Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

Well now, this is going to be....difficult....to explain to the masses.

“I know it’s very counterintuitive, and I think that’s why there’s a lot of resistance and hesitancy to our idea, right?” said Judah Cohen, one of the paper’s authors. “Because how could making the Earth warmer lead to more extreme cold? But that’s what we’re arguing.”


Even the High Priests of IPOCC are getting a bit itchy, but can't yet bring themselves to say anything more than that some parts if the world "may warm more slowly"

(That includes UK and Northern Europe in case you were wondering)

Telling them the climate has been changing for around four and a half billion years may lead to a fit of the vapours.
 
Telling them the climate has been changing for around four and a half billion years may lead to a fit of the vapours.
Sorry, no vapours allowed because they may cause the climate to warm up even faster.
Apart from which we all know that the Earth is only around 6000 years old.

Back into serious mode. Around 500 million years ago the Earth was one large snowball, ice and snow miles deep everywhere, ie a tad colder than now. Much later the Earth had warmed up so much that 95% of all life forms had died. So climate change and sh1t have something in common, they both happen.
And in the other news the Pope is indeed Catholic, who'd have thought it.
 
Tell me about bears and forests. Is it true what they say?

If only the climate screamers were in touch with reality. They may have had more success if they'd remained rational and not hijacked scientific rigour or exaggerated to push an agenda. No matter the worth of their point, they've devalued it by acting like spoiled children, leading to folks who may have considered it just writing them off as the usual mob of crazies flinging their poo around.
 
Tell me about bears and forests. Is it true what they say?

If only the climate screamers were in touch with reality. They may have had more success if they'd remained rational and not hijacked scientific rigour or exaggerated to push an agenda. No matter the worth of their point, they've devalued it by acting like spoiled children, leading to folks who may have considered it just writing them off as the usual mob of crazies flinging their poo around.
The climate change screamers proof, is almost always the results of over-population and that relates to events as well as rising CO2. They're regularly link extreme weather and disaster to climate change, but yet, its the expansion of towns across California, or South Africa and encroaching more and more into the natural world, changing gradients for new roads and not expanding drainage, it then rains heavily and a town that's never being flooded, is suddenly flooded and its climate change but its the new housing development on the hill behind the town that was once occupied by trees and terrain that was naturally designed to shift water away from the flooded town has being altered.

It might sound a bit conspiratorial, but I think our masters actively promote birth control and a variety of choices to get the same effect as personal choices, when its exactly what they're want and all the bollox about COP and climate change is linked to reducing the global population.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
We apparently produce 1.1 percent of the world's carbon emissions (answer to a question in the Commons).

In terms of per capita:

The UK's CO2 emissions in 2019, at 5.3tCO2, are above the global average (4.8 in 2018) and India (2.0), but below the EU average (7.0) and the figure for China (7.2) or the US (16.6). (Quote from carbon brief.org.)

Climate and quality of life here probably account for us producing more per capita than the Indians. But there are rather more of them - and look at China and the US. Note also that we're doing better than the average in the EU. That'll upset those who were shouting that us leaving the EU under the Evil Tories would result in Carbonmageddon (yes, I just made that up).

We're on a path to decarbonise (net zero) by 2050 which, in terms of sorting out the issue in a country of just 60 million people (yes, I know...) which still has to function until net zero is reached is pretty good going.

I'd always urge prudence. The climate change deniers will always say that we don't need to change until the evidence is absolute. My take on this is that we should minimise what we do because that's going to mean that humankind doesn't over-affect the planet.

In other words, stick on a jumper. Don't travel if you don't need to. But neither should we be going back to the Stone Age, which is pretty much where Greta (who last time I checked doesn't have a greta, sorry great, deal of formal scientific training) would have us.

Musical interlude:

 
...the expansion of towns across California, or South Africa and encroaching more and more into the natural world, changing gradients for new roads and not expanding drainage, it then rains heavily and a town that's never being flooded, is suddenly flooded and its climate change but its the new housing development on the hill behind the town that was once occupied by trees and terrain that was naturally designed to shift water away from the flooded town has being altered...

Even simpler than that when it comes to new flooding. Just don't clear and maintain the waterways around existing towns and suburbs. Easier to pocket the funds budgeted for it then blame a system that hasn't been around for 30 odd years when the area gets flooded due to waterways clogged with undergrowth and silted up not effectively draining the area.

