[Archived] Climate Change

[Paul]

I think this hits the nail on the head, when it comes to England's flooding and other similar issues: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/02/23/rainbow-slick/

:The floods were apparently not only inevitable, but foreseeable. The chief problem to preventing them lay in a policy which maintained that active flood control was bad. Nature treats humans as part of the natural world but environmentalists treat nature as part of the political world. Many a misunderstanding arises therefrom. Alas the rains and the seasons refuse to read Labor Party and Green Left manifestos and the results are often inconvenient. And so the floods came."

Total nonsense

[Steve Moss]

My view is that you are a major reason for global warming and making the floods worse.

How so?

I certainly wouldn't have stinted on improving the flood plan and infrastructure, which is just as important as roads, sidewalks, etc...

Or are you saying that the carbon footprint attributable to man made infrastructure (which I support) is what makes the flooding worse?

Enlighten me, please.

[Paul]

How so? I certainly wouldn't have stinted on improving the flood plan and infrastructure, which is just as important as roads, sidewalks, etc...

The UK winter is the wettest on record, with these records dating back to 1910. A 30 second Google finds a quote on the BBC from the US National Weather Service: "The National Weather Service said it (the recent US ice and snow storms) was an event of "historical proportions", drawing comparisons with similar weather systems that struck the Atlanta area in 2000 and 1973." Can we assume you agree US national or local governments should have had measures in place since 1973 to tackle such an event? http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26159108

While I would agree dredging appears to be part of the issue it's unlikely to have solved the whole problem. Historically the Somerset Levels have been managed and reclaimed by man, drainage and controlled flooding being part of the cycle. I recently watched a TV programme on the area and in 1919 70,000 of the 160,000 acres flooded. This winter, the wettest on record, the flooding was restricted to 17,000 acres. Clearly over the years a variety of authorities have successfully improved the flood defences. It's estimated across the UK 7,000 properties flooded in winter 2013 while 200,000 were protected. In 2014 current estimates show 6500 properties flooded with 1.3 million protected.

I happen to have lived in York and Worcester more than 30 years ago. Personal experience and observation informs me two major cities which regularly flooded now benefit from significant protection. Taking these examples it is clear significant improvements under various governments, the current government has had three years to address the issue but chose to cut funding, have been made in UK flood protection.

One needs to add to this debate the Somerset Levels enjoy a rich biodiversity including more than 40 SSSIs or SPAs. With much of our wildlife under threat managing habitat is necessary if we are to ensure the survival of that biodiversity. While no one wants to see people flooded out equally few people wish to see the British countryside devastated through exploitation. The rich beautiful landscape we enjoy results directly from centuries of land management and there is a balance between this and flood protection. Providing the Levels with protection against a once a century event could seriously disturb that balance

Or are you saying that the carbon footprint attributable to man made infrastructure (which I support) is what makes the flooding worse? Enlighten me, please.

Are you now acknowledging man's impact on climate change? I thought you had previously argued against it?

[dave birch]

Or are you saying that the carbon footprint attributable to man made infrastructure (which I support) is what makes the flooding worse?

Enlighten me, please.

Can I split this statement into two bits please:

"Or are you saying that the carbon footprint attributable to man" I'm not certain, but it must have an impact.

"man made infrastructure (which I support) is what makes the flooding worse?" Most certainly, water is not absorbed through those "Man made infrastructure(s)" it's got to find a way around it, down the streets, the drains and be collected somewhere. It's focused into one point, whereas if the land was undeveloped it would be adsorbed, the ultimate problem being total absorption and then flooding.

:

[yoda]

How so?

I certainly wouldn't have stinted on improving the flood plan and infrastructure, which is just as important as roads, sidewalks, etc...

Or are you saying that the carbon footprint attributable to man made infrastructure (which I support) is what makes the flooding worse?

Enlighten me, please.

doh, I was referring to your mouth and its output

[Steve Moss]

doh, I was referring to your mouth and its output

I suppose I have to plead guilty to that one, as I do produce a lot of hot air.

[otto man]

doh, I was referring to your mouth and its output

Says Mr Shy and Retiring with (currently) 5545 posts to his name! Can't you just taste the irony?

EDIT: I've just noticed I've broken the 500 barrier myself. Do I get a badge or something?

Oh and Steve? I'd like to apologise for some of our ruder members on here, as not all Englishmen are normally like that. Unless of course we're invading a foreign country and generally roughing up the natives.

[yoda]

Says Mr Shy and Retiring with (currently) 5545 posts to his name! Can't you just taste the irony?

EDIT: I've just noticed I've broken the 500 barrier myself. Do I get a badge or something?

