On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Oh well there goes another record

https://twitter.com/LanderVanTricht/...626112/photo/1

In fact the maximum was probably higher as we only see hourly readings, no climate data (333)
AAXX 02184 04416 46/// /1204 10047 20039 36951 57006=
But here it is +4.7°C, where is all this melt going to go?

Of course some will still be in denial!

Keith (Southend)

Keith Harris wrote:

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald
wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that
they often bear little relationship to what the interviewee
actually said. Fifty years ago I was incensed on seeing an
article in the Daily Fail about an impending "Little Ice Age"
which was a load of ******** from beginning to end. I'd
worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit.
However, one rang me first to apologise about the article,
saying it was nonsense, and that none of the quotes
attributed to them were what they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen
foul of such misreporting and so, on his next interview,
asked the interviewers whether they minded whether he
recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when the story appeared,
he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting with them
and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the
phrases or sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the
Eric Morecambe defence where they'd used the right words but
not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but
I am pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction
was that there would be problems if something wasn't done.
People being human, they might well have sexed it up a bit, and
of course journalists write it up for the most dramatic spin,
that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing
highly selective quotation from nuclear power professionals
turned into a series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I
worried about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s
hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of
any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing
can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate".
Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run
out in the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's
but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the
planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is
now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing
to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh,
Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the
flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then
it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now.
See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades,
rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based
on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...finds-sea-leve
l-rise-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with
some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the
World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Oh well there goes another record

https://twitter.com/LanderVanTricht/...626112/photo/1

In fact the maximum was probably higher as we only see hourly
readings, no climate data (333) AAXX 02184 04416 46/// /1204 10047
20039 36951 57006= But here it is +4.7°C, where is all this melt
going to go?

Of course some will still be in denial!

Keith (Southend)

For my money this all makes Brexit seem like an irrelevant side-show.
But then, what do I know ?!

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 20:24:56 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Keith Harris wrote:

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald
wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that
they often bear little relationship to what the interviewee
actually said. Fifty years ago I was incensed on seeing an
article in the Daily Fail about an impending "Little Ice Age"
which was a load of ******** from beginning to end. I'd
worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit.
However, one rang me first to apologise about the article,
saying it was nonsense, and that none of the quotes
attributed to them were what they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen
foul of such misreporting and so, on his next interview,
asked the interviewers whether they minded whether he
recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when the story appeared,
he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting with them
and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the
phrases or sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the
Eric Morecambe defence where they'd used the right words but
not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but
I am pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction
was that there would be problems if something wasn't done.
People being human, they might well have sexed it up a bit, and
of course journalists write it up for the most dramatic spin,
that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing
highly selective quotation from nuclear power professionals
turned into a series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I
worried about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s
hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of
any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing
can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate".
Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run
out in the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's
but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the
planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is
now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing
to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh,
Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the
flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then
it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now.
See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades,
rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based
on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...finds-sea-leve
l-rise-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with
some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the
World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Oh well there goes another record

https://twitter.com/LanderVanTricht/...626112/photo/1

In fact the maximum was probably higher as we only see hourly
readings, no climate data (333) AAXX 02184 04416 46/// /1204 10047
20039 36951 57006= But here it is +4.7°C, where is all this melt
going to go?

Of course some will still be in denial!

Keith (Southend)

For my money this all makes Brexit seem like an irrelevant side-show.
But then, what do I know ?!

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

I know what you mean Norman, but better not get me started on that one, in case we're on different sides of the abyss :-)

Back to Summit, of course the synops (bufr) are only every 3 hours so the max mose likely over 5.0°C

A bit cooler today +0.9°C

201908031800 AAXX 03184 04416 46/// /1005 11009 21030 36928 57002=
201908031500 AAXX 03154 04416 45/// /1003 11025 21053 36930 57003==
201908031200 AAXX 03124 04416 45/// /1004 11049 21077 36933 57002==
201908030900 AAXX 03094 04416 45/// /1107 11120 21144 36935 57002==
201908030600 AAXX 03064 04416 45/// /1006 11181 21198 36937 57004==
201908030300 AAXX 03034 04416 45/// /1307 11197 21214 36941 57007==
201908030000 AAXX 03004 04416 45/// /1004 11147 21165 36948 57002==
201908022100 AAXX 02214 04416 46/// /1403 11017 21028 36950 57001=

