Scientists trace heat waves back to individual fossil fuel companies, with potentially sweeping courtroom implications

[SteamyTea]

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it"

Jonathan Swift 1710

[sgt_woulds]

On 12/09/2025 at 22:46, marshian said:

 

 

 

How many conspiracy theory's ridiculed are now grounded in fact

 

 

 

Out of interest, which ones?

 

Just popping up to lob a grenade... 

[marshian]

2 hours ago, sgt_woulds said:

 

Out of interest, which ones?

 

Just popping up to lob a grenade... 

 

Regarding Covid (Which was what I was referring to) quite a few obvious ones

 

Pretty sure you don't need me to point them out 

 

It wasn't a "lab leak" but from a wet market from someone eating an uncooked Pangolin 

 

We were told there was no such thing as "natural immunity" - only the vaccine can end the pandemic (Post infection based immunity has served mankind effectively since the very beginning - to deny that is crazy)

 

Minimal risks to the Vaccine - yeah that worked out well.

 

Covid risk to the elderly and those with co-comorbidities was as high as a bad flu season but we never previously locked down for that what was different for Covid.

 

The risks from the vaccines increased as they vaccinated younger and younger people but the benefits from vaccination weren't there to justify the vaccination but they still carried on.

 

Masks and social distancing were based on science   

 

Lock down was the only answer - the vilification of the Great Barrington Declaration and the authors who dared to question the official narrative and suggest a more moderate path.

 

The increases deaths post pandemic can easily be explained by the shutdown of the NHS for a large number of screening processes and focus on one aspect. 

 

In short my view is simple "The Cure was worse than the disease"

 

Problem is those in government will never allow that to be a conclusion (It doesn't matter which colour rosette they wear).

[Crofter]

44 minutes ago, marshian said:

 

Regarding Covid (Which was what I was referring to) quite a few obvious ones

 

Pretty sure you don't need me to point them out 

 

It wasn't a "lab leak" but from a wet market from someone eating an uncooked Pangolin 

 

We were told there was no such thing as "natural immunity" - only the vaccine can end the pandemic (Post infection based immunity has served mankind effectively since the very beginning - to deny that is crazy)

 

Minimal risks to the Vaccine - yeah that worked out well.

 

Covid risk to the elderly and those with co-comorbidities was as high as a bad flu season but we never previously locked down for that what was different for Covid.

 

The risks from the vaccines increased as they vaccinated younger and younger people but the benefits from vaccination weren't there to justify the vaccination but they still carried on.

 

Masks and social distancing were based on science   

 

Lock down was the only answer - the vilification of the Great Barrington Declaration and the authors who dared to question the official narrative and suggest a more moderate path.

 

The increases deaths post pandemic can easily be explained by the shutdown of the NHS for a large number of screening processes and focus on one aspect. 

 

In short my view is simple "The Cure was worse than the disease"

 

Problem is those in government will never allow that to be a conclusion (It doesn't matter which colour rosette they wear).

Let's not go down this rabbit hole but suffice to say, these are either untrue or at best highly contentious.

 

Just because you believe them doesn't mean they are true.

[sgt_woulds]

16 hours ago, marshian said:

 

Regarding Covid (Which was what I was referring to) quite a few obvious ones

 

Pretty sure you don't need me to point them out 

 

It wasn't a "lab leak" but from a wet market from someone eating an uncooked Pangolin 

 

We were told there was no such thing as "natural immunity" - only the vaccine can end the pandemic (Post infection based immunity has served mankind effectively since the very beginning - to deny that is crazy)

 

Minimal risks to the Vaccine - yeah that worked out well.

 

Covid risk to the elderly and those with co-comorbidities was as high as a bad flu season but we never previously locked down for that what was different for Covid.

 

The risks from the vaccines increased as they vaccinated younger and younger people but the benefits from vaccination weren't there to justify the vaccination but they still carried on.

 

Masks and social distancing were based on science   

 

Lock down was the only answer - the vilification of the Great Barrington Declaration and the authors who dared to question the official narrative and suggest a more moderate path.

 

The increases deaths post pandemic can easily be explained by the shutdown of the NHS for a large number of screening processes and focus on one aspect. 

 

In short my view is simple "The Cure was worse than the disease"

 

Problem is those in government will never allow that to be a conclusion (It doesn't matter which colour rosette they wear).

 

 

Pretty much as I expected.

 

It is pointless to engage with Climate Change deniers and Covid conspiracists, who never provide peer-reviewed sources and do not engage with reasoned debate backed up by evidence, but cite the Great Barrington Declaration as if it was a statement of fact.

 

As an essential worker, visiting clients daily throughout the lockdown, I experienced more than enough of the horror of the pandemic's effects.  I can tell you that the true Co-morbidity cost to my customers was traumatic enough that I still find it hard to discuss.  46 of our clients died in the first week of the lockdown alone, and I stopped counting after that.  Is that 'normal for the flu season'? 

 

Those who stayed safe at home, fomenting conspiracies, can never understand how truly insulting it is to hear such utter rubbish repeated, let alone as part of a general discussion on a building forum. 

 

I'm thankful that I wasn't working in a hospital where I'd have actually had to watch them die, but I can tell you that there are many thousands of bereaved family members, traumatised medical staff, carers, and other essential workers who will never forget the lockdown and will never forgive conspiracy theorists who make light of their cost.

 

Many lessons should be learned from the lockdown, and there may be alternatives to the various forms of lockdown and vaccination schemes used around the world.  But all of these should be attempted with the best of intentions - to save lives, rather than prevent inconvenience.  This is something for suitably qualified and evidenced discussion between experts - not a shouting match between DIY builders...

 

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, sgt_woulds said:

- to save lives, rather than prevent inconvenience

I was liucky to be in spain during thd worst of it. If there was an outbreak they forebade travel to and from that community, except essential services. The benefit showed dramatically in the death figure.

 

I try to get into deniers' mindset on this, but can't.

The best i can manage is an extreme fear of science... people knowing things that they themselves can't begin to comprehend. I don't understand therefore it is conspiracy?

[SteamyTea]

This 'it is just like a normal flu outbreak'

Influenza is a huge killer.

But what is the purpose of comparing one infection with another, they all need to be treated.

Fungal infections kill millions of people, but I have never heard a conspiracy about it, probably because the dickhead have not learnt of them, it is not as if they sit down every Thursday and read New Scientist. Fortean Times maybe.

[sgt_woulds]

Glossing over... and back to the OP 

 

We know who is guilty of hastening climate change, and so do they; their own salaried scientists told them back in the seventies.

 

How can we make them pay for mitigation?

 

 

[SteamyTea]

20 minutes ago, sgt_woulds said:

their own salaried scientists told them back in the seventies

My Father worked for Royal Dutch/Shell, he knew about it in the 1950s.

The science is so well understood that only the uneducated can argue against it (not the same as arguing the local effects i.e. daily weather).

Attributing who are the big polluters is not hard, and if we try and make them pay, nothing else will happen for over a decade as the court cases will drag on.

So much better to use the tax system to change behaviour.

It is fast and effective.

Heard Ed Sillybum on the radio yesterday, talking about (in part) not charging VAT on energy. For domestic users it is 5%. There is more variation between tariffs.

We just need to change the wholesale markets mechanism, what worked well to attract investment over the last 2 decades is now outdated.

So rather that talk about net zero, just tax, at a rate to discourage investment, combustion technologies.

And stop grants for domestic installations. They have skewed the market so badly that they are hammering uptake. Happened in the PV market, we still have people on here that won't fit PV because the export payments are now tenth of what they were.

I still buy a Macdonald's single cheese burger, even though in the last 2 years the price has gone up 50%. It fills me up quickly (well 2 do) when I am in a long car journey, and cheaper than a coffee at Costa.

 

Edited 23 hours ago by SteamyTea

[-rick-]

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

only the uneducated can argue against it

 

And those that are financially and politically motivated (though political motivation is often driven by financial interests as well)

 

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Heard Ed Sillybum on the radio yesterday, talking about (in part) not charging VAT on energy. For domestic users it is 5%. There is more variation between tariffs.

 

I'd prefer this government to what we had before or Reform but they really don't seem up to the challenge we face in basically any field. I wasn't expecting anything miraculous but I'm geniuinely shocked at how back they are and the country seems to agree (ratings not far off the Liz Truss budget atm).

 

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

We just need to change the wholesale markets mechanism, what worked well to attract investment over the last 2 decades is now outdated.

So rather that talk about net zero, just tax, at a rate to discourage investment, combustion technologies.

 

Zero chance that would fly in the past and likely still today (though less so). When's the last time they put up fuel duty?

 

12 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

And stop grants for domestic installations. They have skewed the market so badly that they are hammering uptake.

 

Not entirely sure about this. We get solutions to problems designed around constraints in our system. We have so many layers of crap that we keep building on rather than fixing the underlying problem. No doubt the current system is incredibly inefficient and the money could likely be better spent but I do think the uptake is likely higher than if they hadn't done anything and fixing the underlying problem is something that would take years, though we should be laying the framework for that now.

[SteamyTea]

29 minutes ago, -rick- said:

fixing the underlying problem

I suspect that is the real problem (in many different areas).

We do have the government tools to do it, we reduced VAT during the financial crisis, gave people payments 2/3 years ago.

Everything is there, just needs changing, a gradual increase in FF levies of 1% a year for the next 20 years and things will change very quickly. Everyone will know what is happening and it will not cause a market shock. An initial 1% on the levy is not the same as 1% on the wholesale price.

29 minutes ago, -rick- said:

prefer this government to what we had before

Yes, they were shockingly bad.

I don't have a clue how the normal voter can change things as we don't have any real choice.

I do think that if an MP defects to a different party, that should cause a by-election. I suspect that most people vote along party lines and not for an individual. It is a bit like me buying from a Ford Dealer a new Focus, and before delivery, they change to a Citroen dealership and change all the wiring to whatever the French call wiring (câblage, or cabbage).

Edited 22 hours ago by SteamyTea

[Spinny]

I should probably not comment given the heated certainty that too many seem to blindly possess on things like anthropogenic climate change and covid. There is nothing wrong with doubt, doubt is good, science IS doubt. Often the obvious is false, and reality stranger than any fiction. Beware adopting simple certainties in a complex world. People used to think it obvious that the sun goes around the earth, that no bacteria could survive in stomach acid, did rain dances to the gods, and burned witches. There is zero evolutionary difference between those people and ourselves.

 

But I will say that too many confuse their own personal perspective and experience of things like covid with the wider population significance. There are of order 5000 NHS intensive care beds serving a population of order 60,000,000 - so that is of order 1 intensive care bed for every 12,000 people. The number of people in intensive care is completely insignificant on a population basis and even if it doubled or trebled or quadrupled in a pandemic it would still be insignificant on a population basis. Now if you work in an intensive care unit and the demand doubled you would think the sky is falling in - can't cope - no beds - people dying right , left, and centre - stressed out - panicked. And plenty of journo's would be happy to relay your message of the falling sky to the masses. But it would still absolutely be insignificant on a population basis. Likewise if you work in care homes there are 450,000 beds in England - still less than 1 in 100 people - and on average they normally die within 2 years anyway. If you feed them midazolam as soon as they get unwell, they die faster.

 

So it is entirely consistent for some people to think covid was the sky falling in, while in a very true sense it was insignificant on a population basis. I attended a covid funeral by videolink and was very upset and sad for the loss, and the inhuman way the widow was made to sit alone isolated from comforters. At the same time I don't have a problem with simultaneously recognising that it actually was insignificant and minor at a population level.

 

Whether we like it or not, or admit it or not, human lives have a price - yes even our own glorious and virtuous life. The NHS routinely rations care and drugs based upon QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). During covid the UK and much of the rest of the world was whipped into a mass hysteria of delusion and panic where it suddenly became ok to spend unlimited sums 100 times higher than the NHS would ever normally do - to save a life. It was and remains a time of utter, utter, madness. Actual science was ignored, psychological operations took place to broadcast fear into every household. The UK spent £500 Billion to negligible population effect, and engaged in hugely counter productive actions, denying people jobs, education, health treatment, social contact, exercise etc etc. Now we are still paying the price for the folly - remember that when your taxes go up again in November. Remember the higher school absence, the ongoing epidemic of mental health social security claims, the kids with lives scarred forever, those dead from untreated cancers, the bankrupt businesses, the huge inflation, the high interest rates.

 

It was folly.

[Crofter]

37 minutes ago, Spinny said:

It was folly.

 

This is clearly a subject where you hold a strongly held belief, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. 

It's also got nothing to do with the original subject. Or with building houses. 

 

You raised covid as an example of when conspiracy theories have been proven correct. But it's not a good example because whilst you and others believe in things like the lab leak theory etc, it is not the accepted version of events. You are highlighting examples of change in policy, confusion, and negative impacts of certain measures, but again none of these is an example of a conspiracy theory being be definitively proven correct and accepted.

[SteamyTea]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[Spinny]

 

2 hours ago, Crofter said:

it is not the accepted version of events

That is not an argument, it is meaningless.

It was the ''accepted'' truth that the sun went around the earth. Obvious and undeniable, everyone sees it happen with their own eyes. Supported by state and church, overwhelmingly believed. That doesn't make truth. You don't find the truth by taking a vote.

 

I haven't claimed any conspiracy, just that there are opportunists, vested interests, and dedicated followers of fashion out there.

Tulip bulb anyone ?

 

[Crofter]

30 minutes ago, Spinny said:

 

That is not an argument, it is meaningless.

It was the ''accepted'' truth that the sun went around the earth. Obvious and undeniable, everyone sees it happen with their own eyes. Supported by state and church, overwhelmingly believed. That doesn't make truth. You don't find the truth by taking a vote.

 

I haven't claimed any conspiracy, just that there are opportunists, vested interests, and dedicated followers of fashion out there.

Tulip bulb anyone ?

 

This was all kicked off by the statement that 'many conspiracy theories have been proven to be true'.

We're still waiting to see which ones those are. 

If it's only true in the minds of those who mistrust the official line, then it's still a conspiracy theory.

 

(By the way, if you go back in history a few decades, you will actually find a few examples, like the Tuskegee syphilis study.)

 

If you aren't trying to prove the point that many conspiracy theories have been proven to be true, then you're just having a rant about covid measures, and that's way off topic for both this discussion and this forum in general.

[Spinny]

21 minutes ago, Crofter said:

If it's only true in the minds of those who mistrust the official line, then it's still a conspiracy theory.

 

Sorry but this is tautological nonsense worthy of Orwell's 1984.

What you refer to as a 'conspiracy theory' is factually either true or false. If it is shown to be true, it is no longer what you refer to as a conspiracy theory. Whether it is true or false is not determined by what is in the minds of those who trust the official line - it is determined by actual factual reality.

 

Do I need to remind you officials said 'If you take the vaccine you won't get covid' FALSE, 'The vaccine is 95% effective' FALSE, 'Face masks don't work' TRUE, 'Face masks do work' FALSE, 'Two face masks work' FALSE, 'The covid IFR is 3%' FALSE, 'The vaccine is safe' FALSE, 'The vaccine is withdrawn because it is unsafe' TRUE,'infection acquired immunity doesn't provide protection' FALSE, 'stand 2 metres apart to stay safe' FALSE, .......

[marshian]

1 hour ago, Crofter said:

If it's only true in the minds of those who mistrust the official line, then it's still a conspiracy theory.

 

You raise a really good point - thank you

 

If you mean those officials who partied whilst the country was locked down - we should trust them right?

 

Or perhaps you mean the officials who line their pockets on PPE equipment that was effectively useless - we should definately trust them?

 

Or maybe the Media who with a country locked down and little in the way of revenue from advertising eagerly lapped up the official advertising revenue - totally trustworthy?

 

Or maybe we should trust the businesses that profited from the lack of competition - supermarkets that could sell anything v small retailers that had to shut their doors - we should trust them?

 

Nothing passed the sniff test for me during covid - if it passed yours then fine - you do you I'll do me

 

Earlier contributor calling me a conspiracy theorist for having views that they didn't agree with is pretty much the way of the world - Everyone I don't agree with is Hitler.

 

On average 1,600 people die a day in the UK yet the national news outlets during covid announcing 50 deaths from (or with) Covid like it was an extra-ordinary event 

 

I was labelled an "anti vaxer" for not "getting vacinated" - I'm not and have never have been anti vax - my reason was specific - having a holiday in North Vietnam on the Chinese boarder in very late 2019 I caught something that knocked me sideways and took me 3 months to recover - My reasoning for not getting vaccinated was simple - damn sure I've had Covid so why do I need a vaccination for something that didn't kill me and I'm pretty sure my body would recognise quicker next time - that's how post infection immunity works. (I do hate the term natural immunity as it implies you have it like a blessing from god or some other crap)

 

Of course in 2019 it couldn't be Covid - it didn't exist then because everyone in authority says it didn't exist.

 

Never had it since and during the pandemic working in my industry unfortunately I had to test for it a lot. 

 

PS I didn't get to enjoy the summer sitting at home on 80% salary - that would have been nice and I can understand why some would have a rose tinted view of the pandemic and the massive over-reach of the Government.  

 

Anyway That's my last contribution  to the conversation around Covid in this thread.

 

 

[Crofter]

30 minutes ago, marshian said:

 

You raise a really good point - thank you

 

If you mean those officials who partied whilst the country was locked down - we should trust them right?

No, not them. Their response and behaviour is largely responsible for the turning of public opinion against covid measures. An unforgivable dereliction of duty. 

 

Go and take your theories to the doctors, nurses, pharmacists who had to work through covid. 

 

 

30 minutes ago, marshian said:

 

PS I didn't get to enjoy the summer sitting at home on 80% salary - that would have been nice and I can understand why some would have a rose tinted view of the pandemic and the massive over-reach of the Government.  

Same here. I was working at slightly above minimum wage doing manual labour in the food production industry. I was deemed to be an essential worker and literally nothing changed at all.

[saveasteading]

I'm torn between turning off contributors with nonsense, anti-science and anti- fact beliefs, OR keeping myself aware that such people exist and interfere with my world.

 

For those above who don't believe science or authority:

On BH most of us giving advice know the science and/or best practice or practicality of the subjects on which we comment, and take the advice of others on other matters.

If you don't trust experts then I don't know why you are on here. 

Don't go ignoring the regulations. Please. Otherwise things will likely go badly for you and others.

 

I will now turn off 'follow' 

[dpmiller]

I work in and around both healthcare and scientific research. There is NO DOUBT that poor decisions were made during the rollout of the lockdown. Could things have been done differently? Absolutely. The messaging was horrendous. So many people across the nation suffered massive loss- of family, personal health and mental health. Thus the Enquiry. But the worst thing in my view was indeed the outright disrespect for the nation by those in power who partied, and those that saught to make massive financial gain eg PPE contracts etc.

 

I would love to believe it was all some cynical game, and would have bar one thing- the lead researchers locally who were used as talking heads on the local news etc, who I've known for decades and trust with my life when I'm in a cat3 area servicing their equipment- were sh*tting themselves. These guys who are trained in the safe handling of risks, were scared. Why? Because the normal rules didn't apply. In the lab, you protect yourself, work carefully, clean down safely. Jo Public was walking around with it in the open air...

[sgt_woulds]

14 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

It is a bit like me buying from a Ford Dealer a new Focus, and before delivery, they change to a Citroen dealership and change all the wiring to whatever the French call wiring (câblage, or cabbage).

 

 

If you buy a Ford EV in the UK now it will be a Volkswagon.  Probably better for it, apart from the stupid haptic buttons 🙂

[sgt_woulds]

13 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

The actions of those in government during Covid can be explained as:

 

'Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice'

 

 

Or Arther C. Clark's sentence from the wheels of chance:

 

'There is very little deliberate wickedness in the world. The stupidity of our selfishness gives much the same results...'

 

Ironic, as The Wheels of Chance was all about new-found freedom, whereas for most people, the experience of the pandemic was anything but.

 

 

[-rick-]

I think a lot of conspiracy theories especially around Covid and climate change come from people forgetting/not knowing how science works.

 

Science gets to answers by investigation, analysis, testing, etc. It's a process not a single result. Scientists make mistakes, there are misunderstandings, different people do the same testing and get different results. It takes time and multiple people working on the same things to get to settled conclusions where the inconsistencies are resolved and understood.

 

In the past scientific results generally only made the news in a substantial way once near the end of the process not as a blow by blow during the process. Most of the climate change research happened away from the news and things were mostly settled in the late 90's early 2000's. However, there are always outlier papers contesting one point or other (its just part of the process) and those whose interests are against decarbonisation try to hold them up as proof that they are right. You have to be an expert in the field to really understand the points raised and why these outliers are indeed outliers (and even sometimes deliberately misleading) so the general public can't easily tell.

 

COVID really highlighted the workings of science in a way that made conspiracies very easy to start. Scientists were publishing research as fast as possible. As is usual, some of that research had errors or inconsistencies but because of the urgency there wasn't time for the scientific process to resolve those issues before the information was brought to the public. When the public and governments were presented with this inconsistent information it's easy to see how a 'choose your own adverture' type experience happened for lots of people, especially when people in power weren't following their own rules.

 

An example is masking against COVID. @marshian claims that masks have been proved not to work dispite the earlier claims they did work. That's not really accurate. There have been many hundreds of papers published looking at masking. Some show it works, some show it doesn't. Again, you have to be an expert in the field to understand these results and come to an overall conclusion. I'm not an expert in the field so all I can do if I want to make an informed decision about whether to wear a mask is listen to people who are. The conclusion I found from doing that is that good FFP3 masks worn properly do massively reduce your risk of catching airborne illnesses (covid included). A bit of cloth over your face is much much less effective and possibly counter productive (how often were people cleaning those?). Surgical masks are also not great for airborne viruses but better than cloth ones.

Edited 4 hours ago by -rick-

[sgt_woulds]

I'm also not an expert, but I thought masks were to prevent or reduce the risk of a carrier spreading the infection to others, rather than protecting against infection?

 

Without a mandate, this relied on people having a social conscience and respecting their fellows.  Unfortunately, this appears to be less and less common in all societies and especially in the UK.

 

With my customers, of all the ones I visited during lockdown when their 'carers' were there, I observed different approaches to respect for others.  The patients whose carers refused to wear a facemask all died.  (Two of the worst tried to forcibly remove my own face mask)

 

Now for the conspiracy theorists types, I would present this as evidence that face masks worked in preventing infection.  This would be utter nonsense as a large proportion died, even where fully masked carers and family members took all the trouble they could to protect them.  Personal experience and untested, non-peer-reviewed conclusions cannot be issued as a statement of fact.

 

 

I just realised that I misquoted H.G. Wells as Arther C. Clark!  A brain fart, or could it be the side effects of all the Covid vacines?