Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Posters to this thread usually provide supporting evidence to back up their their claims about climate change. If you care to look back, you'll see a lot of proof given that it isn't a lie that comes from credible scientific research carried out by many organizations, such as NASA, who's site I often refer to for information. Could you tell us which reputable organizations research offers the proof you're relying on that it's a lie?OhMyGodden said:Climate change is all a massive lie anyway
And as you believe it is, what are you doing about it? Doesn't it annoy you that so many worldwide have been conned, and that you're paying via taxation for all sorts of initiatives to combat something that isn't happening? Are you taking to the streets to protest, as those who firmly believe we aren't doing enough to combat it do, or simply accepting the inconvenience of the measures and paying the bill for them like everyone else?
I'm no longer posting much on this thread because I realize people's views are entrenched and that, whatever the evidence, they won't be changing them. I'm only responding to your post because it's not often we see absolute denial of rising global temperatures on here, or anywhere frankly.
9 -
They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?5
-
I heard this on LBC yesterday. The presenter was talking to a regular financial expert.
Presenter: Electric vehicles (sales) have been having a bad time.
Expert: Yes, but the data doesn't bear it out.
There in a nutshell is the problem. Someone with influence trotting out FF loby nonsense and seemingly willing to ignore the facts.
The presenter then went on to say he was considering an EV in the next year but was concerned about it breaking down because you cannot restart it, apparently.1 -
You’ve gone from saying climate change is a lie to agreeing that the climate does change in one post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?4 -
Yes there are natural cycles and the climate kept on changing long before we rocked up. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere contributed to ending the ice age. Human activity in burning fossil fuels isn't a natural process, but it does emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, increasing the concentrations and so contributing to rising temperatures, or so the vast majority of scientific research tells us, enough to convince nations everywhere to act to combat it.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?
If you choose to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative. I'd just like to know what I've said above that you think is a lie.
1 -
Not at the cost of human interventionarny23394 said:
You’ve gone from saying climate change is a lie to agreeing that the climate does change in one post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?1 -
This is a simple case of too little information.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?
Yes, the earth's temperature has always changed and in some (hundred year) periods it has done so more than others. But even when the change has been at its greatest it hasn't gone above 0.5C .... until now !
To avoid any confusion, that's 0.5C change, up or down, per hundred years.3 -
Can I give you an example of how this doesn't work? I currently have a primary school as a client. They want to turn a pre-fab classroom they built with a temporary planning permission into a permanent fixture now due to capacity issues, and therefore need full planning permission.ME14addick said:
It does matter, lots of smaller sites add up. Developers want to make as much profit as possible and won't do anything to improve the conditions for wildlife unless they are forced.cafcnick1992 said:I have no objection to increasing biodiversity, obviously, but the implementation of 'Biodiversity Net Gain' in the planning system by the Conservatives doesn't provide enough exemptions for smaller sites. Even Angela Rayner has woken up to this.
Basically all development sites are required to improve biodiversity on-site by 10%, and this must be certified by an ecologist who has to undertake surveys and submit a BNG plan as part of the application. This includes literally any development over 5m x 5m (which is basically 99% of all applications). Ecologists have got everyone over a barrel and are charging everyone thousands because the government has mandated their input.
This country really doesn't help itself.
The pre-fab building is located on a solid concrete base (i.e. there is no ecological value to the site). The Council won't even validate the application because a BNG assessment hasn't been submitted, so now the cash-strapped school is forced to have to pay an ecologist roughly £5,000 to assess the site and put together a "plan" (probably some planting), or make a payment-in-lieu (approximately £10k) to the government to have the biodiversity planted off-site.
Everyday environmental red-tape like this drives people mad.1 -
I'm not a developer (but a family member is) and I have some experience of going through this process. I think that's massively overkill on the part of the school, probably due to a lack of knowledge or to being badly advised. The forms to show compliance with are fairly straightforward, I'd have a go at filling them out myself. Simply saying what you've stated above that "this is replacing an existing temporary building and is to be built on an existing concrete base and that in the new design we've included a small flowerbed of x by x nearby to ensure compliance" with a bit more detail, you can find examples online by googling the form and so you can borrow bits of text about biodiversity and insect populations etc. would probably be enough. Or if you wanted to really go for it a green roof would be overkill. Their existing architect or whoever is advising on the planning process should have been able to help them out with a fairly basic bit of process.cafcnick1992 said:
Can I give you an example of how this doesn't work? I currently have a primary school as a client. They want to turn a pre-fab classroom they built with a temporary planning permission into a permanent fixture now due to capacity issues, and therefore need full planning permission.ME14addick said:
It does matter, lots of smaller sites add up. Developers want to make as much profit as possible and won't do anything to improve the conditions for wildlife unless they are forced.cafcnick1992 said:I have no objection to increasing biodiversity, obviously, but the implementation of 'Biodiversity Net Gain' in the planning system by the Conservatives doesn't provide enough exemptions for smaller sites. Even Angela Rayner has woken up to this.
