I know Marty says Global Warming is boring and you all agree but.....

[KateR]

I know for many it's in the future and it's not really affecting anyone real soon on here, but some might just be concerned about flooding, rail crashes and homes dropping in the sea.

I personally think there are some really cool things coming about due to the subject as the video shows, it is a Gov. issue and one I would have thought many would want to discuss in terms of what our transport of the future might look like or be powered by. How our cities cause health issues and the NHS, which everyone should be concerned about.

But if you want to think like Trump go for it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBoYalcojE

[AndrewJB]

I know for many it's in the future and it's not really affecting anyone real soon on here, but some might just be concerned about flooding, rail crashes and homes dropping in the sea.

I personally think there are some really cool things coming about due to the subject as the video shows, it is a Gov. issue and one I would have thought many would want to discuss in terms of what our transport of the future might look like or be powered by. How our cities cause health issues and the NHS, which everyone should be concerned about.

But if you want to think like Trump go for it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBoYalcojE

Are you able to listen to BBC Radio via iPlayer in Houston? If you can you might be interested in a three episode podcast on Radio 4 called “How they got us to Question Everything.” It describes how the same tactics used by tobacco companies inthe 50s and 60s (to question and discredit the science was used by the fossil fuel industry in the last two decades (in fact I think the same marketing firm was used), to very successfully shift public opinion away from seeing man made climate change as a threat.

[Zlatan]

If Covid is a conspiracy, then global warming is what it is meant to cover up... scorched Earth, we’re all doomed anyway

[KateR]

Are you able to listen to BBC Radio via iPlayer in Houston? If you can you might be interested in a three episode podcast on Radio 4 called “How they got us to Question Everything.” It describes how the same tactics used by tobacco companies in the 50s and 60s (to question and discredit the science was used by the fossil fuel industry in the last two decades (in fact I think the same marketing firm was used), to very successfully shift public opinion away from seeing man made climate change as a threat.

Unfortunately Andrew, no we can not get IPlayer here, certainly even a decade ago I was, shall we say skeptical around Global Warming as an issue in my lifetime, however over the last few years I have slowly changed my mind. I don't think it will radically effect me however I certainly believe it will in my grandchildren's life time's. I can understand both sides of the argument, however my views have shifted.

I'm not a tree huger by any means, some of the business changes, especially from the Oil & Gas world is astounding to me and it's come about quickly but the global change has not and we are getting further behind targets agreed every decade. Small shifts will create some very unpleasant changes for many/majority and a few might even see a benefit locally in weather, but other issues will still cause suffering.

[keith1879]

Unfortunately Andrew, no we can get IPlayer here, certainly even a decade ago I was, shall we say skeptical around Global Warming as an issue in my lifetime, however over the last few years I have slowly changed my mind. I don't think it will radically effect me however I certainly believe it will in my grandchildren's life time's. I can understand both sides of the argument, however my views have shifted.

I'm not a tree huger by any means, some of the business changes, especially from the Oil & Gas world is astounding to me and it's come about quickly but the global change has not and we are getting further behind targets agreed every decade. Small shifts will create some very unpleasant changes for many/majority and a few might even see a benefit locally in weather, but other issues will still cause suffering.

I applaud this post. It's good to see that someone has been willing to accept evidence and change their views. So many people these days just seem to stick their fingers in their ears and whine loudly if the real world doesn't match their own expectations.

[AndrewJB]

I applaud this post. It's good to see that someone has been willing to accept evidence and change their views. So many people these days just seem to stick their fingers in their ears and whine loudly if the real world doesn't match their own expectations.

Agreed that Kate should be applauded for taking the issue seriously, and more so because she works within the industry.

Back in the late Eighties Thatcher described man-made climate change as a huge threat to human existence, and so did Bush Snr. Back then scientists were mostly believed when there was a near consensus. Figures on the radio program I mentioned said twenty-five years ago a majority of Republican voters understood human activity is warming the planet, but now that figure is down to around thirty percent. All this is down to a campaign by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on the science, and I think we should ask ourselves how this was allowed to happen? The same thing happened with the tobacco industry in the 50s to resist regulation and keep people smoking.

