Magic numbers? Targets? This sounds rather more like public policy than science to me. I know his name may be Mudd on here but DK has an article on Hansen’s latest figures: http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/11/corrupted-or-deliberately-falsified.html

I don’t think we have a proven model or the past data to back up the alarmist thesis.

Thank the lord at least that Obama will take this threat more seriously.

Leaving aside the fact that there has been no significant warming since the mid 90′s, so we are not “burning up”, the idea that China (or anyone) is going to start closing power stations is not just “fanciful”, it simply won’t happen.

Hell, we need to start building them here if the lights aren’t going to start going out within the next 10 years.

In any event, in the light of the fact that these “targets” simply won’t be met, the alarmists (if they are serious) are going to have to turn their attention to mitigation, rather than prevention.

And maybe Barack will talk the talk, but he will do nothing to threaten US economic interests. And he has to carry Congress with him…

Why is family size/population growth not mentioned anywhere in this piece? That’s the M***** F****** Elephant.

Am I the only one who cannot stand that fraud Obamah ? I cannot take anything seriously from a man who copies Bob the Builder`s catchphrase.
Anyway it is quite true that temperatures have stabilised in the last ten years . Polar bear numbers are up up up since the 60s hence the Orwellian shift from Global warming to Climate change , we have a lot more ice , not less . Temperatures did not rise after the Second World war and actually seem to have little relationship with the carbon in the atmosphere . The Medieval warm period continues its obstinate refusal to be explained away and ‘peer reviewed’ predictions that we would be submerged by now sit embarrassingly on the record . Ha ha ha .
Claims that 99.9% of Scientists agree that’ they’ are terribly important and should have another grant are of no interest . Professors of Women’s studies are yet to conclude that serious discrimination is a myth but it is, as we all know . That what they do these expert witnesses whatever pays best. I note the combined genius of Economists only managed to tell the government what it wanted to hear for ten years despite ever so many worthy tomes and detailed evidence . Wrong but kept them in a job didn’t it .
Equally new-speak is the attachment of eco , to plans despoil the sacred beauty of the South with concrete camps (eco –towns ) for immigrants in the hope they will vote Labour .Tax rises are always ecological.. Cross Party agreement on this comes from Frank Field and Nicholas Soames
How much better off would we be had we properly invested in Nuclear energy and were not obliged to sell our fledgling effort to France organised by Brown`s brother ( something they keep pretty quiet ). As much better off as had we never wasted time and money on stupid wind technology which requires us to build conventional power stations anyway for when its not very windy.
Not be our choice , I `m afraid , thanks to the elite selling the country to the European Empire and removing our democratic rights by stealth. No surprise that this historic treason is justified by slimy Milliband by “Climate Change”. Interestingly ,then. had we ignored the enviro-loons in the first place we would be far better off environmentally materially and lets not forget that we are close to running out of fuel altogether. Can we start ignoring them now?

Meanwhile amidst all this cant the real problems are ignored . Coastal erosion river management and flood plain building have been under invested in yet another New Labour multi agency reorganisation cock up of wasted money and incompetence .
The attraction of the while bourgeois parlour game is clear . It is an excuse for more central control, more “World Goverbment” a horror moving slowly form the pages of fiction and more tax and less rights.Those who propound this state of emergency are essentially doing what every authoritarian state lackey has done since Krystalnacht – and beyond .

I say sod the enviro-nazis WHO `s WITH ME !!!

( Thats was fun…for me )

The big question is: how can I make some money out of this hysteria?

Newmania,

I don’t think scientists and economists are comparable. You seem to have a problem with education and academic achievement. Has American anti-intellectualism crossed the pond? Have you abandoned merit too?

Crikey, two posts in as many days. Forget ‘carbon sink saturation’ – you people are going to be suffering from ‘annoying lefty saturation’ if we continue at this rate.

Nick, whilst I don’t often read the scamp (for the sole reason that I have different preferences for my daily libertarianism), I can’t see any good reason for DKs name to be mud. From what I can tell, all DK does is report climate scepticism from sources he trusts in the same way as I’ll report about climate change from sources I trust. The only differences are that we’re on opposite sides, and his posts are as colourful as mine are dour. I would say that the ‘targets’ of 350 & 450 ppm were devised by scientists to inform policy, rather than the other way around, but this only matters if you believe the science in the first place.

cjcjc, whilst I’m not going to start advocating building more coal-fired power stations, you’re completely correct to note that government’s indecision is playing havoc with the future of electricity distribution. Until recently, I was working for a company which worked for National Grid, who are in the process of trying to refurbish about 1/3 of the country’s infrastructure. Much of that money’s going to be wasted if the government doesn’t start taking proactive measures to replace those power stations which will be coming offline in the next decade. Also:

In any event, in the light of the fact that these “targets” simply won’t be met, the alarmists (if they are serious) are going to have to turn their attention to mitigation, rather than prevention.

Frankly, I think that’s what they’re doing anyway, as, like you said, the steps that seem to be needed for prevention ain’t ever going to happen.

I don’t think scientists and economists are comparable.- Yes and no in this context , neither the economy nor the climate fit in a Petri dish. It struck me that the oleaginous respect often accorded to anyone with letters after their name here might equally have been applied to the predictions about this economy this hubristic government have acted on( The end of Boom and bust…) This has been to our great cost and the misues of academics by the left is a common phenomenon. As if they were neutral , or simply as hired yea sayers .
Same goes for the environmental lobby where the same people validate eachother creating the old inverted pyramid of piffle . You will recall the C4 documentary . Following this in New Scientists there was a debate between protagonists .It was instructive on what scientists really say to each other. Not remotely like what we hear , which is not to say the deniers won the day.
On academic achievement –Indifferent, it is my belief that people generally do not individually know as much as is encoded in the organisation of life around them ,. For this reason clever plans to make everything better usually go wrong and sensible people resist change as a default position. Actually I was rather good academically myself but the distrust of experts is a more nuanced position than you imply

Newmania,

I’m relived to hear you’re not anti-intellectual. Apologies if I have misrepresented you.

You will recall the C4 documentary

I never watched it, I must admit. I did consider digging it up, but as it was widely condemned, I didn’t. This is not a reason to dismiss the programme completely I admit, I very much believe that counter-arguments should be given air-time (I wonder if Ofcom would have criticised the programme had it peddled the pro-Climate Change line, without giving a sceptical POV?).

I have to say I’m not greatly energised by the issue. I do not think there is the political radicalism required to reverse man-made climate change, if it is indeed a scientific fact. Also, people can model climate change a million times over, but it will always be within the parameters of our current understanding.

I’m not a scientist. I have no scientific qualification beyond GCSE. But I am a political junky who is very interested in international affairs, and I know enough to know that conflicting national interests will always trump international cooperation where political and economic profit exist.

I think democratic nations are particularly impotent in this area.

As someone who considers himself a liberal libertarian, I reject the scientific certainty of rightwing libertarians and conservatives, who seem ideologically blind to any evidence that suggests a link between the actions of man and the planet. These people rarely have a scientific background, but their rabid belief that the entire concept is a hoax, smacks of deliberate myopia.

I actually think a concerted effort to reduce fossil-fuel usage has very real political and economic advantages. The ‘economic question’ relies on limited resources – how it could be thrust into a flux if we harnessed unlimited sources… not to mention easing the foot of Russia and the Middle East on our collective necks.

I`m not a denier. Tax breaks for Green reserach , VAT removed from green products …bring it on

What a surprise that Nick posts to a DK post trying to rubbish climate change. Absolute shocker, that.

Whilst parts of ‘The Great Global-Warming Swindle’ were indeed condemned, Aaron, so were large swathes of ‘The Inconvenient Truth’. So whilst both sides (in film terms) have since modified the arguments due to new research/bad presentation, I remain to be convinced that we all need to pay vast amounts of tax to combat something which seems amazingly difficult to prove.

…to combat something which seems amazingly difficult to prove.

