IPCC report: Why is no one on Mumsnet talking about climate change?

[WillPenn]

Was very surprised to see hardly any talk about climate change on here, following on from the latest IPCC report. Are none of you worried about your kids' future or is everyone just sticking their heads in the sand?

It makes me panic to think what lies ahead for my DC if no one acts. Come on Mumsnet, how about a ground up campaign to try and get the govt. and the nation to tackle this elephant in the room head on?

As a family, we are doing what we can to cut back on energy usage - but we are just four people and I'm feeling pretty hopeless about the whole situation at the moment when nobody else seems to care about the future.

[claig]

Never mind what they tell us on our media, the majority of people don't believe their global warming scam and they are worried about the decline of our hospitals.

This is an article about Jilly Cooper in today's Daily Mail.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2437195/Jilly-Cooper-Im-writing-pay-husbands-care.html

She is lucky to be able to continue working and earning so that she can look after her husband, but what of the millions of us who won't be able to. That is why we need more young people and an end to the elitist Club of Rome philosophy of

"the real enemy then is humanity itself"


We'll get there, we'll win but only when enough people wake up and understand what has been done to us by the scammers and 'cabs for hire' and their masters.

[HesterShaw]

Sigh.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of the taxi allusion.

[claig]

Don't you remember the famous secret filming of the New Labour MP saying that he was like a 'cab for hire'. I am using the term in a generic sense, not to do with him.

The Club of Rome statement was
"the real enemy then is humanity itself"

The global warming protagonists imply that it is humanity that is destroying the planet and leading to catastrophic climate change - that by using water to live, that by eating meat to live and that by having large families, it is us who are destroying the planet.

It is an anti-human philosophy and it is a lie.

[HesterShaw]

What's wrong with being anti-human? The fact that there are so many humans on the planet is what is driving other animals, who have as much right to live here as we do, into extinction. The insatiable desire to make stuff out of palm oil for all these billions of consumers, for example, means that our close relatives, orang-utans, are losing their homes and their families at an unsustainable rate and will soon all be gone.

The colossal numbers of people relying on fish for food means humans are stripping the sea of fish and leaving nothing for other animals to eat. And ultimately of course, that will mean no fish left to eat for those billions of people living in coastal communities all over the world.

A marine ecosystem collapsing because of billions too many people is not a good thing.

How is having more and more people good for the world? Humans are just part of the world. They are not the world itself.

This is not politics or conspiracies. These are facts.

[claig]

"What's wrong with being anti-human?"

If you don't know, I can't help you. It is anti life, against nature. Live and let live.

'The fact that there are so many humans on the planet is what is driving other animals, who have as much right to live here as we do, into extinction.'

No it's not. We are preserving species and go to great lengths to help pandas etc to survive, because we respect nature and life.

'The colossal numbers of people relying on fish for food means humans are stripping the sea of fish and leaving nothing for other animals to eat.'
I don't believe that. Have they counted the fish or have they fiddled the figures once again?

'A marine ecosystem collapsing because of billions too many people is not a good thing.'

Don't believe it. They always try to blame humanity because of their anti-human philosophy which if accepted will allow them to have their way with humanity.

' Humans are just part of the world.'
yes we are part of teh world and that is why the Club of Rome is wrong to say 'the real enemy then is humanity itself'. We are a beautiful part of this beautiful earth and that is why we must make sure that no elite tries to destroy us.

[HesterShaw]

I know quite a lot about marine ecosystems as it goes :)

As I said, I'm as ever stunned by your 100% certainty that you know better than everyone else.

I can play at that game as well: in this aspect at least, you are utterly wrong.


But there we are.

It's like debating with a brick wall.

[claig]

I dont say I am 100% correct, but what are you basing your view of teh marine ecosystem on? Models? Like their climate change models which were proven to be inadequate?

‘Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’ the amused scientist said. ‘However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2438434/MIT-scientist-ridicules-IPCC-climate-change-report-calls-findings-hilarious-incoherence.html

[HesterShaw]

Asking me where I get my "view" about the marine ecosystem, and then backing up your own with articles from the Daily Mail...?

[claig]

Sorry I thought it was your view or opinion on the marine ecosystem, I didn't realise that you were 100% sure about it.

[Talkinpeace]

what links do you have to support your assertions OTHER than from UK Daily papers?

knew what sort of thread it would be when I saw Claig posting.
Sad to see they think they are omnipotent.

[claig]

I had a Forbes link and wikipedia links as well as UK papers.
When I link to the Daily Mail, it is not the opinion of teh Daily mail editor I am quoting, it is because the Daily Mail is quoting a scientist or official or green adviser.

I don't think I am omnipotent, and I thought you would be able to debate without making things personal.

[claig]

'I tend not to discuss scientific issues on MN because there are too many idiotic Daily Fail readers who make my blood boil.'

I don't know whom you are referring to, but you could do with a chill pill so that you can be open to the opinions of people who disagree with you, even if they are not as clever as you and read the Daily Fail.

[WillPenn]

Sorry Talkinpeace and Hester. I don't start many threads on MN and I think I was a bit naive - I thought that people like claig didn't exist on here!!!! Ha! How wrong I was! In fact, I thought anyone with half a brain would realize by now that climate change is happening and is manmade. I'm just totally gobsmacked that anyone would believe anything they read in the Daily Fail.

Mind you, when Tory minister Paterson is questioning the whole thing, you know you might as well just pack up and go home.

[claig]

WillPenn, the new Prime Minister of Australia has been reported as saying that manmade global warming is bunkum. There are lots of people who don't believe in it. In fact the New Statesman in about 2007 had an article saying that the majority of the population didn't believe it and that outside the Westminster circle, most people didn't believe it. It's a common belief.

[claig]

Even some prominent people are no longer so sure about it

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001189/Ministers-fall-climate-folly-warns-ex-Civil-Service-chief.html

The mood has changed and I think it is because the public is not going along with and don't to a large extent believe in it.

Since we no longer have warming at present, the term global warming is in decline and we now have climate change. On the Daily Politics the other day, I heard the term "climate disruption". It doesn't matter what they call it, the public are sceptical and I think the grand game is up.

[WillPenn]

Yes - but everyone also knows that the new prime minister of Australia is a twerp. I mean, how can he not believe the climate is changing when his own country has experienced such extreme temps over the past few years?

Generally dismayed reponses to his beliefs and actions are described here

[WillPenn]

See, now I'm getting sucked into talking to the brick wall!

[WillPenn]

Yes WE in the UK do not have "warming" at present - but other people do. And floods, typhoons, hurricanes etc in spades.

[claig]

' And floods, typhoons, hurricanes etc in spades.'
Was there a time when we never had those?

[wiganwagonwheelworks]

I don't care if climate change does happen naturally too, that doesn't excuse humankind from causing EXTRA manmade change...I don't see how holding the view that change occurs naturally precludes holding the view that we should not fuck the planet up any more than we can help....It's just an excuse to do nothing.

[claig]

'how can he not believe the climate is changing when his own country has experienced such extreme temps over the past few years?'

It is to do with solar activity, not human carbon output


"Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity."

www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/2/

[GeekLove]

I suspect that the reason people don't talk more about climate change on Mumsnet is that most people on Mumsnet are more focused on the here and now and that most do not feel qualified to offer an opinion.
Another reasons is is that the thread has degenerated into a bunfight between climate change 'believers' and 'deniers'

True some of the IPCC scientific conclusions in the past were a touch suspect but the nature of science is that it is always incomplete. Some of the climate change sceptics have siezed on this but it shows more a lack of understanding of how research is conducted in the real world - re Climategate when email was hacked at East Anglia University which showed that scientist disagree and argue and bitch just as much as any other professionals.

In my experience these days climate change sceptics tend to be good at making much noise but very little light - science should be discussed and challenged but to sieze on small details without considering the whole subject is pointless. All competent climate scientist are by definition sceptics as that is how science works - you have to consider a hypothesis and how to prove or disprove it and not see what you want to see if it is not real.

In the past there were climate change sceptics who did have reasonable arguments but as more evidence for it is confirmed, those that remain invariably have their own agenda which usually does not have much basis in science when compared with literature and research that has been reviewed and published in respected peer-reviewed journals. Remember until about 7 years ago the most notable climate change sceptic was none other than Sir David Attenborough who now agrees with the consensus that climate change along with habitat loss and human population are the main threats to life as we know it.

[claig]

Geeklove, if you want to get ahead you have to follow the line. The great British science presenter, David Bellamy, says that he is persona non grata on the BBC and elsewhere because he denies it.

[claig]

He is a great and honourable man who stands by his principles

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-bellamy-i-was-shunned-they-didnt-want-to-hear-8449307.html

[claig]

"But for the grace of God he would be revered as the man who brought botany to life through glorious rambling monologues in a time before CGI graphics and hi-tech film techniques became de rigueur. But his fame and acclaim rolled off the rails in 2004 when – in the teeth of public opinion and mounting scientific evidence – he said global warming was nothing but "poppycock". He was deserted by fans, shunned by peers and, he says, ostracised by broadcasters and conservation groups that once thrived through his endorsement: he was sacked as president of the Wildlife Trusts."

He paid a heavy price but when the scam finally collapses, he will be honoured as a popular hero who refused to bow.