Unthreaded
Today brings quite an important understanding
The bystander says "Of course the IPCC are right, they are all scientists. Why would scientists lie ? Scientists would not lie so IPCC support must be true"
Now see the very emphatic statement from DECappeal today
- " HAIYAN WAKE UP CALL glimpse of the future. WARN AT COP19, urgent action needed" paraphrased (1)
now just in case you don't think that assessment of science not flakey enough the next part confirms it
-" More and more, extreme weather and its effects are being seen in every country around the world"(2)
The statement continues with more alarmist phrases
To me that statement come out of a Kneejerk emotional response & OPPORTUNISM (which probably seemed like a great idea at the time)
- THE DEC PR guy is talking to Betts on Twitter, who's told him that IPCC says "Most intense storms expected more often after ~2050, but low confidence in past trend & human effect so far " (quotes a report not exactly saying that
- DEC PR guys replies : so we are OK to say it's a glimpse of the future
(anyway there is no evidence at all to support phrase (2)
- but look now it doesn't matter if phrase (1) is almostly completely disproved DEC have painted themselves into a corner. They've made emphatic statements about future climate, and would look idiotic if they bactrack.
So now they have to cover their ass.. quite possibly gritting their teeth & lying. Just as I imagine many scientists have similarly found themselves painted into a corner.
stewgreen
The heat is in the Arctic according to The Independent;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exposed-the-myth-of-the-global-warming-pause-8945607.html
"Failure to record temperature rises in the Arctic explains apparent ‘flatlining’, study finds, undermining sceptics’ argument that climate change has stopped."
Funny that, I thought it was in the deep oceans but Stefan Rahmstorf is supporting this so we can now stop any expensive search for it underwater.
:)
ssat
Given The Co-ops's mildly unhinged advocacy and profligacy with other folks money when it comes to promoting things AGW (sponoring GasLand, solar panels (and "info" packs) on primary schools, funds to assd. eco advovates)
I did wonder what they were smoking - if you weren't already aware - it's now clear that at least one executive .. here - fwiw - no wonder the gweenie entryists had an easy time.
tomo
Osseo ..you mean £163,000 year Justin Forsyth, CEO of Save the Children ? #marrshow
this "storms have increased both in intensity" line are they citing a bogus report or is it one of their "if you tell a lie often enough it will stick" ?
stewgreen
OK Johanna he's yes HIS analogy is wrong (insurance and then saying something is 60% likely, not least cos the insurance costs more than the actual impact) however I am trying to understand what HE is driving at, which that is you believe something is quite likely you do spend money on preventative methods. Now that would be, research on Climate/geo-engineering. It should not mean getting carried away and going beyond science..and that it what they have done .. We have got no idea really of the sensitivity of Climate to CO2.
- A better analogy is that you you adapt your driving technique , cos you could drive at 150mph in the middle of the road all the time, belching out black smoke, but then there'd be a 60% chance you'd be dead in a month.
..what it does bring up is the neeed for an evaluation report of progress so far. i.e. we were told that if we built these windfarms it would save this much CO2.
Is it saving Xtonnes of CO2 per £100 or not ?
and we were told that the world would follow ..well they are not they are laughing at us close our industries.
- News is that the COOP were on drugs when they formulated their mad green policies.
stewgreen
BBC Breakfast has just had a bloke from Oxfam on, claiming that storms have increased both in number and intensity, and that this is due to CO2. No sources quoted, none thought necessary.
Science Deniers!
osseo
stew, your point has nothing to do with the concept of insurance. Insurance is about spreading risk. It has nothing to do with a clear and present danger, which is uninsurable by definition.
johanna
The BBC is at its alarmist best again, with Matt McGrath. "Aid agencies say typhoon shows need for action on climate change". here
You might wonder what a collection of 14 aid agencies know about the climate; and indeed why the BBC would quote a collection of 14 aid agencies as a source of knowledge anout the climate.
Phillip Bratby
I notice that since the Daily Mail stopped the practice of allowing people to delete posts they disagreed with, the usual repulsive crowd of trolls all seem to have deserted the science comments pages.
RKS
stewgreen
well, it's about time DECC had an IT meltdown or some spring cleaning innit?
They can take their lead from the Conservative Party and last Labour Government - the former just wiping a 10 year archive of speeches and the latter under the auspices of Broon completely and utterly re-jigging HM Treasury web site and deleting Broon's 1997 "boom 'n bust speech" when Lehmans went titsup - to reflect 100% omniscience throughout the crash.
I've spotted quite a lot of digital amnesia occuring - and it's driven me to start saving online newspaper articles - or simply noting dead Google search result links. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of this in the run up to elections. Some of the work I've seen has been quite thorough - I did wonder about that fire at The Wayback Machine last week....