The famous "No More Snow" prediction was not that there would be no more snow but that that Snow would be less frequent and more extreme when it happened.
Since that prediction Britain has had fewer snow days.
Untrue, I'm afraid. If that were the case, the Independent wouldn't have deleted it.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he [David Viner, UEA] said.
Yes, some of the earlier climate change crusaders made some insane claims, which have told against them. Weren't we all meant to be underwater by now, according to Al Gore?
However, and it is a big however, I can remember some scary-shit videos made by the warmists in about 2000, which predicted that we'd see 40-50C temperatures in Europe, and that mass migrations would occur, with people fleeing Africa and the ME and climbing on boats and scaling walls to get to cooler climes
I scoffed, loudly, at these absurd doom-mongering hallucinations...
Al Gore's movie underpredicted the extent of artic sea ice melting.
The early IPCC (professional doom mongers looking to con people) models have (modestly) under predicted global warming.
Toby Young has penned an article claiming that the record temperatures this week were due to being measured at airports. That to "climate Thermageddonites got their U.K. heat record of 40°C" thanks to measuring devices placed next to hot jet engines and tarmac.
He curiously omitted the measurements over 40 degrees in green places miles from any jet engine.
He's been desperately penning articles on denying all and sundry, from the existence of covid waves, through the efficacy of vaccines (much of his output over the past year has been to platform antivaxxers and conceal the conflicts of interest of having a major antivaxxer group's press releases published as if they're objective news articles), and to outright deny anything about climate change.
Denialism and its links to conspiracy theories are a major issue, especially with pseudoskepticism
I do wonder what will happen to the entire career of James Delingpole...
To be transparent, I was a climate change skeptic until about five or six years back: so I can see both sides. When I say skeptic I accepted there was some evidence that warming was PROBABLY occurring, but I was far from convinced that it was definitely man made. Why could it not be something natural, like the medieval warm period? - and so on
I was also made more skeptical by the warmists fiddling the data - which I believe they did. That scandal at UEA seriously set back the "climate change cause"
But events in recent years have fundamentally changed my mind. The freak events are mostly on the warm side. not the cold side. And boy are they freaky. The Canadian heat dome, and our own recent 40C. The movements of plants and animals to adapt, the retreat of glaciers. I travel a lot and I see all this
And when I travel I also see just how many humans there are, and just how much heat and pollution we are pupping out. How can this NOT have an effect?
I am now 97% sure the climate is changing, quite fast (mainly towards more warmth and volatility), and that man is to blame, at least in part
Agree. For them's that's rather despairing of the ecological cost of climate change, this is a rather lovely and consoling thread.
On corporation tax @eek - I'm not convinced that raising it to the level proposed is a good idea without some permanent measures to lower it with R&D credits. However, now that it's going up I don't think we're in a position to cut it for a while unless the government is willing to raise other taxes or cut other spending.
I thought the R&D credits were permanent although 13% really isn't enough as Corporation Tax increases.
What I will note is that R&D credits have rampant fraud reported against it and HMRC started a scheme to crack down on it earlier this week based on a linkedIn post from a tax advisor I follow...
There are plenty of Tory members who would enthusiastically vote Boris were he the third name on the list.
Which brutally exposes the argument Danny the Fink was making in his column this week; members should not choose party leaders.
A handful of predominantly elderly white men in Southern England still want BoZo as PM (and are going to give us Truss)
The voting public want him gone, and will be less forgiving of her
I think this argument about the system is overblown.
Liz was one of only two MPs out of 357 deemed acceptable to send to the membership by those MPs.
They cannot in any way say they didn't have the chance to filter Liz out. And yet they didn't.
If Labour had used the Tory leadership system in 2015 there's no way that Corbyn would have been in the final two presented to the membership, for example.
I think the Membership is furious at the evisceration of Boris. And the last thing we need is an angry PM-making body but here we are.
I can't see Truss not winning it.
That is an exceptionally good point
There will be residual guilt, anger and bitterness at what happened to Boris, amongst many members. That has to be vented. Sunak is seen as the disloyal backstabber, so it will ALL fall on him. And the votes will start coming in over the next days, not in September (by which time Sunak will have had a chance to argue his case)
Truss should be even more of a favourite than she is
Jesus. It's going to be Truss!
