The Climate Change scam

True enough.👍

Word of caution on the farm machinery front though. According to the industry the savings will not be great as the costs of developing the new engines to reduce emissions are already embedded into production costs, and they are a small part of the overall cost anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpc
This lad should stick to igniting race wars with his tranny husband, Michael.👍

Obama says Trump climate move leaves US 'less safe'
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2026/0212/1558193-us-climate-rules/
Reading that RTE report a little more thoroughly it does help explain the left's fall into totally detached idiocy and how they have reached the point at which they are today.

To believe, as Obama obviously does, that CO2 is directly harmful to our health shows a magnificent detachment from all that is good and sensible about science which has firmly established that a few extra PPM is of no consequence whatsoever.

Quack science, however, has pushed the idea that CO2 is the most wicked stuff ever, even though NASA has clearly shown that nature is lapping it up with enthusiasm. But that is ignored, it is the idea that is important, not the reality, the left has somehow decided that it knows better than God and so tries to play God, but it really hasn't a clue.

This is the very same concept that we find carried forward to wokeism and especially transgenderism. The left knows better than nature which has, for the past few billion years, been labouring under the impression that two distinct and different sexes is the best way to carry life forward. Thankfully the left is now here to point out the error of its ways and life on planet earth should bloody well be thankful that men in dresses are here to sort such nonsense out!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jpc
Word of caution on the farm machinery front though. According to the industry the savings will not be great as the costs of developing the new engines to reduce emissions are already embedded into production costs, and they are a small part of the overall cost anyway.
People miss that bit

"the costs of developing the new engines to reduce emissions are already embedded into production costs, "
 
In further reference to Trump pulling the Endangerment Finding of 2009 which underpins the whole toxic CO2 nonsense, one particular American energy commentator (David Blackmon) notes with obvious satisfaction -

Boost for Energy Industry: By removing artificial constraints on CO2 emissions, it paves the way for American energy dominance, efficient permitting, and investments in critical sectors like data centers and minerals—without apologies or lectures to allies. (My bold).

It is this line which clearly sets out the desire of the Trump administration to whip Europe's ass, amongst others, one of which is the UK where gormless Miliband's latest wheeze is to deploy solar panels in space, at an unspecified cost, in a bid to achieve net zero by 2050.

There will only be the one winner here.....
 
Interesting item from a Substack pointing out that one reason climate alarmist journos get so hysterical is that they are all fighting for space to be heard -

The Climate Media Retreat

Last week, The Washington Post laid off roughly one-third of its newsroom staff, including at least 13 reporters and editors covering climate and environmental issues.

The Post had more than thirteen (13) reporters who covered climate. Excessive but it explains how the quality of climate coverage was such a race to the bottom. Thirteen (13) reporters fighting for column space each week. No wonder the hysteria got louder and the logical stretches got longer over time ending up in headlines like: “Deadly Rivers in the Sky” dealing with atmospheric rivers, or “Facing unbearable heat, Qatar has begun to air-condition the outdoors”, concluding with if it’s hot, it’s because of climate change. If it’s cold, it’s because of climate change….
 
They're easily brainwashed.

Cultish behavior just like the CoVidian Cultists, the Tranny Cultists, the Degenerate Party Cultists in the USA etc etc.

Funny as fuck really.😊
Except for the carbon taxs and other bollox they help get enacted.
 
Frost in Fermanagh and Leitrim yesterday morning. Is it usual to have frost in May? Is this the sign of the new Ice Age???
 
Frost in Fermanagh and Leitrim yesterday morning. Is it usual to have frost in May? Is this the sign of the new Ice Age???
Gardeners never discount frosts until May is done, so it's nothing unusual. But it has been a very wet spring, one of the wettest I can recall but again I doubt that it is unique. Basically the weather is just being the weather, as it always has been, and always will be.
 
Am picking up the vibes that the climate change scam is waning as the PTB come to appreciate that without fossil fuels their dreams of AI and rule by digital intelligence are unlikey to materialise.
 
Frost in Fermanagh and Leitrim yesterday morning. Is it usual to have frost in May? Is this the sign of the new Ice Age???
The lowest June daily air temperatures occurred at Cloncast, Co Offaly with -3.3 °C on June 1st 1962.

Snow has been reported in May and September.

Snow in June in 1975:
 

Each passing week provides more signs that a strong El Niño is likely as water temperatures rapidly warm across a key region of the Pacific Ocean.

Our budding El Niño will have far-reaching effects on weather patterns around the world, including on this year’s hurricane seasons, as well as overall summertime conditions here in Canada.
Take a couple of weeks in El Paso ! !
 
