Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[hidetheelephants]

She's like Helen Caldicott, only less like a stereotypical cat-lady; barking mad and entirely convinced she's right and everyone else is utterly wrong and wants to destroy the world with their evil electric power. In her mind the sooner we're all eating dirt and living in yurts the better.

[LongQ]

you have to wonder about why the BBC is allowing the Ex. Grauniad chappie, Mr. Katz, to move Newsnight into such an apparent aura of stupidity.

I hear they had Moonbat on the other day doing a piece on skinning and cooking a roadkill squirrel.

I wonder how many squirrels they had to run over to make that possible?

Is someone adding odd chemicals to the water supply in London? There seems to be no rational explanation for the ridiculous choices of interview - unless he wants to get the program moved to CBeebies.

Maybe it has something to do with Katz being married to the Cheif Executive of Mumsnet.

Come to think of it, is Mumsnet only what its name suggests it might be? Or does it have a more sinister purpose?

[rolando]

Ecellent news if true
The Telegraph

Edited by rolando on Saturday 5th September 07:50

[wc98]

rolando said:

Ecellent news if true
The Telegraph

Edited by rolando on Saturday 5th September 07:50

great news, but some seriously hypocritical comments from some in that piece .i wonder how many well connected holiday home owners helped influence that decision .

[QuantumTokoloshi]

No wind, no electricity, well who saw that coming?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/05/renewable-fa...

[Mr GrimNasty]

Mr GrimNasty said:

2013BRM said:

I spend a lot of time in Europe and this year has been bonkers, a heat wave lasting months in central Europe with locals saying it is unprecedented while Northern Europe has been bloody chilly, we are North by the way. So what's the deal? a lot of the pro CC bods say this is what was predicted

Continental Europe always has periodic heatwaves, as well as periodic severe winters, that is the nature of continental weather. As with our own July record, a lot of the stats spouted have been 'cooked'. Increased urbanization does produce amplification of hot weather, but that isn't global warming. Memory is also very subjective - there was a rip down of some environmentalist's US subjective comments, it showed the weather records proved it was far hotter and wilder in his youth - but that wasn't his recollection.

It has also been a very cold winter in the S. hemisphere, with much of July in Australia being well below normal, but strangely the NOAA maps still show it as orange-red as above average!

Further to the hottest July ever in the ground data (and 2015 year no doubt) - it emerges that not one single continent posted it's hottest July, the record only appears after the recently fiddled ocean temperature data is considered, then suddenly it becomes the warmest July globally ever. You couldn't make it up, but they do anyway!

[robinessex]

Well, now, the rich countries are being asked to compensate the poorer countries because of climate change !!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2061...

So can I ask the government for compensation for the bad weather I had in the UK during my holiday ? They've been promising global warmimg for years, but it didn't seem to arrive here this year !!!

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 6th September 08:34

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 6th September 08:35

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Well, now, the rich countries are being asked to compensate the poorer countries because of climate change !!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2061...

That informative chap from the IPCC called Ottmar Edenhofer did warn us. Not that we didn't know already.

IPCC chap said:

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore

[AreOut]

robinessex said:

Well, now, the rich countries are being asked to compensate the poorer countries because of climate change !!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2061...

So can I ask the government for compensation for the bad weather I had in the UK during my holiday ? They've been promising global warmimg for years, but it didn't seem to arrive here this year !!!

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 6th September 08:34

Edited by robinessex on Sunday 6th September 08:35

you should push the throttle a bit harder if you really want to feel the global warming...


P.S. good job huff, just go on

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/migrant-crisis...

Edited by AreOut on Sunday 6th September 18:58

[Silver Smudger]

Rising sea levels caused by melting ice caps threaten to disrupt a handful of NASA launch sites along U.S. coastlines, the space agency warns. In the coming years, launch facilities at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center and other places may need to be retrofitted or even moved inland, NASA says.

