kjh said:

Peck said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are even though I think they have the right to do so.

No no no no no. Because once you allow the threat of religious violence to infringe free speech then when do you stop?

Now Sweden is about to buckle and forbid Koran burning. Then it will be cartoons of the prophet. Than any criticism of the prophet. Then anything that remotely incites any of these bearded fuckers

Ffs we’ve seen this unfold in the uk and France. Teachers beheaded and in hiding So you end up with full on medieval blasphemy laws that only protect one religion - because that religion is so aggressive and violent

How much more evidence do you need? You people are pathetic.

Oh I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. I agree it shouldn't be outlawed. I agree with you. I think @Casino_Royale last post expressed my views better than I did. He got it spot on. I defend the right to burn the Koran. It is exceedingly stupid and insulting to do so.

Do you defend* the right to burn effigies of the Pope in the Falls Road?

The point being that some actions are viewed by their targets as threatening as well as insulting.

* "Assert" would be a better word, because there is no first amendment to any constitution in Britain, so it's not as if a right to carry out such an action actually exists. A right is kind o'thing that is pronounced into existence by the state.

Yes but you might be arrested for inciting violence. There is a time and a place. Falls Road, no. Lewes bonfire society where it is done every year, yes. A perfect example where outlawing it is stupid.

That's an excellent distinction that you draw. Those are two very different contexts.

But there's no tradition of unthreatening Koran-burning here. If there were, I'd be OK with it being allowed to continue.

Casino_Royale said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there another human being on the planet that talks like Loyd Grossman?

Rory Bremner.

If you are a collector of odd accents, try listening to the Radio 4 announcer Neil Nunes.

That's the poshest most RP Jamaican accent I've ever heard.

I haven't done a Jamaican accent bwana

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.

Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.

It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.

Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.

That's fair.

Casino_Royale said:

kjh said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

This is interesting. You and @leon have taken the exact opposite positions and (possibly) perceive me to be on the opposite side of the argument to both of you. Oxymoron.

I am with @Casino_Royale with this one for a change and in the middle. I'm for free speech. You can burn bibles, burn flags, but accept there are consequences for for insulting people.

Thanks. My only modification to that would be that those consequences cannot include violence and the threat of that violence cannot be used to blackmail against the action in the first place.

That is where the line must be drawn.

Agree. I was thinking along the lines of you might be arrested for inciting violence by your actions, or if there were such a law for being a prat in thinking that burning the bible in public was a good idea. That sort of thing.

Hi all. Just checking in. Am on Day 9 of an 18 day retreat. Free day today. No 5 hours of meditation or teaching today.
As for politics. Nothing much matters. And what does doesn't matter much.
Love to you all.
Later.

dixiedean said:

Hi all. Just checking in. Am on Day 9 of an 18 day retreat. Free day today. No 5 hours of meditation or teaching today.
As for politics. Nothing much matters. And what does doesn't matter much.
Love to you all.
Later.

I feel like I missed this development

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.

To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)

At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.

All you have left is arguments over semantics.

The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.

Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.

Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.

There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions

How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?

- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs

Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...

*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic

I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that

They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two

But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.

Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.

*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things

I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.

Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.

It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.

Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"

I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050

Give us some f'rinstances.

Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere

Oh no!!!

Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest

Ahem

Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.

It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.

You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!

It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.

But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.

The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.

1850, low point of the Dalton minimum.
There's a reason they start the chart here.

That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.

Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?

Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.

If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.

I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.

Could we have a source please?

They're growing wine grapes in Derbyshire.

https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/

500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.

I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.

Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.

https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/

Pass the sick bag

"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."

Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.

There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton.
https://yorkshireheart.com/

Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.

Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.

How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?

I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.

The point was that if you cannot transport goods around easily, you just have to accept whatever rubbish you can produce locally.

So evidence of old vineyards doesn't mean much really. It might just have been desperation rather than some kind of Mediterranean climate.

kjh said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

This is interesting. You and @leon have taken the exact opposite positions and (possibly) perceive me to be on the opposite side of the argument to both of you. Oxymoron.

I am with @Casino_Royale with this one for a change and in the middle. I'm for free speech. You can burn bibles, burn flags, but accept there are consequences for for insulting people.