When questioned, it's apartheid/climate change wot dun it.
 
The climate change screamers proof, is almost always the results of over-population and that relates to events as well as rising CO2. They're regularly link extreme weather and disaster to climate change, but yet, its the expansion of towns across California, or South Africa and encroaching more and more into the natural world, changing gradients for new roads and not expanding drainage, it then rains heavily and a town that's never being flooded, is suddenly flooded and its climate change but its the new housing development on the hill behind the town that was once occupied by trees and terrain that was naturally designed to shift water away from the flooded town has being altered.

It might sound a bit conspiratorial, but I think our masters actively promote birth control and a variety of choices to get the same effect as personal choices, when its exactly what they're want and all the bollox about COP and climate change is linked to reducing the global population.
No bad thing in itself. Be honest, and the vast majority of the third world, plus a good percentage of the first, are not required. They consume resources and breed, but little else, and in breeding they consume ever more land/ water / food etc.
No good farmer would allow his stock to breed continuously, he'd be broke in short order and his land made uninhabitable.
A cull is overdue.
 

Tool

LE
Even simpler than that when it comes to new flooding. Just don't clear and maintain the waterways around existing towns and suburbs. Easier to pocket the funds budgeted for it then blame a system that hasn't been around for 30 odd years when the area gets flooded due to waterways clogged with undergrowth and silted up not effectively draining the area.

When questioned, it's apartheid/climate change wot dun it.
You don't live in Zomerzet, do you? Apart from the last line, obvs.
 

skeetstar

Old-Salt
got this off Guido fawkes, cant speak to its truthfulness

The UN has been predicting planetary disaster for decades, usually scheduled to happen in about a decade’s time. In 1972 – half a century ago – Maurice Strong, the first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world “had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe”. In 1982 his successor, Mostafa Tolba, the then head of the UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before “an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”. Yet 2000 came and went and we just partied like it was 1999…

In 1989 the official was warning that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or “climate change goes beyond human control”. By 1990 Tolba was warning the world must fix global warming before 1995, “otherwise, we’d lose the climate struggle”. Now 20 years past that date when it was going to be too late, we are still hearing the same claims again.

As sea levels would rise we were told that the Maldives islands would be under water over a decade ago, they’re actually building more luxury hotels. We were told the source of the great Ganges river in the Himalayas, the glaciers, would have melted long ago. The great Ganges river still flows and the glaciers are still there. The Australian Great Barrier reef would be dead, it is alive and thriving

My view..

Scientists tell us that climate change is 100% anthropological, caused by modern (ie. since the industrial revolution) humanities carbon emissions, on this 'fact', there is unity.

But no scientist can tell us what caused the warming that ended the last ice, no scientist can explain the cooling from the medieval warm period to the time of Dickens when the Thames would freeze in winter. When they can prove what caused those climate changes, I 'd be more inclined to listen to their current pronouncements.
 
Even simpler than that when it comes to new flooding. Just don't clear and maintain the waterways around existing towns and suburbs. Easier to pocket the funds budgeted for it then blame a system that hasn't been around for 30 odd years when the area gets flooded due to waterways clogged with undergrowth and silted up not effectively draining the area.

When questioned, it's apartheid/climate change wot dun it.
In 1999 we had a bloke start working for us. he had previously been a gvmt employed inland water engineer.
Blair laid half of them off as we didn't need them.
The rest is history.
Silly things like tarmacing over front gardens don't help either.
But overpopulation is the main problem.
 

Chef

LE
In 1999 we had a bloke start working for us. he had previously been a gvmt employed inland water engineer.
Blair laid half of them off as we didn't need them.
The rest is history.
Silly things like tarmacing over front gardens don't help either.
But overpopulation is the main problem.
Sometime ago the stuff dredged up when clearing waterways was classified as requiring a licence for disposal, so firstly no more sticking it on the banks as you went, secondly the licence required paying for and thirdly you now had to transport it away. All extra costs for what was previously a simple task. So most dredging and clearance was stopped.

I'm tempted to blame an EU directive but I'm not sure so won't.
 
Blame it on a jobsworth in the woodpile. The kind of person who meddles with a working system in order to be seen to be useful so he can justify his job, fucking up everything he touches.

Aka, managers.
 
Blame it on a jobsworth in the woodpile. The kind of person who meddles with a working system in order to be seen to be useful so he can justify his job, fucking up everything he touches.

