Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 15 2013, 01:40 AM

This should cheer up the deniers! MO 'bury bad news' on Christmas Eve!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html

Posted by: motormad Jan 15 2013, 09:16 AM

No doubt the governments will claim it's their decisive action that has caused this.
Nothing to do with you know, natural heat cycles of the earth.

In terms of the ecosystem despite the billions of us fatties on the earth, we are still a very minor part of the planets ecosystem.

Posted by: Blake Jan 15 2013, 09:42 AM

Has anyone actually checked what the IPCC say about this?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 15 2013, 10:03 AM

Oh come on; why let reasoned assessment get in the way!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 15 2013, 10:56 AM

And they are neutral?


What is is safe to say is that no-one really knows. Whether AGW is true or not suits different people and different countries.


This is interesting: Has the Met Office committed fraud? And it's alleged The Guardian are complicit.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/has-the-met-office-committed-fraud/

Posted by: On the edge Jan 15 2013, 12:13 PM

Of course no one knows. All we have are collections of numbers and observations gathered over a very long time. We can use these models to predict and therein lies the issue. The magnitude of the question means that precision isn't possible. Lets face it, in Newbury we can't even predict when a bus will arrive at any given stop, just produce evidence to suggest one might turn up.

The Daily Mail just wants to sell papers hence wants immediate and accurate results. If their journalists were that good how come they didn't predict the economic collapse? The UK's geographic position and that it is a small island means our weather is difficult to predict anyway. This latest information is no more than anyone should have been expecting.

Met Office committing fraud? No more than any other big organisation. Can your trust it? As experience shows it can't even predict the weather, answer is no.

Would respectfully suggest therefore, that the question should be, why don't we make the Met Office redundant and simply rely on Mrs Miggins and her seaweed? At least we'd know when to wear a rain mac.

Posted by: motormad Jan 15 2013, 12:26 PM

Sounds like the author of that wattsupwiththat link belongs on this forum along with the other crackpots!

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 12:31 PM

Well, I hate to say I told you so, but.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 12:36 PM

It had been thought that this would be 0.54C during the period 2012 -2016 but new data puts the figure for the 2013-2017 period at 0.43C


so the original estimate is out by 0.11C -

touble is a tenth of a degree does not sound good, so the telegraph sex it up & call it an error of 20%.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 15 2013, 01:17 PM

Told who, what?

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 02:17 PM

Everyone, that it's a con.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 02:19 PM

Right. And what would the reason for the con be?

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 02:38 PM

Because a lot of people, government included are making lots of cash out of this.

Posted by: Blake Jan 15 2013, 02:38 PM

But there is one essential point you have all missed.

The warming of the earth amid the emission of greenhouse gases is only a part of the wider, encompassing problem:
CLIMATE CHANGE

If you think we are all safe because there is a momentary slowing of temperatures, don't fool yourself. Climate change still means extremes of weather, floods, swathes of land made infertile, storms, tidal waves etc.

The problem of climate change has not abated and won't unless we all make the required paradigm shift in our lives and on a macro level.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 02:41 PM

What, telling people to stop being wasteful & over consumptive of natural resources?

If it were the opposite, I might go along with you.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 02:43 PM

Scare stories for children and the gullible.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 02:47 PM

To scare them into spending less......still not convinced.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 15 2013, 03:16 PM

Well, don't forget, Mockton is also Head of the Policy Unit for UKIP. So he'd fit in real well.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 15 2013, 03:21 PM

Quite agree!!

Most of the sceptics are hoping that 'global warming' simply means we won't need to go to Spain for a warm summer holiday. Bit like the sustainable energy issue; now we can do fracking its all OK and we don't need to worry.

Phew, glad that's all over. Now we can start worrying about real things like who won X factor...

