71 1 min 14 yrs

"Bills are going to have to go up, both because of drought and floods," says Labour’s Baroness Young."You either pay upstream to prevent, or you pay downstream to mop up but you’ve got to pay. Climate change is coming home to roost."

Wrong. What we do see is the unseemingly speed with which those such as the Baroness seize on the consequences of their own failure to construct and maintain our flood barriers and to prevent building on floodplanes, then linking this to "climate change" which means – putting up taxes! This is a wicked opportunist government.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

71 thoughts on “WICKED OPPORTUNISTS

  1. Bang on, David.

    Heard Hilarious Benn MP this morning saying just that, before racing off on holiday, and before the implications sink in with the electorate.

    What a dissembling rabble we’ve been lumbered with.

  2. I had some vague hope that finally this Government which can spend money on every other bloody thing might wake up to the urgency of spending money on this – but now they will use it to raise taxes across the board instead of putting their already enormous cash piles where they should be.

    I saw ITV News which asked the question ‘was this due to climate change’ instead of asking the more obvious question ‘was this due to building millions of homes on floodplain to make room for millions of immigrants’. They then proceeded to tell us that a ‘new study’ showed that climate change is responsible for extra rainfall in the northern hemisphere only – cue map with America prominent in the centre just so we get the message as to who’s fault they think it is. Not even the most rudimentary scientific evidence presented – just ‘we say so’.

  3. We’re having a pretty dry year in Florida and so far two trivial tropical cyclones.

    Currently, there is no cyclone activity in the Atlantic Basin according to NOAA.

    There’s cooler than expected water temperatures in the Atlantic apparently. Some forecasters are reducing their predictions of number of storms.

    We do not have a Labour Government.

    What, one wonders, is the cause and what the effect? 🙂

    My own view is that if this is AGW at full honk, I can live with it.

    Yesterday’s headline article in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is interesting reading. I’d post a link but well, you know…

  4. Jeff,

    My favorite line from that article is:

    "My definition of an active season is, if you get hit by a hurricane, then it was an active season," Bastardi said.

    BTW, if you can now post links, you can probably also wrap them in HTML.

  5. Alan

    Yeah, Bastardi has some good lines but he is pretty excitable too.

    I guess he wants more money – as do we all – and his way to fortune is to promote fearful weather issues.:)

    Turns out that post with an URL address was a one-off.

    I tried a follow up post with a link to an article on GCMs – some concerns expressed by the head of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research – USA) on the quality of the models and that failed.

    No idea why this happens but it’s rather frustrating and unique to this site.

  6. Bastardi?!!….I thought that was the collective term for Hillary Benn, Baroness Young et al.

  7. Stan’s ‘poem of the week’ written in the 19th century, starts;

    "Blue July, bright July,
    Month of storms and gorgeous blue;
    Violet lightnings o’er thy sky,
    Heavy falls of drenching dew;"

    The Fifteenth of July, otherwise known as St. Swithins Day, says that if it rains on this day we shall have rain for forty days – or some such.

    And I am sure there are many more old sayings re the weather at this time of the year, – it’s our equivalent of the monsoon season, it’s what the weather does – it’s variable, it’s changeable, it’s unpredictable, and thus it has been for the past millenia.

    Of course the Beeb says it’s the worst rainfall ‘on record’, not so, there are records of excessive rainfall at this time of the year from 300 years ago.

    Of course the global weather changes, and as with any dramatic change there are the hucksters, ever ready to dip their grubby paws into your pocket.

    I too have lived in Florida for a long time, and seen drought, and flood, hurricane and tornado, – each season is different. Some years there is an El Nino on the West (Calif.) coast, other years there is none, all of which affects the weather in the Gulf of Mexico, which as we all know!, is said to be the weather maker for the rest of the world… oh! you didn’t know that! well never mind…

    Temperatures in the Gulf have been in the low 90’s so far this year – it is from here that the Gulf Stream gets its heat, usually it is a little higher. After last year’s hurricanes, and the excessive cooling rainfall, it is small wonder that the Gulf has been cooler than usual, leading to the HT’s headline of ‘Cooler oceans mean fewer hurricanes’.

    The headline should have said something along the lines of : "Drama Queens promote mass hysteria among the populace" – or maybe, "Chicken Little rides again, pt III".

