Climate Change

Royal Game

Member
Messages
77
Reaction score
74
Location
Scotland
Aye, I don't doubt you.

Lack of investment in water treatment is astonishing, but no shortage of profits and shareholder dividends by the water companies.

Clearly the money for investment is there, but greed for profits takes precedence over clean waterways and dare I say it - healthy fish populations!

Makes me so angry to see these things.
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
3,028
Reaction score
2,314
Location
Colne
My auntie who I’ve been doing some work for was on my back about me knocking the vaccines back after being called? She said I must protect my dad who I care for with his Alzheimer’s but I just replied that what difference should it make if he’s had two Pfizer shots lol. Seems to me and I am getting round to the climate change topic, is that they constantly move the goalposts which you would expect if their original claims were either built on a lie or just a bit vague no?
I’ve no doubt in my mind climate change is absolutely real and I remember arguing with my brother in law over twenty years ago about it. But both Covid and climate change are being used to grift off ridiculous amounts of money from the very top, down to local councils and it’s that particularly that really gets my back up.

They must think we’re stupid by the way with there distraction news stories? Two recent examples are Cuomo killing thousands in care homes and lying about numbers which is very serious. And then would you believe it? A bunch of nothing allegations about being improper round women suddenly turn up, and just like that, the actual serious scandal about “killing people” just goes away?

Over here in U.K. another very serious matter of David Cameron Lobbying on the back of the Covid grift, to include billions for the old boy network and then suddenly we have ridiculous news stories about Boris Johnson’s wall paper as if anyone gives a f***?
So whilst I’ve no doubt that mankind has destroyed the earth and it’s climate? I also feel like I have a nose for BS and if the BBC can lie about weapons of mass destruction, why on earth would I wanna trust anything from then on?
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
3,028
Reaction score
2,314
Location
Colne
Another thread full of complete 💩 full of conspiracy theorists denying the obvious

Can we have this moved to the NON FISHING section as very little is actually relevant to salmon fishing

In fact...maybe we should create a new separate forum section ...maybe call it the flat earth brigade?

@Editor @Hardyreels please 🙏
For what it’s worth I don’t deny it, heck I’ve seen the change in my short lifetime. That said everyone is entitled to their opinion and there are those who use the obvious flat earth and lizard people allegations as a means of just shutting down the message.
 

Auldghillie

Well-known member
Messages
670
Reaction score
481
Can’t say I’ve come across the term let alone know what it means?
Well climate change and other geological / geographical changes on a world scale are usually slow and so imperceptible in the short term.

Climate change since around 1990 has been explosive/ runaway whatever term you like. But it’s amplified in polar/ arctic regions but hard to visualise sitting upon ones erse in the U.K. and listening to Pratt’s like Trump and Lawson.
 

Andrew B

Well-known member
Messages
3,028
Reaction score
2,314
Location
Colne
Well climate change and other geological / geographical changes on a world scale are usually slow and so imperceptible in the short term.

Climate change since around 1990 has been explosive/ runaway whatever term you like. But it’s amplified in polar/ arctic regions but hard to visualise sitting upon ones erse in the U.K. and listening to Pratt’s like Trump and Lawson.
Ah ok I’m with you. Funny as you mentioned Trump, happened to be on about this today with my Uncle who mentioned how bad Trump was re climate change? And course I couldn’t disagree with this, but I did mention how at least I thought Trump was at least more honest about him not really caring about the environment as oppose to those like Biden who being lifelong politicians around for 50yrs and have actually nothing of note, suddenly start going on about doing something which to me is even more disingenuous.
Oddly enough I would say folk like ourselves who have fished for a lot of years, are probably more in tune than most at noticing the environment and in particular climatic changes?
My take on it, has always been that from the start of the industrial revolution onwards, mankind has had the means to pollute the earth on a scale that just wasn’t possible before?
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
My cynicism about the press and its inability to objectively present facts about actual climate change (as opposed to the hypothesised "runaway AGW") started when I'd worked in southern Africa decades ago (I'd arrived at the end of the worst drought for decades), and a few years later Trevor MacDonald was on the box going on about the Limpopo drying up. Having lived in it's catchment for years I wondered why this was newsworthy, as it was at the end of a long seasonal drought and that kind of thing happened fairly regularly (though of course not as "well documented" [i.e. hyped, with flames easily fanned by internet connectedness]) as it is now.

Now Auntie is at it again, talking absolute cobblers about Mosi oa Tunya:

Then and now: When silence descended over Victoria Falls - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56902340

I've lost count of the times I've been there and seen it much dryer than that and then a few weeks later when the Angolan rains finally make it, overflowing to bursting. Sadly gullible folk will fall for this, as we've just seen.