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 15 2013, 05:51 PM

I'm not sure that there is any chance we can change anything, not without mass genocide.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 15 2013, 06:57 PM

Can you give me a timescale for this

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 07:03 PM

started about 10000 years ago. Been going on ever since.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 07:04 PM

No, 'cos it's myffic.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 07:06 PM

It's called climate change.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 07:21 PM

nah, that has been going on for aeons.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 15 2013, 07:43 PM

Sure, the climate changes, 15,000 years ago Blighty was in an ice age and that's a pattern that's been repeated for millions of years and is caused by the combination of several different natural variations in the earth's axis of rotation. But the real and measurable change in the global climate over the last century which is measurably increasing is different because it's very rapid, and it's thought to be caused by us - specifically by the carbon dioxide we've been pumping into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution from the coal and more lately the oil and natural gas we've burnt to fuel it.

The climate is changing, and that's easy to measure, the debate is about whether it's us that's really caused it, and whether any change is likely to continue for the next couple of generations. Scientific opinion is that we're guilty, and it is.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 08:37 PM

Strange, now that it's generally accepted that "global warming" has been proved to have ceased, all the clever money's on "climate change" still I suppose it's better than believing in the big sky pixie.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 15 2013, 08:53 PM

Currently, more global warmed, than warming. Climate change is a fact of life. The argument is whether it is man-made or not. The trouble is, the science isn't hard enough to know for sure.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 15 2013, 09:32 PM

where are you getting this from?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 15 2013, 09:50 PM

But it's not generally accepted that "global warming" has ceased.

The Torygraph reports an update to a Metoffice global temperature model, and the model is predicting a 0.1 degree lower average temperate in the next four years than the previous model predicted, and although 0.1 degrees in a predicted change of around 0.5 degrees is a large fractional error, 0.1 degrees in the next four years is an insignificant difference in an insignificant timeframe.

The threat of global warming doesn't really bite even in the next twenty years, the problem comes in the next fifty years where UK temperatures may have climed by a couple of degrees. That might not seem like a big change it may well have a disasterous effect on our climate and environment as native plants and commercial crops are attacked by pests and diseases which can newly thrive in the climate and fo rwhich they have not natural immunity.

There's no serious debate about the evidence of global warming. There are some parts of the world that have undenyably seen a cooling, but the evidence from the arctic ice is that the world is warming. There's also undenyable evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have risen since the industrial revolution, and that high atmospheric carbon dioxide is historically correlated with high global temperatures. The serious debate is about whether the temperature rises because of the carbon dioxide, or whether the carbon dioxide increases because of the temperature.

The green-house effect is an explanation put forward to support the theory that an increase in the carbondioxide concentration causes an increase in temperature, and that has strong scientific support, but atmospheric physics is not simple and that may not be the whole story and it's possible that global warming, which is real, is not caused by us, or has a more complicated cause than just carbon dioxide. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide for example, and it might be a worse culprit, and if the Chinese and Indians starting farming cattle then the methane produced might be what does for us - silent but deadly! There are other atmospheric polutants like sulphur dioxide that work in a diffent way to affect the amount of sunshine that gets to the surface. These are the kinds of thing I think the Metoffice are modelling - the contribution to global warming from atmospheric polutants. And yes, the model might be wrong, it would be arrogant to claim otherwise.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 15 2013, 10:14 PM

Oh well, so long as it's nice and warm for the holidays. And we'll save on the heating, nice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 15 2013, 10:23 PM

Posted by: Blake Jan 16 2013, 09:01 AM

If anyone is in doubt, I suggest reading data from the IPCC.

In addition, read Heat; How to Stop the World From Burning by George Monbiot.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Jan 16 2013, 09:15 AM

"lefty, multicultural crap!"

Posted by: Blake Jan 16 2013, 09:17 AM

The Olympic opening ceremony? You are off-topic.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 16 2013, 09:34 AM

Yeah, it should have been right wing, xenophobic propaganda.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 16 2013, 11:38 AM

Nonsense. It is an established scientific fact that the north polar ice cap is receding, in other words it has been observed and measured over time. Even you cannot deny that. The less ice there is, the more heat is absorbed instead of being reflected, thus contributing to a vicious circle. The more the ocean warms up the greater the threat of extreme weather events and the very survival of the food chain.