Basically all development sites are required to improve biodiversity on-site by 10%, and this must be certified by an ecologist who has to undertake surveys and submit a BNG plan as part of the application. This includes literally any development over 5m x 5m (which is basically 99% of all applications). Ecologists have got everyone over a barrel and are charging everyone thousands because the government has mandated their input.
This country really doesn't help itself.
The pre-fab building is located on a solid concrete base (i.e. there is no ecological value to the site). The Council won't even validate the application because a BNG assessment hasn't been submitted, so now the cash-strapped school is forced to have to pay an ecologist roughly £5,000 to assess the site and put together a "plan" (probably some planting), or make a payment-in-lieu (approximately £10k) to the government to have the biodiversity planted off-site.
Everyday environmental red-tape like this drives people mad.3 -
Nor has it happened as quickly as it currently is.Hex said:
This is a simple case of too little information.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?
Yes, the earth's temperature has always changed and in some (hundred year) periods it has done so more than others. But even when the change has been at its greatest it hasn't gone above 0.5C .... until now !
Watch Sir David Attenborough's documentary series planet earth. He covers in great detail the timeline of the amount of wild spaces on earth that have been removed in his lifetime and occupied by humans, buildings and concrete. Its scary. There is no way humans can go from occupying such a small part of the planet to the majority of it without having an impact. And that's before you even get to the burning of fossil fuels.3 - Sponsored links:
-
What is the lifetime of the solar farm panels?
How are they recycled or will they go to landfill?
Are people happy with the conditions of workers in the primary supply chain?
Is nuclear a better alternative in terms of output and waste?1 -
Fucks sakeOhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?7 -
The impact of literally every single one of these things put together is absolutely dwarfed by the impact of not doing them.MrWalker said:What is the lifetime of the solar farm panels?
How are they recycled or will they go to landfill?
Are people happy with the conditions of workers in the primary supply chain?
Is nuclear a better alternative in terms of output and waste?
The fossil fuel industry using this 'the perfect is the enemy of the good' bullshit is one of the oldest tricks they have.14 -
Never did a user name more closely match the post that was made.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?4 -
I was rather hoping for some answers.Leroy Ambrose said:
The impact of literally every single one of these things put together is absolutely dwarfed by the impact of not doing them.MrWalker said:What is the lifetime of the solar farm panels?
How are they recycled or will they go to landfill?
Are people happy with the conditions of workers in the primary supply chain?
Is nuclear a better alternative in terms of output and waste?
The fossil fuel industry using this 'the perfect is the enemy of the good' bullshit is one of the oldest tricks they have.
I certainly wasn't advocating doing nothing, was I?
Or supporting fossil fuels.
What a strange rant2 -
How is that a 'rant'?MrWalker said:
I was rather hoping for some answers.Leroy Ambrose said:
The impact of literally every single one of these things put together is absolutely dwarfed by the impact of not doing them.MrWalker said:What is the lifetime of the solar farm panels?
How are they recycled or will they go to landfill?
Are people happy with the conditions of workers in the primary supply chain?
Is nuclear a better alternative in terms of output and waste?
The fossil fuel industry using this 'the perfect is the enemy of the good' bullshit is one of the oldest tricks they have.
I certainly wasn't advocating doing nothing, was I?
Or supporting fossil fuels.
What a strange rant
Are you ill?4 -
This plot is from this week's Met Office Deep Dive. It doesn't appear in their spring summary so a screenshot will have to do. It shows spring sunshine totals vs mean temperature for recent years (possibly since 1961). The main highlight is how many recent springs have been outliers and by some margine. For example you can see 2025 was the sunniest (on record) and easily sunnier than 2020. The latter year was the previous sunniest and by 17% extra sunshine. Things are moving fast.
