BBC at its finest....

[BenBhoy]

Church of England votes against plan to rewild 30% of its land by 2030 | Anglicanism | The Guardian Church of England votes against plan to rewild 30% of its land by 2030

Should have said I'm merely posting as an interesting article, I've no dog in that fight.

 

[WW.]

Church of England votes against plan to rewild 30% of its land by 2030 | Anglicanism | The Guardian Church of England votes against plan to rewild 30% of its land by 2030

Can't see rewilding churchyards as particularly respectful for those who wish to visit graves... Nor forcing vicars to leave the vicarage garden to grow wild. Restoration ecology and conservation have more credibility than 'rewilding' TBH.

 

[Freeforester]

I’ve met felt the need to try any ‘appeal to authority’ approach, clearly, but if there’s a peer reviewed paper explaining how all the man made carbon dioxide, all 17 out of 425ppm all manages to get up into the upper atmosphere and slows the jet stream to a stop over Europe alone but only in this summer and not last summer, I’ll certainly read with interest. I do recall the very wet summer following the eruption of Hunga Tonga in 2022, but that was presumably somewhat before the ‘carbon dioxide-driven climate crisis’ of today?

My friends in Inverness tell me it’s been a cool and wet summer this year, much as it was in Aberdeenshire in, er, the summer of 1976…

As for water shortages, our water supply capacity is more or less known, unlike our population figures, or the demand on that resource. The Spey is now a cause of concern due to man’s abstraction, and I’m aware that though Syria’s population has doubled in the past sixty years, their water supply has not; it was a cause for concern back then too, apparently. I’ve reported a water leak that has been here in Cumbria for some years now, and the authorities have been out and sprayed blue paint around the area a month ago, so as to appear to be effecting a repair.

The crie de coeur for those who come after may be as easily be viewed as a test of Malthus’s warning - I don’t personally subscribe to that hypothesis, I see the population stabilising around mid century, as per the demographic modelling suggests -though this doesn’t take into account any “unforeseen” depopulation event that several eg US government agencies are currently scrambling to address, so far with rather limited success - it ain’t what they say, but rather what they do that you should be paying attention to; more immediately, a mix between conditioning the gullible as to the prospects of water and energy resources being prioritised for AI than flesh and bones, and plain old ‘tragedy of the commons’.

 

[TringSaint]

Only time will tell who's right, not the SD experts.......I sincerely hope it's the climate change sceptics, otherwise the kids are never going to have the fun we had......

D.

When I did my degree in energy management back in the late 90’s, the evidence for man made climate change was clear then.
My dissertation was based on the changing climate and how the energy efficiency of domestic dwellings could play a major part in reducing emissions.

Every bit of science that was emerging on the subject then has shown to be right, and yet those who continue to deny what is happening cling to unfounded and discredited theories which never explain what is going on, just cast doubt over the real science.

I wish the current situation was a blip, I really do, but in the 29 years since I wrote that document, the vast proportion of the predictions have come to fruition, and I, like you, feel awful for the legacy that we leave for future generations.

 

[TringSaint]

I’ve met felt the need to try any ‘appeal to authority’ approach, clearly, but if there’s a peer reviewed paper explaining how all the man made carbon dioxide, all 17 out of 425ppm all manages to get up into the upper atmosphere and slows the jet stream to a stop over Europe alone but only in this summer and not last summer, I’ll certainly read with interest. I do recall the very wet summer following the eruption of Hunga Tonga in 2022, but that was presumably somewhat before the ‘carbon dioxide-driven climate crisis’ of today?

My friends in Inverness tell me it’s been a cool and wet summer this year, much as it was in Aberdeenshire in, er, the summer of 1976…

As for water shortages, our water supply capacity is more or less known, unlike our population figures, or the demand on that resource. The Spey is now a cause of concern due to man’s abstraction, and I’m aware that though Syria’s population has doubled in the past sixty years, their water supply has not; it was a cause for concern back then too, apparently. I’ve reported a water leak that has been here in Cumbria for some years now, and the authorities have been out and sprayed blue paint around the area a month ago, so as to appear to be effecting a repair.