For me it’s a failure of governments to do their job, and where governments have taken orders from the industry lobby, a corruption of democracy by big money. Tobacco, for example should long ago ceased to be an “industry” (what’s the point of companies making money from blatantly causing Illness?), and if we’re serious about attempting to deal with global warming, why allow an industry to obstruct in such a huge way?

[Untinted Glasses]

Global warming believers make me laugh. All the propaganda, comments such as hottest days on record, never had 6 days consecutive days this hot since records began etc etc are gobbled up by the gullible.

Did our weather records start around 100 years ago? We seem to think 100 200 300 500 1000 years is a long time, its an absolute speck of time on the scale of things. The earth is over 4 billion years old. We look at it like these last 100 years have not been seen before. Get a grip. Think about it.

[AndrewJB]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh look. The science is based on lots of different things, and is irrefutable.

[BenWickes]

Global warming believers make me laugh. All the propaganda, comments such as hottest days on record, never had 6 days consecutive days this hot since records began etc etc are gobbled up by the gullible.

Did our weather records start around 100 years ago? We seem to think 100 200 300 500 1000 years is a long time, its an absolute speck of time on the scale of things. The earth is over 4 billion years old. We look at it like these last 100 years have not been seen before. Get a grip. Think about it.

It can never have been this warm back when the dinosaurs were around. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a drawing or interpretation of a dinosaur wearing sunglasses? They'd have evolved differently if it was. T'Rex would never have been able to put those sunglasses on with his tiny arms.

[keith1879]

It can never have been this warm back when the dinosaurs were around. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a drawing or interpretation of a dinosaur wearing sunglasses? They'd have evolved differently if it was. T'Rex would never have been able to put those sunglasses on with his tiny arms.

Doesn't this also throw doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution?

[keith1879]

I hope that I don't need to add a smiley face to my last post.

[BenWickes]

I hope that I don't need to add a smiley face to my last post.

You don't

[keith1879]

Unfortunately Andrew, no we can not get IPlayer here, certainly even a decade ago I was, shall we say skeptical around Global Warming as an issue in my lifetime, however over the last few years I have slowly changed my mind. I don't think it will radically effect me however I certainly believe it will in my grandchildren's life time's. I can understand both sides of the argument, however my views have shifted.

I'm not a tree huger by any means, some of the business changes, especially from the Oil & Gas world is astounding to me and it's come about quickly but the global change has not and we are getting further behind targets agreed every decade. Small shifts will create some very unpleasant changes for many/majority and a few might even see a benefit locally in weather, but other issues will still cause suffering.

The podcast is actually on BBC Sounds rather than iPlayer which may be available internationally https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7 ... /downloads.

[KateR]

Thank you Keith/Andrew, yes I can access and am listening right now

[CharlieinNewMexico]

This is my 5th summer in the high desert of New Mexico and it’s actually the coolest yet. Most days rarely a 100 but today was 106. Interestingly from July 4th onwards is rainy season but this year the clouds gather and just suffocate us with humidity , not releasing the moisture.

It’s quite weird.

[AfloatinClaret]

Global warming, the Corona virus jobby and even the Brexit debate; are you blind? Don't you people realise these issues have all simply been manufactured by the powers that be as a means of distracting us from the one real, life-changing and world-threatening disaster of 2020?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Leeds have won promotion

[KateR]

Global warming believers make me laugh. All the propaganda, comments such as hottest days on record, never had 6 days consecutive days this hot since records began etc etc are gobbled up by the gullible.

Did our weather records start around 100 years ago? We seem to think 100 200 300 500 1000 years is a long time, its an absolute speck of time on the scale of things. The earth is over 4 billion years old. We look at it like these last 100 years have not been seen before. Get a grip. Think about it.

I don't know whether this is a wind up or genuine, however I will go on the basis it's genuine.

Yes very clear weather forecasts and records have only been going for a short time, the global warming has zero to do with weather forecasts as any evidence to that fact, some people do sensationalize effects as they occur, records and consecutive days of heat are not any marker for Global Warming. It may be one of the results or it may not and if you want to laugh at it and dismiss it, then I have absolutely no objection to that as it is not really relevant to what will happen if we as the world population don't change in terms of many things we take for granted. Transportation, deforestation, how we generate electricity, it's a slow road to self destruction, and thankfully many governments and companies are changing things, but the change is slow and not enough in terms of the forecasts out to 2050. That's a mere 30 years to make a fundamental shift in so many areas, these shifts were recognized decades ago and targets were set and measurements put in place and from let's say the last two decades we have failed miserably to met the targets.