1 -
You don’t see a problem with large parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable from either being under water or too hot to live and grow crops? That’s without mentioning the rate of natural disasters increasing.OhMyGodden said:
Not at the cost of human interventionarny23394 said:
You’ve gone from saying climate change is a lie to agreeing that the climate does change in one post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?Don’t get your information from unemployed people on Facebook who failed their science GCSE and listen to actual scientists.4 -
Hahaha... I assumed you were joking in the first post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?
Ffs.... how will our species survive while this crap persists?
Is there enough time to educate ourselves out of the mess?6 - Sponsored links:
-
Of course he doesn't because it'll happen worst and first in the global South so it won't directly affect him.arny23394 said:
You don’t see a problem with large parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable from either being under water or too hot to live and grow crops? That’s without mentioning the rate of natural disasters increasing.OhMyGodden said:
Not at the cost of human interventionarny23394 said:
You’ve gone from saying climate change is a lie to agreeing that the climate does change in one post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?Don’t get your information from unemployed people on Facebook who failed their science GCSE and listen to actual scientists.2 -
Canters that would be a sensible solution to this issue, but current legislation requires a qualified ecologist to make that judgement. They need to evaluate a baseline then show that the proposed planting meets the 10% threshold. Then you need to submit a BNG matrix that demonstrates all this, signed off by a competent ecologist.cantersaddick said:
I'm not a developer (but a family member is) and I have some experience of going through this process. I think that's massively overkill on the part of the school, probably due to a lack of knowledge or to being badly advised. The forms to show compliance with are fairly straightforward, I'd have a go at filling them out myself. Simply saying what you've stated above that "this is replacing an existing temporary building and is to be built on an existing concrete base and that in the new design we've included a small flowerbed of x by x nearby to ensure compliance" with a bit more detail, you can find examples online by googling the form and so you can borrow bits of text about biodiversity and insect populations etc. would probably be enough. Or if you wanted to really go for it a green roof would be overkill. Their existing architect or whoever is advising on the planning process should have been able to help them out with a fairly basic bit of process.cafcnick1992 said:
Can I give you an example of how this doesn't work? I currently have a primary school as a client. They want to turn a pre-fab classroom they built with a temporary planning permission into a permanent fixture now due to capacity issues, and therefore need full planning permission.ME14addick said:
It does matter, lots of smaller sites add up. Developers want to make as much profit as possible and won't do anything to improve the conditions for wildlife unless they are forced.cafcnick1992 said:I have no objection to increasing biodiversity, obviously, but the implementation of 'Biodiversity Net Gain' in the planning system by the Conservatives doesn't provide enough exemptions for smaller sites. Even Angela Rayner has woken up to this.
Basically all development sites are required to improve biodiversity on-site by 10%, and this must be certified by an ecologist who has to undertake surveys and submit a BNG plan as part of the application. This includes literally any development over 5m x 5m (which is basically 99% of all applications). Ecologists have got everyone over a barrel and are charging everyone thousands because the government has mandated their input.
This country really doesn't help itself.
The pre-fab building is located on a solid concrete base (i.e. there is no ecological value to the site). The Council won't even validate the application because a BNG assessment hasn't been submitted, so now the cash-strapped school is forced to have to pay an ecologist roughly £5,000 to assess the site and put together a "plan" (probably some planting), or make a payment-in-lieu (approximately £10k) to the government to have the biodiversity planted off-site.
Everyday environmental red-tape like this drives people mad.
The school has unfortunately had to appoint us as the planning consultant as they weren't able to navigate the BNG component themselves.
0 -
Tbf to him and others, we know there are natural cycles that vary the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but they play out over hundreds of thousands of years or millenia. However humans burning fossil fuels has rapidly accelerated the rate of increase in concentration of CO2 alone almost off the scale since the industrial revolution, so for the sake of all life on earth, it's incumbent on us to stop making it far worse.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
Hahaha... I assumed you were joking in the first post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?
Ffs.... how will our species survive while this crap persists?
