Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.
The operative word is "apparently".
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we are experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation and proves nothing.
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we are >experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation and
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>
proves nothing.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>1981 to 2024 is but a blip in the timelione of this world - obviously that is not long term.
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we >>are
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>
experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation >>and
proves nothing.
Just the first section shows that they are reporting more than
"momentary fluctuations" - the graph shows data from 1981 to 2024, and
shows a definite trend over years. It is however quite a long article,
with additional graphs and conclusions that indicate that he long term
trends are real and not trivial.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a tanty, but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than
you can stomach?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a tanty, >but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than >>you can stomach?
As for scientific evidence, the science is not settled and there are excellent >scientists who disagree on this topic - so maybe you need an antacid or two. Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>1981 to 2024 is but a blip in the timelione of this world - obviously that is >not long term.
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we >>>are
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>
experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation >>>and
proves nothing.
Just the first section shows that they are reporting more than
"momentary fluctuations" - the graph shows data from 1981 to 2024, and >>shows a definite trend over years. It is however quite a long article,
with additional graphs and conclusions that indicate that he long term >>trends are real and not trivial.
This article is referring to short term fluctuations and any suggestion to the >contrary is nonsense.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:10:50 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>1981 to 2024 is but a blip in the timelione of this world - obviously that is >>not long term.
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we >>>>are
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>
experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation >>>>and
proves nothing.
Just the first section shows that they are reporting more than
"momentary fluctuations" - the graph shows data from 1981 to 2024, and >>>shows a definite trend over years. It is however quite a long article, >>>with additional graphs and conclusions that indicate that he long term >>>trends are real and not trivial.
This article is referring to short term fluctuations and any suggestion to >>the
contrary is nonsense.
changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he >disagrees with.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 05:58:07 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period.
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a tanty, >>but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than >>>you can stomach?
As for scientific evidence, the science is not settled and there are >>excellent
scientists who disagree on this topic - so maybe you need an antacid or two. >Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he >disagrees with.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 05:58:07 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your >infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period. Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a tanty,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than >>>>you can stomach?
but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
As for scientific evidence, the science is not settled and there are >>>excellent
scientists who disagree on this topic - so maybe you need an antacid or two.
changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he >>disagrees with.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:10:50 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your >infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period. Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>1981 to 2024 is but a blip in the timelione of this world - obviously that is
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we >>>>>are
<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>
experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation
and
proves nothing.
Just the first section shows that they are reporting more than >>>>"momentary fluctuations" - the graph shows data from 1981 to 2024, and >>>>shows a definite trend over years. It is however quite a long article, >>>>with additional graphs and conclusions that indicate that he long term >>>>trends are real and not trivial.
not long term.
This article is referring to short term fluctuations and any suggestion to >>>the
contrary is nonsense.
changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he >>disagrees with.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than
you can stomach?
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:06:16 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 05:58:07 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your >>infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period. >Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a >>>>tanty,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than >>>>>you can stomach?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment. >>>>>
but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
As for scientific evidence, the science is not settled and there are >>>>excellent
scientists who disagree on this topic - so maybe you need an antacid or >>>>two.
changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he >>>disagrees with.
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he >disagrees with.
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers”, which measure >something called “temperature”. They have records of the readings from >these “thermometers” going back decades.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers?, which measure
something called “temperature?. They have records of the readings from >>these “thermometers? going back decades.
Fake data. You just do not realise the kind of world that you are
living in -- everything has been corrupted.
what corruption are you talking about?
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Note that those same “physical models” are used to produce your weather >> report. So if you don’t like these “physical models”, by all means
don’t trust your weather report. But bear in mind that lots of people
do, not just for business but also for safety, including the farmers
who supply your food and the airlines that carry you around the world.
Fake data.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
Fake data.
Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be >imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood >would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work.
Too many parts of the economy have become dependent on accurate
weather and climate modelling in order for any scam to go unnoticed.
your favourite random Facebook/Xwitter/TruthSocial/FoxNews loony
But your livelihood, your very wellbeing
depends on real readings from this real Universe.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
Fake data.
Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be >>imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood >>would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work.
That's right, but failure takes time. The fakeness has really taken
off in the past 20 years, especially now with the "loss of expertise" >consequent to DEI, and those infrastructures are indeed endangered.
You won't understand that this dynamic is happening until your
electricity fails, then you will finally know.
Too many parts of the economy have become dependent on accurate
weather and climate modelling in order for any scam to go unnoticed.
Don't conflate weather with climate. Weather forecasting is good,
climate forecasting is fake; the climateers don't even understand the
ice ages -- which dominate past climate -- yet they pretend to
understand future climate. They are fakers.
your favourite random Facebook/Xwitter/TruthSocial/FoxNews loony
You are projecting, like all lefties do.
But your livelihood, your very wellbeing
depends on real readings from this real Universe.
And so does yours; prepare to be very *very* disappointed.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
what corruption are you talking about?
That same corruption which pays you for posting your nonsense.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers?, which measure
something called “temperature?. They have records of the readings from >>these “thermometers? going back decades.
Fake data. You just do not realise the kind of world that you are
living in -- everything has been corrupted.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years
failed?
Bill.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:You, once more, deliberately change the subject.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years
failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Buried in another article there is an interesting "Chart of the Day" a
few pages down in: >https://thekaka.substack.com/p/the-holes-in-nationals-water-reform
which looks at a range of climate change indicators, showing that many
are changing fast from historic levels.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years
failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the
next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an
estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years
could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more
than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the
problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner
if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the
next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an
estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years
could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more
than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the
problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner
if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
The predictions back in 1988 was expressed as a rise of 20 to 30
centimetres in 20 to 40 years - that is consistent with what is said
against 1988 here: >https://www.ecohubmap.com/hot-spot/sea-level-rise-around-the-maldives/exumklf5kfhie
Predictions in the years after that changed, both as more information
became available or reality diverged from previous predictions - and
also as people in the area changed what they did - a new island in
2002, evacuation of more than 1600 people in 2007, discovery in 2020
that tides were moving sediment other than expected, giving a
possibility of land rising instead of sinking. Which brings us to 2022
with greater uncertainty than ever, but still with rising sea levels
around 3mm per year, and greater uncertainty.
The islands are expected
(on a mid-level scenario) to lose 77% of current land area by around
2100 - or in another scenario to be almost completely inundated by
about 2085.
Go down to 1950 in the article, and they say that actual rises in sea
level have been from 0.8 to 1.6 millimeters - say about 1.2 mm per
year, but from the 2022 comment the current annual rise is currently >approximately 3mm per year.
If you lived in the Maldives would you see rising sea levels and
"climate change" as a serious issue?
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
Fake data.
Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be >>imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood >>would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work.
That's right, but failure takes time. The fakeness has really taken off
in the past 20 years ...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the
next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an
estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years
could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more
than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner
if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Here's another one.That probably applies to both attempts at precision and objections to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Argus Press - Owosso, Michigan Tues, June 24 2008
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
NASA Scientist: 'We're toast'
"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes" Hansen told
the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and
it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10
years the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer.
Longtime global warming Skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, citing a
recent poll, said in a statement, Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore
and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the
1980s, but Americans are not buying it."
But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, "Dr Hansen was
right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The predictions back in 1988 was expressed as a rise of 20 to 30 >>centimetres in 20 to 40 years - that is consistent with what is said >>against 1988 here: >>https://www.ecohubmap.com/hot-spot/sea-level-rise-around-the-maldives/exumklf5kfhie
I have been watching the tides going up and down from my French
windows for the last 19 years, and in all that time there has been no >perceptible change in tidal behaviour.
Predictions in the years after that changed, both as more information >>became available or reality diverged from previous predictions - and
also as people in the area changed what they did - a new island in
2002, evacuation of more than 1600 people in 2007, discovery in 2020
that tides were moving sediment other than expected, giving a
possibility of land rising instead of sinking. Which brings us to 2022
with greater uncertainty than ever, but still with rising sea levels
around 3mm per year, and greater uncertainty.
Says who?
The islands are expected
(on a mid-level scenario) to lose 77% of current land area by around
2100 - or in another scenario to be almost completely inundated by
about 2085.
So they've put the date back. Colour me surprised. It's like what is
said about nuclear fusion. 30 years away and always will be.
Go down to 1950 in the article, and they say that actual rises in sea
level have been from 0.8 to 1.6 millimeters - say about 1.2 mm per
year, but from the 2022 comment the current annual rise is currently >>approximately 3mm per year.
If you lived in the Maldives would you see rising sea levels and
"climate change" as a serious issue?
No I would not. It's bullshit.