Not only have we not met the target but through two decades of measurements it's getting worse and there is evidence even now in certain places, which were part of the forecast.

I would say the easiest way to look at it is to ask yourself why are Governments putting billions in what ever currency you want to think of aside for work/grants/payments to do with work in regard to anything that contributes to reducing aspects of Global Warming/CO2 reduction, etc. Even more of a compelling argument is why are the O&G industry changing what has been a money generating cow over the last 70 decades.

it's just an opinion, but I do actually believe it is happening, and as I said previously, I laughed at certain things, like that 0.5 of a degree change could make such a huge difference. I did take the time to read and to better understand what was being said now as opposed to when I was laughing, obviously I'm not laughing anymore and it's taking a lot of my time and energy since the first of the year.

[daveyclaret]

For me, a positive of this pandemic has been the wonderful silence of the climate change brigade. They haven’t been as loud with their predictions of doom and disaster during the pandemic as COVID 19 has been the priority on most people’s mind. COVID 19 is a real time disaster affecting all classes of people, their families, their friends, not something that the doom merchants predict may happen in 50, 100, or 200 years time.

I’m on the dubious side of climate change and take the climate changers’ predictions of future disaster with a huge pinch of salt particularly if they are quoting figures from computer models. One thing that this pandemic has shown me is that computer modelling can be wholly inaccurate and slanted to make the results biased in your favour.

Take the computer modelling on COVID 19 as carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London. Ferguson’s Team predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK from COVID 19. The current official death toll in the UK is around 50,000 though which are shocking figures but are nowhere near 500, 000. Fellow scientists and critics have said that the computer model used by Ferguson was totally unreliable. Ferguson has a patchy track record with his computer modelling. In the early 2000s, he predicted that 136,000 people in the UK would die from Mad Cow disease. Ferguson’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was later criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed and a tragedy for rural Britain’s economy. Ferguson’s Team also predicted millions of people could die from Bird Flu and a further 65,000 from Swine Flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. It raises the question that if computer modelling can be so inaccurate for predicting events to happen in a few months time how reliable are the results for computer modelling predictions for climate change for 50, 100, or 200 years in the future.

The impression I get from climate changers is one of ‘do as I say’ not ‘do as I do’. Many of these climate changers will run carbon fuel cars, take carbon fuel flights for business or leisure purposes, use gas and electricity in their homes and still have the cheek to say that other people doing the same are causing damage to the planet.

[KateR]

For me, a positive of this pandemic has been the wonderful silence of the climate change brigade. They haven’t been as loud with their predictions of doom and disaster during the pandemic as COVID 19 has been the priority on most people’s mind. COVID 19 is a real time disaster affecting all classes of people, their families, their friends, not something that the doom merchants predict may happen in 50, 100, or 200 years time.

I’m on the dubious side of climate change and take the climate changers’ predictions of future disaster with a huge pinch of salt particularly if they are quoting figures from computer models. One thing that this pandemic has shown me is that computer modelling can be wholly inaccurate and slanted to make the results biased in your favour.

Take the computer modelling on COVID 19 as carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London. Ferguson’s Team predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK from COVID 19. The current official death toll in the UK is around 50,000 though which are shocking figures but are nowhere near 500, 000. Fellow scientists and critics have said that the computer model used by Ferguson was totally unreliable. Ferguson has a patchy track record with his computer modelling. In the early 2000s, he predicted that 136,000 people in the UK would die from Mad Cow disease. Ferguson’s modelling led to the culling of 6 million livestock and was later criticised by epidemiological experts as severely flawed and a tragedy for rural Britain’s economy. Ferguson’s Team also predicted millions of people could die from Bird Flu and a further 65,000 from Swine Flu. The final death toll in each case was in the hundreds. It raises the question that if computer modelling can be so inaccurate for predicting events to happen in a few months time how reliable are the results for computer modelling predictions for climate change for 50, 100, or 200 years in the future.

