Former Climate Change Alarmist Reveals Corruption Within the Scientific Community

[NauticalGent]

Not really a "smoking gun", but clearly evidence of Global Warming/Climate Change....

 

[Cotswold]

I'm in England and up to now don't see global warming as being a problem.
The weather is becoming more temperate and up to now this year we've not had the heating on. Which at the price it is now is simply brilliant. Now using much less gas, which the StopOil and associated loonies want anyway.

So we are all having better weather over here and the StopOil brigade are now redundant and pointless. That's one change and two beneficial side effects. What's not to like? Probably amongst some of the best news we've had in a while.

 

[ColinEssex]

I'm in England and up to now don't see global warming as being a problem.
So we are all having better weather over here and the StopOil brigade are now redundant and pointless. That's one change and two beneficial side effects. What's not to like? Probably amongst some of the best news we've had in a while.

I'm inclined to agree with you, (I'm based in the south). But, I do wonder on occasions if the weather patterns are actually being more severe. We've had terrible floods in East Scotland and North England. Around the world we see tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, flooding etc. All said to be the worst in generations. In the 19th century, apparently it was so cold, the river Thames froze and they held markets on it and skating.
Sometimes I just think that maybe these extreme events are normal and have been for thousands of years. I'm not an expert unlike some here pretend to be, I just go by what I see on the telly.
Col

 

[Cotswold]

But, I do wonder on occasions if the weather patterns are actually being more severe. We've had terrible floods in East Scotland and North England. .
Col

I don't really know myself Colin. I do know that in the 50s and 60s I remember it being colder between October and March. Weather is never constant. Before and during Roman times Britain was certainly warmer. Then there was a period of mini ice ages as you mentioned. Since the 1700s it has tended to be going warmer though. So not altogether due to the industrial revolution in the 1800s.

Flooding we've always had but it may be worse now because the rivers and tributaries aren't maintained any more. Councils have also allowed building on flood plains. The Environment Agency will now not object to building in areas that may flood. They are ignored for budgetary reasons. When it goes wrong, the solution is only more money. If a town can have more houses then they take more in Council Tax. There a a few towns and villages North of the Cotswolds that flood quite often. One, Tenbury Wells is flooded again and they are still talking about starting on flood defences. Whish is as you can guess will be...next year. Bewdley which has new flood defences, flooded because of plant failure, whatever that is. So the removable increase in height wasn't installed. Then when the town flooded they couldn't get in to do the work. You couldn't make it up. They've actually spent millions on Bewdley defences and have no actual plan as to what they should do, or when, if the river rises. Oh dear, we were caught by surprise because it rained a lot last week and we never expected it to fill up the river.

It does appear to be the way in England that if a town floods everyone is energised to do something about it ASAP. Then after six months it is summer and it isn't important any more. So it is forgotten until the next time. Holland is several feet below sea level, yet we flood more than they do. The incompetence appears to be endemic, or maybe they can now get a degree in incompetence I don't know. You just give up.

 

[NauticalGent]

Sometimes I just think that maybe these extreme events are normal and have been for thousands of years.

My inclination as well...

 

[ColinEssex]

When you build on a flood plain and your house floods, whose fault is it?

The housing developer will point to the local council for granting planning permission. The homeowner is unlikely to get building insurance or contents insurance. So, unless there is a government assistance to help, the ultimate loser is the homeowner and the local council seem to get away unscathed. So actually, I'm not sure is the answer to your question. Maybe someone else from the UK may know more.

I just feel for those people in Scotland and the North of England with everything ruined after having 3 to 4 foot of water, sewerage and other things floating round their houses, and many have no flood insurance. Homes ruined, businesses ruined, its tragic and will take months to clear ready for next time. They'll never be able to sell as a simple legal search will show a recent flood area.
Col

 

[Cotswold]

When you build on a flood plain and your house floods, whose fault is it?

In Britain the government and local authorities have cosy agreements with insurance companies. The costs of completing suitable flood defences can be considerable. As these events are not usually frequent all attempts are made to avoid the expenditure. Furthermore, the number of people directly affected is small when viewed on a national basis. The insurance companies agree to insure properties that are likely to flood and if exceptional events occur and the insurance company suffer extraordinary losses then government will compensate them. If losses persistent the insurance companies will begin to insist that adequate defences are installed in order that they can continue providing insurance. It is the case that all houses must be able to have insurance or some sort. As far as government is concerned they must not be uninsurable. If they were then the owners of flooded properties would have valid claims against local councils and eventually the government would suffer that loss. Insurance may be slightly higher in a flood prone area but must still be affordable to work in this devious system.

Of course some people do not insure and in those cases the authorities rely on local fundraising and gifts to help them, whilst at the same time telling the media they are doing everything they can to help. Which they do but only as little as they need to do in order to appear concerned. Which generally they are not.

Be aware insurance companies require the repayment of a claim at least the rate of 110% within two years. So if you make a claim expect to pay it back within two years. Unless it is a major and massive claim of course. As they say - Nothing in this World is free!

ADDENDUM
If you suffer a claim due to flooding or other natural disaster affecting many people. Get your claim in early, very early. The longer you leave it then more claimants there will be. Initially the insurance companies and authorities are keen to be seen as pro-active. After a few weeks when it has dropped out of the news and additional claims build up are made it will be more difficult for them to get the settlement they claim. The later it is then there will be greater efforts to reduce the amounts being paid out.

 

[Isaac]

Don't you wish the climate change alarmists would demonstrate the same urgent concern for the national debt, which is a visible, tangible, undeniable crisis that already exists and can be easily seen by anyone?

 

[jpl458]

Don't you wish the climate change alarmists would demonstrate the same urgent concern for the national debt, which is a visible, tangible, undeniable crisis that already exists and can be easily seen by anyone?

If the earth was the size of a basketball, then the breathable air would only be a bit under 2 mm thick. Why are we having all these bad storms and hottest years ever? in 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet. Now there 8.05 billion residents, all of whom require some form of energy to survive. You do thhe math.

 

[Isaac]

If the earth was the size of a basketball, then the breathable air would only be a bit under 2 mm thick. Why are we having all these bad storms and hottest years ever? in 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet. Now there 8.05 billion residents, all of whom require some form of energy to survive. You do thhe math.

But if you would wake up to the debt crisis, that wouldn't even require doing math. It's even easier! What's so hard about it?

 

[Mike Krailo]

If the earth was the size of a basketball, then the breathable air would only be a bit under 2 mm thick. Why are we having all these bad storms and hottest years ever? in 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet. Now there 8.05 billion residents, all of whom require some form of energy to survive. You do thhe math.

Be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Steve R.]

in 1900 there were 1.6 billion people on the planet. Now there 8.05 billion residents, all of whom require some form of energy to survive. You do thhe math

Population growth is the cause of the claimed (fictional) climate crises. Nevertheless, population growth does manifest itself through "all of whom require some form of energy to survive". That population growth is unsustainable. Our standard of living is dependent on the ability to waste resources. It is counter intuitive, but if you want a clean environment, a high degree of personal liberty, with a high standard of living you need to impose population control.

I find it incredulous that the radical environmentalists never seem to discuss population control. Instead they seem to believe that some mythical future technology that has yet to be discovered along with over-the-top big government regulations depriving people of personal liberty will somehow solve the fake climate crises.

 

[Steve R.]

Why are we having all these bad storms and hottest years ever?

What you seem to believe is an illusion.

• Our ability to accurately record the severity of events has only recently been developed, meaning that the severity of old events is mostly assumed and really can't be compared.
• As you noted in your original post, the world population has "exploded" that means more and more people are living in unsafe areas. Naturally the media reports this as the occurrence of increased bad storms.