Should The BBC Do This?

[Don]

6 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Exactly that, Don: What used to almost guarantee us a nondescript summer maybe no longer does? Maybe yes; maybe no; I really wouldn't know. But the last five summers have been anything but nondescript?

Well, one thing's for sure, I wouldn't want to make a long range forecast right now! 

Agreed ref to the last five summers, they certainly haven't been nondescript.  The last nondescript summer I can think of is 2015 (apart from the early July heat spike that year).

[Gray-Wolf]

10 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

And that 1C can, especially for places lying NNE of NW Africa, shove temperatures many degrees above average?

But Mother N. hates imbalance so will spread that heat around eh?

[Methuselah]

7 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

But Mother N. hates imbalance so will spread that heat around eh?

Aye. And we seem to be under the flightpath?

[Methuselah]

And now the fish are dying:

Hottest June kills UK fish and threatens insects

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The Met Office will confirm on Monday if the record-breaking temperatures are linked to climate change.

 

[MP-R]

On 25/07/2022 at 17:11, Mixer 85 said:

Are there actually many “deniers” out there? Or is this just a woefully insulting broad brush term to describe skeptics? 
I would describe myself as a skeptic of the mainstream narrative, and after spending many years studying and following the subject closely I’m even more resolute in my skepticism.

This is the most sensible position to hold. Sadly though, if you don’t follow the narrative that’s blithely followed by others, then you’re automatically a denier. I wish more people would take more academic approach.

Wrt the BBC’s article… nothing new from them really. It’s partly why I’ve stopped using them as a source of information.

[cheeky_monkey]

On 03/07/2023 at 02:14, MP-R said:

 

Wrt the BBC’s article… nothing new from them really. It’s partly why I’ve stopped using them as a source of information.

yep them and the Guardian 

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, cheeky_monkey said:

yep them and the Guardian 

Aye. The truth hurts? 

[Nick L]

The BBC used to add the odd comment about how climate change makes extreme events more likely, which of course is indisputably true.

But now, any weather article is 50% padding waffle about climate change and not about the weather event in question. I wish they would concentrate on details of the severe weather event they're reporting on.

[cheeky_monkey]

10 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

Aye. The truth hurts? 

Since when did the BBC & The Guardian = the truth ?...they cant handle the truth 

[Methuselah]

3 minutes ago, Nick L said:

The BBC used to add the odd comment about how climate change makes extreme events more likely, which of course is indisputably true.

But now, any weather article is 50% padding waffle about climate change and not about the weather event in question. I wish they would concentrate on details of the severe weather event they're reporting on.

But when it comes down to the effects of excessive summer heat (an all-too-regular occurrence these days), the question of AGW is always going to come up. And who better to ask, than the UK Met? 

2 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Since when did the BBC & The Guardian = the truth ?...they cant handle the truth 

I guess I should be reading the Daily Mail, then! 

[MP-R]

1 hour ago, Methuselah said:

 

I guess I should be reading the Daily Mail, then! 

No… I’d give pretty much all msm a wide berth.

[Methuselah]

16 minutes ago, MP-R said:

No… I’d give pretty much all msm a wide berth.

Not me; I'd rather learn from those who make even a minimal effort in checking the veracity of their 'sources'. And, from what I've seen, the non-Mainstream media do not do that.

[MP-R]

14 minutes ago, Methuselah said:

Not me; I'd rather learn from those who make even a minimal effort in checking the veracity of their 'sources'. And, from what I've seen, the non-Mainstream media do not do that.

Do what you like mate but if you’re smart enough to want to do that, then surely you’re not dumb enough to think you’ll find that in the msm..?! 🫨

[alexisj9]

On 25/07/2022 at 18:34, Mixer 85 said:

As a skeptic I do not deny the greenhouse affect or the laws of physics.

Atmospheric physics is vastly more complex than the simple addition of CO2 = higher temperatures. Yes the above is strictly correct but we’re not dealing with a plastic box in a laboratory.

Also I’m not seeing the comparison between Earth .04% carbon dioxide and Venus which is 95% carbon dioxide. Mars is also 95% carbon dioxide and has an average temperature of -80deg F.

Could it be something to do with how Venus has an atmosphere, plus is closer to the sun, and Mars's atmosphere seems to have been scratched away by CME?