Take a couple of weeks in El Paso ! !
Yer bollox man above should take a few years on the other side of the moon and spare us his sudden expertise having dredged something up from the web in a desperate attempt to appear 'interesting', rather than the the usual regurgitated crap he presents us with.
 

 

Great News when you consider the price of energy for heating ourselves ! !
 
I mentioned this on another thread, the IPCC backing away from its extremism, here's a little more detail -

Big news: The new framework has eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades — specifically, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0.

This is an absolutely huge development in climate science that will have lasting impacts across research and policy.

An explanation of RCP8.5 here -

 
This is very funny conversation between a young, smug, know-it-all climate enthusiast and a grizzled old farmer.

Captures the smug lies, topic switches, put-downs of the activist and the very concise, precise and polite farmer talking.

Activist: "You can graze sheep underneath solar panels. It's called agrivoltaics."

Farmer: "I've read the brochures."

A: "Best of both worlds."

Farmer: "The panels shade the sward. Productive species die back. What grows is what tolerates shade and compaction. Sheep won't finish on it."

A: "But the trials show it works."

F: "The trials run 3 years & measure ewe presence. Not lamb growth rates. Not finishing weights. Not what the soil looks like in year 15."

A: "It's still better than nothing."

F: "It's a 30% stocking rate, a steel frame I can't plough around, panel-cleaning chemicals running into the watercourse, & a 40-year lease I can't break."

A: "But you're getting energy AND lamb."

F: "I'm getting a third of the lamb, a maintenance contract & a field my grandson can't farm."

A: "You're being negative."

F: "I'm watching a 1000 -year-old way of feeding people get traded for 25 years of subsidised electricity. Negative would be the polite word."


View: https://t.me/Real_History_What_do_you_know/66596
 
This is very funny conversation between a young, smug, know-it-all climate enthusiast and a grizzled old farmer.

Captures the smug lies, topic switches, put-downs of the activist and the very concise, precise and polite farmer talking.

Activist: "You can graze sheep underneath solar panels. It's called agrivoltaics."

Farmer: "I've read the brochures."

A: "Best of both worlds."

Farmer: "The panels shade the sward. Productive species die back. What grows is what tolerates shade and compaction. Sheep won't finish on it."

A: "But the trials show it works."

F: "The trials run 3 years & measure ewe presence. Not lamb growth rates. Not finishing weights. Not what the soil looks like in year 15."

A: "It's still better than nothing."

F: "It's a 30% stocking rate, a steel frame I can't plough around, panel-cleaning chemicals running into the watercourse, & a 40-year lease I can't break."

A: "But you're getting energy AND lamb."

F: "I'm getting a third of the lamb, a maintenance contract & a field my grandson can't farm."

A: "You're being negative."

F: "I'm watching a 1000 -year-old way of feeding people get traded for 25 years of subsidised electricity. Negative would be the polite word."


View: https://t.me/Real_History_What_do_you_know/66596

It highlights the total disconnect between the Climate lobby and agriculture, there is simply no appreciation of farming systems and how food is grown within this group of self appointed saviours of the universe. It is always the case that everyone knows how to farm better than farmers themselves and the climate nutters illustrate this better than anyone, I mean all those bloody fields going to waste, just green or brown, there must be better things to do with them than just,well, grow stuff, where's the progress and imagination in that!
 
Last edited:
Stand -by for a Cold Wet Summer ! ! !
Indeed, and belief that alleged anthropological global warming will instantly result in hot dry summers betrays a total lack of understanding of climate dynamics, but then, TBF, nobody really understands them anyway despite all the clever sounding noises made by 'climate scientists'.

Just on that point alone the grand global warming bandwagon has just been derailed by the IPCC itself which has scaled back its alarmist sceanrios, describing them as 'implausible', ie, wretchedly impossible, so where does that leave all those knobheads who were boldly predicting the end of the world next week, or maybe the week after, but anyway it was definietly going to end soon!

Returning to basics and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere the first thing to be noted is that it has been modelled to death and yet nature still won't comply with the scientists instructions on how it should behave. One reason is the basic flaw that all models suffer from and that is the assumption that radition received from the sun as UV light should be in balance with energy radiated from the earth as infra red light, if this is not in equilibrium then the earth is either cooling or heating. In other words the models rely on the system being 100% efficient. Nothing in nature is 100% efficient.

There is a tremendous focus on CO2, yet when it comes to the greenhouse affect it is water vapour which has a much greater influence, yet this is never openly discussed, funny that. By doing so CO2 is cast as the villian and yet an increase in concentration has a hugely beneficial effect on plant growth.

