OneGuyFromBarlick

I wasn't aware of these actual cases, but it is a certainty that the Internet is used for propaganda by all countries. The Internet social sites provide a powerful media tool. I don't know what happens behind the scenes in any country, my views represent my own personal experiences. I do know there was a lot of trouble with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang for many years, and there isn't any terrorism there at the moment. Anyone would be foolish to go against the government in China, or DPRK or Russia or many other places. Live quietly, don't get involved in controversy, and enjoy life in a great country is my idea.

" Live quietly, don't get involved in controversy, and enjoy life in a great country is my idea."
There's a lot to be said for that Graham. I've reached an age where I realise that I have never had any influence whatsoever on the course of government in this country. Every now and then they give you a vote but what difference has that ever made since 1945 and that was a result of the war, not politics.
Meanwhile see THIS story about temperatures almost certainly enabled by global warming.

Stanley wrote: ↑12 Jul 2021, 03:41 I've reached an age where I realise that I have never had any influence whatsoever on the course of government in this country. Every now and then they give you a vote but what difference has that ever made since 1945 and that was a result of the war, not politics.

I have, but unfortunately that led to Tony Blair getting elected, which didn't turn out well.

The trouble is that when there's a general election you have to elect politicians.

Meanwhile California burns..... See THIS BBC report on the fires and their consequences... more fires!

In this article (`Climate change: `Amazon regions emit more carbon than they absorb' LINK ) this caught my eye....

"In the eastern part of the Amazon, which is around 30% deforested, this region emitted 10 times more carbon then in the west, which is around 11% deforested," said lead author Luciana Gatti, with Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE). "This is a huge impact, you know directly because we are emitting CO2 to the atmosphere, which is accelerating climate change but also because it is promoting changes in the dry season conditions and stress to trees that will produce even more emissions. This is terrible negative feedback that increases the emissions much more than we knew." The researchers say that the forest in the south-east of the Amazon have been very badly hit by deforestation and climate change. In this area, temperatures have increased in the two hottest months of the year by 3.07C - this is around the same increase seen in the Arctic and around three times the global average. "This is amazing," said Dr Gatti. "It's a complete surprise for the equator layer of the globe."...

Tizer, remind me when I first said deforestation was one of the largest drivers of increases of CO2 (never mind the wildlife and science loss in doing it)

That's what happened to the forest in the part of the US called the Painted Desert. They knew but they had forgotten!



The Badlands in the Painted Desert. There's a petrified forest next door.

See THIS account of a dam near Cologne that is giving cause for concern. One for Peter I think...

We need the `authorities' to remember that this flooding is happening in summer when we might expect drought rather than floods. As climate change proceeds and the glaciers and mountain snow disappear there will be even worse floods during winter - all the water falling on the mountains that would in the past have been held back will instead race down the rivers and flood the plains. Then we'll have summer droughts in roasting heat.

Exactly Peter. As always in July when we have hot weather I have to point out that this was exactly the pattern of weather that led to the flood of July 1932 in Barnoldswick. One of these days.....

See THIS BBC account of a report that gives bas news about UK climate change.
The UK is already undergoing disruptive climate change with increased rainfall, sunshine and temperatures, according to scientists. The year 2020 was the third warmest, fifth wettest and eight sunniest on record, scientists said in the latest UK State of the Climate report. No other year is in the top 10 on all three criteria. The experts said that, in the space of 30 years, the UK has become 0.9C warmer and 6% wetter.

Stanley wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 04:36 See THIS BBC account of a report that gives bad news about UK climate change.
The UK is already undergoing disruptive climate change with increased rainfall, sunshine and temperatures, according to scientists. The year 2020 was the third warmest, fifth wettest and eight sunniest on record, scientists said in the latest UK State of the Climate report. No other year is in the top 10 on all three criteria. The experts said that, in the space of 30 years, the UK has become 0.9C warmer and 6% wetter.

30 years is a short term historically. I wonder how many more 30 year periods they could cherry-pick that were exceptional in some way? It wasn't many years ago they were picking out cold periods to demonstrate climate change. It's changing. Shouldn't be a surprise, it always does!

I live here Graham and I believe them despite you sniping at them.

Here's a good one from that sensationalist rag, The Sun, today, 29th July:

Bookies have slashed the odds on this month [it's JULY] being the wettest August on record to just 2-1.

You couldn't make it up!

chinatyke wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 05:41 30 years is a short term historically. I wonder how many more 30 year periods they could cherry-pick that were exceptional in some way? I

Wise words.

Not all would agree though, since the matter has been declared apodictic. (I knew it would soon come in handy)

You lot are getting carried away with searching too much for conspiracies in everything you read - be careful or you'll turn into Americans! The climate report was based on a period of the last 30 years for the simple reason that all such reports from the Met Office are based on 30-year periods. It's not cherry picking!

Received from an English friend today:

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated the cost of making buildings net zero of Carbon at £400 billion, while the bill for vehicles would be £330 billion, plus £500 billion to clean up power generation and a further £46 billion for industry. After energy savings across the economy, this would leave a £500 billion bill for the Treasury. The 'OBR' also warned that the Government would need to impose carbon taxes to make up for the loss of fuel duty and other taxes over and above those already in existence.

Moreover, the government is now panicking over its proposal to ban gas boilers by 2035, so much so that it’s pushed this date back to 2040. This is also hardly surprising.

But the truth is, the sacrifices being demanded of us in the name of net zero are incompatible with democracy, and the PM knows it. The boiler ban was a key plank of the government’s net zero strategy. Gas boilers were to be replaced with heat pumps. These heat pumps are not what anyone could call a reasonable alternative to boilers. While a boiler can heat your house fairly quickly at the flick of a switch, a heat pump will take around 24 hours to heat your home to between 17 to 19 degrees celsius i.e., not-quite room temperature and certainly not as warm as one would like.

For the pleasure of living in your 'not-quite warm' house, you will have to fork out around £10,000 for the unit and installation. Then, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC), you can expect to spend an additional £100 per year on your energy bills. (Who are they?)

If you want to own a heat pump and have a house that’s more than lukewarm, you’ll need lots of extra insulation. This means yet more tens of thousands of pounds in renovation costs. The Energy Technologies Institute estimates that a ‘deep retrofit’ could cost as much as building a new home from scratch. This is not money that any ordinary person has down the back of the sofa, or that the taxpayer can reasonably cover for millions of households.

Getting used to this reduced lifestyle ‘will take an attitudinal shift’, says Chris Stark, CEO of the CCC. This is quite the understatement. It means abandoning what was once a completely normal expectation in a developed country: having a warm home in winter.

In our net zero future, we can also forget having a stable and affordable supply of electricity. Boris says he wants to make the UK the “Saudi Arabia of wind power”. But we should be wary of green energy experiments. Places like California that have rushed to swap nuclear and fossil fuels with renewable energy are regularly faced with rolling blackouts. Since Germany embarked on its Energiewende (energy transition), its electricity prices are now among the highest in the world, though, this hasn’t done anything to lower CO2 emissions.

Anyone can now observe, the government’s net zero policy is effectively dead in the water.

Ye gods! Are they all quite, quite mad?
They want us all to go back to the pre industrial age....

Peking Pete

What a , selfish, negative load of crap. Don't bother me with stuff like that China. My god with that attitude we would have been occupied by the Nazis by 1942! I'd rather believe that it was possible to survive rather than bleat about the house not being warm. Put a cardie on, that's what we did when I was young.

Stanley wrote: ↑31 Jul 2021, 02:45 What a , selfish, negative load of crap. Don't bother me with stuff like that China. My god with that attitude we would have been occupied by the Nazis by 1942! I'd rather believe that it was possible to survive rather than bleat about the house not being warm. Put a cardie on, that's what we did when I was young.

That's a very disappointing reply - thankfully very rare - I expect a better more reasoned reponse on this site.

'Net zero' is a long way off unless a viable replacement for fossil fuels is found and heavily subsidised. What happened to nuclear power, that was supposed to be a viable replacement that would be so cheap it wouldn't be cost effective to produce bills to use the energy produced. That went well.
As for living in a cold house, and putting a cardie on, we all dress appropriately but where do you stop? Gloves, balaclava, blankets? Not for me, I have a warm house and work to pay for that privilege. I can remember a cold house, as a child, and an outside toilet and believe I've moved on from that.
I certainly won't be paying out tens of thousands to install a heat pump to make the house 'slightly warm'. The gas central heating boiler, in my previous house, was 35 years old and still working well. The current house has a two year old gas boiler, I don't think the government banning the installation of new gas boilers in 2040 will really impact me.

My English friend, Peking Pete, has very fixed views and deserves any criticism he gets, same as I do! His daily e-mails to me consist of jokes, racism or running down Britain, with an occasional gem thrown in.

China, there's no need to hide behind your `English friend, Peking Pete'. What you've posted is word for word a big section out of a web page of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is run by climate change deniers such as Nigel Lawson. The article is written by Fraser Myers of The Daily Telegraph and is here: Global Warming Policy Forum

Note that the Global Warming Policy Forum isn't (quite) the same as the Global Warming Policy Foundation. From Wikipedia: In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF [Global Warming Policy Foundation] had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.

Thanks for the sources.

I'm not a climate change denier, I accept that climate change is happening and always has. I say the activities of an extra 5 billion population in the last 100 years is responsible for it. So what are we going to do? Going back to the glory days of 1942 might be a start but it wouldn't be enough to lose 5 billion people. Leave the climate alone and allow the effects to cull 5 billion? Wouldn't be popular! Introduce a carbon tax? Get real!

chinatyke wrote: ↑31 Jul 2021, 14:34 Thanks for the sources.

I'm not a climate change denier, I accept that climate change is happening and always has. I say the activities of an extra 5 billion population in the last 100 years is responsible for it. So what are we going to do? Going back to the glory days of 1942 might be a start but it wouldn't be enough to lose 5 billion people. Leave the climate alone and allow the effects to cull 5 billion? Wouldn't be popular! Introduce a carbon tax? Get real!

The advances in medical science would potentially stop climate change culling 5 billion people, it certainly slowed down Covid-19. The only way I see is restrictions on childbirth, another unpopular option. Carbon tax? What do they think they're going to spend the money on? Genuine question...