April 20, 2023 - 10:00am
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t approve of what Just Stop Oil (JSO) did at the Crucible Theatre this week. While there is a place for civil disobedience, protests that deliberately disrupt the lives of the general public are not justified. And, yes, that includes despoiling the green baize of a snooker table with orange powder.
But let me try to steel man the JSO position: the climate emergency is real. Over the last few days, Asia has experienced a brutal heat wave. In a region where more than half of humanity lives, the mercury is soaring and temperature records are tumbling. It’s bad enough already — but with an extra two or three degrees of global warming on the way, the future looks grim. If you think that the current migration crisis is intolerable, then just wait for the mass population movements of future decades.
The planet won’t die, of course. Life always finds a way, but our way of life hangs in the balance. Even if one takes the case at face value, though, JSO is still making is a big mistake.
Just look at their stunts so far: the snooker thing, the soup attack on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, a track invasion at the British Grand Prix, the spray painting of Harrods (ditto banks and think tanks), disruption at football matches, multiple road protests and a cake attack on ‘King Charles’ at Madame Tussauds. It’s reported that the London Marathon could be next.
What do these targets have in common? It’s not political, because only some of them are overtly capitalist or Right-wing. Rather it is the small-c conservative normie-ness of it all. Or to put it another way, JSO are clearly out to épater les bourgeois (bearing in mind that, these days, les bourgeois includes the Brexit-voting working class).
But aren’t trendy Left-leaning bohemian types just as responsible for the looming climate catastrophe as the rest of us? Without a doubt, so why aren’t their events being targeted? Music festivals, for instance — or fashion shows or experimental theatre productions. These too are displays of self-indulgent, resource-wasting frippery, so by that logic there should be orange paint for them as well.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeClimate is of course real, what is not real is the impact we are having on it, especially the focus on co2 emitted by mankind as the primary cause. Yes we should address pollution and constantly strive to better the environment but that will not happen if we continue to focus on ridiculous politicised programmes like NetZero.
What NetZero will achieve is a destruction of a free society and usher in a dystopian future for all but powerful elites.
The demonstrators are brainwashed and cult like in behaviour, no debate, no dissent allowed, totally unable to rationalise and seek pragmatic solutions to issues.
It’s not Climate catastrophe you should be concerned about it is Society breakdown as a direct consequence of policies being pursued by those in power.
The irony of this statement is not lost given the denial of humankind being responsible for climate change that you are making.
If you in turn claim to be rational and open to debate then at least read up a little on the subject from an established unbiased source.
“at least read up a little on the subject from an established unbiased source.”
And where would you suggest we find that, the UEA or some other institute ridding first class on the climate gravy train or the WHO who who so impressed us with their integrity and competence over Covid?
Any modern encyclopedia. Any recognised scientific publication. The world is your oyster.
The problem with that is when you research facts about the age of the planet vs. the minuscule amount of time humans have been measuring climate, it becomes extremely obvious that the current warming phase has been taking place over millions of years, after the last ice age, well before human activity.
When you find a way to halt that trend, please let us all know.
Good Lord. I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Good Lord. I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.
You do know that your views are heterodox, almost heresy, on this site, so you must be prepared to be “bombed” with down votes.
Indeed, but I receive that with a mixture of perplexity and light amusement. I’ve often grappled with the conundrum of how so many otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp a relatively simple scientific concept because of their political bias.
How does it feel to be right when everybody else is wrong? Do I detect a little smugness creeping in?
Not ‘everyone’ Chris, this might come as a surprise but sceptics are very much a minority beyond the echoing walls of the far right wing.
Does that make you ‘far right wing’?
Does that make you ‘far right wing’?
Not ‘everyone’ Chris, this might come as a surprise but sceptics are very much a minority beyond the echoing walls of the far right wing.
How does it feel to be right when everybody else is wrong? Do I detect a little smugness creeping in?
Indeed, but I receive that with a mixture of perplexity and light amusement. I’ve often grappled with the conundrum of how so many otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp a relatively simple scientific concept because of their political bias.
Covid, Covid, Covid
Who do you think writes the encyclopedia entries or the articles in scientific journals.
What’s your point?
What’s your point?
The problem with that is when you research facts about the age of the planet vs. the minuscule amount of time humans have been measuring climate, it becomes extremely obvious that the current warming phase has been taking place over millions of years, after the last ice age, well before human activity.
When you find a way to halt that trend, please let us all know.
You do know that your views are heterodox, almost heresy, on this site, so you must be prepared to be “bombed” with down votes.
Covid, Covid, Covid
Who do you think writes the encyclopedia entries or the articles in scientific journals.
Any modern encyclopedia. Any recognised scientific publication. The world is your oyster.
Really? The same ‘established sources’ that have fed us the Covid hysteria for the past three years, likewise using computer modelling and assuming worst case scenarios, to create fear and panic, instead of informed debate.
Unbiased – do you really think so?
