Blogs Coffee House

Maria Eagle is talking nonsense about floods and climate change

11 August 2014

3:06 PM

11 August 2014

3:06 PM

The Shadow Environment Secretary Maria Eagle headed off to Woking today, where she addressed an audience of environmentalists at WWF’s swanky new headquarters.

Her speech, which was widely trailed, was full of silly season fare, and her superficial understanding of the climate debate shines through. Take this for example:

‘The Met Office, the Committee on Climate Change and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community all tell us that last winter’s floods are consistent with the projected consequences of climate change.’ 

‘Consistent with’ is one of those gloriously weasel phrases that the more disreputable kind of climate scientist likes to use when speaking to politicians. Yes of course the floods were consistent with the projected consequences of climate change. They were also consistent with no global warming, with global cooling and with climate change being caused by green men from Mars. As the Met Office noted in the aftermath, the floods were caused by a shift in the jet stream, something that happens from time to time and which has no known link to global warming.

[Alt-Text]


Then there’s this:

‘We know that the climate is changing. We know that human activity is contributing to that change. I think that this is the biggest challenge facing the world today.

‘The stability of our climate system provides the basic underpinning for all human life and animal life and plant life… Small shifts in global temperature will cause massive impacts for millions of people. This isn’t speculation or the sci-fi musings of an imaginative, bestselling author. It is solid, established scientific fact, accepted by 97% of the scientists who study our climate systems.’

Reasonable people can agree that the climate is changing. Nowhere in our records of climate history do we find evidence of stability. There is only constant change; sometimes slow, sometimes sudden. Similarly, we can agree that human activity contributes to that change: mankind has affected the climate since he started clearing forests with stone axes. But seen from this perspective, it’s much harder to support the idea that climate change is the ‘biggest challenge facing the world today’, and harder still to support the idea that the stability of the climate system underpins human life, simply because, as we have seen, the climate is not stable at all. But even these ideas are not as bad as the suggestion that 97 per cent of scientists believe that ‘small shifts in global temperature will cause massive impacts for millions of people’. Contrary to what Eagle says, ‘speculation and sci-fi musings’ is precisely what it is. There is simply no scientific study showing any such thing.

The headlines, however, have concentrated on Eagle’s allegation that there will be 330,000 more homes at risk of flooding by 2035 because of government policy. Her case, such as it is, is larded with a great deal of innuendo, implying that it’s all down to a failure to tackle climate change; but, if you analyse her words you discover that this is all just window dressing. She is actually focusing on two standard Labour party themes: spending cuts, particularly in the area of flood defence, and evil Conservatives, in particular Owen Paterson.

Paterson is well used to being on the receiving end of pot-shots from environmentalists. Being suspected of harbouring impure thoughts on green issues, he has become a target for the greens and politicians in every party who want their votes. One assumes, though, that he must get tired of his opponents being quite so dishonest about him. Paterson has stated quite clearly that he believes that mankind has an influence on the climate — almost everybody in the climate debate does. Eagle’s accusation that he is a ‘denier’ therefore says much more about her than it does about him.

As to Eagle’s alleged cuts to flood defence works, whether these are real or whether they will have the effect that she says they will is anybody’s guess. Her sources are obscure and the numbers are disputed. What is clear is that climate change in the next two decades will make little difference to flood risk, which is driven mostly by politicians preventing building in areas where there is no flood risk and allowing it on flood plains. The impact of climate change policy will be even less.

Andrew Montford is the author of ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • scott_east_anglia

    “The threat, if real, requires the most….”

    Don’t worry. The threat is not real. There is no real (empirical) evidence whatsoever that changes to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 have ever had any effect on the climate. Rather it is the other way round – changes of climate affect atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    In any event, the simplistic greenhouse effect as espoused by the warming industry propaganda is impossible, because heat cannot flow spontaneously from a cooler to a warmer body. Therefore ‘back radiation’ from freezing cold gases in the atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the warmer Earth’s surface below.

    Otherwise radiation from a block of ice placed in a room whose walls are at 15C would warm up the room’s walls while itself cooling.

    So the complete absence of real evidence supporting the CAGW conjecture is not surprising.

    The atmospheric CO2 acts as a coolant, radiating heat into cold space.

    The warming industry’s alarmist case resides only in the virtual reality of contrived computer models configured according to their theory. Hardly surprisingly, therefore, the computer output concurs with that theory.

    But to cite the output of computer models as real evidence is only a dishonest and irrelevant circular argument.

    Whatever dangers the world faces, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is not one of them.

    • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

      I only just read this. Very interesting, Thank you.

  • Terry Field

    The woman pronounces her nam Mariareagle.
    She is a bulldozer of a politician.
    I believe that climate change is real and will wreck the world for us, BUT
    The left use it as displacement envy – ‘He / she has a big car/big house/big boat (use as needed`) – we need to ensure we tax him heavily because it CONSUMES FUEL AND FARTS CARBON DIOXIDE!’
    The bastards use it as a social lever. They are as dangerous for the environment as the insane ‘green’ party.
    The right correctly see the problem as a means for the statist left to impose control for the sake of it.
    BUT
    The threat, if real, requires the most severe changes to the pattern of life – but this needs to be designed, specifically – to NOT disadvantage or advantage particular socio-economic groups. Tat way there is a slightly greater than vanishingly small chace that society as a whole will get behind this.
    If not, most of our grandchildren will die well before their term.

  • Terry Field

    She pronounces her nam Mariareagle.
    She is a bulldozer of a politician.
    I believe that climate change is real and will wreck the world for us, BUT
    The left use it as displacement envy – ‘He / she has a big car/big house/big boat (use as needed`) – we need to ensure we tax him heavily because it CONSUMES FUEL AND FARTS CARBON DIOXIDE!’
    The bastards use it as a social lever. They are as dangerous for the environment as the insane ‘green’ party.
    The right correctly see the problem as a means for the statist left to impose control for the sake of it.
    BUT
    The threat, if real, requires the most severe changes to the pattern of life – but this needs to be designed, specifically – to NOT disadvantage or advantage particular socio-economic groups. Tat way there is a slightly greater than vanishingly small chace that society as a whole will get behind this.
    If not, most of our grandchildren will die well before their term.

  • jesseventura2

    Maria and her labour luvvie sister are suffering from STRAPADIKTOME?

  • jaffa99

    Alarmists – The temperature is irrelevant, the weather is irrelevant none of it is proof of anything. The whole discussion about temperature records, sea levels and weather is a huge straw-man.

    The issue is about the A in AGW, that is ‘anthropogenic’ (man made) global warming. No-one doubts there’s been a period of warming recently (and warming and cooling throughout history), no-one doubts warming or cooling could affect weather and sea levels (logical), but what’s the cause? That’s the important bit.

    You, alarmists, seem to believe the cause (of warming in the late 20th century) is recent CO2 increases from burning of fossil fuels, but this is the point where you have zero actual evidence. You have a theory, the assumptions from that theory were fed into computer models that, unsurprisingly, agreed with the theory, that’s all you have. Now the models have been shown not to agree with the actual climate.

    Which is wrong? The models & the theory they are all based on or the actual climate?

    The models have been falsified by 17+ years (and counting) with no warming despite increasing CO2 concentrations, no models predicted this, in fact they predicted accelerating warming.

    AGW alarmism is a religion, a belief system based on no evidence, just faith.

  • AlecM

    What has happened to people like Eagle, and Lucas, is perversion of their logical thought processes; they think that if they believe something, it is by definition true.

    It’s a form of insanity.

    • Terry Field

      Is is a sexual frustration problem, do you think?

