Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
LongQ said:
However they are smart enough, focused enough and with more than plenty of PR psychological nous to take the politicians and a fair number of the population for a ride with little or no concern for facts or reality.
Thus the only way to counteract their double standards for the wider "I just do what the influencers tell me to do" audience is to bring it to people's attention.
Yes, they are highly organised. The only way is for us to be better than them at their game. Not at all easy when they have institutions such as the EU and the BBC on their side.Thus the only way to counteract their double standards for the wider "I just do what the influencers tell me to do" audience is to bring it to people's attention.
LongQ said:
Fracking back in the news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
The interesting thing here is not so much the issue of fracking and whether or not it is economically viable - a reasonable point to debate.
Rather it is the the comment flood from the usual "green" sources about damage to the environment and an observation that wherever fracking has been proposed local people object to it.
Self evident of course since people never like change especially if it is of unknown or maligned provenance.
However how about these quotes form the article linked above:
" But Greenpeace’s Daisy Sands said: ‘This is the starting gun to the fight for the future of our countryside. Hundreds of battles will spring up to defend our rural landscapes from the pollution, noise and drilling rigs that come with fracking.’
Andrew Pendleton, of Friends Of The Earth, said: ‘Opening up huge swathes of northern England to a fracking blitz will only provoke more anger and controversy, because wherever fracking has been proposed, it has been opposed by local people.’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
One might observe that Daisy fails to point out that the drilling is relatively short term.
They both fail to point out that wind "farms" and to some extent solar estates have the same problems, are in the long term far more intrusive for the amenity of the countrysied and, most importantly, often attract opposition from locals which they, guardians of the planet all, are more than willing to see ignored.
Double standards of social morality? Surely not ....
Giant fhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
The interesting thing here is not so much the issue of fracking and whether or not it is economically viable - a reasonable point to debate.
Rather it is the the comment flood from the usual "green" sources about damage to the environment and an observation that wherever fracking has been proposed local people object to it.
Self evident of course since people never like change especially if it is of unknown or maligned provenance.
However how about these quotes form the article linked above:
" But Greenpeace’s Daisy Sands said: ‘This is the starting gun to the fight for the future of our countryside. Hundreds of battles will spring up to defend our rural landscapes from the pollution, noise and drilling rigs that come with fracking.’
Andrew Pendleton, of Friends Of The Earth, said: ‘Opening up huge swathes of northern England to a fracking blitz will only provoke more anger and controversy, because wherever fracking has been proposed, it has been opposed by local people.’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3202938/Ne...
One might observe that Daisy fails to point out that the drilling is relatively short term.
They both fail to point out that wind "farms" and to some extent solar estates have the same problems, are in the long term far more intrusive for the amenity of the countrysied and, most importantly, often attract opposition from locals which they, guardians of the planet all, are more than willing to see ignored.
Double standards of social morality? Surely not ....
k off windmills in multiple vs what will be (once the well is established) a small header structure. Yeah the latter is going to blight the countryside. toss-pots.Climate: China's emissions overestimated.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-chinas-emissions...
According to the article, The United Nations and other international bodies have vastly overestimated China's greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade or more, according to a study released Wednesday.
In 2013, for example, China's total carbon emissions were 14 percent less than the figures used by the UN's panel of experts tasked with providing the scientific framework for global climate talks, the research showed.
From 2000 to 2013, the country produced nearly three billion tonnes less carbon than previously thought -- a figure equivalent to roughly a third of current global annual emissions.
Whod've thunk it?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-chinas-emissions...
According to the article, The United Nations and other international bodies have vastly overestimated China's greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade or more, according to a study released Wednesday.
In 2013, for example, China's total carbon emissions were 14 percent less than the figures used by the UN's panel of experts tasked with providing the scientific framework for global climate talks, the research showed.
From 2000 to 2013, the country produced nearly three billion tonnes less carbon than previously thought -- a figure equivalent to roughly a third of current global annual emissions.
Whod've thunk it?
The Green Scare Problem
Environmental threats are often exaggerated, and remedies do more harm.
Environmental threats are often exaggerated, and remedies do more harm.
Matt Ridley said:
"We’ve heard these same stale arguments before,” said President Obama in his speech on climate change last week, referring to those who worry that the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon-reduction plan may do more harm than good. The trouble is, we’ve heard his stale argument before, too: that we’re doomed if we don’t do what the environmental pressure groups tell us, and saved if we do. And it has frequently turned out to be really bad advice.
http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/the-green-scare-problem.aspx#sthash.XZB9E10Z.dpufBlib said:
Climate: China's emissions overestimated.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-chinas-emissions...
According to the article, The United Nations and other international bodies have vastly overestimated China's greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade or more, according to a study released Wednesday.
In 2013, for example, China's total carbon emissions were 14 percent less than the figures used by the UN's panel of experts tasked with providing the scientific framework for global climate talks, the research showed.
From 2000 to 2013, the country produced nearly three billion tonnes less carbon than previously thought -- a figure equivalent to roughly a third of current global annual emissions.
Whod've thunk it?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-chinas-emissions...
According to the article, The United Nations and other international bodies have vastly overestimated China's greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade or more, according to a study released Wednesday.
In 2013, for example, China's total carbon emissions were 14 percent less than the figures used by the UN's panel of experts tasked with providing the scientific framework for global climate talks, the research showed.
From 2000 to 2013, the country produced nearly three billion tonnes less carbon than previously thought -- a figure equivalent to roughly a third of current global annual emissions.
Whod've thunk it?
good point!Indeed recalibration of carbon dioxide measurements wasn't thunked evah and certainly not this week on PH
On Wednesday I said:
Recalibration of temperatures check, what other recalibrations might we see...
With no warming for ~19 to ~20 years ongoing, how long before a recalibration of carbon dioxide measurements becomes tempting?
We may or may not be looking at Pause excuse number 40-odd or buying China off before Paris, but we're looking at something and it's not pretty.With no warming for ~19 to ~20 years ongoing, how long before a recalibration of carbon dioxide measurements becomes tempting?
turbobloke said:
Ban ban ban. These people are b
ds. Why do they want to keep bloody banning things? Ban this, ban that, ban the bloody other, well I'm sick and tired of the pricks. Why don't they all just 
fk OFF! and leave the rest of us in peace. Andy Zarse said:
turbobloke said:
Ban ban ban. These people are b
ds. Why do they want to keep bloody banning things? Ban this, ban that, ban the bloody other, well I'm sick and tired of the pricks. Why don't they all just fk OFF! and leave the rest of us in peace. Andy Zarse said:
Ban ban ban.
These people are bds. Why do they want to keep bloody banning things? Ban this, ban that, ban the bloody other, well I'm sick and tired of the pricks. Why don't they all just fk OFF! and leave the rest of us in peace.
One of my favourite quotes and one that is applicable to the overwhelming majority of True Believers:These people are b
ds. Why do they want to keep bloody banning things? Ban this, ban that, ban the bloody other, well I'm sick and tired of the pricks. Why don't they all just fk OFF! and leave the rest of us in peace. CS Lewis said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
NOAA: July hottest month on record, and 2015 could be hottest year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/noaa-global-c...
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/noaa-global-c...
turbobloke said:
We may or may not be looking at Pause excuse number 40-odd or buying China off before Paris, but we're looking at something and it's not pretty.
Is it about buying China off or is it about explaining the "Pause" or is it about making CO2 appear "more potent" than previously thought?Most likely all of those and more in one hit.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff