[Bucksiron]

No, I wasn’t, NI, but thank you for the clarification — I agree entirely. This is where the focus should now be going, to mitigate the impact of climate change because reducing CO2 emissions will effectively do nothing.

What we also do need to do, however, is reduce pollutants because these are very damaging to health; and people need to understand that CO2 is not a pollutant. Millions in poorer nations are being exposed to highly toxic pollutants as a result of having to cook and keep warm with open fires in unventilated spaces. Access to cheap energy would dramatically increase their lifespan and standard of living. Net zero means this is unlikely to happen, though hopefully the African nations will stick two fingers up to the extreme environmentalists, pump their own oil and grow their own economies.

One big problem with hydrogen is that it’s a very small molecule and very difficult to stop leaking, which is why it almost certainly won’t be suitable for domestic use unless mixed with natural gas. This means it could be some time before hydrogen-powered vehicles are available and the irony here is that EVs are probably going to do far more environmental damage than existing ICEs.

Siderite, I’ll bet you £10,000 that 20 years from now, when I hope we’ll both still be around, the predictions being made about global warming will be wrong. Are you up for it?

[Bucksiron]

I’m not attempting to defend Swann, NI, in fact the complete opposite. The point remains that his personal business interests are highly likely to be having a big impact on the decisions he makes and it seems reasonable to assume he’ll need every penny he can get out of the sale of the club.

Had this not been the case he might have been more inclined to sell and move on.

[Bucksiron]

I look in the mirror all the time and I’m very comfortable with what I see. I’ve always said the Tories are far from perfect and this is just one example of it.

What’s also shocking is how many people took advantage of the pandemic by claiming money to which they weren’t entitled, while in many cases continuing to earn money by working when saying they couldn’t and not paying a penny of it back again. Forget £29m, this is billions we’re talking about; and many of those people weren’t Tories.

But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of anything.

[Bucksiron]

There you go again, Siderite, sounding every bit the climate change zealot. It’s extraordinary how someone as intelligent as you can be fooled into making the comments you do about ‘misleading data’, ‘omitting many key details’ and ‘showing one thing which suits a narrative’. John Christy is a climate scientist who doesn’t agree with the establishment view. There many more who agree with him but don’t hold the secure academic position he does and therefore daren’t speak out.

In physics Christy would be welcomed as someone with an alternative view, but in climate ‘science’ alternative views aren’t allowed. This makes a mockery of the climate ‘science’ community; and those who make absurd claims comparing Christy to someone who would support smoking regarding lung cancer are in cloud cuckoo land. There are two variables with smoking and lung cancer, which are easy to analyse. For climate there are literally hundreds of variables, many interacting with each other and all on a global scale. We know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the oceans, while you only have to look at clouds and experience how they change temperature on your face to understand that modelling them on a global basis is impossible.

Yet climate science claims it can predict what’s going to happen in the years to come at remarkable levels of accuracy. It can’t and any proper scientific community would understand and recognise this, but this is no longer about science. Now it’s about politics and money.

NI, it doesn’t matter what action is taken, you won’t stop climate change. Ever. It’s what Mother Nature has always done and what Mother Nature will always do; and your mate’s son-in-law is 100% correct. EVs aren’t anything like as clean as the ‘experts’ would love you to believe. Not only that but the human cost in mining the materials needed for EV batteries is a scandal.

Net zero is a total and utter con. It’s driving hundreds of millions into poverty and depriving billions of others from the energy that could lift them out of poverty, increase their lifespan and make their lives infinitely better.

[Bucksiron]

Oh, so you are going to comment further, Siderite. Anyway, you won’t be reading this so that doesn’t matter.

