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.

[KittiesInsane]

Why do you immediately believe the few rather than the many, though, Claig (god this brick wall feels good to me)?

And why pick one botanist rather than marine scientists, climate modellers, atmospheric scientists, plant ecologists...?

It's a catch-22. If you believe that anyone who has government funding to look into the issue is necessarily corrupt, then you are left with those who are self-funded (very, very few) or backed by industry with its own interests.

(I have a certain bitter sympathy with the authors of the Himalayan glaciers report whose typo made their results a factor of, what, 1000 wrong, having (just in time!) spotted a factor of one billion billion error in a paper yesterday...)

[claig]

'Why do you immediately believe the few rather than the many, though'

Because i believe in truth and truth is independent of the numbers that are against it. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't base my beliefs on statements by politicians like Gordon Brown saying "we have 50 days left to save the planet". I have seen enough spin to be wary of being taken in by it.

I believe that global warming is a political project rather than a scientific one. I believe it has its genesis in elitist thinktanks funded by some of the richest plutocrats on the planet and I believe that the here today gone tomorrow politicians are only conduits of a political policy that has been decided on years before they even came to power.

I believe that we have seen some people in esteemed universities doctoring figures in its favour and I believe the great botanist, David Bellamy, when he said that his work dried up when he said that global warming was "poppycock". Sir David Attenborough, who has changed his mind and believes in manmade global warming, gets lots of work on the BBC, but David Bellamy is no longer on our state broadcaster, the BBC.

Bellamy suspects it has something to do with his denial of manmade global warming and I believe him, and I suspect that it might be for political reasons and a sort of political correctness where scientists like Bellamy are not welcome if they challenge the orthodoxy.

[KittiesInsane]

What orthodoxy?

Surely the original papers on climate change were challenging the 'orthodoxy' at the time (well, I know they were, because it was bloody hard for them to get published)?

[claig]

I also tend to have more faith in people who can demonstrate independence and people who have nothing to gain and much to lose by holding to their beliefs and principles rather than politicians, bigwigs and establishment figures who have everything to gain by following an orthodoxy backed by billionaires, royalty and the great and the good.

We have seen secret filming of some of our politicians discussing their fees with lobbyists and we know about the concept of the 'cab for hire'. The fact that Bellamy refused to change his beliefs even though it cost him dearly makes him in my opinion someone to admire.

[KittiesInsane]

Anyhow, I'm off. Sadly not to do anything more useful than help someone get his geoprospecting methods published, thus potentially adding to the total amount of oil to be sizzled.

maybe I'll add a few typos and scupper his work

[claig]

'Surely the original papers on climate change were challenging the 'orthodoxy' at the time'

Have you got a link to these original papers?

In my opinion, the orthodoxy is the one created and designed by the elitist thinktanks who funded the 'Limits to Growth' study which has influenced so much of the low growth and zero growth thinking of many subsequent green movements across the planet. It is like the story of the Emperor Has No Clothes. The 'cabs for hire' know which side their bread is buttered on and people like Bellamy get frozen out because he doesn't follow His Master's Voice like so much of our state and corporate media does.

The plutocrats thought they would have an easy time convincing us that "the real enemy then is humanity itself", they thought their 'cabs for hire' would corrall the masses. But they have been surprised by how sceptical the public have been. Some politicians have even escaped the pen, like the Prime Minister of Australia. their anti-human philosophy will crumble to dust, their lie that by eating meat and having large families, we are destroying the planet will fail.

They may have money, they may have influence over our media, but they won't be able to control our minds, and just like King Midas, their wishes will fail and their anti-human scam will eventually be evident to all of the people.

[WillPenn]

Nice article for those who think the IPCC is a load of rubbish

here

[claig]

Kitties, have a nice day and keep up the good work.

[comingalongnicely]

The climate is changing - agreed. We're still coming out of the end of the last Ice Age, which is why we still have glaciers.

When the Ice Age has finally finished we'll be back up to the tropical temperatures that the dinosaurs enjoyed millions of years ago & chest deep in nice warm water.

The planet will survive just fine, and species will adapt and evolve as they always have. Humans will die off (at least in this form) - that's what people are worried about, not "the planet". The Planet will be just fine.

"Greenhouse Gases" may accelerate it a teeny tiny bit more, but it's going to happen anyway. Ironically the best way to cut them down is for us to drown/starve & let the planet get on with it.

If the government was serious about making our last few centuries a bit more comfortable they'd be building enough nuclear power stations to supply our needs (like France have) rather than covering prime farmland in Wind and Solar farms whose benefits are doubtful at best & that aren't even built in this country.

That's what gets me about all these so called Green initiatives - they pay lip service, they're good media friendly solutions - not the best ones.

Electric cars - they run on batteries, batteries take huge amounts of resources to make, all sorts of pollutants are released during their manufacture & they're buggers to dispose of. How do we then charge these fantastic things? By plugging them into a supply generated by oil/coal/gas fired power stations.

And 10 years later, they go flat & need to be replaced!!

Affordable, reliable public transport, trainlines that go across the country, not just up & down, incentives & benefits to car share - these are all viable solutions, but harder to roll out & don't grip peoples imagination.

I don't mind paying Green Taxes - but don't spend the money on lazy, inefficient solutions...

[comingalongnicely]

And breath....

[claig]

'Affordable, reliable public transport'

And yet, we have seen the opposite in this country, where our rail system was privatised and UK citizens now suffer some of the highest rail fares in all of Europe.

The elite don't care. Their agenda is the UN Agenda 21. It is an agenda of global control and cuts, cuts, cuts. Less water, less fuel and less growth in order to prevent humanity's progress.

This is the quote of Maurice Strong at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992

“...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

They are not mucking about. They intend to do it, and cheap publicly subsidised travel is not part of the plan for us, but the elite will fly across the world in private jets paid for by taxpayer money.

[claig]

We are the most amazing species on this planet. Our intellect is amazing and we have invented fantastic things and great societies with our God given, nature given intelligence. We have progressed from swamps to where we are today, and we have only begun our journey.

"the real enemt then is humanity itself"

is a lie that reveals the true intent of the global elite who wish to stem our progress and our prosperity.

We will solve all the problems that we face because of our intellect. We have only recently invented computers, what will we have created in 300 years' time. There is no problem too big for us to solve.

Let's not let a global elite turn the clock back, impoverish and ration us and prevent us from having access to the energy and meat and water and resources that they so freely use as they jet across the world in £7000 per hour jets while they tell us not to flush our loos to save water which they intend to charge us miore and more for.

[Talkinpeace]

The intelligent scientific approach is to have an opinion based on the evidence, but be willing to change it if the new evidence is compelling.
Holding onto an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence is faith not science.

People like David Bellamy and Johnny Ball have been ostracised because they have made their minds up and refuse to consider new evidence (DH has seen them do it to rooms full of confused kids).
They may once have been scientists, but they have rejected the scientific mindset.

Claig believes. No evidence will ever convince a believer.

And claig's ranting on every thread about the environment is one of the reasons there are so few.

[claig]

'Holding onto an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence is faith not science.'

Is David Bellamy not a scientist?
There are tens of thousands of scientists, many with PhDs, who are climate sceptics, but you just won't see them on the BBC.

[flatpackhamster]

Talkinpeace

^The intelligent scientific approach is to have an opinion based on the evidence, but be willing to change it if the new evidence is compelling.
Holding onto an opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence is faith not science.^

Why, then, did the ecomentalist movement go gangbusters on Friday when the IPCC put its press release out to the media, instead of waiting for the evidence which did not come out until Monday?

[Talkinpeace]

flatpack
The researchers have been submitting their data on an ongoing basis for many, many months.
A lot of the data had already been peer reviewed published.
They probably got excited : postdocs are a bit like seven year olds at heart.

[claig]

Piers Corbyn is a PhD who runs a weather prediction company. He is the brother of Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn.

Interesting interview with him saying that climate science is failed science based on fraudulent data and that we are entering a phase of global cooling.