  • Peter Stroud

    Not a single climate change computer model, predicted the current sixteen years of global temperature hiatus. CO2 has increased year on year, over the period, and every model predicted, or is it projected, either way they forecast an increase in mean global surface temperature. This has not happened. Furthermore, the IPCC climatologists have no real answer that explains the discrepancy. Unsupported muttering about energy sinking to the deep oceans, that’s all. No scientist doubts the greenhouse gas warming of about 1 degree Celsius, but the IPCC has utterly failed to explain their positive feedback mechanism, that has led to their predictions of catastrophe. The science is poor, because it has been politicised to satisfy the green credentials of politicians, like Ms Eagle.

  • Leslie Graham

    ‘The Met Office, the Committee on Climate Change and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community all tell us that last winter’s floods are consistent with the projected consequences of climate change.’

    That statement is perfectly correct. There is nothing ‘weasily’ about the phrasing and if you knew the first thing about the scientific method you would know that too.
    There is yet another study out today which adds further evidence to the, frankly obvious, effects of the ‘blocking events’ that have become so commonplace in the last couple of decades.
    The 2003 European heatwave which killed 30,000 people was due to one as was the 2010 Russian heatwave which killed 50,000 and as were the recent floods in the south west.
    The real time data and satellite imagery is in the public domain and freely available to everyone to watch these blocking highs and changes to the Jet Stream occurr with their own eyes if they so wish.
    And sadly for you many now do.
    Thanks to modern technology it has got to the stage that you don’t have to be a climate scientist to see what is going on and now that climate change is an obvious everyday reality all over the world the denial has become shrill, desperate and, frankly, insane.
    I realise that you and other publications know *exactly* what you are doing but the ignorati who swallow your delibately misleading disinformation are finaly begining to wise up to the fact that they have been systematicaly lied to – as in your shamefull article above – for decades.
    It’s over for the carbon corporations and their shills – you’ve been rumbled.

    • RationalEnvironmentalist

      oh dear, its the evil oil companies again.

      • Terry Field

        Grease.
        I hate grease.
        Don’t you?

    • morbidfascination

      So it has got to the stage that you don’t have to be a climate scientist to know what is going on?

      Unless of course you are a politician, say, who dares to stand up and question the ACC orthodoxy, at which point you are accused of being ignorant because you are not a scientist …

    • lookout

      It’s the sun’s excess heat effecting sea temps, the warmer currents melt the artic ice from below while maintaining average surface temperatures. US navy research from satellites and ground and ocean buoys, from Stan@deyo.com

  • Sammy2000

    No wonder England is a failed state. A lot of dumb people who know nothing about science.

  • Phillip2

    The really bad thing is that there are two of these Eagles.

  • P_S_W

    Contributing is nowhere near the same as causing.

  • crackenthorp

    I see the Spectator is panicking about the tories loss of support, it makes you laugh

    • Colonel Mustard

      Not as much as the way lefties behave like a deranged hive.

      • crackenthorp

        And you cannot be at all biased could you? what a plonker

        • Matthew Rowe

          and your not biased because ?

          • crackenthorp

            i am not biased as i dont vote and never will, i just like to read posts form prats like you

  • foxoles

    Well, why not? She talks nonsense about everything else.

  • Jupiter

    Even if global warming is happening, it wouldn’t be a problem. The most successful periods of human civilization have been in a warm climate.

    What we really need to worry about is global cooling. That would cause a new ice age, which would cover most of the planet with ice sheets several miles thick.

    Now that would be tough for humanity to survive.

    • Kitty MLB

      Well the earth goes through these warm and cold periods every 40 years have have done so forever.We have just left
      a warm period actually and we will be going through a period when the sun’s strenght will be decreased as its rays
      weaken by the time it reaches the earth. But an ice age who
      knows. But as you say that would be more of a concern.

      • HookesLaw

        We are living in an ice age. This is just an interglacial period which is due to start to end anytime in the next 1000 years

        • Alexsandr

          you are right about the interglacial, but not sure the next ice advance is so precisely timed.
          Actually I think it will be started by some catastrophe, like a massive eruption in Yellowstone. Krakatoa started a period of global cold weather in the 19th century.

          • HookesLaw

            Well by historic standards we are slap bang in the middle of the interglacial period. I merely point it out because many people do not actually appreciate we are actually ‘in’ an ice age. There have been ice-less periods in the past, ie no ice at the poles. My understanding is that the bringing together of ‘pangia’ started the period of ice ages but I may be wrong.
            What I do know is (because a nice talking head on the BBC told me) is that at one time Australia was joined to Antarctica and the south pole was much warmer and less ice covered. Australia broke free and even now is heading towards Malaysia. This created a cold circumpolar current and this began the build up of ice. Sea currents can clearly affect polar ice formation, not minuscule bits of CO2.

            • Alexsandr

              My understanding is that all the land masses were in one lump called Pangea. that broke into 2 supercontinents, Laurasia and Gondwana.

              I think the current view is that polar ice caps are not a normal state for the earth, and that they have only existed since the start of the pleistocene, some 2.5 million years ago. Dennis Skinner will remember that!

              • SkyHunter

                2.5 million years ago CO2 levels dropped well below 400ppm, which precipitated the growth of the Greenland ice sheet.

            • SkyHunter

              The global temperature had been generally cooling for the last 5000 years, until the invention of the steam engine in 1700.

              Holocene temperature reconstruction.

        • Kitty MLB

          Well as you know, the star that is the life force
          of this planet which is whirling around our
          milky way is slowly dying …but not for a while
          yet. Yes the warm period is over. On that
          cheery note I must go and make food.

          • Alexsandr

            weather forecast for this week is pretty rubbish…

            • Kitty MLB

              The weather wasn’t awfully good whilst we were
              visiting a place in March even August.

              Its somewhat flat there, thankfully we are on top
              of a hill.

            • Kitty MLB

              A correction-a place called March.

              • Alexsandr

                Chateris is nice.

        • Terry Field

          no, 60,000 years, idiot.

        • SkyHunter

          The Holocene ended in the 20th century. Welcome to a new climate epoch.

          Welcome to the Anthropocene.

      • SkyHunter

        Did you know that the difference in incident solar at the surface from the depth of the Maunder minimum to the height of the modern solar maximum was only about 0.25W/m2?

    • SkyHunter

      What do you consider to be the most successful periods of human civilization?

      We don’t need to worry about global cooling as long as we can manufacture refrigerants.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    Was it not the socialist and part time chairman of the Environment Agency who refused to dredge the rivers on the Somerset Levels? By the way, has the old trougher gone yet?

    • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

      Oh no. He didn’t think his manifest incompetence was a reason to resign. Besides, he reasoned, somebody had to be around to fix the problem — and who better than the one who ballsed it up in the first place? So yes, you will go to jail if you refuse to pay his salary.

  • Mike Robbins

    There are some misunderstandings in this piece, and one or two things that are just plain not true.

    Eagle is quite correct to say that the flooding was “consistent” with projected climate change because responsible science doesn’t link events without a clear smoking gun. As for the jet stream, scientists are far from sure it’s not linked to warming in the Arctic, which may be changing air temperatures and push the jet stream south.

    The assertion that small changes in temperature can’t cause major events is also quite wrong. They likely won’t in Woking, where I’m sure the locals will take a 0.5 deg C shift in their stride. Over large areas of ocean, however, they could drastically change (for example) the timing and extent of the South Asian monsoons. Even in the UK, they could change the distribution of rainfall over time and space and thus increase the risk of flooding.