Another good try but as for ‘manipulating’ data, seriously? You’re doing exactly what climate change zealots always do, which is to imply that Christy can’t be trusted, which is absolute nonsense. I think you’ll find that Christy makes very clear what he’s done and how and why he’s done it throughout his work, although the video to which you refer gives him no opportunity to do so. As for taking any ‘wise sages’ beyond doubt, no I’m not. All that I’ve done is point out that for every ‘debunk’ you’ll invariably be able to find a debunk that debunks the debunk. Confusing and crazy? Very much so but that’s the state this supposed ‘science’ is in. The truth is that Christy doesn’t need to ‘manipulate’ data as you’re implying, i.e. unscrupulously, because the data speaks for itself, as you would find if you actually took the trouble to study it.

As for clouds, there’s nothing remotely archaic about them. All you’re doing is what you always do, which is to make the case for man-made global warming/climate change. Nobody, including me, is arguing with you. What you’re missing, as always, is the magnitude of the problem , which you can’t determine without hard data, which takes us back to models and statistics; and this is where the man-made climate change argument always falls down.

In truth it always will, for very sound reasons. You love your ‘shill’, which is a classic Guardian word also beloved by Gurny, but sticking this in front of ‘supercomputer’ to imply sarcasm doesn’t alter the facts oner little bit. Of course climate doesn’t equal weather, but you’d be better off telling others on here about that rather than me.

Climate is non-deterministic, involves numerous variables that interact with each other in ways that will never be able to be modelled with even the biggest — and shillest — supercomputer imaginable; and we don’t actually understand much about a great deal of it. Clouds are just one example and, no, your explanation doesn’t even begin to cover the realities of what we’re talking about here.

I’d put my house on none of the predictions being made now by climate scientists about the climate in 50 years being correct. OK, that’s hardly a fair bet given many of us are unlikely to be here then, but in many ways that’s the entire point. It’s so easy for climate ‘scientists’ to make these predictions and for politicians and so-called ‘experts’ to use them to scare the daylights out of people because they won’t be held accountable for them.

[Bucksiron]

While I have zero sympathy for Swann we have to be realistic and accept that his business interests will almost certainly have been hit very hard, first, by the pandemic, second, by the cost-of-living crisis and, third, by dramatically rising energy prices. All of these things are highly likely to have hit his wealth considerably and have an impact on his room for maneuverability.

Obviously, none of this is good news for the club and its future inevitably looks more and more uncertain.

[Bucksiron]

Good try, Siderite, but you’ll find that the video to which you’ve referred “debunking Christy” has, itself, been debunked. This is the problem with climate science, it’s unbelievably complex and we simply don’t understand enough about the myriad of variables involved to say otherwise.

The rest of your comment is just the usual stuff supposedly ‘justifying’ what you’re saying. It all sounds very clever and convincing while, of course, you hurl all the usual accusations in my direction, ignoring all your comments, ‘cherry picking’ data, etc, etc, etc. Apparently I’ve even ignored a paper posted by you demonstrating a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature rise, when anyone who knows anything about basic statistics knows there will ALWAYS be a statistically significant relationship between two variables trending in the same direction (caps for emphasis).

So of course there’s a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature. It’s the biggest trap anyone can fall into and is the very reason behind the famous saying that “correlation does not mean causation”. There will be a statistically significant relationship between CO2, temperature and the number of nappies used in the UK or, indeed, any-other-variable-you-care-to-mention that’s increased over the past 100 years or so!!!!!! It means absolutely zip. Oh, and even climate scientists accept the models all run hot while claiming they’re “not far off” depends entirely by how you define ‘far off’. They’re certainly nowhere near good enough for the crazy predictions being made, which won’t surprise anyone who truly understands how these things work. They can’t even agree with each other.

Anyway, given you’re not going to make any further comments, Siderite, I’ll leave you with one thought, which is the impact of clouds. There’s a growing body of evidence that clouds play an even bigger role in global temperatures than has previously been understood or recognised. One reason for this is that clouds are notoriously difficult to model, in fact probably impossible to do with any level of accuracy. I know this from personal experience while working on British Gas’s computer model for thermal dynamics when I was based at BG’s Watson House R&D centre after I left university in the early 1980s — not sure I’ve ever mentioned this before, so now’s a good time to do so (the usual suspects will probably claim I’m making this up).

