Forum Topic

The climate issue

Thoughts on this ?“Believe it or not the sun has it's own weather patterns/seasons they fluctuate approx every 11yrs, meaning the sun gets hotter and colder from decade to decade, we've been in the sun's summer period for some time now, the earth doesn't orbit the sun in a perfect circle, rather it's more of an oval due to gravity from the other planets and other reasons, we're also closer to the sun right now so we're getting a double whammy. Global emissions if anything are keeping us cooler by reflecting the sun's rays back out into space. We can't do a thing about any of it. It just nature at work.”

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d58 Comments

Most of this is wrong.  The earth isn't closer to the sun than it was a century ago for instance.  Greenhouse gases don't keep the earth cooler - they make it hotter by blocking the release of heat.  It is the last couple of lines that are informative:"We can't do a thing about any of it. It just nature at work."This is an argument for doing nothing about climate change made by someone who doesn't want to do anything.  For instance, someone who objects to measures to increase active travel and instead wants motorists to be given greater privileges on the roads - for instance, more parking, free parking, removal of cycle lanes, removal of LTNs and removal of school streets.I'm summarising Maggie's position of course.I do note Maggie's intro line: "Thoughts on this ?" - that is presumably so she can claim she was only posting this to get people's thoughts and wasn't endorsing the argument - some wriggle room if this were to blow up! Most people's positions on questions like climate change, active travel - or indeed any position - is often determined by their subconscious biases or unadmitted desires.It is termed reverse justification or rationalisation.  If you just want to drive your car and don't believe you should have to change your behaviour, and you really hate cyclists, you're usually not going to say or even admit to yourself that these are your primary motivations.Instead, you will justify and say: I care about the safety of pedestrians or I care about disabled people, the elderly, children, the science on climate change is unclear because there are some who disagree, I support our local shops, making more provision for cycling indirectly increases pollution by making people drive further or by increasing congestion etc. and ad nauseam. These rationalisations help you justify saying and doing things which are irrational if you stop to think about it.  Indeed, the repetition of these arguments is just as important as that helps them become "facts" on their own.  You just have to look at Trump's repeated false claims about the stolen election to see how effect that tactic is.

Ed Saper ● 1527d

Don't worry Maggie, remember we have "Cyclists(that) are basically the Marvel superheroes of the real world."Surely  they can save us mere mortals.

Adrian Irving ● 1527d

God give us strength on this sunny sunday morning

Julian Pavey ● 1527d

So I didn’t post it to allow you Ed, to contradict it? You really like to think you know me but you don’t. How could you,  just from posts on here. I sincerely hope you and Paul Campbell, Michael Robinson, and  Mr Pike are more than the misleading stats and cycling biased posts you put on here.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

The 11  years is presumably the sunspot cycle. The orbit of the earth around the sun is indeed an ellipse I guess the influence of the other planets is to do with the milankovitch cycles. If you search for Milankovitch and NASA you will see why these cycles 'cannot account forthe period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-industrial period'. The same, of course, applies to support cyvles again search for NASA and solar cycles. Professor Heymann , my Physics professor at UCL nearly 50 years ago taught that global warming was then a hypothesis. Enough facts have now been established that it is a theory, just like e.g. evolution. Of course new facts may be discovered that disprove a theory, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that human activity since around 1800 is the major cause of climate change.

David McLoughlin ● 1527d

MD > "Thoughts on this ?"It's nonsense.

John Whitworth ● 1527d

I meant 'sunspot cycles '.

David McLoughlin ● 1527d

“ You really like to think you know me but you don’t. How could you,  just from posts on here.”Yes, I believe I know your positions based on what you have written on here, on your @mortonpeas Twitter account and examples I’ve seen of what you write on the many, many single theme Facebook groups you contribute to. You’ve been taken to task on this forum before for your positionOn climate change. Only last week you told me that research that shows drivers with long commutes were more likely to be obese was “rubbish” - and you countered it with a photo of a fat cyclist. That is irrational as are most of your positions. I did note that you posted the anti climate change arguments with enough wriggle room to deny an endorsement, although the mere act of posting it demonstrates your sympathy for it.

