Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Gaia, the lady is not for turning

Gaia, the lady is not for turning

Gaia

There are some Warministas who I just laugh at because they are entirely off with the fairies when it comes to the sort of solutions that they advocate for the problem of “global warming” (Tim Flanery and Al Gore fall into this category) and then there are people like Bjorn Lomborg who you can respect because they have a good handle on the real politics of the world when it comes to this issue.

As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government’s opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter.

In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century.

Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain’s Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, found “impossible resistance” from China to a global carbon mitigation deal.

Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming we have pursued for nearly 20 years – ever since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon – is simply not going to work.

It is time to recognise the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. To do this, we must dramatically increase the amount we spend on research and development.

Bjorn Lomborg

The thing that struck me about this piece was the way that it entirely negates the wishful thinking from so many followers of the Green religion. You know the fantasy that China and India (along with the rest of the so called “developing countries”) can be “encouraged’ to get with the liturgical fundamentals of the Warminista faith. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen even my own regulars assure me that China is moving towards “the truth”. Often this faith position is backed up with talk about the number of solar panels or wind generators that the peoples republic is making… Oh how the faithful see what they want to see.

Its all about adaptation folks! When it comes down to it you can not hope to re-engineer the climate no matter how much you think that you know the mind of Gaia you have to recognise that the lady is not for turning and that the only way to avoid lots of futile effort is to go with the flow and appreciate that change brings opportunity.
Cheers Comrades
😉

Advertisements

54 Comments

  1. PKD says:

    When it comes down to it you can not hope to re-engineer the climate

    Given thats precisely whats happening with AGW, demonstrates your ignorance of the facts! 🙂

    Adaptation is only part of the solution, to make it the whole of the solution is to admit defeat…

  2. Len says:

    I don’t think it is admitting defeat at all PKD.

    It is just an admission to the reality that climate on this planet is being changed by our “interference” and more basic, poor management.

    As to how we adapt to those changes, or be able to limit those changes, will be the key as to whether we survive or fail as a species on this planet, or if the planet itself continues to support the life we need to survive ?

  3. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I think that you miss the point that ‘engineering’ is by its very nature the result of an act of will, where as if you Warministas are right about the extent of the effect that humanity is having on the climate that is not by any stretch of the imagination an act of will.
    As Len suggests focusing on adaptation is the only sensible thing to do if the “re-engineering” is impossible to achieve either politically or technologically.

  4. PKD says:

    Len – I am not saying adaptation is not needed, just that doing it solely is admitting defaeat.

    We can afford to pump all the CO2 into the atmosphere that created the problem, we can afford steps to reduce those levels to a level where adaptation might actually stand a chance of being effective and worth while. Adaptation on its own will not work.

  5. Len says:

    I agree somewhat PKD. I am saying that adaptation is pretty much the last resort, to a situation that should really have been addressed 100 years ago. They had a great chance at Kyoto, but there was too much political interference, and power tripping going on. I have said this many times here previously, we all know what has to be done, just the powers that be, and our wealthy corporations would be doomed if it happened ? Add to that, a lot of the world’s individual economies, based on this filth, would collapse over night if the needed solutions were enforced ?
    To name just a few, Sth Korea, Japan, China, USA, and pretty much the entire of western EU that base their economies on manufacturing ?

    If our interventions in the interim do not bring about the necessary change, then adaptation is the last, although puny attempt at this planet’s survival hopes.

  6. JM says:

    Iain: “‘engineering’ is by its very nature the result of an act of will”

    Are you saying that the selection of fossil fuels for the 20thC and the burning of all that coal in power plants and cars was not an “act of [human] will”?

  7. JM says:

    Oh and Iain, Lomborg is a nut. He’s got no better grasp on the issue than he did a few years ago when he was denying that it even existed.

    “China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production

    It’s difficult to see how he can justify this assertion. Large parts of China are desert or semi-arid so getting warmer isn’t going to help agriculture there. Further a lot the existing agriculture of East Asia – including China – relies on summer run-off from the Himalayas. If the ice goes that run-off will first increase and cause floods and destruction (as is going on now in places like Bangladesh) and later stop.