That’s a value judgement. The majority of scientists are in agreement as to humanity’s impact in the environment. The planet is warming up.

I’m not a scientist – are you? Your statement that we shouldn’t do anything because it “seems amazingly difficult to prove”, seems baffling. Some people wont listen no matter how convincing the evidence. So that a majority of climatologists are absolutely convinced of CC doesn’t convince you? Well fuck me backwards. Hold fire everyone(!), we’ll have to wait until the ‘unconvinceable’ are convinced.

I have no choice but to defer to scientists, much like I defer my health to a doctor.

That said, I would agree that I don’t think we should be flushing taxes to fight climate change if much rest of the world ignores it. And I don’t know exactly how “devastating” it’ll turn out to be.

However, as I said, most rightwing libertarians rail against scientists with little scientific credibility themselves – much like the idiotic commentators who become armchair climatologists whenever CC is brought up. We do need more reason in this debate – and I personally remain unconvinced as to the grave consequences of our inaction.

It’s not the climate change sceptics’ position that bothers me, it’s the piss-poor reasoning they use.

I do see great economic benefit in using less imported energy.

It’s a political decision, not really a scientific one anyway.

Aaron , a majority of climatologists are convinced that the importance of what they do is enormous and therefore the funding must keep coming through. Do you think you become a climatologist to prove its a waste of time? Their predictions have been apocalyptic for long enough now that the early ones are demonstrably false (notably sea level ) .All of which is subsequently incorporated into the new model .” Well they would say that wouldn’t they “
There are clear attractions to authoritarians and managerialists in keeping us in a state of barely suppressed panic in that central powers can be taken and this operates even more globally .

Having said that given the changes of the last century it would commonsensicaly be surprising if there was no effect so operating a safety first policy we ought to be taking it all seriously. What we do not have to do is see our money freedoms and rights trampled on by some new religion wrapping into self in spurious science.

Tax breaks for green research /Products
VAT off green products
Shrink the wasteful state as it allocates resources very badly
Lose the EU whose efforts have been counter productive

Aaron , a majority of climatologists are convinced that the importance of what they do is enormous and therefore the funding must keep coming through.

And those who fund them and those who evaluate their work are incapable of seeing through this, although you somehow can?

“What a surprise that Nick posts to a DK post trying to rubbish climate change. Absolute shocker, that.”

Another ad hominem from blogger of the year!

I agree with the way this discussion is going though. If climate change is happening, we should prepare for it rather than try to prevent it. After all, climates do change radically even without our intervention (new ice ages, meteorites, changes in solar activity) so getting ready for disasters which are bound to happen at some point is prudent. Indeed, it would be an argument for state intervention as markets (particularly as they are constituted right now) would find it hard to price for extreme, unknown cases (how well can you insure for tidal waves?). That is, it would be grounds for state intervention if our political culture thought ahead a little further than the weekend papers.

cjcjc: “In any event, in the light of the fact that these “targets” simply won’t be met, the alarmists (if they are serious) are going to have to turn their attention to mitigation, rather than prevention.”

But if we don’t do prevention, climate change will be radically worse than it is projected to be today. It’s not like it’s something we decide not to avoid, and then it happens, we deal with the consequences, and that’s it. If we don’t do anything about it, it just keeps happening, worse and worse, beyond anything anyone has yet considered.

The prevention is needed just to bring the problem down to a scale where the word “mitigation” has any useful meaning.

For what it’s worth, my belief is that this is real. I’ve read up on it in detail, and I talked to a few of the people doing research in the field while at university. They came across as honest people who very much cared about what they were doing. If you talk to people in a lot of professions, you find they’re fairly cynical about their work if talking “off the record” – not these guys. Anyone who thinks they are running some corrupt scam is either seriously misled or just sticking their head in the sand.

There is lot of confusion over the meaning of clean coal this confusion is to bring up the public relations efforts of the coal industry. Intentionally or not, the coal industry’s PR campaigns are confusing efficient use of coal with climate neutrality.