I'm not, although I accept the position of absolute free speech is a valid one.

If it turns out banning wilful Koran burning would also impact the free speech of the much better people than them, I might accept the Koran burning. But I would be doing that for the rights of the much better people, not the rights of the bastards burning the Koran.

Andy_JS said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Casino_Royale said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

TOPPING said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Eabhal said:

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

What's the point? These people will never believe in climate change, they will always think it's a hoax or over-exaggerated. Best to ignore them and move on.

You need "these people" because they are the solution. Setting up an "us" and "them" is the route to failure.

I do not have the energy, others can fight, I admitted defeat long ago. We are doomed.

No we're not. But here's a tip: stop telling people they can never fly again, travel again except by bike, and must have cold homes and eat mung beans forevermore and pay more for the privilege.

They'll tell you to Foxtrot Oscar and ignore you.

I've never said any of those things on here, you're putting words in my mouth there mate. We are doomed and I accept that. Good day.

At any given point in time, there are people saying: "We are doomed". In retrospect it always turns out to be nonsense.

Some survivors bias there!

Clearly people who were correct to express their foreboding of doom aren't around to discuss it afterwards.

Casino_Royale said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there another human being on the planet that talks like Loyd Grossman?

Rory Bremner.

If you are a collector of odd accents, try listening to the Radio 4 announcer Neil Nunes.

That's the poshest most RP Jamaican accent I've ever heard.

Mrs PtP and I have talked about this at some length but we can't figure out what is going on. It sounds very much like he had a perfectly normal Caribbean accent at one point but took elocution lessons and didn't finish the course. The result is some sort of hybrid Jamaican/posh-BBC. It is very distracting when he is reading the news. You are thinking about his speech mannerisms rather than what he is saying.

I've always though Loyd Grossman was putting it on deliberately, but I don't know and don't care.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.

To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)

At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.

All you have left is arguments over semantics.

The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.

Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.

Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.

There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions

How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?

- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs

Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...

*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic

I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that

They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two

But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.

Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.

*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things

I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.

Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.

It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.

Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"

I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050

Give us some f'rinstances.

Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere

Oh no!!!

Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest

Ahem

Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.

It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.

You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!

It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.

But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.

The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.

1850, low point of the Dalton minimum.
There's a reason they start the chart here.

That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.

Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?

Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.

If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.

I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.

Could we have a source please?

They're growing wine grapes in Derbyshire.

https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/

500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.

I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.

Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.

https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/

Pass the sick bag

"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."

Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.

There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton.
https://yorkshireheart.com/

Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.

Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.

How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?

I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.

The point was that if you cannot transport goods around easily, you just have to accept whatever rubbish you can produce locally.

So evidence of old vineyards doesn't mean much really. It might just have been desperation rather than some kind of Mediterranean climate.

Speaking of desperation...

The climate was different in the past. I don't think anyone denies this. I don't think there's much evidence that it was substantially warmer a few hundred years ago.

The most recent change that made a large difference in Britain was it getting much wetter some time during the Bronze Age. There's plenty of good evidence for that.

Miklosvar said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.

To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)

At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.

All you have left is arguments over semantics.

The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.

Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.

Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.

There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions

How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?

- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs

Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...

*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic

I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that

They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two

But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.

Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.

*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things

I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.

Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.

It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.

Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"

I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050

Give us some f'rinstances.

Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere

Oh no!!!

Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest

Ahem

Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.

It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.

You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!

It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.

But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.

The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.

1850, low point of the Dalton minimum.
There's a reason they start the chart here.

That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.

Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?

Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.

If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.

I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.

Could we have a source please?

They're growing wine grapes in Derbyshire.

https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/

500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.

I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.

Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.

https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/

Pass the sick bag

"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."

Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.

There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton.
https://yorkshireheart.com/

Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.

Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.

How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?

I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.

The point was that if you cannot transport goods around easily, you just have to accept whatever rubbish you can produce locally.

So evidence of old vineyards doesn't mean much really. It might just have been desperation rather than some kind of Mediterranean climate.

Speaking of desperation...