Here's their references:
Wikipedia
abcnNEWS
IMPACT2C
Union of Concerned Scientists
Maldives Floating City
The World Bank Group
Lies and propaganda. All of it.
Bill.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:That is absolute nonsense.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years
could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material
quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the
timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that
you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and
you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which
year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with
your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and
other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single
prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate
invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
Here's another one.That probably applies to both attempts at precision and objections to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Argus Press - Owosso, Michigan Tues, June 24 2008
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
NASA Scientist: 'We're toast'
"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes" Hansen told
the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and
it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10
years the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer.
Longtime global warming Skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, citing a
recent poll, said in a statement, Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore
and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the
1980s, but Americans are not buying it."
But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, "Dr Hansen was >>right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The predictions back in 1988 was expressed as a rise of 20 to 30 >>>centimetres in 20 to 40 years - that is consistent with what is said >>>against 1988 here: >>>https://www.ecohubmap.com/hot-spot/sea-level-rise-around-the-maldives/exumklf5kfhie
I have been watching the tides going up and down from my French
windows for the last 19 years, and in all that time there has been no >>perceptible change in tidal behaviour.
Predictions in the years after that changed, both as more information >>>became available or reality diverged from previous predictions - and
also as people in the area changed what they did - a new island in
2002, evacuation of more than 1600 people in 2007, discovery in 2020
that tides were moving sediment other than expected, giving a
possibility of land rising instead of sinking. Which brings us to 2022 >>>with greater uncertainty than ever, but still with rising sea levels >>>around 3mm per year, and greater uncertainty.
Says who?
The islands are expected
(on a mid-level scenario) to lose 77% of current land area by around
2100 - or in another scenario to be almost completely inundated by
about 2085.
So they've put the date back. Colour me surprised. It's like what is
said about nuclear fusion. 30 years away and always will be.
Go down to 1950 in the article, and they say that actual rises in sea >>>level have been from 0.8 to 1.6 millimeters - say about 1.2 mm per
year, but from the 2022 comment the current annual rise is currently >>>approximately 3mm per year.
If you lived in the Maldives would you see rising sea levels and
"climate change" as a serious issue?
No I would not. It's bullshit.
Here's their references:
Wikipedia
abcnNEWS
IMPACT2C
Union of Concerned Scientists
Maldives Floating City
The World Bank Group
Lies and propaganda. All of it.
Bill.
that from both sides, Bill.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc.
Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>failed?
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years
could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material
quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the
timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that
you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and
you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which
year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with
your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and
other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single
prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate
invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>>failed?
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc. >>>>>>>
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years >>>>>could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material
quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the >>timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that
you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and
you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which
year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with
your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and >>other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single >>prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate
invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
In other words, you don't know and neither does anybody else.
Bill.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:10:21 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Not by stopping or reducing farming, or refusing to use more efficient use of fossil fuels and other ignored suggestions - mankind is responsible for a tiny fraction of climate change. So removing that fraction will have a tiny effect on our climate if any.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>>>failed?
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc. >>>>>>>>
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years >>>>>>could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material
quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the >>>timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that
you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and
you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which >>>year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with >>>your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and >>>other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single >>>prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate >>>invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
In other words, you don't know and neither does anybody else.
Bill.
Exactly - we all know that we will die; we just don't know when, but
we can make intelligent plans relating to the event. In the case of
global warming, we may now not be able to stop changes already
happening, but we may be able to mitigate the worst damage.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:10:21 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>>>failed?
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called thermometers, etc. >>>>>>>>
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years >>>>>>could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material
quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the >>>timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that
you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and
you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which >>>year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with >>>your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and >>>other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single >>>prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate >>>invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
In other words, you don't know and neither does anybody else.
Bill.
Exactly - we all know that we will die; we just don't know when, but
we can make intelligent plans relating to the event. In the case of
global warming, we may now not be able to stop changes already
happening, but we may be able to mitigate the worst damage.
On 2024-02-21, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Certainly worth bearing in mind, Gordon - what sort of damage did you
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:10:21 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>>>>failed?
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called ?thermometers?, etc. >>>>>>>>>
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years >>>>>>>could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material >>>>quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the >>>>timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that >>>>you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and >>>>you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which >>>>year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with >>>>your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and >>>>other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single >>>>prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate >>>>invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
In other words, you don't know and neither does anybody else.
Bill.
