Climate: The Movie

[anthonykay]

We see already top-down, we-know-better-than-you-Proles, imposition of policies and the intrusive micro management of our live. Strangely, no referendum here offered to people on policies that will drastically alter their standard of living and their kids. These policies dictate control of what we can eat; how many children we can have; how we travel and how far; what choices we have in the goods we buy; etc.

Which government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency?

And just in case you’re getting too confident, just today I heard on the BBC that…wait for it…the climate crisis is ”slowing the earth’s rotation’. If that carries on dogs will walk backwards; bananas will grow straight; we’ll all be doomed to watching contest repeats of It’s A Knock Out.

You aren't doing your cause any good by using the sort of hysterical hyperbole that you accuse the climate alarmists of. [And in case anyone missed it, the slowing of the earth's rotation due to melting of ice sheets is tiny, but enough to have a noticeable effect on the accuracy of GPS.]

[Mossdog]

You aren't doing your cause any good by using the sort of hysterical hyperbole that you accuse the climate alarmists of. [And in case anyone missed it, the slowing of the earth's rotation due to melting of ice sheets is tiny, but enough to have a noticeable effect on the accuracy of GPS.]

It doesn't take much looking...!

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...fewer-children

"Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found."

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

“We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,” said Nicholas. “It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.”

“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

And yet another scare stories out there aside from slowing down time/messing with computers..."What Climate Change Is Already Doing to Children’s Brains" !!!!! https://time.com/6234580/climate-cha...n-development/

[Witton Park]

I rest my case.

I ask for a clarification and you refuse. It comes across to me as quite childish.

[anthonykay]

It doesn't take much looking...!

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...fewer-children

"Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children Next best actions are selling your car, avoiding flights and going vegetarian, according to study into true impacts of different green lifestyle choices

The next best actions are selling your car, avoiding long flights, and eating a vegetarian diet. These reduce emissions many times more than common green activities, such as recycling, using low energy light bulbs or drying washing on a line. However, the high impact actions are rarely mentioned in government advice and school textbooks, researchers found."

The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

“We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,” said Nicholas. “It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.”

“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

Ah, so you agree with the point that I was making, and which you didn't include in your quote, Mossdog: no government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency. There has certainly been advice, even pressure, on governments to adopt such policies, but as the Guardian article makes clear, there has been very little take-up of that advice by governments (contrary to your original allegation).

And yet another scare stories out there aside from slowing down time/messing with computers..."What Climate Change Is Already Doing to Children’s Brains" !!!!! https://time.com/6234580/climate-cha...n-development/

I thought you said that you were a scientist. Why do you reject as a scare story any scientific research that doesn't agree with your prejudices? And in any case, what is there to be scared about in the story about the earth's rotation slowing?

[Witton Park]

Anthony

I had another watch this morning.

I'll try and be brief and to the main points you made.

the bit of bad science that was most obvious to me was where a graph was shown comparing the very slow rate of ocean temperature increase to that of the atmosphere, and then claiming that this meant that global warming was at a very low level.

The graph of ocean temperature was set against solar activity over thousands of years.
This wasn't presented in isolation as you have set out.
The point being made was about urban heat islands. They gave several pieces of information that suggested the increases in temperature are being over-stated because of the urban heat island effect, and so went to measurements that they could use that took away this effect - such as ocean temperatures, but gave several other reasons to be concerned.

"Then there was the ridiculous claim that the IPCC don't admit any influence of solar activity variation"
That wasn't the claim.
Prof Soon said "as of 2023 IPCC says that the Sun has zero chance of being able to explain the changes in the climate system"
The claim is that the models and those behind them are wedded to CO2 emissions being the prime driver of climate change.
They identify problems in many models, there is a mention of 24 models, that forecast problems going forward in to the next century, but if you run those models retrospectively over the last 40-50 years, they "run hot".

And it was interesting to see a graph showing solar activity and global (rural) temperatures, showing that solar activity could explain the cooling from 1940 to 1970, but that there has been continued warming over the last 20 years despite a decrease in solar activity.
Prof Soon again, at around 36 minutes.
The graph charts 1880-2020.
You look at that graph and see continued warming over the last 20 years and yet the graph doesn't show that.
There is a rise, a fall and a small rise again, but it's the same in 2020 as it was in 2000.
The whole graph shows a clear link - but not an exact, precise trace where the lines follow each other at all times and that's hardly a surprise, because there are so many complex factors involved in climate.