I don't see any evidence of that in my patch but who knows? Other Tory activists like @HYUFD and @Marquee Mark may have a view. Interestingly, almost all of us grass-roots/Councillors prefer Sunak and by a wide margin.
The famous "No More Snow" prediction was not that there would be no more snow but that that Snow would be less frequent and more extreme when it happened.
Since that prediction Britain has had fewer snow days.
Untrue, I'm afraid. If that were the case, the Independent wouldn't have deleted it.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he [David Viner, UEA] said.
Yes, some of the earlier climate change crusaders made some insane claims, which have told against them. Weren't we all meant to be underwater by now, according to Al Gore?
However, and it is a big however, I can remember some scary-shit videos made by the warmists in about 2000, which predicted that we'd see 40-50C temperatures in Europe, and that mass migrations would occur, with people fleeing Africa and the ME and climbing on boats and scaling walls to get to cooler climes
I scoffed, loudly, at these absurd doom-mongering hallucinations...
I suspect that the conditions that resulted in 40.3C were extremely freakish and we may not see that peak beaten for a decade or more.
Even if that is the case, however, the trend is clearly hotter and the need to do things to reduce this is more urgent than many appreciated. To that extent I would disagree with a Kemi opposing net zero although I do take her point that we have to watch our competitiveness and indeed our dependency on despotic regimes such as China very carefully.
And yet we broke the maximum heat record that was established just three years ago, so who's to say this isn't actually speeding up. So the new record may fall soon. With most of the top ten hottest ever days occurring this century the pattern is, anyway, clear
I agree with you and @BartholomewRoberts that it is much less clear what we do about it - in the UK and the world - apart from the obvious measures (which would be sensible anyhow) to reduce use of fossil fuels, get rid of polluting cars, and so on
The fundamental point is a difficult one: if you're a developing country with a billion people and very few cars (say India), and the West says:
Hey! You need to reduce your greenhouse gases and not drive cars so we can continue to live our Western lifestyle
You say "You've emitted lots of CO2 and used that grow rich, and you want me to remain poor? Fuck off."
Personally, I think the developed world has done a pretty good job so far, and is continuing to do so. Reliance on fossil fuels will continue to diminish, transportation will become electric, and greenhouse gas emissions will fall."
It's astonishing to see how much the price of new renewables has fallen: the government literally pays one-tenth of what it used to for new solar. Wind has fallen dramatically too. Other energy forms like tidal are becoming economic.
And as we continue to invest, the price of these energy sources will continue to decline.
Mr. Z, in 1912 and even a quarter of a century later the view of Darwin evolution was that different humans were at different levels of evolution. I'm not sure quoting the early 20th century indicates much beyond cherrypicking the bit that you like (though this is very much the pro-warming camp's approach). Two fantastically cold winters in the face of a recent forecast to the exact contrary is certainly evidence of warming enthusiasts having predictions 100% opposed to what actually happened.
So now they've broadened the range of change to mean practically anything. What weather events or climate trend would persuade you that you're wrong? Would anything?
I find it amusing you're outraged I have the temerity that I disagree with you on the science even though we probably agree almost entirely on energy policy.
That is wrong about Darwinism and whataboutery anyway.
try looking at global average temperatures. A decade decline in those would look like evidence against the hypothesis. But, again, you are not arguing about science. A hypothesis stated in 1912 being consistently in accordance with the facts for 110 years is quite a strong hypothesis, not an assumption. The "no more snow" claim was a one off, and actually looking not far off the money - out by a decade or so. Again, I have to assume you don't personally interact with the natural world very much?
110 years is but a half of a quarter of a moment in history as far as climate is concerned.
Once again PB has got behind a theory and disbelievers are ridiculed. cf lockdowns, pandemic spending, Ukraine, usw.
All well and good that's what PB is for. But there is a certain desperation about some of the orthodox believers.
Making no comment on the validity of some of the climate models there have been plenty of people ridiculed throughout history for their non-mainstream views and do you know some of them have been proved right.
So what? The claim is not that all climate change is man made, but that the current batch is.
And you are running the models to be able to separate out different inputs. That's great and impressive.
That is exactly how the models are run. You can run them with only the natural forcings, or only the anthropogenic forcings, or with all combined.
Can you now.
As I mentioned upthread, there can be disagreements between in that case Had/CRU and GISS. I suppose it's a case of pick your favourite model, that one being the one whose output most closely matches what you believe.
I'd recommend reading the technical summary for WG1 of the IPCC reports. They go into all this in an appropriate level of detail that you'd find interesting, and you wouldn't have to suppose things.
Thank you I might just. The point of my post was that they go into enough detail but not any potential flaws in the premise.
They look at the known knowns but likely ignore everything else up to the unknown unknowns. Because of course those last by definition remain for now, er, unknown.
As regards Had/CRU "vs" GISS it was luck (ie in that case me emailing Gavin) that brought this discrepancy to light. Otherwise it would have gone unremarked.
Mr. kinabalu, do you suppose the warming of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius were down to the Romans building coal-fired power stations, or that the cold period in the latter half of the 17th century when the Thames repeatedly froze was because Charles II preferred wind turbines to gas?
The climate has always and will always change. The human-centric insistence that we are causing this, as if climate stasis is the alternative and man alone influences the world, is a marvellous re-enactment of Catholic orthodoxy in the medieval era.
But you're right, I'm a bad man. A sinner, one might say.
The climate varies. No one doubts that. There is a historic and geological record.
There is also the scientific evaluation of the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - which is both theoretically based and confirmed by small scale experiments.
If you have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will trap more heat.
We have lots more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Quite unambiguously, we are seeing a higher range of temperature that matches (roughly) the increase. This is over a very substantial period of time.
I think the Membership is furious at the evisceration of Boris. And the last thing we need is an angry PM-making body but here we are.
I can't see Truss not winning it.
That is an exceptionally good point
There will be residual guilt, anger and bitterness at what happened to Boris, amongst many members. That has to be vented. Sunak is seen as the disloyal backstabber, so it will ALL fall on him. And the votes will start coming in over the next days, not in September (by which time Sunak will have had a chance to argue his case)
Truss should be even more of a favourite than she is
Jesus. It's going to be Truss!
I don't see any evidence of that in my patch but who knows? Other Tory activists like @HYUFD and @Marquee Mark may have a view. Interestingly, almost all of us grass-roots/Councillors prefer Sunak and by a wide margin.
Mrs PtP has just suggested to me that Truss is a Corbynite mole installed to create mayhem and the rebirth of Jeremy's career as a consequence.
The famous "No More Snow" prediction was not that there would be no more snow but that that Snow would be less frequent and more extreme when it happened.
Since that prediction Britain has had fewer snow days.
Untrue, I'm afraid. If that were the case, the Independent wouldn't have deleted it.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he [David Viner, UEA] said.
Yes, some of the earlier climate change crusaders made some insane claims, which have told against them. Weren't we all meant to be underwater by now, according to Al Gore?
However, and it is a big however, I can remember some scary-shit videos made by the warmists in about 2000, which predicted that we'd see 40-50C temperatures in Europe, and that mass migrations would occur, with people fleeing Africa and the ME and climbing on boats and scaling walls to get to cooler climes
I scoffed, loudly, at these absurd doom-mongering hallucinations...
I suspect that the conditions that resulted in 40.3C were extremely freakish and we may not see that peak beaten for a decade or more.
Even if that is the case, however, the trend is clearly hotter and the need to do things to reduce this is more urgent than many appreciated. To that extent I would disagree with a Kemi opposing net zero although I do take her point that we have to watch our competitiveness and indeed our dependency on despotic regimes such as China very carefully.
And yet we broke the maximum heat record that was established just three years ago, so who's to say this isn't actually speeding up. So the new record may fall soon. With most of the top ten hottest ever days occurring this century the pattern is, anyway, clear
I agree with you and @BartholomewRoberts that it is much less clear what we do about it - in the UK and the world - apart from the obvious measures (which would be sensible anyhow) to reduce use of fossil fuels, get rid of polluting cars, and so on
The fundamental point is a difficult one: if you're a developing country with a billion people and very few cars (say India), and the West says:
Hey! You need to reduce your greenhouse gases and not drive cars so we can continue to live our Western lifestyle
You say "You've emitted lots of CO2 and used that grow rich, and you want me to remain poor? Fuck off."
Personally, I think the developed world has done a pretty good job so far, and is continuing to do so. Reliance on fossil fuels will continue to diminish, transportation will become electric, and greenhouse gas emissions will fall."
It's astonishing to see how much the price of new renewables has fallen: the government literally pays one-tenth of what it used to for new solar. Wind has fallen dramatically too. Other energy forms like tidal are becoming economic.