Whether or not anyone believes this is caused by man it is certainly a contributing factor (science, again) and we need to reduce that contribution to lessen the risk to our future as far as we are able.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 16 2013, 02:53 PM

Meanwhile, significant snow forecast for Friday. Up to 10cm.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 16 2013, 04:39 PM

Yeah, this 'warming' is a real bugger.

Posted by: motormad Jan 16 2013, 07:25 PM

Perhaps the poles are reversing and Norway will be the new Majorca.

Posted by: lordtup Jan 16 2013, 07:57 PM

Which allows me to air one of my personal rants , why are measurements in weather forecasts given in metric. Yes I know 10 cm is about 4 inches but I still have to mentally convert in order to get an indication. Until they ban imperial measurement completely I say use it .

Posted by: Strafin Jan 16 2013, 08:01 PM

But then the other half of the population wouldn't understand?!

Posted by: Penelope Jan 16 2013, 08:08 PM

We can only hope. Costa Blanca here we come

Posted by: JeffG Jan 16 2013, 08:16 PM

Perhaps you should get a modern rule. Then you can see for yourself what 10cm looks like.

I don't suppose you still think of temperatures in Fahrenheit, do you? I am probably as old as you are, but have moved on.

Posted by: motormad Jan 16 2013, 08:23 PM

Surely to someone of your considerable aptitude can multiply 4x2.5 without breaking into a sweat.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 16 2013, 08:27 PM

Surely we all know what 10cm/4" looks like?

Posted by: JeffG Jan 16 2013, 08:37 PM

Speak for yourself!

Posted by: lordtup Jan 17 2013, 01:29 PM

Yes I still think in fahrenheit , pounds and ounces ,and for that matter LSD . I see no reason " to move on " as you say just to appease the " progressives " who introduced the system in the first place .

Posted by: JeffG Jan 17 2013, 08:30 PM

Maybe it's because I have a scientific background that I am able to accept a more sensible range of units. Mutliples of 10 and the freezing point of water being 0° and boiling at 100° make so much more sense to me. 212°? Yeah, right.

Somehow, I don't think you still convert money into LSD after 42 years, really.

I have just realised what NWNREADER meant by the 10cm/4" comment. My point about the (measuring) rule was that it should be possible to visualise what 10cm looks like without bringing its imperial equivalent into the equation at all.

Posted by: Penelope Jan 17 2013, 09:19 PM

Most of my money got converted to LSD in the 60's.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 17 2013, 09:36 PM

Posted by: blackdog Jan 18 2013, 11:41 PM

Why base a temperature scale on the state of water? Where the SI system makes sense is the way it all hangs together in a simple way, not that water freezes at 0 (okay - I know it's really 273.15K).

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 19 2013, 11:21 AM

Not meaning to divert the thread, but another environmental issue is mentioned on the Beeb today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21078176

The story doesn't mention who the signatories are, but the EU has gone ott on fluorescent lighting at the expense of incandescent. Fluorescent lights require mercury to operate..........

Posted by: Penelope Jan 19 2013, 01:43 PM

Ahhh, a night with Venus and a lifetime with mercury.

Posted by: gel Jan 19 2013, 03:07 PM

and of course EU behind early closure of our local power station, Didcot A:
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/didcot/9935617.DidcotAstationsettoclosenextMarch/

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 19 2013, 04:08 PM

Steady, that's not quite true is it?

Posted by: lordtup Jan 19 2013, 04:26 PM

To be serious for a moment I agree with your statement on visualisation , now it could well be that these things are impaired into our sub concious during those informative years of our childhood. I remember at primary school doing long division of both the imperial weights and measures along with money . Metrication is a much simpler system and a lot more logical though the use usage of 12 as opposed to 10 is not quite as silly as it seems.
The sad fact is that I spent the best part of 30 years dealing with the old system , though had I undertaken a science degree instead of my chosen path I would be a little more enlightened on the mental picture of 10 cm , 5 ltr or 25 hectares .

In defence of Lsd I wonder just how many on here actually know what it stands for and why it's so called . The fact that I still refer to it has more to do with respect for it's position in our history than a desire to abolish the present system.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 19 2013, 04:34 PM

Librae, solidi, denarii

And I still remember "a hundred pence are eight and fourpence"! Engraved on my memory. (Yes - and I remember those long divisions too, and the exercise books with the conversions from rods, poles and perches etc. on the back.)

The first computer I worked on actually had inbuilt instructions to convert to and from sterling. Ah, those were the days...

Posted by: lordtup Jan 19 2013, 05:42 PM

Go to the top of the class " G " , as a matter of interest is sterling still em sterling, or has it fully adopted that dreadful British pound appellation ?

Posted by: JeffG Jan 19 2013, 08:55 PM

As far as I know, sterling meant pounds shillings and pence.

(and grr! one of my smoke alarms has started beeping and I've got no 9 volt batteries.)

Posted by: Penelope Jan 20 2013, 12:43 AM

I expect the global warming sets it off.

Posted by: lordtup Jan 20 2013, 09:33 AM

Got me seeking my own answer now . It would appear that sterling is derived from the Latin libræ sterilensis monetæ which in turn refers to a small silver coin introduced as the monetary standard by the Normans . Items that contained a minimum of 93.5 % silver were thereafter deemed sterling silver . Solid silver being to soft to retain it's composition .

Not much use to to a smoke alarm with a dud battery .

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 20 2013, 12:39 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21100021

Posted by: JeffG Jan 20 2013, 12:54 PM

What does the good news about the lack of need of a hosepipe ban, have to do with whether or not one believes in climate change? In any case, not believing in climate change when the scientific evidence is incontrovertible (polar ice receding etc.), is akin to believing that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Unless you are mixing up climate change with anthropogenic global warming, which is disputed by some.

Posted by: lordtup Jan 20 2013, 07:39 PM

The question is probably as simple as that, the answer though is far more complex . Can we halt the advance by changing our consumer habits or do we adapt to a future that may be pre-ordained by the planet itself ?
If we base our actions on the former then we run a real risk of stifling our natural advancement as a species , by assuming the latter and we are wrong then another mass extinction ensues .

Still at least it will solve the problems of the economic recession .

Posted by: JeffG Jan 20 2013, 08:06 PM

But is it really advancement to use up non-renewable resources? I prefer the better safe than sorry approach.

Posted by: lordtup Jan 20 2013, 08:22 PM

The principal is sound , my concern lies at the door of controlling influence . If we all woke up tomorrow morning with a collective desire to act in a positive manner towards global resources I am sure we would all benefit . The sad reality is we won't which only leads to government intervention : and we all know what an unmitigating disaster that will be

Posted by: Penelope Jan 20 2013, 08:40 PM

Crank up the heating, when it's gone it's gone.

Posted by: motormad Jan 20 2013, 09:03 PM

Does make me laugh how it's only the older generation that complain the measuring system is not to their liking.....

Posted by: lordtup Jan 20 2013, 09:13 PM

Hopefully we will evolve wings and fly south for the winter . Yes I know its a long way and we risk getting shot by the inhabitants of Southern Europe but it seems like a plan worth pursuing .

No dafter than waiting for divine intervention .

Posted by: lordtup Jan 20 2013, 09:22 PM

Then laugh at this , in X number of years you to will be of an age where the younger generation mock and hold you to ridicule over something that you accepted as the norm in your younger days .

The only redeeming factor is that you won't give a d**n what they think .

Posted by: motormad Jan 20 2013, 09:45 PM

I would accept that change happens and as I get older and more out of touch with reality and the "modern" way that I too would have to keep up with it.
If people spent just half the time learning the current measurements as they do spending time moaning about how it's not a tuppence and a shilling (seriously what are we, 1940s?) then you'd probably find yourself living a much more happy, enjoyable life.

H.ell, when I was 12 they used to have turkey twizzlers. They don't have them any more but I don't go onto forums moaning about it.

Posted by: x2lls Jan 20 2013, 09:47 PM

Don't we all complain about anything which is not to our liking?

You for instance,complain about drivers who do 20 mph through a 30 mph speed camera.

Posted by: x2lls Jan 20 2013, 09:54 PM

Oh dear me!

You have so much to learn.

Posted by: motormad Jan 20 2013, 10:00 PM

Well you raise an interesting point.
We do complain about things which are not to our liking - HOWEVER - there are things which are tiny things, Sainsburys not having any Profiteroles, people doing 20mph in a 30 zone, etc. Then there are things which none of us can even begin to comprehend - the measuring system. I understand there are people who drive Fords on the road. So in the grand scheme of things people doing 20 in a 30 is not a big issue.

Like old people and computers, I work with some fantastic blokes and a couple of them are in their 60s and are better than me on the computer, I don't see these people complaining about the measuring system, they are keeping up with life and the times. Likewise in my senior years (or the wee-bag years as my mate coined them ) I would not be stuck in the rut of days gone by, I would as much as possible try to adapt.
Where as people like my mother who can't even find the CD drive let alone put a CD in it, despite "trying" to learn, don't - because she's far too old fashioned.

Everyone has much to learn, young and old alike. Then again I'm rapidly approaching my middle ages. You should also know that not everything I say is literal let alone correct in most cases.

on the topic of global warming, global freezing more like. Bring on the summer.. let's all buy Range Rovers and make it a good one.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 20 2013, 10:28 PM

When we have a long dry spell it is climate change - we are all going to fry. When we have long periods of rain it is global, warming leading to flooding and raised sea levels.
A hot spell? Global warming. A cold spell? Climate change.

Climate is an evolutionary, not a static situation. The evolution is not over 10 or 20 or 50 years, but over the life of the planet and part of the wonder that is 'Nature'. Of course 'we' can make a difference to the welfare of the planet, but I am not sure what proportion of the change is man-made, and I am not sure the extent to which Mother Nature can compensate.
Minimising waste makes sense, but at the moment so many decisions are being made that make no sense, all in the name of saving the planet but really only lining the pockets of those that say their product is essential. Wind farms and low-energy bulbs being just 2 examples.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 21 2013, 10:58 AM

Yours is a common misunderstanding. Global Warming is concerned with the average temperature of the atmosphere and oceans of the Earth. Climate Change is the change in predicted weather patterns on the planet. Hot and wet spells are local climates and have little baring on on global averages.

The big question is whether it is man-made or not (Anthropogenic Global Warming). I understand that scientific consensus says it is, but it is not science fact.

Posted by: Jayjay Jan 21 2013, 11:12 AM

Do not be to hard on him. I can remember saying a very similar thing when I was young, thinking all older people were out of touch, now I am there it is a different story.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 21 2013, 11:45 AM

Actually, thinking about it, I ought to duck out of this discussion. My oil-fired central heating is on all day during this cold spell.

(I meant everybody else, of course!)

Posted by: motormad Jan 21 2013, 11:46 AM

Kill all the polar bears!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 21 2013, 05:39 PM

The thing I find amusing is 'motomouth' ( ) is usually the first person to complain about people who complain!

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 21 2013, 05:40 PM

we are doing.

Posted by: gel Mar 23 2013, 12:10 PM

Another day of global warming weather.

Power soon to be in short supply it's rumoured, and DIDCOT A closed down for good yesterday
thanks to some EU Carbon Directive.

It still had years of life left but for EU Directives which apparently from April also add another £30+
to everyone's electricity bill from April; another hidden carbon tax

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10309369.Didcot_Power_Station_switched_off_by_the_man_who_turned_it_on/

Posted by: On the edge Mar 23 2013, 02:05 PM

No, another day of climate change weather! Feel the mechanical gubbins behind your fridge/freezer - 'shock / horror' its hot, you ought to get that fixed.

Seem to remember a lot of emotion and upset back in the 1960s because Didcot was being put up - back then the locals didn't like the emissions, so perhaps EC have taken heed of what our Berkshire forbears were saying.

