Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

Is there a better summary of the gigantic fook up that is climate policy?

https://youtu.be/vEFmVgjdLfs

Not in well under 10 minutes!

[Randy Winkman]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

beagrizzly said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Diderot said:

mko9 said:

dickymint said:

beagrizzly said:

robinessex said:

Climate change: Warming could raise UK flood damage bill by 20%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-648...

Researchers have produced a detailed "future flood map" of Britain - simulating the impact of flooding as climate change takes its toll.
It has revealed that annual damage caused by flooding could increase by more than a fifth in today's terms over the next century.................continues

Not one ounce of concrete evidence to back that up.

20% in a hundred years' time. They don't put the hundred years in the headline, of course, that would reduce the fear factor.

I can't help but think that by then, I'll be dead, my kids will be dead, and even my grandkids - should I have any - will either be on their last legs or dead by then. We have know way of truly knowing whether the trend will reverse in that time, and also what technology will be developed to help counter any effects, perceived, actual or otherwise.

I'm all for being green and efficient, where it's sensible and effective, but it feels to me like we're putting an awful lot of unnecessary restrictions on ourselves now, for something that may or may not happen over the next hundred years. Live a bit more for the now, I say.

:GretaVoice: How dare you! ........ come in here with your common sense

If there was no change at all to where people were living or how much flooding happened year to year, inflation would dwarf that 20% in 100 years. Add in the fact that their assessments of how many people will be living in flood prone areas in 100 years is essentially a wild-ass guess. Pretty much all you could say reliably is if it rains more, there will be more flooding.

All we know for certain from the models is that there'll be more rain and less rain, more heat and less heat, there'll be drier but wetter winters, there'll never be any snow except when there is Vinerism, there'll be more droughts and floods will be more prevalent, hurricanes will be more frequent and severe, except when they aren't (which will continue to be born out by the data). One can rest assured in the knowledge that the alarmist hyperbole from the whack jobs will continue unabated, and it will be forced down our necks every which way by the behavioural nudge police.

Especially when they believe that they can use climageddon, to squeeze more cash out of the populace, and because it is for climageddon control, the population is not supposed to object about it.

That has been my take on this from the start tbh. If governments find something to tax people for, and about which they're (mostly) in agreement with, why wouldn't they milk it? It's really not in their interest to entertain any alternative viewpoints.

I'd have thought it would be easier and politicians would get more votes if they said there is no "climageddon" then encouraged people to consume and took the tax that arises as a natural consequence of that. They don't have to invent alternative ways.

Unfortunately that wouldn't do much for their geo-political ambitions.

Every one of them? Surely the first priority is just to impress the national electorate and get into power? Why care what others think?

Because the populace has been systematically indoctrinated and continues to be bombarded with eco-tripe daily; drip, drip, nudge, nudge. Remember Call Me Dave proclaiming this his Tory party would be the greenest evah? Eco credentials are a vote winner because of this systematic inculcation.

How many politicians in this Government really think that there's a climate emergency? I would wager very few, but then nothing they do surprises me. The real agenda here has always been energy security, and we are seeing this being played out in real time right now. Weaning the proles off fossil fuels 'because climaggedon' is a geo-political manoeuvre; it's the perfect non-military solution to undermine the many problematic regimes of the world whose economies are almost entirely dependent on oil, coal and gas. And they can tax us to buggery and back in the process. Win win.

The entire globe has been indoctrinated? They are just humans that want to have stuff and get on with life. That's the natural order of things.

We were talking about the UK.

Why is the rest of the world going along with the climate change schtick then? Are they not indoctrinated too?

The rest of the world is gong along with climate change because they sniff the chance of using climate change, to extract large amounts of cash from the developed world.
Always look for the money angle.

Sorry; don't understand.

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

Is there a better summary of the gigantic fook up that is climate policy?

https://youtu.be/vEFmVgjdLfs

It's an excellent, succinct, visual and therefore even more compelling version of this (pdf) posted recently. The longer written form is still good as a reference.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/0...

Not an exact match but close enough. Both explain the lack of basis and utter absurdity of policies based on faith in the new religion rather than the scientific method and empirical data. Taos in the Adjustocene.