    Where Montford does have a point is in questioning Eagle’s estimates of the number of homes at risk – it’s very hard to know what the figure would really be. He also rightly points out that putting houses on flood plains has increased the consequences of floods, and that has nothing to do with the climate. He could also have added loss of soil structure due to intensive farming, increasing runoff; this is only indirectly linked to climate change and has a lot more to do with policy and the market. Politicians (and others) do sometimes bang on about climate change when it’s not really the issue, and maybe Eagle was guilty of that. But on climate change itself, Montford is misinformed.

  • lookout

    Waiting for the Mark Steyn trail with Michael Mann, it will all come out then. Lord Monckton has a good vid on YouTube

  • JoeDM

    Good article.

  • swatnan

    Building on a floodplain is quite legitmate so long as the housing is suitably adapted to being in a floodplaiin; so a basement flat or bungalow would ne pretty much out of the question.

    • Kitty MLB

      No building on flood plains is totally foolhardy and why there
      are so many issues.Even in marshy parts of the country
      such as Somerset and Norfolk.

      • swatnan

        Then drain them; either bring in the Dutch or do it ourselves.
        We did that in Norfolk reclaimed land from the N Sea.

        • Alexsandr

          what do you do with the water? Are you sure you are not creating a problem for the people downstream.

          boggy land has a purpose. to hold water upstream to stop pulses in the rivers causing flooding lower down.

          • HookesLaw

            This seems to me to be the problem with managing river flows. The Americans have demonstrated this in trying to control the Mississippi Missouri.

        • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

          The point is that the Somerset levels had been drained. But the bright people in the EU decided that the simplest way to enhance nature conservation was to allow the place to flood periodically. As the Labour environment secretary breezily said at the time: “Just add water,” and nobody apparently thought to ask what would become of the human population amid all this.

          And thus, the pumps were turned off, and the dredging — something that had been done continuously since the Middle Ages — discontinued. Result: flooding. The most surprising thing was the politicians’ astonishment!

          I don’t doubt for a moment that the EU and the environmentalists have got their wish. I’m sure there’s loads of butterflies, snails, hedgehogs, song birds and much else in Somerset this year.

          • Alexsandr

            plenty of f*cking snails in my garden. But where are the hedgehogs to eat them.

            • swatnan

              … and the frogs

              • Alexsandr

                Bien sûr, mon amie

            • bunklehat

              Badgers ate them

    • Terry Field

      you are deranged

  • Denis_Cooper

    If you are in favour of increasing the population, whether by encouraging a higher birth rate among the existing population or by mass immigration of other people’s children from abroad, then you have to expect that every one of those extra inhabitants will need somewhere to live, and so of course you may end up building hundreds of thousands of new homes in places which were prone to flooding even before the increase in runoff caused by covering large areas with concrete and asphalt. I would conjecture that the connection between more widespread and frequent flooding of domestic properties and the mass immigration strongly favoured by the likes of Eagle is rather more definite that its connection to other insane government policies that she may support such as those on climate change.

    • Chris Morriss

      Does any rational being believe that increasing this country’s population can have anything but detrimental effects?

  • you_kid

    Two facts:

    1- Owen Paterson is history – the climate of environment policy in Britain can only gain from that.
    2- Lomborg is long history too, only even more outdated Al Gore apologists will have no time for what he had to say some time ago now. Why is the British centralist elite government so slow with regards to responding to the signs of our times?

    • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

      “elite”?

      This isn’t about climate change for you, is it? It’s about socialism. You don’t actually give that much of a toss whether the globe is warming or not, but it’s a convenient excuse for government to wade in and regulate everything into a command economy.

      What was the name James Delingpole invented for you? Oh yes — “watermelons”: green on the outside, red inside.

      • Alexsandr

        climate change – a construct made so governments could increase revenue by imposing ‘green’ taxes.

        • Augustus

          Exactly right! Whenever some politician today speaks about the ‘climate’ they are not talking about sunshine or rain, they are talking about a devilishly obscene way of raising money, by claiming that it is humans that are threatening the climate with everything they do, from turning on the lights to driving anywhere.That’s the very reason ‘global warming’ was invented in the late 1980s, as an immense threat to the Earth and to mankind. Never mind that this Earth has routinely passed through warmer and cooler cycles for billions of years; much of which occurred before living creatures emerged. So when you hear someone talk about the negative consequences of climate change, they are really talking about schemes to generate revenue from it through taxation, or to raise money for those who will personally benefit from any scheme related to the climate such as clean energy. And the need of governments to frighten their citizens about the climate in order to raise money is truly mind boggling in scope, wasting taxpayer’s money by the millions with every passing day, whether it is sunny or rainy, warm or cold.The claims that carbon dioxide affects the climate is a complete hoax. Its role is so small it can barely be measured. The fact is, Western nations are being run by politicians who are incapable of reducing spending, or borrowing more and more in order to spend more.

          • you_kid

            None of the taxes are ‘green’.

            The CO levy wasn’t green, it was a tax to address affordablity at the lower end of society whilst compensating an overpriced supply chain. It wasn’t green. That is why it was scrapped.

            Drax isn’t green either. It does not save on CO2 emissions, it also does not cut the carbon footprint. Drax is not green. That is why yu are doing it. Because you have no clue what green actually is!

            need more?

            • Alexsandr

              no ta
              didnt understand that.

              • you_kid

                interesting point
                are they useless?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …like you and your sockpuppets, you mean?

        • Kitty MLB

          This greeny agenda was created to manipulate
          and control with a spot of emotional blackmail
          with polar bears on melting icecaps.
          All that happens is we become poorer and energy companies, as well as ‘experts’ become
          richer.

        • SkyHunter

          Climate change denial – a construct made so the fossil fuel industry can remain profitable.

          Favorite meme – It is a government conspiracy to raise taxes.

      • you_kid

        … to obfusate the fact that a green fruit which is blue inside has not yet been genetically ‘patersonised’.
        That, may I add, failed spectacularly and the delinquent is now in hiding on some obscure far right foreign blog sulking in his dinner.

        • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

          Meanwhile … you didn’t answer the question!

          Should I draw a conclusion from your circumlocution?

          • you_kid

            Apologies boyo, I got carried away by your closing lines.

            I thought we concluded the answer without ambiguity in your own (now top rated) post. I did elaborate there (and here), didn’t I?

            Or course I happily accept that I am always wrong and everyone else is always right about everything.
            That would make me an inverted Denialingpole, in fact.

            • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

              You didn’t explain why you felt the need to emphasize that the present government is “elite” in connection with climate change, and whether we should conclude that you’re actually far more interested in the excuse climate change provides for socialist intervention.

              I read that there’s talk of “smart meters” that will automatically cut off your electricity if you dare consume too much of it. What an excellent way of bringing everybody down to the same level! Got a great, big, expensive HD TV? POW! Off goes your electricity, and it’s just a blank screen on the wall. All in the name of climate change, of course.

              And before you go off on one, we still have an old-fashioned electron tube telly — of the kind that you can’t even give away these days. I never thought the quality improvement of HD TV justified the expense.

              • you_kid

                Apologies if there was a glitch with my (added) updates.

                It appears that a major failure to respond to environmental incidents lies in the fact that (too) much is centrally controlled. Pickles, Boles and Paterson all did not leave very good impressions in their respective sectors of expertise.

                From my perspective smart metering ought to be seen as a tool to understand waste. The rest is of course scaremongering to excite all those averse to change.
                An LED TV will be your best possible option if you upgraded today as they reportedly use 1/2 to 1/4 the power required by a comparable plasma screen.

