On 2014-02-16 05:11:06 +0000, Tudor Hughes said:

On Saturday, 15 February 2014 23:04:03 UTC, Alastair wrote:
Every day we get a post from Lawrence explaining how climate change is
a scam. It seems that his drip drip approach has been fairly successful
in persuading people that there is doubt about whether it is caused by
CO2. That is all the big oil and coal companies need - doubt - to
prevent there being an upswell from the public to persuade the
govenrment to act. Here is a message from Greenpeace for those of you
who have not been fooled by Lawrence, and his sock puppet Dawlish, into
believing that AGW is just a childish argument. Dear All, The
devastating floods spreading across the country are causing havoc for
everyone caught in their path, and arguments about who's to blame for
the current crisis are dragging on. Yet very few politicians or
journalists are talking about what's really causing the extremes of
weather we've experienced in recent years: climate change. What I find
particularly absurd is that environment secretary Owen Paterson - who
is a key player in shaping the government's policies on climate change,
including tackling the floods - refuses to accept climate change is
part of the problem. It doesn't make sense. We can't afford to have a
denier like Paterson in a position responsible for climate change, so
tell David Cameron to replace him with an Environment Secretary who's
serious about climate change. A few days ago, the chief scientist at
the Met Office said the evidence suggests the floods are consistent
with climate change predictions. She knows a thing or two about
climate, as do other scientific advisors, yet Paterson has been
ignoring them since he became environment secretary 18 months ago. The
evidence keeps stacking up. He hasn't had a single briefing on climate
change since he took up the job, and we've heard he won't even look at
a document that so much as mentions it. He's made statements in public
about climate change which are factually incorrect, and also said that
"people get very emotional about [climate change] and I think we should
just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries." If your
house or business is currently underwater, you'd be emotional, and
understandably so. This all explains why climate change spending in
Paterson's department has been cut almost in half since he took charge
and staff working on it have been slashed from 38 to just six. It's
insane. How can Cameron claim his government is serious about climate
change when he has a denier like Paterson is in such a crucial role?
Please sign the petition. Cameron has to get Paterson away from
anything to do with climate change - he's a complete liability who's
undermining any attempts to get a grip on the situation. In
exasperation, Jamie PS Very few people are making the link between
climate change and the floods. Carbon Brief analysed newspaper stories
on the floods and found that in over 3000 published since the beginning
of December, only 206 mentioned climate change. If the media aren't
talking about it, it's up to us - sign and share the petition telling
David Cameron to get serious about the impacts of climate change.

Since when has Dawlish been Lawrence's sock puppet and even
more inexplicably, since when has he been an AGW denier. You may not
like his style but on this subject he talks sense.
The fundamentalists are not all on one side, you know. While
the deniers cannot be argued with because it's a religion for them, or
at least a convenience, there are those of the Green persuasion who
will unjustifiably attribute every episode of bad weather to AGW. I
have had experience of this from a friend who stood as a Green
candidate in a council election. He now "owns" the weather but
actually knows very little and seemingly doesn't want to. My views were
rubbished as were the Met Office and the Royal Met Soc. At this point
I gave up, obviously.
I think Graham Easterling may have something to say on this.
From his own measurements over a long period he has stated that
storminess in the last 20 years has been quite low. This has to be set
against the current episode. So has AGW had a hand in this latest
stuff? Maybe. Maybe not.
I'm not an AGW denier, BTW. There is a strong human contribution
to the warming. But does it cause stormy weather? May do. I've no
idea.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


I think that the problem is always going to be increase CO2 = AGW =
Climate change is always going to be a reasoned association, rather
than a direct proof. And for the deniers, this is always going to be a
case of "ah, but where is the proof?", when you challenge their
religion.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, people can look back and still be
unsure of whether certain extreme events were just that - or were the
results of the planet heating up.

It does seem interesting that in advance of every major ice age
(according to the frozen core samples that seem to be used as evidence
of our miniscule effect on planetary climate) there has been a
relatively short period of rapid warming. But who can say, without
guessing, that our current period is part of this trend, or wholly due
to human activity?

It is no good relying on the politicians to do anything responsible,
unless they believe there are votes in it. So, maybe these severe
weather events will serve to make the public vote for those who have
disaster prevention high on their agenda? Only then will the senior
politicians ignore their vested interest corporate lobby groups and
take notice of the people.