Not desperate at all. Have you any idea how difficult and dangerous it is transporting a cargo from Portugal/France/Madeira to England in a sailing ship with no engine? People were doing it in those days to the extent that the basic unit of a ton, derives from a (liquid) tun of wine, because that was the default cargo, because the demand was there, because the native produce was either non existent or unutterably disgusting.

As I noted earlier, one very good reason for making wine in England even if it was crap: ritual usage, in the Church.

But to drink with youjr high class meal ...

Casino_Royale said:

Whoouu would livve in a howse like thisss?

A nonce

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

I want to ride my bicycle
I want to ride my bike

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

Don't care if they were naked. The demo to 'save the streets for cyclists' nearly killed me when I was in the middle of the green man crossing on South Bridge - they just ignored the red. I have hated that kind of self-important shit in Lycra ever since, so someone without Lycra somehow seems an improvement.

Miklosvar said:

Carnyx said:

Miklosvar said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.

To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)

At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.

All you have left is arguments over semantics.

The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.

Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.

Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.

There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions

How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?

- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs

Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...

*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic

I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that

They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two

But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.

Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.

*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things

I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.

Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.

It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.

Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"

I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050

Give us some f'rinstances.

Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere

Oh no!!!

Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest

Ahem

Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.

It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.

You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!

It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.

But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.

The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.

1850, low point of the Dalton minimum.
There's a reason they start the chart here.

That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.

Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?

Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.

If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.

I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.

Could we have a source please?

They're growing wine grapes in Derbyshire.

https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/

500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.

I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.

Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.

https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/

Pass the sick bag

"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."

Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.

There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton.
https://yorkshireheart.com/

Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.

Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.

How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?

I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.

The point was that if you cannot transport goods around easily, you just have to accept whatever rubbish you can produce locally.

So evidence of old vineyards doesn't mean much really. It might just have been desperation rather than some kind of Mediterranean climate.

Speaking of desperation...

Not desperate at all. Have you any idea how difficult and dangerous it is transporting a cargo from Portugal/France/Madeira to England in a sailing ship with no engine? People were doing it in those days to the extent that the basic unit of a ton, derives from a (liquid) tun of wine, because that was the default cargo, because the demand was there, because the native produce was either non existent or unutterably disgusting.

As I noted earlier, one very good reason for making wine in England even if it was crap: ritual usage, in the Church.

But to drink with youjr high class meal ...

Missed your earlier post, but does it say in Leviticus or something rhat wine has to be home-grown?

Haven't taken communion for 40 odd years, but Cof E wine is South African port I think - presumably because unfortified red wine is unpalatable to those not used to it. I have always remembered the bit in 1984 where O'Brien gives W and J wine and they are disappointed how thin and bitter it is.

Was thinking more of cost and practicalities. No offie for your typical monk in Yorkshire to nip round and buy some port or Buckfast, eh?

But - on further reflection - wasn't it only the celebrant who took a sip of the wine? In which case even a small amount of manky Chateau Scunthorpe would do perfectly well to keep the ritual year rolling along.

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

They have them in the US where, strictly speaking, the participants have no clothes on but they do have bodypaint on.

Surely these cyclists must have footwear on ? Wouldn’t it be too painful on the foot pedalling with no protection on the bottom of the foot.

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

Don't care if they were naked. The demo to 'save the streets for cyclists' nearly killed me when I was in the middle of the green man crossing on South Bridge - they just ignored the red. I have hated that kind of self-important shit in Lycra ever since, so someone without Lycra somehow seems an improvement.

I'm sorry you were nearly killed. Did you report to the police?

FYI If that was Critical Mass - they have permission from the council and the police to keep together in a big group and run the reds. There are usually a few councillors in there keeping an eye on it.

Didn't know who they were, either collectively or individually, so not much point in reporting. I forgot about the CCTV, though. It was about 20 years ago. But what shocked me was it wasn't the usual ned or courier or male student doing top speed on the pavement. Those people should have known a lot better. Yet they behaved to me just as they whined car drivers were behaving to them. All of them, collectively.

Miklosvar said:

FF43 said:

Miklosvar said:

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

Not at all. Casino could have said the people publicly burning the Koran purely to make others unhappy are wankers. But he didn't.

Personally I can't think of anything more wankist than what those guys are doing.

It is extremely rude, disrespectful and provocative to burn a religious text, as it is a flag - and I wouldn't do it.