Pre 2020 you could find me in on the side of climate change (I was even a member of Greenpeace years earlier). However, the plandemic forced me to look elsewhere for the truth and that’s when I went down a rabbit hole of Vaccines, economics, politics and climate change. We are being lied to massively and the same groups are lying in all four of those subjects….which is itself very telling. When you find people who were also “pro human climate change” becoming skeptics you know there is something seriously wrong.
Do yourself a favour : investigate the hocky stick chart and the data the author omitted to warp the curve! Compare Co2 PPM from early sixties to now and take account of the 4% is due to fossil fuel burning…..ooops what is going on there ! Look at the ocean currents and how that drives WEATHER like the heatwaves AND cold spells in winter. Why is Antarctica NOT warming ? How come hurricanes have NOT increased in severity or frequency in the last 100 years? Wrt hurricane research that author is one of those people who woke up after re-researching.
You can convince yourself of anything, absolutely anything if you look for it on the internet. The number one rule is to ask yourself is this a source of information with integrity? Regrettably, it seems you’ve been had on many levels.
Also the pole reversal and shift that is occurring, which over millennia will change the temperatures in areas of the planet. Think for instance of Antartica, which roughly 90 million years ago was once a lush warm temperate forest, or the Sahara desert, which was also once green and lush about 10500 years ago (only for about 500 years). Climate change will always happen, what we must do is worry more about pollution, monoculture and deforestation. I agree NetZero is a scam to raise taxes and increase the gulf between rich and poor.
face/palm
The poles switch quite frequently actually – and they move around a lot. Sometimes the magnetic pole is hundreds of miles from the location we have decided is the pole.
Much more important is the changes in solar activity (the sun has many different cycles from 11 years solar maximum and minimum to much longer 22,000 year cycles and beyond – a main sequence star will have thousands of overlapping cycles and oscillations) which vastly outweighs anything else acting on earth’s atmosphere.
Dear God.
Dear God.
face/palm
The poles switch quite frequently actually – and they move around a lot. Sometimes the magnetic pole is hundreds of miles from the location we have decided is the pole.
Much more important is the changes in solar activity (the sun has many different cycles from 11 years solar maximum and minimum to much longer 22,000 year cycles and beyond – a main sequence star will have thousands of overlapping cycles and oscillations) which vastly outweighs anything else acting on earth’s atmosphere.
You can convince yourself of anything, absolutely anything if you look for it on the internet. The number one rule is to ask yourself is this a source of information with integrity? Regrettably, it seems you’ve been had on many levels.
Also the pole reversal and shift that is occurring, which over millennia will change the temperatures in areas of the planet. Think for instance of Antartica, which roughly 90 million years ago was once a lush warm temperate forest, or the Sahara desert, which was also once green and lush about 10500 years ago (only for about 500 years). Climate change will always happen, what we must do is worry more about pollution, monoculture and deforestation. I agree NetZero is a scam to raise taxes and increase the gulf between rich and poor.
Hey Robbie. There have been a few Oxford-style debates on climate change. Can you link even one where the alarmists won the debate. I for sure can link you half a dozen they have lost.
What do you mean by alarmists and what does this have to do with anything?
You are willfully ignorant. There are plenty of actual debates out there, where both sceptics and alarmists present their views. Maybe you should watch one.
The irony. Let’s have a look at Oxford University climate policy shall we?
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-09-oxford-climate-scientists-no-doubt-about-climate-change
I read the link. It says nothing new. Temps have increased – they say the highest in 2000 years. This is very much in dispute. Have you ever bothered to inquire why this is in dispute, or what the 2000 year claim is based on. Have you ever watched a debate where both sides are presented? Do you ever wonder why they were growing wine in England 700 years ago without genetically modified crops if it is hotter today?
I read the link. It says nothing new. Temps have increased – they say the highest in 2000 years. This is very much in dispute. Have you ever bothered to inquire why this is in dispute, or what the 2000 year claim is based on. Have you ever watched a debate where both sides are presented? Do you ever wonder why they were growing wine in England 700 years ago without genetically modified crops if it is hotter today?
The irony. Let’s have a look at Oxford University climate policy shall we?
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-09-oxford-climate-scientists-no-doubt-about-climate-change
You are willfully ignorant. There are plenty of actual debates out there, where both sceptics and alarmists present their views. Maybe you should watch one.
What do you mean by alarmists and what does this have to do with anything?
“at least read up a little on the subject from an established unbiased source.”
And where would you suggest we find that, the UEA or some other institute ridding first class on the climate gravy train or the WHO who who so impressed us with their integrity and competence over Covid?
Really? The same ‘established sources’ that have fed us the Covid hysteria for the past three years, likewise using computer modelling and assuming worst case scenarios, to create fear and panic, instead of informed debate.
Unbiased – do you really think so?
Pre 2020 you could find me in on the side of climate change (I was even a member of Greenpeace years earlier). However, the plandemic forced me to look elsewhere for the truth and that’s when I went down a rabbit hole of Vaccines, economics, politics and climate change. We are being lied to massively and the same groups are lying in all four of those subjects….which is itself very telling. When you find people who were also “pro human climate change” becoming skeptics you know there is something seriously wrong.
Do yourself a favour : investigate the hocky stick chart and the data the author omitted to warp the curve! Compare Co2 PPM from early sixties to now and take account of the 4% is due to fossil fuel burning…..ooops what is going on there ! Look at the ocean currents and how that drives WEATHER like the heatwaves AND cold spells in winter. Why is Antarctica NOT warming ? How come hurricanes have NOT increased in severity or frequency in the last 100 years? Wrt hurricane research that author is one of those people who woke up after re-researching.
Hey Robbie. There have been a few Oxford-style debates on climate change. Can you link even one where the alarmists won the debate. I for sure can link you half a dozen they have lost.
Globally it is the poor who will suffer from climate change activism. In the UK it will be the lower waged who can no longer afford some sort of compliant vehicle rather than a 20yo perfectly good runner for a grand.
Follow the Money – lots and lots of lovely dosh to be made from “Climate Change”
… and the poor suffer from climate change, too, just not so much in the UK.
This is the worst, most disgraceful pursuit of net zero. We will suffer in the west for sure, but the third world will suffer even more.
… and the poor suffer from climate change, too, just not so much in the UK.
This is the worst, most disgraceful pursuit of net zero. We will suffer in the west for sure, but the third world will suffer even more.
Has there ever been an article critical of the climate hysterics that didn’t start with the words: ‘don’t get me wrong’?
Like all the others this completely misses the point, which is not whether there is a crisis coming but that adopting the policies the hysterics propose completely destroys our ability to deal with it when and if it does.
CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from something like 320ppm to 450ppm. It sounds terrible until you understand that the atmosphere is 450 millionths CO2 and 999,550 millionths not CO2.
That microscopic amount of CO2 appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
The irony of this statement is not lost given the denial of humankind being responsible for climate change that you are making.
If you in turn claim to be rational and open to debate then at least read up a little on the subject from an established unbiased source.
Globally it is the poor who will suffer from climate change activism. In the UK it will be the lower waged who can no longer afford some sort of compliant vehicle rather than a 20yo perfectly good runner for a grand.
Follow the Money – lots and lots of lovely dosh to be made from “Climate Change”
Has there ever been an article critical of the climate hysterics that didn’t start with the words: ‘don’t get me wrong’?
Like all the others this completely misses the point, which is not whether there is a crisis coming but that adopting the policies the hysterics propose completely destroys our ability to deal with it when and if it does.
CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from something like 320ppm to 450ppm. It sounds terrible until you understand that the atmosphere is 450 millionths CO2 and 999,550 millionths not CO2.
That microscopic amount of CO2 appears to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Climate is of course real, what is not real is the impact we are having on it, especially the focus on co2 emitted by mankind as the primary cause. Yes we should address pollution and constantly strive to better the environment but that will not happen if we continue to focus on ridiculous politicised programmes like NetZero.
What NetZero will achieve is a destruction of a free society and usher in a dystopian future for all but powerful elites.
The demonstrators are brainwashed and cult like in behaviour, no debate, no dissent allowed, totally unable to rationalise and seek pragmatic solutions to issues.
It’s not Climate catastrophe you should be concerned about it is Society breakdown as a direct consequence of policies being pursued by those in power.
Weather events have happened for billions of years. People need to get a grip and understand that their fears are stimulated by the fact that these weather events are now reported globally, and this “new knowledge” is the attributing phenomenon.
Sure, humans should be respectful of the planet. As such there should be a renewed focus on pollution, needless chemicals, the literal endless amount of junk we create and dump, and the state of our global forests and oceans.
The relentless focus on CO2 and fossil fuels is steering our gaze away from other areas of responsibility.
Weather events have happened for billions of years. People need to get a grip and understand that their fears are stimulated by the fact that these weather events are now reported globally, and this “new knowledge” is the attributing phenomenon.
Sure, humans should be respectful of the planet. As such there should be a renewed focus on pollution, needless chemicals, the literal endless amount of junk we create and dump, and the state of our global forests and oceans.
The relentless focus on CO2 and fossil fuels is steering our gaze away from other areas of responsibility.
How long do you think it would take to add an extra two or three degrees of global warming from now?
How much mass population movement has the existing 1.2C of global warming since 1850 caused?
Why are we chasing low-scale solutions, hoping for as yet undeveloped technologies, that take too long to deliver, instead of going all out for nuclear power to get to abundant, clean, cheap energy?
We have the solution – Just Stop Oil ignores it, otherwise they would be barricading Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear organisations, and boycotting Germany for closing down large-scale non-carbon energy resources.
Imagine the scene: The PM steps up to the microphone:” In secret, over the last 10 years, our best scientists and engineers have been working on a total solution to climate change – stopping it dead in its tracks! When I press the large red button in front of me a vast network of the latest, safest, most advance nuclear power stations will switch on – instantly! Our carbon footprint will become negative overnight!. Great news for the UK, and Planet Earth! Here I go …”
Just Stop Oil : ” Noooooooo …!”
They never have an answer for this.
Imagine the scene: The PM steps up to the microphone:” In secret, over the last 10 years, our best scientists and engineers have been working on a total solution to climate change – stopping it dead in its tracks! When I press the large red button in front of me a vast network of the latest, safest, most advance nuclear power stations will switch on – instantly! Our carbon footprint will become negative overnight!. Great news for the UK, and Planet Earth! Here I go …”
Just Stop Oil : ” Noooooooo …!”
They never have an answer for this.
How long do you think it would take to add an extra two or three degrees of global warming from now?
How much mass population movement has the existing 1.2C of global warming since 1850 caused?
Why are we chasing low-scale solutions, hoping for as yet undeveloped technologies, that take too long to deliver, instead of going all out for nuclear power to get to abundant, clean, cheap energy?
We have the solution – Just Stop Oil ignores it, otherwise they would be barricading Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear organisations, and boycotting Germany for closing down large-scale non-carbon energy resources.
“But let me try to steel man the JSO position: the climate emergency is real.”
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t. But It is certainly riddled with the irrationality that one would expect of a religion movement: What is indisputable is that as the UK is not a major source of climate warming emissions, it can do nothing to solve the problem, if it does exist. Go to China, India etc. and preach your stuff.
Glad to help.
Sigh. Temperatures are going up mate. The data doesn’t lie. I’ve been travelling to Iceland for decades. May fav glaciers are shrinking fast. It’s easily measurable. There’s no “perhaps” about it. You can argue about the effect of CO2 all you like, and whether we can do much about it, but that’s a different point.
When I was a kid the glaciers were growing ad we were told the next ice age was coming.
In the 15 Century England was a successful wine producing country until the mini ice age bit.
It seems that the mini ice age lasted until about 1900 so may, if temperature increases have genuinely been measured, we are on the rebound from that
Well I hoped you’ve stopped travelling to Iceland and being part of the problem. Mate.
Yes, the data doesn’t lie. The data that shows that the current warming trend since the last ice age has been taking place for eons. People mock the warnings about end times in biblical prophecy, yet completely adhere to their own prophecy about man made climate change.
If Britain goes Net Zero tomorrow, we can decrease the temperature in 2100 by 0.01 degrees Centigrade compared to business as usual.
Let’s do it!
“Sigh. Temperatures are going up mate.”
Which bit of my post can you not get your head round, Frank? The Chinese and Indian governments do not care what you think. Just how thick are you?
Sigh.
Temps have went up 1.2C since 1850. Of course glaciers are melting. It’s warmer. This shouldn’t be shocking news. It doesn’t mean we face a climate crisis.
When I was a kid the glaciers were growing ad we were told the next ice age was coming.
In the 15 Century England was a successful wine producing country until the mini ice age bit.
It seems that the mini ice age lasted until about 1900 so may, if temperature increases have genuinely been measured, we are on the rebound from that
Well I hoped you’ve stopped travelling to Iceland and being part of the problem. Mate.
Yes, the data doesn’t lie. The data that shows that the current warming trend since the last ice age has been taking place for eons. People mock the warnings about end times in biblical prophecy, yet completely adhere to their own prophecy about man made climate change.
If Britain goes Net Zero tomorrow, we can decrease the temperature in 2100 by 0.01 degrees Centigrade compared to business as usual.
Let’s do it!
“Sigh. Temperatures are going up mate.”
Which bit of my post can you not get your head round, Frank? The Chinese and Indian governments do not care what you think. Just how thick are you?
Sigh.
Temps have went up 1.2C since 1850. Of course glaciers are melting. It’s warmer. This shouldn’t be shocking news. It doesn’t mean we face a climate crisis.
For me, it’s got to the point where I just skip those parts of articles where they go on about climate change and emergencies etc. not because I necessarily disagree, but because I’ve read it all before.
Sigh. Temperatures are going up mate. The data doesn’t lie. I’ve been travelling to Iceland for decades. May fav glaciers are shrinking fast. It’s easily measurable. There’s no “perhaps” about it. You can argue about the effect of CO2 all you like, and whether we can do much about it, but that’s a different point.
For me, it’s got to the point where I just skip those parts of articles where they go on about climate change and emergencies etc. not because I necessarily disagree, but because I’ve read it all before.
“But let me try to steel man the JSO position: the climate emergency is real.”
Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t. But It is certainly riddled with the irrationality that one would expect of a religion movement: What is indisputable is that as the UK is not a major source of climate warming emissions, it can do nothing to solve the problem, if it does exist. Go to China, India etc. and preach your stuff.
Glad to help.
When JSO and their associated friends stop disrupting the lives of ordinary people and state clearly and concisely the steps that they believe should be taken and the costs to the man in the street of those steps then I will listen. They never do that. I suspect because the reality of the world they are proposing will be pretty grim for most people.
Sadly the sensible stuff they say gets lost – it does make sense to insulate our homes properly and make sure energy waste is minimized but how to do it and at what cost.
I have read most of the executive summaries in the IPCC report on climate change and I don’t hear the hysteria that is portrayed in the media.
It all rather reminds me of Y2k…….
Unfortunately, the executive summaries are political documents and are much more alarmist than the actual reports. The media then takes bits and pieces of the summaries and make it even more alarmist.
Unfortunately, the executive summaries are political documents and are much more alarmist than the actual reports. The media then takes bits and pieces of the summaries and make it even more alarmist.
When JSO and their associated friends stop disrupting the lives of ordinary people and state clearly and concisely the steps that they believe should be taken and the costs to the man in the street of those steps then I will listen. They never do that. I suspect because the reality of the world they are proposing will be pretty grim for most people.
Sadly the sensible stuff they say gets lost – it does make sense to insulate our homes properly and make sure energy waste is minimized but how to do it and at what cost.
I have read most of the executive summaries in the IPCC report on climate change and I don’t hear the hysteria that is portrayed in the media.
It all rather reminds me of Y2k…….
Climate change people are not serious.
It is obvious that moving millions of people from countries with low carbon footprints per person to countries with high carbon footprints per person will increase global emissions.
But mass immigration can never be questioned, no matter what the emergency is.
There are more important things than climate emergencies, namely the right of millions of people to freely emigrate to Europe.
Climate change people are not serious.
It is obvious that moving millions of people from countries with low carbon footprints per person to countries with high carbon footprints per person will increase global emissions.
But mass immigration can never be questioned, no matter what the emergency is.
There are more important things than climate emergencies, namely the right of millions of people to freely emigrate to Europe.
Let me stop you right there. The climate “emergency” is not real. It is manufactured money churn that, for the last 50 years, has gone from telling us we were all going to starve, drown, freeze or fry to death, or all four at the same time.
I wish we could stop oil just for these climate freaks and see how they get on. I’d give them about three days.
Incidentally, there’s nothing “trendy” about being a leftist; it’s about as bog standard, lock step, unimaginative as it can be – like getting a tattoo or dyeing one’s hair pink. Might as well be a uniform declaring one’s drone status.
Let me stop you right there. The climate “emergency” is not real. It is manufactured money churn that, for the last 50 years, has gone from telling us we were all going to starve, drown, freeze or fry to death, or all four at the same time.
I wish we could stop oil just for these climate freaks and see how they get on. I’d give them about three days.
Incidentally, there’s nothing “trendy” about being a leftist; it’s about as bog standard, lock step, unimaginative as it can be – like getting a tattoo or dyeing one’s hair pink. Might as well be a uniform declaring one’s drone status.
“While there is a place for civil disobedience”.
Is there really in a modern democracy ? Everyone can vote and participate through democratic means. And put forward their arguments for consideration. In the past, where people had no such representation, there certainly was such a case (Civil Rights in the USA would be a prime example). But where there are democratic, legal means to achieve change I’m not sure this is either necessary or helpful.
If the only reason for civil disobedience is to undermine democracy, I’m not sure we should be endorsing it so enthusiastically.
I noted something similar after 9/11. Saudi terrorism was denounced by the US, but Irish nationalist terrorism was not in the lunatic “War on Terror”. Yet, Irish nationalists always had recourse to legal means to achieve change, whilst Saudi’s arguably did not. This obviously is not excusing what the Saudi terrorists actually did or arguing that it is not worse than atrocities on Ireland. Just comparing the actual choices available.
“While there is a place for civil disobedience”.
Is there really in a modern democracy ? Everyone can vote and participate through democratic means. And put forward their arguments for consideration. In the past, where people had no such representation, there certainly was such a case (Civil Rights in the USA would be a prime example). But where there are democratic, legal means to achieve change I’m not sure this is either necessary or helpful.
If the only reason for civil disobedience is to undermine democracy, I’m not sure we should be endorsing it so enthusiastically.
I noted something similar after 9/11. Saudi terrorism was denounced by the US, but Irish nationalist terrorism was not in the lunatic “War on Terror”. Yet, Irish nationalists always had recourse to legal means to achieve change, whilst Saudi’s arguably did not. This obviously is not excusing what the Saudi terrorists actually did or arguing that it is not worse than atrocities on Ireland. Just comparing the actual choices available.
I wish they would target Millwall football.. and get beaten to a pulp…
I wish they would target Millwall football.. and get beaten to a pulp…
Extreme weather events are nothing new and, by the way, that “brutal heatwave” link will take you to a Guardian piece written by a couple of their posh-girl correspondents – ever eager to push the climate emergency agenda.
What bitter irony if the whole world were to join in the climate panic and implement all those measures the hysterical activists demand – only to find, several decades down the line, that the extreme weather events keep on coming because the expert diagnosis was just plain wrong. The only achievement: our industrial wealth wrecklessly discarded. Perhaps that, rather than saving-the-planet is the eco-fanatics true aim.
Extreme weather events, like hurricane, tornadoes and wildfires are not increasing. They just aren’t.
Indeed, but hysterical media reporting of such events certainly has increased. A particular worry is that the only response to these events in the MSM is the call for ever more CO2 reduction. Worse, they behave as though scepticism were no more than a product of a dangerous ‘denier’ mentality.
Wrong
We’ve been through this before Robbie. The IPCC clearly states severe weather events have not increased. I really don’t get your schtick. Again, follow the link at the end of this post.
In the AR6 report, Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, concludes that changes in the number and intensity of severe weather events have not been detected, nor can any changes be attributed to human caused climate change. There is high confidence in heat extremes, which shouldn’t shock anyone, considering global temps have risen 1.3 degrees since 1860. However, there is low confidence for drought, flooding, heavy precipitation and severe weather events like hurricane. Check it out yourself. Be warned, these reports are written to discourage people from reading. Ignore all the rhetoric and garbage in the first 150 pages, and jump to the actual findings in the tables in the last half of the report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter11.pdf
Friday, 3 March 2023 | Go to the comment
Indeed, and I think I pointed out this page to you at that time: How can it be any clearer?
p1610
FAQ 11.2 | Will Unprecedented Extremes Occur As a Result Of Human-Induced Climate Change?
Climate change has already increased the magnitude and frequency of extreme hot events and decreased
the magnitude and frequency of extreme cold events, and, in some regions, intensified extreme precipitation
events. As the climate moves away from its past and current states, we will experience extreme events that
are unprecedented, either in magnitude, frequency, timing or location. The frequency of these unprecedented
extreme events will rise with increasing global warming. Additionally, the combined occurrence of multiple
unprecedented extremes may result in large and unprecedented impacts.
Simple question. Have severe weather events increased or not?
The quote you offer says nothing about extreme weather events, except that they will increase in the future. This means nothing. We’ve been told this for 35 years, and we’re still waiting for the increase in severe weather.
What the quote does say is extreme heat has increased. Shocker!! Temps have increased 1.2C since 1850. Of course heat extremes have increased. And of course cold kills 10 times as many people as heat.
I quote the IPCC and you offer a quote saying severe weather will increase in the future. These are not the same things.
Yes. Yes they have, simple answer. A quick google search on your question serves up hundreds of articles supporting this – for example at Yale University.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme-weather-events-have-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years
You’re completely lost Robbie. The story you cite links to a summary of a UN study. The summary is exactly seven paragraphs long. Maybe you should have read it. If you did, you would find this.
“There has also been a rise in geophysical events including earthquakes and tsunamis which have killed more people than any of the other natural hazards under review in this report.”
The article you cite conflates natural disasters with extreme weather. Do you ever question why this is done? The study isn’t even about weather. It’s about natural disasters.
And the summary is dishonest as well, because it doesn’t break out deaths by category – earthquakes, flooding, tsunamis. It’s deliberately vague, but I can guarantee you the far less alarming numbers are in the actual study, not the summary.
So let’s get this straight. Yale University and the UN = wrong. Jim from the internet = right. And you say I’m lost. Time for a beer I think.
You really should have a beer. My citation was from the IPCC. I didn’t invent it. I didn’t make it up. I refute your comments with the very article you cite. But your only response is more arguments from authority, and totally waving away the substance of my comments. I don’t care if you’re honest with me, but you need to be honest with yourself. Have you actually ever listened to a legitimate debate, sponsored by respected debate societies, where both sides of the issue have been discussed? They are out there.
You really should have a beer. My citation was from the IPCC. I didn’t invent it. I didn’t make it up. I refute your comments with the very article you cite. But your only response is more arguments from authority, and totally waving away the substance of my comments. I don’t care if you’re honest with me, but you need to be honest with yourself. Have you actually ever listened to a legitimate debate, sponsored by respected debate societies, where both sides of the issue have been discussed? They are out there.
So let’s get this straight. Yale University and the UN = wrong. Jim from the internet = right. And you say I’m lost. Time for a beer I think.
You’re completely lost Robbie. The story you cite links to a summary of a UN study. The summary is exactly seven paragraphs long. Maybe you should have read it. If you did, you would find this.
“There has also been a rise in geophysical events including earthquakes and tsunamis which have killed more people than any of the other natural hazards under review in this report.”
The article you cite conflates natural disasters with extreme weather. Do you ever question why this is done? The study isn’t even about weather. It’s about natural disasters.
And the summary is dishonest as well, because it doesn’t break out deaths by category – earthquakes, flooding, tsunamis. It’s deliberately vague, but I can guarantee you the far less alarming numbers are in the actual study, not the summary.
Yes. Yes they have, simple answer. A quick google search on your question serves up hundreds of articles supporting this – for example at Yale University.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme-weather-events-have-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years
Simple question. Have severe weather events increased or not?
The quote you offer says nothing about extreme weather events, except that they will increase in the future. This means nothing. We’ve been told this for 35 years, and we’re still waiting for the increase in severe weather.
What the quote does say is extreme heat has increased. Shocker!! Temps have increased 1.2C since 1850. Of course heat extremes have increased. And of course cold kills 10 times as many people as heat.
I quote the IPCC and you offer a quote saying severe weather will increase in the future. These are not the same things.
Indeed, and I think I pointed out this page to you at that time: How can it be any clearer?
p1610
FAQ 11.2 | Will Unprecedented Extremes Occur As a Result Of Human-Induced Climate Change?
Climate change has already increased the magnitude and frequency of extreme hot events and decreased
the magnitude and frequency of extreme cold events, and, in some regions, intensified extreme precipitation
events. As the climate moves away from its past and current states, we will experience extreme events that
are unprecedented, either in magnitude, frequency, timing or location. The frequency of these unprecedented
extreme events will rise with increasing global warming. Additionally, the combined occurrence of multiple
unprecedented extremes may result in large and unprecedented impacts.
We’ve been through this before Robbie. The IPCC clearly states severe weather events have not increased. I really don’t get your schtick. Again, follow the link at the end of this post.
In the AR6 report, Chapter 11, Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate, concludes that changes in the number and intensity of severe weather events have not been detected, nor can any changes be attributed to human caused climate change. There is high confidence in heat extremes, which shouldn’t shock anyone, considering global temps have risen 1.3 degrees since 1860. However, there is low confidence for drought, flooding, heavy precipitation and severe weather events like hurricane. Check it out yourself. Be warned, these reports are written to discourage people from reading. Ignore all the rhetoric and garbage in the first 150 pages, and jump to the actual findings in the tables in the last half of the report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter11.pdf
Friday, 3 March 2023 | Go to the comment
Indeed, but hysterical media reporting of such events certainly has increased. A particular worry is that the only response to these events in the MSM is the call for ever more CO2 reduction. Worse, they behave as though scepticism were no more than a product of a dangerous ‘denier’ mentality.
Wrong
Extreme weather events, like hurricane, tornadoes and wildfires are not increasing. They just aren’t.
Extreme weather events are nothing new and, by the way, that “brutal heatwave” link will take you to a Guardian piece written by a couple of their posh-girl correspondents – ever eager to push the climate emergency agenda.
What bitter irony if the whole world were to join in the climate panic and implement all those measures the hysterical activists demand – only to find, several decades down the line, that the extreme weather events keep on coming because the expert diagnosis was just plain wrong. The only achievement: our industrial wealth wrecklessly discarded. Perhaps that, rather than saving-the-planet is the eco-fanatics true aim.
I don’t agree with Just Stop Oil’s aims and I’m perfectly fine with their tactics showing just what they and their supporters are.
I don’t agree with Just Stop Oil’s aims and I’m perfectly fine with their tactics showing just what they and their supporters are.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could easily claim that those Just Stop Oil antics are sponsored by oil companies, to make their opponents look like idiots.
This is one of the few conspiracy theories that I go with.
This is one of the few conspiracy theories that I go with.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could easily claim that those Just Stop Oil antics are sponsored by oil companies, to make their opponents look like idiots.
Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the last 25,000 years or so – since the last glacial maximum whilst temperatures have risen – as happens after each and every glacial maximum. This equals about 3 feet per century. Purely coincidentally the worst predictions are that sea levels will rise, due to melting ice caps caused by anthropogenic climate change, by the end of the century by….you’ll never guess…3 feet.
Also how many weather “records”are there? I can think of maybe twenty types of weather (probably more) and each of the has many many “records”. Let’s see; the our seasons, six months, year, 18 months two years, five years, a decade, “ever” (which usually means “since we started recording it in the late 80’s / 90’s”).
There are many thousands of weather records for every county, city, country, region, continent and hemisphere.
At the last glacial maximum the ice sheets / glaciers extended from the North Pole all the way to the Southern coast of England. Then take that position and draw a latitudinal line around the globe and that was repeated in the southern hemisphere. The glacial retreat we have now is nothing more than that last piece of persistent slush you see at the side of a road when all the snow has already melted.
Can you imagine the cataclysmic floods that accompanied these melting glacier/ice-sheets?
At the last glacial maximum the ice sheets / glaciers extended from the North Pole all the way to the Southern coast of England. Then take that position and draw a latitudinal line around the globe and that was repeated in the southern hemisphere. The glacial retreat we have now is nothing more than that last piece of persistent slush you see at the side of a road when all the snow has already melted.
Can you imagine the cataclysmic floods that accompanied these melting glacier/ice-sheets?
Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the last 25,000 years or so – since the last glacial maximum whilst temperatures have risen – as happens after each and every glacial maximum. This equals about 3 feet per century. Purely coincidentally the worst predictions are that sea levels will rise, due to melting ice caps caused by anthropogenic climate change, by the end of the century by….you’ll never guess…3 feet.
Also how many weather “records”are there? I can think of maybe twenty types of weather (probably more) and each of the has many many “records”. Let’s see; the our seasons, six months, year, 18 months two years, five years, a decade, “ever” (which usually means “since we started recording it in the late 80’s / 90’s”).
There are many thousands of weather records for every county, city, country, region, continent and hemisphere.
Just Stop Oil are normies! They are not rebelling against the system, they are criticising aspects of it from within. As was the case with BLM, the establishment broadly support their cause. Differences relate to matters of degree, not ideals. JSO practice a safe brand of politics. No one has anything to lose by joining them.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
Just Stop Oil are normies! They are not rebelling against the system, they are criticising aspects of it from within. As was the case with BLM, the establishment broadly support their cause. Differences relate to matters of degree, not ideals. JSO practice a safe brand of politics. No one has anything to lose by joining them.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
What is weird is that the UN believes that developing economies (such as China!) should not have to subscribe to the Net Zero code. That is only for the West. That doesn’t make sense to me if we are in a Climate Crisis. Equally strange is the focus on CO2 which makes up something like 0.04% of the atmosphere….and is necessary for plant photosynthesis and the creation of O2 – if I remember my old GCE biology correctly.
What is weird is that the UN believes that developing economies (such as China!) should not have to subscribe to the Net Zero code. That is only for the West. That doesn’t make sense to me if we are in a Climate Crisis. Equally strange is the focus on CO2 which makes up something like 0.04% of the atmosphere….and is necessary for plant photosynthesis and the creation of O2 – if I remember my old GCE biology correctly.
Something that is changing at a, literally, glacial pace cannot conceivably be an emergency.
Unless you realise that to solve it will be slower than a glacial pace, and we are nowhere near a solution.
Unless you realise that to solve it will be slower than a glacial pace, and we are nowhere near a solution.
Something that is changing at a, literally, glacial pace cannot conceivably be an emergency.
So very cringeworthy. There’s heat waves in Asia. Shocker. There’s always a heatwave somewhere. The temps have risen 1.2C since 1850 so more heatwaves are to be expected
Of course, the author neglects to mention that climate-related deaths have dropped 94% in 100 years and continue to drop. And that cold causes about 10 times more deaths than heat.
“The planet won’t die, of course. Life always finds a way, but our way of life hangs in the balance.”
Ridiculous comment. Our solutions to climate change will be much more devastating than the actual problem they are trying to solve..
So very cringeworthy. There’s heat waves in Asia. Shocker. There’s always a heatwave somewhere. The temps have risen 1.2C since 1850 so more heatwaves are to be expected
Of course, the author neglects to mention that climate-related deaths have dropped 94% in 100 years and continue to drop. And that cold causes about 10 times more deaths than heat.
“The planet won’t die, of course. Life always finds a way, but our way of life hangs in the balance.”
Ridiculous comment. Our solutions to climate change will be much more devastating than the actual problem they are trying to solve..
1945 human population = 2.5 billion. 2023 human population = 8 billion! That is the problem; yet nothing has been done to address this in the ensuing decades. John O’Grady is absolutely right that politicised environmentalism, and associated policies like NetZero, are serious threats to our diminishing freedoms in western society. Nobody baffed on about climate change in 1945. Spot the difference between then and now!
The climate crisis is not real. Climate change is a minor problem that can be dealt with perfectly well through adaptation and sensible investment in viable energy alternatives such as nuclear power. There is no crisis.
It is a disgrace and entirely unforgivable that certain political agendas have succeeded in convincing many children that they will not survive into old age. The people responsible for such lies should be in prison.
Totally agree with the author. The action of JSO are self defeating, as it gives weight to the deniers to point out their hypocrisy.
Even advocates of the climate emergency will roll their eyes at the utter gits such as the one at the snooker.
It all serves as a distraction to the huge problems the world faces from climate change, and as we see from the comments below, makes the acceptance of unrealistic net zero targets even harder to accomplish.
You appear to be arguing for unrealistic net zero targets … if so, why ? Why not set some realistic targets ?
The time and the technology to do it are fanciful. Unfortunately we have neither of those things to address the problems, hence unrealistic, so have fun while you can.
The time and the technology to do it are fanciful. Unfortunately we have neither of those things to address the problems, hence unrealistic, so have fun while you can.
They frustrate me for the same reason. Unfortunately people associate a cause with those supporting said cause, so if you get one idiot on the far-left or far-right coming out in support you can guarantee that those against you will make this a weapon to wield against you.
You appear to be arguing for unrealistic net zero targets … if so, why ? Why not set some realistic targets ?
They frustrate me for the same reason. Unfortunately people associate a cause with those supporting said cause, so if you get one idiot on the far-left or far-right coming out in support you can guarantee that those against you will make this a weapon to wield against you.
Totally agree with the author. The action of JSO are self defeating, as it gives weight to the deniers to point out their hypocrisy.
Even advocates of the climate emergency will roll their eyes at the utter gits such as the one at the snooker.
It all serves as a distraction to the huge problems the world faces from climate change, and as we see from the comments below, makes the acceptance of unrealistic net zero targets even harder to accomplish.