It seems to me that climate scientists have not the faintest notion of the chemical process that supports all life (or nearly all) on earth, and that is photosynthesis and the corresponding reversal of the reaction - respiration.

Photosynthesis takes water and carbon dioxide and through a series of reactions it forms carbohydrates which is, with many variations on the theme, what we are basically made of. As a by product oxygen is released, the very oxygen that we rely on to breath and respire.

A greater concentration of CO2 results in more rapid plant growth, this has been known for many many years, glasshouse growers will add CO2 to the air to boost yields and the same applies out in the open. However, there are limits and at higher concentrations the effect hits the law of diminishing returns, it depends on the species, but we are a long way off it yet.

But there is a further effect which involves the functioning of plant leaves which rely on tiny openings, called stomata, to allow gaseous exchange with the atmosphere. With a higher concentration of CO2 these do not need to stay open for so long reducing the loss of water from the leaves allowing the plants to better withstand drought. NASA has noticed a greening up of the world thanks to this.

As a general rule warmth favours biological reactions so plants will grow quicker, this is especially so when it comes to soil temperatures, getting to grow quicker in the spring will encourage yields as the plant can make more of the increasing sunlight.

So yes, a warmer environment with more carbon dioxide can be of tremendous benefit to the world.
 
Each passing week provides more signs that a strong El Niño is likely as water temperatures rapidly warm across a key region of the Pacific Ocean.Our budding El Niño will have far-reaching effects on weather patterns around the world, including on this year’s hurricane seasons, as well as overall summertime conditions here in Canada.
What are you waffling on about you eejit?
 
Indeed, and belief that alleged anthropological global warming will instantly result in hot dry summers betrays a total lack of understanding of climate dynamics, but then, TBF, nobody really understands them anyway despite all the clever sounding noises made by 'climate scientists'.

Just on that point alone the grand global warming bandwagon has just been derailed by the IPCC itself which has scaled back its alarmist sceanrios, describing them as 'implausible', ie, wretchedly impossible, so where does that leave all those knobheads who were boldly predicting the end of the world next week, or maybe the week after, but anyway it was definietly going to end soon!

Returning to basics and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere the first thing to be noted is that it has been modelled to death and yet nature still won't comply with the scientists instructions on how it should behave. One reason is the basic flaw that all models suffer from and that is the assumption that radition received from the sun as UV light should be in balance with energy radiated from the earth as infra red light, if this is not in equilibrium then the earth is either cooling or heating. In other words the models rely on the system being 100% efficient. Nothing in nature is 100% efficient.

There is a tremendous focus on CO2, yet when it comes to the greenhouse affect it is water vapour which has a much greater influence, yet this is never openly discussed, funny that. By doing so CO2 is cast as the villian and yet an increase in concentration has a hugely beneficial effect on plant growth.

It seems to me that climate scientists have not the faintest notion of the chemical process that supports all life (or nearly all) on earth, and that is photosynthesis and the corresponding reversal of the reaction - respiration.

Photosynthesis takes water and carbon dioxide and through a series of reactions it forms carbohydrates which is, with many variations on the theme, what we are basically made of. As a by product oxygen is released, the very oxygen that we rely on to breath and respire.

A greater concentration of CO2 results in more rapid plant growth, this has been known for many many years, glasshouse growers will add CO2 to the air to boost yields and the same applies out in the open. However, there are limits and at higher concentrations the effect hits the law of diminishing returns, it depends on the species, but we are a long way off it yet.

But there is a further effect which involves the functioning of plant leaves which rely on tiny openings, called stomata, to allow gaseous exchange with the atmosphere. With a higher concentration of CO2 these do not need to stay open for so long reducing the loss of water from the leaves allowing the plants to better withstand drought. NASA has noticed a greening up of the world thanks to this.

As a general rule warmth favours biological reactions so plants will grow quicker, this is especially so when it comes to soil temperatures, getting to grow quicker in the spring will encourage yields as the plant can make more of the increasing sunlight.

So yes, a warmer environment with more carbon dioxide can be of tremendous benefit to the world.
Just to add to the above, photosynthesis is powered by sunlight and this represents one of the inefficiencies not taken into accont by the models. As plants turn radiant energy into carbohydrates there is less to be reflected back into space.

Plants start to die off when CO2 levels fall too low, 250 ppm is sometimes cited as the danger point but others say anything below 300 is entering the red flag zone, at the present level of just over 400ppm plants can start to thrive again. It has been at 4,000 plus in past geological periods. During these times CO2 was being locked up in the rocks, the majority of it in limestone, not coal or oil, thus there is no danger of mankind releasing it all again.
 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom