'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

kesavaross said:
I watched a video last night, which I now can't find, that had quite a few very qualified people speaking who all said that changes to carbon levels follow temperature changes and that the lag is about 800 years.
Click to expand...

Mythopoeika said:
It may be because CO2 and methane are locked away in ice at the poles and in the permafrost layers in some countries.
A warming climate can cause thawing and then a consequent rise in CO2 and methane.
Click to expand...
Both of these statements are probably correct, although the research I linked to in an earlier post suggests that the 'lag' is sometimes significantly less than 800 years. In a context which does not involve fossil fuel consumption, then the rise in temperatures at the end of a glaciation is not caused by CO2, but by other factors, mostly to do with the Earth's absorption of solar energy and its orbital parameters. CO2 rises then follow, and amplify those rises in temperature.

Human use of fossil fuels reverses this relationship, and causes an increase in the absorption of solar energy without the need for a change in orbital characteristics. That is why we can't ignore it - the change is superimposed on top of other natural changes, but it is all upwards.
 

UK: You may soon go to jail if you don't upgrade your energy efficiency​


"The government is proposing to create new criminal laws that would imprison and fine people for not complying with new energy efficiency standards. Soon they will make excessive energy use – and that will be energy use that rises above “Net Zero” – a criminal offence.

Property owners who fail to comply with new energy efficiency rules could face prison under government plans that have sparked a backlash from MPs.

Ministers want to grant themselves powers to create new criminal offences and increase civil penalties as part of efforts to hit net zero targets. Under the proposals, people who fall foul of regulations to reduce their energy consumption could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to £15,000.

The proposals are contained in the Government’s controversial Energy Bill, which is set to come before the Commons for the first time when MPs return from their summer break on Tuesday.

It provides for “the creation of criminal offences” where there is “non-compliance with a requirement imposed by or under energy performance regulations”. People could also be prosecuted for “provision of false information” about energy efficiency or the “obstruction of… an enforcement authority”.

Paywalled here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-failing-comply-new-energy-rules-face-prison/

Quoted from: https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...u-dont-upgrade-your-energy-efficiency-n576157

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:

UK: You may soon go to jail if you don't upgrade your energy efficiency​


"The government is proposing to create new criminal laws that would imprison and fine people for not complying with new energy efficiency standards. Soon they will make excessive energy use – and that will be energy use that rises above “Net Zero” – a criminal offence.

Property owners who fail to comply with new energy efficiency rules could face prison under government plans that have sparked a backlash from MPs.

Ministers want to grant themselves powers to create new criminal offences and increase civil penalties as part of efforts to hit net zero targets. Under the proposals, people who fall foul of regulations to reduce their energy consumption could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to £15,000.

The proposals are contained in the Government’s controversial Energy Bill, which is set to come before the Commons for the first time when MPs return from their summer break on Tuesday.

It provides for “the creation of criminal offences” where there is “non-compliance with a requirement imposed by or under energy performance regulations”. People could also be prosecuted for “provision of false information” about energy efficiency or the “obstruction of… an enforcement authority”.

Paywalled here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-failing-comply-new-energy-rules-face-prison/

Quoted from: https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...u-dont-upgrade-your-energy-efficiency-n576157

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Brilliant. Because our prisons aren't at all overcrowded as it is.
 
maximus otter said:

UK: You may soon go to jail if you don't upgrade your energy efficiency​


"The government is proposing to create new criminal laws that would imprison and fine people for not complying with new energy efficiency standards. Soon they will make excessive energy use – and that will be energy use that rises above “Net Zero” – a criminal offence.

Property owners who fail to comply with new energy efficiency rules could face prison under government plans that have sparked a backlash from MPs.

Ministers want to grant themselves powers to create new criminal offences and increase civil penalties as part of efforts to hit net zero targets. Under the proposals, people who fall foul of regulations to reduce their energy consumption could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to £15,000.

The proposals are contained in the Government’s controversial Energy Bill, which is set to come before the Commons for the first time when MPs return from their summer break on Tuesday.

It provides for “the creation of criminal offences” where there is “non-compliance with a requirement imposed by or under energy performance regulations”. People could also be prosecuted for “provision of false information” about energy efficiency or the “obstruction of… an enforcement authority”.

Paywalled here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-failing-comply-new-energy-rules-face-prison/

Quoted from: https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...u-dont-upgrade-your-energy-efficiency-n576157

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Not wanting to take sides in this debate but it's noteworthy that this report has appeared in the normally climate change skeptical right wing media, one could ask why would they report this?

