News & Politics ........ random improvised discussions

[McAhuna]

I’m positive I replied to a post at 8.01pm yesterday when you mentioned costs.
But don’t let a little thing like facts affect your reply. Is a botanist of a very high standing unable to read data then? Although we only ever get worst case to scare the shite out of people and get a few extra taxes.

People who understand the environment also understand that migration patterns, habits and condition of individual species of fauna and flora are all key indicators of climate change. Indeed, the recent COP29 conference in Baku focused heavily on the relationship of biodiversity and ecosystems to climate change.

So yes ....a Botanist of international standing is infinitely more qualified to consider climate change science than a rogue landlord from Cornwall.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The Epstein files are fascinating because it is the parasite class talking frankly and openly to each other.

I wouldn't trust a word they said outside those circles, to the goyim, to their victims, or to congressional committees.

But when they talk to each other is a different matter. I believe that was his genuine opinion spoken to another parasite. Doesn't mean it is true of course, but he knew Trump better than any of us.

Context is important here. People say a lot of things. If anyone goes to court, it will be for a judge and jury to decide.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I’m positive I replied to a post at 8.01pm yesterday when you mentioned costs.
But don’t let a little thing like facts affect your reply. Is a botanist of a very high standing unable to read data then? Although we only ever get worst case to scare the shite out of people and get a few extra taxes.

This is what you wrote at 8.01!

“If it isn’t about the cost why are we not given it for free. If it’s that urgent we only have a few years anyway so money will be as much use as a chocolate fire guard!”

Which was in response to a comment I made to someone else specifically pointing out that costs were an irrelevance.

A botanist can read whatever data he likes but that doesn’t infer the capability of understanding and interpreting it. You need specialist training and experience to be able to do that. You need to be an expert in that field. Being an expert in any other conveys nothing other than the capacity to convince fools and sceptics.

I was fortunate to know such an expert some time ago. One of the world’s leading scientists holding a double doctorate in this area. She was then advising the British government and has since advised governments all over the world what they can expect in their countries, in a range of different scenarios. She now heads a specialist unit at Oxford University. She isn’t motivated by money. Just by the truth and a concern for our future. She has absolute integrity and convinced me this is real more than 20 years ago.

You carry on denying if you cannot face the truth. I know you are wrong.

 

[Common Sense Club]

This is what you wrote at 8.01!

“If it isn’t about the cost why are we not given it for free. If it’s that urgent we only have a few years anyway so money will be as much use as a chocolate fire guard!”

Which was in response to a comment I made to someone else specifically pointing out that costs were an irrelevance.

A botanist can read whatever data he likes but that doesn’t infer the capability of understanding and interpreting it. You need specialist training and experience to be able to do that. You need to be an expert in that field. Being an expert in any other conveys nothing other than the capacity to convince fools and sceptics.

I was fortunate to know such an expert some time ago. One of the world’s leading scientists holding a double doctorate in this area. She was then advising the British government and has since advised governments all over the world what they can expect in their countries, in a range of different scenarios. She now heads a specialist unit at Oxford University. She isn’t motivated by money. Just by the truth and a concern for our future. She has absolute integrity and convinced me this is real more than 20 years ago.

You carry on denying if you cannot face the truth. I know you are wrong.

Thank you, I will.
I’ m off to study why we have ice ages that melt their ice periodically, burying ancient towns up to 2000 feet under water…perhaps your scientist friend could explain what causes both of these events.

 

[cryrst]

This is what you wrote at 8.01!

“If it isn’t about the cost why are we not given it for free. If it’s that urgent we only have a few years anyway so money will be as much use as a chocolate fire guard!”

Which was in response to a comment I made to someone else specifically pointing out that costs were an irrelevance.

A botanist can read whatever data he likes but that doesn’t infer the capability of understanding and interpreting it. You need specialist training and experience to be able to do that. You need to be an expert in that field. Being an expert in any other conveys nothing other than the capacity to convince fools and sceptics.

I was fortunate to know such an expert some time ago. One of the world’s leading scientists holding a double doctorate in this area. She was then advising the British government and has since advised governments all over the world what they can expect in their countries, in a range of different scenarios. She now heads a specialist unit at Oxford University. She isn’t motivated by money. Just by the truth and a concern for our future. She has absolute integrity and convinced me this is real more than 20 years ago.

You carry on denying if you cannot face the truth. I know you are wrong.

But she reads data. Data that uses worst case scenarios. I will again reiterate that the climate is changing. This though doesn’t negate that a huge if not extremely high proportion of it is natural. It’s like when londons air was tested it was on a day when it was known to be the worst it could be. That’s the mark we are all charged against. Not the 1000s of better days since.
Again if it was majority proven man made the urgency of change would mean money to alter this wouldn’t be an option.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

But she reads data. Data that uses worst case scenarios. I will again reiterate that the climate is changing. This though doesn’t negate that a huge if not extremely high proportion of it is natural. It’s like when londons air was tested it was on a day when it was known to be the worst it could be. That’s the mark we are all charged against. Not the 1000s of better days since.
Again if it was majority proven man made the urgency of change would mean money to alter this wouldn’t be an option.

How can you be remotely qualified to present such a conclusion?

Is there any other field of science where you can, without qualification, dismiss the near-unanimous conclusion of the qualified?

Why do you trust the analysis of a single TV botanist over thousands of climate scientists?

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

People who understand the environment also understand that migration patterns, habits and condition of individual species of fauna and flora are all key indicators of climate change. Indeed, the recent COP29 conference in Baku focused heavily on the relationship of biodiversity and ecosystems to climate change.

So yes ....a Botanist of international standing is infinitely more qualified to consider climate change science than a rogue landlord from Cornwall.

Perhaps we might better understand intellectual perspective when considering the migratory habits of rogue landlord's, and their rationale for migrating west.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Thank you, I will.
I’ m off to study why we have ice ages that melt their ice periodically, burying ancient towns up to 2000 feet under water…perhaps your scientist friend could explain what causes both of these events.

What ancient town is buried 2000 feet underwater?

We already know the answer to your question; there are natural ice-age cycles which play out over tens of thousands of years, mainly driven by orbital variations of the earth.

The current rate of warming is far, far faster than can be explained by orbital variations.

 

[cryrst]

How can you be remotely qualified to present such a conclusion?

Is there any other field of science where you can, without qualification, dismiss the near-unanimous conclusion of the qualified?

Why do you trust the analysis of a single TV botanist over thousands of climate scientists?

I’m not but I sit on the side of deniers as they are called. Doesn’t make them wrong though as the real actual data isn’t used in a lot of discussion. It is a bit like minority report where worst case is used to make it correct. The ice caps haven’t gone and continue to grow and reduce. Animals do die out and new species emerge. It’s evolution and tbh in 4 billion years the earth has suffered much change and is still here. It is more likely a disease or asteroid will wipe us out.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Meanwhile, back on topic 😁

Lots of US bombers have flown out of the UK from yesterday. B1's and B52's. I don'tknow if any B2 stealth bombers have gone, but there's been a few arriving at UK bases this week.
Israel has been keeping busy , also doing a lot of bombing.
Iran has fired missiles, but im thinking any hits aren't being released to Western media
Mankind is demonstrating how it can rapidly change world landscapes

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I’m not but I sit on the side of deniers as they are called. Doesn’t make them wrong though as the real actual data isn’t used in a lot of discussion. It is a bit like minority report where worst case is used to make it correct. The ice caps haven’t gone and continue to grow and reduce. Animals do die out and new species emerge. It’s evolution and tbh in 4 billion years the earth has suffered much change and is still here. It is more likely a disease or asteroid will wipe us out.

What is the ‘real actual data’ not being used?

 

[McAhuna]

How can you be remotely qualified to present such a conclusion?

Is there any other field of science where you can, without qualification, dismiss the near-unanimous conclusion of the qualified?

Why do you trust the analysis of a single TV botanist over thousands of climate scientists?

All the scientists agree

 

[Common Sense Club]

What ancient town is buried 2000 feet underwater?

We already know the answer to your question; there are natural ice-age cycles which play out over tens of thousands of years, mainly driven by orbital variations of the earth.

The current rate of warming is far, far faster than can be explained by orbital variations.

There’s one off of Cuba.
So climate change is a natural occurrence; we agree.
It’s just the last bit where we differ as I am not sure man is responsible.
Anyway, back to the topic…

 

[McAhuna]

This is what you wrote at 8.01!

“If it isn’t about the cost why are we not given it for free. If it’s that urgent we only have a few years anyway so money will be as much use as a chocolate fire guard!”

Which was in response to a comment I made to someone else specifically pointing out that costs were an irrelevance.

A botanist can read whatever data he likes but that doesn’t infer the capability of understanding and interpreting it. You need specialist training and experience to be able to do that. You need to be an expert in that field. Being an expert in any other conveys nothing other than the capacity to convince fools and sceptics.

I was fortunate to know such an expert some time ago. One of the world’s leading scientists holding a double doctorate in this area. She was then advising the British government and has since advised governments all over the world what they can expect in their countries, in a range of different scenarios. She now heads a specialist unit at Oxford University. She isn’t motivated by money. Just by the truth and a concern for our future. She has absolute integrity and convinced me this is real more than 20 years ago.

You carry on denying if you cannot face the truth. I know you are wrong.

Bore-on with all the name-dropping you like, it makes no difference.
Because a GCSE Biology student could tell you that species ecology and ecosystem science is integrally linked to the science of climate change analysis.

 

[McAhuna]

There’s one off of Cuba.
So climate change is a natural occurrence; we agree.
It’s just the last bit where we differ as I am not sure man is responsible.
Anyway, back to the topic…

Yes and even the most ardent Greta Thunberg types are not claiming that the sea levels have risen 2000m. It is obviously geological movements.

There are sea shells on the top of Mount Everest. By the logic of some on here sea levels must have fallen the height of Mount Everest. Perhaps, we should be worried about falling sea levels.
Marine Fossils on the Roof of the World: Why Seashells Are Found on Mount Everest

 

[CPFCSaturn]

There’s one off of Cuba.
So climate change is a natural occurrence; we agree.
It’s just the last bit where we differ as I am not sure man is responsible.
Anyway, back to the topic…

Oh, the one not remotely concluded as a ‘town’ or submerged civilisation.

Of course the climate changes naturally - it’s about the rate of change.

 

[kevlee]

Im not seeing any real changes in the position this morning. After Hesketh’s recent speeches about intensive action yesterday I was expecting a big leap. If anything Iran is upping the ante.
It’s almost like Trump was just bullshiting to steady the markets.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Thank you, I will.
I’ m off to study why we have ice ages that melt their ice periodically, burying ancient towns up to 2000 feet under water…perhaps your scientist friend could explain what causes both of these events.

She could easily explain that. It’s part of her expertise. Better than me, but I will try. Ice ages happen. Very, very slowly! So slowly everything has time to adjust and survive. Then it reverses. It’s cyclical. Man made climate change is occurring fast, leaving no time in a much more complicated world for adjustment. It won’t reverse unless we reverse it.

 

[kevlee]

She could easily explain that. It’s part of her expertise. Better than me, but I will try. Ice ages happen. Very, very slowly! So slowly everything has time to adjust and survive. Then it reverses. It’s cyclical. Man made climate change is occurring fast, leaving no time in a much more complicated world for adjustment. It won’t reverse unless we reverse it.

Nothing to do with the war chaps. Perhaps continue on a different thread.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

But she reads data. Data that uses worst case scenarios. I will again reiterate that the climate is changing. This though doesn’t negate that a huge if not extremely high proportion of it is natural. It’s like when londons air was tested it was on a day when it was known to be the worst it could be. That’s the mark we are all charged against. Not the 1000s of better days since.
Again if it was majority proven man made the urgency of change would mean money to alter this wouldn’t be an option.

Anyone can read the data. Only specialists can understand and interpret what it means.

Any impact of natural climate change on the current situation is so infinitesimally tiny that it can be, and is, ignored.

For sure there are a range of potential scenarios which all depend on how we respond. These are all calculated and presented, often in great detail to individual countries on the likely impact in their locality. This can vary greatly and is incredibly complicated.

International cooperation in this area is essential if we are going to overcome the problem. Which is, of itself, a huge challenge when the decisions need to be taken by politicians who depend on the votes of people who claim it’s just a money making scam.