    Last but not least, do you really think that anything us mortals can do will prevent the path of nature taking its course? Anything we in the West do will be amply nullified by the likes of India and China, i.e. if it would have any effect in the first place.

  8. Iluvni,

    ‘I thought that was the collective term for Hillary Benn, Baroness Young et al.’

    That works too.:)

    The weatherman must have had fun at school.

  9. Ernest

    Err, hang on. Last year – 2006 – was a quiet year for hurricanes around here.

    You’re thinking of 2005’s season with Katrina et al.

    I think there was an Al.:)

    The 2005 season of course completely validates and vindicates the AGW proposition and the 2006, errr…does not.

    Never mind eh? The believers can always pick an appropriate timescale.:)

    NOAA’s website has an interesting breakdown of hurricane strength and frequency by decade back to about 1850.

    The late 1800s had some pretty big winds.

    AGW of course….:)

  10. Ernest

    On ‘Idiocracy’, I think I prefer Iluvni’s assignment of ‘Bastardi’.

    If only because my mind pictures that collective noun being used with some extravagant Italian gestures.:)

  11. Jeff,

    Yes I meant 2005, – at my age time flies so bloody fast it seems just like yesterday…

    But consider that poor fella – that’s his name! – we are almost duty bound to find another ‘collective’, and thus lighten his burden…

  12. Ernest

    Know what you mean. It seems like last week was only last week.:)

    Not too bothered to lighten Joe’s burden.

    He’s just one of hundreds who shill on US TV, paticularly on the various ‘Outrage News’ programs.

    Personally, Lawyers are slipping down the rankings of my ‘Come the Revolution’ list.

    MSM journos are 2nd only to politicians nowadays.:)

  13. Presented, – With apologies! Well, if Stan can post a pansy poem, and it is the weekend…:-)

    Wotta bird

    A farmer wanted to have his hens serviced, so he went to the market looking for a rooster. He was hoping he could get a special rooster, one that could service all of his many hens.

    He told this to the market vendor. The vendor replied, "I have just the rooster for you". Dom here is the horniest rooster you will ever see!"

    So the farmer took Dom back to the farm. Before setting him loose in the hen house though, he gave Dom a little pep talk.

    "Dom", he said, "I’m counting on you to do your stuff."

    And without a word Dom strutted into the hen house. Dom was as fast as he was furious, mounting each hen like a thunderbolt. There was much squawking and many feathers flying, till Dom had finished having his way with each hen.

    But Dom didn’t stop there. He went in to the barn and mounted all the horses, one by one and still at the same frantic pace. Then he went to the pig house, where he did the same.

    The farmer, watching all of this with disbelief, cried out, "Stop, Dom,you’ll kill yourself."

    But Dom continued, seeking out each farm animal in the same manner. Well, the next morning, the farmer looked out and saw Dom lying there on his lawn. His legs were up in the air, his eyes rolled back, and his long tongue hanging out. A buzzard was already circling above Dom.

    The farmer walked up to Dom saying, "Oh you poor thing, look what you did, you’ve gone and killed yourself. I warned you my little buddy."

    "Shhhhh," Dom whispered. "The buzzard’s getting closer."

  14. Ernest,

    "it’s what the weather does – it’s variable, it’s changeable, it’s unpredictable, and thus it has been for the past millenia."

    The weather is not the climate.

    Predicting the climate is obviously possible to do. If you ever booked a sun or ski holiday, you predicted the climate. Millions of people do it all the time. Vast numbers of businesses are founded on the premise that it is possible to do it. Yet still the denialists claim it is impossible.

  15. Liked the joke ernest.

    Frank

    Ernest was talking about the weather and the tendency of the AGW supporters to use any large variances in weather patterns as evidence. He wasn’t referring the climate in general.

  16. Ernest

    LOL…an oldie but a goldie.

    Frank

    ‘The weather is not the climate’

    OK. I’d be quite happy to see Al Gore and his merry crew of believers shut up about Katrina as an example of a ‘planetary emergency’.

    The truly weird thing when anyone talks about record <enter weather condition> is that there’s usually a ‘worst since’ clause in fine print that takes you back decades in time.

    What was it for the British floods? Worst in 60 years?

    That would be around 1947.AGW caused…then?

    Or my favorite, hurricane stats from the late 1800s. AGW caused then?

    If you want to use weather events to validate AGW, you have to deal with some extremes that couldn’t have been caused by AGW. How do you do that?

    If you exclude weather events as evidence, what’s left?

    The warming over the last 100 years (except the cooling post WWII of course)?

    The warming since the ‘Little Ice Age’ should not be considered I guess.

    The increasing gradient of the warming curve?

    Shrug, why not but the time extension into the future of that warming rate still depends on the necessity of the GCMs being correct.

    I and the head of NCAR, are concerned by some of the start conditions and assumptions and generalizations in those models.

    You or your ilk are asking me to accept substantial modifications of my lifestyle based on computer models that may be unrepressentative of reality?

    No thanks.

    Besides, if it all turned out as you believe, that simply means that the US and the UK could enjoy superior climate than they do now.

    Why fight the future?

  17. F.O’D,

    Did I mention the climate, – I don’t think so? I was defintely discussing – the weather!, and how while being extreme, it was not outside of the bounds of past experience, or historical record.

    Why bring up the ‘climate’? did you spot an opening to start an argument, or perhaps see another chance to excercise your special brand of aggressive debate, or should I call it prosletyzing?

    Like all zealots you always spot the chance to ‘get out the soapbox’.

    Play your games Frank, but really, I don’t want to join in….

  18. Colm, Jeff,

    Exactly, and thanks for reading and understanding the written word so well!…:-)

  19. aggressive debate

    = challenging peoples arguments and use of published facts.

    you have some balls mr frank.

  20. Jeff,

    "What was it for the British floods? Worst in 60 years?

    That would be around 1947.AGW caused…then?"

    Let’s test your logic in another context. ‘I am expected to believe that 3,000+ people died on 9/11 because Islamic terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC towers! Yet, in medieval times millions of people died as a result of the black plague! I suppose Islamic terrorists in planes caused that too! pffft!! *raises eyebrows*’

    "You or your ilk are asking me to accept substantial modifications of my lifestyle"

    I’m not asking you to do anything except come up with a refutation of AGW that isn’t dumber than a sack of hammers.

  21. DT,

    Don’t mistake my use of polite phraseology as in any way condoning bullying rhetoric. That you would see it as a virtue merely confirms your lack of comprehension and manners….

  22. Ernest,

    "Did I mention the climate, – I don’t think so? I was defintely discussing – the weather!,"

    Yes you were discussing climate, don’t play dumb. Climate is about weather patterns, just like your extended missive on the topic. Climate has been predictable even when the individual weather events have not. Thus your point about the weather being unpredictable is irrelevant.

    " and how while being extreme, it was not outside of the bounds of past experience, or historical record."

    Even if true, so what? There are many things in the historical record which it would not be wise to cause to happen again.

  23. So Frank, what do warm-mongers such as yourself believe to be the cause of the heaviest flooding since 1947?

    Hmmm…. 1947? Wasn’t that before MMGW was invented? What caused those floods?

  24. I sit on the fence when it comes to the issue of AGW in the main because I cannot pretend to know either way, but I cannot see how AGW believers could honestly say for example that the recent floods in the UK were definitely the result of man made climate change.

  25. Allan,

    "So Frank, what do warm-mongers such as yourself believe to be the cause of the heaviest flooding since 1947?"

    Personally I’d say it was the heavy rainfall Allan. Is it a trick question?

    By the way, I don’t know what a ‘warm-monger’ is, and I have never claimed AGW is true – although it seems likely that it is given the overwhelming support it has from scientists around the world, and that none of you can come up with a credible flaw in the theory.

    "Hmmm…. 1947? Wasn’t that before MMGW was invented? What caused those floods?"

    We’ve been over that "logic" already with Jeff. See my reply to him.

  26. Frank: a ‘warm-monger’ is the opponent of a ‘denialist’. The AGW theory has been attacked from several reputable sources even though there has been suppression of dissidents by the MSM (esp. BBC). To me, this fact alone busts the ‘consensus’.

  27. FOD,

    What was it about, "I don’t want to join in…." – that you didn’t understand? was it too hard for you to catch the gist?

    However, as you insist on playing the fool, the following are your quotes:

    "Climate is about weather patterns," or, "The weather is not the climate.", – make your mind up! you quoted both within the space of two hours! – are you the one ‘playing dumb’? if so, stop playing, you are dumb enough already…

    That you insist that I was talking about the climate when it is patently obvious to everyone else that I was not, and then have the gall to accuse me of ‘playing dumb’ suggests that you are defintely delusional.

    I can understand that my disinterest and dismissal of your so-called ‘logic’, must irritate you, but surely you must be used to that sort of reception to your arrogant rantings. – I cannot be the first!

    Might I suggest you go away and play with your little fanatic friends, on your own blog, where it seems you behave in a better, and less aggressive fashion, you know – discussing all those bike rides, knitting patterns, etc…

    Or perhaps you like playing the Yobbo, and come to ATW to create a little nastiness….

    You do not have to read my comments, and I sure don’t read yours, so lets leave it that way, if only to preserve what is left of your sanity…

  28. Allan,

    "The AGW theory"

    Can you state what exactly you think is meant by the AGW theory as you use the term here? No strawmen please.

    "has been attacked from several reputable sources"

    List these sources and the peer reviewed papers that they published on the topic.

    Do you accept that greenhouse gases exist and are actually responsible for many degrees C of warming, without which life on earth would look very different (if it existed at all)?

    "suppression of dissidents by the MSM (esp. BBC)"

    Red herring and probably bullshit. We’re talking about the science and not the media reporting of it.

  29. Ernest,

    ""Climate is about weather patterns," or, "The weather is not the climate.", – make your mind up!"

    Perhaps you can explain why you think those statements contradict.

    [remainder of Ernest’s ‘bullying rhetoric’ and ‘nastiness’ ignored, as it was devoid of content ]

  30. Jeff posted:

    Besides, if it all turned out as you believe, that simply means that the US and the UK could enjoy superior climate than they do now. Why fight the future?

    A superior climate? Many areas of the USA are predicted to be hit by drout, including the main wheat-growing belt. Water shortages will afflict many areas. For the UK, we’ve seen a taste of things to come this summer.

  31. Just a thought about the issue of building on floodplains. If the planners won’t stop it, I think good old market forces will.

    Thousands of houses were flooded this week. It will be very difficult for their owners to sell them at any decent price in the future, never mind get insurance. Caveat emptor and all that.

  32. http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

    Professor Claude Allegre changes his mind:
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

    Professor Bob Carter
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=d71dfa89-384c-4ede-a759-55fb7ffdcfc2

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125691.100-global-warming-will-the-sun-come-to-our-rescue.html

    From the above link:
    "A couple of years ago, I would not have said that there was any evidence for solar activity driving temperatures on Earth," says Paula Reimer, a palaeoclimate expert at Queen’s University, Belfast, in the UK. "Now I think there is fairly convincing evidence."

    "If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," says Nigel Weiss, a solar physicist at the University of Cambridge.

    Check through this short selection of links and one will find reputable, capable scientists who do not believe the theory that temperatures on earth are being increased by man’s activities. These people are not liars: they simply disagree with the current orthodoxy – just like Galileo.

  33. "I have never claimed AGW is true – although it seems likely that it is given the overwhelming support it has from scientists around the world, and that none of you can come up with a credible flaw in the theory."

    Frank, sometimes I really do think that if your house was on fire you’d have to stop to argue with the firemen about whether the flames roaring from the windows actually indicated a genuine fire or not.

  34. Oh! And here’s a link to an open letter signed by sixty (60!) Canadian scientists (in relevant disciplines) addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. There is this little snippet for anyone who really doesn’t want to know what these scientists have to say:

    When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

    Read it all –

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

  35. From one of the links Allan provided:

    "None of this means that we can stop worrying about global warming caused by emissions into the atmosphere. "The temperature of the Earth in the past few decades does not correlate with solar activity at all," Solanki says. He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won’t do anything to get rid of them."

    Besides, I can find scientists who will tell you that macroevolution is not a fact. But they are almost certainly wrong. Disagreeing with the current ‘orthodoxy’ (aka evidence) doesn’t automatically make them like Galileo. Most times it just makes them wrong.

    It’s worth bearing in mind the old adage "they all laughed at Edison, they all laughed at Einstein, they all laughed at Coco the Clown".

    DSD,

    "sometimes I really do think that if your house was on fire you’d have to stop to argue with the firemen about whether the flames roaring from the windows actually indicated a genuine fire or not."

    That’s nice that you can make up little fictional stories and put me in them. Feel free to buy a little voodoo doll and pretend it’s me too.

  36. Frank, those sixty scientists wrote that "there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change…"

    These scientists are not liars or evil because they disagree with you.

  37. Frank
    You beat me to it.

    Allan
    You’ll never be convinced, but the world is already moving on without you. Get used to it.

    Incidentally, I find the reference to Gallileo interesting. Before him (or Copernicus) it was obvious to everyone on earth that the sun rotated us, not vice versa. Now the AGW denialists are in the same position as the catholic church circa 1600: "Hey, the sun is pretty hot, so it MUST be the cause of rising temperatures on earth, not that they are rising of course."

  38. Frank

    I think you’re a troll so I won’t be bothering with you again.

    As far back as I can rememeber on discussion of AGW on ATW, whenever you’re challenged all you do is resort to name calling or some discursive comment such as your classic today.

    So long.

    Hope the weather stays warm for you.

  39. No Peter, the ‘consensus’ is being challenged. Now, of the scientists cited in the links which frank wanted me to post (and it only took a couple of minutes to find them), are there liars amongst them? Where’s the ‘consensus’ now?

  40. Peter

    ‘A superior climate? Many areas of the USA are predicted to be hit by drout, including the main wheat-growing belt. Water shortages will afflict many areas. For the UK, we’ve seen a taste of things to come this summer.’

    If we’re going to indulge in long range global thinking here, we may as well do so properly.

    If AGW turns out to indeed cause marked temperature rises some areas will disimprove and some will improve.

    In the case of the US if it gets warmer that will presumably span the entire N-S range of latitude.

    Most of My Fellow Americans live in northerly climes like most of New England and Minnesota (shudder).

    A temperature increase would be welcome up there I’d have thought.

    The benefit of a rise in temperature for you folks at 52N doesn’t seem to require further exposition.:)

    Besides if there’s a water shortage in the US it seems entirely feasible to just pump out Houston each year and pipe the H2O up to the drylands and thereby we’ll live happily to the end of time and still get our Wheaties.:)

    Those Canadians will be happy too. Their main wheat belt could use more warm.

  41. Allan

    What’s the obsession with liars? Scientists will always have different theories. I don’t accuse the (few) denialist scientists of being liars, merely mistaken.

    Are you accusing the two thousand (or so) IPCC scientists of being liars?

  42. Jeff

    If you really think North America will be a winner from global warming, then go for it.

  43. "Frank, those sixty scientists wrote that "there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change…"

    These scientists are not liars or evil because they disagree with you."

    I never said they were. They are however plainly incorrect if they say that there is no consensus in the scientific literature because there is.

    I notice that a number of these 60 are in fields such as economics and some of them are consultants and some I suspect are retired. I wonder how many of them are actively involved in climate research.

    By the way do you think all the organisations mentioned here and here are staffed by evil people and liars? I think that nothing short of unanimity would constitute consensus for you, even though that is hardly available even for things that are established scientific fact!

    Jeff,

    "As far back as I can rememeber on discussion of AGW on ATW, whenever you’re challenged all you do is resort to name calling"

    Then it will be easy for you to provide two or three examples of me resorting to name calling in place of a rational argument when challenged on AGW. There is no need for you to respond on this point if you were lying.

    I think that what happened here is that your feelings got hurt because your argument was trashed. Obviously since your feelings are hurt that must make whoever did that a very bad person so now you’re going to lie and run away.

    Or, more likely, you actually don’t have an argument against AGW that isn’t dumber than a sack of hammers and refuted countless times already.

  44. Peter, I’ve just put up a link to sixty scientists (in relevant disciplines) from Canada who state that there is no consensus – there’s your ‘few’. As there can be little or no doubt that there are more ‘denialist’ scientists in Canada, and that a proportionate number would exist throughout the rest of the scientifically developed world, then the ‘few’ now looks rather like the many. How many scientists in relevant fields (whose funding is not dependent on ‘global warming’) do you need before you will acknowledge that there is no ‘consensus’?

    As for liars, I’d carried that over from addressing Frank. He actually does believe that people who disagree with him are liars.

  45. Allan@Oslo,

    "He actually does believe that people who disagree with him are liars."

    No Allan, I believe that people who tell lies (like you just did) are liars.

  46. No Allan, I believe that people who tell lies (like you just did) are liars.

    Which ‘lie’ was that, Frank?

  47. I just noticed this:

    "….There is no need for you to respond on this point if you were lying.

    I think that what happened here is that your feelings got hurt because your argument was trashed. Obviously since your feelings are hurt that must make whoever did that a very bad person so now you’re going to lie and run away.

    Or, more likely, you actually don’t have an argument against AGW that isn’t dumber than a sack of hammers and refuted countless times already.

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 10:31PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    Frank, how old are you? You display the petulance of a child and I’m not the only person on this thread who has noticed this trait – and you actually do believe that those who disagree with you are liars. So, how old are you?

  48. Allan,

    "Which ‘lie’ was that, Frank?"

    Your most recent lie, unless you have posted yet again, was when you stated that I believe that those who disagree with me are liars. I’m not sure why you feel yourself entitled to lie about my beliefs.

  49. Ahem

    "….There is no need for you to respond on this point if you were lying.

    I think that what happened here is that your feelings got hurt because your argument was trashed. Obviously since your feelings are hurt that must make whoever did that a very bad person so now you’re going to lie and run away.

    Or, more likely, you actually don’t have an argument against AGW that isn’t dumber than a sack of hammers and refuted countless times already.

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 10:31PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    Frank, how old are you? You display the petulance of a child and I’m not the only person on this thread who has noticed this trait – and you actually do believe that those who disagree with you are liars. So, how old are you?

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 11:10PM | Allan@Oslo

  50. Allan,

    As I have already pointed out to you, I do not believe that those who disagree with me are liars. Please explain therefore why have you reposted the same lie several times in a row? Do you think that repeating it will make it true?

    Why do you feel entitled to lie about my beliefs Allan? Don’t you realise how dishonest it makes you look?

    Anyway, I will take the fact that you have resorted to lying about easily checked facts (yet again) as an admission on your part that you have run out of arguments on the topic, which was the remarkable scientific consensus that exists on AGW.

  51. Let’s see now, Frank.

    On this thread you wrote:
    "….and I have never claimed AGW is true.."
    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 05:42PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    which invited ridicule from DSD, and rightly so because how could you possibly argue for something which you didn’t consider to be true – unless you’re schizophrenic!

    Then, also on this thread, you wrote:

    Your most recent lie, unless you have posted yet again, was when you stated that I believe that those who disagree with me are liars. I’m not sure why you feel yourself entitled to lie about my beliefs.

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 11:13PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    BUT, you also replied to Jeff in most condescending and petulant terms, this little nugget:

    "….There is no need for you to respond on this point if you were lying.
    I think that what happened here is that your feelings got hurt because your argument was trashed. Obviously since your feelings are hurt that must make whoever did that a very bad person so now you’re going to lie and run away.

    Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 10:31PM | Frank O’Dwyer

    Poor Frank. You really just don’t know what’s going on inside your wee head.

  52. Allan,

    "how could you possibly argue for something which you didn’t consider to be true"

    I don’t. I argue against the ‘rebuttals’ and red herrings and conspiracy theories that the denialists and anti-reason crowd put around. I have yet to see a good one.

    What has that got to do with your lying about me?

    "BUT, you also replied to Jeff in most condescending and petulant terms, this little nugget:"

    I said that Jeff was lying because he was lying, not because he disagreed with me. He said that all I could do was resort to name calling when challenged on AGW, but that is obviously untrue. He said that he had seen this several times and he has not because it didn’t happen even once. The proof is neither he or anyone else can link to it.

    There are plenty of people who disagree with me but who manage to do so without lying about me, especially not about easily checked facts. Perhaps one day you will manage it.

  53. OK. If interested, please have a look at the above link in my previous post, of course replacing the ‘dot’ space holder with the real punctuation mark that dares not speak its name.:)

    ‘According to Trenberth, GCMs ". . . do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents".

    "None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.

    "The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.’

    Well, where does that leave the preictions on which so much politicking and anguish is based?

  54. Jeff,

    There is no need to post links to op-eds when you can have it from the horse’s mouth. Here is Trenberth speaking for himself.

    The IPCC report makes it clear that there is a substantial future commitment to further climate change even if we could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And the commitment is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. Thus future climate change is guaranteed.

    So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.

    However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.

    We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?

    Here is another article which makes grim reading.

  55. Grim is the word Frank. The snowballing of secondary and tertiary effects from this could (probably would) be globally catastrophic.

  56. Daytripper

    That article (Grim Reading) seems rather undecided whether to blame AGW or Brazilians cutting down trees.

    Which do you think is more important from the article context?

    I suppose the local Amazonian climate is one of those that the AGW proponents don’t have too good a handle on?

    Doesn’t it seem odd though that there’s a lot of credulity in GCMs…with the Global word…but the AGW people will happily admit they don’t understand regional climate variation?

    Anyway, nothing new in the link title, everyone knows Reading is grim. 🙂

  57. That article (Grim Reading) seems rather undecided whether to blame AGW or Brazilians cutting down trees.

    thats becauses theres probably a bloody great big feedback loop and mans logging is a major input. its a taken in ecological terms that felling large swathes of rainforrest is catastrophic for the local ecology. its not really surprising to read that decades (or centuries) of relentless and increasing destruction is now approaching critical mass. its not surprising either to read that scientists are suspecting local and continental weather systems are affected by this mass deforestation.

    nature is a delicate balance, which can take knocks, bumps and nudges. but not swift boots to the testicles.

  58. DT

    The destruction of rainforests is one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses in the earth’s atmosphere. But for the AGW denialists it doesn’t matter in the slightest because they believe that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide play no role in our climate. That’s their position, absurd.

  59. Peter,

    "they believe that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide play no role in our climate."

    That is not true, of course Co2 has a role, but to blame it all as ‘man made’, is the ‘bone of contention’.

    We have long realised that the destruction of the Rain forests is having an effect on weather patterns. Strange that only now, when the major harm has been done that the environmentalists decide to make some noise…

    What rankles is the way the blame is laid solely on the doorstep of man, and the alarmist exaggeration and deliberate distortion of data and facts to ‘make the case’, – as admitted by its authors… Quite apart from the dubious characters of the people and organisations involved.

    The arrogance of the belief that they have the ability to effect a substanial and worthwhile difference, is quite amazing.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate, it is seen as being basically just another attack on Globalisation, which, as we know, is perceived as being totally evil, and any tactic is considered legal – the means being more important than the end.

    FYI, Global warming is not denied, it is that it is man’s fault alone that is in dispute.

    While the likes of India and China refuse to participate, any measures taken in the West are futile.

    You are doing what that other fellow accuses everyone else of doing – you are telling porkies…and that to, is absurd…

  60. Ernest

    Thanks for the comment. You seem to agree with the basic proposition of the AGW theory, which is that increases in greenhouse gases will cause the temperature to rise. Obviously, China and India will have to be part of the solution.

    When I re-read the original post, I realised that it was based on a false premise anyway. The water industry in Britain is totally privatised, something engineered by the Thatcherite right in the 1980s. It is the industry which will demand higher prices in the future to deal with flood protection, not the government. As ye sow…

  61. Ernest wrote to Peter,

    "You are doing what that other fellow accuses everyone else of doing – you are telling porkies."

    Which other fellow? Who apart from yourself has accused anyone of lying that was not actually lying?

    There is no need to respond if you were simply making it up or having a senior moment. In that case you have my full permission to fly into a rage and call me names again.

  62. ernest,

    Strange that only now, when the major harm has been done that the environmentalists decide to make some noise.

    what are you talking about? reversing the trend of rainforest destruction has been an environmental cause for decades.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate, it is seen as being basically just another attack on Globalisation

    economic growth as it stands today is unsustainable. you need infinite resources for it to continue. it does not mean that capitalism need disappear. you dont need to be a marxist to figure out that globalisation is of real benefit only to a small minority of people. for the many of us it means constant job changes and declining value of salaries, if your lucky. and for the 3rd world it means plunder and exploitation as usual.

  63. DT

    http://www dot lomborg dot com

    Have a read of his book.

    There’s a large chunk dealing with economic development and living standards.

    Actually getting better.

    If you solely read or watch the MSM you do run the risk of being co-opted by their world view.

    As their preferred world view requires doom and gloom in order to sell stories you might want to step back and consider who you receive information from? 🙂

    I’m rather curious about your definition of ‘minority’ too.

    ‘…globalisation is of real benefit only to a small minority of people’

    I don’t think that assertion would work for the Chinese and Indian middle class, nor for the populations of the oil exporters nor even the sweat shop workers in Indonesia nor certainly the educated folks of Singapore or Taiwan.

    If globalization didn’t exist do you see that anyone would be better off?

    You may cavil against globalization. I’d like to see what your alternative would look like.

    ‘you need infinite resources for it to continue’

    Tut! All you actually need are sufficient resources to sustain the rate of development.

Comments are closed.