[robinessex]

Silver Smudger said:

Rising sea levels caused by melting ice caps threaten to disrupt a handful of NASA launch sites along U.S. coastlines, the space agency warns. In the coming years, launch facilities at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center and other places may need to be retrofitted or even moved inland, NASA says.

Well, I suppose NASA climatologist Cynthia Rosenzweig has to justify her job and salary, so the odd scare story now and again is a pretty good way of doing it.

[turbobloke]

Silver Smudger said:

Rising sea levels caused by melting ice caps threaten to disrupt a handful of NASA launch sites along U.S. coastlines, the space agency warns. In the coming years, launch facilities at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center and other places may need to be retrofitted or even moved inland, NASA says.

That's an interesting one, thanks for posting the link. Having read the article, complete with the obligatory appearance of Katrina, it boils down to a hint that more funding is needed at an impoverished NASA. Poor things.

After reading NASA's claim that they know the cause and degree of a future sea level rise - from melting ice caps (forget The Pause and Dalton / Maunder Minima) - you could be forgiven for thinking that this degree of awareness must derive from a detailed grasp of all factors affecting sea level change; in order to know what the overall position is, all relevant contributions must be considered.

Yet reading that article and others like it, and even some published papers, authors seem reluctant to detail precisely what the size and error bar details are for sea level rise or fall due to:

glacial isostasy
change in seafloor spreading rate
sediment transfer
volcanism sourced juvenile water
groundwater extraction
reservoir impoundment
thermosteric effects
ice sheets

If you don't know the magnitude of the effect due to each of these, and the error in that measurement or estimate, then you know nothing of the overall position. Where is all of this in the NASA piece? Absent.

Focusing on one aspect in a causal manner i.e. ice sheet melting will cause (etc) while ignoring another supposed effect of global warming (a thermosteric effect) along with half a dozen other factors looks half-baked, and the lack of any error bar considerations is culpable.

It's almost like this was a press release from a political advocacy group rather than anything resembling a scientific statement. Politics wins again, somebody should start a thread around that!

It's also telling that they attribute causality in one sense, from ice sheet to sea level, but leave the next step (humans to ice sheet) for a propagandised readership to assume and fill in. Could do much better, gamma minus.

Half-baked? No, it's raw and it looks more like sewage than food for thought.

[robinessex]

Turbobloke, you’re going to have to beat up Private Eye for them to take this climate change crap on board. I must say I'm very disappointed with them over this, it contains just about all the things that they campaign against. It's almost making me cancel my subscription.

[turbobloke]

Lost cause, unfortunately.

The idea of changing faith-based belief using reason is dubious to say the least.

Offer information and allow people the oppotunity to check it out for themselves then make up their own mind or, perhaps, change their mind.

Presenting information is the name of my game, others can then check it out and decide for themselves. But if the faith is strong or the self-deception deliberate then nothing will do the job.

[robinessex]

Unfortunately we live in a Lemming society. So, basically, we're doomed by the prophets of doom. I have family members with MSC's who can't seem through all the climate change crap, even when you present the most blatant lies and fiddles, or ask the most obvious of questions questioning it all. What chance with the man in the street. I suspect he’ll only wake up when the cost of all of this comes home to roost one day. And then it’ll only be because it’s hit his pocket, no because he realise he’s been hoodwinked all these years.

[rovermorris999]

I believe Mr Hislop is chummy with Zac Goldsmith, hence the lack of climate boondoggles in Private Eye. I too subscribe and I'd miss it if I didn't read it. They have their own agenda of course like anyone else. I've known few snippets of information from those on the other side of some of their reports and they can be just as biased as any other journalists' organ.
The same goes for the Economist. I just turn the page when I see catastrophic MMGW presented as an indisputable fact. 'In a warming world' is a favourite phrase of theirs.

[robinessex]

rovermorris999 said:

I believe Mr Hislop is chummy with Zac Goldsmith, hence the lack of climate boondoggles in Private Eye. I too subscribe and I'd miss it if I didn't read it. They have their own agenda of course like anyone else. I've known few snippets of information from those on the other side of some of their reports and they can be just as biased as any other journalists' organ.
The same goes for the Economist. I just turn the page when I see catastrophic MMGW presented as an indisputable fact. 'In a warming world' is a favourite phrase of theirs.

Earlier in this post I seem to remember a PH'er who actually spoke to Mr Hislop about it, and was told that George Mouthbore from the Gaurdian was an expert, so it was all correct!!

[LongQ]

I haven't read an Eye for years. No particular reason at the time.

I really don't miss it.

One of the problems with intelligent people can be that they are totally in thrall to their own intelligence and the complete belief in the opinions of those arooud them - so long as the others are not direct competitors with the same expertise.

Fortunately plenty of people in the street have a much more pragmatic and logical way of looking at real things rather than theories and that keeps some balance in play. Once the world leaders work out how to brainwash everyone (hopefully that will never happen but humans are susceptible to such things) it will be a lost cause. On the other no one will care about alternatives any more.

I think that is the premise of the IS approach in Syria and Iraq. Bring out the basest instincts in people until they no longer care what they do other than their membership of the "cause" and then spread it around the soft underbelly of the world. The "Climate Change" message is along the same lines but lacks the "attraction" of being allowed to obviously disengage from all moral concerns.

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

I haven't read an Eye for years. No particular reason at the time.

I really don't miss it.

One of the problems with intelligent people can be that they are totally in thrall to their own intelligence and the complete belief in the opinions of those arooud them - so long as the others are not direct competitors with the same expertise.

Fortunately plenty of people in the street have a much more pragmatic and logical way of looking at real things rather than theories and that keeps some balance in play. Once the world leaders work out how to brainwash everyone (hopefully that will never happen but humans are susceptible to such things) it will be a lost cause. On the other no one will care about alternatives any more.

I think that is the premise of the IS approach in Syria and Iraq. Bring out the basest instincts in people until they no longer care what they do other than their membership of the "cause" and then spread it around the soft underbelly of the world. The "Climate Change" message is along the same lines but lacks the "attraction" of being allowed to obviously disengage from all moral concerns.

I would add 'apart from keeping the third world impoverished and without clean drinking water while causing famines through biofuel snafus and killing frail uk pensioners over the winter months' but otherwise agree!

[LongQ]

turbobloke said:

LongQ said:

I haven't read an Eye for years. No particular reason at the time.

I really don't miss it.

One of the problems with intelligent people can be that they are totally in thrall to their own intelligence and the complete belief in the opinions of those arooud them - so long as the others are not direct competitors with the same expertise.

Fortunately plenty of people in the street have a much more pragmatic and logical way of looking at real things rather than theories and that keeps some balance in play. Once the world leaders work out how to brainwash everyone (hopefully that will never happen but humans are susceptible to such things) it will be a lost cause. On the other no one will care about alternatives any more.

I think that is the premise of the IS approach in Syria and Iraq. Bring out the basest instincts in people until they no longer care what they do other than their membership of the "cause" and then spread it around the soft underbelly of the world. The "Climate Change" message is along the same lines but lacks the "attraction" of being allowed to obviously disengage from all moral concerns.

I would add 'apart from keeping the third world impoverished and without clean drinking water while causing famines through biofuel snafus and killing frail uk pensioners over the winter months' but otherwise agree!

I should perhaps have said "lacks the OVERT attraction".

I suspect the third world will not be a problem. It will move to the first and second worlds, learn what is needed to progress and how to adopt past technologies and then take it back to the fastest growing populations where the opportunities will be so much better than they will be once the "World leaders" have exercised their skills. Impoverishment is likely to be short term in my opinion. Long term for us though. If not us then our offspring. (Age dependent statement ....)

Apart from that I can't fault your list.