The impression I get from climate changers is one of ‘do as I say’ not ‘do as I do’. Many of these climate changers will run carbon fuel cars, take carbon fuel flights for business or leisure purposes, use gas and electricity in their homes and still have the cheek to say that other people doing the same are causing damage to the planet.

I'm not sure why you think this but maybe look at what Andrew provided as a link that provides facts in regard to the last 800,000 years and the last 70 years, this has nothing to do with computer modelling, which is aimed at the future. We are all aware of the fact that with computers, if its rubbish in then it's rubbish out, and I don't think anyone is asking you to believe that what is predicted is 100% right because it won't be.

However, a few computer models have been almost spot on, most of the other predictions through modelling the future has in fact been wrong but in the fact that the reality measured against the prediction was worse than that actually modeled.

The pandemic and lockdown should have proven one thing to you, air quality improved enormously in numerous locations, unless you think that was a conspiracy theory as well. Yet we are all aware it is merely a blip and it will return with a vengeance to pre-C-19 levels and continue to increase over the next three decades, unless someone does something to halt the trajectory we are on.

Additionally, I can reliably inform you that contrary to what you think during the pandemic, there has been a concentrated effort by millions to try and change our future, just look at BP's change in how they are going to operate in future as opposed to the last 70 years or so. The global landscape is changing, just look at the number of solar and wind farms you can see with your own eyes, ask yourself why people did this, did they spend years on designing and billions on building these because of some flawed computer model, I for one don't think so.

I understand your impression but like everything else they are a small minority in terms of telling people what to do, I believe it is coming, I have carbon driven car, my electricity is 100% renewable supply and I have no gas in the house, but the crux of this discussion is I am not telling you or anyone else what to do, that is your decision for you, your children, your grandchildren and those that come later

[KateR]

The podcast is actually on BBC Sounds rather than iPlayer which may be available internationally https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7 ... /downloads.

Thank you to you and Andrew for sharing the podcast info, which I finished last night, very interesting

I thought I would share the following link, which is a quick visual mapping of 4 elements of Global Warming from NASA given over time, relatively short time in the grand scheme of things and points to the future issues unless something is done about it.

Of course it could be the data and modeling which is wrong and am sure many will take that stance, where they are in denial regarding this global threat.

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/c ... me-machine

[AndrewJB]

Thank you to you and Andrew for sharing the podcast info, which I finished last night, very interesting

I thought I would share the following link, which is a quick visual mapping of 4 elements of Global Warming from NASA given over time, relatively short time in the grand scheme of things and points to the future issues unless something is done about it.

Of course it could be the data and modeling which is wrong and am sure many will take that stance, where they are in denial regarding this global threat.

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/c ... me-machine

Thanks for posting. There can’t be any modelling mistakes with that because it’s all historical.

[grapidianclaret]

Lots of sensible conversation on here. Pointless pointing the finger at some of the other comments and arguing the facts. If you can't see the way the climate is going and the reasons why, facts are obviously something that do not matter to you. As the world warms because of us, we seem to tend towards conspiracy theories and stupidity. At least we will not be around to hear our grand children curse us.

[Taffy on the wing]

Global warming believers make me laugh. All the propaganda, comments such as hottest days on record, never had 6 days consecutive days this hot since records began etc etc are gobbled up by the gullible.

Did our weather records start around 100 years ago? We seem to think 100 200 300 500 1000 years is a long time, its an absolute speck of time on the scale of things. The earth is over 4 billion years old. We look at it like these last 100 years have not been seen before. Get a grip. Think about it.

Better change your user name ......Rupert Murdoch has blurred your Glasses!
The evidence for Man-made Climate change is irrefutable and only charlatans with something to gain dispute it....End of!

[Swizzlestick]

Take the computer modelling on COVID 19 as carried out by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London. Ferguson’s Team predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK from COVID 19. The current official death toll in the UK is around 50,000 though which are shocking figures but are nowhere near 500, 000. Fellow scientists and critics have said that the computer model used by Ferguson was totally unreliable.

You’ve been very misleading there. The 500,000 figure was modelled based on the government doing nothing - I.e. no lockdown, no enforcement of social distancing, masks etc.

Now, this may still have erred a little too much one way but please, let’s have all the facts.

[dibraidio]

I have been "green" for a long time but of late my ideas have started to change. I can't help feeling that we're being manipulated.

All of the creatures alive today survived the last ice age. Ten thousand years ago we say a 10 degree swing in average temperature and everything survived. If temperatures change then animals and even plants migrate and survive. So what's different today? Humans. Agriculture. We have such a huge imprint on the planet's surface that we are the major threat to life. If you look at the latest predictions of mass extinction you will see that temperature change is not the cause, it is human activity. We are killing off other species and have done for millennia.

CO2 pales into significance when compared to the greenhouse effect of methane. 25% of land is permafrost and it's melting way faster than expected and releasing methane. It is too late, temperature change is going to happen and everyone and everything will need to adapt. In the past we would all have just migrated, but we can't do that now because we're dependent on agriculture and worse still intensive agriculture because there are too many of us. Nature always finds a way of reducing an excess population and it's our turn.

Temperature increase isn't a risk to plant and animal life it's a risk to human food security. The scarcity of fresh water and the predicted end of our phosphorous reserves in the next 20 years are both huge issues to come. Soil erosion is a big issue but intensive farming has destroyed the natural fertility of a large proportion of our fields, without phosphorous and chemical fertilisers these soils will not be able to produce food in the same quantities as they do today. As the temperature rises the need to water crops will increase and in some areas this could have a massive impact on harvests. As the UK is a net importer of food the price of food is likely to rise with time but we are luckier than most because we have the financial muscle to make sure that food continues to come to us.

We have an ever increasing issue with our own waste, there's been a lot of fuss made about the plastics floating in the ocean but micro-plastics are thought to be 90% of the plastic in the ocean and we can't clean those up easily. People think they're being green transforming plastics into clothes and other goods but the microplastics are still finding their way into the food chain. We're poisoning the planet with plastics and we really need to stop. We've been there before and sorted the problem out, like the great horse manure crisis of 1894 when it was feared that the streets of London would be 6 feet deep in manure if something wasn't done. It was, people abandoned horses in favour of cars :-/

If it was a war we'd ration energy and stop producing unnecessary goods overnight but it's not a war and the lobbys are too powerful for us to make any significant change not forgetting that people don't really want to change. They are happy to just carry on as they are. The consumer society just rumbles on but now they can sell people stuff because they're "saving the planet".

I think these two links are very interesting.

Arthur Keller's talking about the collapse of our current economic model:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc
A short documentary about The Club of Rome's prediction from 1972 which is linked to the document "The limits of growth" which had a huge influence back in the day.
https://youtu.be/cCxPOqwCr1I

[dsr]

The scarcity of fresh water and the predicted end of our phosphorous reserves in the next 20 years are both huge issues to come. Soil erosion is a big issue but intensive farming has destroyed the natural fertility of a large proportion of our fields, without phosphorous and chemical fertilisers these soils will not be able to produce food in the same quantities as they do today. As the temperature rises the need to water crops will increase and in some areas this could have a massive impact on harvests. As the UK is a net importer of food the price of food is likely to rise with time but we are luckier than most because we have the financial muscle to make sure that food continues to come to us.

I don't know about the phosphorus issue, but set your mind at rest about the water. The sea is full of it, it can be desalinated (and nanotechnology may well make it easy and cheap to do in the relatively near future), and it is a practically infinite supply which - crucially - we do not destroy by using it. Drink it, bathe in it, manufacture goods with it, cool nuclear power plants with it, water the garden with it, flush it down the toilet, set off a giant fountain and let the children play with it - it makes no difference. The water is still water and it flows back into the water cycle one way or another.

[dsr]

A short documentary about The Club of Rome's prediction from 1972 which is linked to the document "The limits of growth" which had a huge influence back in the day.
https://youtu.be/cCxPOqwCr1I

All that proves is that a team of worthy experts can be wildly wrong and apocalyptic predictions do not necessarily come true. By 2000 the world's population will be shrinking and quality of life worldwide will be back to what it was in 1940? Not quite correct. Have another go, Club of Rome.

[KateR]

Water as a topic within the framework of Global Warming is a good topic. Desalination can of course provide fresh water, but you can't build enough to offset the decline IMO so I would still be concerned, but it can be kicked down the road to be someone else's problem. There’s no magic fix. Desalination is a poor solution—it’s expensive and energy-intensive and produces more chemical-laced brine than potable water. Much of that brine, which is extra-salty and contains potentially harmful substances necessary for the desalination process, including copper and chlorine, is pumped back into the ocean. There, its density causes it to sink to the ocean floor, where it depletes oxygen and destroys marine life. According to a 2019 UN report, global desalination plants already produce 51.8 billion cubic meters of brine annually, enough to cover the entire state of Florida a foot deep. Last year a study of almost 180,000 people in Israel linked desalinated water to a 6% to 10% increase in heart disease.

I was involved in putting a cost benefit exercise together for a ME Country, which involved analyzing bringing icebergs towed to the country to meet fresh water needs versus desal plants. My first thought was these people are crazy, but when the analysis was complete it was definitely feasible and an option, the fact it had never been done before and cost meant it never happened, perhaps one that will be used in the future by some countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCnZ1F9RAJo

Water is as important to the world’s economy as oil or data. Though most of the planet is covered in water, more than 97 percent of it is salt water. Fresh water accounts for the rest, although most of it is frozen in glaciers, leaving less than 1 percent of the world’s water available to support human and ecological processes. Every year, we withdraw 4.3 trillion cubic meters of fresh water from the planet’s water basins. We use it in agriculture (which accounts for 70 percent of the withdrawals), industry (19 percent), and households (11 percent). These percentages vary widely across the globe. In the United States, industrial usage (37 percent) is almost as high as agricultural (40 percent); in India, on the other hand, agriculture claims 90 percent of water withdrawals, while only 2 percent is put to work for industry. China’s withdrawals are 65 percent agriculture, 22 percent industrial, and 13 percent for household use. Considering that some of the agricultural usage is directed toward industry—for example, half of the production of maize, which is one of the top five global crops by total acreage and water consumption, is used for producing ethanol—the figures may understate how critical water is to business.

The availability of fresh water also varies greatly by location. The majority of the world’s fresh water is divided among 410 named basins, which are areas of land where all water that falls or flows through that region ultimately ends at a single source. These include the Huang He, Nile, Colorado River, Indus, and many others. Of these 410 named basins, almost a quarter (90) are considered “high stressed” (meaning that their ratio of total annual withdrawals to total available annual supply exceeds 40 percent). These 90 highly stressed basins account for just 13 percent of the total area of named water basins but account for 51 percent of withdrawals (Exhibit 1). About half are located in three countries with enormous water needs and high economic activity: China, India, and the United States.

Water risk is not a worry to be addressed in some nebulous future. The supply of fresh water has been steadily decreasing while demand has been steadily rising. In the 20th century, the world’s population quadrupled—but water use increased sixfold.

[dibraidio]

All that proves is that a team of worthy experts can be wildly wrong and apocalyptic predictions do not necessarily come true. By 2000 the world's population will be shrinking and quality of life worldwide will be back to what it was in 1940? Not quite correct. Have another go, Club of Rome.

dsr, unless I'm mistaken it was that report that made people like Thatcher think that the climate was an issue. It seems to have been forgotten but its definitely influenced a lot of people back in the 70s particularly in the green movement. I only mentioned it because it's interesting. Of course with any computer model, put the wrong data in and get the wrong conclusions out. The Club of Rome are still having another go, changing their data and updating their model.

[Bullabill]

Agreed that Kate should be applauded for taking the issue seriously, and more so because she works within the industry.

Back in the late Eighties Thatcher described man-made climate change as a huge threat to human existence, and so did Bush Snr. Back then scientists were mostly believed when there was a near consensus. Figures on the radio program I mentioned said twenty-five years ago a majority of Republican voters understood human activity is warming the planet, but now that figure is down to around thirty percent. All this is down to a campaign by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on the science, and I think we should ask ourselves how this was allowed to happen??

If you believe Kate she has worked in every industry.

I'll tell you why the change occured. In the late eighties when we were fed this scare campaign we were assailed with dire warnings of polar ice caps melting and sea level rises which would inundate and submerge many island communities and reduce land mass which would drive many millions closer together on the remaining land.
More than thirty years have passed and nothing has happened - people have got bored waiting and now think it's bullshit.

