Wild fires in BC Canada.

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
....

I think what is happening is BOTH a natural warming cycle, that has been proven to occur at regular intervals,
Not regular intervals by any means Timeline of glaciation - Wikipedia and the current fairly steady "holocene" , now ending it seems, is unusual.
There are interesting arguments that the holocene itself may be the result of human activity
PLUS some contribution from human activity.

Anyone who denies the ice records of warmer periods when Greenland was lush and GREEN, millennia before the industrial revolution is unfit to state any credible opinion on the matter.
Nobody denies it. Good to see that you have picked up a tiny smidgin of the science yourself as you give an impression of being very, er, uninformed. :unsure:
Scientific records on climate only go back to about 1700. The Planet had its first lifeforms about 4 BILLION years ago and has had an atmosphere of similar composition for about two BILLION years.

Anyone who even remotely states that the current earth temperature is THE HIGHEST ITS EVER BEEN IN THAT ENTIRE TWO BILLION YEARS deserves to be put in an insane asylum.
Nobody says that.
And yet..... life continued.

These (censored) halfwits would have you believe this climate change is an "extinction level event", and they've been saying it for about 50 years, I'm still waiting. Greta Thunberg's "predictions" made in the UN, have also not come to fruition.
The forecasts seem to be coming true steadily as predicted, except generally sooner than expected. Greta doesn't make predictions, is not a scientist, she's an environmental campaigner and quotes predictions from the science.
These same halfwits have now also been PROVEN to be DELIBERATELY setting wildfires in multiple places to back up their claims "the world is burning".

WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE.

If you repeat the same claims as they do, then I believe you are part of the problem, by supporting, spreading and furthering their claims that has led to their actions, which in turn HAS KILLED PEOPLE.

So their deaths, and the BILLIONS in property damage IS ON YOR HANDS AS MUCH AS THEIRS.

Facts ARE facts, and if you beleive the situation is wholly man made, then you are allowing OTHER PEOPLE to do your thinking for you.
Loonies and pyromaniacs are always with us, but climate change makes their actions more consequential.
Lightning is very likely to be more to blame
Oh and just remember these are the same people who claimed "people were BOILING in their own sweat"; a claim which to date has never been proven as a cause of death ANYWHERE on earth - if that ridiculous claim alone isn't enough to make you think these people are mentally unfit to be in charge of society and the direction of how this gets managed globally, I don't know what will.
It's just a figure of speech
Oh and the manipulation of scientific readings of pollution level reductions in ULEZ zones.... as though they are in some kind of protected forcefield bubble and the vehicles 2 streets away are not polluting the ULEZs zones.....
Nobody claims that. If anything the opposite - the benefits of ULEZ spread further because of the reduction in non compliant vehicles in other areas too. You may have to think a bit over that but don't strain yourself!
.... Plain and simple.
Yes you are, and VERY SHOUTY!! 🤣 🤣
It's a bit pointless of you trying to have opinions if you can't be bothered to find out what's going on. Lazy in fact.
Or do you take some sort of mental laxative and feel relief after one of your manic splurges? 🤣
Hope that helps!
 
Last edited:
Jacob, I'm surprised you have many folk left to talk to round here who havent got you on ignore
Feel free!
Hate to say it but I do seen to get quite a lot of support, if "likes" are anything to go by. :unsure:
Anyway I'm only replying to @rafezetter in a similar spirit, or maybe you think he is cool, calm and reasonable!
 
Surely the precautionary principle applies? Even if you don't really think the current global warming is exacerbated by our human activities, if there's even a one in a thousand chance that it is, surely we should be doing all we can to limit those harmful activities? If you think of it in a health and safety at work sort of way, the chances of someone dropping a brick on your head while on a building site are minimal, but you'd still be daft to work under other people without wearing a hard hat.

I think maybe the people who refuse to accept the possibility of humans damaging the planet are really just scared and afraid to admit it...
 
Surely the precautionary principle applies? Even if you don't really think the current global warming is exacerbated by our human activities, if there's even a one in a thousand chance that it is, surely we should be doing all we can to limit those harmful activities? If you think of it in a health and safety at work sort of way, the chances of someone dropping a brick on your head while on a building site are minimal, but you'd still be daft to work under other people without wearing a hard hat.

I think maybe the people who refuse to accept the possibility of humans damaging the planet are really just scared and afraid to admit it...
I don't think anyone doubts that humans are damaging the planet, we just need to make sure we don't leave it to governments to find the solution, since they make a monumental mess of everything they touch.

Except of course their own expense account.
 
