Climate change

Toasted heretic

Well-known member
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
32
'Apparently' Climate Change was to be the new fear story, post Covid.

Thus reported by scientists who don't take Government coin a good while back. They predicted this MSM plan about a year ago....so seems interesting as the 'new' agenda is happening as predicted.

Don't shoot the messenger, just find the whole scenario interesting.

I will be following this with much intent. Will be interesting to see how the MSM stray away from Covid onto Climate Chani

If not taking government coin whose coin do you suspect these scientists take?
 

uplands50

Active member
Messages
602
Reaction score
97
Location
Castell Nedd
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 increasi
Last I read, it’s melting 6 times faster than in the 90
Is the narrative, the vast majority of world scientists have concluded that man is unacceptably accelerating climate change because they’re in the pockets of Big Renewables and have a vested financial interest in wind farms? I don’t understand otherwise why there are so many people being armchair climatologists now. There’s not trusting everything you read - wise - and then there’s going against such a strong, qualified scientific consensus that it looks a bit… arrogant?
You are assuming that the “scientist are seeking the truth”, they are also looking for there publication count count for tenure, funding for research department, just imagine if government funding for climate change research were cut, they do have a vested interest in perpetuating it.

The climate models have been built on an assumption that anthropogenic Co2 emissions are the driver and the main stream climate science is endoctrinated with this. Dr Judith Curry had reservations she is basically an outcast now.

Some of the data manipulation used if you are from another scientific discipline is frightening as are the errors prior to data smoothing.

The climate is changing, it had always changed and will continue to change no matter what we do, just blaming fossil fuel seems trite really. Global population has increase about 5 fold in the past century we each breath out about 1 tonne of Co2 a year we are told that this does not count in the carbon cycle, however the Co2 generated by eating meat does. I am really struggling to understand this.

Please don’t think scientists have altruistic motives. Do some research in how the figure of 95% of scientists agree was generated that is quoted in the media, frightening.

Just for the record I am a scientist, I hate that term, and it think the recent divergence of views regarding COVID should make everyone realise that they don’t really know that much for sure, a climate model is a model, it’s not fact, and the old mantra, rubbish in rubbish out Needs to be remembered.

Just remember the earth switches magnetic poles every 300,000 years, I think that might cause quite a disturbance to the climate!!

Finished my rant
 
Last edited:

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
285
Saffy,
While I am on about the climate change narrative that the government is pushing. They are really ramping up the future uses of 'green hydrogen'.
As a former 'scientist' well I did get a science degree. What do you get when you burn Hydrogen. It produces heat and water vapour. Now we know that water vapour is approximately 3 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I know it is not as simple as that because of the water cycle which converts the water vapour into clouds and then rain. So if we are burning Hydrogen we are going to produce even more rainfall than present and increase greatly the amount of flooding in the world. Clearly somebody has not thought this one through or if they have we are not being told about it. I just don't trust politicians or the mainstream media.
 

Elibank

Well-known member
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
2,058
Location
Derbyshire
No. You are the one ascerting things. It's your job to prove it given the catastorphic outcome of implementing so called Climate Change Net Zero Solutions. It just so happens I've pointed out even the guardian angel of this stuff is talking mince. I can absolutely back up my statement cos' I've read it. I have the reference. I've given you the link. You, on the other hand can't be bothered to do so becuase you appear to be lazy intelelctually and generally. I've given you the choice. You can prove me wrong by taking the trouble to get off your backside and review the data set I have sent you; off you go now with Hoddom to read it all or please be quiet.

Regards

NHP
Do you speak to your clients in this way?
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
3,602
Location
edzell
Really struggling to believe that pretty much the whole of the global scientific community is pushing an agenda driven by money. My paranoia won’t stretch that far. There is overwhelming scientific consensus, then some blokes on a forum. Everyone knows we are exiting an ice age. It’s how quickly we do that. How able we are to survive as a species long term, but more short term, manage things like the mass migration that will follow - because man made or not, there will be one and so attitudes to immigration are going to have to change, fast. Though I suspect many folks would be happy to watch their equator-proximate brethren die rather than share resources. Separate argument. Climate change denial is, to my mind, another example of this:
View attachment 66974
Classic woke passive aggressive agenda there Saffy.
A better one would be of a turkey scientist saying look honey, ive found fault in the climate agenda with a christmas tree in the back ground.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
3,231
Did you even bother to read what is on the Nature Scot website, never mind do a search for more in depth information?
Honestly, no. Just like I don't have it in me to go over the work of virologists and immunologists to prove the covid/vaccine science 'wrong', I don't feel motivated to suspect the motives of climate scientists. I understand that science is funded, and therefore by no means neutral, but when the consensus is so overwhelming... I'm very happy to let people that are trained in their discipline, do their job. There will always be outlying counter-opinions but at some point you have to put a debate to bed, and I don't believe that 98% of scientists are in the pocket of nefarious forces.