Ed Saper ● 1527d

Thank you for genuine responses. I did expect flak from the cycle lobby More to come from an apoplectic Paul I’m sure, which I may or may not bother to read, my choice. I just don’t know why I should have to put up with the cycle lobby using any scepticism I might have against me. There are other very knowledgable people with other theories worth looking  at. Of course there’s also the fact that I think is easy to understand,  that whatever we do in little old England won’t make much difference in the scheme of things. The cycle lobby do have their own agenda that isn’t entirely about saving the planet is it, let’s be honest .

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Maggie, you posted self-serving nonsense about climate change and you are dishonest about your motivations for doing so.  You seek to blame the "cycle lobby" for the environmental movement - that concern over greenhouse gases from transport is a fake excuse to further cycling:"The cycle lobby do have their own agenda that isn’t entirely about saving the planet is it"On your Twitter account you are even more strident and accuse the green lobby of being a front for the cycle lobby.https://twitter.com/mortonpeas/status/1546402407093092352?s=21&t=2YedUgjHw_A2lhSK0T4mrwAnb because the cycle lobby "lie about everything", including "air quality is better than the fake statistics say", you dismiss arguments about climate change.------If you don't want to open the link, here's Maggie's Tweet from earlier this week:"The green lobby are just the cycle lobby. Who lie about everything. Air quality is better than the fake statistics say. Except where they move all the traffic from the rich enclaves to the poorer areas where the schools are. Heartless bullies in their 4 x 4 with a bike rack"

Ed Saper ● 1527d

How about cycling is active travel that takes us door to door and helps keep us fitter and helps us avoid  getting diabetes?  Just take a look at the cost of diabetes to the NHS!  That NHS which is so important to us all - whether for emergencies (often from private hospitals/clinics) or other health care and which is so underfunded and understaffed.  Funny how nobody wants to pay higher taxes - especially those who can actually afford to.  If everyone knew that their social care here was sorted out and they wouldn't be on the street then they just might be more generous, mightn't they?Meanwhile those countries with very little who create so little CO2 in comparison are at the mercy of the higher tides and greater storms caused by climate change eg Kiribati - a British Commonwealth country - which is only 2m above sea level is struggling.  These storms compromise their limited sweet water supply.  Last time I was brave enough to look a State of Emergency had been declared as they had not had enough rainfall and were suffering from drought.

Philippa Bond ● 1527d

Jo Rigby, we’ll know cycle lobbyists, and a labour Councillor, says they can only have one tree in her road because of utilities. Usually they don’t care that much about trees, those well known benefits to the planet. But wait , she’s come up with a genius plan to plant trees in parking spaces. She does care about the planet after all. The brains 🤔of the cycle lobby work in a particular way, peculiar to them

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Maggie, you do nothing to promote your anti-cycling agenda by such over-the-top 'contributions'. I should think the vast majority of people riding a bike to get from a to b (me, for example) do not own a car or, even if they do, are obviously not using it all of the time. What is your issue with that?

Anne England ● 1527d

Thoughts, Maggie? My thoughts are that you are suffering from a pathological obsession. This was a scarcely-disguised attempt to start yet another round of the endless Chiswick cycle wars. Give us all a break!

Robert Fish ● 1527d

You’re wrong Robert. I am not happy that the cycle lobby are using the climate emergency angle, to push their agenda. I don’t hide my thinking do I? Whilst they often own cars and fly on holiday, I’m not sure they fully believe their own preaching. I understand  why they are frightened that they may be proved to be wrong. It really would throw a spanner in the works would it? I thought everyone, not purely the cycle lobby,  might like a chance to discuss other ideas. Talking about obsession, your thoughts on the stuff Jo Rigby is putting on Twitter. There is no group more more obsessed,  self righteous and bullying , if you dare disagree  than the cycle lobby. As you prove here.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Maggie. Algorhythms will distort your perception of reality by providing you with the info that you want to find and not a true view of the world.