Aka, managers.
3 months ago I was listening to 3 civvies boasting to each other how every regt had to havs a crap officer by some kind of law.
The truth is even the worst were far better than the average civvie manager IMHO.
 
That's because the weak crunts are focused on arse covering, not results and getting the job done.

I'm no longer in but I can tell who has never served by their lack of timekeeping, forward planning, and the burning desire to ensure their baby soft arses are exposed to no threat at any time ever. Results are secondary.
 
That's because the weak crunts are focused on arse covering, not results and getting the job done.

I'm no longer in but I can tell who has never served by their lack of timekeeping, forward planning, and the burning desire to ensure their baby soft arses are exposed to no threat at any time ever. Results are secondary.
I was told by one manager that I was unintelligent. He followed it up by saying it was because I didn't understand office politics.
I told him I did, it should be gross misconduct and instant dismissal if found playing it.
We didn't get on.
 
Exactly the kind of gutless jobsworth who feels the need to meddle with things that are working in order to justify its futile existence.
 
Reminds me of the Resuscitation Council - every so often we get told, 2 breaths then 30 pumps, 2 breaths, 30 pumps etc... then it's no initial breaths, 15 pumps, 2 breaths, 15 pumps, etc... then it's another minor variation, then another tweak, then another fiddle - but basically it's been exactly the same for the last 30 years.

But, they have to keep saying something otherwise they might lose relevance with the masses.
 
got this off Guido fawkes, cant speak to its truthfulness

The UN has been predicting planetary disaster for decades, usually scheduled to happen in about a decade’s time. In 1972 – half a century ago – Maurice Strong, the first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world “had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe”. In 1982 his successor, Mostafa Tolba, the then head of the UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before “an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust”. Yet 2000 came and went and we just partied like it was 1999…

In 1989 the official was warning that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or “climate change goes beyond human control”. By 1990 Tolba was warning the world must fix global warming before 1995, “otherwise, we’d lose the climate struggle”. Now 20 years past that date when it was going to be too late, we are still hearing the same claims again.

As sea levels would rise we were told that the Maldives islands would be under water over a decade ago, they’re actually building more luxury hotels. We were told the source of the great Ganges river in the Himalayas, the glaciers, would have melted long ago. The great Ganges river still flows and the glaciers are still there. The Australian Great Barrier reef would be dead, it is alive and thriving

My view..

Scientists tell us that climate change is 100% anthropological, caused by modern (ie. since the industrial revolution) humanities carbon emissions, on this 'fact', there is unity.

But no scientist can tell us what caused the warming that ended the last ice, no scientist can explain the cooling from the medieval warm period to the time of Dickens when the Thames would freeze in winter. When they can prove what caused those climate changes, I 'd be more inclined to listen to their current pronouncements.
To some extent, climate science seems little different from renaissance science trying to understand the cosmos. They're can measure things, make observations but don't at all really understand, what's going on but only something is going on. The ugly truth is they've worked out the growing overpopulation is in line with the supposed warming and rather than say it out loud, they're use the codeword CO2 and hide the malthusian theory and a bit of eugenics, in a lot of science babble.

One of lifes oddities is most people now accept that many conspiracy theories are ostensibly bollox. But whenever you try to piece together the jigsaw of what goes on behind closed doors in the corridors of power you get the sense, we are being lied too and all kinds of terrible things are being discussed in the name of saving the climate for future generations and those future generations will be a reduced number of people and if you put the pieces together its all quite troubling really.
 
Even simpler than that when it comes to new flooding. Just don't clear and maintain the waterways around existing towns and suburbs. Easier to pocket the funds budgeted for it then blame a system that hasn't been around for 30 odd years when the area gets flooded due to waterways clogged with undergrowth and silted up not effectively draining the area.

When questioned, it's apartheid/climate change wot dun it.
Climate change is the default excuse now for anything that goes wrong. My particular favourite is the many dual carriageways built in the UK come with underpasses and shock/horror, they're are flooding because someone subsequently then built housing estates, or factory units on the leading roads down and so are flooding more than they're used too.
 
Climate change is the default excuse now for anything that goes wrong. My particular favourite is the many dual carriageways built in the UK come with underpasses and shock/horror, they're are flooding because someone subsequently then built housing estates, or factory units on the leading roads down and so are flooding more than they're used too.
Again due to the fact this island is vastly overcrowded.
 
Top