Between 97 and 98% of actively publishing climate scientists are aligned, with multiple studies published in peer-reviewed journals, there are 200 scientific organisations worldwide with published statements, and of those published, peer-reviewed studies posing contrary views, their findings either can't be replicated or there are proven flaws in the methodology. I'm honestly happy to let a peer-reviewed community do its thing here, rather than people and organisations making their own graphs to build their own arguments. I'm sure it comes from the right place, but without the peer-review aspect, it's not science yet. It's theory and speculation. It feels like the area has been researched to death to be honest.
 
Last edited:

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
Honestly, no. Just like I don't have it in me to go over the work of virologists and immunologists to prove the covid/vaccine science 'wrong', I don't feel motivated to suspect the motives of climate scientists. I understand that science is funded, and therefore by no means neutral, but when the consensus is so overwhelming... I'm very happy to let people that are trained in their discipline, do their job. There will always be outlying counter-opinions but at some point you have to put a debate to bed, and I don't believe that 98% of scientists are in the pocket of nefarious forces.

Between 97 and 98% of actively publishing climate scientists are aligned, with multiple studies published in peer-reviewed journals, there are 200 scientific organisations worldwide with published statements, and of those published, peer-reviewed studies posing contrary views, their findings either can't be replicated or there are proven flaws in the methodology. I'm honestly happy to let a peer-reviewed community do its thing here, rather than people and organisations making their own graphs to build their own arguments. I'm sure it comes from the right place, but without the peer-review aspect, it's not science yet. It's theory and speculation. It feels like the area has been researched to death to be honest.
Aaaah, but....
The interesting thing about the peer reviewed science I mention is that it was not really carried out by "climatologists" (whatever they are.)
It is real scientists, that carried out the work years before climate change became a "thing". It is based on studying real geographical features, not based on "models" which were fed some sh!t in order to get the correct (read desired but sh!te) answer out the other end. I too, have a science degree like all the other not so easily fooled sceptics posting on the page.
Go and at least read what NatureScot has to say. It is easy to understand and NO pretendy climatologist would dare challenge what is written. If you cannot be bothered reading it, please at least stop posting drivel about "climate change".
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
371
Reaction score
275
Location
Wild west of Wales
Aaaah, but....
The interesting thing about the peer reviewed science I mention is that it was not really carried out by "climatologists" (whatever they are.)
It is real scientists, that carried out the work years before climate change became a "thing". It is based on studying real geographical features, not based on "models" which were fed some sh!t in order to get the correct (read desired but sh!te) answer out the other end. I too, have a science degree like all the other not so easily fooled sceptics posting on the page.
Go and at least read what NatureScot has to say. It is easy to understand and NO pretendy climatologist would dare challenge what is written. If you cannot be bothered reading it, please at least stop posting drivel about "climate change".
I’m not sure what your take on the Naturescot article implies? If you’re suggesting that they are denying anthropogenic global warming is a reality then you should delve a little deeper into their resources, you may be a little disappointed however..
 

uplands50

Active member
Messages
602
Reaction score
97
Location
Castell Nedd
Honestly, no. Just like I don't have it in me to go over the work of virologists and immunologists to prove the covid/vaccine science 'wrong', I don't feel motivated to suspect the motives of climate scientists. I understand that science is funded, and therefore by no means neutral, but when the consensus is so overwhelming... I'm very happy to let people that are trained in their discipline, do their job. There will always be outlying counter-opinions but at some point you have to put a debate to bed, and I don't believe that 98% of scientists are in the pocket of nefarious forces.

Between 97 and 98% of actively publishing climate scientists are aligned, with multiple studies published in peer-reviewed journals, there are 200 scientific organisations worldwide with published statements, and of those published, peer-reviewed studies posing contrary views, their findings either can't be replicated or there are proven flaws in the methodology. I'm honestly happy to let a peer-reviewed community do its thing here, rather than people and organisations making their own graphs to build their own arguments. I'm sure it comes from the right place, but without the peer-review aspect, it's not science yet. It's theory and speculation. It feels like the area has been researched to death to be honest.
You need to wake up and smell the roses, it’s not the graduate students doing their PhD research, but the Departments need funding and the research follows the funding and the department grows more published papers, more research money bigger research school, enhanced reputation. It’s 200 published papers for a DSc in the UK to become a Reader in the University. In the US publishing research is a critical part of obtaining tenure, ie a permanent position.

The peers who are reviewing the papers are generally aligned as you say, so they approve research that reinforces their views, counter arguments never get published therefore it stuggles to appears in the literature And the researchers are branded climate deniers.