[alexisj9]

On 25/07/2022 at 19:14, GSP said:

Interesting Snowbear as tests conducted by scientists in America concluded aircraft contrails were in fact keeping the earth cooler, by up to 2c in built up areas.

See my thread just below this called “As We Clean The Air, It Becomes Hotter?”.

 

Is that when people started thinking contrails were sprayed on purpose on hot days, ie chemtrails. Didn't know what caused that theory before.

[Methuselah]

36 minutes ago, MP-R said:

Do what you like mate but if you’re smart enough to want to do that, then surely you’re not dumb enough to think you’ll find that in the msm..?! 🫨

So, tell me, genius, where will I find it? 

[Methuselah]

13 minutes ago, alexisj9 said:

Is that when people started thinking contrails were sprayed on purpose on hot days, ie chemtrails. Didn't know what caused that theory before.

I'm glad you referred to 'contrails' and not those non-existent 'chemtrails'!

[alexisj9]

On 26/07/2022 at 19:37, Mixer 85 said:

The BBC are most certainly biased and the article is also most certainly biased.

It is clearly aimed at skeptics and only serves to further deepen the divide between alarmists and skeptics. The language used suggests that skeptics are narrow minded, ignorant, and set in their ways with old school ideas. Further to that, how they recommend one changes the minds of skeptical individuals is more akin to how you might manipulate a child. 

Perhaps the real idea behind this article is to reinforce the beliefs of the reader, the true believer. To reinforce their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. Net result….more ridged beliefs and grandstanding in the face of those ignorant narrow minded heretics.

Alarmists, who on earth are they?

[alexisj9]

On 26/07/2022 at 21:07, SnowBear said:

Not quite sure who you are having a dig at Ed? 

I dont think any of us are questioning climate change or that co2 is different whether man made or natural. 

What isn't so clear is whether it's all down to co2, or is there other mechanisms at play, along with other human activities which could be even more important than co2. 

With the climate of our planet being as complex as it is every single aspect must be looked into, every chemical, every feedback, every action, and all that is going to take time. 

Right now we can act on co2, but we can't sit back and say that's that then, job done. 

We know there are other things at play, like methane, ozone. That's naming two, it's never been just co2

[alexisj9]

On 29/07/2022 at 10:44, Methuselah said:

I'm guessing that, during Roman times, temperature recorders were somewhat less accurate than those we have today. BTW, are grapes growing in northern England now?

If the famous hockey stick graph gets called into question (by dint of its being based on proxy data) the writings of ancient scribes and historians must also be treated with scepticism?

You can't have it both ways!

Probably, I know they are growable in southern England, as one of my rented places had a grape vine.

[alexisj9]

On 02/08/2022 at 22:55, SnowBear said:

It really narks me when the BBC peddle headlines like "Field fire destroys large area of farmland in Boxted". 

Like eh? Destroyed? Never to be able to be used again? Poisoned or something? 

Do they not realise we used to fire fields every year so the ash could be ploughed in as fertiliser and next year it could actually give a better crop? 

Destroyed.... Oh the drama

I think perhaps the crop that was growing might well be distroyed though, right?

Need to replant, spend .ore money to get another crop on the same land. No one has ever said the fields can't be used. Perhaps it got buildings?

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, Methuselah said:

But when it comes down to the effects of excessive summer heat (an all-too-regular occurrence these days), the question of AGW is always going to come up. And who better to ask, than the UK Met? 

The worst thing about that article, is that it makes zero reference to the vast amount of sewage deposited into the rivers during that hot dry spell, and the negative effect that has on marine life.

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, matty40s said:

The worst thing about that article, is that it makes zero reference to the vast amount of sewage deposited into the rivers during that hot dry spell, and the negative effect that has on marine life.

But they've made plenty of mention of sewage elsewhere. How long-winded do you want their articles to be?

[alexisj9]

1 minute ago, Methuselah said:

But they've made plenty of mention of sewage elsewhere. How long-winded do you want their articles to be?

Since when did water companies put swage into lakes, which have also had dead fish appear in last year's heatwave, not sure about this year.

[Methuselah]

1 minute ago, alexisj9 said:

Since when did water companies put swage into lakes, which have also had dead fish appear in last year's heatwave, not sure about this year.

But Matty's post referred to rivers, not lakes ... Not that Thames Water cares where it dumps its sheet!