                • Chris Morriss

                  Plasma screens are sooo last century. You really need organic LEDs.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “From my perspective smart metering ought to be seen as a tool to understand domestic wastefulness.”

                  And what ‘perspective’ is that? Come on, let’s have the agenda. “Ought to be seen” hints at “correct thought” and we all know where that comes from.

                • you_kid

                  use the tech to your advantage, would be the advice of an engineer.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …are you pretending to be an “engineer” again, lad?

                • bunklehat

                  A really smart meter would disconnect Ecotricity customers as soon as wind-generation had to be shut down in windy weather

            • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

              It’s generally considered a little out of order editing your post after it’s already been replied to.

              But if you answer my question, and I’ll answer yours.

        • HookesLaw

          The fact remains that global warming is a stick used by the left to beat us all with. A godsend for control freaks. The fact that there is no global warming does not matter.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …you mean, control freaks like your envirowhacko Camerluvvies, lad?

          • you_kid

            … that never mattered to me – honestly.
            The control is exercised by those who wish to exercise control. Now it will come as a surprise to some but those driving innovation and those exercising control are all too often not the same people.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …but you envirowhacko socialist nutters are all the same people, lad.

      • Inverted Meniscus

        Although envirowhacko socialist nutter is more accurate.

  • JeffGazzard

    Montford is a climate change denying saddo bloke in a pullover whose views have been dismissed by proper climate scientists. Move on please

    • Denis_Cooper

      OK, I’ll take your word for it, thanks for the tip …

    • starfish

      ‘Proper’ as in….?

    • GUBU

      What have you got against pullovers?

      And shouldn’t ‘proper’ scientists disprove rather than dismiss other theories?

    • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

      Saddo — what an intriguing word. Are you an alarmist because you think it’s cool?

    • Alex

      He doesn’t claim the climate isn’t changing, as you would know if you had read the article. It takes some doing being so demonstrably wrong after only 6 words.

    • Alexsandr

      proper climate change scientist?. those who failed to predict the cooling over the last 10 years. I’d say they were failed climate change scientists. The IPCC are not to be taken seriously as they are government lackeys (See remarks elsewhere about green taxes). I think the NIPCC are probably nearer the mark.

      • morbidfascination

        And the guy in charge is also not a climate change scientist – something proponents of ACC tend to forget when criticising so-called deniers for being non-expert.

    • HookesLaw

      Explain why there has been no recorded global warming for 18 years. If you cannot then shut up.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …and tell your Camerluvvie buddies to shut up as well, laddie.

    • yoyo

      What’s the “Aviation Environment Federation” Jeff? Vested interest to declare?
      http://www.aef.org.uk/about/#whoweare

    • bunklehat

      His views are entirely consistent with those of H H Lamb – the only proper climate scientist, founder of the UEA CRU.

  • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

    ‘small shifts in global temperature will cause massive impacts for millions of people’

    Really? The average temperature in St Petersburg is 6 degrees. In London, it’s 16 degrees. In Cairo, it’s 26 degrees. All three cities support very large populations.

    So don’t tell me that a shift in global temperature of 0.5 degrees will result in the end of civilisation as we know it. It doesn’t wash.

    • you_kid

      Wrong matey, you are always wrong.
      Some societies cope far better with change than others. I will remind you of what happened in Indonesia and the Somerset levels. The response to events is what matters and counts. In some societies that means applying better fixings to wriggly tin roofs, in others it’s a bit more complicated than that.

      • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

        So you accept that climate change wouldn’t be a problem if all societies were adequately prepared to deal with it?

        Couldn’t agree more.

        • you_kid

          Now we are making progress.

          • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

            Doesn’t really explain why you’re getting so upset over a half-degree rise in temperatures. I can’t help thinking that an Egyptian crop that can handle 26 Celsius isn’t going to wilt and die at 26.5 Celsius.

            Likewise, a Russian, shivering in -10C isn’t going to drop dead because he’s forced to endure -9.5C

            • you_kid

              I am getting upset about what?

              My entire post above talked about an entirely different thing.

              • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                I know. You always spend your time answering a different question from the one that’s been asked.

                • you_kid

                  Look, I will leave it at this if there are no further interesting thoughts to come.
                  You outlined what you believe is wrong/odd with the world, I added to that. We both made our positions perfectly clear (I think). All your questions were answered, not in the way you might have hoped but at least I am certain others will understand. From my POV our little exchange exemplifies perfectly what is wrong with Britain’s position to the environment/climate (and energy) today.
                  That is a pretty good result in my opinion. Thanks again for your time.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  But you still didn’t answer the question.

                • you_kid

                  I answered every question in great detail.
                  Now – what’s a kibbutz? What’s John Lewis? Socialism? Answer the question.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  No you haven’t. The question was why are you so concerned about a half-degree rise in global temperatures, given that a) St Petersburg, London, and Cairo all support massive populations across a twenty-degree range of temperatures, b) you admit that climate change would not be a problem as long as societies made adequate preparations.

                  You’ve answered all sorts of questions. Just not the one I was asking.

                  To spare you any possible disappointment, let me assure you that I have answers to those. I’m just can’t be bothered getting involved in a game where I answer questions and you avoid them.

                • you_kid

                  Am I ‘so concerned’? Where am I ‘so concerned’?
                  Point it out to me.
                  Gawd! Is that a question you will also not answer?

                  I stated:
                  “The response to events is what matters and counts.”
                  i listed Loborg and Gore elsewhere to emphasise the point.
                  THAT’S MY ANSWER!

                  Now: socialism. What is socialism? John Lewis? A kibbutz? Answer the question.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Well f### me sideways. You don’t know my name, my age, my background, or where I live. But you know all about my twisted mind. What a fascinating psychological study you conduct.

                  Kibbutz: I can’t say I know enough of kibbutzim to be able to comment.

                  John Lewis: Britain’s largest partnership. What’s inherently socialist about a partnership?

                  You know — actually, you clearly don’t — most accountancy firms, legal firms and doctors’ surgeries are partnerships. I can’t say that I’d noticed that accountants, solicitors and doctors are especially notorious for their Marxist ideology.

                • you_kid

                  So there we have it: choice.
                  Not between your idealised and overly simplistic forms of capitalism and Marxist socialism, there are other options … well done you.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …there are other of your sockpuppets too, lad… as in an army of your sockpuppets.

                • TimboX

                  Really we should be far more worried about an asteroid strike decimating life on earth. This is a far more urgent threat to humanity than global warming hysteria.

                  That is actually backed up by scientific fact, unlike destruction from global warming. We are actually due a major impact quite ‘soon’ which can be worked out by looking at previous impacts in Earth’s history.

                • you_kid

                  Jesus Christ – at what point did I subscribe to a global worming hysteria? Point it out to me.

                • TimboX

                  Oh sorry, that wasn’t aimed at any one particular person. I meant it more as a general comment about the climate change lobby that Eagle is representing.

                  Although I’m interested in hearing more about your theories on this new threat, global worming? 😉

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you and your army of socialist nutter sockpuppets have long shrieked hysterically about global warmingism, laddie.

                • bunklehat

                  As a first-order timewaster you have a grossly inflated view of your abilities

                • Colonel Mustard

                  You have the loon you_kid bang to rights there.

            • RobertC

              i think you mean “to endure -10.5C”, but you are right: a degree or two either way won’t make much difference.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …a degree plus would likely bring on increased agricultural harvest, and reduce cold related deaths, which are significant in many countries .

                • RobertC

                  The Alarmists have been talking about six degree changes, so one or two degrees are a lot less, and I didn’t say no differences, I said “won’t make much difference”.