And on the subject of graphs, there was a tendency throughout the scientific sections of the film to superimpose plots of quantities with different dimensions, which can give a completely misleading impression of the magnitude of one quantity relative to the other: a classic "bad science" technique.

At 14:40 you'll see a graph of thermometer readings since 1880.
I think it deals with your criticism.
It shows a graph that is flat-lined and then stretches the Y axis so that it is noticeable, so if you watch the documentary in full, I think they are being perfectly open on this, the changes are small, and the graphs have to use distorted axis if one is going to demonstrate any effect at all.

Funding - I think you'd agree that when you get pro man-made climate change issues discussed, we see folk introduced as Professor of Climate Studies from the University of East Anglia" rather than "Professor who's department receives 25% of it's funding from Vattenfall".
It's the way of the world.
I know Koonin worked for BP for 5 years, but should that rule him out?
But regardless, the documentary is not trying to promote fossil, it's trying to show that there isn't a crisis, that the focus on CO2 is flawed, so I don't believe it's a fair criticism and it certainly doesn't apply to all.

Al Gore must be feeling very flattered to hear that he has single-handedly changed the narrative accepted by governments.

Did he single handedly change the narrative? The documentary doesn't claim that. It says it was already an issue but mostly among "radical environmentalists"
But it does highlight the part he played, because this is in the "Consensus" part of the programme where they explain how things changed.
I've mentioned this before how Richard Lindzen used to attend climate conferences with fellow physicists and there'd be 30-40 there exchanging ideas.
Now there are 1,000s in the field and the programme seeks to set out how that happened, and sure Gore played a part.

[Witton Park]

no government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency.

ULEZ Zones.
15 minute neighborhoods.
Phasing out of ICE cars - that's in law and if in 10 years time 75% of us have EVs, we'll be stuffed, because we won't be able to get anywhere as the grid will have collapsed.

It's the early stages but we have some laws already.

I'd even argue that allowing the roads to fall in to disrepair is dictating to a degree how we travel and Blackburn is effectively log-jammed most mornings since they put in bus lanes, so not a law that tells you that you cannot drive from A to B, but it's certainly made it more difficult.

[Mossdog]

I thought you said that you were a scientist. Why do you reject as a scare story any scientific research that doesn't agree with your prejudices? And in any case, what is there to be scared about in the story about the earth's rotation slowing?

You're missing the point I was attempting to make, which is probably down to my poor grammar or explanation, rather than you being deliberately obtuse. I've listing a few of the manny bonkers 'scare stories, not because i don't believe some of them might have an element of truth, but because they represent a whole host of 'alarmist' messages, meant to nudge/scare/unsettle people into clambering for more action against the alleged 'crisis'. Yes, I agree, there isn't anything to be hugely worried about regarding changes in the earth's rotation, it's likely benign too, but if you explore the headlines across various sites on that issue alone, you can readily see how the media has sensationalised this to varying degrees.

Let's return to the Government control issues, and your sense that this is all benign - nothing to see here folks.

Have a looks at this. https://committees.parliament.uk/pub...74873/default/

HOUSE OF LORDS Environment and Climate Change Committee HL Paper 64
1st Report of Session 2022–23
In our hands:behaviour change for climate and environmental goals

"The Government should provide clarity to individuals about the changes we need to make, in how we travel,
what we eat and buy, and how we use energy at home, and should articulate
the many co-benefits to health and wellbeing of taking those steps." (All good so far...)

Behavioural science (nudge, nudge - my addition) evidence and best practice show that a combination of policy levers, including regulation and fiscal incentives,(ie. tax the proles until they comply) must be used by Government, alongside clear communication..."

"Businesses are in a position to enable behaviour change through increasing the affordability and availability of greener products and services and engaging customers and employees, but need direction from government (Oh dear, some top-down do as we tell you or else creeping in (remember ecocide!))"

BINGO....

"Lessons can be learned from both successful and unsuccessful behaviour change interventions in other policy areas. Most notably, the widespread behaviour change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognise that the changes demanded by the pandemic were seen as a short-term response to a short-term emergency, nonetheless it will be a major missed opportunity if the Government does not seize the chance to evaluate behaviour change interventions implemented during the pandemic and apply lessons learned.

"Swift action to rectify the approach is required".