The crie de coeur for those who come after may be as easily be viewed as a test of Malthus’s warning - I don’t personally subscribe to that hypothesis, I see the population stabilising around mid century, as per the demographic modelling suggests -though this doesn’t take into account any “unforeseen” depopulation event that several eg US government agencies are currently scrambling to address, so far with rather limited success - it ain’t what they say, but rather what they do that you should be paying attention to; more immediately, a mix between conditioning the gullible as to the prospects of water and energy resources being prioritised for AI than flesh and bones, and plain old ‘tragedy of the commons’.

View attachment 483318

Stop picking individual years and look at trends. That’s how science works, in case you didn’t know.

You don’t do one test, get a result and shout eureka, I’ve cracked it.
You test again and again and again to prove it’s not a fluke.

Trends are the same. You get outliers that you discount and you look at the trend that is occurring and you draw your hypothesis from that.

As for the weather in Inverness being wet, well in east anglia it’s parched. So? You don’t prove or disprove a scientific model based on two areas with point data.

You look at the country or the region and you take averages over a loooooooooong time and you then study the data and you draw your inferences.

This is something that quack science doesn’t do, because if it did then it would find the same conclusions as the real scientists do!

 

[Smellydog]

i stopped reading what you write a long time ago

I put him on my ignore list years ago....

 

[tackb]

I put him on my ignore list years ago....

I don’t do that I just don’t engage but I let myself down there !

Hey we’re all human

 

[Smellydog]

Has no one ever clicked as to why nothing really meaningful comes from the fossil fuel guzzling get togethers known as COP?

It's part of the Le Grande puppet show.

All the paid bias science is used for the convincing of the masses but behind the scenes the real science is known to our masters, who are set to dominate and tax us, hence nothing changes, except taxation and control.

The British are especially gullible after generation after generation being subjected to oppressive hierarchy rulership that crushed any rebellion by a minority whilst the spineless majority watch on like,,, well like sheep actually!

Bull**** Britain. It was so successful at one time it convinced enough fuzzywuzzies with it's bull**** to allow Britain to rule them. So much so a whole empire was constructed.

Unfortunately for Britain, the fuzzywuzzies had more backbone and when they finally smelled the bull**** started shooting back and the British ran off home.

And some are still proud to be British

Britain has always been a two tier society primarily.
The filthy rich and the establishment protect each other from the poor via passification and fear. Go figure.

 

[TringSaint]

i stopped reading what you write a long time ago

That’s a shame, as I always hope I can learn something from others, even if I don’t agree with them.

 

[TringSaint]

I put him on my ignore list years ago....

 

[Husky]

The climate is changing as it has always done, it seems that human activity has sped this process up.

We are told that Co2 levels are rising but in the past they have been higher and they have been lower.

Anyone who questions the changing climate and human activity is immediately labelled as a conspiracy theorist, nut job, climate denier and a host of other things.

Any scientist who dares to question it is labelled a crank and receives no media attention while those that agree with it are treated as God's and are forever in the media.

Why is there no reasonable sensible debate, why can't both sides discuss like adults ?

You only have to look at replies on this subject in a deer stalking forum and people calling each other names and putting one an other on ignore lists.

Anyway, I'm taking the dog out now it's cooler

 

[spanj]

Stop picking individual years and look at trends. That’s how science works, in case you didn’t know.

You don’t do one test, get a result and shout eureka, I’ve cracked it.
You test again and again and again to prove it’s not a fluke.

Trends are the same. You get outliers that you discount and you look at the trend that is occurring and you draw your hypothesis from that.

As for the weather in Inverness being wet, well in east anglia it’s parched. So? You don’t prove or disprove a scientific model based on two areas with point data.

You look at the country or the region and you take averages over a loooooooooong time and you then study the data and you draw your inferences.

This is something that quack science doesn’t do, because if it did then it would find the same conclusions as the real scientists do!

Patronising post of the year so far !!!!

You do realise the “data” has been gathered over what, maybe 150 years. The blink of an eye in real terms. “Real Scientists”, undoubtedly intelligent but desperate for funding as a rule. He who pays the piper and all that …..
I’ve no interest in joining your debating society but would urge you to consider others points of view

 

[TringSaint]

The climate is changing as it has always done, it seems that human activity has sped this process up.

We are told that Co2 levels are rising but in the past they have been higher and they have been lower.

Anyone who questions the changing climate and human activity is immediately labelled as a conspiracy theorist, nut job, climate denier and a host of other things.

Any scientist who dares to question it is labelled a crank and receives no media attention while those that agree with it are treated as God's and are forever in the media.

Why is there no reasonable sensible debate, why can't both sides discuss like adults ?

You only have to look at replies on this subject in a deer stalking forum and people calling each other names and putting one an other on ignore lists.

Anyway, I'm taking the dog out now it's cooler

You make some very good points.
Yes, co2 levels used to be much higher than today. But at that time large mammals didn’t exist - dinosaurs did.
Since then millions of tonnes of plant and animal material, all containing carbon , has been locked away, deep underground. This has resulted in co2 levels dropping and stabilising to the levels we recorded at the pre industrial era.
Since then we have been burning all that trapped carbon as fuel and releasing the co2 back into the atmosphere at rates that are unnatural.

The reason why anti climate change science is viewed as crack pot science is because none of the back story to this is made up. All of it is true and everyone knows it’s true, and as we burn these fuels we release co2 back into our atmosphere, turning our climate into one that closer resembles that of the planet millions of years ago. That is THE problem. Not that the climate is changing but the rate at which it’s changing.

So trying to tell the world that what we are seeing with our own eyes isn’t actually happening is questionable at best, dangerous at worst, as the longer we try to kid ourselves that we aren’t the problem, the longer it will continue and the more irrevocable damage we will cause to our planet and ourselves.

I know some on here think I’m a tw@t and to be honest I really don’t care. If I needed validation from a bunch of people that I don’t know then I would be on Facebook or X.

I write this stuff in the hope that you and others look into climate change with open eyes, do the research and make your own minds up.
Don’t believe me or anyone else on this site - this has to be something that you work out.

 

[Scarpa]

This was a great case of a handful of people challenging current scientific and medical belief.

The Doctor who Infected Himself to Solve a Medical Mystery - Guts UK

The Doctor who Infected Himself to Solve a Medical Mystery - The fascinating story of the discovery of a corkscrew-shaped bacteria (helicobacter pylori) and its link to stomach ulcers and stomach cancer. Australian

gutscharity.org.uk

But they did this by painstaking research, not posting pseudoscience on social media. Many aspects of current climate theory may well be wrong but the more experimental evidence we have the more likely we are to get closer to the facts.
And politicians and the establishment are the worst, many policies are the result of compromises, sustaining wealth and power and selling policies to the public.

 

[TringSaint]

Patronising post of the year so far !!!!

You do realise the “data” has been gathered over what, maybe 150 years. The blink of an eye in real terms. “Real Scientists”, undoubtedly intelligent but desperate for funding as a rule. He who pays the piper and all that …..
I’ve no interest in joining your debating society but would urge you to consider others points of view

Urrr no, we have atmospheric gas samples going back thousands of years thanks to ice cores.
The data is there is you want to go and find it.
Or, ignore my ‘patronising’ post and crack on.

 

[Smellydog]

The climate is changing as it has always done, it seems that human activity has sped this process up

No, human activity has not sped up the activity of climate change, it is a natural process.

 

[Smellydog]

Couldn't of put it better...

 

[Scarpa]

Given what we know of physical laws it is pretty much impossible for post industrial age human activity not to have increased the rate of climate change. How much we have done so is where the debate begins.

 

[Smellydog]

Is it not true that thousands of years ago fair skinned red haired people's travelled north to escape the burning sun in the south?
Must of been hotter than now I believe.

Given what we know of physical laws it is pretty much impossible for post industrial age human activity not to have increased the rate of climate change. How much we have done so is where the debate begins.

And how much have we reversed it by with green taxes started in the 90s.

 

[Scarpa]

Green taxes do bugger all unless the money is ring fenced for activities such as sustainable energy research or for directly mitigating pollution, which in most cases it is not, in fact I believe that in most of Europe and definitely the UK none of it is. It's just another way of raising money for the government tax coffers apart from the miniscule nudge effect of businesses and the population.