Philippa Bond ● 1527d

It’s pseudoscience intended for climate change deniers that flies in the face of the evidence. Similar to all the clap trap Michael Brown was posting about Covid.A crutch for those who just want to carry on as they are.

Andrew Jones ● 1527d

How do people like me know who to believe Andrew? I’ve no scientific background. When I read things like the quote I posted, it seems a possibility. Everyone seems to have an agenda. They think I’ve got an agenda just because I’d like to share things I see put forward.  Lots of people are making changes. Everyone I know is, but it would be nice to have someone you trust totell you that it’s worth the effort. Other those who are banging on about making sacrifices, are then proved to be hypocrites. Then you feel like you’re back to square one.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

You work out who to believe by following the consensus.  In some things, the consensus is not clear and if you are wise you withhold your opinion; For instance whether red wine is good for your health.  Others it is fairly clear but not yet proven, as in what caused the demise of the dinosaurs.  On the other end of the scale, heliocentrism and evolution by natural selection are settled.Anthropogenic global warming is now 99% settled, and there are few actual scientists who spout the nonsense you posted.  It’s normally just idiots on websites who are literally fooling themselves because they have narcissistic traits and an axe to grind.  Funnily enough there is no shortage these types who then pick it up and spread it like you just did.

Alex Houseman ● 1527d

False information? 99% settled ? Well I’m sure I should believe you because you clearly know for sure and because you’re so say in your explanation. Thank you for clearing g that up.Andy Burnham,  fan of cycling, wasted £0.5 billion on a scam scheme regarding air quality. Not true either then I suppose.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Who to believe if you have no scientific background?  Well, a good rule of thumb is to respect scientific consensus because it will almost always be correct.  Why? Because scientists are professionals who have dedicated their lives to developing expertise in their own speciality and their predictions tend to be accurate.  It’s a bit like the way you will look for an expert plumber when you find you’ve got a leaking pipe. And science is self-correcting.  You can find almost any weird claim on the internet but the vast majority are foolish and can be easily demolished by experts.

Alastair Banton ● 1527d

Thank you very much Alistair. That’s the sort of reply I can respect. It seems obvious when you put it like that.I keep coming back to the same stuff, for which I apologise. Why do the people being advised by the scientific experts, politicians etc. take that advice, tell people like me that we must stop driving etc etc then fly thousands of miles to climate conferences. I could go on about other hypocrites but I’ll keep it simple.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

You’re not wrong, Maggie.  But because someone is a hypocrite doesn’t mean their claims are wrong, it just means they’re a hypocrite.  To be honest, I can be a hypocrite, and I suspect most of us can.  Don’t be over-influenced by this.

Alastair Banton ● 1527d

Well it is true that utilities and trees don't go very well together.  They vie for the same space under the pavement and tree roots are well known for making their way into any cracked pipes.  It can also be difficult to mend and replace any old pipes and cables with the tree roots wrapped around and through them.  However most of us love trees - not all because some people complain about their falling leaves and the birds which sit in them and the fact that they can't park their cars in their gardens because of them or they spoil what they feel would be a better view without them - and seek to harm them. Most of us know that we need to both replace any dead and dying trees and increase tree cover.

Philippa Bond ● 1527d

What a civilised exchange. Hypocrisy is a lesser, but annoying side issue.My problem is who to believe. I don’t accept 99% as an accurate figure, exaggeration probably  but I think it rather proves my point,  I’m  happy to leave it there though,  and thank you for being such a gentleman Alistair.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Food for thoughthttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=A%202019%20review%20of%20scientific,human%20cause%20of%20climate%20change.

Alastair Banton ● 1527d

So after a brief read, I have to accept the 99% 🤣have I read that right.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Pretty much!