Surely the precautionary principle applies? Even if you don't really think the current global warming is exacerbated by our human activities, if there's even a one in a thousand chance that it is, surely we should be doing all we can to limit those harmful activities?
Well yes that's what it's all about, though it's reached the point where we have to stop altogether using fossil fuels, which is pretty fundamental to how we live nowadays.
If you think of it in a health and safety at work sort of way, the chances of someone dropping a brick on your head while on a building site are minimal, but you'd still be daft to work under other people without wearing a hard hat.

I think maybe the people who refuse to accept the possibility of humans damaging the planet are really just scared and afraid to admit it...
They don't seem scared - more angry than anything. Maybe one causes the other.
 
I don't think anyone doubts that humans are damaging the planet,
There's still a few nutter sceptics about but far fewer than even a year ago.
we just need to make sure we don't leave it to governments to find the solution, since they make a monumental mess of everything they touch.

Except of course their own expense account.
Nobody else is going to do it for us, least of all the fossil fuel industry.
In a democracy we control the government but we only have the ballot box as leverage. I'll be voting for the greenest candidates, old allegiances are out of the window for the duration!
 
Last edited:
Obligatory XKCD:
1693930427174.png
 
Brilliant!
So that's about 11k years of the fairly steady holocene which we can probably credit ourselves with having caused, and about 200 years into the anthropocene, life as we know completely oeufed up by coal and oil industry.
Mind you it might have saved us from the little ice age becoming a big one. But that might have been preferable in terms of survival.
 
Last edited:
Well, UWP here, I love Jacobs reasoned, well researched opinions, he always puts a smile on my face. All ‘science’ should be treated with a huge dollop of skepticism, just about every theory that ever existed has been proved wrong, and in need of a total rethink. The Catholic Church burned you for considering anything other than the creation theory, we have had Isaac Newtons theories, that all have needed to be re thought. The Big Bang, is now in question, and almost dead following the discoveries of the James Webb. A bit of prelude to say, that if you go back just a few years, to the 1970’s the popular theory at the time was that the world was slipping into an ice age due to man’s meddling. Yep, an ice age, not a heat wave. Back then we should have promoted the burning of as much carbon based energy as possible! Now, should those who profoundly believe in global warming spend a few minutes looking at all the predications over the last 20 years of the devastating effects that should have already come to pass,…….they will find that none have. We still have polar ice caps, we still have snow on the mountains, in fact, I can’t find a single prediction of doom thats come to pass. Now, you may or may not know of the climate clock in NY, well that was started in 2020 and supported by the supreme expert Greta, who was also dealing with school exams at the time…… now stands at 5 years 317 days until we all die. That was based on the predictions of scientists at the time. So, if that’s the case, and we all have just a shade under 6 years, let’s party whilst we can! Happy to wager that we will all still be here in 6 years time…..any takers??

I’ve highlighted before that plants actually need CO2 to survive and thrive, and in fact we were getting close to the point at which plants would have died because of a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. We needed carbon emissions to ensure plants survived and we have bread to eat. The most fertile period on the plant was when CO2 levels were at 3% concentrations. Doesn’t sound a lot does it…..well we are at present at 0.04% (plants cant Grow properly below 400ppm or 0.04%, and stop all photosynthesis at 100ppm or 0.01%) So according to science, if you want to have a lush green planet, burn more coal, and oil, we have a hell of a long way to go before we hit the optimum CO2 levels for plants……something that the Global warming experts fail to mention!

Hells teeth I’m so glad so much of the westerns worlds resources are going into net zero policies. It’s good to know kiddies are mining for lithium in a very ecological way that doesn’t harm the environment, pollute rivers or devastate the natural environment. I’m so glad that when you add up the carbon generated to produce (whole life calculation) solar panels, windmills and look at their expected life that it actually generates more CO2 than it avoids if we had simply used oil. Makes me the keen enthusiastic environmental sceptic that I am. Then again, sheep will follow any barking dog, and I am definitely don’t identify as a sheep!!
 
Well, UWP here, I love Jacobs reasoned, well researched opinions, he always puts a smile on my face. All ‘science’ should be treated with a huge dollop of skepticism, just about every theory that ever existed has been proved wrong, and in need of a total rethink. The Catholic Church burned you for considering anything other than the creation theory, we have had Isaac Newtons theories, that all have needed to be re thought. The Big Bang, is now in question, and almost dead following the discoveries of the James Webb. A bit of prelude to say, that if you go back just a few years, to the 1970’s the popular theory at the time was that the world was slipping into an ice age due to man’s meddling. Yep, an ice age, not a heat wave. Back then we should have promoted the burning of as much carbon based energy as possible! Now, should those who profoundly believe in global warming spend a few minutes looking at all the predications over the last 20 years of the devastating effects that should have already come to pass,…….they will find that none have. We still have polar ice caps, we still have snow on the mountains, in fact, I can’t find a single prediction of doom thats come to pass. Now, you may or may not know of the climate clock in NY, well that was started in 2020 and supported by the supreme expert Greta, who was also dealing with school exams at the time…… now stands at 5 years 317 days until we all die. That was based on the predictions of scientists at the time. So, if that’s the case, and we all have just a shade under 6 years, let’s party whilst we can! Happy to wager that we will all still be here in 6 years time…..any takers??