[AndrewJB]

If you believe Kate she has worked in every industry.

I'll tell you why the change occured. In the late eighties when we were fed this scare campaign we were assailed with dire warnings of polar ice caps melting and sea level rises which would inundate and submerge many island communities and reduce land mass which would drive many millions closer together on the remaining land.
More than thirty years have passed and nothing has happened - people have got bored waiting and now think it's bullshit.

I remember the eighties. The holes in the ozone layer, and how the governments of the world acted in unison to get rid of CFCs, which the scientific community told us were responsible. Rich and poor, communist and western, the world acted as one. Nowadays the refrigeration industry would mount a PR campaign questioning the holes, their size, the actual importance of ozone, the fact ozone is poisonous to humans, accusing scientists of wanting to take away your grandmothers refrigeration, and the right to refrigeration is nearly as important as the right not to be tortured, which will be next if refrigeration goes, and let’s not forget that refrigeration exists because WW2 was fought partly over it. Some American senators would get paid off, and nothing would be done about the problem.

[KateR]

If you believe Kate she has worked in every industry.

I really shouldn't, I know I shouldn't but against my better judgement, why would you make that statement, I am curious, is there something I said to upset you or do you have some evidence, where I have been posting about my other work related activities, which have nothing to do with the Oil & Gas industry?

I don't want a row or argument but I was a little baffled by this, so perhaps you can help clear this up.

[Bullabill]

I remember the eighties. The holes in the ozone layer, and how the governments of the world acted in unison to get rid of CFCs, which the scientific community told us were responsible. Rich and poor, communist and western, the world acted as one. Nowadays the refrigeration industry would mount a PR campaign questioning the holes, their size, the actual importance of ozone, the fact ozone is poisonous to humans, accusing scientists of wanting to take away your grandmothers refrigeration, and the right to refrigeration is nearly as important as the right not to be tortured, which will be next if refrigeration goes, and let’s not forget that refrigeration exists because WW2 was fought partly over it. Some American senators would get paid off, and nothing would be done about the problem.

Do you not think that concerted action was taken because it could be seen that there was a real problem ?
Maybe the same sort of response is absent this time because many think the issue is a 'Chicken Little' scare campaign rather than a real threat. It seems to me that, as time passes, more people are taking that position.

[AndrewJB]

Do you not think that concerted action was taken because it could be seen that there was a real problem ?
Maybe the same sort of response is absent this time because many think the issue is a 'Chicken Little' scare campaign rather than a real threat. It seems to me that, as time passes, more people are taking that position.

The science hasn’t changed, so what would you say has caused people to change their minds, and not believe the science? Could it be the massive PR undertaken by the fossil fuels industry to discredit the science, sow doubt in people’s minds, fund politicians who support them, and resist change?

Someone I know from university has travelled the other way. He’s always been very dismissive of climate change and saw it as not a big deal, but what changed his mind was learning about Venus - which once had oceans, but they are gone due to runaway climate change.

[Bullabill]

The science hasn’t changed, so what would you say has caused people to change their minds, and not believe the science? Could it be the massive PR undertaken by the fossil fuels industry to discredit the science, sow doubt in people’s minds, fund politicians who support them, and resist change?
.

I refer you to my previous post ...........

"I'll tell you why the change occured. In the late eighties when we were fed this scare campaign we were assailed with dire warnings of polar ice caps melting and sea level rises which would inundate and submerge many island communities and reduce land mass which would drive many millions closer together on the remaining land.
More than thirty years have passed and nothing has happened - people have got bored waiting and now think it's bullshit."

[KateR]

so you don't think there has been change in the last thirty years regarding weather, you don't think think there has been land erosion, you don't think the ice caps are melting?

It's not like these changes happen quickly, it's accumulated effect, the fact is it has got worse in the last thirty years and if something is not done about it in the next thirty years there will be more and worse effects happening.

Thankfully the world are not leaving it to the people to resolve and try to make a change, because of that the thirty years might become 50 years as it slows down, but I understand you and many others are bored by the subject, who think it's BS and will leave it to others to try to do something, that's understandable, happens in many many things in life.