the full BRIC in other words. I urge you to read the IPCC report. It tells us there is possibly going to be material climate change in 5000 years time. Yes you read that right. It's a load of complete B/S.

Possibly the most terrible act of Self-harm mankind (well the Western Liberal part of it - BRIC are just laughing at us) will ever inflict on itself. Of course, the change of mantra from Global Warming to Climate Change is a complete con trick.

You can't argue against Climate Change because clearly over the centuries our World has been hotter and colder at times and often materially so, but that has the square root of zero to do with man-made Carbon emissions. We could grow grapes for red wine in Yorkshire in Roman Times. Perhaps it was the horse pooh from all those man-made chariots that caused that. Seas rise and fall because the Earth's core through the 7 main Tectonic plates is continuously shifting - rising and falling actually. It has been going on for Millions of years.

This sums up the sheer lunacy of all this perfectly:

View attachment 66945

If you've ever listened to the spokes people for XR and IB they are, - or for that matter the Swedish Hobgoblin - , frankly, deranged cultists - how very dare I say that. They make Clockwork Orange Droogies look like sane rational people. These are people who think it is acceptable for a stroke victim to die becasue their ambulance was stuck on the M25 because of IB as happened last week.

One week these weirdos are telling us the World is cooking, the next it's so cold people are dying because of it - so which way is it? BTW Every year 10 people in the world die of cold for every one that dies of excessive heat.

Regards

NHP

p.s Out of interest, how many of you are aware, Globaly, Polar Bear populations are actually increasing

Reference / citation to ‘possibly 5000 years time’, ipcc report please
 
Top