Anyone else follow climate change news obsessively?

[Chickychickyparmparm]

It's like a car crash - I can't look away.

I am reading more and more in the build-up to the Paris talks at the end of the year. China has surprised everyone with a bigger pledge than expected. But will it be enough? What about the US? They ignored the Kyoto Protocol. Obama is in the news today talking about melting ice in Alaska - yet gave Shell the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic.

I am genuinely terrified of what will happen if the world does not act fast.

Jassy, the point is not about the quality of the land in Australia, but about the vast area of empty land which would be available on the other continents.

Oh honey. You're doing it again. That land isn't 'available' for anything, except maybe some solar panels at vast transmission expense.

Trust me.

If you're going to talk about how much population the planet can support, you do rather need to limit to land that is usable. Which is a slightly different amount to 'total global land area'.

Thanks for the laugh, though. I needed it.

Evidence of climate change.

I wonder what the conspiracy theorists say that NASA gains from endorsing "the climate scam."

There are some really good psychological analyses why humans are so bad at believing in climate change evidence.

I'm sure Claig/Taties will be along to tell us shortly, YeOldeTrout. I bet it'll be good.

throckenholt I think hackmum was being ironic, suggesting that the more ignorant/uneducated about a subject people are the more qualified they feel they are to comment (see: this thread).

chickychicky - I got that after I had posted - hard to tell though given some of the comments in other posts . Shame there is no edit button.

The answer to why nasa is "promoting" climate change is obvious - they need to get income to pay for all their shiny satellites.

Understandable Throckenholt, this thread is all kinds of batshit.

Suppose your house is worth £100 (for the sake of simple numbers). Someone tells you there is a 10% chance of it burning down and offers you insurance cover. The cost of the premium is £10,000 per annum. Do you say, 'gosh, I'm not going to ignore that risk, I'm going to get that insurance'?

The losses being caused to societies around the world by panic reactions to speculations about the importance of CO2 in the climate, are very high. Many more premature deaths due to starvation thanks to bio-fuels raising the cost of food. Many more people losing opportunities to escape dire poverty thanks to campaigners stoppng fossil-fuel power stations in the developing world. The list goes on is a large one, and it also includes the hard-to-quantify cost of burdening children with intense fears about their future because of what they been taught about climate change.

During the big famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s, Ethiopia was exporting food. There wasn't a problem in production, just in distribution. That is how famines usually happen. Market forces don't work very well to feed poor people.

Chipfat is a good source for making bio-diesel, I wish I was more technically proficient & could do that myself.

Yes, sorry, throckenholt, I was being ironic.

There was a study a few years ago that showed that people who were expert in a subject often underestimated their own expertise - because they knew a lot about it, they also realised there was a lot they didn't know. Whereas people who were ignorant about a subject tended to vastly overestimate their expertise. It's known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I often think of the Dunning-Kruger effect when I read threads about climate change. I wonder why.

Yes, expertise and uncertainty abound in climate science:

"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably..." Tommy Wils, climategate1 email, (2007) ClimateGate email 1682 - di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/1682.txt

Thank goodness we have your expertise then, Claig.

I couldn't agree more, and you are getting it for free. There are billionaires like Donald Trump who would pay top dollar for just a small part of that expertise, but why do you keep referring to Iliketatiescones as being me?

Goodness, aren't we lucky! Pity I haven't read your posts then. Or tatiescones, whose language and bad-science links are so identical to yours it's uncanny and I keep mixing you up.

I don't do science links because I think the climate hoax is nothing to do with science and is pure politics.

Posters on this thread have asked "what have we got lose? So what if they get it wrong, the great and the good?"

What we have got to lose is hundreds of billions and the process of zero growth and deindustrialisation which is what the elite want to happen to the people in order to set back their growth and development forever.

"Climate Change Act has the biggest ever bill

Ed Miliband's legislation will cost us hundreds of billions over the next 40 years, says Christopher Booker "

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550164/Climate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-ever-bill.html

Don't you belive in astrology too? Guess that makes sense if you don't believe in science overall.

omg, that climate gate archive is hilarious. Full of details like bus timetables to UEA. And debating over where to put commas in scientific papers. Gosh, smoking guns alright.

One (public email server) philosophical discussion about the best way to present information to the public & from that someone picks out a (context removed) single quote that jokes the presentation has to be done delicately and humbly or it will be received badly. Shocking, I tell you [irony].

claig

Do you really think all those scientists around the world researching and publishing their findings are doing it for purely politcal reasons ? Do you really think they have all been got at by the powers that be in order to push a story ? Do you really think they have been fiddling their research and results for the last 40 years or so ? (I first heard of global warming as a student in the 1980s).

I honestly wish it was all a hoax. I have no objection to you deluding yourself - but I do object to you continually trying to delude others into putting on your blinkers.

I'm particularly amused at the idea that NASA had to pretend to believe in climate change for 8 years to get funding from the Bush White House...

'Do you really think all those scientists around the world researching and publishing their findings are doing it for purely politcal reasons ?'

No, I think they are being used just like the puppet politicians are being used. In the 1970s, the elite tried the "global cooling" trick. They will try any trick that wil fly to fool the people.

I'm confused - who are these elite that are controlling things ?

No one really knows, but they are the trillionaires and hereditary elites above the here today gone tomorrow politicians

'Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn voters most likely to believe 'world is controlled by a secretive elite'

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-jeremy-corbyn-voters-most-likely-to-believe-the-world-is-controlled-by-a-secretive-elite-10475488.html

It is common knowledge.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's quite that easy to control scientists...

'Yeah, I'm not sure it's quite that easy to control scientists...'

Absolutely. The elite have found that out with the thousands of climate sceptic sceientists who won't go away until the truth is revealed.

One of the best and most famous of them is of course Jeremy Corbyn's brother, the phenomenal, legend that is Piers Corbyn. He goes through the scam and hoax in the following video.

"The Man who predicts weather better than anyone else"

Piers Corbyn says "CO2 is irrelevant", Gordon Brown (referred to as some people as Gordon Bennett) says it is not irrelevant. I know which one I believe.