                  There is about a 60 deg C difference between the Equator and the North Pole, which are 10,000 km apart so, move North 240km (150 miles, Reading to Sheffield) and the temperature should drop around 1.44 deg., on average.

                  Not that much of a change in climate: Reading to Sheffield. That is more than twice the magnitude of the Alarmists figure!!!

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …again, a degree plus would bring on significant agricultural harvest, and reduce cold related deaths.

              • newminster

                Your lack of arithmetic is showing.
                -9.5 was warmer than -10 last time I looked.

                • RobertC

                  My lack of arithmetic is nothing compared to your lack of comprehension, given that at -9.5C, I would prefer to be warmer!

                  No Good Boyo: Likewise, a Russian, shivering in -10C isn’t going to drop dead because he’s forced to endure -9.5C

                  RobertC: i think you mean “to endure -10.5C”

              • Dreeber

                I think he meant what he said. It’s known as irony.

                • RobertC

                  There was irony, but the temperature change needs to be in the right direction.

                • Dreeber

                  No, the idea that one might have to “endure” -9.5C rather than -10C was ironic. I take it you’re an American.

                • RobertC

                  I have seen in the original text that he is talking about temperature rises so, yes, it is -9.5C, but it would have made more sense if the sentence had ended:

                  Likewise, a Russian, shivering in -10C isn’t going to wilt because he’s forced to endure -9.5C

                  It would have also been more ironic.

        • SkyHunter

          How exactly would you cope with say evolving bacteria upon which your life depends?

          • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

            I’m trying to understand how your comment relates to the point.

            • SkyHunter

              When you alter the chemical solution in the biosphere, like doubling the active ingredient for life, you get unexpected results. The carbon cycle and the life cycle are intrinsic. You can’t alter one without altering the other. That is why in the geologic record large excursions in the carbon cycle are associated with blank spots in the geologic record.

              Bacteria evolve much faster than more complex lifeforms.

              • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                Sounds rather speculative. Like most predictions of the consequences of climate change.

                • SkyHunter

                  Nothing speculative about the geologic record, or the fact that carbon is the basic element of life.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  You’re asking me to comment upon something that hasn’t happened, and may never happen. That’s speculative.

                  You never mentioned the geologic record, or carbon. You were asking about evolving bacteria. But as far as the geologic record is concerned, bacteria have always evolved, and the climate has changed dramatically over the millennia. But the human race has none the less done rather well for itself.

      • Alexsandr

        the somerset levels is a man made construct (actually I dont think there is any natural in the UK)
        The flooding was made far worse by the EA failing to carry out the maintenance demanded by this environment as learned by the locals over many years. This was nothing to do with funding -more to do with EU directives about diversity of flora and fauna and more eco babble’

        The thing that will make flooding worse for existing communities is development upstream with no regard to the runoff. For water gets into watercourses far far quicker off buildings and paved areas than it does of farmland. Builders dont want to put in sustainable drainage because it costs money and reduces the number of rabbit hutches they can cram on a site. Of course we cant mention building woithout mentioning the increased demand caused by immigration.

        Farming does not help. They say that if farmers did contour ploughing rather than ploughing up and down hills that would reduce runoff, denudation of the soil and flooding in the rivers.
        Lastly, constraining rivers with defences will have an effect lower down. Defences just shunt the flood lower down. So OK when you have to protect property, but leave as much flood plain as you can for the river to flood.

        Vegetation does help retain water upstream. Especially trees. As does small dams to make small ponds in the brooks and streams and becks.

      • ButcombeMan

        The flooding in Somerset was a deliberate policy, it was a man made and man managed landscape until Labour stopped managing it.:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10644101/How-Somerset-Levels-river-flooded-after-it-was-not-dredged-for-decades.html

        • Kitty MLB

          Yes it was indeed man made and yet medieval
          farmers managed flooding. These days they want smaller fields and less trees. And when living in Holland the windmills in fields dealt with
          flooding. Far more useful and attractive then
          God forsaken windfarms.

          • RobertC

            Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! It’s fewer trees!

        • DocBud

          More correctly, woman made, more specifically, Baroness Young made.

          • bunklehat

            Correct – Lord Smith was a johnny-come-lately. Once it was identified as a good winter site for wading birds migrating from N Europe the Blob had the Moors and Levels marked as their own playground – screw the folk who actually lived and worked there. The flooding of the Moors and Levels was deliberate policy.

      • Wessex Man

        No it’s you who is wrong matey.

        The flooding of the Somerset Levels was the direct result of incompetence at the Environment Agency and Chris Smith (former Labour Culture Secretary) who was in charge of it stopping all drainage work on the levels, why they even sold Dredgers.

        If the the drainage work that had been done for hundreds of years hadn’t been stopped there would have been very little flooding, even here where I live in Wiltshire the River Avon hasn’t been touched for years. Moderate rainfall causes floods throughout it’s course. This never happed before but then again it’s river bed is several feet higher than it was when I was a boy.

        • HookesLaw

          Correct – but the levels will always still flood. They have flooded in the past and they will flood in the future. When we get periods of massive rain these sorts of places will flood.

          • RobertC

            They can flood in a civil manner, which is acceptable, or they can be very unruly, due to lack of attention, and cause discomfort and damage. They are like the youth of any age, really.

        • Leslie Graham

          LOL
          Sure – and it had nothing to do with just about the wettest period on records dating back 250 years did it?
          Good grief. You people need help – honestly.
          Just insane levels of denial.

          • mrdavidjohnson

            You are doing a very good job to undermine your side of the scientific argument with your crass comments

            • Dreeber

              He can’t talk any other way. He thinks he’s the only man on earth who can think.

          • Pootles

            The early spring of 1914 was equally as wet, and the Somerset Levels flooded to the same degree as last winter (as did other parts of the South, including London).

      • global city

        and that is what we should be doing, instead of prostrating ourselves before the false God of CAGW.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …how about a society made up of you socialist nutters and all your sockpuppets, lad?

    • Kitty MLB

      Global warming is a fallacy.The planet has been going through hot and cold periods with drought and flooding
      since the beginning of time.When will someone admit the
      gulf and jet stream as well as the sun and moon have
      some thing to do with this.

      We know about the medieval climate atonomy where a warm
      period turned into a mini ice age between 250 bc until 400ad
      caused by a solar reduction reaching the earth the sun was
      weakened. It warmed up again and then we went through
      periods of flooding.

      Sorry for rattling on but this mamipulative leftie lie about
      our climate..flooding etc is a bugbear of mine.

      • Leslie Graham

        [groan]
        Not the “the climate’s changed before”(TM) meme AGAIN.
        Good grief.
        And the MWP rubbish?
        Really? You honestly can’t come up with anything better than that?
        It’s so pathetic.
        Can’t you at least make up some new junk that hasn’t been debunked like ten thousand times already?
        You clearly have not even the most basic understanding of the science and what is going on but you nevertheless feel entitled to parrot the most absurd and ignorant memes and myths that you have picked up from some junk denierblog on the fringes of the web somewhere and that you don’t even understand.
        You have already decided that this pathetic junk ‘must’ be true because then you don’t have to grow a pair and face up to reality.
        Sometimes I think the human race deserves what’s coming.

        Some of the absolute denialist garbage parrotted in this thread is literaly bordering on the insane.
        Don’t say no-one warned you.

        • jaffa99

          copy/paste, copy/paste, wave arms, copy/paste, wave harder, harder, copy/paste – it is working yet Leslie?

          • DaBilk

            You forgot running in circles, chest thumping and wailing about the sky falling.

    • HookesLaw

      The salient point is that if the earth were so susceptible to small increases in CO2 then we would not be here. Intelligent life would not have evolved. We have had periods of much higher CO2 in the past. History shows that the earth is NOT susceptible to increases in CO2.

      Indeed satellite records show that in the last 12 to 18 years in a period of increasing CO2 there has been no change at all in world temperatures.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …perhaps you should explain all that to your socialist Camerluvvie heroes, lad

        • CB

          For the entirety of human existence, up until the industrial revolution, CO₂ was under 290PPM.

          Now it’s 400PPM.

          If this isn’t going to be enough to melt the polar ice caps completely, why isn’t there a single previous example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high?

          How much flooding do you think that would cause?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            The polar ice caps are withstanding CO2 this “high” right now, lass.

            Next!

            • CB

              “The polar ice caps are withstanding CO2 this “high” right now”

              Uh huh, but “since this morning” does not count as persistence in geological terms.

              …I mean, did you actually expect a million years of accumulated ice to disappear overnight?

              How could you possibly be so stupid?

              Why are you hiding like a coward behind a private profile?

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Yes, it does count as persistence in stupid internet troll terms, which is all you speak.

                Why are you broadcasting your stupidity publicly?

                • CB

                  “Why are you broadcasting your stupidity publicly?”

                  You are posing yourself a very important question.

                  Answer it, please.

                  Then explain why you’d expect polar ice caps to be able to withstand CO₂ so high when they’ve never done this before in Earth’s history.

                  What kind of suicidal psychopath bets against a perfect track record 4.5 billion years long when the entire world is at stake?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Again, the polar ice caps are withstanding CO2 “so high” right now, lass.

                  Next!

                • CB

                  “the polar ice caps are withstanding CO2 “so high” right now”

                  Are they?

                  NASA says ice on both poles is rapidly declining:

                  “The new estimates, which are more than twice as accurate because of the inclusion of more satellite data, confirm both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”

                  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

                  Which space agency informs you otherwise?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  That would be a space agency’s material that isn’t dated and years-old, lass.

                  You’ll find that nobody believes that nonsense now, not even the dolts who first published that rot .

                  Next!

                • CB

                  “That would be a space agency’s material that isn’t dated and years-old”

                  If you have updated material that suggests the polar ice caps are increasing in mass, why haven’t you already provided it?

                  If you were interested in an honest conversation, why would you be hiding like a coward behind a private profile?

                  If you know anyone can hover over your avatar and see that’s what you’re doing, what’s the point of posting anything at all?

                  Who’s going to pay attention to someone who makes it so obvious she’s a liar?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You’re imagining anybody’s interested in debating with a zealot like you? Come on now.

                  I’m not a she, and you’re too dumb to be a liar, lass .

                • CB

                  “You’re imagining anybody’s interested in debating with a zealot like you?”

                  lol! I imagine no such thing. Interactions with Climate Deniers are never debates because you already know what you believe is a lie.

                  If you didn’t, why haven’t you backed up your claims with evidence of any kind?

                  Why are you running from my questions like a coward and hiding behind a private profile instead?

                  Here is 800,000 years of CO₂ data from polar ice cores going back to the oldest significant ice on Earth:

                  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

                  Find me a single point in the dataset where CO₂ goes above 290PPM.

                  If polar ice caps can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t they record a single instance of CO₂ so high?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  The only lie is from you hockey stick zealots, lass.

                  FYI, what’s taking place these days is your lies are being blow apart. The evidence of that blowing apart of your lies is all around you.

                  Why do you zealots fling around insults constantly? Are you that insecure? You should be, given your kooky global warmingism, now being blown apart.

                  Again, the polar ice caps are doing just fine, lass.

                  Next!

                • CB

                  I don’t see an answer to my question, ginny.

                  Why not?

                  Find me a single crystal of polar ice on Earth recording a level of CO₂ over 290PPM:

                  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

                  If polar ice caps can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t they record a single example of CO₂ so high?

                  Why are you running like a coward from the question and hiding behind a private profile?

                  If you weren’t interested in being taken seriously, what was the point of posting anything at all?

                  If you weren’t suicidal, why aren’t you interested in evaluating the threat climate change poses to your well-being?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Your “question” is nothing of value, lass. It’s just more kooky global warmingism. The world is in the process of rejecting you kooks.

                  The polar ice caps are withstanding things just fine, in case you haven’t noticed, and you haven’t.

                  Next!

                • S Graves

                  What sort of “suicidal psychopath” just makes things up about ice caps to try to prove some scary story? Oh…that’d by YOU.

                  You know what you have stated is just not true. You know that, of course. In fact you stated;

                  CB • 15 days ago Tues, 3-27-14 3:56 PM

                  Yes, during the Eocene-Oligocene transition roughly 34 million years ago, polar ice caps formed with levels of CO₂ at roughly twice today’s levels, or around 800PPM.

                  You see, CB, when you claim that they actually FORMED and, as you have also said, lasted a few million years at least, it’s hard to now claim the opposite.

              • S Graves

                How long is “persistence”. If you challenge your own term, then you need to define it. Note that you have actually used two different terms interchangeably in your comment here. Define both.
                Careful now…I have reserved your quote from a few months back where you defined the term persistence for me.
                If you cannot define your terms…both of them…temporally, then your argument seems nonsensical.

          • S Graves

            But that’s not true. You know that, of course. In fact you stated;

            CB • 15 days ago Tues, 3-27-14 3:56 PM

            Yes, during the Eocene-Oligocene transition roughly 34 million years ago, polar ice caps formed with levels of CO₂ at roughly twice today’s levels, or around 800PPM.

            You see, CB, when you claim that they actually FORMED and, as you have also said, lasted a few million years at least, it’s hard to now claim the opposite.

      • Leslie Graham

        Pure ignorance
        If the Earth didn’t have CO2 we wouldn’t even be here as the Earth would be a solid block of ice.
        And yes Einstein – everyone knows that the CO2 levels have been higher in the past – and everyone, apart from you it seems, knows that the sun was less bright at the same time which compensated.
        Funny how you forgot to mention that little fact isn’t it?
        History shows over and over again just how sensitive the climate is to even minor changes in CO2 levels. The global temperature tracks CO2 levels almost exactly over hundreds of millions of years. Every time we have emerged from an ice age it is because the Milankovic
        Cycles trigger a build up of CO2.
        How can you possibly not know that! It is taught in every school in the UK and has been for decades.
        You are either ignorant of the most basic schoolboy geology or are deliberately lying.
        Which is it?

        • marc biff

          The sun was less bright,did it have it’s hat on.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            I do fondly remember when the sun wearing a hat was fashionable

        • morbidfascination

          “The global temperature tracks CO2 levels almost exactly over hundreds of millions of years.”

          Except that, according to you, the sun was cooler during periods of higher CO2 to compensate, so there should not be exact tracking?

        • jaffa99

          Leslie, you’re making it up as you go along – and it shows. Your time would be better spent on a site where the audience is impressed by arm-waving and copy/paste alarmism. Fool.

        • newminster

          I do like a good rant, the more fact-free the better!
          As a demonstration of ignorance I doubt this could be improved upon.
          (Do they really teach schoolboys geology these days? I don’t think so!)

        • jaffa99

          “The global temperature tracks CO2 levels almost exactly over hundreds of millions of years”

          Yes except the CO2 actually tracks – 800 years behind – temperature changes. Hmm cause > effect ?

          Wave those arms Leslie.