Alastair Banton ● 1527d

Well that was easy, thanks.  See I respond to kindness. I fight against being bullied.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Your stance against bullying opinions is fair. Climate change can be an emotive subject, so we should expect strong opinions but bullying language is wrong.Here you appear to have accepted information about climate change being very real. I applaud your willingness to investigate and react to information.There is one tiny thing that needs to be addressed. That is your opening post. Do you not, if you accept the causes and threats of climate change, need to post your own answer to "what do you think" about your opening post? I'm not bullying at all. I'm simply suggesting. For the sake of closure and accuracy.

Alan Clark ● 1527d

Sorry, AC, but Maggie's "stance" against bullying is bogus. She indulges in aggressive criticicsm of her antagonists' statements, and often accuses them of twisting the facts, adducing spurious data, etc. But when confronted by a rebuttal in terms no more aggressive than hers, she cries "bullying". Her request for thoughts on a dubious and highly partisan statement was no doubt designed to press the buttons of her hated "cycle lobby" standard-bearers. Some aspects of Ed Saper's rebuttal were perhaps a little patronising, but there was no element of bullying. Perhaps she objects to my use of the word "obsession", but it seems to me that's exactly what it is - an obsession with cyclists which appears to be taking over her life, and certainly taking over many pages of this forum. She can't expect to be  so frequently confrontational, and yet not attract some criticism. I have no axe to grind on this (I'm not a cyclist), but like Ed Saper, I thought the request for "thoughts" disguised the real purpose of her post.

Robert Fish ● 1527d

Think with encouraging others to cycle they should begin with 'those whoare able' please consider another form of transport other than your car,then do something about transport i.e buses and give them all other optionsinstead of expecting everyone to cycle.  there are better ways for gettingeveryone to make an effort.

Janice Evans ● 1527d

Happy to respond to that. I am or was totally confused on climate change. I don’t trust anything the cycle lobby post. Their stats are questionable as are their motives,in my opinion.  Professor Rachel Aldred has credentials that would impress,  but she is also part of the cycle  lobby, so her findings are biased. She , I believe has links with TFL.The cycle lobby want to paint everyone to be the same as them. They think I’m divisive because they are. I genuinely thought what I posted had some truth. What I got from the post was people telling me it was rubbish, which I took on board. It sounded scientific to me.  When Alistair posted a good clear easy to understand link and because I trusted him I accepted what I read. I admitted that being bullied makes me push back. I don’t feel inclined to apologise for that, when you see what some of these ‘gentlemen post.

Maggie Dodge ● 1527d

Actually we are gradually moving closer to the sun but at a very slow pacebut besides that climate change is a fact and believe most of us have madechanges to make a difference where we can, I do feel the need for otherreliable transport is being ignored in the hope everyone will cycle but of course many cannot.

Janice Evans ● 1527d

I find it confusing who to believe about the distance of Earth from the Sun,some say we are moving further away but will eventually crash into it faroff in the future, if that is true we are moving closer to it.

Janice Evans ● 1527d

This has been a rubbish dialogue. I am a scientist of biology at University College, London. There is no doubt that human activity (manufacturing, transport, heating) have made major contributions to climate change. Which is very real and probably disastrous, unless we do something urgently. We have to get away from burning hydrocarbons to warm or (at present cool) our homes.
Professor Michael Preece, UCL.

Michael Preece ● 1527d

It's hugely disappointing to see no PM candidate really has a plan, or even seems interested in climate change.

Claire Moran ● 1527d

Hopefully any new candidate will not only want to do something about it but will recognise that Johnson etc were just paying populist lip service to climate change.  All these squillions spent on largely unused cycle lanes and LTNs are a complete waste while government insists on encouraging a hugely noisy and polluting third runway.