Meanwhile there's a really interesting article on Unherd making some valid points about the horrors that lie ahead (from the press and government of course, not from the normal climate change we can expect):

How science has been corrupted - UnHerd
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-science-has-been-corrupted/

Philosopher Matthew B. Crawford: Science has become corrupted - YouTube

Snippets:

"...the whole point of authority is to explain reality and provide certainty in an uncertain world, for the sake of social coordination, even at the price of simplification. To serve the role assigned it, science must become something more like religion.

The chorus of complaints about a declining “faith in science” states the problem almost too frankly. The most reprobate among us are climate sceptics, unless those be the Covid deniers, who are charged with not obeying the science. If all this has a medieval sound, it ought to give us pause.

We live in a mixed regime, an unstable hybrid of democratic and technocratic forms of authority. Science and popular opinion must be made to speak with one voice as far as possible, or there is conflict. According to the official story, we try to harmonise scientific knowledge and opinion through education. But in reality, science is hard, and there is a lot of it. We have to take it mostly on faith. That goes for most journalists and professors, as well as plumbers. The work of reconciling science and public opinion is carried out, not through education, but through a kind of distributed demagogy, or Scientism. We are learning that this is not a stable solution to the perennial problem of authority that every society must solve.

The phrase “follow the science” has a false ring to it. That is because science doesn’t lead anywhere. It can illuminate various courses of action, by quantifying the risks and specifying the tradeoffs. But it can’t make the necessary choices for us. By pretending otherwise, decision-makers can avoid taking responsibility for the choices they make on our behalf.

Increasingly, science is pressed into duty as authority. It is invoked to legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from democratic to technocratic bodies, and as a device for insulating such moves from the realm of political contest.

Over the past year, a fearful public has acquiesced to an extraordinary extension of expert jurisdiction over every domain of life. A pattern of “government by emergency” has become prominent, in which resistance to such incursions are characterised as “anti-science”.

But the question of political legitimacy hanging over rule by experts is not likely to go away. If anything, it will be more fiercely fought in coming years as leaders of governing bodies invoke a climate emergency that is said to require a wholesale transformation of society. We need to know how we arrived here...

Public opinion polls generally indicate that what “everybody knows” about some scientific matter, and its bearing on public interests, will be identical to the well-institutionalized view. This is unsurprising, given the role the media plays in creating consensus. Journalists, rarely competent to assess scientific statements critically, cooperate in propagating the pronouncements of self-protecting “research cartels” as science.

Bauer’s concept of a research cartel came into public awareness in an episode that occurred five years after his article appeared. In 2009, someone hacked the emails of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain and released them, prompting the “climategate” scandal in which the scientists who sat atop the climate bureaucracy were revealed to be stonewalling against requests for their data from outsiders. This was at a time when many fields, in response to their own replication crises, were adopting data sharing as a norm in their research communities, as well as other practices such as reporting null findings and the pre-registration of hypotheses in shared forums.

The climate research cartel staked its authority on the peer review process of journals deemed legitimate, which meddling challengers had not undergone. But, as Gurri notes in his treatment of climategate, “since the group largely controlled peer review for their field, and a consuming subject of the emails was how to keep dissenting voices out of the journals and the media, the claim rested on a circular logic”.

One can be fully convinced of the reality and dire consequences of climate change while also permitting oneself some curiosity about the political pressures that bear on the science, I hope. Try to imagine the larger setting when the IPPC convenes. Powerful organisations are staffed up, with resolutions prepared, communications strategies in place, corporate “global partners” secured, interagency task forces standing by and diplomatic channels open, waiting to receive the good word from an empaneled group of scientists working in committee.

This is not a setting conducive to reservations, qualifications, or second thoughts. The function of the body is to produce a product: political legitimacy...

The spectacular success of “public health” in generating fearful acquiescence in the population during the pandemic has created a rush to take every technocratic-progressive project that would have poor chances if pursued democratically, and cast it as a response to some existential threat. In the first week of the Biden administration, the Senate majority leader urged the president to declare a “climate emergency” and assume powers that would authorise him to sidestep Congress and rule by executive fiat. Ominously, we are being prepared for “climate lockdowns...


Even less salmon fishing coming up...?
 
Last edited:

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
There’s a clear aggravation of pollution and abstraction by Climate Change since CC reduces flow naturally, abstraction does artificially and pollution load per cubic metre of water is increased. So the issues cannot be separated.

On the Southern issues: Countryfile interviewed an EA senior executive, you may have seen it, he said, paraphrasing: “ do you want me to leave Londoners thirsty “. The EA are the whipping boys really. This is lack of investment and a cost of uncontrolled immigration. Just wait, all spare Northern Water will soon go South. AG
I actually would love to fish the Trent. I never have. Never caught a barbel or a tench, or a carp. Let us get our power generation right and stop fannying about the requisite energy-needed business-wise for UK or all our states. Get kWh in I say!
 

Auldghillie

Well-known member
Messages
670
Reaction score
481
I actually would love to fish the Trent. I never have. Never caught a barbel or a tench, or a carp. Let us get our power generation right and stop fannying about the requisite energy-needed business-wise for UK or all our states. Get kWh in I say!
Know little about it but I think the upper Swale might be better - North Yorks.
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
My auntie who I’ve been doing some work for was on my back about me knocking the vaccines back after being called? She said I must protect my dad who I care for with his Alzheimer’s but I just replied that what difference should it make if he’s had two Pfizer shots lol. Seems to me and I am getting round to the climate change topic, is that they constantly move the goalposts which you would expect if their original claims were either built on a lie or just a bit vague no?
I’ve no doubt in my mind climate change is absolutely real and I remember arguing with my brother in law over twenty years ago about it. But both Covid and climate change are being used to grift off ridiculous amounts of money from the very top, down to local councils and it’s that particularly that really gets my back up.

They must think we’re stupid by the way with there distraction news stories? Two recent examples are Cuomo killing thousands in care homes and lying about numbers which is very serious. And then would you believe it? A bunch of nothing allegations about being improper round women suddenly turn up, and just like that, the actual serious scandal about “killing people” just goes away?

Over here in U.K. another very serious matter of David Cameron Lobbying on the back of the Covid grift, to include billions for the old boy network and then suddenly we have ridiculous news stories about Boris Johnson’s wall paper as if anyone gives a f***?
So whilst I’ve no doubt that mankind has destroyed the earth and it’s climate? I also feel like I have a nose for BS and if the BBC can lie about weapons of mass destruction, why on earth would I wanna trust anything from then on?
So-called 'vaccines' are distinctly not. What's being rolled out very largely globally, is in fact, a mRA concoction.

Gates, via corps, are on for a 200% mark up via lockdown vacc app. It's already self-admitted.

Yeah, a series of vacc companies that stand to make 200% self-disclosed $Billions off of you, and for furthermore.

I'll fight that for that. No prob.
 

keirross

Well-known member
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
132
Location
In a cooling North Atlantic...
My cynicism about the press and its inability to objectively present facts about actual climate change (as opposed to the hypothesised "runaway AGW") started when I'd worked in southern Africa decades ago (I'd arrived at the end of the worst drought for decades), and a few years later Trevor MacDonald was on the box going on about the Limpopo drying up. Having lived in it's catchment for years I wondered why this was newsworthy, as it was at the end of a long seasonal drought and that kind of thing happened fairly regularly (though of course not as "well documented" [i.e. hyped, with flames easily fanned by internet connectedness]) as it is now.

Now Auntie is at it again, talking absolute cobblers about Mosi oa Tunya:

Then and now: When silence descended over Victoria Falls - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56902340

I've lost count of the times I've been there and seen it much dryer than that and then a few weeks later when the Angolan rains finally make it, overflowing to bursting. Sadly gullible folk will fall for this, as we've just seen.

Meanwhile there's a really interesting article on Unherd making some valid points about the horrors that lie ahead (from the press and government of course, not from the normal climate change we can expect):

How science has been corrupted - UnHerd
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-science-has-been-corrupted/

Philosopher Matthew B. Crawford: Science has become corrupted - YouTube

Snippets:

"...the whole point of authority is to explain reality and provide certainty in an uncertain world, for the sake of social coordination, even at the price of simplification. To serve the role assigned it, science must become something more like religion.

The chorus of complaints about a declining “faith in science” states the problem almost too frankly. The most reprobate among us are climate sceptics, unless those be the Covid deniers, who are charged with not obeying the science. If all this has a medieval sound, it ought to give us pause.

We live in a mixed regime, an unstable hybrid of democratic and technocratic forms of authority. Science and popular opinion must be made to speak with one voice as far as possible, or there is conflict. According to the official story, we try to harmonise scientific knowledge and opinion through education. But in reality, science is hard, and there is a lot of it. We have to take it mostly on faith. That goes for most journalists and professors, as well as plumbers. The work of reconciling science and public opinion is carried out, not through education, but through a kind of distributed demagogy, or Scientism. We are learning that this is not a stable solution to the perennial problem of authority that every society must solve.