If he turns out to be right, then he should get a knighthood and huge funding.

[flatpackhamster]

Talkinpeace

The researchers have been submitting their data on an ongoing basis for many, many months. A lot of the data had already been peer reviewed published. They probably got excited : postdocs are a bit like seven year olds at heart.

I think you are misunderstanding my point here, which was not about the AR5 report but about the media's reporting of the press release.

The press release came out on Friday morning. The actual report didn't surface until yesterday. And yet, without reading the report, the entire ecomentalist movement declared DOOMAGEDDON on the environment.

Is that scientific? Or is the political process of hammering out suitable wording for the press release scientific?

On another note, you're accusing Bellamy and Ball of allowing their personal views to influence their scientific position, but what of these scientists who produced the AR5 report? Aren't they human? Don't they have pride, vanity, hubris? Would they not let anything influence their views in pursuit of the truth? Because you seem to me to be saying "These people with whom I disagree allow their personal views to affect their analysis of the science, but these people with whom I agree are wise, noble and would never stoop to such a level."

Which, frankly, is bollocks.

[Talkinpeace]

Flatpack
Newspapers generally print garbage. I therefore do not really care about the treatment of the press release. What matters is the actions taken in light of the actual report.
I do think the USA has taken it rather too far in turning off the lights in the whole of the Government today but the outcomes will be key.

And no, my problem with Bellamy and Ball is not their views so much as their rejection of all new evidence. Many of the researchers have had evidence challenged and accepted change. Paradigms move all the time. But they should be based on the balance of evidence.
Bellamy in particular wants to stick with the 1974 paradigm - and not just on Global Warming. As a kid I thought he was great. I have several of his books, but his brain is no longer what it was.

[flatpackhamster]

The press release is important, whether you sniff at the media or not.
It was a political decision to release it three days before the release of the AR5 report. That sort of behaviour does not convince me of the good intentions of the IPCC. It convinces me that the IPCC does not see AR5 as a mechanism for producing good science to allow governments to plan for the future.

You missed my point on Bellamy and Ball again. My point was not whether they are right or wrong but that you hold them to a different standard to the people churning out press releases for AR5.

[Talkinpeace]

No I don't.
I expect ALL scientists to evaluate current evidence and not openly reject stuff.
There is very, very, very little scientific evidence against global warming.
Lots of opinion but little or no published, checked data.

You are putting words into my mouth that I would never utter because you believe rather than seek evidence. As does David Bellamy.

[flatpackhamster]

Talkinpeace

^There is very, very, very little scientific evidence against global warming.
Lots of opinion but little or no published, checked data.^

Nobody's saying the planet isn't warming, that's why. The argument is whether or not the warming is man-made. I'm not interested in that argument in particular, my real bugbear is what's to be done about it which is where my opinions are diametrically opposed to the Greens and their like, because I don't think the answer is taxes, windmills and rationing.

You are putting words into my mouth that I would never utter because you believe rather than seek evidence. As does David Bellamy.

Yes, sure, we're all secretly against you. It's a big plot, me and Bellamy and the Lizardmen.

[Talkinpeace]

Ooh, I like Icke - he used to be on the telly round here. Mad as a box of frogs.

FWIW A lot of the "greens" I talk to have such a poor grasp of the science I want to shake them.

The answer is taxes, but well targeted taxes like on leakage from power generation and factories.

The answer is windmills and nodding ducks - offshore. Onshore wind in crowded countries like the UK is a dumb idea. Read up on the SAhara supergrid : a fantastic plan that will weaken Islamic fundamentalism in the same breath.

Rationing : less rationing than cleverer use. Which is why the Economist switched from outright denial to "ooh, we can make money from adapting to this"

[KittiesInsane]

Yeah, but, Talkin, the science is pretty hard to grasp in any meaningful way. That's why we use bloody huge computer problems to do it instead.

[KittiesInsane]

Grr. 'programs' not problems (though either would do.

And I don't mean 'we' use them. Not me personally anyway.