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.

Interesting you choose Brown rather than the, er, thousands of scientists who disagree with Piers Corbyn? Including those who are willing to actually publish peer-scrutinised research into how they've reached their conclusions and on which to base assessments of their expertise, which of course Corbyn declines to do for some reason.

Do relevant comparisons really undermine your arguments so much that you feel you must avoid them at all costs?

Oh, and how do you reconcile your views on the global cooling 'trick' and Corbyn's promotion of same, if you think Corbyn is a reliable source?

'Interesting you choose Brown'

I choose Bennett Brown to highlight that it is political.

'how do you reconcile your views on the global cooling 'trick' and Corbyn's promotion of same'

Because I trust Corbyn and not them. Corbyn doesn't say we need to avoid fossil fuels which have led to industrialisation and enrichment of ordinary people across the planet, and they do want us to come off of fossil fuels as an energy source because they tell us "the planet is doomed" otherwise.

I choose Bennett Brown to highlight that it is political.

But it doesn't do that. You could compare Johnson with Brown if you wanted a valid comparison. But a (not stunningly accurate) meteorologist vs a politician in some kind of suggestion that these are the only two proponents of their cases, or somehow representative of the types of people backing their two cases (ie that it's scientists vs politicians). Which is misleading.

What makes you 'trust' Corbyn, out of interest? And do you think he's right or wrong on cooling?

um - so how do you explain all those politicans who have a vested interest in fossil fuels (eg oil barons running the US, fracking enthusiasts etc) - they have no political reason at all to rubbish all the scientific (peer reviewed) evidence do they. Certainly not compared to those powerful politicians who have a vested interested interest into panicking people into believing in man made global warming.

My bottom line - as a scientist - it is NOT about belief it is about evidence. I don't give a toss what politicians think (most of them have no scientific background and not a lot of scientific understanding). I do care that we (collectively) are willfully screwing up our beautiful planet whilst sticking our fingers in our ears, firmly pulling down our blinkers and saying la-la-la-la ....

'What makes you 'trust' Corbyn, out of interest?'

Since I know it is a political scam that puppets have to follow, when a scientist like Corbyn also says it is a scam, then I trust him not to be a puppet. The climate is always changing just as it did when we had an ice age (when there was no manmade climate change) to now, so it will get cooler and hotter. I actually think it will get cooler. But whatever happens it is not due to any manmade influence and Corbyn says the same which is why I know he is not a puppet.

'so how do you explain all those politicans who have a vested interest in fossil fuels (eg oil barons running the US, fracking enthusiasts etc) '

I am against fracking due to the health risks. It is the puppets who tell us that it is much more carbon neutral than oil petrol. But it is health that is the issue not the climate scam. Of course oil barons will prefer oil, but even the oil companies have gone along with the carbon scam because there will be carbon credit trading, exchange nased trading in carbon derivative contracts and taxpayer subsidies and energy restrictions for ordinary people and the oil barons are not independent of the trillonaires.

But that is why millions of good people in America and all over the world are hoping that Trump is serious and will go all the way and become President. Because if anyone is independent of them, Trump is. He has already told them what he thinks

"This global warming bullshit has got to stop"

and the panic in elite circles is enormous and political puppets have been told to say that Trump has got it wrong, but the people are with Trump. The elite are panicking, the people are celebrating . The lies are finally coming to an end. Trump is not for sale and nor are the people.

"The elites’ problem with Donald Trump: He’s not for sale

Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The media establishment is having a cardiac arrest.

The reason? Donald Trump has thrown his hat into the Republican presidential race.

The billionaire businessman is a straight shooter, known for his bluntness and tough talk. Unlike most politicians, he speaks plainly and directly. He doesn’t mince words or engage in the kind of double talk that pervades Washington. In short, he does not defer to the media elites, who cherish their role as the gatekeepers of our political class.

The ruling establishment’s dominance is based on the complicity of the mainstream media. It is an unspoken bargain: New York-Washington journalists depend upon having access to politicians in exchange for safe, almost sycophantic news coverage."

www.worldtribune.com/2015/07/01/the-elites-problem-with-trump-hes-not-for-sale/

Since I know it is a political scam that puppets have to follow, when a scientist like Corbyn also says it is a scam, then I trust him not to be a puppet.

So it's a case of anyone who agrees with you is trustworthy? With a good side helping of 'my enemy's enemy'? That's some confirmation bias right there - a comfortable way to live, maybe, but isn't it a bit intellectually narrow and stifling? I quite like finding out been wrong about something - or better, when scientists or other theoreticians do so. Which happens all the time. I like knowing that all these people are still seeking, still refining, still learning, still challenging.

Your arguments about Trump are similar. 'A billionaire who agrees with my world view is good, a maverick, and not part of any media elite despite his immense power and influence in that field. A billionaire who disagrees with me is part of the global elite conspiracy to cash in on carbon trading.'