Claire Moran ● 1527d

Hi Janice,From memory, in many billions of years time, as the sun ages, and it uses the hydrogen that is what ‘powers’ it currently, the diameter of the sun will increase to such an extent that it will extend to the earth’s current orbit.But it’s not going to happen in humanity’s lifetime, or indeed while there is any sort of speck of life on our earth.

Andrew Jones ● 1527d

We should all be taking responsibility for our actions and considering how our lifestyles may (already) be affecting others. I'm genuinely worried for the next generation.  This is an interesting article.  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/And a quote" One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet."

Nora Watkins ● 1526d

http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=community&link=http://neighbournet.com/server/common/ldrsmayoral053.htmThere's more interest in power.

Philippa Bond ● 1526d

Harry and Meghan still talking about climate change while flying around in private jets and living in, what is it, an 18 bed mansion.

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

First of all, all that exercise makes them eat more. Secondly the cycle lanes cause traffic congestion. Thirdly, the lycra industry is a major global polluter. And they all fly off on holiday too. Not to mention that they don't pay road tax or fuel duty, which is clearly unfair. And as for those carbon frame bikes, decarbonisation can't come a moment too soon! My case rests.

James Tickell ● 1525d

I’ve been convinced of the climate crisis recently .Thank you Alistair.  Never believe anything from the cycle lobby ,so had my doubts. I struggle with them peddling the idea that cycling is the solution. I note your points which I’m sure will be contested 😂For me it’s purely seeing how cycle lanes and LTNs negatively impact areas that I focus on. A cyclist comments that he used C9 once and it was good, so we should all forget the cost , constant rejigging, and the chaos for everyone but cyclists that no one wants to discuss.

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

Why does a question about whether climate change is real come back to cycling Maggie?  Do you really believe that the "cycling lobby" is that powerful that they would be able to push their agenda and make up something like that?

Nora Watkins ● 1525d

Good to know you no longer believe climate change is a hoax by the cycling lobby!Didn't you change your mind yesterday on cyclists being responsible for shutting down the swimming pools?  Small steps....what's next - bikes cause traffic pollution and cyclists secretly rule the country?

Ed Saper ● 1525d

Oh please Nora.The cycle lobby base everything about cycling being good for the planet. Don’t even get me started on their power!

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

Do you have to jump in again, Ed? You're just as addicted to these stupid squabbles as Maggie is. It takes two to tango.

Robert Fish ● 1525d

But did you just imply in your previous comments that you thought it might be a hoax which was being pushed by the "cycling lobby"?  We've just hit the hottest temperature recorded in the UK,  it really does worry me that our selfish consumerism is ruining the planet for the next generation.  I'm not sure how you can blame that on people using bikes?

Nora Watkins ● 1525d

Remind me why we’re supposed to be cycling Ed?

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

Not even able to join the dots now. Nora

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

On the button Ed.  LTNs and cycle lanes definitely cause traffic pollution. The LCC are consulted on everything road related. They boast having at least one member on every Council which is why all these cycling measures are consulted on, but objections ignored.Boardman is some  kind of travel Commissioner, you know him the well known cyclist who sells bikes. Ed posted “Small steps....what's next - bikes cause traffic pollution and cyclists secretly rule the country?”

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

Sorry Maggie,  I don't understand what you mean.

Nora Watkins ● 1525d

"Never believe anything from the cycle lobby ,so had my doubts. I struggle with them peddling the idea that cycling is the solution. I note your points which I’m sure will be contested 😂For me it’s purely seeing how cycle lanes and LTNs negatively impact areas that I focus on."I think you've got yourself all confused over cause and effect. And your focus on the impact of dedicated cycle lanes has taken your thinking off in strange directions.The basics are very simple. Combustion engine vehicles pollute. So reducing the use of these vehicles is good and necessary, especially in built up areas. This is not up for discussion - although how this reduction is achieved certainly is up for discussion.Second basic thing is that many people do not exercise enough and this is causing current and future health problems. Encouraging people to exercise more is a good thing. That again is not up for discussion.What might seem to be a very neat alignment of the two issues is the use of people powered transportation - also known as bicycles. It seems to be a good idea to encourage more people to replace car or bus journeys with cycling. Win-win solution. Not everyone and every journey, but ideally quite a few.But this falls short of perfect because of a number of issues. First a good number of people are put off using bicycles in busy traffic. Bad driving, inconsiderate vehicle drivers and inconsiderate experienced cyclists and the proximity of vehicles discourage many from swapping bus/car for a bike. (Let's ignore the obvious fact that some journeys are not suitable for this swap - that is too obvious to bother with.)The next step then is to find ways of separating cyclists from other road users. Like it or loath it this means dedicated cycle lanes. This is a proven solution but always involves some changes and often reduces the space for vehicles. But that is inevitable.All of the above need make no mention of a cycle lobby. Just common sense.What is therefore not needed are cycling enthusiasts claiming all of this will save the planet. Or that vehicles are wrong. Or that anyone who challenges the design of a cycle lane is anti-bike / anti-climate change / etc. Or implying that the relatively minor benefit of increasing cycling is better than all the other actions to reduce pollution (electric vehicles, more use of public transport, reducing idle time for combustion engines, etc).Equally what is not helpful is twisting round the logic sequence to suggest the cycling lobby and bike lanes came first and all problems stem from that.Anything here make sense to you?

Alan Clark ● 1525d

Alan seems to be missing a few salient points:Reducing combustion engines comes in many ways. Manufacturers could stop producing them (oh wait, that's on the calendar) and people could be buying electric vehicles as and when they are able. Even a hybrid. Oh wait. That's also happening. So unfortunately getting people to cycle isn't the only answer to reducing the use of combustion engines.Then we get tthe point where Alan talks about separating cyclists from other road users. Well...until such time as the law states cyclists must use the dedicated cycle lane this will not happen. And it would seem the logical conclusion of all these debates is to have cycle lanes on each and every urban road regardless of size and purpose. But without stipulating that that investment must be used for purpose it remains a pointless exercise.

David Lesniak ● 1525d

Alan, have you heard of the LCC ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1525d

"Alan seems to be missing a few salient points:Reducing combustion engines comes in many ways. Manufacturers could stop producing them (oh wait, that's on the calendar) and people could be buying electric vehicles as and when they are able. Even a hybrid. Oh wait. That's also happening. So unfortunately getting people to cycle isn't the only answer to reducing the use of combustion engines."I think Alan covered that didn't he? i.e. "The basics are very simple. Combustion engine vehicles pollute. So reducing the use of these vehicles is good and necessary, especially in built up areas. This is not up for discussion - although how this reduction is achieved certainly is up for discussion.""Then we get the point where Alan talks about separating cyclists from other road users. Well...until such time as the law states cyclists must use the dedicated cycle lane this will not happen.""The next step then is to find ways of separating cyclists from other road users. Like it or loath it this means dedicated cycle lanes."Alan didn't say all cyclists so I presume he means those potential cyclists who are put off using bicycles in busy traffic and additionally by bad driving, inconsiderate vehicle drivers and inconsiderate experienced cyclists and the proximity of vehicles.Which means there is no absolute need for a law stating cyclists have to use the dedicated cycle lanes, and nor is Alan suggesting (as far as I can tell) that there a need for cycle lanes on on each and every urban road regardless of size and purpose.

Andrew Jones ● 1525d

Thanks Andrew - you are correct in your assumptions about my post. Especially the bit about making cycling safer for those who see it as risky. Not all cyclists are worried about weaving around traffic. My logic was simply that there are people who would cycle more if it could be made less stressful and that without separate cycle lanes some sections of road are quite dangerous for cyclists.David's point about reducing combustion engines by not making any more is obvious and well known. As is a gradual move to electric vehicles. I did not think I had to spell such things out but thanks for the clarification.

Alan Clark ● 1525d