The research follows the money and no body wants the hand that feeds them cut off by proving its all smoke and mirrors.

I think we should cut down Our dependence on fossil fuels, it cannot do any harm, nuclear is the way forward, we cannot run an industrial power hungry society on wind and solar. Solar cells don’t grow on trees, if you look at the manufacturing process if very energy intensive there are issues with batteries wind turbines, we still need to generate power for EV so all you are doing is moving the Co2 foot print if you believe that’s the problem.

Unfortunately i don’t think any one really knows what is happening climate changes, I haveread some stuff that Indicates there has been a significant temp rise in the deep ocean along the mid pacific ridge where the new land is formed as the tectonic plates move. This warming possibly due to what’s happening could easily be producing the Co2 rises in the atmosphere from Co2 desorption from the ocean, and will significantly alter global weather patterns.
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,704
Reaction score
2,680
Location
Cheshire
With respect to the Germany flooding.
It would be interesting to see when the highest ever level was there.
As ive said before all our highest levels round here are in the late 1800s early 1900s.
Again freak weather, 1947, 1976. Do you think that was due to climate change?
It would also be interesting to look at flooding events against precipitation and overlay other man made changes to the environment such as coniferous afforestation, changes to river courses and the amount of hard surfaces (rooves, tarmac, concrete).
Its not just about precipitation but also how quickly that gets down stream.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
I’m not sure what your take on the Naturescot article implies? If you’re suggesting that they are denying anthropogenic global warming is a reality then you should delve a little deeper into their resources, you may be a little disappointed however..
The climate is always changing. It says so on the website. At a time when man had no influence and with a rate of change many times worse than what may be occurring just now. Then the political officer added the bit you give a link for.....it does not change accepted science.
Anyway.
You missed the bit where I pointed out that not only were there a few trees on Lewis post last ice age (ie, warmer 5-10K years ago), the climate changed since then to allow the formation of peat over the tree stumps (at least 3000 years of a cooler climate). Now it is warming up again (peat eroding and the climate starting to favour trees rather than peat formation 9wont stop the conservationists leaching money to save the peat AND plant trees, lol).
When the trees grew 5+K years ago, the sea level was lower although the climate was warmer then. How does that fit in with the sea level rising now the climate is supposed to be getting warmer now. Or is the Isle of Lewis sinking? (although one would expect it to rise without the weight of one km of ice on top of it.
You need to open your eyes and see what is going on rather than taking in the nonsense spouted by "climatologists".
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
3,231
The climate is always changing. It says so on the website. At a time when man had no influence and with a rate of change many times worse than what may be occurring just now. Then the political officer added the bit you give a link for.....it does not change accepted science.
Anyway.
You missed the bit where I pointed out that not only were there a few trees on Lewis post last ice age (ie, warmer 5-10K years ago), the climate changed since then to allow the formation of peat over the tree stumps (at least 3000 years of a cooler climate). Now it is warming up again (peat eroding and the climate starting to favour trees rather than peat formation 9wont stop the conservationists leaching money to save the peat AND plant trees, lol).
When the trees grew 5+K years ago, the sea level was lower although the climate was warmer then. How does that fit in with the sea level rising now the climate is supposed to be getting warmer now. Or is the Isle of Lewis sinking? (although one would expect it to rise without the weight of one km of ice on top of it.
You need to open your eyes and see what is going on rather than taking in the nonsense spouted by "climatologists".
I'm just looking at their website. Why would they have a roadmap to net zero aligned with the timeline of the United Nations' SDGs if they didn't believe man is is accelerating climate change?

Why would their website say: Climate change isn’t a new phenomenon: what’s unusual is the rate, scale and causes of change. The world’s climate is changing – the scientific evidence is without doubt and the consensus is that this is due to human impacts, as well as natural factors. Left unchecked, climate change will speed up, with significant impacts for nature, our economy and society, here in Scotland and globally. We must plan for these changes – to try to overcome the negative impacts and benefit from new opportunities where we can.

That sounds very much to me like they have accepted the science you say they have disputed.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
3,231
Remember when Seeking mentioned the Loch Lomond readvance?
All those getting their knickers knotted over the current slight warming need to read up on that.
Plenty peer reviewed science and physical evidence to show that the earth warmed up rapidly (5-8 degrees in 100 years) 10000 years ago.
We are in an ice age at the moment....
Seen as this is a salmon fishing forum, I could take you to the Blackwater estuary at Garynahine on Lewis and show you tree stumps appearing from under the eroding peat, that are under 2ft of water on big spring tides. All you climate change clowns need to try and see that. it will help you realise how much of a con the current "climate change" nonsense is.