        • Adam

          so you base your entire understanding of climate science on what you were taught 30 years ago in school? Aren’t you a specimen

        • Inverted Meniscus

          A perfect blend if socialist nuttery and envirowhacko nonsense. Thank you for the entertainment but this site generally prefers to debate matters based on a modicum of reality.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Historically, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a lagging indicator to global atmospheric temperature rises.

          You really don’t know much about this, do you?

    • TimboX

      Let alone average winter temperature of minus 50 centigrade in Yakutsk!

    • SkyHunter

      Who told you it would only be 0.5 degrees? It has already risen 0.8ºC.

      • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

        When? Not in the last sixteen years, it would seem.

        But I think you’re missed my point. If the difference in annual average temperature between St Petersburg and Cairo, and both can support populations of millions, I don’t think 0.8 degrees will be any more disastrous than 0.5.

        • SkyHunter

          You are just some random person on the internet. What you think and believe is not relevant.

          The temperature record you are referring to is the global mean surface temperature (GMST), or the lower troposphere, since those are the only datasets that reflect a slowdown in the warming trend. All other lines of evidence conclude that the Earth is still warming.

          Oceans are still warming.

          Global ice is still melting.

          And the satellites are still recording a net positive 0.6W/m2 incoming vs outgoing energy.

          • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

            I don’t have the scientific training to be able to comment. But what I do have is 47 years of experience of scientists telling me that the end of the world was nigh.

            In the 1970’s, we were on the verge of another ice age. Then it was the hole in the ozone layer. Then it was the Millennium Bug. Then it was El Nino. Now it’s global warming.

            Simultaneously, the new Black Death was going to be HIV, Mad Cow Disease, SARS, Avian Flu, Swine Flu, and now Ebola, although I read elsewhere that it’s actually a very fragile virus that can be destroyed simply by washing one’s hands (which would explain why it only establishes itself in regions where plumbing is relatively unusual).

            Almost daily throughout the 1990’s, I was told that African agriculture would wilt and die. It hasn’t. That we’d be halfway to a Mediterranean climate by now. We aren’t. That our children would not know what snow is. My children are very familiar with snow, thank you. That the arctic would be ice free by 2014. It isn’t. That the north-west passage would be navigable by now, and the Panama Canal would be experiencing a catastrophic drop it trade. The north-westpassage it’s not navigable, and the Panama Canal it’s looking at widening itself to accommodate all the shipping that wants to use it.

            And I was told repeatedly that since 97 percent of scientists were agreed (which raises suspicions in itself — since when did 97 percent of scientists agree on anything?), I was some sort of neo-Luddite if I dared question them. Except that in the 1990’s, their predictions tended top relate to the following couple of decades, and now they were manifestly wrong, or at least exaggerated, they now make predictions for the next century, which nobody alive today will be able to laugh at them for.

            It was all bollocks, every one of them. I also read that climate sceptics tend to be middle agreed, and warmists tend to be young. Do you think there may be a reason for that?

            • SkyHunter

              “I don’t have the scientific training to be able to comment.”

              I see. You are admittedly ignorant of climate physics, yet believe it is BS because you were fooled by media hype in your past.

              Scientific literacy is your vaccination against BS.

              • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                No, I believe it’s BS because I’ve spent my entire life being told that the end of civilisation as we know it was imminent. And because the predictions for global warming have been manifestly exaggerated — at best — to date.

                Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I don’t rule it out. But it’s a classic case of crying wolf.

                • SkyHunter

                  A Master of Science?

                  Since you are just pretending, why not call yourself a Master of the Universe?

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  I have an M.Sc. in Computer Science. I don’t pretend that qualifies me to comment on climate change, but I’m not a credulous simpleton incapable of rational analysis.

                  Not that it makes a blind bit of difference one way or the other, and I don’t really give a toss whether you believe me or not. You were, I believe, about to explain why climate change, for all that its dire predictions have completely failed to materialise to date, and for all that humans have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years, this one is actually real.

                • CB

                  “I don’t pretend that qualifies me to comment on climate change”

                  If you know you’re unqualified to comment on climate change, why are you commenting on climate change?

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Because I was asked for my opinion. Does that work for you? And while I don’t have the training to comment upon whether a 0.8 degree is real, and whether it’s even significant, I do have a training in recognising bollocks when I hear it.

                • CB

                  “Because I was asked for my opinion”

                  Uh huh, and if you didn’t know, why didn’t you just say so?

                • SkyHunter

                  The AGW theory is not based on model predictions. It is based on well understood physics. The Earth is warming in full accordance with the theory, IE, it is still continuously gaining about 0.6W/m2 of energy, that energy is not showing up where models predicted, but it is still in the climate system.

                  That is why even with a negative PDO, negative ENSO, and the weakest solar cycle in 100 years, the oceans are still warming, the ice is still melting, and the surface is also still warming, just not as fast as it was before all these events coincided.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Obviously, the physics is not well understood. We were supposed to be half way to frying by now. We aren’t. We still get snow regularly, and cool summers. People like the weather man, Bill Giles, who planted olive groves in anticipation of our Mediterranean climate have lost their investment. The Maldives, Kiribati, Fiji are not underwater, nor are the Dutch having build up their dykes. The Arctic is not ice free. The north-west passage is not navigable. We do not have 50 million “climate refugees”. etc. etc. etc.

                  If one’s science makes a host of predictions that fail to materialise, it’s clearly not well understood!

                • SkyHunter

                  Do not confuse your perception of the media you consume with scientific reality. Personal perception is a single data point of a much broader meta-analysis. Best to begin by separating ones own beliefs from reality.

                  I am sure that if I searched, I could find recent examples of all sorts of dire predictions from ice-age to inferno. But those are stories, fiction loosely based on published research.

                  But then, who other than scientists, aficionados, or propagandists bother to read the published research?

                  If you look at what the position statements of every scientific institution in the world and you will not find any of those dire predictions.

                  Climate science is applying the laws of physic to the Earth’s climate. The simple part is CO2. We know from spectral analysis that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the amount of radiation emitted at the tropopause by 3.7W/m2. The harder part is figuring out what that forcing will do to the climate. There is where the uncertainty lies. And that is not even the hardest part. The hardest part is figuring out how life is going to respond.

                  Large excursions of the carbon cycle are associated with mass extinction events.

                  The Earth’s climate is incredibly complex. But here is what we know.

                  Greenland is melting.

                  Antarctica is melting.

                  And while Antarctic sea ice is growing, it’s total volume is increasing 30 km3/year since 1992, and as you can see here, there was not much of a trend before 1992.

                  But the

                  arctic sea ice volume volume is decreasing by 3000 km3/yearsince 1979.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  “If you look at what the position statements of every scientific institution in the world and you will not find any of those dire predictions.”

                  Okay, I don’t know whether you simply don’t know what you’re talking about, or whether you are simply descending into bullsh!t, but you ought to be aware that’s rubbish.

                  The 50 million climate refugees prediction came from the UN general assembly in 2008. Actually, 50 million was the conservative estimate. What the United Nations actually said was “it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.” But lo and behold, today, four years after the latest date for the prediction to materialise, IT HASN’T HAPPENED.

                  Rising sea levels to swamp the Maldives was first reported in the first International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere way back in 1988. 25 years later, the Maldives are still there!

                  Britain’s Mediterranean climate, and the absence of snow, was forecast numerous times by numerous institutions. For example: “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000 (Yes, they of the “hide the decline” Climategate e mails); ” a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
                  BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004 (I live in Wales, and the Christmas before last was very white indeed — I could see if I can upload a photo of my back garden, if you like); “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC Climate Change, 2001; “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more.” Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008 “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.” BBC News, 20 Dec 2004 “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years.” Meryl Streep 1990 (as they say in America, just stick to the day job); and much, much more …

                  The ice-free Arctic comes from the American Geophysical Union in 2007, as announced by none other than Professor Wieslaw Maslowski (I’ve never heard of either, but they sound awfully impressive), who said, “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima … you can argue that maybe our projection is already too conservative.” Well, they were WRONG!