Nevertheless, I would defend someone's right to do so and I'd certainly like to call out some of Islam's central tenets as bollocks, politely so, as far as possible, because I think they are.

Would I go to the barricades to fight to the death for the right of people of people to insult others and sow division just because they can?

No I wouldn't. Those guys can look after themselves.

Yes, I would.

You wouldn't because you're scared.

The right is important because otherwise we are accepting there are some objects and subjects that are off limits, and none should be.

No. It's because I think with rights comes with responsibilities. If people don't accept that, I'm not going to bother with them. There are plenty of genuinely oppressed people that should get my attention instead.

Sorry.

Not how law and morality works. You don't get to ignore fraud victims because you personally relate more closely to battered wives, any more than you can commit one of those offences more easily than the other out of personal preference.

and with rights do NOT come responsibilities. My right not to be assaulted or murdered is independent of anything I do.

Sorry.

Completely irrelevant to my point. Sorry (for the last time).

A 100% answer to your point, if you were not too thick to see it. Unless you seriously think that my right not to be murdered is contingent on my carrying out some responsibility. Do you? If you do, what is the bare minimum I have to do to validate the right?

Sorry.

On the other hand my right not to be incarcerated is contingent on not committing a crime. My right to drive a car is contingent on passing a test and obeying the traffic laws. My, or more likely my children's, right to a specific education is contingent on proper behaviour at school. The law will say what your responsibilities are. It's absolutely normal.

As I said above I'm perfectly cool about banning Koran burning in principle. My only concern is that it would make bad law. How would you determine the right level of hurt and so on? But I don't care about the rights of those guys in Sweden. They can look after themselves, including not burning the book in the first place.

rcs1000 said:

Miklosvar said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?

It is.

Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.

How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?

Thomas Malthus, is that you?

The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.

Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.

We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.

In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.

The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.

Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:

The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.

Sure.

But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!

In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?

We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.

Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"

Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.

It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.

Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.

There is a really good OBR report on this: https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Emissions-working-paper.pdf

I know I was caught with a bloody knife standing over the body of the guy who bled to death but I definitely didn't kill him, because, in the past, before I was alive, other people bled to death of natural causes. That couldn't have been me, therefore this guy isn't either. I rest my case.

rcs1000 said:

Miklosvar said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?

It is.

Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.

How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?

Thomas Malthus, is that you?

The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.

Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.

We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.

In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.

The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.

Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:

The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.

Sure.

But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!

In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?

We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.

Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"

Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.

Because they are fanatics, zealots. Whatever you do will never be enough.

On the cost of electric cars in the US: FWIW, the lowest-cost Chevrolet Bolt now has a list price of 26.5K. But how much it will actually cost the buyer depends very much on whether they qualify for a subsidy: https://ev.pse.com/ (And, of course, taxes.)

Since I am not in the market for a car, I can't give you more details. (Which would vary from state to state.)

But I can give you this generality: In recent years, legislators here have been trying to find ways to subsidize inexpensive electric cars. (I don't know to what extent they have succeeded.)

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

Don't care if they were naked. The demo to 'save the streets for cyclists' nearly killed me when I was in the middle of the green man crossing on South Bridge - they just ignored the red. I have hated that kind of self-important shit in Lycra ever since, so someone without Lycra somehow seems an improvement.

I'm sorry you were nearly killed. Did you report to the police?

FYI If that was Critical Mass - they have permission from the council and the police to keep together in a big group and run the reds. There are usually a few councillors in there keeping an eye on it.

PS re running the reds -

1. How the **** am I supposed to know?
2. How the **** is it OK to do that when there are people *on the bloody crossing, right in the middle*? I had cyclists passingf within a foot of me on all sides.

It's insane. I've never heard of such a thing and wouldn't have believed it if I did.

It's controversial, for sure. The front of the pack never runs a red, but the tail end does. I've done it a couple of times and stayed at the front for that reason.

It's policed as a political march, so is legal apparently. They usually have a few cyclists block pedestrian crossings to ensure no one gets hurt, and mandate a very slow speed (too slow for me!)

I think it must be the same lot, grinning all over their faces - if I had panicked, several people would have been hurt as well as me.