It is the puppets who tell us that it is much more carbon neutral than oil petrol.

I think you need to do a tiny bit more research on this one. What's 'oil petrol'? The only claims I've heard around the carbon impact of fracking is that shale gas, when burned, emits less carbon than coal (the fuel it has predominantly displaced in the US) in the production of electricity. That's not political spin, that's basic chemistry.

No answer on your view of whether Corbyn is right or wrong on cooling?

'emits less carbon than coal (the fuel it has predominantly displaced in the US) in the production of electricity. That's not political spin, that's basic chemistry.'

Yes but that is how they try to sell it to us as being better for the envirobnment because it uses less carbon (the same as their arguments for nuclear) when in fact what matters is not the carbon scam but the risks to human health and contamination of the environment.

Here is the green guru, Lovelock, arguing for nuclear

"James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution

We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger"

www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-6169341.html

But what matters is human and animal health and environmental damage, not whether "civilisation is in imminent danger" due to the climate scam which they tell us will lead to the destruction of the planet.

'No answer on your view of whether Corbyn is right or wrong on cooling?'

I don't know, I haven't looked into it in detail, but my guess is that he knows more about it than Gordon Bennett. And whatever happens, Corbyn says it is not manmade, that is where he differs from the elite.

Here is the wikipedia quote from the Rockefeller funded elite think tank 'The Club of Rome

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Piers Corbyn doesn't think that and nor does Donald Trump. Let's wait and see who wins the argument.

Yes but that is how they try to sell it to us as being better for the envirobnment because it uses less carbon (the same as their arguments for nuclear) when in fact what matters is not the carbon scam but the risks to human health and contamination of the environment.

And coal is, obviously, brilliant for human health, as is burning oil?

'And coal is, obviously, brilliant for human health, as is burning oil?'

It is better than potentially damaging the water table. There are tradeoffs. We have lived with coal and oil for over a century. Human development and progress requires energy which is exactly why the elite want to restrict it, tax it and ration it via carbon credits so that ordinary people will be forced back into their box. Who will win the argument - the elites, their political puppets and the media or Donald Trump and the people? We will have to wait and see.

It is better than potentially damaging the water table.

That's highly debatable on the basis of relative risk. I hope you won't take offence if I suggest you do some research of your own, looking at primary sources (and how fracking actually works - I'm by no means a proponent, but I like fact-based discussions). You seem to get most of your info from blogs that confirm your worldview. (Based on what you link to as 'evidence'.

There are tradeoffs. We have lived with coal and oil for over a century.

Yes, and the resultant impact on air quality, and the early deaths and I'll health it causes, are well documented. One of the main drivers for China divesting from coal is urban air quality.

Human development and progress requires energy which is exactly why the elite want to restrict it, tax it and ration it via carbon credits so that ordinary people will be forced back into their box.

Wouldn't a better way to do that be to drive further reliance on difficult to extract, easy to control fuels that are not self-renewing, and where functional markets already exist (rather than thoae that have proved fairly rubbish so far?)

As opposed to giving anyone with a bit of cash the ability to go mostly off-grid with some solar panels and a battery or two? You don't give your 'global elite' much credit for brains.

Donald Trump and the people?

Excuse me while I chortle at the idea of Trump being the people's politician.

Cooling? Really no answer?

That Piers Corbyn dude is dead ugly.

'Wouldn't a better way to do that be to drive further reliance on difficult to extract, easy to control fuels that are not self-renewing'

No because it is probably a myth that these resources are being depleted. New finds always appear but the oil moguls restrict the supply in order to push the price up unless like now they want to drop the price for political reasons. Also countries would then compete for that oil and would not be under any elite imposed climate targets which would stop them using those energy sources. Therefore the elite would not be able to restrict the supply of energy to ordinary people or the developing world which would mean that prosperity and growth would continue and they don't like that.

'You don't give your 'global elite' much credit for brains. '

They have got brains alright. They employ the best and the brightests in top think tanks, but they are no match for the people and Donald Trump. Their scary adverts and their nudge techniques etc are not capable of fooling the ordinary person. The more hysterical they get claiming climate catastrophe is imminent, the more the people disbelieve them. They are at a loss of what to do and now Trump and Farage have appeared on the political scene and they know the game will soon surely be up.

"Donald Trump and the people?

Excuse me while I chortle at the idea of Trump being the people's politician."

That is what the Republican Party grandees, the great and the good first did when Trump announced his candidacy, and that is what Blair, the Blairites, the Tories and the Tory-lites did when Corbyn first announced his candidacy and that is what Clegg probably first did when he heard that Farage wanted to debate him, but not one of them is laughing now. The only ones laughing are the people.

Cooling?

Your argument about fossil fuels,makes zero sense in the context of less easy to control fuels, and non-existent carbon markets.

I'm not chortling at the idea that Trump might be successful. I'm chortling at the idea that he is any way in touch with the people he claims to speak for. He's doing a very clever job of pulling the wool over their eyes and playing them for fools.

