no i think in 2018 the new trend is “global chilling”
1 Like
Apparently this “Cold” is caused by “Warming” above the North pole. - (No “Rolling Eyes emoticon” )
It’s all down to cyclical Sun activity of course, combined wit h Randomness - but hey there’s no “Guilt” to be blamed on humans for that - so we’ll just ignore it because there’s no emotional payoff for the “Zealots” .
Falstaff…I’m Aussie… some of us are chilled all the time…
Back to the topic…The weather has changed though… when I was a kid doing a paper round back in the early 80’s we used to get a lot of -1, -2 even occasional -5 celsius mornings… the lowest it’s been in Melbourne during winter in recent memory is between 2 - 7 celsius… I haven’t de-iced a windscreen for a long, long, looong time…
Hellfire man- with the prices of tobacco and alcyhol in your neck of the woods - I’d be having screaming habdabs !
Time to get voting methinks ! 
1 Like
Well - if you can get the same income for supplying Less power, that has to be a “me win” - “You lose” situation surely ?
How the myth of CO2 = Global warming came about and took such a strong hold - Despite there being No supporting evidence !
The PDF can be downloaded here ;
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
And with thanks to @Jen26 from the Rabbit hole thread
The overall scientific consensus is that global warming has been occurring and that human activities are a responsible cause.
I’ll go with them thanks.
Without even taking the time to think about it ? - You are the people the “Book” is about ! 
1 Like
Apparently the UK High Court - disagrees with your take on it as well !
I don’ think that me spending a quiet and rainy afternoon at home thinking about climate change that I could come up with a more valid opinion sufficient to challenge the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists.
It appears that the High Court did not rule on whether climate change is happening or on whether human activities are responsible, only on what the UK is legally obliged to do about it.
You are absolutely correct. 
That was post 29 of 105 - in 2011 ! There has been much discussion since then and mostly it is established members - nobody is picking on “Newbies” here ! 
That is really not true @tommor - you have been sadly (and Deliberately !) misinformed mate !
I hadn’r realised that you actually knew so little about it that 3 hours on a rainy afternoon would be all you thought you needed to “understand”. However the constant indoctrination we all receive subliminally from “News” “weather” and “documentaries” means that you have to have some idea about the propaganda we are all subjected to constantly. (so the “It’s true” argumant - with the drowning polar bears, rainstormes, droughts and hurricanes etc )
I know very well that you are a highly intelligent man Tom and so I think that you might be prepared to make yourself a nice cup of tea and listen to what the Real and Unbiased Experts have to say on the subject ?
Only takes an hour and a quarter and it might just change your life !
I haven’t any inclination to research climate change or even research the research on climate change. Why? Because Wikipedia tells me 97% of the world’s scientists suggest that would be a waste of my time.
Until you can produce such a majority, sorry, I’m busy on other stuff.
Since the post to which @tommor replied is now ten posts back, - I’ll link to it, for the casual observer as I think that the information was really quite important to be considered in this discussion.
https://forums.babypips.com/t/climate-change-is-a-complete-hoax/30013/101
Wikipedia says it, so it must be true 
Actually the 97% number is highly fudged. In actuality, only 33% of the respondents said that there was human contribution and that the contribution was “weak”. If climate numbers are as fudged as this study, there are a whole lot of people being willingly fleeced.
—An excerpt from the article
"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position."
1 Like
Like I said, I’m a bit busy right now.
That’s alright, you have time. I don’t think the earth is supposed to be destroyed by climate change for a couple more years at least.
1 Like
That 97% figure is examined on page 59 & 60 of the PDF I linked to. - The figures included “thse who thought there was a human contributioon” and also those who thought “Greenhouse gasses made a contribution” at all !
Taking the “Figures” as quoted on Wikipedia - There were 11,944 “abstracts” - 7980 gave no “position” ie "neutral"of those who did give a posiion who 65 “agreed” with “the consensus” ! - so the actual figure is 1.6% even of those who did "give a position ! Now since we know that 3% took the opposing position, the actual figures were in Disagreement by a ratio of 2:1
Unfortunately the pdf will not allow "copy " for me to paste here - but as I said the bulk of it is on page 60 !
In answer to your observation @krugman25 - THAT ! - by “their standards” is a verty modest distortion of the "Truth "!
{at the end of page 60 - the pdf begins to investigate the proposition that "if you don’t support the ‘consensus’ - you fail your exams - (General Studies ‘A’ Level ! ]
1 Like