Global warming: if only we'd listened to the experts, eh?

[Chris]

Sir John Beddington, the government's retiring Chief Scientist has been doing the media rounds today, telling anyone who'll listen how "Climate Change" is still a serious problem about which we should all worry greatly.

Has he looked out of the window recently?

Looking out of my window just now, I noticed that the Northamptonshire landscape was completely blanketed in Dr David Viner. Just like it was yesterday. And the day before that, when we rescued two orphaned lambs from the frozen fields. Which isn't something you normally expect in March, is it?

I'm sure I know what Beddington would say in reply to this. "Weather is not climate." No, indeed. But it's an argument which would surely carry a lot more weight if Beddington and his alarmist brethren hadn't spent most of the Nineties and Noughties citing the hot summers and mild winters as evidence of man-made global warming. Later, as we know, they amended their scare-phrase to the more inclusive "climate change". Then, growing more desperate as global mean temperatures stubbornly refused to rise with the alacrity their dodgy computer models predicted they would, they even had a stab at popularising "global climate disruption" and "global weirding". Had these caught on (which they didn't, really) it would have been a brilliant coup because what it would have meant is that whenever the weather did anything weird anywhere in the world (which weather does, by the way, all the time) the alarmist movement would have scored another propaganda victory.

Actually, though, if you'll look at the facts – something that the Warmists appear increasingly loath to do – what you'll realise is that our winters ARE getting colder. That there has been no statistically significant warming since January 1997. That the CAGW hypothesis is looking increasingly threadbare. And that, therefore, the billions if not trillions that Britain and the other Western industrialised economies have spent "combatting climate change" have very likely been utterly wasted.

@ http://Global warming: if only we'd ...e experts, eh?


Has the fat lady sung?

[Captain Obvious]

Just like the concept of "when does life begin" is important to pro-abortionists, anti-environmentalists refuse to consider the facts and science of the matter because it's a political issue to them - not a scientific issue.

I really don't care to consider the political aspects of environmental issues, rather I look to objective opinions, statistics and current global warming impact scenarios which are happening now all around us.

[Peter1469]

@ Global warming: if only we'd listened to the experts, eh?


Has the fat lady sung?

It isn't about global warming. It is about getting your money.

[Mister D]

Just like the concept of "when does life begin" is important to pro-abortionists, anti-environmentalists refuse to consider the facts and science of the matter because it's a political issue to them - not a scientific issue.

I really don't care to consider the political aspects of environmental issues, rather I look to objective opinions, statistics and current global warming impact scenarios which are happening now all around us.

Environmental issues are inescapably political though.

[Captain Obvious]

Environmental issues are inescapably political though.

Agreed, which is why the subject can be frustrating at times.

These environmental topic debates always go the same way. A pro posts tons of graphs, links, charts, articles and an anti posts tons of graphs, links, charts articles and nothing is gained in the long run - at least for folks like me who want to understand the science behind the matter.

I look at this stuff and it's like reading a biased MSM article - you can spot the lack of objectivity in the first paragraph or two. I disregard that stuff and focus on what I consider objective reporting and studying on the matter and at the end of the day I make a somewhat educated guess at what I think is the reality of the matter.

And that reality is that global warming is real and a threat and I want to know more about it and it's difficult with all of the noise.

[zelmo1234]

Well you know that you are going to get this again!

[Mister D]

Agreed, which is why the subject can be frustrating at times.

These environmental topic debates always go the same way. A pro posts tons of graphs, links, charts, articles and an anti posts tons of graphs, links, charts articles and nothing is gained in the long run - at least for folks like me who want to understand the science behind the matter.

I look at this stuff and it's like reading a biased MSM article - you can spot the lack of objectivity in the first paragraph or two. I disregard that stuff and focus on what I consider objective reporting and studying on the matter and at the end of the day I make a somewhat educated guess at what I think is the reality of the matter.

And that reality is that global warming is real and a threat and I want to know more about it and it's difficult with all of the noise.

Agreed. I don't understand the science behind it and most people seem to parrot what they wanted to hear from an "expert" anyway. It all reeks of politics though. I guess race does too which is something I've made strong effort to understand.

[zelmo1234]

Agreed, which is why the subject can be frustrating at times.

These environmental topic debates always go the same way. A pro posts tons of graphs, links, charts, articles and an anti posts tons of graphs, links, charts articles and nothing is gained in the long run - at least for folks like me who want to understand the science behind the matter.

I look at this stuff and it's like reading a biased MSM article - you can spot the lack of objectivity in the first paragraph or two. I disregard that stuff and focus on what I consider objective reporting and studying on the matter and at the end of the day I make a somewhat educated guess at what I think is the reality of the matter.

And that reality is that global warming is real and a threat and I want to know more about it and it's difficult with all of the noise.

I can't find any real data that shows a declen in anything, the polar bear numbers a up,

The ice pack is getting thicker, and when it was declinging it was uncovering mines in greenland!

what we have is wht we once called weather when I was a kid!

[Chris]

Just like the concept of "when does life begin" is important to pro-abortionists, anti-environmentalists refuse to consider the facts and science of the matter because it's a political issue to them - not a scientific issue.

I really don't care to consider the political aspects of environmental issues, rather I look to objective opinions, statistics and current global warming impact scenarios which are happening now all around us.

That last paragraph was about " (1) objective opinions, (2) statistics and (3) current global warming impact scenarios":

Actually, though, if you'll look at the facts – something that the Warmists appear increasingly loath to do – what you'll realise is that (1) our winters ARE getting colder. That (2) there has been no statistically significant warming since January 1997. (1) That the CAGW hypothesis is looking increasingly threadbare. And that, therefore, (3) the billions if not trillions that Britain and the other Western industrialised economies have spent "combatting climate change" have very likely been utterly wasted.

[Chris]

Environmental issues are inescapably political though.

Everything is political.