No, that last, blocking pedestrian crossings, didn't happen for me. Definitely not. They were going pretty fast, too.

If you have anything to do with them - just tell them to stop it. They're not a ****ing old style Orange March.

Edit: that is exactly the sort of thing that would make me go out and buy several packs of carpet tacks if I ever knew when and where the same lot would be.

So….. THAT went well


FAILURE: Mark Zuckerberg's Threads is now the biggest failure in online history. No other platform has lost as many users as quickly as Threads.
cnn.com/2023/08/03/tec…


https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1687187829477040128?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Miklosvar said:

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

Miklosvar said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?

It is.

Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.

How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?

Thomas Malthus, is that you?

The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.

Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.

We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.

In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.

The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.

Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:

The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.

Sure.

But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!

In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?

We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.

Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"

Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.

Because they are fanatics, zealots. Whatever you do will never be enough.

Tell me you have never left Europe, without telling me you have never left Europe.

Ok, that one trip to Florida.

It's weird how Taz has interpreted the progress we have made on reducing emissions, and the increasing ease of doing in the future, as a reason to stop?!

.

Eabhal said:

rcs1000 said:

Miklosvar said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?

It is.

Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.

How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?

Thomas Malthus, is that you?

The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.

Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.

We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.

In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.

The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.

Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:

The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.

Sure.

But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!

In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?

We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.

Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"

Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.

It's weird because we have already fixed the problem. We just need to implement it against a little political opposition. It's lung cancer and smoking, round two.

Transport is the last big chunk of carbon emissions where we haven't made much progress, and we are already well on the way to electric cars, electric buses, trams, electrification of trains and - dare I say it - cycling for shorter journeys.

There is a really good OBR report on this: https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Emissions-working-paper.pdf

You're completely right for once, electric cars and electric buses and electric trains etc are the solution. Combined with clean electricity they are zero carbon, so they are the solution. The sole solution.

Cycling of course is fun, so throw that in the mix if you want to, for recreational purposes, but not as a relevant solution to the climate since it represents not even a significant percentage of transportation on any country in the planet, even after more than half a century of extremely heavily promoting it in the likes of the Netherlands its still an almost inconsequential sub-10% of km travelled. And we need to be making 100% of travel clean, not below 10% of travel.

But electric cars? Yes, they eliminate the climate problem in its entirety and eliminate any reason to be concerned about driving. Problem is solved, you are completely right. 👍

The one things that's not yet technologically solved is clean aviation. It will be over time. Its why we do not need to be cutting flights either, we need to be incentivising clean aviation technology in the same way as we incentivised clean automobile technology, until the solution for that exists too.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Miklosvar said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.

To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)

At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.

All you have left is arguments over semantics.

The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.

Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.

Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.

There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions

How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?

- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs

Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...

*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic

I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that

They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two

But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.

Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.

*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things

I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.

Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.

It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.

Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"

I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050

Give us some f'rinstances.

Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere

Oh no!!!

Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest

Ahem

Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.

It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.

You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!

It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.

But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.

The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.

1850, low point of the Dalton minimum.
There's a reason they start the chart here.

That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.

Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?

Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.

If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.

I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.

Could we have a source please?

They're growing wine grapes in Derbyshire.

https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/

500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.

I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.

Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.

https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/

Pass the sick bag

"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."

Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.

There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton.
https://yorkshireheart.com/

Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.

Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.

How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?

I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.

The point was that if you cannot transport goods around easily, you just have to accept whatever rubbish you can produce locally.

So evidence of old vineyards doesn't mean much really. It might just have been desperation rather than some kind of Mediterranean climate.

Speaking of desperation...

Not desperate at all. Have you any idea how difficult and dangerous it is transporting a cargo from Portugal/France/Madeira to England in a sailing ship with no engine? People were doing it in those days to the extent that the basic unit of a ton, derives from a (liquid) tun of wine, because that was the default cargo, because the demand was there, because the native produce was either non existent or unutterably disgusting.

The Romans were at the centre of a vast network of trade routes, taking from each territory what was best made, mined, or grown from that territory. I find the idea that they would have attempted to cultivate vines in the frozen wastes of Yorkshire because they were dying of thirst to be risible. Even if there were difficulties with importing wine from the continent they could still have quite easily confined their vinicultural efforts to the South of England, and transported the wine oop North by road.

Road transport far too inefficient. Take it by sea to (for instance) Brough on Humber, for York.

https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/places/petuaria/

Edit: but that strengthens your point.

kjh said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Gallowgate said:

Peck said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

Gallowgate said:

kamski said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Remarkable headline in The Guardian. Sweden apparently has “extraordinarily liberal free speech laws” - because they allow people to burn the Koran. No, what they have is the freedom to mock and criticise religion. It’s called “the Enlightenment”. We used to do it, too

The Guardian are such wankers.

For those who keep asking what WOKE is: it's horseshit like this.

When did you last publicly burn one ?

Jesus fucking Christ what an insultingly stupid question

I don't think it is. As someone who believe in free speech I think you should be able to do so, but here is the counter argument: I am also an atheist yet I find the idea of burning a Bible of Koran in public unreasonably insulting to those who hold those religious views no matter how barking I think they are, even though I think I have the right to do so.

It isn't even about "mocking religion" . People burning Korans are arseholes who want to stir up trouble - in fact they are on the same side as Isis. I'm an atheist and I don't have any problem with a law banning burning religious texts.

Besides, there are all kinds of things we aren't allowed to do. I live in a country (there are many) where desecrating flags is illegal. Is that woke madness too?

I think banning burning books/religious texts and banning desecrating flags are equally ridiculous.

The absence of the above shite is one of the things Britain does right.

OK last time I was in Britain it wasn't allowed to walk down the street naked - which is an infringement on people's freedom of expression that has far less justification than banning burning holy books, but not many of you are manning barricades about it.

You are allowed to walk down the street naked

You're not. A charge of offending public decency would usually stick. Look what happened to this bloke:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/naked-rambler-finishes-trek-after-900-miles-and-16-arrests-74964.html

Well in Scotland there be monsters

For his own good. Midges.

In any case - he was beaten up in St Ives. Last time I looked, it weas in England.

There was a naked bike ride in Edinburgh a few weeks ago. Wonder how that was legal?

(No, I wasn't there).

Don't care if they were naked. The demo to 'save the streets for cyclists' nearly killed me when I was in the middle of the green man crossing on South Bridge - they just ignored the red. I have hated that kind of self-important shit in Lycra ever since, so someone without Lycra somehow seems an improvement.

I'm sorry you were nearly killed. Did you report to the police?

FYI If that was Critical Mass - they have permission from the council and the police to keep together in a big group and run the reds. There are usually a few councillors in there keeping an eye on it.

Seems like an odd law if the guy in the articulated lorry coming through the green lights at the cross roads doesn't know. I hav a vision of hundreds of naked squashed bodies and buckled wheels piled up in the middle of the road

Pedestrian crossing, so red lights on both - but, ny the same token, how are the pedestrians to know? As in my case.

Miklosvar said:

rcs1000 said:

Miklosvar said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

williamglenn said:

What if it's not possible to increase the standard of living of 8 billion people while reducing the global impact of humanity on the environment?

It is.

Don't underestimate human ingenuity. The one thing worse than Luddites is Malthusians.

How many more cars than today are we talking about? How many more flights? How much more meat will be consumed? How much more food will we have to take out of the oceans?

Thomas Malthus, is that you?

The past fifty years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people living developed world lifestyles. More people eat well. More people survive childbirth.

Politics excepted, the world has never been in better shape. We now have the technology to provide *all* of humanity's needs from renewable sources. We have battery technology. We can keep homes warm or cold.

We've even solved the problem of the world's population growing out of control.

In time, we'll solve the long-distance travel problem. And you know what: maybe it'll be more by hyperloop than by planes. And that's great! Whatever works. Maybe it'll be by fanprops. Maybe synthetic fuel. Maybe battery powered planes.

The challenges the world faces are not from real emergencies - absent places like Ukraine - but an unwillingness to listen to the concerns of, and empathize with, our fellow human beings.

Microbe in laboratory jar, population doubling every day, on day when jar is at 50% capacity:

The past fifty doublings have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of microbes living developed laboratory jar lifestyles.

Sure.

But here's the thing. We're not running out of resources!

In fact, quite the opposite. We're successfully moving away from burning shit to power our lives, and moving to capturing solar energy through wind turbines and panels. How insanely great is that?

We've already - in the UK - stopped burning coal. And the cost of solar and wind and batteries is only going in one direction. So we'll soon stop burning gas. And our petrol usage will shrink.

Why aren't people saying "this is amazing!"

Instead they are claiming things are worse, when they are obviously massively better than they have been.

Things are great for you and me, but then (without exaggeration) you and I would probably commit suicide rather than live the life of the people who make our iphones for us, and (also without exaggeration) there are billions of Indians and Africans to whom the life of the iphone makers woud look like heaven. Now, it's possible that we can make nano bots to make the iphones, but people work on a macro level and want macro houses and cars and roads to drive the cars on and airports and planes to fly about in. Standing still looks just about achievable at the moment, but why should the billions agree to a standstill?

Those people making the iPhones are living massively better lives than their parents. They aren't in rural China living subsistence lives.

There's an amazing NPR series where they interview textile workers in Bangladesh. 19 year old girls working machines for 12 hours a day in horrible conditions.

These are people that we worry about in the West. But all they can talk about is how happy they are they are no longer living on a farm, and sure the work is boring, but they share a flat with their friends, and they can buy make up, and they're never hungry.

What you see as hell, they see as progress.

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Miklosvar said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

Flatlander said:

Miklosvar said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eastwinger said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Eabhal said:

felix said:

Taz said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

TOPPING said:

Miklosvar said:

Pagan2 said:

TOPPING said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

Selebian said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Eabhal said:

Peck said:

There isn't a climate emergency. The change in terminology could have been predicted, though. Less so the change from global warming to climate change. Next the line is bound to be do this or go extinct.

To try to stop the climate changing is to be a Cnut. (In the monarchist sense.)

At least we have got to the stage where people accept it is happening, and will continue to do so.

All you have left is arguments over semantics.

The positive externalities of mitigation are worth it, even if they don't have a big impact on global emissions and the rate at which temperature increases.

Investment in adaptation is almost certainly worth it, particularly for flooding on the east coast and air conditioning in hospitals.

Yes. We need to invest in mitigation AND reduce CO2 output AND improve energy efficiency AND investigate carbon capture AND reduce methane output AND… We’re past simple solutions. We need all the solutions.

There are no solutions that will be acceptable in a democracy because people will not accept a mandated decline in living standard. Therefore there will be no solutions

How about the solutions that do not require a decline in living standards?

- More renewables in energy generation -> less dependence on (suddenly very expensive) gas from dodgy places
- More efficient appliances -> lower costs of running those appliances
- Better insulation -> warmer homes at lower heating cost (plus removal of cold patches with mould etc)
- EVs -> better cars with lower running costs

Someone the other day mentioned LED lighting. Well, it's just better than incandescent, isn't it? Many more colour options, cooler running*, lasts longer, obsolescence of even worse stuff like flurorescent tubes...

*I once burned my foot on a halogen bulb in a bedside lamp when reading in bed turned into something more energetic

I am not against any of those but we both know the climate change zealots want more than that

They demand an end to personal transportation for one
They demand we all go vegan for two

But climate change zealots are nowhere near power.

Neither of those two things are going to happen before the climate apocalypse* and then it's too late and pointless anyway.

*by which I mean they are election losers right up until the point where (if it ever happens) the effects of climate change are so severe that people, in general, would actually want these things

I should state at this point I am absolutely relaxed about climate change, purely because by the time it becomes critical I will be dead as will be my family. I doubt I am alone in that.

Which on the one hand means that the rhetoric can be ramped up and no one will be any the wiser, while on the other as you say no one *really* is invested.

It comes down to will no one think of the children which is always a tricky ask.

Like many my son and his wife have decided to be childfree. Given he they are in their 30's by the time he dies will likely be 2080 at the latest. What is being asked therefore is "think of other peoples children"

I expect things to be pretty shit by 2050

Give us some f'rinstances.

Hot summers wet winters fires everywhere

Oh no!!!

Sounds like a pretty normal year to me if I am honest

Ahem

Never trust a chart that lacks a scale.

