Whilst I have the greatest of sympathy for all those affected by flooding in Cumbria, they should not seek to blame the government or the Environment Agency. If anybody is to blame it is the fossil fuel industry, which has spent the last 50 years trying to discredit climate science and climate scientists, in a short-sighted and mean-spirited attempt to prevent effective regulation of the pollution caused by burning their products. A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture more of the time. 14 of the last 15 years have been the warmest on record. This rainfall in Cumbria is the highest on record for any 24 hour period in over 300 years. How many more statistical records must we see broken before the denial of the validity of climate science becomes as socially unacceptable as farting in an elevator? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-35025065 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2015/dec/05/storm-desmond-in-pictures
-
Archives
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
-
Meta
Anthropocene Reality 
Sympathies to the victims of Desmond. The pictures of the flooding in the two links are reminiscent of what has been happening far more frequently here in the U.S. in recent years. Different architecture in the towns, different vehicles on the roads, different uniforms on the military—-but the same record rainfall, flooding, mud, misery, and needless destruction of property. You liken the “denial of the validity of climate science” to “farting in an elevator” and ask how long it will take before climate denial is found to be as “socially unacceptable”? Based on what is happening in the U.S., it is going to take quite a while longer. Our Republican Party (fondly referred to as “The Repugnants” by many of us) started to do much loud and smelly farting in elevators back when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, and has since extended the farting to the middle of church services (including weddings, christenings, and funerals), as well as during quiet times at the cinema or at musical performances. If any of you over there are following the campaign for the Repugnant nomination for president, you will know that the deniers are farting loudly at every campaign event across the country, on live TV, and in every newspaper they can find. So, even though the conservatives may have been pushed back some in Canada and Australia, the issue is still in doubt here in the U.S.(and in my limited knowledge, in the U.K.?). We are holding our breath and our ears, spraying copious amounts of climate science air freshener, and hoping for the best. Suggest you do the same.
LikeLike
Thanks for all of that. Although at least 60% of US citizens now accept climate change is happening, the majority think it will not affect them. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/06/new_climate_change_poll_shows_americans_believe_in_global_warming.html In an era of increasingly frequent extreme weather of all kinds, this disconnection from – &/or denial of – reality cannot last much longer; the majority will eventually be affected (whether they recognise it or not). However, the ‘merchants of doubt’ have done a very effective job in perpetuating the myth that there is no scientific consensus. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/american-opinions-on-global-warming-a-yale-gallup-clearvision-poll Eventually, the ideologically-motivated rejection of science will be buried by a landslide of irrefutable statistics. The only question that remains is whether, by then, our habitable planet with stable sea levels will be salvagable.
LikeLike
“…they should not seek to blame the government or the Environment Agency.” I take issue with that, to be sure the FFI have been at the root of the problem as recent exposures of Exxon have made clear to a wider audience. Many of us are familiar with this territory from the writings of Naomi Oreskes, James Lawrence Powell, Mark Bowen, Stephen Schneider, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and Eric Pooley amongst others. However, central government financial cutbacks, in the name of fiscal responsibility effectively austerity, have cut the financial support to the EA for such things as flood defences and other infrastructure changes that could improve resilience. Also, this government has over-ridden local authority decisions so as to fast track fracking which alone droves a coach and four through the energy and emissions targets signed up to. Unless, as a part response to COP21 decisions, the government abandons its attempt to square the circle (fracking whilst keeping promises which latter they have a very poor record on) then the future can only get worse. You may like to research the conflicts of interest that certain figures in government may have WRT the fossil fuel industry and those with financial interest even if at a first or second remove. To wit: Everything You Need to Know About Energy and Climate Secretary Amber Rudd Before COP21: Part 1 The Energy Minister, Her Brother-in-Law, His Hedge Fund and the Oil Investments and that is just the tip of the iceberg that I could capsize.
LikeLike
Another chip from the ice-berg: Cameron government rejected flood risk warnings from climate advisers
LikeLike
One for you Rick: Lindzen on toast. It will be interesting to see MIT’s reactions to this latest piece aimed at discombobulating the audience.
LikeLiked by 1 person