                  Are you even still reading this, I wonder. What I have noticed, in common with many other warmists that I’ve tussled with, is that you rarely respond to any criticism I write (beyond an insinuation that I must be terribly ignorant and uneducated – perhaps not the most advisable method of winning hearts and minds), but in essence restate again and again, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Since you’re already aware that I take your science with a pinch of salt, I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by that.

                  I mean, you say grandly, “Antarctica is melting!” — okaty, fine, Antarctica’s melting, but why isn’t the Maldives underwater? Because God knows, there’s been enough highly qualified people from respectable institutions who have been saying for decades that it would be by now.

                  And if Antarctica is melting, why is the Arctic not ice free, as the good Professor Maslowski said it would be no later than last year — conservative estimate.

                  Don’t tell me the Antarctic is melting in the same breath as telling me that the earth’s climate is complex. I know it’s complex. I want to know why, given that the science is so well understood by 97 percent of scientists, so many predictions have been manifestly wrong.

                  Why do my children know what snow is? Why can’t I grow oranges in my back garden? Why aren’t there 50 to 200 million climate refugees?

                  If I couldn’t write a program in Javathat worked, you’d say I don’t know Java. So when the climate scientists’ predictions don’t take place, why am I supposed to just assume they must be right anyway?

                • SkyHunter

                  I’m sorry, which of these resolutions was passed to deal with the estimated 50-200 million climate refugees in two years?

                  Repeating something you heard is not evidence.

                  And all you are doing here is showing me what I already knew, you have self-selected your media to support your bias and confused it with science.

                  Individual scientists making bad predictions in the media does not constitute a null-hypothesis.

                  No one predicted 8 feet of sea level rise by 2014 in 1988, so the Maldives should not be under water.

                  You should really get yourself grounded in real science before it is too late.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Oh spare me!

                  Admit it, you really haven’t a clue why the Arctic isn’t ice free, beyond that the science was false. You have no explanation why we still get snow in winter. You can’t say why the north-west passage isn’t navigable. In fact, you haven’t the faintest frickin’ idea about any of the problematic issues. The best you can do is parrot some babble that hasn’t been proved wrong yet, and hope that the hoi polloi are too thick remember. It has to be said that the general snobbery that seems characterise your lot does you no favours at all.

                  The science is not understood, that much is bleeding obvious, even to an amateur like me. This whole global warming bollocks is simply another millenarian scare story, of the kind I’ve been hearing my whole life. They were bollocks, and I’ve no strong reason to suppose this isn’t precisely the same.

                  As for the null hypothesis, it’s not that some predictions haven’t come true — it’s the sheer quantity of predictions that haven’t come true. If there was just one of two of them, you’d have a point — but it’s massive numbers of them! The burden of proof rests on you, and you don’t pass the test by avoiding responding to criticism. The scientific method does not provide for sneering that anybody who questions your methodology is a blockhead.

                  Anyway, I can’t be bothered with this crap any more,. It was fun for a while, but it’s getting old now. Have much fun, joy and pleasure eating tofu and setting up wind turbines in your back garden. I’m off for a pint.

                  Nos da, as we say in Wales.

                • SkyHunter

                  The Arctic was not supposed to be ice free at this juncture. That you believe it should have been just reveals the depth of your ignorance.

                  The predictions made by the AGW theory are proved through falsification of the null hypothesis. Internet narratives are not scientific arguments.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  “The Arctic was not supposed to be ice free at this juncture. ”

                  You’re right. It was supposed to be ice free last year, and that was the conservative estimate. You keep burbling about my studying the science. Go study it yourself, FFS, instead of inventing on the hoof whatever nonsense you hope might get you one up.

                  “The predictions made by the AGW theory are proved through falsification of the null hypothesis.”

                  SO WHY DO WE STILL GET SNOW???? Jesus H. Christ!

                  Hwyl fawr. I hear Monsieur Kronenbourg calling my name.

                • SkyHunter

                  What model predicted an ice free Arctic by 2013?

                  The AGW theory does not predict it will not snow during winter.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  You’re so au fait with the science, why don’t you know?

                  Coat and hat’s on. I’m out of here.

                • SkyHunter

                  How is it possible to know something that never happened?

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Oh very witty. But I did mention it in an earlier post. Why don’t you read it?

                • SkyHunter

                  No you didn’t. At least, not in a post to me.

                  There are no models that predicted an ice free Arctic by 2013, that is why I know you are wrong.

                  If you are right, prove it.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  “The AGW theory does not predict it will not snow during winter.”

                  The Climatic Research Unit at UEA might disagree with you. And the Met Office.

                  But then again, now they’ve been proved wrong, maybe not any more. “Who me? Predict there would be no snow??? Perish the thought!” Why don’t you take a look at the Watts Up With That blog? They’ve collected a whole page of 65 statements, by all manner of prominent intellectuals and authoritative bodies, from all across the world, predicting the lack of snow, and how it’s entirely consistent with what they’d expect from global warming.

                • SkyHunter

                  That CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of IR and warms the planet is empirically derived.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  As was the 1970’s ice age, and the Millennium Bug, and the hole in the ozone layer, and all the rest of it.

                • SkyHunter

                  The clean air act reversed the 1970’s “ice age”, the Montreal protocol reversed the destruction of the ozone hole, and the millennium bug was always more hype than substance, a computer scientist should know that. And any scientist should know that each phenomenon should be treated on it’s own merits, not be biased by the experience and beliefs of the scientist.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Evidently, the Millenium Bug was more hype than substance, but it was taken seriously enough at the time. Very much like everything else. And if an ice age can be averted with the simple passage of a law in London (who knew that British politicians wielded such global influence these days?), and a protocol can be policed so effectively as to stop an emerging disaster in its tracks, I don’t think there’s much need to panic about global warming. Maybe the Spanish parliament will vote through a bill to bring it screeching to a halt.

                • SkyHunter

                  CFC’s are continuing to destroy ozone.

                  You need to separate fact from fiction.

                  I suggest changing your online reading sources.

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  “CFC’s are continuing to destroy ozone.”

                  You said, “the Montreal protocol reversed the destruction of the ozone hole”

                  Are you just making this up as you go along?

                • SkyHunter

                  So I take it you have not looked at any of my links?

                • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

                  Nope.

                • SkyHunter

                  Had we not stopped producing CFC’s, they would be accumulating in the stratosphere, not declining.

                  That you can’t detect the nuance is evidence of bias, ignorance, or low functioning cognition.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Whenever Labour MPs “trail” concerns about anything you can guarantee it is the preliminary softening up for depriving us of yet more freedoms and imposing yet more Nanny-based law.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      What we need is a tax imposed on all Gas and Electricity companies… to help to implement green measures that all our friends with land to spare insist will help us in the future……. Now if only we had such as tax…..

      • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

        And who’s going to pay that tax? You?

        Oh yes. You, and every other gas and electricity consumer in Britain.

        • fundamentallyflawed

          they should supply a sarcasm font so people know to read between the lines…

          • Alexsandr

            (My mum did her irony after her washery)

          • http://www.CaerphillyPreserves.co.uk/ No Good Boyo

            My apologies

  • Smithersjones2013

    Maria Eagle talking nonsense? Now there’s a novelty………

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here