Putting clauses like this in bills is quite normal and they get weeded out during the parliamentary process
 
Robbrent said:
Not wanting to take sides in this debate but it's noteworthy that this report has appeared in the normally climate change skeptical right wing media, one could ask why would they report this?
Click to expand...
Probably because the other media haven't made the effort to do so?
 
maximus otter said:

UK: You may soon go to jail if you don't upgrade your energy efficiency​


"The government is proposing to create new criminal laws that would imprison and fine people for not complying with new energy efficiency standards. Soon they will make excessive energy use – and that will be energy use that rises above “Net Zero” – a criminal offence.

Property owners who fail to comply with new energy efficiency rules could face prison under government plans that have sparked a backlash from MPs.

Ministers want to grant themselves powers to create new criminal offences and increase civil penalties as part of efforts to hit net zero targets. Under the proposals, people who fall foul of regulations to reduce their energy consumption could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to £15,000.

The proposals are contained in the Government’s controversial Energy Bill, which is set to come before the Commons for the first time when MPs return from their summer break on Tuesday.

It provides for “the creation of criminal offences” where there is “non-compliance with a requirement imposed by or under energy performance regulations”. People could also be prosecuted for “provision of false information” about energy efficiency or the “obstruction of… an enforcement authority”.

Paywalled here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-failing-comply-new-energy-rules-face-prison/

Quoted from: https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023...u-dont-upgrade-your-energy-efficiency-n576157

maximus otter
Click to expand...
That'll be rather a lot of people going to jail, then.
Or, more likely, being made to pay a punitive fine tax.
 
Eventually our lives will be governed by and rotate around 'net zero' and our carbon footprint will dictate what we can and can't do.
 
kesavaross said:
Eventually our lives will be governed by and rotate around 'net zero' and our carbon footprint will dictate what we can and can't do.
Click to expand...
The cost of entry for setting up/running a small business will be huge.
It seems like the UK is shooting itself in the foot.
 
So, people who ride about in helicopters rather than take a train may be put in jail?
 
Douglas Adams was so far ahead of his time.... the fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete while on the planet is surgically removed from your body weight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory there it is vitally important to get a receipt.

:chuckle::chuckle:
 
Best article about climate change research I have read in a while:

"To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve"

https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/as-a-...-to-tell-the-full-truth-about-climate-change/
 
So much has happened, data collected, since 19 years ago.
You do realise that as science develops, new techniques and technology enter the field, conclusions can change.
Nothing is set in stone.
 
maximus otter said:
The Guardian, 19 years ago:

“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs…warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

But everything they’re warning us about today is totally correct. As sure as I’m standing on this camel.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
It was one scenario, but it's important to note it was not all climate scientists agreed with it at the time

And who knows without the influence of mankind by way of pollution it might have played out

One thing I can't get my head around is why are people so intent on polluting our earth? Most climate sceptics just want to carry on as we are the poor air quality in our major cities, the needless suffering of wildlife and humans, why would you be happy with that continuing? Just so they can have the right to drive a gas guzzling car?

My point is this it matters not if you believe that our actions are altering the climate, we just can't go on polluting it, especially when there are clean viable alternatives, but I agree with some that say some of the alternatives are very expensive, which is ridiculous
 
I've tried ignoring this thread, but people keep drawing our attention to it.

This is a reminder that the premise of this thread—already very broad—is that either

a) global warming is not occuring

or

b) global warming is happening but is not caused by human activity

And that

c) the myth that it is occuring and is caused by human activity is being propagated by various parties with various ulterior motives.

This is not a licence to bore on about government policies, or about how much it all costs the taxpayer, or how we must do more to avoid hideous disaster.

As with other politics-adjacent theads that only the same half a dozen people read, it will shortly be locked and pruned to leave only posts pertaining to the topic.

edit. The most recent twelve-months' worth of posts have been read and a swathe have been removed. My apologies to those who penned well-written contributions that have now been deleted; the work it would take to locate appropriate threads for them all would be disproportiate.

Thread Reopened.
 
Last edited:
I notice that we've not had any posts quoting these founts of knowledge on climate science since Trev was booted off

Katie Hopkins
Wattsupwiththat
Daily sceptic
Orderorder/guidofawkes
Notalotofpeopleknowthat
Hotair
Realclimatescience
Conservativewoman

Anyone actually missing this shit?
 
hunck said:
I notice that we've not had any posts quoting these founts of knowledge on climate science since Trev was booted off

Katie Hopkins
Wattsupwiththat
Daily sceptic
Orderorder/guidofawkes
Notalotofpeopleknowthat
Hotair
Realclimatescience
Conservativewoman

Anyone actually missing this shit?
Click to expand...
I do miss a sceptical point of view, yes. I don't see the evidence for either a) global warming being unprecedented b) it being primarily caused by human activity or c) C02 being a pollutant.
 
Cochise said:
I do miss a sceptical point of view, yes. I don't see the evidence for either a) global warming being unprecedented b) it being primarily caused by human activity or c) C02 being a pollutant.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but find some actual science rather than for example a blog with an agenda such as this

The CW aims to challenge what it describes as “the left-liberal cultural zeitgeist” and the “anti-family, authoritarian identity politics and ‘equality and diversity’ ideology” that its editors say have “swept through the country’s institutions.”
Click to expand...
 
hunck said:
Fair enough but find some actual science rather than for example a blog with an agenda such as this
Click to expand...
I don't think I have ever quoted any such source. The reasons for my opinions come from geological and biological data. (And, to be fair, my hobby horse over the destruction of the rain forests)

However, while some of the sites you list are, shall we say, a bit shrill, some like Daily Sceptic do have contributions from actual scientists.
 
Cochise said:
The reasons for my opinions come from geological and biological data. (And, to be fair, my hobby horse over the destruction of the rain forests)
Click to expand...
The geological data (which I'm familiar with) supports the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, although there are many other factors affecting the climate, as I'm sure you are aware. The destruction of the rain forests is certainly significant, since the oxidation (via burning and decay) of all that biomass has contributed about 10% of all additional CO2 in the modern era. So you are right to be concerned about that.

Note, however, that a mature rainforest, or any other mature ecosystem, is carbon neutral - it absorbs just as much CO2 as it gives out, so the rainforests were not significant factors in the natural carbon cycle until we cut them down. Nor do they contribute significantly to the planet's atmospheric oxygen - most of the oxygen content of the atmosphere is the result of hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis coupled with the sequestration of reduced carbon over the same timescale.

Removing and oxidising all the plants on Earth would only reduce the oxygen level immediately by one percent or so. Of course we'd all die, from lack of food, plus the CO2 level would go through the roof, but there would still be enough oxygen to breathe for about half a million years or so before abiotic geological processes removed it finally.
 
eburacum said:
The geological data (which I'm familiar with) supports the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, although there are many other factors affecting the climate, as I'm sure you are aware. The destruction of the rain forests is certainly significant, since the oxidation (via burning and decay) of all that biomass has contributed about 10% of all additional CO2 in the modern era. So you are right to be concerned about that.

Note, however, that a mature rainforest, or any other mature ecosystem, is carbon neutral - it absorbs just as much CO2 as it gives out, so the rainforests were not significant factors in the natural carbon cycle until we cut them down. Nor do they contribute significantly to the planet's atmospheric oxygen - most of the oxygen content of the atmosphere is the result of hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis coupled with the sequestration of reduced carbon over the same timescale.

Removing and oxidising all the plants on Earth would only reduce the oxygen level immediately by one percent or so. Of course we'd all die, from lack of food, plus the CO2 level would go through the roof, but there would still be enough oxygen to breathe for about half a million years or so before abiotic geological processes removed it finally.
Click to expand...
The destruction of the rainforests annoys me as much from the loss of biodiversity as the contribution or otherwise to maintaining the atmospheric balance. I don't deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas, though so is methane (mainly produced by bogs, not cows), and even water vapour, and probably others.

But equally CO2 is absolutely vital to healthy plant growth, and the figures I've seen suggest CO2 , far from being at excessively high levels, are actually too low for the optimum.

Lets also remember that the polar ice caps are a (relatively speaking, geological timescales) temporary phenomenon. They (like us) were mostly not around when the trilobites or the dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

I did see someone suggesting that sea life - plankton etc. - is much more significant for climate stabilisation that the rain forests. I haven't followed up on that. Prevention of pollution of the seas is certainly a cause I could get behind.
 
Last edited:
Cochise said:
Lets also remember that the polar ice caps are a (relatively speaking, geological timescales) temporary phenomenon. They (like us) were mostly not around when the trilobites or the dinosaurs ruled the Earth.
Click to expand...
That's right. Ice caps were also largely absent during most of the Tertiary, when giant mammals like indricotheres and brontotheres roamed the Earth. During parts of the Tertiary the CO2 level was even higher than today, and the whole planet was warmer, with higher sea levels. So the best case scenario for a world with anthropogenic global warming would be a return to Eocene conditions, with much higher sea levels. That would reduce the UK to a much smaller island, accompanied by similar changes around the world.