So you aren't disagreeing with the science of extra CO2 causing increase solar energy trapped in the atmosphere leading to warming (and other related changes) ?

So simple question - where is all the extra carbon in the atmosphere and ocean coming from ? Increases in carbon have been measured for recent decades of all natural systems. If it isn't man made (mainly through burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) - where is it coming from ? If it is man made then maybe we can do something to make sure it doesn't rise any more (we are still stuck with the current increased levels which haven't yet worked their way into a new climatic equilibrium). If it isn't man made then we have very little chance of making any difference and will just have to get used to the changes.

The climate will change to adapt to the increased carbon - but we are not likely not likely to like the new normal that the systems develops into. Sea level rise (both through melting of ice, but more from thermal expansion of the oceans) is one of the biggest threats to a large number of people living in very low lying areas (both developed and developing world).

'Your argument about fossil fuels,makes zero sense in the context of less easy to control fuels, and non-existent carbon markets. '

Which fuels? And the carbon markets are coming, they are planning them.

'He's doing a very clever job of pulling the wool over their eyes and playing them for fools.'

People are not stupid. Whenever they are given a real choice such as Trump, Farage or Corbyn, they grab it with both hands even though Blair and the great and the good advise them not to, advise them to be "sensible" and vote for more of the same. People know that Blair doesn't make sense and Trump does.

'So you aren't disagreeing with the science of extra CO2 causing increase solar energy trapped in the atmosphere leading to warming (and other related changes) ? '

Yes I am disagreeing with it. I agree with Piers Corbyn and not Bennett, that CO2 has nothing to do with it. Piers calls it a "CO2 Con" and on the basis of that alone, I think he should receive a knighthood and the Order of the Barter, if he is willing to accept them for his services to the truth. I hope Trump makes Piers the UN adviser for climate change.

Ah - ok - so explain it to me please ? The fact that CO2 has risen substantially over recent decades, and the chemical reactions of increased CO2 is understood - that is somehow not relevant ?

So if not the increased energy trapped by the atmosphere, what is causing all the numerous examples of a warmer world (more vigorous weather systems, melting icecaps, glaciers, warmer oceans, more acidic oceans, increase rate of level rise etc) ?

I genuinely want to understand what is happening and why.

Claig, do you have a tin foil hat?

'The fact that CO2 has risen substantially over recent decades, and the chemical reactions of increased CO2 is understood - that is somehow not relevant ?'

I would have to consult Corbyn for that. My speciality is politics, not science.

'I genuinely want to understand what is happening and why.'

I would suggest looking at a climate sceptic science site for an answer to what is happeninh. If you want to know why it is happening, then you will need a political site.

'Claig, do you have a tin foil hat?'

I have one for every day of the week.

look at climate sceptic science sites - my problem is that the science on them doesn't make sense and tends to be very selective.

My speciality is politics, not science. - from where I stand that is the problem - most of the people making decisions have no real understanding of the science.

Absolutely throcken

There is no doubt this issue has been politicised to hell and back. It is a massively political issue. But that doesn't mean it's not a science issue at heart. And it's the science, and the evidence, where I look first and foremost to come to the conclusions I have. Which are, mainly, anthropogenic climate change is happening, and is a serious issue.

But it's a uncomfortable problem to try and solve. Theoretically it's quite simple. Cut emissions. But emissions make too many people too much money. And emissions make us comfortable. I live in an oil-powered centrally heated home. I drive a petrol car. I have electric lights and a TV. To maintain this standard of living and cut emissions would be expensive. To cut emissions cheaply would lead to less "comforts". No wonder so many people would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. No wonder there's a market for the sceptics. Shame all their science is as dodgy as hell.

Fwiw I'd love the sceptics to be right. I really, really would.

I don't actually read climate change sceptic sites because there is no point wasting my time as I know it is a political scam. But I think that Joanne Nova's site is good, but I can't say for sure as I don't read it.

"Pierre Gosselin has a great post: Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles”.

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names."

joannenova.com.au/

'most of the people making decisions have no real understanding of the science'

Absolutely. If they spoke to Piers Corbyn, who has beaten the Met Office on weather forecasting on some occasions, then they might get a better understanding of what it is all about and might learn about what Piers calls the "CO2 Con". But even if they knew the truth, they wouldn't dare do anything about it, because the elite wouldn't let them.

That is why millions of people across teh world have their fingers crossed that Donald Trump becomes US President because this is what he tweeted.

"This global warming bullshit has got to stop".

'I live in an oil-powered centrally heated home. I drive a petrol car. I have electric lights and a TV. To maintain this standard of living and cut emissions would be expensive. '

That is why the elite want to cut emissions and force you to drop your standard of living, just as with financial austerity. They have the media, they have the scary adverts, they have our taxpayer money, but they haven't got the truth. Can we win? Jez we can.