Ask admin,

I have been posting since the very early days of the board to get to that level, are you his sidekick? at least Steve Moss saw the humour in the post

[otto man]

Ask admin,

I have been posting since the very early days of the board to get to that level, are you his sidekick? at least Steve Moss saw the humour in the post

So you missed the whole "wink wink" thing at the end of the sentence then? glasses? Needed? Much? ;) (Just in case!)

[yoda]

So you missed the whole "wink wink" thing at the end of the sentence then? glasses? Needed? Much? ;) (Just in case!)

No, I saw it, just not sure what it was for

[Steve Moss]

The Environmental Protection Agency's "highest paid employee and a leading expert on climate change" has plead guilty to pretending to be a CIA spy and defrauding his employer (the taxpayers) of over $900,000.

It sounds like this "leading expert" has told more than a few lies. I wonder what else he'd be willing to lie about?

http://www.businessinsider.com/epa-employee-as-fake-cia-agent-2013-12

[Paul]

Your scepticism knows no bounds.

[Mike E]

Your scepticism knows no bounds.

Better than blind faith, mind. Not saying that's you btw.

[Amo]

Global Warming will cause more rapes

Getting really desperate now.

[Baz]

Global Warming will cause more rapes

Getting really desperate now.

Sounds like a UKIP sponsored study.

[Al]

Sounds like a EU sponsored study.

[thenodrog]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559

[Paul]

Cue naysayers right..........

[Paul]

Colin-

Very nice speech which completely misses the point.

Is there climate change? Yes. Throughout the history of the world there's been climate change. At times the poles have been very suitable for every day living.

Is there man made climate change? That's debatable.

Is it global warming or global cooling that need concern us? Until the scientific community, whose modeling is seriously flawed, can get its act together on the point, I don't think I can take anything they say seriously.

All in all, the IPCC and other hacks at the UN sponsored organizations seem far more motivated by political agendas than they do "science". I personally equate them with medieval priests; they have titles, speak an arcane jargon, allegedly know more than us mere mortals and ask the peasants to take them on faith. I decline.

I was interested to learn, as I had not previously understood this, from two seperate items on the BBC R4 Today programme, the IPCC reports on peer-reviewed work, collating the data and presenting the results to or on behalf of the UN. The report released today is based "on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies."

It seems to me far from having political agendas the IPCC is collating and summarising data from a wide range of scientific studies. If the IPCC has a political agenda one would have to presume it skews its reports to reflect such an agenda. This could be rather tricky as there as surely at least one writer of a peer-reviewed paper might point this out? Presumably though every one of the scientists involved is wrong?

Presumably the earth is still flat and the medieval priests are looking to find more ways to exploit the peasants?

[Steve Moss]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26810559

Here's a rebuttal from smarter people than I:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

[jim mk2]

Well, of course, Forbes would say that.

Forbes is a right wing magazine for the elite rich which has as much credence as Fox News.

I'll stick to the BBC thanks.

[dave birch]

Here's a rebuttal from smarter people than I:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Steve, If they are smarter than you, and you agree with them, why do you not accept the Scientists on the IPCC, as their findings are peer reviewed?

[otto man]

Well, of course, Forbes would say that.

Forbes is a right wing magazine for the elite rich which has as much credence as Fox News.

I'll stick to the BBC thanks.

Why? Did Forbes commission the study any more than the BBC did? Or is it because the BBC is a left wing, biased organisation which panders to card carrying party members?

[otto man]

Steve, If they are smarter than you, and you agree with them, why do you not accept the Scientists on the IPCC, as their findings are peer reviewed?

Does this give you a clue Dave?

It is frequently said of the global warming debate that it comes down to who you believe rather than what you know. Many climate scientists say they “believe in man-made global warming” even though their own research contradicts key points in the arguments advanced in support of that hypothesis. They say this because they believe the IPCC is telling the truth about findings outside their areas of expertise. Ditto influential science journals such as Nature and Science, which claim to speak on behalf of “climate science.”

How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed. In June 2013, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the 2009 and 2011 volumes.

[Paul]

Here's a rebuttal from smarter people than I:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Whoa! Hold on a minute. Lets just ask a question here. We know who the UN are, we can establish the individual member countries and their representatives, we can establish their political ideology, we know these people are indirectly answerable to an electorate, we can establish the members of the IPCC.

Alternatively we can believe an alternative total denial view from:

We know the authors of the IPCC’s reports have financial conflicts of interest, since the government bureaucracies that select them and the UN that oversees and edits the final reports stand to profit from public alarm over the possibility that global warming will be harmful. The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate.

So there is the choice take note of the UN, leading elected political figures and known scientists or believe the alternate view of three PRIVATE FAMILY foundations who out of the goodness of their collective hearts fund the alternate view.

Who are they and what is their motivation?

The current Nicaraguan coffee harvest is reduced by 50%:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/latin-america-climate-change-coffee-crops-rust-fungus-threat-hemileaia-vastatrix