I’ve highlighted before that plants actually need CO2 to survive and thrive, and in fact we were getting close to the point at which plants would have died because of a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. We needed carbon emissions to ensure plants survived and we have bread to eat. The most fertile period on the plant was when CO2 levels were at 3% concentrations. Doesn’t sound a lot does it…..well we are at present at 0.04% (plants cant Grow properly below 400ppm or 0.04%, and stop all photosynthesis at 100ppm or 0.01%) So according to science, if you want to have a lush green planet, burn more coal, and oil, we have a hell of a long way to go before we hit the optimum CO2 levels for plants……something that the Global warming experts fail to mention!

Hells teeth I’m so glad so much of the westerns worlds resources are going into net zero policies. It’s good to know kiddies are mining for lithium in a very ecological way that doesn’t harm the environment, pollute rivers or devastate the natural environment. I’m so glad that when you add up the carbon generated to produce (whole life calculation) solar panels, windmills and look at their expected life that it actually generates more CO2 than it avoids if we had simply used oil. Makes me the keen enthusiastic environmental sceptic that I am. Then again, sheep will follow any barking dog, and I am definitely don’t identify as a sheep!!
Your tongue is firmly wedged in your cheek, I hope?
 
Nope, I’m not part of the jingoistic perspective of catastrophes. Anything we can do to move to renewables is a good thing. The CO2 science? Well, I’m not convinced having read around the subject.
Your tongue is firmly wedged in your cheek, I hope
 
How is viewing global warming jingoistic? If your grasp of the English language is anything to go by, I'm not sure we should be trusting your scientific reasoning...
 
How is viewing global warming jingoistic? If your grasp of the English language is anything to go by, I'm not sure we should be trusting your scientific reasoning...
Fair comment, I was educated in the local comprehensive school at the time where the latest thinking was sod grammar and spelling and encourage the kids ideas. It’s been a huge problem for me throughout my life, I used to be extremely embarrassed about having to write stuff; as you highlight, it’s not my strongest point. I’ve tried over the years to improve, and worship at the alter of the people who invented spell check. I was lucky that maths was my strong point, and being an engineer and running engineering company’s is this is what was needed.
I don’t worry these days about my poor grammar or spelling, I look at it as a handicap I have had to come to terms with and live with. I do my best to improve it and explain to those who find it offensive why I struggle with it. After all, my handicap is a consequence of my education, not my intellect.
 
I have no wish to demean you - I'm a product of my local comp myself (grand total of three halfway to decent exam results). But if you can admit to shortcomings in your grasp of language, then might it just open a window to considering that your views on the climate and man's impact upon it may not be up to those of the people who have spent a lifetime training in that very thing?
I don't really know how a computer works, but I'm willing to take advice from those who do - hence our ability to have this discussion...
 
I have no wish to demean you - I'm a product of my local comp myself (grand total of three halfway to decent exam results). But if you can admit to shortcomings in your grasp of language, then might it just open a window to considering that your views on the climate and man's impact upon it may not be up to those of the people who have spent a lifetime training in that very thing?
I don't really know how a computer works, but I'm willing to take advice from those who do - hence our ability to have this discussion...
Thanks Cobbs, appreciate it. I agree, wisdom comes from knowing yoi could be wrong.
I’m completely open to any view, I just hate to see the crowd surge and lurch in a particular direction without proper consideration that they may be going in the wrong direction. Everything I stated earlier is backed up by scientific papers, none is ‘my opinion‘ for instance just google ice age predictions 1970’s. I leave the ‘I think it so it must be comments‘ to a certain contingent🤣 It’s interesting how the papers are now downplayed. But I clearly remember the big push in the UK to insulate homes due to how cold it would become at the time.
 
But surely that just strengthens the argument for listening to the scientists? As you point out, at one time it was thought that we were heading to a new ice age, but the scientists were thankfully sceptical enough of their own research (as any good scientist should be) to carry on with that research and not be afraid to admit that they may have been wrong when new evidence came to light. That's how we progress.

As an example, my dear old Mum has always suffered from asthma, but that didn't stop some bright spark of a doctor in the late forties from telling her take up tobacco smoking to promote a "healthy cough"! Thankfully, the science behind that was revisited...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top