Is there enough time to educate ourselves out of the mess?3 -
Small sites don't need ecologist input from what I've understood. Commercial sites under 1000m2 count as small and the metric can be completed by "someone familiar with the site and the habitats on it, or someone else who can do a survey and make a calculation. This could be the project manager, a gardener, or a landscape architect."cafcnick1992 said:
Canters that would be a sensible solution to this issue, but current legislation requires a qualified ecologist to make that judgement. They need to evaluate a baseline then show that the proposed planting meets the 10% threshold. Then you need to submit a BNG matrix that demonstrates all this, signed off by a competent ecologist.cantersaddick said:
I'm not a developer (but a family member is) and I have some experience of going through this process. I think that's massively overkill on the part of the school, probably due to a lack of knowledge or to being badly advised. The forms to show compliance with are fairly straightforward, I'd have a go at filling them out myself. Simply saying what you've stated above that "this is replacing an existing temporary building and is to be built on an existing concrete base and that in the new design we've included a small flowerbed of x by x nearby to ensure compliance" with a bit more detail, you can find examples online by googling the form and so you can borrow bits of text about biodiversity and insect populations etc. would probably be enough. Or if you wanted to really go for it a green roof would be overkill. Their existing architect or whoever is advising on the planning process should have been able to help them out with a fairly basic bit of process.cafcnick1992 said:
Can I give you an example of how this doesn't work? I currently have a primary school as a client. They want to turn a pre-fab classroom they built with a temporary planning permission into a permanent fixture now due to capacity issues, and therefore need full planning permission.ME14addick said:
It does matter, lots of smaller sites add up. Developers want to make as much profit as possible and won't do anything to improve the conditions for wildlife unless they are forced.cafcnick1992 said:I have no objection to increasing biodiversity, obviously, but the implementation of 'Biodiversity Net Gain' in the planning system by the Conservatives doesn't provide enough exemptions for smaller sites. Even Angela Rayner has woken up to this.
Basically all development sites are required to improve biodiversity on-site by 10%, and this must be certified by an ecologist who has to undertake surveys and submit a BNG plan as part of the application. This includes literally any development over 5m x 5m (which is basically 99% of all applications). Ecologists have got everyone over a barrel and are charging everyone thousands because the government has mandated their input.
This country really doesn't help itself.
The pre-fab building is located on a solid concrete base (i.e. there is no ecological value to the site). The Council won't even validate the application because a BNG assessment hasn't been submitted, so now the cash-strapped school is forced to have to pay an ecologist roughly £5,000 to assess the site and put together a "plan" (probably some planting), or make a payment-in-lieu (approximately £10k) to the government to have the biodiversity planted off-site.
Everyday environmental red-tape like this drives people mad.
The school has unfortunately had to appoint us as the planning consultant as they weren't able to navigate the BNG component themselves.
Small sites metric (SSM) info at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-metric-calculate-the-biodiversity-net-gain-of-a-project-or-development#the-small-sites-metric
2 -
I refer you to my post above re 0.5C which goes back millions of years.swordfish said:
Tbf to him and others, we know there are natural cycles that vary the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, but they play out over hundreds of thousands of years or millenia. However humans burning fossil fuels has rapidly accelerated the rate of increase in concentration of CO2 alone almost off the scale since the industrial revolution, so for the sake of all life on earth, it's incumbent on us to stop making it far worse.Siv_in_Norfolk said:
Hahaha... I assumed you were joking in the first post.OhMyGodden said:They claim we're heating Earth up, but it does that naturally. How do you think the Ice Age ended?
Ffs.... how will our species survive while this crap persists?
Is there enough time to educate ourselves out of the mess?1 -
Duplicate and unwanted photos taken on Britons’ phones are producing 355,000 tonnes of CO2 per year in data storage.1
-
Debunked as clickbait nonsense years ago:MrWalker said:Duplicate and unwanted photos taken on Britons’ phones are producing 355,000 tonnes of CO2 per year in data storage.
https://davidmytton.blog/dirty-data-carbon-footprint-of-photo-storage/1 -
In any event, doesn't anything stored in the cloud add to their density and have a cooling effect? 😉Leroy Ambrose said:
Debunked as clickbait nonsense years ago:MrWalker said:Duplicate and unwanted photos taken on Britons’ phones are producing 355,000 tonnes of CO2 per year in data storage.
https://davidmytton.blog/dirty-data-carbon-footprint-of-photo-storage/2 -
De bunked by someone 'working towards' a PhdLeroy Ambrose said:
Debunked as clickbait nonsense years ago:MrWalker said:Duplicate and unwanted photos taken on Britons’ phones are producing 355,000 tonnes of CO2 per year in data storage.
https://davidmytton.blog/dirty-data-carbon-footprint-of-photo-storage/
OK then
Have you read the article?
Doesnt de-bunk the carbon usage of storage.5 -
Race to mine metals for EV batteries threatens marine paradise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k36v50zvro1