Let's just recall what some of those policies and 'actions' were. Draconian, overnight, imposed laws that forced people to stay indoors for weeks on end, with a brief 1 hour period, for exercise, but only near their home. Police action for anyone, for example, who wanted to sit on a park bench, for too long, and take a coffee with a friend. Obligatory wearing of masks, even when the Government knew this was complete bunkum. The banning, under pain of arrest, for anyone who wanted to visit and spend the final hours of a relative's life, to share and comfort them; banning of public attended funerals; the destruction of children's education by banning them from attending school for long periods - aside from damaging their mental health; the closing of churches and other places of public social assembly, leaving people lonely and scared. The abandonment of many cancer patients so that now we have a waiting list for NHS operations of 7 million on the waiting list, and a further 2 million 'shadow' patients on the waiting list to get on the waiting list; etc. All orchestrated for the public good to combat 'the crisis'.

And look, we're being primed for another, must-act now crisis.

No surprise that the most oppressive laws were enthusiastically enacted by Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland, including such life-saving actions as banning the sale of books (in Lockdown!) and baby clothing in supermarkets, while sending police to patrol virtually empty train carriages checking where free citizens were journeying. Guess who is bragging about forming the next Government.

But, perhaps you're right. This apparent ratcheting up of the rhetoric, setting the scene for another impending global 'crisis' won't impose similar restrictions on people's lives and liberties and degrade their life-style. And if it does' it'll all be for good, sound reasons - the scientists agree 99.9 %

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

― George Orwell, Animal Farm

[Mossdog]

Ah, so you agree with the point that I was making, and which you didn't include in your quote, Mossdog: no government has enacted any laws dictating what citizens can eat, how many children they can have, where and how they can travel, or what goods they can buy, on the basis of the climate emergency. There has certainly been advice, even pressure, on governments to adopt such policies, but as the Guardian article makes clear, there has been very little take-up of that advice by governments (contrary to your original allegation).


I thought you said that you were a scientist. Why do you reject as a scare story any scientific research that doesn't agree with your prejudices? And in any case, what is there to be scared about in the story about the earth's rotation slowing?

You're missing the point I was attempting to make, which is probably down to my poor grammar or explanation, rather than you being deliberately obtuse. I've listing a few of the manny bonkers 'scare stories, not because i don't believe some of them might have an element of truth, but because they represent a whole host of 'alarmist' messages, meant to nudge/scare/unsettle people into clambering for more action against the alleged 'crisis'. Yes, I agree, there isn't anything to be hugely worried about regarding changes in the earth's rotation, it's likely benign too, but if you explore the headlines across various sites on that issue alone, you can readily see how the media has sensationalised this to varying degrees.

Let's return to the Government control issues, and your sense that this is all benign - nothing to see here folks.

Have a looks at this. https://committees.parliament.uk/pub...74873/default/

HOUSE OF LORDS Environment and Climate Change Committee HL Paper 64
1st Report of Session 2022–23
In our hands:behaviour change for climate and environmental goals

"The Government should provide clarity to individuals about the changes we need to make, in how we travel,
what we eat and buy, and how we use energy at home, and should articulate
the many co-benefits to health and wellbeing of taking those steps." (All good so far...)

Behavioural science (nudge, nudge - my addition) evidence and best practice show that a combination of policy levers, including regulation and fiscal incentives,(ie. tax the proles until they comply) must be used by Government, alongside clear communication..."

"Businesses are in a position to enable behaviour change through increasing the affordability and availability of greener products and services and engaging customers and employees, but need direction from government (Oh dear, some top-down do as we tell you or else creeping in (remember ecocide!))"

BINGO....

"Lessons can be learned from both successful and unsuccessful behaviour change interventions in other policy areas. Most notably, the widespread behaviour change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognise that the changes demanded by the pandemic were seen as a short-term response to a short-term emergency, nonetheless it will be a major missed opportunity if the Government does not seize the chance to evaluate behaviour change interventions implemented during the pandemic and apply lessons learned.

"Swift action to rectify the approach is required".

Let's just recall what some of those policies and 'actions' were. Draconian, overnight, imposed laws that forced people to stay indoors for weeks on end, with a brief 1 hour period, for exercise, but only near their home. Police action for anyone, for example, who wanted to sit on a park bench, for too long, and take a coffee with a friend. Obligatory wearing of masks, even when the Government knew this was complete bunkum. The banning, under pain of arrest, for anyone who wanted to visit and spend the final hours of a relative's life, to share and comfort them; banning of public attended funerals; the destruction of children's education by banning them from attending school for long periods - aside from damaging their mental health; the closing of churches and other places of public social assembly, leaving people lonely and scared. The abandonment of many cancer patients so that now we have a waiting list for NHS operations of 7 million on the waiting list, and a further 2 million 'shadow' patients on the waiting list to get on the waiting list; etc. All orchestrated for the public good to combat 'the crisis'.