And as we continue to invest, the price of these energy sources will continue to decline.
Yes those measures are eminently sensible and your point is well made. We wail and gnash our teeth over, say, deforestation but the West did it several hundred years ago and look at us now.
The famous "No More Snow" prediction was not that there would be no more snow but that that Snow would be less frequent and more extreme when it happened.
Since that prediction Britain has had fewer snow days.
Untrue, I'm afraid. If that were the case, the Independent wouldn't have deleted it.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he [David Viner, UEA] said.
Yes, some of the earlier climate change crusaders made some insane claims, which have told against them. Weren't we all meant to be underwater by now, according to Al Gore?
However, and it is a big however, I can remember some scary-shit videos made by the warmists in about 2000, which predicted that we'd see 40-50C temperatures in Europe, and that mass migrations would occur, with people fleeing Africa and the ME and climbing on boats and scaling walls to get to cooler climes
I scoffed, loudly, at these absurd doom-mongering hallucinations...
I suspect that the conditions that resulted in 40.3C were extremely freakish and we may not see that peak beaten for a decade or more.
Even if that is the case, however, the trend is clearly hotter and the need to do things to reduce this is more urgent than many appreciated. To that extent I would disagree with a Kemi opposing net zero although I do take her point that we have to watch our competitiveness and indeed our dependency on despotic regimes such as China very carefully.
And yet we broke the maximum heat record that was established just three years ago, so who's to say this isn't actually speeding up. So the new record may fall soon. With most of the top ten hottest ever days occurring this century the pattern is, anyway, clear
I agree with you and @BartholomewRoberts that it is much less clear what we do about it - in the UK and the world - apart from the obvious measures (which would be sensible anyhow) to reduce use of fossil fuels, get rid of polluting cars, and so on
The fundamental point is a difficult one: if you're a developing country with a billion people and very few cars (say India), and the West says:
Hey! You need to reduce your greenhouse gases and not drive cars so we can continue to live our Western lifestyle
You say "You've emitted lots of CO2 and used that grow rich, and you want me to remain poor? Fuck off."
Indeed. And they'll take that attitude whether or not we have an arbitrary sine qua non target.
Mr. Z, in 1912 and even a quarter of a century later the view of Darwin evolution was that different humans were at different levels of evolution. I'm not sure quoting the early 20th century indicates much beyond cherrypicking the bit that you like (though this is very much the pro-warming camp's approach). Two fantastically cold winters in the face of a recent forecast to the exact contrary is certainly evidence of warming enthusiasts having predictions 100% opposed to what actually happened.
So now they've broadened the range of change to mean practically anything. What weather events or climate trend would persuade you that you're wrong? Would anything?
I find it amusing you're outraged I have the temerity that I disagree with you on the science even though we probably agree almost entirely on energy policy.
That is wrong about Darwinism and whataboutery anyway.
try looking at global average temperatures. A decade decline in those would look like evidence against the hypothesis. But, again, you are not arguing about science. A hypothesis stated in 1912 being consistently in accordance with the facts for 110 years is quite a strong hypothesis, not an assumption. The "no more snow" claim was a one off, and actually looking not far off the money - out by a decade or so. Again, I have to assume you don't personally interact with the natural world very much?
110 years is but a half of a quarter of a moment in history as far as climate is concerned.
Once again PB has got behind a theory and disbelievers are ridiculed. cf lockdowns, pandemic spending, Ukraine, usw.
All well and good that's what PB is for. But there is a certain desperation about some of the orthodox believers.
Making no comment on the validity of some of the climate models there have been plenty of people ridiculed throughout history for their non-mainstream views and do you know some of them have been proved right.
So what? The claim is not that all climate change is man made, but that the current batch is.
And you are running the models to be able to separate out different inputs. That's great and impressive.
That is exactly how the models are run. You can run them with only the natural forcings, or only the anthropogenic forcings, or with all combined.
Can you now.
As I mentioned upthread, there can be disagreements between in that case Had/CRU and GISS. I suppose it's a case of pick your favourite model, that one being the one whose output most closely matches what you believe.
I'd recommend reading the technical summary for WG1 of the IPCC reports. They go into all this in an appropriate level of detail that you'd find interesting, and you wouldn't have to suppose things.
Thank you I might just. The point of my post was that they go into enough detail but not any potential flaws in the premise.
They look at the known knowns but likely ignore everything else up to the unknown unknowns. Because of course those last by definition remain for now, er, unknown.
As regards Had/CRU "vs" GISS it was luck (ie in that case me emailing Gavin) that brought this discrepancy to light. Otherwise it would have gone unremarked.
Climate Scientists loved the Rumsfeld quote. You seem to have a definite idea of their mode of thinking that does not accord with my experience.
Toby Young has penned an article claiming that the record temperatures this week were due to being measured at airports. That to "climate Thermageddonites got their U.K. heat record of 40°C" thanks to measuring devices placed next to hot jet engines and tarmac.
He curiously omitted the measurements over 40 degrees in green places miles from any jet engine.
He's been desperately penning articles on denying all and sundry, from the existence of covid waves, through the efficacy of vaccines (much of his output over the past year has been to platform antivaxxers and conceal the conflicts of interest of having a major antivaxxer group's press releases published as if they're objective news articles), and to outright deny anything about climate change.
Denialism and its links to conspiracy theories are a major issue, especially with pseudoskepticism
I do wonder what will happen to the entire career of James Delingpole...
To be transparent, I was a climate change skeptic until about five or six years back: so I can see both sides. When I say skeptic I accepted there was some evidence that warming was PROBABLY occurring, but I was far from convinced that it was definitely man made. Why could it not be something natural, like the medieval warm period? - and so on
I was also made more skeptical by the warmists fiddling the data - which I believe they did. That scandal at UEA seriously set back the "climate change cause"
But events in recent years have fundamentally changed my mind. The freak events are mostly on the warm side. not the cold side. And boy are they freaky. The Canadian heat dome, and our own recent 40C. The movements of plants and animals to adapt, the retreat of glaciers. I travel a lot and I see all this
And when I travel I also see just how many humans there are, and just how much heat and pollution we are pupping out. How can this NOT have an effect?
I am now 97% sure the climate is changing, quite fast (mainly towards more warmth and volatility), and that man is to blame, at least in part
Agree. For them's that's rather despairing of the ecological cost of climate change, this is a rather lovely and consoling thread.
Yes, overgrazing in the uplands means a lot of things that should be there have disappeared. Tall Herb vegetation is in very short supply. It is even worse in the Lake District than Scotland, but for some reason people like having sheep there.
In many ways reversing habitat loss is much more important than trying to stop warming as without any habitat continuity, there's no possibility for species adaptation.
But the issue may be the plants right at the edge of their range. There's a whole rock garden near the summit of Ben Lawers with plants that grow nowhere else in the UK and that have literally nowhere else to go, as there's no uphill left.
They may just be a relic of the ice age but it would be a shame to see them go.
Finding new stuff isn't _that_ hard in the Scottish mountains though, as there are many hidden corners where no botanist has recently trodden. Trust me on this...
I think the Membership is furious at the evisceration of Boris. And the last thing we need is an angry PM-making body but here we are.
I can't see Truss not winning it.
That is an exceptionally good point
There will be residual guilt, anger and bitterness at what happened to Boris, amongst many members. That has to be vented. Sunak is seen as the disloyal backstabber, so it will ALL fall on him. And the votes will start coming in over the next days, not in September (by which time Sunak will have had a chance to argue his case)
Truss should be even more of a favourite than she is
Jesus. It's going to be Truss!
I don't see any evidence of that in my patch but who knows? Other Tory activists like @HYUFD and @Marquee Mark may have a view. Interestingly, almost all of us grass-roots/Councillors prefer Sunak and by a wide margin.
Difference between activists and other members?
Thinking back three months, Conservates on the doorstep must have known that BoJo's time was up, beause the voting public had had enough. People without that data might well be more Boris-sympathetic. And if you're not elected yourself, the electability of the leader is less important.
But if Truss gets the job by being Boris in all but name (if she keeps Dorries in the cabinet, say), there's no real chance of renewal, and renewal is needed.
I guess the question is what sort of story would cause the Truss campaign to blow up, and does such a story exist?
The famous "No More Snow" prediction was not that there would be no more snow but that that Snow would be less frequent and more extreme when it happened.
Since that prediction Britain has had fewer snow days.
Untrue, I'm afraid. If that were the case, the Independent wouldn't have deleted it.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he [David Viner, UEA] said.
Yes, some of the earlier climate change crusaders made some insane claims, which have told against them. Weren't we all meant to be underwater by now, according to Al Gore?