Basic science for dummies can be found here -
Your 5-8 degree temperature rise isn't accurate, nor is the timeframe.

When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster.

If you read the article, global temperatures rose 4 - 7 degrees over 5,000 years. Models suggest that if we carry on as we are, temperatures will rise between 2 and 6 degrees, in the next 100 years. We need to slow it down, to adapt.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
Your 5-8 degree temperature rise isn't accurate, nor is the timeframe.

When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster.

If you read the article, global temperatures rose 4 - 7 degrees over 5,000 years. Models suggest that if we carry on as we are, temperatures will rise between 2 and 6 degrees, in the next 100 years. We need to slow it down, to adapt.
I read that in two different peer reviewed articles written 10s of years ago. Not on a website run by a SG quango. I have not got the will to go and find them again, but I think Seeking may have provided a link in a previous climate debate on this website. Keirross will know where to find the data.
Don`t quote anything based on a model put together by a climatologist, lol.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
I'm just looking at their website. Why would they have a roadmap to net zero aligned with the timeline of the United Nations' SDGs if they didn't believe man is is accelerating climate change?

Why would their website say: Climate change isn’t a new phenomenon: what’s unusual is the rate, scale and causes of change. The world’s climate is changing – the scientific evidence is without doubt and the consensus is that this is due to human impacts, as well as natural factors. Left unchecked, climate change will speed up, with significant impacts for nature, our economy and society, here in Scotland and globally. We must plan for these changes – to try to overcome the negative impacts and benefit from new opportunities where we can.

That sounds very much to me like they have accepted the science you say they have disputed.
They never disputed anything. The "ice age" page will be written by scientists, but not the climate change guff which would have been written by a SG commissar.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
They never disputed anything. The "ice age" page will be written by scientists, but not the climate change guff which would have been written by a SG commissar.

Took 5 seconds to find this.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gl...-loch-lomond-stadial/the-loch-lomond-stadial/

The important part-

"Why is the Loch Lomond Stadial so important?​

The Younger Dryas cold period was a time when the climate changed rapidly, first a rapid cooling at the start of the Younger Dryas, then a rapid warming at the end3. Because of this rapid change over tens to hundreds of years, we study the Younger Dryas as it may hold clues to future rapid change."

Yet world leaders (except the polluters) gather to try and play god with the climate and condemn most of the population to high taxation, fuel poverty and horses and carts.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
3,231
They never disputed anything. The "ice age" page will be written by scientists, but not the climate change guff which would have been written by a SG commissar.
All the ice age page says is what everyone - schoolchildren and climate scientists alike - know. The earth moves cyclically through ice ages. That's not a gotcha. I've been to the caves where the most northerly evidence of humans exists from the last Ice Age. I still believe in Anthropocene climate change. The two things are in no way mutually exclusive.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
Try this-


There is a mention of the the scale of temperature change and timescale after the last colder spell in this paper. Almost all based on study of real evidence, and hardy a mention of evidence.
Real science from real scientists, with references to plenty more for people with time on their hands.
Contrast that paper to the absolute garbage getting passed off as science just 24 years later.
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
371
Reaction score
275
Location
Wild west of Wales
Try this-


There is a mention of the the scale of temperature change and timescale contained in this paper. Almost all based on study of real evidence, and hardy a mention of evidence.
Real science from real scientists, with references to plenty more for people with time on their hands.
Contrast that paper to the absolute garbage getting passed off as science just 24 years later.
So, are you saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature?
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,787
Reaction score
3,231
I read that in two different peer reviewed articles written 10s of years ago. Not on a website run by a SG quango. I have not got the will to go and find them again, but I think Seeking may have provided a link in a previous climate debate on this website. Keirross will know where to find the data.
Don`t quote anything based on a model put together by a climatologist, lol.
There's a difference between temperatures rising in Greenland - I think it was actually by 10 degrees in the Younger Dryas period you reference - and global climate change. The whole planet, as an aggregate, temperatures everywhere.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,429
Reaction score
1,070
Location
Isle of Lewis
There's a difference between temperatures rising in Greenland - I think it was actually by 10 degrees in the Younger Dryas period you reference - and global climate change. The whole planet, as an aggregate, temperatures everywhere.
Did you study science subjects at school?
I give in.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,468
Reaction score
3,602
Location
edzell
So, are you saying there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature?
Just out of interest, would you say there was no corelation with the moving of the North pole or direct increase of human population?
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
371
Reaction score
275
Location
Wild west of Wales
Just out of interest, would you say there was no corelation with the moving of the North pole or direct increase of human population?
I’m not qualified to answer. However, the first hypothesis is just that, the second intrinsically linked with co2 emissions.
 
Top