    There won’t be any rice. And rice – particularly the price of it – is the most important economic issue in China.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You make precisely the same error here that blights PKD’s argument, you confuse an unintended consequence with a desired result. Thus changes to the climate (assuming your belief is correct for the sake of argument) are not a planned or desired result of making power stations or the building of motor cars if such a result is happening then it is an unintended consequence and not an act of will or the fulfillment of any design parameters. Clearly all of the attempts to re-engineer the climate are going to fail either because the theory is wrong or because of the political impossibility of getting them up and running. Either way it ain’t going to work.
    So it is entirely futile to waste too much effort and treasure on “climate engineering”, except perhaps to warm the cockles of the latte sippers hearts….

  9. Pkd says:

    Thus changes to the climate (assuming your belief is correct for the sake of argument) are not a planned or desired result of making power stations or the building of motor cars if such a result is happening then it is an unintended consequence

    yes iain – that’s what everyone in the real world calls ‘pollution’. Welcome to it BTW!

    If we can afford to pollute, we can afford to clean it up. If we can’t afford to clean it up (as you seem to think) then we should be doing it cleanly, or not at all.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    If we can afford to pollute, we can afford to clean it up. If we can’t afford to clean it up (as you seem to think) then we should be doing it cleanly, or not at all.

    What rot you sprout sometimes 🙄
    The issue here is not about any sort of moral imperative as you seem to think but about politics, and what is politically possible especially at a global level. In any case Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is plant food.

  11. JM says:

    The law of unintended consequences isn’t applicable here – it applies where some unexpected result occurs.

    There was nothing unexpected about GW following increased CO2 – we’ve known about it for over a century. The first estimate – based on the rate of fossil fuel burning then going on – was that it would take about 3000 years for CO2 concentration to double.

    We then completely ignored the problem until around the time of the International Geophysical Year (58/59) when we noticed that CO2 had grown faster than we’d thought. Scientists really started to get worried around the mid-1980’s when we realized that about 8 of the previous 10 years had been the hottest then on record.

    I even remember a BBC documentary on this issue from around 1987.

    The consequences weren’t unintended, or unforeseen – they were just ignored.

    Besides your apparent alternative definition of “broken or didn’t work within design parameters == unengineered” is also wrong. “Failed engineering or design” is the phrase you’re looking for.

  12. JM says:

    Iain, this CO2 is “plant food” argument is wrong and also dangerously misleading.

    1. Why it’s wrong. It’s based on an observation in real greenhouses that if you artificially increase the CO2 content of the air, plants show a boost in growth. There are two problems:

    a.) the boost is short term and the plants eventually get sick

    b.) the effect disappears once CO2 content gets much above 400ppm. The plants we have now are not evolved to live in an atmosphere containing higher concentrations

    2. It’s misleading because of the effect it appears to be having on the Amazon. You see about half the CO2 we’ve shoveled into the atmosphere has disappeared which means it’s being held in massive carbon sinks like the oceans and the Amazon jungle.

    (We know this is happening in the Amazon because the trees there are growing faster than they used to)

    The problem is that the CO2 won’t stay trapped in the Amazon once warming gets seriously underway. Once temperatures rise, and rainfall drops the jungle converts from rain forest to a drier more savannah like vegetation. The switch over point appears to be when the dry season grows to about 8 weeks in length.

    This is already happening in the Amazon.

    The significance is that those areas are much more prone to fire – and when those trees burn, they release all the stored carbon along with everything else in them.

    So it’s misleading – we’re creating a dangerous situation in the Amazon.

  13. Pkd says:

    What rot you sprout sometimes

    In any case Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is plant food

    JM has already pointed out that it’s you sprouting the rot. All I will say ‘way to go at moving the goalposts after I caught you out’!

  14. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    The problem is that the CO2 won’t stay trapped in the Amazon once warming gets seriously underway. Once temperatures rise, and rainfall drops the jungle converts from rain forest to a drier more savannah like vegetation. The switch over point appears to be when the dry season grows to about 8 weeks in length.

    Really? You make an unfounded assumption here, namely that the the Amazon basin will actually get drier. The only basis you have for that is your belief in the AGW orthodoxy and the point is that the theory is contentious and obviously open to a great deal of interpretation.

    There was nothing unexpected about GW following increased CO2 – we’ve known about it for over a century. The first estimate – based on the rate of fossil fuel burning then going on – was that it would take about 3000 years for CO2 concentration to double.

    Those designing and building both the cars and the power stations were not considering AGW so you can’t sustain this argument at all.

  15. JM says:

    Iain, you missed this bit from my comment:

    The switch over point appears to be when the dry season grows to about 8 weeks in length.

    <bThis is already happening in the Amazon.

    Actually, that should be parts of the Amazon.

    And I did explain that the CO2 effects were ignored or disregarded, not actually unknown (which blew your bogus argument out of the water.)

    I wish you’d respond cogently rather than just demonstrate that you’re not paying attention.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You make the mistake of looking at the way that this issue was considered in the past with today’s eyes, it is the classic mistake that anyone who studies history can make. Were some people thinking about AGW when those power stations being built? Probably they were, but were those individuals any part of the decision making process? Not on your Nellie
    Essentially something can only be ignored or disregarded if they are in fact part of the process, so how about you prove (as an example) that the issue was considered when designing and building power plants fifty or sixty years ago. The point is not that some thing may have been absolutely unknown but that it was unknown to the decision makers of the day and that they even considered the matter when making their decisions.

  17. PKD says:

    Who cares if it was fully known about 60 years ago. Its fully known now that CO2 is acting to warm up the worlds climate, currently by about 0.5C.

    No-one really knows the costs of adaptation or whether it is even remotely realistic to pay for adapting solely versus trying to curb the amount of CO2 levels. Thats the blight of your ‘argument’ Iain…

  18. Iain Hall says:

    The crux of JM”s argument is his suggestion that the builders and designers of the industrail infrastructure KNEW that it would cause climate change but ignored that fact, So it is essential that he prove this claim or admit that the connection between modern energy use and AGW was not generally accepted as something to be considered in design untill quite recently.

  19. JM says:

    ” something can only be ignored or disregarded if they are in fact part of the process,”

    Iain, if you want to redefine the plain meaning of words by endless hair-splitting and goal-post shifting there’s a few children’s stories of note I can introduce you to.

    Children don’t find the tactic any more legitimate than I do as the characters undertaking it are usually the villains.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You are the one who is trying to “hair split” and “goal post shift” here I wrote a post with a very simple premise, namely that even if AGW is real the efforts to mitigate it are pointless, either because the theory is dodgy, or because the cure is unobtainable.
    You want to introduce clear anachronisms into the equation and then you have the cheek to complain when I call you on it .
    🙄

  21. JM says:

    Iain

    Let’s assume that AGW is real ok? You say efforts to mitigate are pointless, correct? Because either:

    a.) the theory is dodgy
    b.) the cure unobtainable

    a. you’ve never come close to establishing. In every instance you’ve been knocked down comprehensively.

    b. all I’ve ever heard from you on this is a lot of Hanrahan-like* council of despair. If you want to mount an argument of influence, Hanrahan is not a good role model.

    Most of us think you have to do a lot better than what you’ve done.

    * As a britisher you may not recognize the reference – try here

  22. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I have spent a lifetime arguing the toss on matters of faith with born again Christians, Mormons , Jehovah’s witnesses,and more recently Warministas and while I have so far failed to convince either you or PKD that there are some rather nasty flies in the ointment of your faith I am in it for the the journey as much as I am in it for the destination. It is my belief that the case has not been definitively made for AGW and I could be wrong, but when it comes to the panacea that you and your fellow Warministas prescribe I am absolutely certain that you will not ever get it up. The cure you advocate requires an unprecedented level of persistent cooperation that has to endure for centuries. The nature of the human animal just won’t allow your cure to work. This is the lesson of history and there is clear proof of this in every library on the planet. Put simply your cure requires the creation of a Utopia where all of humanity works together for the rest of time and while religious prophets have dreamt of this for longer than we have had writing not once has it ever been achieved.
    I write about this topic because I see lots of people out there like you and PKD who I know have the best of intentions and tons of good will towards their fellow humans (and the rest of the biosphere) but you also have the biggest blind spot imaginable when it comes to the nature of the beast that is us.

  23. PKD says:

    See JM?
    You can talk to Iain as much as you like but he still trots out the delusion that AGW is some faith based view, not science based view.
    When is he going to learn the difference…

  24. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    “science” is in essence the faith of a secular society because it like all of the religions that preceded it attempts to explain existence and the machinations of the universe. I actually like science and have a great deal of faith in it because its explanations generally make sense to me. However I don’t accept that every one wearing the blessed white coat has all of the answers to all of the questions the way that you seem to. Funnily enough the best wearers of the blessed white coat acknowledge and respect those who disagree with them on the precise tenets of the liturgy because they understand that theirs is a faith of continual revelation rather than one that stands immutable after the pronouncements of any particular prophet.

  25. JM says:

    Iain

    You’re redefining the word ‘faith’ into meaninglessness.

    In the christian tradition, ‘faith’ means ‘total belief without evidence’ or even ‘total belief contrary to evidence’. Science is ‘partial or contingent belief only where there is evidence’.

    It’s the opposite of faith.

  26. Iain Hall says:

    No JM I am merely pointing out that ‘science” is a different sort of faith, but a faith none the less.

    The “evidence” for AGW is no more definitive than the evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, yet you believe in AGW with as much certainty as the Pope believes in Mary’s unbroken hymen after the conception of his savior.

  27. Len says:

    I somewhat disagree Iain.

    I agree that the evidence for the presence of AGW is definitive, what I won’t wear, is it’s cause.
    The funding for the research, is all being made by people, governments, and corporations with vested interests in the search, to ensure that these groups, are not the cause of AGW.

    Whilst ever this research is being twisted, in this way, the conclusions being reached from said research, is all to be taken with a grain of salt. In other words, it’s all crap.

  28. Iain Hall says:

    I suspect that you mean to say “global warming” here rather than “Anthropogenic Global warming” Len

  29. Len says:

    I think that is where the “line” is being blurred Iain, wouldn’t you agree ?

    Everything we see in the atmosphere today, that we are so alarmed about, is a culmination of ALL LIFE , (yep, including the billions of cow farts, that have been released over billions of years.)

    In other words, it is all cumulative.

  30. Iain Hall says:

    well the crux of the issue is the extent to which humanity is responsible isn’t it?
    But I do agree that the change is the result of every factor that is involved and the thing is we just can’t be sure of what is causing what.

  31. Len says:

    Certainly !

    But there are many causes for global warming, and what the powers that be always forget, is that there are many “natural” causes, that always seem to be forgotten, in the race to win the blame game ?

    One cause, especially the last decade, was the massive tectonic plate shuffle. How many earthquakes, volcanic eruptions did we have during that period of time. Hell, many. Look at the volumes of crap they released into the atmosphere, and in some cases, still are ? What about New York. That eruption bubbled and spewed forth matter for years ?

    As to how much responsibility the human species have to take, is part of the problem. Conjecture suggests a lot. Certainly I agree, that we are killing the planet, but ol Mother Nature can put her hand up as a minor player in this contest as well. Thats why there are so many whacked out theories out there ?

  32. JM says:

    Iain faith is a type of belief. Science is a type of belief.

    Science is not faith.

    Lemons are a type of citrus. Oranges are a type of citrus.

    Oranges are not lemons.

    Ok?

  33. Iain Hall says:

    Does this mean that you are conceding the point JM?

  34. JM says:

    No Iain, quite the opposite. Read my last comment again.

    Oranges => citrus but citrus !=> lemons

    Science => belief but belief !=> faith

    ( => means ‘imply’, !=> means ‘does not imply’)

    You are making a basic, basic error of logic. One common to priests, but not to anyone of any sense.

  35. Iain Hall says:

    No JM I am winding you Up!

  36. Iain Hall says:

    In any event do you actually believe that your prescription for the problem is at all possible, either technically or politically?

  37. PKD says:

    So you agree with JM that science ‘faith’ is not the same as religion faith Iain. Well that wasn’t hard work.

    Perhaps now you can stop making your silly analogies with religion when trying to wind up those who believe in the AGW science. It is really quite tiresome…

  38. Len says:

    The science may be valid PKD, that is not the problem.

    The problem is the losers out there that are interpreting the science incorrectly ?

    Thats when all the problems start, and why the entire science lacks any sort of credibility.

  39. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    while I get a great deal of mirth out of using the religion shtick in arguing about AGW I have never thought that the faith is the same as any other religion. I treat all faiths, including AGW as individual entities and I look at their virtues and vices on their own terms.

  40. PKD says:

    Did you manage to keep a straight face while you typed that out?

  41. PKD says:

    Len,
    The important thing for the science is to make it as easy as possible to distinguish between the real science, and either alarmism or denialism.

    Fortunately its pretty easy for anyone to tell that Iain falls into the latter camp, but it gets harder with the propoganda of pseudo scientists like Monckton, Plimer, Wishart and even the HadCRU who dress up propaganda and call it the real science. Like a fake Da Vinci, it gets bloody hard for the lay person to tell which is which. The average joe on the street is then just going to lose interest and give up on taking an interest, at which point the fakers like Plimer win.
    That’s by and large whats happening now – throw enough fake science into the argument, confuse the hell out of the public and win by default.

  42. Iain Hall says:

    0f course I kept a straight face PKD, I am always deadly serious about taking the piss out of you Warministas 😉

    I find it most amusing when you say this :

    It gets harder with the propaganda of pseudo scientists like Monckton, Plimer, Wishart and even the HadCRU who dress up propaganda and call it the real science. Like a fake Da Vinci, it gets bloody hard for the lay person to tell which is which.

    Notable by its absence is the IPCC, with special focus on the glaciology of the Himalayas…something you still avoid commenting on …

  43. PKD says:

    Notable by its absence is the IPCC, with special focus on the glaciology of the Himalayas…something you still avoid commenting on …

    I did comment on it. I already said on your cherry picking post that no one – even the IPCC – can get it right every time. You ignored it or just plain forgot about it when you decided to try to be clever here… 😐

  44. Iain Hall says:

    Yes PKD you did mention it in passing but then you tried to change the subject…..

  45. Len says:

    The important thing for the science is to make it as easy as possible to distinguish between the real science, and either alarmism or denialism

    NO ! The important thing is for science to base their opinions, and conclusions, on real research, facts, not some b/s theory, and for those figures/research to be available, for EVERYONE to scrutinise.

    Thats the problem. The alarmists are walking around with the same set of figures, sprouting theories, that go along the lines of
    “….look everyone we have the figures, wait and see, we are all doomed, the ….only has to shift ….. and thats it, we’re dead. But if you fund us another ‘x’ billions of dollars, we will save you….”

    Sorry PKD, heard it all, too many times, to fall for it again now. Getting to old.

  46. JM says:

    Iain, when confronted with defeat on a point, the right thing to do is to concede.

    Not claim that you were making a joke.

    It just makes you look like an ignoramus.

  47. Iain Hall says:

    NO ! The important thing is for science to base their opinions, and conclusions, on real research, facts, not some b/s theory, and for those figures/research to be available, for EVERYONE to scrutinise.

    Here here!
    Despite his attempts to label me as a “denier” PKD has never been able to get past the paucity of data about precisely what is happening with the climate now and the exponentially worse data the further we try to look into paleo-climates Once we get into the use of proxies the understanding of ancient climates the margin for error becomes so big that comparison with the current climate becomes very dodgy indeed. Add to that the clear fraud and skulduggery of the Climate gate scandal and it is clear that the alarmists have over cooked their goose.

  48. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    When you are continually so patronising don’t expect me to take every comment that you make seriously.
    That said I don’t see any reason to concede.
    Now can you answer my question in the earlier comment repeated below:

    In any event do you actually believe that your prescription for the problem is at all possible, either technically or politically?

  49. PKD says:

    The important thing is for science to base their opinions, and conclusions, on real research, facts, not some b/s theory, and for those figures/research to be available, for EVERYONE to scrutinise.

    I think you’ll find that already the case Len…

    Oh and Iain the day you ever get ready to talking about the science instead of your usual conspiracy theories will probably I’ll be ready to talk the science with you. Till then, just keep on denying mate! 😉

  50. JM says:

    Well Iain, since part of my prescription is convincing you of reality, I think it’s unlikely to be possible – at least on current evidence.

    But I will settle for you ceasing to equate science and faith as solving at least part of the problem.

  51. Len says:

    I would like to agree with you PKD, but, living and working in the “AGW lalah land”, sorry.

    It is my job, with many thousands of others around the globe, to collect, and collate raw data, for dissemination by these egg-heads. I have seen where my numbers have been corrupted to such an extent, where I can’t even trust them, and I was the one who gathered the info in the first place. There are times, where I have had to go to back ups, to confirm the extent of the dissection ?

    I have seen where numbers, that either prove or disprove a theory, have been ignored outright, just because, it didn’t fit with hypotheses put forward. Hell, this isn’t anything new, after all, the tobacco industry have been doing it for over a hundred years ?

    After twenty years in the field guys, I still find, that even after all I have seen, read, experienced, that even with the mountains in raw data available, mother nature being who she is, still has the hand on the master switch. There are variables in play, that we haven’t even discovered yet, or cannot access due to lack of technology, knowledge or experience.

    In this scenario, we are all pre schoolers. The scientists, perhaps at grade three level, and the understanding of all the factors in play, perhaps is currently at grade 9 or 10 level. We have a long way to go, in understanding how this planet works. That is not to say, that we already know the blatant no-nos, and the quicker we get rid of those technologies, that we know are harmful to the planet, would be a good, and fast required first start, to solving the long term problem ?

  52. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Well Iain, since part of my prescription is convincing you of reality, I think it’s unlikely to be possible – at least on current evidence.

    if it isn’t possible on either count then you have to stop wasting your energy on turning back the waves and work out how to live with the change that is coming. Precisely as I have been suggesting in this post.

    But I will settle for you ceasing to equate science and faith as solving at least part of the problem.

    There are as may ways to know the deity as there are ways to see the world and I like the way that science helps us appreciate the way that the universe works , but my point in taking the piss out of the Warministas like yourself and PKD is that both of you have the attitude that assumes that if you invoke “science” as your authority then its job done and game over. Which in itself is actually profoundly unscientific. I respect the scientific method, and when you (and your fellow Warministas) start to do the same I will have no reason to mock you with the religiosity of your own arguments.

  53. PKD says:

    Iain ‘respects’ the scientific method!!!
    What a laugh!!! 🙂

    All you have demonstrated in these two recent AGW posts is your own hypocrisy in accusing others of cherry picking, whilst being one of the biggest cherry picker around…

    Len : Got any specific examples of this distrortion of your data you’d care to share with us? Sounds serious…

  54. Len says:

    Yep,
    to be brief, and to the point.

    The distortion of rainfall figures, evaporation levels, land temp levels, before allocation of irrigation water rights, from the major rivers in this country.

    The Murray-Darling is a perfect example. The figures for the last twenty years, have shown a 70% decrease in volume flow, due to many factors. Smaller snow melt, lower rainfall, and yet, the powers that be, after being placarded by local cockies, still will not reduce irrigation allocations. The data was simply ignored. Thats the first one that comes to mind.

    Bushfires in Indonesian forests.
    Never heard of in recorded history, due to the massive greed for timber. The change in temperature, and more importantly, the drastic reduction in moisture and oxygen readings, in the atmosphere above Indonesia, would send your face “white” if you saw them.
    Co2 readings above these forests, never heard of before. Direct experience ! David and I were the suckers, that for the last ten years have measured them ! Where and when have we heard about this ???? Bloody never thats where ! The research gets buried.

    Another, and before I put myself in the clink for breaching contractual obligations, another widely known one, the shrinking of the Antarctic ice pack. Measured by us, as well as the yanks just last year. Have we heard about the true extent of that yet ? You won’t either.

    That should be enough to get you started. I am not denying that AGW exists, and I don’t think Iain is either. What we are against, is the massive distortion, and straight out ignoring and twisting of the volumes of data out there. They are dumbing down the problem, when explaining it to us, in the hope they can keep a lid on the problem, or more devious, in a self-glorification campaign that seeks millions of dollars for further research. If the latter, holy s*it, we are all hip deep in trouble ?

    Hell, we all know what the problems are, what the causes are, and generally, what the solution is. Our respective governments around the globe, spend mind blowing amounts of money, gaining more and more research. We don’t need it. We have the solutions, but the individual world economies, are too frightened to introduce them, in fear of total economic collapse of these economies.

    Sorry, wasn’t very brief was it ?
    😉

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: