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

[Spindle]

The answer is yes, we already get lots from Norway and our grid is set up for hydrocarbons.

No, we get lots from Kuwait actually. Norway barely features as a supplier. We already have a leccy grid.

 

[Spindle]

Why do you think there are times when renewables go unspent, generating electricity is complicated and there's little storage capacity in the system.

So it's poorly managed. Part of that is because you can't just turn off and on LNG generation.

That's another problem with fossils.

I assume you're in their pay somehow, who the hell else would actually complain about having a modern renewable system

 

[Spindle]

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.

Mental

 

[Spindle]

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.

When you find out those timelines in depth and the direct correlation of CO2 to temperature then do let us know.

 

[chris123]

No, we get lots from Kuwait actually. Norway barely features as a supplier. We already have a leccy grid.

Not gas, and our grid is set up to take inputs from power stations not renewables which cannot just plug in to the grid.

 

[chris123]

So it's poorly managed. Part of that is because you can't just turn off and on LNG generation.

That's another problem with fossils.

I assume you're in their pay somehow, who the hell else would actually complain about having a modern renewable system

It's a National Grid issue.

 

[Badger11]

It's a National Grid issue.

We need to be energy independent as the current crisis has shown. We should have started this back in the seventies when we had the last great crisis.

I am not seeing a strategic plan from this government or the previous. I am not against green energy but right now we need to drill baby drill whilst planning for the future.

 

[McAhuna]

There’s an enormous amount of data supporting climate change - funny enough that’s why there’s such agreement about what’s happening!

Examples would include temperature records, sea levels, CO2 monitoring, arctic sea ice decline, thousands of automated weather stations - all of it lends itself to the same conclusion, which makes the idea that it’s all fundamentally wrong very, very unlikely.

Nope. There is a difference between parroting the socially acceptable view and properly investigating the facts

The 97% Consensus Myth:-

The claim that “97% of climate scientists agree” that humans are the primary cause of global warming is one of the most widely repeated- and misleading talking points in climate politics.
While it’s been echoed endlessly in media, classrooms, and government reports, the data behind this number tells a different story.

The original source is a 2013 paper by John Cook et al. which reviewed 11,944 climate-related scientific abstracts from 1991 to 2011.
Of those, 66.4% took no position on what caused global warming. These were excluded.

Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts, 3,896 endorsed the idea that humans were contributing to warming. That’s 97%—but only after tossing out two-thirds of the dataset. The final number represents 32.6% of the total literature.
Not a scientific consensus!

A later study by Lynas et al. (2021) followed the same playbook. They analyzed 2,718 papers and threw out 68.8% that didn’t state a clear position. Among the remaining 849, 845 backed human-caused warming. Again, this isn’t 99% of all scientists. It is 99% of the minority of papers that made an explicit claim.

These studies measure what’s stated in papers, not what scientists actually believe. And the methodology skews results by ignoring the majority of papers that are neutral, exploratory, or non-committal on causation.

Even if these studies were accurate reflections of the literature, they still wouldn’t establish a scientific consensus. That would require a broad, systematic agreement among qualified experts, not a selective interpretation of published abstracts.

When actual scientists are polled directly, the picture changes.

A 2016 survey by George Mason University polled all 7,682 professional members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Over 4,000 responded:-

96% said climate change is occurring (regardless of cause).

Only 29% believed it is largely or entirely caused by humans.

47% believed future local impacts would be primarily harmful.

But 40% said the effects had been mixed or beneficial so far.

Organizations like NASA or the AMS often issue sweeping climate statements without consulting their members. These public-facing declarations get amplified by media, but they don’t reflect internal scientific diversity. They’re political moves, not scientific facts.

Many researchers now include boilerplate AGW language in their papers—not because it’s their core conclusion, but to pass peer review in an ideologically charged environment.

The “97% consensus” is merely a PR slogan and not a scientific truth. It’s built on selective data, biased methodologies and institutional pressure, not robust, open-ended inquiry.
And those still spouting it only show their ignorance.

 

[chris123]

We need to be energy independent as the current crisis has shown. We should have started this back in the seventies when we had the last great crisis.

I am not seeing a strategic plan from this government or the previous. I am not against green energy but right now we need to drill baby drill whilst planning for the future.

I don't think people appreciate the fact that renewables can't be just connected to the grid.

 

[Badger11]

I don't think people appreciate the fact that renewables can't be just connected to the grid.

No I get that which is why we need to focus on oil and gas for now whilst also upgrading the energy grid. It's going to cost money but the government should be footing the bill as part of a strategic plan.

 

[Common Sense Club]

When you find out those timelines in depth and the direct correlation of CO2 to temperature then do let us know.

I would like to, but there is some debate about when the structures 'disappeared'. It is assumed that as it is under 2000 feet of water that it is the result of the last ice age coming to an end and thereby flooding the region. However, 2000 feet of water seems to imply a greater amount of melt water than just the last ice age could produce. That then raises the interesting factor that the area suffered more than one ice melt, which would put the age back at a time which would heavily conflict with scientist's view of when civilizations 'started'.
Of course, it may involve landslips, neighbouring land heave, of a mixture of the two, but the images I have seen seem to show structures intact, thereby implying flooding as the cause.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Nope. There is a difference between parroting the socially acceptable view and properly investigating the facts

The 97% Consensus Myth:-

The claim that “97% of climate scientists agree” that humans are the primary cause of global warming is one of the most widely repeated- and misleading talking points in climate politics.
While it’s been echoed endlessly in media, classrooms, and government reports, the data behind this number tells a different story.

The original source is a 2013 paper by John Cook et al. which reviewed 11,944 climate-related scientific abstracts from 1991 to 2011.
Of those, 66.4% took no position on what caused global warming. These were excluded.

Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts, 3,896 endorsed the idea that humans were contributing to warming. That’s 97%—but only after tossing out two-thirds of the dataset. The final number represents 32.6% of the total literature.
Not a scientific consensus!

A later study by Lynas et al. (2021) followed the same playbook. They analyzed 2,718 papers and threw out 68.8% that didn’t state a clear position. Among the remaining 849, 845 backed human-caused warming. Again, this isn’t 99% of all scientists. It is 99% of the minority of papers that made an explicit claim.

These studies measure what’s stated in papers, not what scientists actually believe. And the methodology skews results by ignoring the majority of papers that are neutral, exploratory, or non-committal on causation.

Even if these studies were accurate reflections of the literature, they still wouldn’t establish a scientific consensus. That would require a broad, systematic agreement among qualified experts, not a selective interpretation of published abstracts.

When actual scientists are polled directly, the picture changes.

A 2016 survey by George Mason University polled all 7,682 professional members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Over 4,000 responded:-

96% said climate change is occurring (regardless of cause).

Only 29% believed it is largely or entirely caused by humans.

47% believed future local impacts would be primarily harmful.

But 40% said the effects had been mixed or beneficial so far.

Organizations like NASA or the AMS often issue sweeping climate statements without consulting their members. These public-facing declarations get amplified by media, but they don’t reflect internal scientific diversity. They’re political moves, not scientific facts.

Many researchers now include boilerplate AGW language in their papers—not because it’s their core conclusion, but to pass peer review in an ideologically charged environment.

The “97% consensus” is merely a PR slogan and not a scientific truth. It’s built on selective data, biased methodologies and institutional pressure, not robust, open-ended inquiry.
And those still spouting it only show their ignorance.

This is such a mish-mash of half-truths and tetchy logic to deny what is a very obvious truth - the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts agree on what is happening.

You're treating 'no position' papers as if they should count against the consensus, which is not at all accurate - most climate studies will consider impacts, methods and modelling, rather than attribution.

A paper measuring arctic sea ice thickness does not need to restate that humans contribute to warming any more than a astronomy paper needs to restate that the earth is round.

If you look at the consensus amongst papers that actually address the question of causation, there is overwhelming agreement;

In the Cook study you site, about 0.7% contributions actually reject human causation.

Similarly, in the Lynas, 99% of the papers dealing with causation agree - 'no position' papers are excluded because they don't address the question of causation.

Your GMU study is also cherry picked data - about 85% of respondents accept a human role (52% say mostly human caused, 33% say partly human-caused) in climate change. You conveniently left out the partly human-caused.

In my experience, when you have to cherry-pick, distort and misrepresent data as you have above, it's because you don't have much of an argument.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

This is such a mish-mash of half-truths and tetchy logic to deny what is a very obvious truth - the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts agree on what is happening.

You're treating 'no position' papers as if they should count against the consensus, which is not at all accurate - most climate studies will consider impacts, methods and modelling, rather than attribution.

A paper measuring arctic sea ice thickness does not need to restate that humans contribute to warming any more than a astronomy paper needs to restate that the earth is round.

If you look at the consensus amongst papers that actually address the question of causation, there is overwhelming agreement;

In the Cook study you site, about 0.7% contributions actually reject human causation.

Similarly, in the Lynas, 99% of the papers dealing with causation agree - 'no position' papers are excluded because they don't address the question of causation.

Your GMU study is also cherry picked data - about 85% of respondents accept a human role (52% say mostly human caused, 33% say partly human-caused) in climate change. You conveniently left out the partly human-caused.

In my experience, when you have to cherry-pick, distort and misrepresent data as you have above, it's because you don't have much of an argument.

reported to Mods for trolling the thread with irrelevant shyte. Its a repeat-behaviour from you.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

reported to Mods for trolling the thread with irrelevant shyte. Its a repeat-behaviour from you.

Grow up.

 

[McAhuna]

This is such a mish-mash of half-truths and tetchy logic to deny what is a very obvious truth - the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and experts agree on what is happening.

You're treating 'no position' papers as if they should count against the consensus, which is not at all accurate - most climate studies will consider impacts, methods and modelling, rather than attribution.

A paper measuring arctic sea ice thickness does not need to restate that humans contribute to warming any more than a astronomy paper needs to restate that the earth is round.

If you look at the consensus amongst papers that actually address the question of causation, there is overwhelming agreement;

In the Cook study you site, about 0.7% contributions actually reject human causation.

Similarly, in the Lynas, 99% of the papers dealing with causation agree - 'no position' papers are excluded because they don't address the question of causation.

Your GMU study is also cherry picked data - about 85% of respondents accept a human role (52% say mostly human caused, 33% say partly human-caused) in climate change. You conveniently left out the partly human-caused.

In my experience, when you have to cherry-pick, distort and misrepresent data as you have above, it's because you don't have much of an argument.

So you did a deep dive analysis of the papers I cited and typed out a reply all in 4 minutes ?!

Well done. You just told us all we need to know about the thoroughness, objectivity and reliability of your 'analysis' and 'research'. 🤣

 

[CPFCSaturn]

So you did a deep dive analysis of the papers I cited and typed out a reply all in 4 minutes ?!

Well done. You just told us all we need to know about the thoroughness, objectivity and reliability of your 'analysis' and 'research'. 🤣

It's not a deep-dive at all - it's surface-level cutting through of bullshit. It was quick because it was easy.

You're obviously welcome to actually address the content of what I've said - I would've thought a free-thinker interested in finding the truth would welcome such critiquing.

 

[silvertop]

Nope. There is a difference between parroting the socially acceptable view and properly investigating the facts

The 97% Consensus Myth:-

The claim that “97% of climate scientists agree” that humans are the primary cause of global warming is one of the most widely repeated- and misleading talking points in climate politics.
While it’s been echoed endlessly in media, classrooms, and government reports, the data behind this number tells a different story.

The original source is a 2013 paper by John Cook et al. which reviewed 11,944 climate-related scientific abstracts from 1991 to 2011.
Of those, 66.4% took no position on what caused global warming. These were excluded.

Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts, 3,896 endorsed the idea that humans were contributing to warming. That’s 97%—but only after tossing out two-thirds of the dataset. The final number represents 32.6% of the total literature.
Not a scientific consensus!

A later study by Lynas et al. (2021) followed the same playbook. They analyzed 2,718 papers and threw out 68.8% that didn’t state a clear position. Among the remaining 849, 845 backed human-caused warming. Again, this isn’t 99% of all scientists. It is 99% of the minority of papers that made an explicit claim.

These studies measure what’s stated in papers, not what scientists actually believe. And the methodology skews results by ignoring the majority of papers that are neutral, exploratory, or non-committal on causation.

Even if these studies were accurate reflections of the literature, they still wouldn’t establish a scientific consensus. That would require a broad, systematic agreement among qualified experts, not a selective interpretation of published abstracts.

When actual scientists are polled directly, the picture changes.

A 2016 survey by George Mason University polled all 7,682 professional members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Over 4,000 responded:-

96% said climate change is occurring (regardless of cause).

Only 29% believed it is largely or entirely caused by humans.

47% believed future local impacts would be primarily harmful.

But 40% said the effects had been mixed or beneficial so far.

Organizations like NASA or the AMS often issue sweeping climate statements without consulting their members. These public-facing declarations get amplified by media, but they don’t reflect internal scientific diversity. They’re political moves, not scientific facts.

Many researchers now include boilerplate AGW language in their papers—not because it’s their core conclusion, but to pass peer review in an ideologically charged environment.

The “97% consensus” is merely a PR slogan and not a scientific truth. It’s built on selective data, biased methodologies and institutional pressure, not robust, open-ended inquiry.
And those still spouting it only show their ignorance.

The starting position many have is that Trump, Farage and other populists have stated it is a lie. This is, of course, a statement they can make because climate change is not a law of physics. It is a best guess based on available data, like dinosaurs, evolution, geological ages and pretty much anything said by neurologists about the brain and cosmologists about the heavens. Where there is doubt, even small, there is room for political opportunism.

It also feeds into their narrative of independent energy security and the support of "traditional" industries i.e. where their blue collar vote comes from. These are not altogether terrible points, although their short termism is my issue.

Sticking with fossil also avoids the high upfront cost of a move to "green" energy - a point even the hardiest green energy advocate cannot argue with. That is the driver behind this, not the "questionable" science. And it means cheaper bills and more cash in your pocket just when it is needed - again, right now. Always a vote winner.

The trouble is the anti evidence is always so suspect. Take the poll you cite. You reference the outcome but take it at face value that the pollster was scrupulously independent; that the questions were fair; that the responses have been properly assessed, reported and so on. Anyone with memory of that Yes Prime Minister sketch knows what I am talking about.

China are investing heavily in green and I suspect India will shortly follow. There is no pressure whatever on those countries to do that. Indeed, they would not do so at such personal cost with the economic advantage it would hand to their trade rivals if they thought for one second the scientific evidence was suspect.

The USA and a couple of like minded countries will shortly be the few standing alone on this. And we both know what we think of that bloke on the high street with the sandwich-board yelling that everyone else is crazy.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

It's not a deep-dive at all - it's surface-level cutting through of bullshit. It was quick because it was easy.

You're obviously welcome to actually address the content of what I've said - I would've thought a free-thinker interested in finding the truth would welcome such critiquing.

Arguing the toss about the validity of man made global warming is kind of beside the point. We in Britain cannot affect the problem in a significant way. What we can do is make ourselves more energy efficient and independent and prepare for the effects of global warming, natural or otherwise. Water supply, waste, food supply, border control. They all need future proofing.

You and I know that it won't happen, because our idiot politicians only think in terms of five years.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Arguing the toss about the validity of man made global warming is kind of beside the point. We in Britain cannot affect the problem in a significant way. What we can do is make ourselves more energy efficient and independent and prepare for the effects of global warming, natural or otherwise. Water supply, waste, food supply, border control. They all need future proofing.

You and I know that it won't happen, because our idiot politicians only think in terms of five years.

I get where you're coming from, but I just find the pretence that there is still some sort of doubt or uncertainty about man made climate change silly, particularly when it's based on lies and misrepresented data.

Certainly no argument from me on the incapability of our politicians to plan for the long-term.

 

[McAhuna]

The starting position many have is that Trump, Farage and other populists have stated it is a lie. This is, of course, a statement they can make because climate change is not a law of physics. It is a best guess based on available data, like dinosaurs, evolution, geological ages and pretty much anything said by neurologists about the brain and cosmologists about the heavens. Where there is doubt, even small, there is room for political opportunism.

It also feeds into their narrative of independent energy security and the support of "traditional" industries i.e. where their blue collar vote comes from. These are not altogether terrible points, although their short termism is my issue.

Sticking with fossil also avoids the high upfront cost of a move to "green" energy - a point even the hardiest green energy advocate cannot argue with. That is the driver behind this, not the "questionable" science. And it means cheaper bills and more cash in your pocket just when it is needed - again, right now. Always a vote winner.

The trouble is the anti evidence is always so suspect. Take the poll you cite. You reference the outcome but take it at face value that the pollster was scrupulously independent; that the questions were fair; that the responses have been properly assessed, reported and so on. Anyone with memory of that Yes Prime Minister sketch knows what I am talking about.

China are investing heavily in green and I suspect India will shortly follow. There is no pressure whatever on those countries to do that. Indeed, they would not do so at such personal cost with the economic advantage it would hand to their trade rivals if they thought for one second the scientific evidence was suspect.

The USA and a couple of like minded countries will shortly be the few standing alone on this. And we both know what we think of that bloke on the high street with the sandwich-board yelling that everyone else is crazy.

The fact that you begin with a character assassination of Trump, even though we weren't previously talking about him, tells me everything. It is fairly obvious that ideological TDS and it's UK equivalent is your true, core motivation.

The irony is, there is little science here - but hints of prejudices throughout. References to 'blue collar voters' and 'blokes with sandwich boards' are very revealing of a pseudo-intellectual snobbish mindset that has an inbuilt assumption of righteousness, which negates any need to properly investigate or verify.

Did you write this bit with a straight face? "You reference the outcome but take it at face value that the pollster was scrupulously independent; that the questions were fair; that the responses have been properly assessed, reported and so on". We must all be questioning of all sources, of course. But the irony is that this is something you and the climate alarmists are self-evidently far more guilty of, due to their ideological zeal. What objective analytical rigour did Saturn apply when he dismissed several scientific papers with a reply within 3 minutes? Its laughable really.

There are several logical fallacies you make. For example; one can be supportive of renewable energy initiatives, without necessarily accepting the more alarmist prediction of man-made climate change.
Renewables may simply be a more cost-efficient long-term option, given the political instability affecting supplies of fossil fuels. Similarly, addressing pollution is wise because of the benefits to human health and protecting valuable ecosystems.
Conflating these issues is a 'smoke and mirrors' slight of hand played all too regularly by climate alarmists. It's one step removed from 'Trump wants to kill the polar bears'. Thankfully more and more see through it.