The phrase “follow the science” has a false ring to it. That is because science doesn’t lead anywhere. It can illuminate various courses of action, by quantifying the risks and specifying the tradeoffs. But it can’t make the necessary choices for us. By pretending otherwise, decision-makers can avoid taking responsibility for the choices they make on our behalf.

Increasingly, science is pressed into duty as authority. It is invoked to legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from democratic to technocratic bodies, and as a device for insulating such moves from the realm of political contest.

Over the past year, a fearful public has acquiesced to an extraordinary extension of expert jurisdiction over every domain of life. A pattern of “government by emergency” has become prominent, in which resistance to such incursions are characterised as “anti-science”.

But the question of political legitimacy hanging over rule by experts is not likely to go away. If anything, it will be more fiercely fought in coming years as leaders of governing bodies invoke a climate emergency that is said to require a wholesale transformation of society. We need to know how we arrived here...

Public opinion polls generally indicate that what “everybody knows” about some scientific matter, and its bearing on public interests, will be identical to the well-institutionalized view. This is unsurprising, given the role the media plays in creating consensus. Journalists, rarely competent to assess scientific statements critically, cooperate in propagating the pronouncements of self-protecting “research cartels” as science.

Bauer’s concept of a research cartel came into public awareness in an episode that occurred five years after his article appeared. In 2009, someone hacked the emails of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain and released them, prompting the “climategate” scandal in which the scientists who sat atop the climate bureaucracy were revealed to be stonewalling against requests for their data from outsiders. This was at a time when many fields, in response to their own replication crises, were adopting data sharing as a norm in their research communities, as well as other practices such as reporting null findings and the pre-registration of hypotheses in shared forums.

The climate research cartel staked its authority on the peer review process of journals deemed legitimate, which meddling challengers had not undergone. But, as Gurri notes in his treatment of climategate, “since the group largely controlled peer review for their field, and a consuming subject of the emails was how to keep dissenting voices out of the journals and the media, the claim rested on a circular logic”.

One can be fully convinced of the reality and dire consequences of climate change while also permitting oneself some curiosity about the political pressures that bear on the science, I hope. Try to imagine the larger setting when the IPPC convenes. Powerful organisations are staffed up, with resolutions prepared, communications strategies in place, corporate “global partners” secured, interagency task forces standing by and diplomatic channels open, waiting to receive the good word from an empaneled group of scientists working in committee.

This is not a setting conducive to reservations, qualifications, or second thoughts. The function of the body is to produce a product: political legitimacy...

The spectacular success of “public health” in generating fearful acquiescence in the population during the pandemic has created a rush to take every technocratic-progressive project that would have poor chances if pursued democratically, and cast it as a response to some existential threat. In the first week of the Biden administration, the Senate majority leader urged the president to declare a “climate emergency” and assume powers that would authorise him to sidestep Congress and rule by executive fiat. Ominously, we are being prepared for “climate lockdowns...


Even less salmon fishing coming up...?
Thanks, What was clear that was Aberdeen back late 80-early90s had some brilliant legacied start real expertise aided by the late, great
So-called 'vaccines' are distinctly not. What's being rolled out very largely globally, is in fact, a mRA concoction.

Gates, via corps, are on for a 200% mark ulost your liberties
 

rightangle

Active member
Messages
793
Reaction score
166
I see from one of the Met Office sites that we have just experienced the coldest average temps. for April since 1922.
 

salmo76

Well-known member
Messages
489
Reaction score
335
For all those who believe that covering the countryside in wind mills and other renewable energy schemes is the answer to stopping climate change (global warming ), I believe this article on the German experience should be a bit of an eye opener : -

 
Last edited:

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
3,599
Location
edzell
I find it strange, that all the professionals that get paid to advise on climate change and keep asking us to use less cars and aeroplanes because if we use less, it will make a difference to CO2 levels and as such a big difference to climate change and slow down the rapid rise of sea height.
Get a year of significantly less car and aeroplane journeys.
But havent come forward, showing us how it made a difference and how it behaved exactly as their models predicted.
 

Auldghillie

Well-known member
Messages
670
Reaction score
481
I find it strange, that all the professionals that get paid to advise on climate change and keep asking us to use less cars and aeroplanes because if we use less, it will make a difference to CO2 levels and as such a big difference to climate change and slow down the rapid rise of sea height.
Get a year of significantly less car and aeroplane journeys.
But havent come forward, showing us how it made a difference and how it behaved exactly as their models predicted.
I’ve been unfortunate enough to have been in the high Arctic several times in mid-winter and seen the results of CC only too well.

Causation is another matter but wind farms won’t solve it. It’s possible CC is even worse than estimated. Increased Hydro is the death knell for our rivers, especially in Scotland. It all adds up to doom. AG
 
Top