[News] Heat emergency declared in England

[Berty23]

I have just given up on working in my garden office. No air flowing. It is 35 degrees outside and hotter in the building. A few more hours of warming up to go. Smashing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I could copy and paste more …is it really so perfect in Germany

https://youtu.be/NMKwaikzPQc

You might want to check which government department, yes I said government department , funds that “news” channel.

 

[swindonseagull]

35 in Swindon and its a day off.......bloody lovely sitting in the garden and a nice breeze as well...

 

[Swansman]

Just emphasising both as you have a habit of ignoring things you don’t like. We are governed by these laws whether we like it or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. Laws that are not fully explored and understood, and got a complexity meaning that depending on the angle, you could interpret them in various ways. They're complex subjects, not like an on/off button. Scientists are not Gods though they're frequently seen as such in the modern society where science is religion. Karl Popper the prophet and anything backed up by any kind of science is seen as holy unquestionable truths.

In the 1980s there was a conspiracy theory that governments had known about the greenhouse effect since the 1940s but kept it hidden for the general population. Nonsense, people said_ there can't be nothing like that and if there is they could never have kept it secret. Today there is a theory that the warming of the earth is due to natural causes and that this is kept secret because the thought that it is man-made provides the establishment with a lot of useful tools to gain power and wealth. Which one of these ridiculed theories do I support? None, because there's no reason to take a dogmatic stance in either direction as were not some all-knowing species. Fear however makes people to rule out all thoughts except from those who they percieve as their trusted leaders - regardless if it is David Icke or some Exxon-sponsored IPCC-scientist.

Logically speaking, the world is suffering from a lot of environmental problems, and logically speaking there's a lot of solutions. Putting one of these problems, real or not, in the spotlight and creating some kind of centralised brain trust to deal with it brings up a lot of questions, such as if the questions asked and the solutions provided are really some sudden urge to deeply care about our earth and species, or if it is yet another way to increase power and wealth of a few. On one hand we're supposed to believe that our governments and our science community are doing everything (or at least something) in their power to deal with this issue, on the other hand they're always keen on creating new ways of destruction of our environment as long as it increases the concentration of power and wealth.

All in all it leaves some of us thinking: ok, climate may be changing. But why do you give a **** all of a sudden after creating an ever increasing (often luxuary) demand for energy, adding more chemicals to our surroundings, dumping things in the ocean and whatnot. Yes, you establishment guys want us to feel very panicky about the climate - but why do you feel that? What's in it for you? Because historically speaking - there's always something in it for them.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Sure. Laws that are not fully explored and understood, and got a complexity meaning that depending on the angle, you could interpret them in various ways. They're complex subjects, not like an on/off button. Scientists are not Gods though they're frequently seen as such in the modern society where science is religion. Karl Popper the prophet and anything backed up by any kind of science is seen as holy unquestionable truths.

In the 1980s there was a conspiracy theory that governments had known about the greenhouse effect since the 1940s but kept it hidden for the general population. Nonsense, people said_ there can't be nothing like that and if there is they could never have kept it secret. Today there is a theory that the warming of the earth is due to natural causes and that this is kept secret because the thought that it is man-made provides the establishment with a lot of useful tools to gain power and wealth. Which one of these ridiculed theories do I support? None, because there's no reason to take a dogmatic stance in either direction as were not some all-knowing species. Fear however makes people to rule out all thoughts except from those who they percieve as their trusted leaders - regardless if it is David Icke or some Exxon-sponsored IPCC-scientist.

Logically speaking, the world is suffering from a lot of environmental problems, and logically speaking there's a lot of solutions. Putting one of these problems, real or not, in the spotlight and creating some kind of centralised brain trust to deal with it brings up a lot of questions, such as if the questions asked and the solutions provided are really some sudden urge to deeply care about our earth and species, or if it is yet another way to increase power and wealth of a few. On one hand we're supposed to believe that our governments and our science community are doing everything (or at least something) in their power to deal with this issue, on the other hand they're always keen on creating new ways of destruction of our environment as long as it increases the concentration of power and wealth.