It is like a Lib Dem "winning here" bar chart.

You can almost here Kay burley screaming that Edinburgh is literally ablaze!

It's Met Office data, graphic put together by National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Reading Uni.

But I appreciate you lot don't have much time for experts.

The choice of colour is deliberately designed to alarm idiots like you. I have zero time for 'experts' who produce a graph without a scale.

Satisfied?



https://showyourstripes.info/c

The late chap in a house round the back from me (not a million miles from Edinburgh) was a keen met person. He kept continuous records for decades. I remember seeing his graph of the running average for the last few years about 10-12 years ago. It was a near perfect hockey stick in shape.

1850, low point of the Dalton minimum.
There's a reason they start the chart here.

That's why I was talking about the hockey stick graph, which relies solely on the last few years' runnign average. Flat for decades then up as one would expect from CO2 levels.

Where did the Co2 come from in the Early Middle Ages when the Vikings were growing Barley in Southern Greenland and Europes wine growing region extended 500 kms further north than today?

Europe's wine growing region ends at - about - London today. 500 km further North takes you well into Scotland.

If you look at Germany today, we get wine produced from about half way up. If you stretch 500 km North of there, you get meaningfully above Oslo and Stockholm.

I'm sure Europe's wine growing region stretched further North than previously during the Medieval Warm Period, but I'd be staggered if it was anywhere near 500km more than now.

Could we have a source please?

They're growing wine grapes in Derbyshire.

https://www.ambervalleyvineyards.co.uk/

500km north of Derbyshire gets you to somewhere north of Stirling.

I'm confident they never made wine that far north in Roman times.

Edit - there is evidence of Roman viticulture in North Thoresby, Lincs (there is a modern vineyard not far away at Sowerby). That's the most northern one I know of.

https://romanlincolnshire.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/possible-roman-vineyard-north-thoresby/

Pass the sick bag

"Meet our latest pride and joy, the Elsa Pink 2022. It's more than a wine – it's a tribute to our bright and sparky daughter, capturing her vibrant spirit and enthusiasm in every drop. Each bottle radiates the same charming, magnetic energy she exudes, making it a celebration of family, love, and laughter."

Also I am not convinced they have got the hang of the whole viticulture thang, all their wine pages show a top-fruit (prob apple but it's out of focus) orchard in blossom. Avoid.

There's a vineyard just north of Doncaster (Summerhouse, I think), and one further north at Nun Monkton.
https://yorkshireheart.com/

Also one in Holmfirth, but I think that's really just for the lolz.

Yes, but you have to try their output to know whether to take them seriously. I had some madeleine angevin white from Dartmouth the other day which took me back to the early 1980s, it was so disgusting.

How "serious" were the alleged vineyards in the Medieval Warm Period, given that transporting the finest Chilean produce wasn't exactly that easy at the time?

I don’t think they were alleged, there is archeological and historical evidence of their existence. It shouldn’t matter that the Roman warm period and medieval warm periods happened - the current rise in temps is very different.

The point was that if you cannot transport goods around easily, you just have to accept whatever rubbish you can produce locally.

So evidence of old vineyards doesn't mean much really. It might just have been desperation rather than some kind of Mediterranean climate.

Speaking of desperation...

Not desperate at all. Have you any idea how difficult and dangerous it is transporting a cargo from Portugal/France/Madeira to England in a sailing ship with no engine? People were doing it in those days to the extent that the basic unit of a ton, derives from a (liquid) tun of wine, because that was the default cargo, because the demand was there, because the native produce was either non existent or unutterably disgusting.

The Romans were at the centre of a vast network of trade routes, taking from each territory what was best made, mined, or grown from that territory. I find the idea that they would have attempted to cultivate vines in the frozen wastes of Yorkshire because they were dying of thirst to be risible. Even if there were difficulties with importing wine from the continent they could still have quite easily confined their vinicultural efforts to the South of England, and transported the wine oop North by road.

Road transport far too inefficient. Take it by sea to (for instance) Brough on Humber, for York.

https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/places/petuaria/

Edit: but that strengthens your point.

At Hadrian's Wall they found delivery notes from vineyards in Spain. And complaints about the quality, I vaguely remember.