Village is doomed, wanna buy really cheap houses with sea views?

ambulancekidd said:
We now know a bit more of what is happening to Great Britain, the weight of the ice on Scotland pushed the earths mantle down, the land is now springing back up.
Liken it to a half deflated air mattress with someone sitting on the top, that person now gets off the mattress & the top end springs back whilst the bottom end sinks, England being the bottom end.
So as a boy growing up on the beautiful Ayrshire coast I used to wonder why the cliffs at The Heads of Ayr were so far back from the sea.

My last house had uninterrupted views of Arran but was close to the beach, I moved away inland & considerably uphill, I just didn't fancy taking my chances with the sea.

Can I ask if you believe that the polar ice caps are melting?
Top a glass up with water, pop in a few ice cubes until the water is only just below the top of the glass, allow the ice to melt & see what happens, that'll be the same thing which is happening to our planet.

Your quite correct, coastal erosion is perfectly natural but, if you've ever sailed up the east coast of England, you'll have noticed that the place is as flat as a witches tit, now add mankind's actions & you have a recipe for disaster.

I don't have any answers to this conundrum but, if I had children, I'd be very worried for their future.
Not breeding is the greenest thing me or Hazel Mrsambulancekidd have ever done.

So I carry on eating red meat & using dairy products, when we die our genes die with us, perfect.
Click to expand...
Why is a Witches tit flat?
Do you know that for a fact?
A young Witch wouldn't have flat tits, would she?
I think that mabbee I'll havta report your comments to the Head Office of the PCC as they (your comments) strike me as being Racist, and, Ageist. ?
 
Silver-Fox said:
Really would love to see the actual figures on that.

Also when you see an advert for a cleaning material and it says kills 99% of germs.

That will leave around 3000 still alive.

Makes ya think a bit that one doesn’t it ?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, it's actually 97%
skepticalscience.com

The 97% consensus on global warming

<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>
skepticalscience.com
 
Paddywack said:
I stand corrected, it's actually 97%
skepticalscience.com

The 97% consensus on global warming

<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>
skepticalscience.com
Click to expand...

Another myth.

<Broken link removed>

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Just thought, that as this started as a thread on sea level/loss of landmass. You might appreciate a few pictures from this afternoons doggy walking on the beach.
1580230545137.png


1580230572603.png
 
Stephane Bosman said:
Another myth.

<Broken link removed>
Click to expand...
Really!

"Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change."

History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”
Funded by / Ownership
Principia Scientific does not list names regarding ownership, however they state “Since June 2017 Principia Scientific International is legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. We are a ‘Community Interest Company’ overseen and regulated by Companies House.” Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, PSI claims as their number one mission to “be the leading independent voice for principled science as per the Traditional Scientific Method (TSM)”, which was championed by scientific philosopher Karl Popper. The general philosophy of Popper is that scientist should actively attempt to falsify a hypothesis, rather than prove it. The right leaning American Council on Science and Health has written why this method may not be the best.
Principia Scientific covers many areas of science, however most stories center around climate change (global warming) and vaccinations. When it comes to climate change, PSI does not agree CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. PSI takes vaccinations to a whole other level with stories like this: Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Murdered!. This story is sourced to Neon Nettle, which we rate as a quackery level pseudoscience and tin foil hat conspiracy website. This story is listed as a Pants on Fire claim by Politifact.
In general, the information found on this website falls along the extreme right biased spectrum of science. This is an anti-scientific method website, that reveals a human influenced climate change denial website, which promotes climate change as a grand conspiracy with scientists “fudging” data.
A factual search list several failed fact checks.
Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change. (D. Van Zandt 7/18/2017) Updated (9/26/2019)
 
Paddywack said:
Really!

"Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change."

History
Founded in 2010, Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI has also published a book, titled “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.” According to their about page “Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper”
Funded by / Ownership
Principia Scientific does not list names regarding ownership, however they state “Since June 2017 Principia Scientific International is legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. We are a ‘Community Interest Company’ overseen and regulated by Companies House.” Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, PSI claims as their number one mission to “be the leading independent voice for principled science as per the Traditional Scientific Method (TSM)”, which was championed by scientific philosopher Karl Popper. The general philosophy of Popper is that scientist should actively attempt to falsify a hypothesis, rather than prove it. The right leaning American Council on Science and Health has written why this method may not be the best.
Principia Scientific covers many areas of science, however most stories center around climate change (global warming) and vaccinations. When it comes to climate change, PSI does not agree CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. PSI takes vaccinations to a whole other level with stories like this: Doctors Who Discovered Cancer Enzymes In Vaccines All Murdered!. This story is sourced to Neon Nettle, which we rate as a quackery level pseudoscience and tin foil hat conspiracy website. This story is listed as a Pants on Fire claim by Politifact.
In general, the information found on this website falls along the extreme right biased spectrum of science. This is an anti-scientific method website, that reveals a human influenced climate change denial website, which promotes climate change as a grand conspiracy with scientists “fudging” data.
A factual search list several failed fact checks.
Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change. (D. Van Zandt 7/18/2017) Updated (9/26/2019)
Click to expand...

What did you find in the article that was not true?
 
PeteH said:
Just thought, that as this started as a thread on sea level/loss of landmass. You might appreciate a few pictures from this afternoons doggy walking on the beach.
View attachment 359646

View attachment 359647
Click to expand...

Its horrible to see peoples pride & joy teetering like that, you've got to feel sorry for those affected, be it their homes or holiday homes.

Your photo's say far more than the written word could ever hope to show.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Silver-Fox said:
Just as well they have wheels.

They can just roll them backwards ??
Click to expand...
You would think so?. It does however also require removing the verandahs, providing a new concrete "pad" with sewer water and power. Some of the campsites are now getting to the point where they are running out of space to relocate!.
 
Stephane Bosman said:
What did you find in the article that was not true?
Click to expand...

Pretty much all of it.

Do you not find it strange that this organisation gives itself a posh institute type name Principia Scientific International when it was formed less than ten years ago, it has one company officer who on Companies House gives his occupation as School Teacher, whose registered address is a "British Monomark" - ie a virtual office, and refuses to declare who funds its "research", although admittedly it only has current assets of £82, yes eighty two single pound coins! https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10824140/filing-history

Compare that to the 97% of scientists who have their research peer reviewed, who must declare any conflict of interest and funding?

I know who I prefer to listen too.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
ambulancekidd said:
Even in jest your comments are a bit near the knuckle & unwelcome.
Click to expand...
You must surely be joking me Borr?!
Twas you used the "Witches Tit" expression,,, my comments were said in innocent jest,,, jusjosshun.
If you are so offended I'll offer my sincere apologies though I wouldn't have thought that'd be necessary to someone who likens a flat landscape to a Witches Tit.
 
Paddywack said:
"Overall, we rate Principia Scientific International (PSI) a strong conspiracy and Pseudoscience website that promotes anti-vaccine propaganda and frequent misinformation regarding climate change."
Click to expand...

Yes. That is about the same way as I regard all the "information" disseminated by Politicians. especially when all it does is place more and more restriction on the general public, and leads only to higher taxation. That and watching so called "Climate change activists" causing mayhem, rioting in all but name, and then leaving behind tonnes of filth for all the "taxpayers" to pay for the clean-up, does not under any circumstances endear me to their "message". In fact I regard them as raving hypocrites. I might start to have some "respect" (small) when I see them "protesting" in Beijing or Moscow. OR perhaps chaining themselves to Bulldozers in the Amazon Basin?.

Green Issues = More Taxation.

bigguspeckus said:
Is that Pakefield Suffolk Borr?
Click to expand...

No. Hornsea, East Yorks.
 
PeteH said:
Yes. That is about the same way as I regard all the "information" disseminated by Politicians. especially when all it does is place more and more restriction on the general public, and leads only to higher taxation. That and watching so called "Climate change activists" causing mayhem, rioting in all but name, and then leaving behind tonnes of filth for all the "taxpayers" to pay for the clean-up, does not under any circumstances endear me to their "message". In fact I regard them as raving hypocrites. I might start to have some "respect" (small) when I see them "protesting" in Beijing or Moscow. OR perhaps chaining themselves to Bulldozers in the Amazon Basin?.

Green Issues = More Taxation.



No. Hornsea, East Yorks.
Click to expand...
Real shame,,, same problems this part of the coast.
 
Paddywack said:
Pretty much all of it.

Do you not find it strange that this organisation gives itself a posh institute type name Principia Scientific International when it was formed less than ten years ago, it has one company officer who on Companies House gives his occupation as School Teacher, whose registered address is a "British Monomark" - ie a virtual office, and refuses to declare who funds its "research", although admittedly it only has current assets of £82, yes eighty two single pound coins! https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10824140/filing-history

Compare that to the 97% of scientists who have their research peer reviewed, who must declare any conflict of interest and funding?

I know who I prefer to listen too.
Click to expand...

So you don't quote anything from the paper as being false, you prefer to ignore it. Shoot the messenger, do not read what he/she says. Fine.

You do say, though, that the 97% figure is a percentage of scientists that have published papers about climate, which is a tiny part of all the scientists in the world. So your original claim of 99.5% of scientists is established as being ridiculous and misleading.

But even that 97% is false. Here is another look into it. I have plenty more.

www.forbes.com

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Is Forbes a conspiration-theory-spreading paper?
 
Stephane Bosman said:
You do say, though, that the 97% figure is a percentage of scientists that have published papers about climate, which is a tiny part of all the scientists in the world. So your original claim of 99.5% of scientists is established as being ridiculous and misleading.

But even that 97% is false. Here is another look into it. I have plenty more.

www.forbes.com

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Is Forbes a conspiration-theory-spreading paper?
Click to expand...

I had already admitted my 99.5% quote was wrong. Where as you are unable to admit that you were wrong in saying the EU banned dredging.