Clouds are just one very difficult problem. There are many others.

[Bucksiron]

I agree with you 100% Deerey. There is, indeed, no cause for concern.

[Bucksiron]

So there you have it, a perfect example of how a highly respected climate scientist who doesn’t agree with the establishment view is rubbished. Of course the usual suspects will thank and go along with Siderite’s comment because it suits their agenda to do so. For the sake of anyone with a more balanced view who might be reading this, first, I would recommend they watch the video if they haven’t already done so; and, second, I would ask them to consider that many climate scientists — even those in the IPCC — do not agree with the claims being made by the establishment around the ‘catastrophe’ we are supposed to be facing. Plenty of scientists daren’t speak out about this because they do fear losing their jobs, as has happened with a number of high profile cases that shame the academic world.

Whatever Siderite might claim, Christy’s views are not seen as bunkum except by those whose agenda they fail to agree with. As Christy says, the data simply doesn’t support the claims being made. If you look at this data — and it’s publicly available — you’ll see that Christy is correct.

What Siderite also fails to understand, or at least to point out, is that all he’s describing is a theory. What he is saying is correct EXCEPT that you HAVE to use models to determine the SIZE of the impact of ‘man-made CO2’ on climate change (I’ve used caps for emphasis, nothing more). Nor is this just about future predictions. It’s just as true for the here and now. Why? Because there is no such things as a ‘climate change measuring device’.

Put simply, the only way you can ‘measure’ the size of the impact of CO2 on climate change is to feed a lot of very complex data into a computer and model it. That would be fine if climate was fully understood, which it isn’t, and if all the models agreed with each other, which they don’t. I keep banging on about confidence intervals for the simple reason that no results from any model should ever be provided without them, yet they never are for climate models. Why, any reasonable person would ask, might that be?

[Bucksiron]

I reek of ‘hypocrisy and double standards’, IA? Well, that’s your view and mine is that you and the rest of the usual suspects reek every bit as much. As I said, people can make up their own minds. As for being arrogant, that might well be how I come across but so what? You do very little other than attack me on a personal level, so why should I care what you think.

Siderite, for “CO2 to be driving current climate trends” you need hard evidence. It doesn’t exist. The only evidence is through computer models, which are are as leaky as SUFC’s defence.

I recommend you — and others — watch this brief video, which sums up very nicely the points that I keep making. Whether you agree with his views or not, John Christy is a genuine climate scientist who is highly regarded by others — even by Michael Mann. The point is there are plenty of climate scientists who agree with Christy but are too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. This is an appalling situation generated by the politicisation of climate change, which doesn’t allow anyone to disagree with the supposedly ‘settled’ science:

[Bucksiron]

I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, Siderite. What you’re saying is complete nonsense. You don’t appear to understand that climate change can be generated by natural causes with some contribution from man-made emissions. It isn’t either/or, which I believe is what you’re trying to say?

Your argument, if I’ve understood it correctly, which is difficult to know, appears to rest on what is causing the planet to warm? It’s a good question but the truth is we simply don’t understand enough about the complexity of climate to give a definitive answer. You appear to believe otherwise, which is obviously up to you but the hard evidence simply doesn’t exist to prove this. It depends entirely on computer models, with so many holes in them that they can’t even produce basic confidence intervals. It’s also worth saying that none of them even agree with other.

IA, you clearly think it’s fine for Gurny to make disparaging comments about mental health but not OK for me to make a comment about ‘state of mind’; and that I’m arrogant for raising this. Well, at least we know exactly where you stand. Others can make up their own minds.

[Bucksiron]

Siderite, your comment is simply not true. There’s nothing remotely contradictory in what I’m saying. Man-made emissions will undoubtedly be having some effect on climate, but there’s no evidence this is anything other than negligible while the changes we are seeing are far more likely down to natural effects. That is what the data is showing and it’s why climate models never have confidence intervals associated with them.

Regarding the rest of your post, I don’t recall you ever contradicting the currently “accepted” view of the establishment, which is that climate change is man-made. If you don’t believe the stuff about ‘catastrophe’, fine, but again I don’t recall you ever saying this stuff is being blown out of all proportion.

IA, I don’t recall you ever objecting to Gurny’s appalling comments about mental health. Yet you have a problem with me referring to his “state of mind”, which is completely different and not in the slightest bit offensive. We all haver a state of mind but, fortunately, not everyone suffers from mental health illnesses. You’re no doubt one of the lucky ones who has neither suffered such illness nor has someone close to them who does. If you did then I doubt — and certainly hope — you wouldn’t be making such crass comments.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Bucksiron]

The reason Boris won such a big majority was far less to do with Brexit and far more to do with Corbyn; and don’t forget that Starmer supported Corbyn along with many other Labour MPs. Oh, and so did “you lot”.

The Tories have done a dreadful job and I doubt they’ll win the next election, though I wouldn’t underestimate Labour’s ability to shoot itself in the foot.

If nothing else, however, Corbyn’s now finished and if Labour moves back to the left they’ll be as well. Love or hate Blair, he knew how to win elections.

[Bucksiron]

So Gurny, it’s OK for the world to spend trillions, which could be used to fight disease, and deny the use of cheap energy, which could pull billions out of poverty, to “err on the side of caution”?! If the odds were in favour of climate change being the disaster claimed by the likes of Guterres you might have a point, but even the majority of climate scientists don’t believe this.

Your comment about evidence is ironic to say the least, as is your reference to cults. If you look at the science and the data we are not heading on a road to climate hell. Nor is it what the vast majority of climate scientists are saying. It seems astonishing that for someone who clearly loves to give the impression of having a planet-sized intellect you’re actually taken in by this stuff. Except, of course, that it fits exactly with your left-wing agenda. As I say, ironic to say the least.

The rest of your post is just the same old stuff you always come out with, which for someone who is supposed to understand psychology reveals far more about your own state of mind than anyone else’s. Obsessed with extreme left-wing ideology you simply cannot accept anyone who doesn’t see the world in the same way as you.

None of the above comments surprise me in the slightest. It’s the usual stuff from the usual suspects; and I’ve given up trying to explain to siderite the huge difference between understanding man-made climate change is real, with which I agree, but that it’s going to lead to catastrophe, which is absurd.

The real catastrophe is how billions are being forced into poverty as a result of this nonsense.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Bucksiron]

It isn’t at all brainless, IA, in fact the complete opposite. What you’re revealing very nicely, however, is how ignorance is used by the media to mislead people.

[Bucksiron]

I don’t believe you’re thick at all, Heath. We are allowed to disagree with each other.

But the amount of concrete and tarmac have increased dramatically at airports and airfields on top of which the amount of heat they store has also been increasing. Just think of the London Underground, which continues to get warmer as more and more heat is stored through the system.

[Bucksiron]

Deerey, there’s a bit of a difference between today’s economic position and the ‘highway to climate hell’. Millions of young kids are being scared witless by these absurd claims from the UN and other “experts”; and you think this is funny?????

Siderite, I’m not arguing against economic impacts of Brexit, which I’ve accepted are likely to be the case. It’s perfectly correct to say, however, that it will be some time before the real economic impact of Brexit will be known. What we do know is that the EU is in a perilous financial position, with Germany’s economy at the mercy of winter weather. It’s ironic to say the least that Germany — and Italy — are now praying for warm weather.

Regarding your other comment, my point isn’t moot at all. It simply reveals how many media — and, I’m sorry to say many organisations that should know better — aren’t providing all the facts. As I said, people can make up their own minds but in order to do so they need to know the facts behind the claims. As for the “energy coming from nowhere”, ALL of the evidence for CO2 driving climate change comes from computer models. You can argue until you’re blue in the face but that is a 100% fact; and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the computer models are wrong. The question is how wrong? Well, good luck with that because the confidence intervals are never revealed, which is hardly surprising given they’ll be extremely bad. I’ve challenged climate scientists directly about this and not a single one of them has been able to provide an answer. Put simply, we don’t know the answer to how the climate works at anything like the depth required for the absurd claims being made and saying otherwise is just ridiculous. But, hey, it means billions in funding and shiny new computers.

As for this thing about London and Paris. The idea that Paris is a bigger financial centre than London is fanciful to say the least. Market caps come and go, it’s just the way they operate and my point is that it’s highly likely London will overtake Paris again on market valuation. But that is just one part of the financial equation. Taken as a whole London remains much bigger than anywhere apart from New York.

Where I do agree with you 100% is around predictions. It is, indeed, very funny how people want us to trust their predictions. You’re absolutely correct that in 20 years they still say we need to wait. That goes for climate every bit as much as it goes for finance. They’re both non-deterministic systems with a huge number of variables, which makes predicting them in any way that is remotely accurate 100% impossible.

[Bucksiron]

Reducing CO2 will make virtually no difference to the climate, NI, which will continue to change as it always has and always will, i.e. naturally. However, I’m not entirely against net zero because, if nothing else, it will reduce pollution.

The problem is that we’re now in a crazy situation where India and China, in particular, are building fossil-fuel power stations at an astonishing rate, which means not only that net zero is decades — probably centuries — away, but also that pollution will continue to be a huge problem. At the same time, while India and China are doing what they want, poorer nations are being denied access to the cheap energy that would transform the lives of millions. It astonishes me that the likes of Gurny believe this is acceptable.

Regarding the example of summer temperatures, the point is that the places to which I referred were used by many media to “prove” record temperatures. What they actually proved is that places at airports and airfields were the hottest in the UK. People can, of course, draw their own conclusions but this remains a simple fact that cannot be explained by chance alone, yet the media conveniently forgot to cover it. It’s almost certainly down to the UHI effect, which is making a huge difference to temperatures being recorded across the globe.

Siderite, your comment about “7 temperature records” is completely incorrect and I am NOT saying “no climate change”.

Re Brexit, I refer you to previous comments. It isn’t and never was about economics. As for the French stock exchange, let’s see what happens over the next few years. The likelihood of it remaining of higher value than London is small.

Finally, regarding the economy as a whole I’m appalled by the Tory approach. We should, indeed, give Labour a chance to fix it. I’m not holding my breath they’ll be able to do so, however. We have a useless bunch of politicians across the entire parliamentary spectrum.

[Bucksiron]

I’m not missing the point at all, NI. There are numerous reasons for the tragic flooding in Pakistan, but linking it to man-made climate change is a purely political narrative. Gurnelista’s claims are typical of what we’re now seeing, with any and every weather event put down to “man-made” climate change. It’s total and utter hysterical nonsense that is piling outrageous mental pressure on young people.

Take the “record” temperatures in the UK this summer. Out of the top 11 “records”, seven stood out as being significantly different from a statistical perspective. In simple terms this means there must be some underlying reason for the difference; and what might that be, do you imagine? In fact all seven just happen to be airports or RAF stations, surrounded by huge lumps of concrete, tarmac and jet-engined aircraft. You’ll find very similar things happening wherever claims of “records” or “unusual” weather events are happening. Strangely enough, these are never reported.

The plain truth is that millions are not dying as a result of man-made climate-change. The world could now easily feed everyone on the planet but countries are being denied the cheap energy required to develop their economies to enable this to happen.

Siderite, why do you think media choose these people to offer their views and opinions?

[Bucksiron]

Siderite, I’m very aware of what caps “mean” on the Internet but I’m just using them for emphasis. Hardly a hanging offence.

