Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News2 mins ago
Climate Change
43 Answers
Don't fully understand this climate change business. I can accept that the UK has experienced the warmest summer on record but why was last year's summer the coldest on record?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Paigntonian. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age.
https:/
"In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production."
https:/
https:/
https:/
"In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production."
https:/
https:/
Paigntonian
// Ginge: Yeah. Sneaking suspicion it's a load of nonsense. But when all the experts and governments tell me that I'm wrong I do not have the expertise to disagree. Why was last year's Summer in the UK the coldest on record? No-one can tell me.//
Yeah, who takes any notice of all that factual evidence and data, load of scientificically proven mumbo-jumbo?
Why do we even bother with scientists, doctors, academics and experts in their field?
// Ginge: Yeah. Sneaking suspicion it's a load of nonsense. But when all the experts and governments tell me that I'm wrong I do not have the expertise to disagree. Why was last year's Summer in the UK the coldest on record? No-one can tell me.//
Yeah, who takes any notice of all that factual evidence and data, load of scientificically proven mumbo-jumbo?
Why do we even bother with scientists, doctors, academics and experts in their field?
I think briefly (and simply) the situation is this:
• The climate is probably changing. It always has and always will. It may be changing a little more quickly than previously and mankind may be responsible for that.
• Mankind could cease all its harmful emissions tomorrow and it would be most unlikely to see a significant change in the climate.
• The UK is responsible for just about 1% of global human emissions. It could stop those entirely tomorrow and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the climate. None whatsoever.
• Doing the above would impoverish the country; moving to so-called “Net Zero” (i.e. some reductions together with “creative accounting”) will see it fare little better.
• Other nations – especially the big emitters – are unlikely to do anything to reduce their emissions significantly and the notion that the UK must do so “to set a good example” is ridiculous. China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and that will increase because at present it has plans to open a new coal-fired power station every 10-14 days for at least the next two years. There is only one thing they will do in response to our strategy to impoverish the nation and jeopardise its energy security and that is to split their sides with laughter.
So, the country has a choice: it can spend hundreds of billions of pounds trying to achieve something that will have no effect whatsoever, and in the process impoverish individuals, businesses and the economy in general (together with changing the lives for the worse for the population); or it can behave more sensibly by spending a fraction of that money making adjustments to cope with the changing climate.
• The climate is probably changing. It always has and always will. It may be changing a little more quickly than previously and mankind may be responsible for that.
• Mankind could cease all its harmful emissions tomorrow and it would be most unlikely to see a significant change in the climate.
• The UK is responsible for just about 1% of global human emissions. It could stop those entirely tomorrow and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the climate. None whatsoever.
• Doing the above would impoverish the country; moving to so-called “Net Zero” (i.e. some reductions together with “creative accounting”) will see it fare little better.
• Other nations – especially the big emitters – are unlikely to do anything to reduce their emissions significantly and the notion that the UK must do so “to set a good example” is ridiculous. China burns more coal than the rest of the world combined and that will increase because at present it has plans to open a new coal-fired power station every 10-14 days for at least the next two years. There is only one thing they will do in response to our strategy to impoverish the nation and jeopardise its energy security and that is to split their sides with laughter.
So, the country has a choice: it can spend hundreds of billions of pounds trying to achieve something that will have no effect whatsoever, and in the process impoverish individuals, businesses and the economy in general (together with changing the lives for the worse for the population); or it can behave more sensibly by spending a fraction of that money making adjustments to cope with the changing climate.
// Ryzen If people are one of the main causes of climate change, then it stands to reason, we need to control population growth as part of the solution. //
// you have to stop people breeding in excessive numbers too. //
That is a red herring. The world population will continue to rise, probably peaking at 11 billion (currently 8 billion). More people will require more energy. As long as that energy isn’t made from fossil fuels, then that is not a problem. More people will also require more food production. As long as they eat plant grown food, and not farting cattle, again, it is not a problem. The planet can be sustainable with more people on it as long as it is not another extra 3 billion people doing what we are currently doing.
// you have to stop people breeding in excessive numbers too. //
That is a red herring. The world population will continue to rise, probably peaking at 11 billion (currently 8 billion). More people will require more energy. As long as that energy isn’t made from fossil fuels, then that is not a problem. More people will also require more food production. As long as they eat plant grown food, and not farting cattle, again, it is not a problem. The planet can be sustainable with more people on it as long as it is not another extra 3 billion people doing what we are currently doing.
Autocratic politicians (most of them) promote the Climate Change Emergency so they can claim emergency powers.
Pretty sure Biden* couldn't push a bill through the House earlier in the week, proclaimed a Climate Emergency which meant he had special powers to pass acts without referring to the House. Ie, a tyrant.
*When I refer to Biden I mean, of course, the self interested groups that control him.
Pretty sure Biden* couldn't push a bill through the House earlier in the week, proclaimed a Climate Emergency which meant he had special powers to pass acts without referring to the House. Ie, a tyrant.
*When I refer to Biden I mean, of course, the self interested groups that control him.
In view of what we know, can we expect mankind as a whole to make an about-face so as to spare our beautiful home—and us too? What is more, if human activity is causing global warming, we may have only years, not centuries, to make the needed changes. At the very least, making such changes would mean promptly addressing the root causes of earth’s problems—human greed, self-interest, ignorance, inept government, and apathy. Is such a prospect probable or just wishful thinking?
An ancient prophet of God gives us a realistic appraisal of our capacity to solve our ethical, social, and governmental problems. He wrote: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Mankind’s tragic history underscores those words. And today, although armed with significant developments in science and technology, we are faced with previously unimaginable threats.
An ancient prophet of God gives us a realistic appraisal of our capacity to solve our ethical, social, and governmental problems. He wrote: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Mankind’s tragic history underscores those words. And today, although armed with significant developments in science and technology, we are faced with previously unimaginable threats.
// If we are the cause, clearly it is within our capability to change it.//
nope - illogicality
if you trigger something, then you cant call it back ( and reset to zero) as in pulling a trigger and shooting someone
and THAT is what the climate theorists fear that it will go too far and cant be recalled....
Oh and the fella that said that the planet was alive -that is the Gaia hypothesis, and the originator Lovelock, has just died
oh and whilst I am at it - the weather men are getting trolled by those who er doubt the climate theories
nope - illogicality
if you trigger something, then you cant call it back ( and reset to zero) as in pulling a trigger and shooting someone
and THAT is what the climate theorists fear that it will go too far and cant be recalled....
Oh and the fella that said that the planet was alive -that is the Gaia hypothesis, and the originator Lovelock, has just died
oh and whilst I am at it - the weather men are getting trolled by those who er doubt the climate theories
Latest Posts
Short Fitting Skirts Nearly Dry
Crosswords5 mins ago
News28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
Fao Buenchico / Barmaid Re Wills
Law50 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
