Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Heat emergency declared in England



BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,248
Are you a scientist ? My Dad was. A physicist actually. He always said that Science is theory and Maths is fact. Anyway, I have no point to make about that other than the anecdote.

Isn't this idea about the way that scientists are prepared to be dis-proven? Scientific 'fact' is only based on the available evidence and information. Scientists are ready and willing have their minds changed by new evidence or changes in behaviour in different contexts.

This is of course one of the magnificent things about our scientific processes and methods.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=51ab49a82fb1
 




e77

Well-known member
May 23, 2004
7,268
Worthing
Independent is good but there is plenty of quality thinking out there that you don't want to be independent of. The trick is recognising it.

Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

To save you some time we all went down this avenue with him with Covid and apparently he is right and 95% of the scientific community is wrong.
 


Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
Isn't this idea about the way that scientists are prepared to be dis-proven? Scientific 'fact' is only based on the available evidence and information. Scientists are ready and willing have their minds changed by new evidence or changes in behaviour in different contexts.

This is of course one of the magnificent things about our scientific processes and methods.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=51ab49a82fb1

Yes, exactly. Without open scientific minds we have flat earth Middle Ages attitudes. Thanks for the link. I will have a read whilst enjoying the sunshine in my garden :thumbsup:
 




e77

Well-known member
May 23, 2004
7,268
Worthing
Don't people instinctively think that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels is a bad thing?
 




Is it PotG?

Thrifty non-licker
Feb 20, 2017
24,041
Sussex by the Sea
Certainly quite a big difference between Hove and Haywards Heath.

Coastal breeze makes a big difference to these extreme, desert like conditions.
 








Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,873
Guiseley
Totally mate - Our house will be in the sun today from about 7:30am until about 19:30, it just does not cool down during these hot spells, our bedroom won't go below 25c until some point on Wednesday. Last night I was watching the outdoor temperature fall rapidly after about 9:30 from 26 down to about 19 by 11, bedroom didn't drop a jot, stuck at 25.5, it was down to about 23.5 this morning. We stuck the tent up in the garden and slept there, quite pleasant actually but obviously not practical or possible for everyone. There's not a breath of wind here, despite being completely exposed, remote and > 700 feet up, it goes absolutely still when the sun comes out.....

Quite sad that some people in easier circumstances or different countries will poke fun at or try and mock what people are experiencing.

Tried this out yesterday and it worked surprisingly well:

 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,248
Don't people instinctively think that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels is a bad thing?

be5de3ab552327c18589b5da681f789b34221af354e8446b94e185b2bd000f66_1.webp


This lady doesn't :lolol:
 


Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,873
Guiseley
Tried this out yesterday and it worked surprisingly well:



If you don't have time to watch the video: put a fan blowing out of the window, around 2 feet / 50cm from the window.
Open the windows on the other side of the house.
I had the fan blowing out of the window on the side away from the prevailing wind to work with it. You could feel the breeze going right through the upstairs of the house.
 








Berty23

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2012
3,282
During the storms we watched planes landing. Surely there is some weather watcher similarly excited about a thermometer rising. Where are they?
 




Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
Out of interest, what do you make of the science?

Well, a lot of scienticsts who refuse some of the IPCC reports saying they're built on flawed/selective data appears to question a lot of the conclusions.

Obviously once these scientists move outside of the narrow pathway of accepted perspectives, they're immediatly labelled as shite/paid for by Vladimir Putin/wackos etc. but I'm no fan of confirmation bias so they're voices are equally important/not-so-important as I see it.

No you are a ****ing idiot who’s grasps of physics and chemistry appears to be very limited. Interestingly much of the physics and chemistry used by environmental scientist is the same physics and chemistry that allows you to access the internet on your phone or PC. Physics and chemistry doesn’t allow you to pick and choose based on personal opinion, it doesn’t give two ****s for what you think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not quite sure what you're on about here other trying to look clever through using the word "physics and chemistry" three times without really saying **** all.

I think you'll find some people have got a lot of power and wealth out of creating and perpetuating this climate crisis, and they continue to profit from climate change denial

Oligarchs and multinational energy companies pour money on producing and financing science that makes them stronger. They then have their newspapers and other media outlets pushing that narrative.
The narrative of fossil fuel etc. causing havoc in the very near (or near) future is a gold mine for those who own those industries.

1. Produce and fund "science"/science that says fossil fuels and dirty energy production is going to kill us all. People will get emotional and stirred up and forget all about getting ****ed over all the time in the past by the very same, suddenly altruistic, forces, and they will push their states to sell their energy companies.

As an example, Swedish state-owned Vattenfall owned coal mines in Eastern Europe. Then the climate hysteria began, and there was massive public pressure that they should sell the coal mines.

2. Obviously under the circumstances (as a state we should not produce dirty energy + it has no part to play in the future), they sold the coal mines VERY CHEAPLY... to someone who has poured hundreds of millions into promoting the narrative that dirty energy is bad and dangerous.

3. Problem is we still need energy... so after selling the dirty energy to those who promote the idea that dirty energy is wrong, we have insuffucient production, and need to import it instead. But lots of states are in the same situation, so where do we turn to import it? Bingo. To the same companies that cheaply bought our dirty energy in the first place, after promoting how bad it was. They've got some for us to buy... if we pay up a lot of money.

In short, the climate crisis - real or percieved - makes states pretty much hand over their means of producing energy to private hands just to buy the same dirty energy back whenever it is needed (like in the winter, if you're Scandinavian). This way of producing incitaments to hand over valuable assets that you will still need for the foreseeable future makes the whole climate thing suspicious. Not very different from invading countries like Iraq based on one lie or another and then "accidently" end up gaining a lot of economic advantages from it.

But we never learn to see through it, so we're going to force our states to have firesales on (so far) irreplacable assets, send young men to war to die on behalf of some ****ing oil company, and a lot of similar things because they've played with our emotions making us capable of recieving information but incapable of reasoning and questioning. I'm not saying the climate crisis is a fraud, I'm saying it could well be, at least to some extent.
 




Deportivo Seagull

I should coco
Jul 22, 2003
4,998
Mid Sussex
Are you a scientist ? My Dad was. A physicist actually. He always said that Science is theory and Maths is fact. Anyway, I have no point to make about that other than the anecdote.

My first degree is Electrical and Electronic Engineering which is applied Physics. I would never call myself a scientist as I did no research, tbh I’m simply not intelligent enough to so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 






Deportivo Seagull

I should coco
Jul 22, 2003
4,998
Mid Sussex
Well, a lot of scienticsts who refuse some of the IPCC reports saying they're built on flawed/selective data appears to question a lot of the conclusions.

Obviously once these scientists move outside of the narrow pathway of accepted perspectives, they're immediatly labelled as shite/paid for by Vladimir Putin/wackos etc. but I'm no fan of confirmation bias so they're voices are equally important/not-so-important as I see it.



Not quite sure what you're on about here other trying to look clever through using the word "physics and chemistry" three times without really saying **** all.



Oligarchs and multinational energy companies pour money on producing and financing science that makes them stronger. They then have their newspapers and other media outlets pushing that narrative.
The narrative of fossil fuel etc. causing havoc in the very near (or near) future is a gold mine for those who own those industries.

1. Produce and fund "science"/science that says fossil fuels and dirty energy production is going to kill us all. People will get emotional and stirred up and forget all about getting ****ed over all the time in the past by the very same, suddenly altruistic, forces, and they will push their states to sell their energy companies.

As an example, Swedish state-owned Vattenfall owned coal mines in Eastern Europe. Then the climate hysteria began, and there was massive public pressure that they should sell the coal mines.

2. Obviously under the circumstances (as a state we should not produce dirty energy + it has no part to play in the future), they sold the coal mines VERY CHEAPLY... to someone who has poured hundreds of millions into promoting the narrative that dirty energy is bad and dangerous.

3. Problem is we still need energy... so after selling the dirty energy to those who promote the idea that dirty energy is wrong, we have insuffucient production, and need to import it instead. But lots of states are in the same situation, so where do we turn to import it? Bingo. To the same companies that cheaply bought our dirty energy in the first place, after promoting how bad it was. They've got some for us to buy... if we pay up a lot of money.

In short, the climate crisis - real or percieved - makes states pretty much hand over their means of producing energy to private hands just to buy the same dirty energy back whenever it is needed (like in the winter, if you're Scandinavian). This way of producing incitaments to hand over valuable assets that you will still need for the foreseeable future makes the whole climate thing suspicious. Not very different from invading countries like Iraq based on one lie or another and then "accidently" end up gaining a lot of economic advantages from it.

But we never learn to see through it, so we're going to force our states to have firesales on (so far) irreplacable assets, send young men to war to die on behalf of some ****ing oil company, and a lot of similar things because they've played with our emotions making us capable of recieving information but incapable of reasoning and questioning. I'm not saying the climate crisis is a fraud, I'm saying it could well be, at least to some extent.

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
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
18,613
Deepest, darkest Sussex
During the storms we watched planes landing. Surely there is some weather watcher similarly excited about a thermometer rising. Where are they?

 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here