And look, we're being primed for another, must-act now crisis.

No surprise that the most oppressive laws were enthusiastically enacted by Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland, including such life-saving actions as banning the sale of books (in Lockdown!) and baby clothing in supermarkets, while sending police to patrol virtually empty train carriages checking where free citizens were journeying. Guess who is bragging about forming the next Government.

But, perhaps you're right. This apparent ratcheting up of the rhetoric, setting the scene for another impending global 'crisis' won't impose similar restrictions on people's lives and liberties and degrade their life-style. And if it does' it'll all be for good, sound reasons - the scientists agree 99.9 %

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

― George Orwell, Animal Farm

[anthonykay]

ULEZ Zones.

Introduced to protect people's health, following evidence of increases in asthma and other respiratory problems. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ult...y-we-have-ulez. Basically the same motivation as banning smoking in public buildings, which I also support; and nothing to do with climate change.

15 minute neighborhoods.

I don't know about you, but the idea of getting all my daily needs within 15 minutes' travel time on foot or by bicycle, without having to worry about rat-running traffic, seems rather attractive.

Phasing out of ICE cars - that's in law and if in 10 years time 75% of us have EVs, we'll be stuffed, because we won't be able to get anywhere as the grid will have collapsed.

I'm with you on this one: EV's definitely aren't the answer to climate change. The correct answer is reducing the need to travel by any means more powerful than an e-bike; for example by creating more 15-minute neighbourhoods.

I'd even argue that allowing the roads to fall in to disrepair is dictating to a degree how we travel and Blackburn is effectively log-jammed most mornings since they put in bus lanes, so not a law that tells you that you cannot drive from A to B, but it's certainly made it more difficult.

Looks like they have only gone for half-measures in Blackburn, rather than going the whole hog as in many Dutch cities; there, they have made it virtually impossible to drive from A to B within the cities, not by disrepair, but by road closures that only allow cycles and buses through. Result: peaceful, safe streets, with shops doing good business because everyone is going slowly enough to look into shop windows.

[Witton Park]

Introduced to protect people's health, following evidence of increases in asthma and other respiratory problems. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ult...y-we-have-ulez. Basically the same motivation as banning smoking in public buildings, which I also support; and nothing to do with climate change.


I don't know about you, but the idea of getting all my daily needs within 15 minutes' travel time on foot or by bicycle, without having to worry about rat-running traffic, seems rather attractive.


I'm with you on this one: EV's definitely aren't the answer to climate change. The correct answer is reducing the need to travel by any means more powerful than an e-bike; for example by creating more 15-minute neighbourhoods.



Looks like they have only gone for half-measures in Blackburn, rather than going the whole hog as in many Dutch cities; there, they have made it virtually impossible to drive from A to B within the cities, not by disrepair, but by road closures that only allow cycles and buses through. Result: peaceful, safe streets, with shops doing good business because everyone is going slowly enough to look into shop windows.

Introduced as climate change measures, claiming knock-on effects for people's health.

Strangely though, it's OK if you pay, so looks more of a revenue earner. If us with ICE vehicles pay we can produce as many asthma inducing particles as we like.

on the 15 minutes, cart before horse.

Provide the facilities.
https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-h...-bernets-nook/
WE have 600 new houses, Section 106 money stolen by the LA to be spent elsewhere in the town. No community facilities, no footpath for families to get their kids across Broken Stone Rd (which has no footpaths) and through the Gib Lane Masterplan Development of around 1000 homes.
School land was earmarked on planning permsission in 2014, but no school, so primary kids are being driven to options further away and older kids are being bussed out of BwD to Preston, South Ribble, Bolton and Ribble Valley Schools.

I could go on, but you get my point.

You do not kick off 15 minute neighborhoods by restricting the publics ability to move around an area when there are no options within that area, not even a corner shop.

What Blackburn have done is taken grants to provide cycle lanes and bus lanes. It's a real botch job to access the funding with come sections of bike lane less than 10 metres in length, but they count towards the total.
But when the main A roads are single lane, with Victorian terraces lining them, the options to widen and add bus and cycle lanes are clearly limited, and efforts to do so sub-optimal.