The real madness was letting a protected German utility run a power station for us. Didcot is only closing because they have failed to invest in the cleaning plant. They weren't able to escape that in their home territory, so couldn't afford to invest here.

Still, I'm sure we'll learn the lesson won't we? Would we really be so daft as to let the French nationalised equivalent of CEGB build and run our nuclear power stations?

We've also very little gas storage capacity in UK, so again in the hands of our continental cousins, RWE, EdF, E.On and Scottish Power's Spanish owners.

I wonder what will happen to energy prices and utility profits?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 23 2013, 08:25 PM

Why is it that all of the 'global warming' doom sayers now trot out the same old tired mantra? "its not global warming, its climate change? Five years ago it was heresy to 'deny' Global warming and now a lot of the scientific community are admitting that the Earth isn't actually warming any more (infact it may be cooling) they simply paint the same old bandwagon a different colour and jump straight back into the middle of it! So the climate is changing? so what? it always has. Its what has driven evolution. The Polar bear everyone is so concerned about only evolved to deal with the cooling of the worlds climate, they used to be brown bears.

waiting for the vitriol and spite that wil no doubt come my way with interest!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 23 2013, 08:50 PM

No vitriol or spite, just take a long view of the numbers. I'm not going to add anything, after all even Malthus was wrong about food production v population wasn't he?

Frankly, its the economic argument that worries me. UK hot or cold, fuel prices are set to rise dramatically. Yes, we can stop the 'green tax' but that will only reduce prices once off by 15% or so. Yes, we can burn coal again, after all we've started sticking fingers up at Europe, however, there is a big cost and time lag to re starting that industry. Equally, most of the coal is 'hard to get'.

So, in terms of what is or isn't happening to the environment, why worry? In the long term we are dead. Nevertheless, in the meantime, without economic fuel supplies, how are we going to keep warm / chilled, make things or move about?

I'm sure it will all blow over and we'll be worrying about something else soon. Lets leave this one to the kids...

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 23 2013, 09:10 PM

Good idea, the young know everything so I'm told. They can sort it out.

Posted by: Andy1 Mar 24 2013, 11:13 AM

The adults have done a fine job of it so far.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2013, 12:23 PM

In one word? Fracking!

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 24 2013, 01:14 PM

When it is hot and/or dry it is 'Evidence of Global Warming'.
When it is cold and/or wet it is 'Evidence of Climate Change'.

Same with political parties - whatever happens is evidence of the paucity of the Govt policy/brilliance of the Opposition or the brilliance of the Govt/paucity of the Opposition stance.

The planet has existed for millions of years, evidence is based on figures going back around 150 years.....

Man can do his bit, but Nature has her ways.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 24 2013, 04:31 PM

Always a good idea to keep an eye on the fuel gauge when on a long journey.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 24 2013, 05:43 PM

When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 24 2013, 06:05 PM

That's an interesting one isn't it? We are being told that over fishing is leaving areas of the sea like a desert so the gulls are going to go hungry. Again, what b*******. Whales made a come back and the Americans haven't missed the Bison.

Another interesting scare story, do you know anyone who was actually affected by the fall out cloud that was said to have floated over GB?

Still it all helps keep the red face press in business!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2013, 06:32 PM

I also understand that 98% of species are extinct.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 24 2013, 07:37 PM

Well we are all dead in the long term so why bother? Things generally sort themselves anyway. So live and let live! Imagine, if we really did that bye bye NTC!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 24 2013, 09:00 PM

Bit of good news on the energy front! Following the shock/horror stories about us not having enough gas in store, DECC have come out of the long grass and said there is plenty of gas. Storage isn't our only source and they are working with National Grid to get more when we need it. At least that will stifle worries about being able to afford it, particularly during this cold snap. So, as the big chill is set to last several more days yet; it's safe to crank up the heating at least.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 24 2013, 09:19 PM

Most of them before man came along?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 25 2013, 12:32 AM

So what.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 25 2013, 07:36 PM

Govt. Chief Scientist says these cold winters are here to stay. All down to climate change! What a pity he didn't check out this forum or come to West Berks first; we know better don't we lads!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2013, 10:24 PM

But I thought winter was supposed to be cold, when its a warm winter it's down to global warming, when it's cold it's down to climate change. No one ever hear of frost fairs?.

Posted by: motormad Mar 25 2013, 10:30 PM

Because they can tax on Global warming...... !!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2013, 10:32 PM

Exactly, too much money being made to admit its flawed science.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 25 2013, 10:41 PM

So if they don't raise tax through apparent green measures, where does the money come from for all the flood defences that need erecting?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 25 2013, 10:56 PM

I'll remind you of that when we are all coughing our last beacuse we thought it our ******** given right to do what we want whenever & however.

I'm not so worried about myself, but I have a feeling my children's children are going to face not qite so much a 'Wonderful World'

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2013, 11:16 PM

That's OK 'cos I don't worry about you either.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 25 2013, 11:23 PM

which is excatly the atitude that has trashed most of the planet. Cool eh.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 26 2013, 12:05 AM

whilst you of course have all the answers, bravo!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2013, 12:13 AM

Raise taxes to pay for sea and flood defences? Or perhpas bury one's head in the sand and let the next lot sort it out!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 26 2013, 12:39 AM

It is sad that you need someone else to point them out to you.

Such is the foolhardiness & arogance of our kind.

Dave Bartholomew - 'The Monkey Speaks His Mind'..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vZeLSwz-Dw

Posted by: On the edge Mar 26 2013, 07:57 AM

Yeah, we all did history, but perhaps because some of us were kept in, we found out about the law of averages and that natural progression isn't a straight line, even when the overall direction is up.

You are quite right, though, so what, its just even more cold in winter and probably even more hot in summer. We've got plenty of gas, and when do farmers ever stop moaning. We'll be OK - the Daily Mail says so.

Apparently there have been no frost fairs on the Thames since they put in the embankment, makes the water level much higher and the tide faster. Now Thames isn't used for shipping, perhaps a re think in order, lets restore it to original state, which would save us all millions on Thames Water's super sewer idea.

Posted by: Blake Mar 26 2013, 09:43 AM

If anyone is confused by the very real issue of climate change, I can wholeheartedly recommend the book by environmental expert George Monbiot; Heat; How to Stop the Planet Burning, Allen Lane, 2006.

It has had stellar reviews and I think represents a concerted effort to get to the truth on this pressing threat to our future.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 26 2013, 12:02 PM

If global warming / climate change exists due to the presence of mankind on the planet then nothing is going to stop it until the population is decreased.
Is that going to happen?...............NO!!
Current trend is for another 1billion by 2025.
In a word.........frightening!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 26 2013, 12:16 PM

Agreed. I don't think global warming / climate change is the biggest threat to society; I believe it is water, energy and food famine; viz, over population. Although that isn't strictly true. A part of the problem is The West is taking much more than its fair share.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 26 2013, 12:40 PM

Well at least they won't be moving here now Mr C has shut the door! We'll be OK in our Island.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 26 2013, 12:44 PM

Another trouble maker. He'd get short shrift round here - a vexatious complainant if ever there was one.

Posted by: Blake Mar 26 2013, 12:45 PM

Yes, but surely all those phenomena are interconnected?

To put it simply; more people means more Co2 emissions. Yes, we need the world population to shrink hugely over the coming years.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 26 2013, 01:50 PM

But that's called joined up thinking. We don't do that, not in these parts! Whatever next?

Posted by: Blake Mar 27 2013, 02:07 PM

A valid explanation based on science, not media gossip and plebeian cynicism;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss?CMP=twt_fd

Posted by: On the edge Mar 27 2013, 04:50 PM

Thanks for that.

I suspect we are in for a good few 'uncomfortable truths' even in the coming months. We aren't going to like increase in fuel costs as the winter bills start to arrive and that's just the start. We'll also pay more for food and of a lower quality. When should we start to worry? 20 years ago would have helped.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 27 2013, 04:58 PM

And the extended cold weather means we are using more of it. The forecast is now mid-April before we get out of this current spell.