It’s too f***ing hot

LenGlover said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Redskin said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

I love it when people who fall for false information propaganda call people who don't, sheep.

I love it when people who fall for false in formation propaganda call people who don't, tinfoil hat wearers; climate deniers; flat earthers; far-right;; Trump/Farage supporters, etc, etc, etc

That damn false information, improving our air and water quality. God bless those that can see past that BS.

This is a great point. For those that choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence on climate change there are still massive benefits of "green" improvements. Cleaner air, healthier lives, cleaner water both for drinking and swimming, more green spaces, more energy independence, less reliance on price gouging multinational corporations. There is no downside. 

Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Data created to sustain a narrative in simple terms yet those who choose to question are told to “follow the science .” The University of East Anglia was also discredited for producing dodgy climate change information some years back in order to sustain the narrative.

I think you need to review where you get your information. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3SXrvZ2zW3rgSqKpBpNjyn2/was-this-the-hack-that-changed-the-world

LenGlover said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Redskin said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

I love it when people who fall for false information propaganda call people who don't, sheep.

I love it when people who fall for false in formation propaganda call people who don't, tinfoil hat wearers; climate deniers; flat earthers; far-right;; Trump/Farage supporters, etc, etc, etc

That damn false information, improving our air and water quality. God bless those that can see past that BS.

This is a great point. For those that choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence on climate change there are still massive benefits of "green" improvements. Cleaner air, healthier lives, cleaner water both for drinking and swimming, more green spaces, more energy independence, less reliance on price gouging multinational corporations. There is no downside. 

Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Data created to sustain a narrative in simple terms yet those who choose to question are told to “follow the science .” The University of East Anglia was also discredited for producing dodgy climate change information some years back in order to sustain the narrative.

Careful, Len.

Watch out for a pm from "the usual suspects" with "proof" that you are seriously misguided in querying the statstics & that they're concerned for your wellbeing & gullibility...

Yes, really ! Welcome to my world.

My response ( oh & AI was even utilised to "prove " their points) was to quote Mark Twain.

" Lies, damned lies & statistics "

Fanny Fanackapan said:

LenGlover said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Redskin said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

I love it when people who fall for false information propaganda call people who don't, sheep.

I love it when people who fall for false in formation propaganda call people who don't, tinfoil hat wearers; climate deniers; flat earthers; far-right;; Trump/Farage supporters, etc, etc, etc

That damn false information, improving our air and water quality. God bless those that can see past that BS.

This is a great point. For those that choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence on climate change there are still massive benefits of "green" improvements. Cleaner air, healthier lives, cleaner water both for drinking and swimming, more green spaces, more energy independence, less reliance on price gouging multinational corporations. There is no downside. 

Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Data created to sustain a narrative in simple terms yet those who choose to question are told to “follow the science .” The University of East Anglia was also discredited for producing dodgy climate change information some years back in order to sustain the narrative.

Careful, Len.

Watch out for a pm from "the usual suspects" with "proof" that you are seriously misguided in querying the statstics & that they're concerned for your wellbeing & gullibility...

Yes, really ! Welcome to my world.

My response ( oh & AI was even utilised to "prove " their points) was to quote Mark Twain.

" Lies, damned lies & statistics "

Shocking behaviour to get a PM but not surprising 

Also you should never rely on a single study eg Andrew Wakefield. The overwhelming evidence from a range of different scientific disciplines is that the climate is warming and that the cause is man made

LenGlover said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Redskin said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

I love it when people who fall for false information propaganda call people who don't, sheep.

I love it when people who fall for false in formation propaganda call people who don't, tinfoil hat wearers; climate deniers; flat earthers; far-right;; Trump/Farage supporters, etc, etc, etc

That damn false information, improving our air and water quality. God bless those that can see past that BS.

This is a great point. For those that choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence on climate change there are still massive benefits of "green" improvements. Cleaner air, healthier lives, cleaner water both for drinking and swimming, more green spaces, more energy independence, less reliance on price gouging multinational corporations. There is no downside. 

Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Data created to sustain a narrative in simple terms yet those who choose to question are told to “follow the science .” The University of East Anglia was also discredited for producing dodgy climate change information some years back in order to sustain the narrative.

This is yet another case where the facts are very different from the claims made. I asked the following question of Microsoft's AI tool Co Pilot "what is the truth about the claims made by the University of East Anglia about climate change:, this is the answer given:

Short answer

The core claims about climate change associated with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—that the planet is warming and that human activities are the dominant cause—have held up under extremely intense scrutiny. The “Climategate” email hack did not overturn the science; multiple independent investigations found no evidence of fraud or data manipulation.

What “claims” are we talking about?

UEA’s Climatic Research Unit is best known for:

• Reconstructing global temperature records over the last 150+ years.
• Contributing to IPCC assessments that conclude:
• The Earth’s mean surface temperature has been rising for decades.
• Human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions, are the primary driver of recent warming.

These are not unique to UEA—similar conclusions come from NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth, and many others.

What actually happened in “Climategate”?

• 2009 hack: A server at UEA’s CRU was hacked and thousands of emails and files were stolen and posted online just before the Copenhagen climate summit.
• Claims by critics: Climate‑change deniers and some commentators argued the emails showed:
• Data were manipulated.
• Dissenting views were suppressed.
• The entire case for human‑caused warming was a “conspiracy.”

The emails were heavily cherry‑picked and quoted out of context in blogs and media campaigns.

 

What did the investigations find?

At least eight formal inquiries looked into the allegations, including:

• UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
• Independent Climate Change Email Review (Muir Russell)
• International Science Assessment Panel
• US EPA and other US bodies

Their key findings:

• No evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
• No evidence that data were fabricated or that the warming trend was invented or exaggerated.
• Some criticism of:
• Openness and responsiveness to Freedom of Information requests.
• The tone and culture in some email exchanges.

Crucially, all major reviews concluded that the underlying temperature records and scientific conclusions remained sound.

 

So what is “the truth” about UEA’s climate claims?

• True in substance: The central claims—that the world is warming and humans are the main cause—are robust and consistent with global evidence.
• Not a hoax or conspiracy: The email hack exposed some poor phrasing and defensiveness, but not data fabrication or a plot to deceive.
• Part of a much bigger picture: Even if UEA’s work vanished tomorrow, the evidence for human‑caused climate change from other institutions would still be overwhelming.

Ah yes, the greatest hits of climate denial, dusted off, reheated, and served again as if the world hasn’t moved on since dial‑up internet. Truly, a vintage performance.It’s adorable how confiently these talking points get delvered, though. There’s a kind of boldness in repeating claims that have been debunked more times than flat‑Earth memes. Almost admirable, in a museum‑exhibit sort of way.

Mark Twain quotes?

Bloody rain, I went out about 15 minutes ago to get my lunch and the heavens opened. It's still warm though so I shall continue to wear shorts and a polo shirt to work.

CaptainRobbo said:

Chaz Hill said:

Read an interesting article yesterday about the how Australia is enthusiastically embracing solar and like the Norwegians just as enthusiastically exporting their fossil fuels elsewhere.

Well if anyone has the weather for it and the sheer volume of land for solar panels, it's the Aussies.
Uk not so much.

In 2026 my rooftop solar has reduced my elecricity bills by £450. Its not great in winter but the infrastructure associated with it has allowed me to save a further £700 on cheap rate night charging the batteries for the house and heat pump.  Might get close to £3k savings this year as electricity prices increase. 

and the solar runs our air conditioning when we need it. Last week my g/f complained our house was too effing cold!

Alwaysneil said:

As i have no understanding of how El Nino works i dont know what effect the forecast super el nino starting this year will have in the UK. Increases likelihoods of heatwaves and excessive rain for next couple yers in other parts of the world and i think makes hurricanes less likely in the atlantic (and we always get the tail end of those about 2 weeks agter the US/Carribean. 

Anyone else know if we are in for a long hot summer? Or even better whether its going to be rainy or sunny at this year's isle of woght festival.

Many thanks

I’m no expert on “El Niño” (or the sister version “La Niña”) but my understanding is that El Niño generally can cause warmer, drier weather in much of South America, Australasia, India or Southern Africa, and can cause cooler, wetter weather in Southern US states, parts of Western Africa, Japan and Korea and can affect other areas close to those named.
I do also know that which of these areas is affected by a specific El Niño is very difficult to predict ahead of time.
If I understand it correctly, La Niña affects the same places but in reverse; ie swap wetter for drier, warmer for cooler etc.

To be clear, “warm and dry” and “cool and wet” sound fairly innocuous, but in reality it means a hugely increased risk of drought, bushfires, flooding, crop damage etc in the places named that are most affected.

It seems that the effect on Europe is less clear. It’s generally thought that Niño and Niña probably have some effect on Europe, but the extent of the effect and whether the effect is warm and dry or cool and wet is not so clear cut.

At least, this is what I understand to be the case. Happy to be corrected. 

Provisional Met Office statistics show the season saw: 

• UK’s third warmest on record for mean temperature  
• England’s warmest on record for mean temperature 
• Wales’s warmest on record for mean temperature 
• Northern Ireland’s joint sixth warmest on record for mean temperature 
• Scotland’s eighth warmest on record for mean temperature 

All three months of meteorological spring - March, April and May - ranked within the UK’s top ten warmest since the series began in 1884. The season unfolded month by month, beginning with a joint tenth warmest March on record for the UK, followed by the seventh warmest April and then a May that finished up as the joint third warmest on record.  

England’s mean temperature of 10.41°C surpassed last year’s record of 10.23°C, meaning the three warmest springs on record for England now stand as 2026, 2025 and 2024. Nine of the ten warmest springs in England since 1884 have now occurred since 2007. 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2026/warmest-spring-on-record-for-england-and-wales--third-warmest-for-uk

shirty5 said:

ME14addick said:

Provisional Met Office statistics show the season saw: 

• UK’s third warmest on record for mean temperature  
• England’s warmest on record for mean temperature 
• Wales’s warmest on record for mean temperature 
• Northern Ireland’s joint sixth warmest on record for mean temperature 
• Scotland’s eighth warmest on record for mean temperature 

All three months of meteorological spring - March, April and May - ranked within the UK’s top ten warmest since the series began in 1884. The season unfolded month by month, beginning with a joint tenth warmest March on record for the UK, followed by the seventh warmest April and then a May that finished up as the joint third warmest on record.  

England’s mean temperature of 10.41°C surpassed last year’s record of 10.23°C, meaning the three warmest springs on record for England now stand as 2026, 2025 and 2024. Nine of the ten warmest springs in England since 1884 have now occurred since 2007. 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2026/warmest-spring-on-record-for-england-and-wales--third-warmest-for-uk

Fingers crossed we have a good summer weatherwise in the UK and the excellent temperatures continue with a bit of rain here and there to keep the gardens lovely and green.

Hopefully not quite so hot as last week, that was too hot. Mid 20s by day and rain at night would be good, but not likely. 

ME14addick said:

JohnnyH2 said:

Fanny Fanackapan said:

LenGlover said:

cantersaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Redskin said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

I love it when people who fall for false information propaganda call people who don't, sheep.

I love it when people who fall for false in formation propaganda call people who don't, tinfoil hat wearers; climate deniers; flat earthers; far-right;; Trump/Farage supporters, etc, etc, etc

That damn false information, improving our air and water quality. God bless those that can see past that BS.

This is a great point. For those that choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence on climate change there are still massive benefits of "green" improvements. Cleaner air, healthier lives, cleaner water both for drinking and swimming, more green spaces, more energy independence, less reliance on price gouging multinational corporations. There is no downside. 

Michael Mann’s hockey stick. Data created to sustain a narrative in simple terms yet those who choose to question are told to “follow the science .” The University of East Anglia was also discredited for producing dodgy climate change information some years back in order to sustain the narrative.

Careful, Len.

Watch out for a pm from "the usual suspects" with "proof" that you are seriously misguided in querying the statstics & that they're concerned for your wellbeing & gullibility...

Yes, really ! Welcome to my world.

My response ( oh & AI was even utilised to "prove " their points) was to quote Mark Twain.

" Lies, damned lies & statistics "

Shocking behaviour to get a PM but not surprising 

When you are unable to respond via the forum and can prove that a statement is incorrect, a private message is the only option available. 

Proof, eh ? 

You really don't do yourself any favours do you . Just can't leave it alone. Making "sure" you cover all angles just in case.....

I'm seriously tempted to share your arrogant " know it all" lecture on here so that others can share my contempt of you & your fellow supporter. 

Un feckin believable. 

Well, actually NOT unbelievable seeing you didn't learn your lesson with the covid thread.....

Merely seriously deluded.

Don't feel sorry for me ( as you piously stated ) 

I'd respectfully suggest those "kind" words would be more gratefully received closer to home.  

fenaddick said:

Regardless of your opinion there’s no need to try to convince someone to change their mind in private when there’s a perfectly good public discussion going on. 

A real strength of CL is that, on the whole, discussions are had politely, in good faith and in public. It is one of the things I love most about this place 

Stig asked the discussion to stop. Despite that Fanny made another post that contained factual inaccuracies. Respecting Stig's request I sent Fanny a private message  with an AI response that refuted her claims. 

I would love to have continued the discussion on here. Unfortunately there are two tiers of tolerance.  The usual suspects jump on and call for the discussion to be shut downi if I make a post. Its almost as if they are scared to have their own beliefs challenged.