All in all it leaves some of us thinking: ok, climate may be changing. But why do you give a **** all of a sudden after creating an ever increasing (often luxuary) demand for energy, adding more chemicals to our surroundings, dumping things in the ocean and whatnot. Yes, you establishment guys want us to feel very panicky about the climate - but why do you feel that? What's in it for you? Because historically speaking - there's always something in it for them.

You seem more than happy to make use of all the toys science has provided….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

You seem more than happy to make use of all the toys science has provided….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, I'm slightly unhappy about it. But I'm a human living in a society. I like trees, yet I'm sitting in a wooden chair right now. I like to be at least somewhat fit and healthy, yet I ate an icecream yesterday. And some people who does not like the potential consequences that humans have on the temperature on earth will still occasionally have heating in their house or travel in a vehicle that is not 100% friendly for the environment. Not everyone reaches the level of perfection I suppose you've reached in order for you to think it is fair to bring it up.

 

[A1X]

Lord's have permitted members to not wear jackets in the Pavilion for their game against Sussex starting tomorrow.

Shit just got real.

 

[Seagull27]

In the 1980s there was a conspiracy theory that governments had known about the greenhouse effect since the 1940s but kept it hidden for the general population. Nonsense, people said_ there can't be nothing like that and if there is they could never have kept it secret. Today there is a theory that the warming of the earth is due to natural causes and that this is kept secret because the thought that it is man-made provides the establishment with a lot of useful tools to gain power and wealth. Which one of these ridiculed theories do I support? None, because there's no reason to take a dogmatic stance in either direction as were not some all-knowing species. Fear however makes people to rule out all thoughts except from those who they percieve as their trusted leaders - regardless if it is David Icke or some Exxon-sponsored IPCC-scientist.

I know that as a conspiracy theorist you like to listen to scientists who are in the minority and not discard them like others seem to, without listening to the case they have to make. Sometimes these minority or niche views turn out to be correct and in hindsight we should have listened to those people all along. But also sometimes there is a reason why a minority view or conspiracy theory is not taken up and the majority are actually correct - because the minority view was based on poor quality or false science. Sometimes yo yo just have to accept that the majority view is a majority view for a reason.

There is a danger if too many people start to be persuaded by minority views that falsehoods are believed as truth by those who do not fully understand the science (particularly with social media) - take the example of Aspartame being linked to cancer, which is still circulated now despite being based on a load of bollocks. In that case, there isn't a particular danger if people stop consuming aspartame so it's mostly harmless even if it is nonsense. However, in the case of climate change, there is a huge potential risk if we don't take the correct action due to being misled.

So the best thing to do with the minority science hypotheses is allow them to be held to scrutiny by other scientists in the field to see if they hold up, in a variety of experiments and scientific reviews.

Can you give some examples of science that suggests climate change is due to natural causes, where that science has not been listened to and is not being reviewed by other scientists? I've seen a few, but none of these have been kept secret - they just haven't made it to the mainstream because they have been refuted by more complete or better science.

I worked in academia for a short time and while every scientist is human and can of course be influenced, the vast majority of scientists I came across were interested in finding out the truth and generally were very principled people. The nature of the peer review process and major research journals would make it quite difficult to cover something up and to produce 'fake' science to push a particular agenda - we're talking 1000s of scientists from 100s of universities across the world doing their own research, you can't influence that many people to all find the wrong thing.

Research produced by companies is, of course, a different story - it's much easier for them to decide not to publish something that didn't go along with their agenda. Note here that I say research that is "produced" by the company rather than "funded".

 

[beorhthelm]

You seem more than happy to make use of all the toys science has provided….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

this isnt helpful and goes too far. different technologies are not dependant on the entire body of all science. if some revelation was discovered in climate science that invalidate direct casual links between CO2 and warming, that would not invalidate theories underpinning semiconductors. even where there is invalidation, that does not stop something from working, only our understanding why. science has made a lot of discoveries of working apperatus with the wrong theories, later refined and updated.