However, and it is a big however, I can remember some scary-shit videos made by the warmists in about 2000, which predicted that we'd see 40-50C temperatures in Europe, and that mass migrations would occur, with people fleeing Africa and the ME and climbing on boats and scaling walls to get to cooler climes
I scoffed, loudly, at these absurd doom-mongering hallucinations...
I suspect that the conditions that resulted in 40.3C were extremely freakish and we may not see that peak beaten for a decade or more.
Even if that is the case, however, the trend is clearly hotter and the need to do things to reduce this is more urgent than many appreciated. To that extent I would disagree with a Kemi opposing net zero although I do take her point that we have to watch our competitiveness and indeed our dependency on despotic regimes such as China very carefully.
And yet we broke the maximum heat record that was established just three years ago, so who's to say this isn't actually speeding up. So the new record may fall soon. With most of the top ten hottest ever days occurring this century the pattern is, anyway, clear
I agree with you and @BartholomewRoberts that it is much less clear what we do about it - in the UK and the world - apart from the obvious measures (which would be sensible anyhow) to reduce use of fossil fuels, get rid of polluting cars, and so on
The fundamental point is a difficult one: if you're a developing country with a billion people and very few cars (say India), and the West says:
Hey! You need to reduce your greenhouse gases and not drive cars so we can continue to live our Western lifestyle
You say "You've emitted lots of CO2 and used that grow rich, and you want me to remain poor? Fuck off."
Personally, I think the developed world has done a pretty good job so far, and is continuing to do so. Reliance on fossil fuels will continue to diminish, transportation will become electric, and greenhouse gas emissions will fall."
It's astonishing to see how much the price of new renewables has fallen: the government literally pays one-tenth of what it used to for new solar. Wind has fallen dramatically too. Other energy forms like tidal are becoming economic.
And as we continue to invest, the price of these energy sources will continue to decline.
Storage is the key. Long term. Large scale. Cheap.
The famous "No More Snow" prediction was not that there would be no more snow but that that Snow would be less frequent and more extreme when it happened.
Since that prediction Britain has had fewer snow days.
Untrue, I'm afraid. If that were the case, the Independent wouldn't have deleted it.
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he [David Viner, UEA] said.
Yes, some of the earlier climate change crusaders made some insane claims, which have told against them. Weren't we all meant to be underwater by now, according to Al Gore?
However, and it is a big however, I can remember some scary-shit videos made by the warmists in about 2000, which predicted that we'd see 40-50C temperatures in Europe, and that mass migrations would occur, with people fleeing Africa and the ME and climbing on boats and scaling walls to get to cooler climes
I scoffed, loudly, at these absurd doom-mongering hallucinations...
I suspect that the conditions that resulted in 40.3C were extremely freakish and we may not see that peak beaten for a decade or more.
Even if that is the case, however, the trend is clearly hotter and the need to do things to reduce this is more urgent than many appreciated. To that extent I would disagree with a Kemi opposing net zero although I do take her point that we have to watch our competitiveness and indeed our dependency on despotic regimes such as China very carefully.
And yet we broke the maximum heat record that was established just three years ago, so who's to say this isn't actually speeding up. So the new record may fall soon. With most of the top ten hottest ever days occurring this century the pattern is, anyway, clear
I agree with you and @BartholomewRoberts that it is much less clear what we do about it - in the UK and the world - apart from the obvious measures (which would be sensible anyhow) to reduce use of fossil fuels, get rid of polluting cars, and so on
The fundamental point is a difficult one: if you're a developing country with a billion people and very few cars (say India), and the West says:
Hey! You need to reduce your greenhouse gases and not drive cars so we can continue to live our Western lifestyle
You say "You've emitted lots of CO2 and used that grow rich, and you want me to remain poor? Fuck off."
Personally, I think the developed world has done a pretty good job so far, and is continuing to do so. Reliance on fossil fuels will continue to diminish, transportation will become electric, and greenhouse gas emissions will fall."
It's astonishing to see how much the price of new renewables has fallen: the government literally pays one-tenth of what it used to for new solar. Wind has fallen dramatically too. Other energy forms like tidal are becoming economic.
And as we continue to invest, the price of these energy sources will continue to decline.
Completely agreed.
The thing is though that technological innovation is not only viable, its exportable too.
Too many zealots seem to want us to act like Medieval Flagellants as the "solution" to climate change and to atone for the sins of capitalist growth but that solves nothing. And as you say the rest of the world will look askance at us doing anything like that and not copy it.
But develop cheap, clean, reliable energy? That is technology that can not just be used here but developed and exported globally. Developing nations will not be prepared to engage in Flagellation but they will be prepared to adopt cheap, clean and reliable energy as opposed to smog-inducing dirty and more expensive energy.
I think the Membership is furious at the evisceration of Boris. And the last thing we need is an angry PM-making body but here we are.
I can't see Truss not winning it.
That is an exceptionally good point
There will be residual guilt, anger and bitterness at what happened to Boris, amongst many members. That has to be vented. Sunak is seen as the disloyal backstabber, so it will ALL fall on him. And the votes will start coming in over the next days, not in September (by which time Sunak will have had a chance to argue his case)
Truss should be even more of a favourite than she is
Jesus. It's going to be Truss!
I don't see any evidence of that in my patch but who knows? Other Tory activists like @HYUFD and @Marquee Mark may have a view. Interestingly, almost all of us grass-roots/Councillors prefer Sunak and by a wide margin.
I note it has already been said, but could it be there is a big difference between activists and members. I have certainly experienced that in the LDs, particularly when Charles Kennedy was elected leader.
Comments
The early IPCC (professional doom mongers looking to con people) models have (modestly) under predicted global warming.
https://twitter.com/PaintingAndrew/status/1549817956531593216
What I will note is that R&D credits have rampant fraud reported against it and HMRC started a scheme to crack down on it earlier this week based on a linkedIn post from a tax advisor I follow...
Hey! You need to reduce your greenhouse gases and not drive cars so we can continue to live our Western lifestyle
You say "You've emitted lots of CO2 and used that grow rich, and you want me to remain poor? Fuck off."
Personally, I think the developed world has done a pretty good job so far, and is continuing to do so. Reliance on fossil fuels will continue to diminish, transportation will become electric, and greenhouse gas emissions will fall."
It's astonishing to see how much the price of new renewables has fallen: the government literally pays one-tenth of what it used to for new solar. Wind has fallen dramatically too. Other energy forms like tidal are becoming economic.
And as we continue to invest, the price of these energy sources will continue to decline.
They look at the known knowns but likely ignore everything else up to the unknown unknowns. Because of course those last by definition remain for now, er, unknown.
As regards Had/CRU "vs" GISS it was luck (ie in that case me emailing Gavin) that brought this discrepancy to light. Otherwise it would have gone unremarked.
There is also the scientific evaluation of the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - which is both theoretically based and confirmed by small scale experiments.
If you have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will trap more heat.
We have lots more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Quite unambiguously, we are seeing a higher range of temperature that matches (roughly) the increase. This is over a very substantial period of time.
Have any other PB's seen evidence of this?
I merely ask.
In many ways reversing habitat loss is much more important than trying to stop warming as without any habitat continuity, there's no possibility for species adaptation.
But the issue may be the plants right at the edge of their range. There's a whole rock garden near the summit of Ben Lawers with plants that grow nowhere else in the UK and that have literally nowhere else to go, as there's no uphill left.
They may just be a relic of the ice age but it would be a shame to see them go.
Finding new stuff isn't _that_ hard in the Scottish mountains though, as there are many hidden corners where no botanist has recently trodden. Trust me on this...
Thinking back three months, Conservates on the doorstep must have known that BoJo's time was up, beause the voting public had had enough. People without that data might well be more Boris-sympathetic. And if you're not elected yourself, the electability of the leader is less important.
But if Truss gets the job by being Boris in all but name (if she keeps Dorries in the cabinet, say), there's no real chance of renewal, and renewal is needed.
I guess the question is what sort of story would cause the Truss campaign to blow up, and does such a story exist?
Storage is the key. Long term. Large scale. Cheap.
The thing is though that technological innovation is not only viable, its exportable too.
Too many zealots seem to want us to act like Medieval Flagellants as the "solution" to climate change and to atone for the sins of capitalist growth but that solves nothing. And as you say the rest of the world will look askance at us doing anything like that and not copy it.
But develop cheap, clean, reliable energy? That is technology that can not just be used here but developed and exported globally. Developing nations will not be prepared to engage in Flagellation but they will be prepared to adopt cheap, clean and reliable energy as opposed to smog-inducing dirty and more expensive energy.