Keith (Southend)

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 20:43:47 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 20:24:56 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Keith Harris wrote:

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald
wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that
they often bear little relationship to what the interviewee
actually said. Fifty years ago I was incensed on seeing an
article in the Daily Fail about an impending "Little Ice Age"
which was a load of ******** from beginning to end. I'd
worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit.
However, one rang me first to apologise about the article,
saying it was nonsense, and that none of the quotes
attributed to them were what they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen
foul of such misreporting and so, on his next interview,
asked the interviewers whether they minded whether he
recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when the story appeared,
he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting with them
and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the
phrases or sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the
Eric Morecambe defence where they'd used the right words but
not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but
I am pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction
was that there would be problems if something wasn't done.
People being human, they might well have sexed it up a bit, and
of course journalists write it up for the most dramatic spin,
that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing
highly selective quotation from nuclear power professionals
turned into a series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I
worried about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s
hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of
any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing
can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate".
Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run
out in the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's
but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the
planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is
now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing
to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh,
Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the
flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then
it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now.
See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades,
rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based
on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...finds-sea-leve
l-rise-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with
some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the
World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Oh well there goes another record

https://twitter.com/LanderVanTricht/...626112/photo/1

In fact the maximum was probably higher as we only see hourly
readings, no climate data (333) AAXX 02184 04416 46/// /1204 10047
20039 36951 57006= But here it is +4.7°C, where is all this melt
going to go?

Of course some will still be in denial!

Keith (Southend)

For my money this all makes Brexit seem like an irrelevant side-show.
But then, what do I know ?!

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

I know what you mean Norman, but better not get me started on that one, in case we're on different sides of the abyss :-)

Back to Summit, of course the synops (bufr) are only every 3 hours so the max mose likely over 5.0°C

A bit cooler today +0.9°C

201908031800 AAXX 03184 04416 46/// /1005 11009 21030 36928 57002=
201908031500 AAXX 03154 04416 45/// /1003 11025 21053 36930 57003==
201908031200 AAXX 03124 04416 45/// /1004 11049 21077 36933 57002==
201908030900 AAXX 03094 04416 45/// /1107 11120 21144 36935 57002==
201908030600 AAXX 03064 04416 45/// /1006 11181 21198 36937 57004==
201908030300 AAXX 03034 04416 45/// /1307 11197 21214 36941 57007==
201908030000 AAXX 03004 04416 45/// /1004 11147 21165 36948 57002==
201908022100 AAXX 02214 04416 46/// /1403 11017 21028 36950 57001=

Keith (Southend)

Got that wrong, -0.9°C maximum.

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Keith,

You may find this podcast of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...weekly-podcast

But I have found that it is pointless arguing with anyone, not just about climate change or Brexit. Even if you win the argument, your opponent will not be convinced, believing that there is some information he is missing that would prove you wrong :-(

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 21:38:42 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Keith,

You may find this podcast of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...weekly-podcast

But I have found that it is pointless arguing with anyone, not just about climate change or Brexit. Even if you win the argument, your opponent will not be convinced, believing that there is some information he is missing that would prove you wrong :-(

Thanks for the link.

Your right, I can never ever remember it being so divided before in my life, what's gone wrong?

Keith (Southend)

On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 4:32:29 AM UTC+12, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

It's a worry. Denier trolls out of their coffins at the moment. All of them deserving only disgust and contempt.

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 9:48:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 21:38:42 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 17:32:29 UTC+1, Keith Harris wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 16:00:56 UTC+1, Alastair B. McDonald wrote:
On Saturday, 3 August 2019 14:37:56 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:49, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 03/08/2019 11:03, Spike wrote:
This is the full version, HTH:

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Ah, a media story. My personal experience with these is that they often
bear little relationship to what the interviewee actually said. Fifty
years ago I was incensed on seeing an article in the Daily Fail about an
impending "Little Ice Age" which was a load of ******** from beginning
to end. I'd worked with the interviewees and could not believe what
they'd said. When I got to work I was going to ring them but,
considering they were a few grades above me, I delayed a bit. However,
one rang me first to apologise about the article, saying it was
nonsense, and that none of the quotes attributed to them were what
they'd said.

A few years ago, I was speaking to someone who'd also fallen foul of
such misreporting and so, on his next interview, asked the interviewers
whether they minded whether he recorded it. They agreed. Of course, when
the story appeared, he'd been totally misquoted. He got another meeting
with them and went over the recording.They found all the words on the
recording that had appeared in the quotes but none of the phrases or
sentences. They had resorted, in effect, to the Eric Morecambe defence
where they'd used the right words but not necessarily in the right order!


I don't doubt that there is some selective quotation here, but I am
pretty confident that the basic theme of the UN prediction was that
there would be problems if something wasn't done. People being human,
they might well have sexed it up a bit, and of course journalists write
it up for the most dramatic spin, that is what journalists do.

Like Graham, I have had the unsettling experience of seeing highly
selective quotation from nuclear power professionals turned into a
series of dire warnings.

Skipping back to when I was passionate and impressionable, I worried
about the now-classic Paul Ehrlich quote from 1968:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of
millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs
embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial
increase in the world death rate". Which of course didn't happen.

I also believed the 1960's prediction that oil was going to run out in
the 1890's.

Well, oil may not have run out in the 1890's or even the 1980's but the day when it does run out is getting ever closer.

The same applies to countries being wiped off the face of the planet by rising sea levels. It has not happened yet but it is now inevitable. We are not able now to stop Greenland continuing to melt, and it will add 7m to sea level. Bye bye Bangladesh, Holland and Florida. Your UN spokes man did not say that the flooding would occur in 2000, only that if nothing was done then it would be impossible to stop it. That is what is happening now.. See:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

@ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...e-accelerating

Alistair I find myself banging my head against a brick wall with some of these denial'ers. Problem is most of them a running the World, so there's little hope for the human race.

Keith (Southend)

Keith,

You may find this podcast of interest: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...weekly-podcast

But I have found that it is pointless arguing with anyone, not just about climate change or Brexit. Even if you win the argument, your opponent will not be convinced, believing that there is some information he is missing that would prove you wrong :-(

Thanks for the link.

Your right, I can never ever remember it being so divided before in my life, what's gone wrong?

Keith (Southend)

It is very sad, but the trading of insults (not you Keith!) on both sides, refusing to except that any evidence on your side could be iffy, is the worst thing today.

It should be obvious from my previous posts which side of both arguments I fall, but I do tire of the statements around every extreme event being down to climate change. After all, gale frequencies on the Atlantic seaboard have been at very low so far this century, but every time there is a bad gale . . It's just not that simple.

As I've said before, it's not understanding the full implications of what we are doing to the planet is the most scary bit, and why we should try to minimise our impact. People who know just what will happen lack understanding.

Plastic pollution is more obvious, therefore the argument is rather less divided, though banning plastic straws doesn't scratch the surface.

Graham
Penzance

On Sunday, 4 August 2019 09:36:38 UTC+1, Graham Easterling wrote:

After all, gale frequencies on the Atlantic seaboard have been at very low so far this century, but every time there is a bad gale . .
It is more likely that the lack of gales is due to CC, not the converse. But, as you rightly say, it's not that simple.

As I've said before, it's not understanding the full implications of what we are doing to the planet is the most scary bit, and why we should try to minimise our impact. People who know just what will happen lack understanding.
Hear hear!

--
Freddie
Dorrington
Shropshire
115m AMSL
http://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/
Stats for the month so far: https://www.hosiene.co.uk/weather/st...cs/latest.xlsx

On 03/08/2019 10:40, newshound wrote:
On 03/08/2019 10:25, Spike wrote:
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP)Â* A senior U.N. environmental official says entire
nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if
the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of
'eco-refugees' threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of
the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the
greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, *ocean levels will rise by up to
three feet*, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations,
Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

*Coastal regions will be inundated*; *one-sixth of Bangladesh could be
flooded*,
displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable
land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply,
according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

"Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is
you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the
natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry
about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?" he said.


Do you have the actual link, rather than cut and paste? (Serious
request, not a stroppy doubter, as I would like to add it to my
collection of failed predictions).

Try this one too :-

ISBN 0-19-280452-9 A guide to the end of the world,
Bill McGuire, OUP, 2002