The 97% is related to specialist climate scientists, not a percentage of all the scientists in the world.

So which are you?
Here Are Five of The Main Reasons People Continue to Deny Climate Change

MARK MASLIN, THE CONVERSATION
30 NOV 2019
The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists.
The latest estimate is that the world's five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75 percent of Americans think humans are causing climate change.
School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis.
But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as "climate sadism". It is used to mock young people going on climate protests and to ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old young woman with Asperger's, who is simply telling the scientific truth.
file 20191122 74580 15mrufe
Anti-climate change lobbying spent by 5 largest fossil fuel companies. (Statista/CC BY-SA)
At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.
1. Science denial
This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.
Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).
All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained Link Removed despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.
(Carbon Brief/CC BY 4.0)
(Carbon Brief/CC BY 4.0)
The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics.
One of Britain's leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.
It says it is "open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated". In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

2. Economic denial
The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1 percent of world GDP.
Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don't act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20 percent of world GDP.
We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5 percent. So setting aside just 1 percent to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money.
What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6 percent of world GDP.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28 percent, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increase government revenue by 3.8 percent of the country's GDP.

3. Humanitarian denial
Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas.
For example, the 2010 "Moscow" heatwave Broken Link Removed, devastated the Link Removed and increased global food prices.
More than 40 percent of the world's population also lives in the Tropics – where from both a Broken Link Removed and an increase in desertification no one wants summer temperatures to rise.
Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year.
Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.
Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.
This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.
file 20191122 74542 18pg9xy
US weather fatalities for 2018 alongside the ten- and 30-year average. (National Weather Service/CC BY 4.0)
4. Political denial
Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change.
For example, 25 percent of the human-produced CO₂ in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22 percent is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5 percent.
Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.
file 20191122 74603 s1g9im
(Data from the Global Carbon Project)
Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people.
Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people's overall health.
Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.

5. Crisis denial
The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above.
Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don't like change and can feel we are living in the best of times – especially if we are richer or in power.
But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker's rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking.
The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change?
The Conversation

Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
I could see many, believing that the climate is changing. BUT, the cause is what is in dispute. Both sides of the "argument", likely have flawed methodology in their processing of information, Once the politicians got on the "gravy train". I switched off. Politicians and bureaucrats, are the arch manipulators, they love "control" and there is nothing better to exercise control than some "disaster" scenario, and which they take as a requirement to execute the necessary steps to provide what they see as a better prospect, that which always becomes the imposition of more restriction on the lives of the general public.


Green policies = More taxation, more restriction of personal liberty


Rosemary1 said:
Ooooh - scary - I presume that they are not used now?
Click to expand...

Well currently it is officially "closed season". But he owners will likely be back come Easter. I think One had a light on?.
.
 
Paddywack said:
I stand corrected, it's actually 97%
skepticalscience.com

The 97% consensus on global warming

<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>
skepticalscience.com
Click to expand...
Of course they are,,it keeps them in highly paid jobs. BUSBY ??
 
Stephane Bosman said:
You do say, though, that the 97% figure is a percentage of scientists that have published papers about climate,
Click to expand...
So that'll be scientists that have had work published for peer review and feedback?
Rather than just a scientist or website that makes unsubstantiated/unchecked claims to the contrary?

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
busby said:
Of course they are,,it keeps them in highly paid jobs. BUSBY ??
Click to expand...

Yes and of course that's the same reason why your doctor does his best to keep you alive.

Besides being a climatologist is not a highly paid job in the scheme of things.
 
Paddywack said:
Yes and of course that's the same reason why your doctor does his best to keep you alive.

Besides being a climatologist is not a highly paid job in the scheme of things.
Click to expand...
But professors who publish papers don't do so bad financially. BUSBY??
 
Stephane Bosman said:
So you don't quote anything from the paper as being false, you prefer to ignore it. Shoot the messenger, do not read what he/she says. Fine.

You do say, though, that the 97% figure is a percentage of scientists that have published papers about climate, which is a tiny part of all the scientists in the world. So your original claim of 99.5% of scientists is established as being ridiculous and misleading.

But even that 97% is false. Here is another look into it. I have plenty more.

www.forbes.com

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Is Forbes a conspiration-theory-spreading paper?
Click to expand...

Forbes isn't generally considered to be a conspiracy theory spreading paper but it is regarded as being Right-Center biased based on story selection that tends to favor the right and the political affiliation of its ownership. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to some misleading or false stories related to climate science.
mediabiasfactcheck.com

Forbes - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com

The editor-in-chief and chairman of the company is a Trump supporter and the article is written by a retired energy executive. I suspect that he wasn't chosen for his unbiased opinions.

For different perspectives....

skepticalscience.com

Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial

Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions. Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among...
skepticalscience.com

www.theguardian.com

'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts

Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
busby said:
But professors who publish papers don't do so bad financially. BUSBY??
Click to expand...

Just imagine how much a scientist could earn if they could provide irrefutable evidence that humans have not accelerated climate change.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top