[Bucksiron]

Very good, IA, that made me chuckle!

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Bucksiron]

I’ve no idea what you’re referring to, Siderite. Where have I said you said anything?!

The basics are actually very clear. I’ve simply used capitals to make the point, which you just don’t seem able to accept.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Bucksiron]

Ah, my mistake, in which case I apologise. Of course she shouldn’t have been arrested.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Siderite

[Bucksiron]

So calling me a liar and claiming I “need help” is valid criticism, Siderite?

“The evidence has been given time and time again…”

The ONLY evidence we have is that man-made emissions are having an effect on global temperature. That is not and never has been denied. There remains ZERO evidence that this is anything other than negligible while there is ZERO evidence it is driving climate change.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Bucksiron]

What, when that journalist is on a motorway bridge?

[Bucksiron]

You really are becoming a very angry and agitated bunch. My wife moans and groans about me all the time but even she’d struggle to find as many faults with me as you lot do. You’ve all just defaulted to the usual personal attacks.

NI, I’m interested in your comment that: “Millions have died and hundreds of millions have been forced into poverty already because of climate change.”

Where is the evidence that this ‘climate change’ to which you refer is being caused by man-made emissions? Even climate scientists themselves accept there’s no evidence of any direct link. Even those organisations known for having strong views won’t go further than saying events such as the recent heatwaves are “more likely to happen”, which is media-speak for “we don’t actually know”.

The problem is that there’s still NO hard evidence of man-made emissions being responsible for any weather-related events, from the tragic floods in Pakistan to the recent heatwaves and what the UN comes out with is NOT supported by the IPCC scientific reports. You’ll also see plenty of references to “since records began”, which is more media-speak for “OK, the data doesn’t actually go back very far so let’s make it seem as long ago as we possibly can”. In truth, what we’re actually seeing falls well within the bounds of natural variability.

Also worth saying that while there’s zero hard evidence that millions are dying as a result of man-made climate change there’s plenty of very hard evidence that millions — probably billions — are being kept in poverty as a result of having no access to cheap energy.

1 user thanked author for this post.

billpuntonsghost

[Bucksiron]

Call me whatever you like, TW, I seriously couldn’t care less.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Bucksiron]

Nobody has any issue with people protesting, in fact the complete opposite. But nobody has the right to stop people from carrying out their legitimate day-to-day life or business, which is what we’re seeing with the ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests.

[Bucksiron]

Ha ha, what a joke that is, IA; and what a hypocrite. All you lot ever do is launch personal attacks on me. Yet again the irony is completely lost on you, isn’t it.

Anyway, it’s clearly hit a nerve.

[Bucksiron]

Err, no they haven’t, Heath.

I accepted being wrong about the first lockdown and, indeed, said so at the time, Siderite. After that, no, and I actually did a radio interview pointing out the appalling increase in domestic violence — among many other things — resulting from the lockdowns.

I also recall saying — and I’m pretty sure it was on this board — that the true impact of covid and of the lockdowns wouldn’t be known until some time after the pandemic. There’s nothing remotely clever about that, it’s just the nature of data and how these things work, though of course loads of abuse was hurled in my direction, regardless. I do recall Gurny — who else — saying dreadful things about my neighbour and mate who died of covid, but Gurny’s one bitter and twisted individual.

As you rightly say, Siderite, these things are complex but there’s little doubt now that far more people will die because of covid rather than directly from it, because of the lockdowns. Likewise, the economy is taking a massive hit although that would be far less if the world wasn’t fixated on absurd net zero targets.

Net zero will very likely result in millions of people dying and hundreds of millions being forced into poverty. Of course I’ll have more abuse hurled at me for saying this, but that’s what the data is revealing. Even climate scientists don’t believe things are anything like as bad as being portrayed, but they love their shiny billion dollar supercomputers too much to call this out.

[Author]

Posts