I expect the planet's biosphere would eventually adapt, although a rapid rise in temperature would result in a mass extinction (these also have happened many times in geological history, and we are still in the middle of the last mass extinction caused by human hunting, agriculture and the indiscriminate spread of introduced vermin around the world). The new, warmer world would be a disaster area for thousands of years until a new equilibrium emerges - once again, something which has happened many times in the geological past.

Instead of ignoring anthropogenic climate change, we can act to reduce its impact so that the recovery time is reduced to manageable levels. We have a chance to steer the world through its next environmental upheaval by reducing human impact, and hopefully reduce the level of disruption to a minor, rather than a major, event. Or we could take our chances in a world that may resemble the environmental collapse at the end of the Ordovician or of the Permian.
 
Cochise said:
I don't think I have ever quoted any such source. The reasons for my opinions come from geological and biological data. (And, to be fair, my hobby horse over the destruction of the rain forests)

However, while some of the sites you list are, shall we say, a bit shrill, some like Daily Sceptic do have contributions from actual scientists.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I worded that a bit clumsily - it’s others who've been quoting from these sites.
 
eburacum said:
That's right. Ice caps were also largely absent during most of the Tertiary, when giant mammals like indricotheres and brontotheres roamed the Earth. During parts of the Tertiary the CO2 level was even higher than today, and the whole planet was warmer, with higher sea levels. So the best case scenario for a world with anthropogenic global warming would be a return to Eocene conditions, with much higher sea levels. That would reduce the UK to a much smaller island, accompanied by similar changes around the world.

I expect the planet's biosphere would eventually adapt, although a rapid rise in temperature would result in a mass extinction (these also have happened many times in geological history, and we are still in the middle of the last mass extinction caused by human hunting, agriculture and the indiscriminate spread of introduced vermin around the world). The new, warmer world would be a disaster area for thousands of years until a new equilibrium emerges - once again, something which has happened many times in the geological past.

Instead of ignoring anthropogenic climate change, we can act to reduce its impact so that the recovery time is reduced to manageable levels. We have a chance to steer the world through its next environmental upheaval by reducing human impact, and hopefully reduce the level of disruption to a minor, rather than a major, event. Or we could take our chances in a world that may resemble the environmental collapse at the end of the Ordovician or of the Permian.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if the shift in the positions of magnetic North Pole might now be a main driver to global warming?
 
I doubt it. Magnetic reversals happen regularly in our geological history, and they rarely seem to coincide with any change in climate or species diversity. For a short period of time the Earth may be bombarded by solar protons and/or cosmic rays because the magnetic field has failed, but this doesn't clearly show up in the geological record (except as a reversal of palaeomagnetism).

Possibly the increased particle flux might increase cloud cover slightly, which might actually help with global cooling due to higher albedo.

On the other hand a technology-reliant culture like our own might suffer during such events, as we would be more vulnerable to solar weather. We will have to wait and see.
 
Tunn11 said:
Precession of the equinoxes may play a part. It will be gradual but I suppose there may be a tipping point.

https://www.britannica.com/science/precession-of-the-equinoxes
Click to expand...
Lets hope not eh?
1700859839647.png
 
Last edited:
Tunn11 said:
Precession of the equinoxes may play a part. It will be gradual but I suppose there may be a tipping point.
Click to expand...
Precession is an integral part of the Milankovitch cycle. The Milankovitch cycles include:
The shape of Earth’s orbit, known as eccentricity;
The angle of tilt of the Earth’s axis, known as obliquity; and
The direction Earth’s axis of rotation is pointed, known as precession.
Working together these three factors affect the amount of insolation at different times of year for different parts of the world. When the largest landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere receive less insolation due to these effects, then frost and snow remains for a longer period and this lowers the albedo of the planet, cooling it further. Note that natural climate cycles are mostly dependent on these orbital elements, and the CO2 and water vapour changes are secondary effects and happen later.

Anthropogenic global warming reverses this natural chain of events: increased carbon dioxide comes first, which lowers the albedo and raises water vapour levels; these two effects override the Milankovitch cycles to some extent, and it seems likely that the effects of precession, obliquity and eccentricity will be swamped by AGW. Some global warming deniers suggest that this 'swamping' will be trivial in effect, but we can't really take that chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top