 

[Stat Brother]

Lord's have permitted members to not wear jackets in the Pavilion for their game against Sussex starting tomorrow.

Shit just got real.

Indeed, I can only add

 

[Easy 10]

Went out for a cheeky lunchtime pint in HH. My phone had it at 35 degrees, but there was a slight warm breeze. All perfectly manageable, at no point did I feel on the point of collapse. Looking forward to sloping off from the office in 15 minutes back to my garden and a few cans of Inches, of which I have recently acquired a taste for.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Went out for a cheeky lunchtime pint in HH. My phone had it at 35 degrees, but there was a slight warm breeze. All perfectly manageable, at no point did I feel on the point of collapse. Looking forward to sloping off from the office in 15 minutes back to my garden and a few cans of Inches, of which I have recently acquired a taste for.

Boss: "Anyone seen [MENTION=70]Easy 10[/MENTION]?"

Co-worker: "Well, he went for a pint at lunchtime then came back and said he was slipping off home early for 6 inches in the back garden."

Boss: "Oh. ok."

 

[Brighthelmstone]

Went out for a cheeky lunchtime pint in HH. My phone had it at 35 degrees, but there was a slight warm breeze. All perfectly manageable, at no point did I feel on the point of collapse. Looking forward to sloping off from the office in 15 minutes back to my garden and a few cans of Inches, of which I have recently acquired a taste for.

I tried that recently, the Inches drink, and its very tasty.

 

[Berty23]

Military is run by snowflakes. Brize Norton closed for flights as runway has melted.

But yeah. We should just crack on and live our normal lives for two days.

 

[A1X]

Went out for a cheeky lunchtime pint in HH. My phone had it at 35 degrees, but there was a slight warm breeze. All perfectly manageable, at no point did I feel on the point of collapse. Looking forward to sloping off from the office in 15 minutes back to my garden and a few cans of Inches, of which I have recently acquired a taste for.

Then you've not been doing lunchtime drinking properly.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

No, I'm slightly unhappy about it. But I'm a human living in a society. I like trees, yet I'm sitting in a wooden chair right now. I like to be at least somewhat fit and healthy, yet I ate an icecream yesterday. And some people who does not like the potential consequences that humans have on the temperature on earth will still occasionally have heating in their house or travel in a vehicle that is not 100% friendly for the environment. Not everyone reaches the level of perfection I suppose you've reached in order for you to think it is fair to bring it up.

My issue is that you ignore the science because it doesn’t align with you views, a bit like your tin foil view with vaccines etc.

Global warming is a thing and will happen to a certain extent with or without our help however, at the moment we are giving it a very big leg up which we don’t need. You seem more intent on the political outcomes rather than the issues in hand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

Been a perfectly pleasant, warm, summer’s day.

To be fair, tomorrow looks like it’s going to be a bit hotter.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

this isnt helpful and goes too far. different technologies are not dependant on the entire body of all science. if some revelation was discovered in climate science that invalidate direct casual links between CO2 and warming, that would not invalidate theories underpinning semiconductors. even where there is invalidation, that does not stop something from working, only our understanding why. science has made a lot of discoveries of working apperatus with the wrong theories, later refined and updated.

Indeed and a bit extreme but I was trying to make a point (albeit not very well), however it falls into the same category as those who claim that vaccines are there to make many for big pharma but who are happy to use medication to treat other ailments made by …. Big pharma.

It’s the pick and choosing linked to belief and political views that I find very annoying. If the view is based on peer reviewed studies then I wouldn’t have an issue with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

I do actually have an anemometer for work, but wouldn't have a clue how to use a Raspberry Pi!

They’re the kind you buy in a second hand store.

 

[The Clamp]

My issue is that you ignore the science because it doesn’t align with you views, a bit like your tin foil view with vaccines etc.

Global warming is a thing and will happen to a certain extent with or without our help however, at the moment we are giving it a very big leg up which we don’t need. You seem more intent on the political outcomes rather than the issues in hand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited for being a meany.