Exactly - we all know that we will die; we just don't know when, but
we can make intelligent plans relating to the event. In the case of
global warming, we may now not be able to stop changes already
happening, but we may be able to mitigate the worst damage.
Here is a thought, are we not sure that going carbon dioxide netural will
not be the the worst damage?
After all lockdowns were damaging.And also effective in saving lives. We have since discovered that New
What if the climate change is not man made then anything we do will not >change the course of the climate and any impositions will be in vein with
all the disadvantages applied for absolutely for no gain.
On 22 Feb 2024 01:12:43 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:That is a lie. There is growing significant scientific opinion that the currently accepted political views are bullshit and not supported by scientific evidence.
On 2024-02-21, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Certainly worth bearing in mind, Gordon - what sort of damage did you
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:10:21 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>>>>>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years >>>>>>>>>>failed?
What scientific evidence?
Well, you see, they have these things called ?thermometers?, etc. >>>>>>>>>>
Bill.
Could you name a few that have failed, BR.
Here's one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canberra Times
Monday September 26, 1988
THREAT TO ISLANDS
MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to >>>>>>>>completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the >>>>>>>>next 30 years, according to authorities.
THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an >>>>>>>>estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years >>>>>>>>could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more >>>>>>>>than a metre above sea level.
The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the >>>>>>>>problem.
But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner >>>>>>>>if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill.
Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct
So why do you still believe them?
Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material >>>>>quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the >>>>>timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that >>>>>you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and >>>>>you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which >>>>>year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with >>>>>your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and >>>>>other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single >>>>>prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate >>>>>invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge
In other words, you don't know and neither does anybody else.
Bill.
Exactly - we all know that we will die; we just don't know when, but
we can make intelligent plans relating to the event. In the case of
global warming, we may now not be able to stop changes already
happening, but we may be able to mitigate the worst damage.
Here is a thought, are we not sure that going carbon dioxide netural will >>not be the the worst damage?
have in mind, or have the scientists suggested may be the result?
And also effective in saving lives. We have since discovered that New
After all lockdowns were damaging.
Zealand was very fortunate to be sufficiently isolated to have
effective lockdowns linked with restrictions on cross border movement
- as it was some new variants still got across the border with some of
the necessary interactions in special circumstances such as import /
export activities. We were also fortunate that we were able to delay >vaccinations until we had seen results of what were new vaccines;
there was a race to develop an effective vaccine; I do not know how
many were not accepted before we agreed to use the various vaccines
that were eventually used.
But more generally, the lock-downs did change us - they changed our >willingness / desire to work from home, to embrace video conferencing,
to value family contact, and yes also to better understand and respond
to the bad effects of isolation, uncertainty, to irrational fears, and
to exploitation of those fears. we came through with 22,000 fewer
deaths than the equivalent number of deaths had we experienced the
Covid impact that the USA had, and also significantly fewer deaths per >thousand population than most other countries. We experienced a better >economic recover than most countries, and a lower level of job losses,
and a lower increase in government debt (we did increase debt, but our
net financial position was much less affected by other countries as we
gained significantly from our capital investment fund - the Cullen - >Robertson Fund established to soften the effect of demographic change
as baby-boomers left the workplace and became eligible for NZ
Superannuation.
What if the climate change is not man made then anything we do will not >>change the course of the climate and any impositions will be in vein with >>all the disadvantages applied for absolutely for no gain.
We have elected a government that appears to have a lower commitment
to try to mitigate the effects of climate change for which there is
wide scientific consensus.
Such a stance does carry additional risksThere are no commitements that we have made that matter.
relating to financial costs under the agreements we entered into under
one of the Key governments, and potentially reputational risk which
could affect trade relationships; clearly the government believes
there are some offsetting rewards. They do however express a wish to
improve water quality, and that is likely to lead to some actions that
are consistent with Climate Change goals and commitments.
The new government is clearer with respect to Covid, which is ofIrrelevant and off topic like the majority of your diatribe.
course still active in our community - they appear to accept that
there will be an ongoing level of demand for medical services (both GP
and hospital) arising from Covid infection, and including long term
effects for many individuals, but they are continuing the policy
settings from the previous government; encouraging appropriate actions
where infection does occur, requiring vaccination for some critical >occupations, and providing free vaccinations at least until 30 June
this year.
We have elected a government that appears to have a lower commitment
to try to mitigate the effects of climate change for which there is
wide scientific consensus.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 105:20:22 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,313 |