[Diderot]

Randy Winkman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

Diderot said:

Randy Winkman said:

beagrizzly said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Diderot said:

mko9 said:

dickymint said:

beagrizzly said:

robinessex said:

Climate change: Warming could raise UK flood damage bill by 20%

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-648...

Researchers have produced a detailed "future flood map" of Britain - simulating the impact of flooding as climate change takes its toll.
It has revealed that annual damage caused by flooding could increase by more than a fifth in today's terms over the next century.................continues

Not one ounce of concrete evidence to back that up.

20% in a hundred years' time. They don't put the hundred years in the headline, of course, that would reduce the fear factor.

I can't help but think that by then, I'll be dead, my kids will be dead, and even my grandkids - should I have any - will either be on their last legs or dead by then. We have know way of truly knowing whether the trend will reverse in that time, and also what technology will be developed to help counter any effects, perceived, actual or otherwise.

I'm all for being green and efficient, where it's sensible and effective, but it feels to me like we're putting an awful lot of unnecessary restrictions on ourselves now, for something that may or may not happen over the next hundred years. Live a bit more for the now, I say.

:GretaVoice: How dare you! ........ come in here with your common sense

If there was no change at all to where people were living or how much flooding happened year to year, inflation would dwarf that 20% in 100 years. Add in the fact that their assessments of how many people will be living in flood prone areas in 100 years is essentially a wild-ass guess. Pretty much all you could say reliably is if it rains more, there will be more flooding.

All we know for certain from the models is that there'll be more rain and less rain, more heat and less heat, there'll be drier but wetter winters, there'll never be any snow except when there is Vinerism, there'll be more droughts and floods will be more prevalent, hurricanes will be more frequent and severe, except when they aren't (which will continue to be born out by the data). One can rest assured in the knowledge that the alarmist hyperbole from the whack jobs will continue unabated, and it will be forced down our necks every which way by the behavioural nudge police.

Especially when they believe that they can use climageddon, to squeeze more cash out of the populace, and because it is for climageddon control, the population is not supposed to object about it.

That has been my take on this from the start tbh. If governments find something to tax people for, and about which they're (mostly) in agreement with, why wouldn't they milk it? It's really not in their interest to entertain any alternative viewpoints.

I'd have thought it would be easier and politicians would get more votes if they said there is no "climageddon" then encouraged people to consume and took the tax that arises as a natural consequence of that. They don't have to invent alternative ways.

Unfortunately that wouldn't do much for their geo-political ambitions.

Every one of them? Surely the first priority is just to impress the national electorate and get into power? Why care what others think?

Because the populace has been systematically indoctrinated and continues to be bombarded with eco-tripe daily; drip, drip, nudge, nudge. Remember Call Me Dave proclaiming this his Tory party would be the greenest evah? Eco credentials are a vote winner because of this systematic inculcation.

How many politicians in this Government really think that there's a climate emergency? I would wager very few, but then nothing they do surprises me. The real agenda here has always been energy security, and we are seeing this being played out in real time right now. Weaning the proles off fossil fuels 'because climaggedon' is a geo-political manoeuvre; it's the perfect non-military solution to undermine the many problematic regimes of the world whose economies are almost entirely dependent on oil, coal and gas. And they can tax us to buggery and back in the process. Win win.

The entire globe has been indoctrinated? They are just humans that want to have stuff and get on with life. That's the natural order of things.

We were talking about the UK.

Why is the rest of the world going along with the climate change schtick then? Are they not indoctrinated too?

The rest of the world is gong along with climate change because they sniff the chance of using climate change, to extract large amounts of cash from the developed world.
Always look for the money angle.

Sorry; don't understand.

We were talking about the UK. Capiche?

[deeps]

Kawasicki said:

Is there a better summary of the gigantic fook up that is climate policy?

https://youtu.be/vEFmVgjdLfs

Alex Epstein has many great video clips worth watching.

[turbobloke]

Climate Impacts specialist Dr Benny Peiser of Net Zero Watch said:

Unless the Bank of England abandons its fixation with green virtue-signalling, it is only storing up more problems for the economy and the UK’s financial system.

Backdrop:

-a recent decision by the Bank of England to demote its Net Zero agenda and cut its spending on climate change (BoE spending on manbearpig ffs)

-the bank’s climate programmes will be downgraded so that officials can return to work on its main remit, namely the nation’s financial stability

-the Old Lady of T Street has been widely blamed for allowing inflation to reach more than five times the bank’s 2% target

-BoE obsession with climate change, promoted and pushed through by its former governor Mark Carney, operating in tandem with government ministers, has been seen to distract BoE from its main responsibilities

-it has been accused of ignoring core responsibilities by focusing on enforcing ESG disclosure guidelines, carbon-testing balance sheets and promoting Net Zero policies

-now some resemblance of sensible normality may be returning

[turbobloke]

The real world continues to enter the surreal world of climate politics, slowly.


Biden breaks climate pledge by approving colossal oil drilling scheme
The Daily Telegraph, 13 March 2023

Biden finally glimpses the importance of oil
Yahoo Finance, 13 March 2023

As per

There is no energy transition, just energy addition
LinkedIn, back in February 2023

[beagrizzly]

Kawasicki said:

Is there a better summary of the gigantic fook up that is climate policy?

https://youtu.be/vEFmVgjdLfs

Excellent work. Spot on.

[Composer62]

beagrizzly said:

Kawasicki said:

Is there a better summary of the gigantic fook up that is climate policy?

https://youtu.be/vEFmVgjdLfs

Excellent work. Spot on.

Agree, that was a clear and concise summary of how wrong things are.

[Diderot]

Viner-style prediction from our cousins across the pond:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-0...


"A new study led by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that dwindling snowpack across California and the western United States could shrink dramatically more — or in some cases disappear — before the end of the century.

The study, published recently in the journal Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, paints a worrisome picture of the “potentially catastrophic consequences” of a future with less snow, including the massive implications it holds for California’s water supply, as well as rippling effects on soil, plants, wildlife and even the increased frequency of wildfire.

Should greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, the study found, winters of low snow, or even no snow, could become a regular occurrence in as little as 35 years."

How's it going this year?

https://twitter.com/WeatherNation/status/163534228...

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

Viner-style prediction from our cousins across the pond:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-0...


"A new study led by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that dwindling snowpack across California and the western United States could shrink dramatically more — or in some cases disappear — before the end of the century.

The study, published recently in the journal Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, paints a worrisome picture of the “potentially catastrophic consequences” of a future with less snow, including the massive implications it holds for California’s water supply, as well as rippling effects on soil, plants, wildlife and even the increased frequency of wildfire.

Should greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, the study found, winters of low snow, or even no snow, could become a regular occurrence in as little as 35 years."

How's it going this year?

https://twitter.com/WeatherNation/status/163534228...

23 years of vinerism, that's not progress! Situation normal.

[Master Of Puppets]

Well we didn't / haven't, so that'll be that then, how long have we got?

[turbobloke]

Master Of Puppets said:

Well we didn't / haven't, so that'll be that then, how long have we got?

Approx 5 billion years before the Sun evolves into a red giant, just think of how many duff climatewang predictions we can 'enjoy' before then.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

just think of how many duff climatewang predictions we can 'enjoy' before then.

Like this one?



Or this one?

[turbobloke]

With so many parts of New York under water, arctic summer sea ice vanished, no snow since 2000, glacier national park glaciers disappeared, and rhe rest, what can one say about the impressive track record of agw predictions, except that it's a good job agw is driving UK political policy,

Is premature adjudication due to global local warming cooling change chaos? Cooling as per Abdusamatov, Landscheidt and others relates to 2030-2050.

As of now how are warm wet winters getting along? UK? USA? Do any agw supporters look out the window or read news outlets?

Thanks for more comedy via personal angle white flag surrender tactics.

[Diderot]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

just think of how many duff climatewang predictions we can 'enjoy' before then.

Like this one?



Or this one?

In this case you're shooting the messenger. Is TB proffering these predictions himself on the basis of his research? Is TB a climate scientist funded by Government and NGO agencies with vested interests in this type of research? Is TB's research influencing government and the wider UN policy? All rhetorical questions; you're merely flinging ad homs as usual form dictates because you cannot face that your faith is constantly being shaken by reality.

You're also flogging a dead horse. The fact of the matter is that consensus science (your God) has consistently, and continuously, been proven wrong, time and time again, on all of its hyperbolic predictions based on always already erroneous modelling. It's a busted flush.

[dickymint]

Very interesting programme on Radio 4 this morning.........

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001k0ky


"Ritchie explains how dubious experiments he spotted as a young academic spurred him to write his book Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. He tells Helen why he has chosen to leave academia to become a science journalist. And he sets out why he thinks a radically more transparent approach, 'open science', could address the problems he has identified."

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

just think of how many duff climatewang predictions we can 'enjoy' before then.

Like this one?



Or this one?

In this case you're shooting the messenger. Is TB proffering these predictions himself on the basis of his research? Is TB a climate scientist funded by Government and NGO agencies with vested interests in this type of research? Is TB's research influencing government and the wider UN policy? All rhetorical questions; you're merely flinging ad homs as usual form dictates because you cannot face that your faith is constantly being shaken by reality.

You're also flogging a dead horse. The fact of the matter is that consensus science (your God) has consistently, and continuously, been proven wrong, time and time again, on all of its hyperbolic predictions based on always already erroneous modelling. It's a busted flush.

The observed global warming trend since the 70s doesn't really fit with your busted-flush hyperbole, Diderot

But it's admirable how you're willing to make yourself look a naive fool defending motivated promoters of sun-wobble pseudo science.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

just think of how many duff climatewang predictions we can 'enjoy' before then.

Like this one?



Or this one?

In this case you're shooting the messenger. Is TB proffering these predictions himself on the basis of his research? Is TB a climate scientist funded by Government and NGO agencies with vested interests in this type of research? Is TB's research influencing government and the wider UN policy? All rhetorical questions; you're merely flinging ad homs as usual form dictates because you cannot face that your faith is constantly being shaken by reality.

You're also flogging a dead horse. The fact of the matter is that consensus science (your God) has consistently, and continuously, been proven wrong, time and time again, on all of its hyperbolic predictions based on always already erroneous modelling. It's a busted flush.

The observed global warming trend since the 70s doesn't really fit with your busted-flush hyperbole, Diderot

But it's admirable how you're willing to make yourself look a naive fool defending motivated promoters of sun-wobble pseudo science.

There you go again. I’m just pointing out that there’s a difference between a poster on here making predictions or supporting predictions, than the scientists themselves promulgating them.

The only naive fools are those that have swallowed the climate emergency narrative hook, line and sinker.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

just think of how many duff climatewang predictions we can 'enjoy' before then.

Like this one?



Or this one?

In this case you're shooting the messenger. Is TB proffering these predictions himself on the basis of his research? Is TB a climate scientist funded by Government and NGO agencies with vested interests in this type of research? Is TB's research influencing government and the wider UN policy? All rhetorical questions; you're merely flinging ad homs as usual form dictates because you cannot face that your faith is constantly being shaken by reality.

You're also flogging a dead horse. The fact of the matter is that consensus science (your God) has consistently, and continuously, been proven wrong, time and time again, on all of its hyperbolic predictions based on always already erroneous modelling. It's a busted flush.

The observed global warming trend since the 70s doesn't really fit with your busted-flush hyperbole, Diderot

But it's admirable how you're willing to make yourself look a naive fool defending motivated promoters of sun-wobble pseudo science.

There you go again. I’m just pointing out that there’s a difference between a poster on here making predictions or supporting predictions, than the scientists themselves promulgating them.

The only naive fools are those that have swallowed the climate emergency narrative hook, line and sinker.

And a very odd aspect of durbster's response to a vast array of failed agw predictions was linking to my coverage of published research on solar influences on climate (well-known influences, see NASA) as if they've also failed when there's 7 to 27 years left before any judgement is available. The post (mine) quoted actually mentioned decades ahead, and the particular timescales have been repeated several times in response to agw supporters' attrition looping on this.