[Closed] Global warming update!

Then the climate begins to cool into a deeper ice age.

The thing about an ice age is that a) it'll be a slow process and b) there will likely not be anything we can do about it.

If our actions are causing GW, then surely we ought to be able to modify our actions, yes?

We're spending an awful lot of money on stuff which might not actually prevent climate change at all. Now you might suggest that all this stuff is good anyway - but the question is whether you might be able to do more good by spending money in other ways. For example, rather than trying to stop the juggernaut of climate change, which we may have rather less influence over than many people seem to think, why not spend all that money on measures to alleviate the effects of the change in climate which is happening whether we like it or not?

it appears for some people the certain and permanent environmental destruction is worth it because of the chance is might make a small difference to the climate.

For me, aracer has hit the nail on the head with these points

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific - be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.

Particularly given the fact that so much of this money is being spent in the developed world on reducing CO2 - IF, and its an IF any change in temperature is a natural fluctuation, then this money has not only been wasted, we will have caused a huge amount of ecological damage for no gain, standing Canute like in the face of an oncoming tide when we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc - hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.

Thats the real outcome, that we could have wasted something that really could have made the world a better place, on a willo-the-wisp created by statisticians looking for patterns in random data.

😆

theocb - Member
The evidence we have and scientists agree upon is that without AGW we will/would be heading toward a deeper ice age, there is no perfect stable Human environment. (I didn't make that up like your nonsense :-), or were you trying to be clever on the interweb. Bless!)

Well done for missing the point entirely.

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific

Doesn't that happen with coal mines as well?
[img] [/img]

rattrap - Member

For me, aracer has hit the nail on the head with these points

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific - be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.

So it would be better if we didn't make batteries more efficient? Plus why keep mentioning the Severn Barrage when it is still being debated?

Particularly given the fact that so much of this money is being spent in the developed world on reducing CO2 - IF, and its an IF any change in temperature is a natural fluctuation, then this money has not only been wasted, we will have caused a huge amount of ecological damage for no gain, standing Canute like in the face of an oncoming tide

Well no, we'll have more efficient batteries, less particulates in the air, less congestion so more efficient travellng, engergy independence.

when we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc - hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.

How much has been raised in 'green' taxes? More than the value of third world debt?

Thats the real outcome, that we could have wasted something that really could have made the world a better place, on a willo-the-wisp created by statisticians looking for patterns in random data.

It's been done.

So it would be better if we didn't make batteries more efficient?

Not if the [b]overall[/b] production cycle is more polluting to the environment.

Well no, we'll have more efficient batteries, less particulates in the air,

But no fish in chinese rivers

More than the value of third world debt?

Makes no difference if that third world debt was accumulated buying guns instead of building schools.

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific - be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.

Um.... burning lots of fossil fuels doesn't just produce carbon dioxide you know.

we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc - hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.

Well, we could quite easily do both of those things, if the will was there, and some people weren't so greedy. Please don't dress this up as being about you caring too much about the developing world FFS.

And the main point of green taxes etc is to try and reduce consumption - see how petrol consumption in this country dropped significantly when petrol prices went up by not really that much. What's your problem with reducing consumption/being more energy efficient exactly - still part of the great green conspiracy eh?

Its all going to end in a hot heat kinda way in about 4-5 billion years when the sun goes mental. So the planets long term prognosis is bad.
So just use it and abuse it as you would a good MTB

then this money has not only been wasted,

Er no, cos there's more than one issue here. Reducing CO2 also generally means reducing consumption of finite energy sources. Their high price is already putting a strain on economies. If we could significantly lower demand then the price would go down.

And there'd be more of it available for other things too.

But no fish in chinese rivers

And if we weren't trying to make better batteries, the Chinese wouldn't be polluting? Really?

Er no, cos there's more than one issue here. Reducing CO2 also generally means reducing consumption of finite energy sources.

Which is more polluting and uses more resources in the grand scheme of things - keeping your old gas guzzler, or buying a new prius?

Their high price is already putting a strain on economies. If we could significantly lower demand then the price would go down.

Most of the high price is tax anyway

Am I a bit late with the silly graphs thing?

[IMG] [/IMG]

why keep mentioning the Severn Barrage when it is still being debated?

Because it [b]is[/b] still being debated. I'll stop mentioning it when they realise that actually it's a pretty bad idea - something which doesn't yet seem to have happened because of all the emphasis on decreasing CO2 emissions above other environmental considerations.

Have you mentioned it to your MP?

Which is more polluting and uses more resources in the grand scheme of things - keeping your old gas guzzler, or buying a new prius?

But those aren't the only two options, obviously. I think you are trying to discredit the entire concept of sustainability by cherry picking examples of generic flawed logic. Not clever.

Most of the high price is tax anyway

Most of the price of petrol at the pump is tax, however that's always been the case, and the price of crude oil is also at record highs anyway.

that's consensus.

that's chasing funding and keeping a job.

Thats BS if you discover theat AGW is false you will have evoidence , get a noble prize and create a new consensus. knowledge moves on for sure but do you really think evolution will ever be false or not the case? We may just have slightly more knowledge than primative man and have discovered some genuine truths which are so compelling they are a consenus. there is a consesus the earth orbits the sun - is it worng now will it ever be wrong? consenus is not a bad thing - its only riased by dissenters who seem tolike to highlight the fact no one believes them 😉
Its a rubbish argument put forward because folk dont have any data - it usually coupled with the lie that they all do it for funding - realy you think the oil and car industry dont and have not funded research to show AGW is wrong - there are plenty of rich anti agencies who will fund your research especially if you allready agree with them.

In which case, are you really sure there is one on humanity being the dominant factor in climate change? Given the scale of current temperature changes compared to the scale of historic temperature changes, I'd suggest that's far from an obvious point

yes i am sure the scientific community has a consensus and currently NOW man is doing it not nature. Again pointing out that there has been periods of ice age and of a molten earth in our past is a pointless thing to keep bringing up - the issue is whether we are affecting change not whether other factors can affect change. It is not a debatable fact EVERYONE AGREES THEY CAN AND HAVE- why do you keep repeating this,I dont even see what point you are trying to make not least because no disoutes that it changes naturally.

The value of the consensus is directly related to the depth of the knowledge and understanding that supports it. We are very fortunate that professional bodies of climate scientists, including our own Met Office recently, are very open about the current level of knowledge. From this we are able to apply the appropriate weight to their conclusions.

bit vague any chance you could say what you think without it being a snidey dig?
to answer your point and aracers

The Earth's climate has changed many times in response to natural causes. However, since the early 1900s, our climate has changed rapidly due to persistent man-made changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/what-is-it
Would you like to make a statement on what you claim their position is that is clear and unambiquous like that statement from the website as it seems clear they all agre ethat AGW is reall hence you ha re left with this sort of "point" to make when you could have used data and an argument instead

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific

Capitalism however has been wonderful at protecting the environment but these bloody greens eh what a shower . everything has an impact all we can do is reduce it as best we can.

hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of 'green' taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall

of all the things you have ever said on here your concern that the money is being wasted and could be better spent on the poor and the needy is the most incredolous I have ever read from you
Nice one 10/10 really feeling your love and concern for the needy it is clearly one of your core values 😀
Lovely that has made my day

the issue is whether we are affecting change not whether other factors can affect change

Not when the question is about "humanity being the dominant factor in climate change?" - from the bit you quoted just above that.

Interestingly, from the link you gave, "The world has warmed by three-quarters of a degree in the last century" - yet from the graph posted a way back there, the inter-glacial temperature variation is rather larger than that.

So we are not suffering from global warming then ?

If STW emits much more hot air it's a certainty.

So we are not suffering from global warming then ?

Speak for yourself - I'm certainly not suffering from any sort of warming here at the moment.

nope aracer still not getting your point - its hard to debate when i dont even know what your view is. Could you tell us please what it is ?

Interestingly, from the link you gave, "The world has warmed by three-quarters of a degree in the last century" - yet from the graph posted a way back there, the inter-glacial temperature variation is rather larger than that.

so you proved once more a fact not in dispute but I am still not sure why you keep doing this or its relevance. Well if natural change, that no one disputes, does not disprove that man is having an effect they what will 😕

Seriously why are you doing this and what is your point?
It makes no sense to keep doing this
The graph shows it varied by and I quote "Approx 0-9.1.1 degree" in 8 thousands years and we did 0.75 in a century and you think this suggests it is still within the range of natural 😕
it is perhaps 3 degrees of warming in 4 thousand years
Again why /what is your point?

We dont see changes,this rapid, naturally. this seems to be the point?

unless you actually state a position it seems pointless to just keep repeating it has varied before as no one disputes this and this fact does not mean AGW cannot occur.

aracer - Member

So we are not suffering from global warming then ?

Speak for yourself - I'm certainly not suffering from any sort of warming here at the moment.

No I dont either 🙁

We dont see changes,this rapid, naturally. this seems to be the point?

Japanese earthquake was enough to shift the earths axis so why not put the blame somewhere else ?

🙄

"Earth's rotation changes all the time as a result of not only earthquakes, but also the much larger effects of changes in atmospheric winds and oceanic currents," he says. "Over the course of a year, the length of the day increases and decreases by about a millisecond, or about 550 times larger than the change caused by the Japanese earthquake.

[b]"The position of Earth's figure axis also changes all the time, by about 3.3 feet over the course of a year, or about six times more than the change that should have been caused by the Japan quake."[/b]

Gross said the changes in Earth's rotation and figure axis caused by earthquakes should not have any impacts on our daily lives. [b]"These changes in Earth's rotation are perfectly natural and happen all the time," he says. "People shouldn't worry about them."[/b]

Lifer - Member

"People shouldn't worry about them."

🙄

They would say that wouldnt they ?

So a giant meteorite is going to hit the earth or maybe an ice age happening.

Would the government tell us so as we can go all anarchistic ? I dont think so.

you are david Ike and I claim my £5

Easy money.

Junkyard - Member

you are david Ike and I claim my £5

Inflation boy its now £2.50

you have as good a grasp on inflation as you do on any other fact

the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries

Just so you know, progress in this area is also being made in changing the battery chemistry and using more common materials such as sodium and carbon.

Junkyard - Member

you have as good a grasp on inflation as you do on any other fact

Yep and twice as much as 1/2 the posters.

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain.

There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).

[url= http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm ]Clicky[/url]

See its on the internet so its true

Well here we go again......The BBC still doing their best to portray the current data in the worst possible light, even reporting that we could have an ice free arctic by 2050.

Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 95% sure its caused by humans! Hmmm.... will it be 90% next year?

Meanwhile, temperatures remain static for the past 17 years! 😯

Meanwhile, temperatures remain static for the past 15 years!

[img] [/img]

sigh

Meanwhile, temperatures remain static for the past 17 years!

I was once stuck on the M4 for 45 minutes, not moving at all.

I still got to my destination though.

I was once stuck on the M4 for 45 minutes, not moving at all.
I still got to my destination though.

I was once stuck on the M62 for an hour.
Eventually we got turned round back to the next junction and I went home again.

😉

[img] [/img]

It's fine for people to disagree with prevailing opinion.

It's not fine for people to disagree because they WANT to and simply lack a complete understanding. Or for people to simply assume that after a few newspaper articles they know more than expert scientists who've been studying it their whole careers.

I was taught of the impending ice age as a kid. Are you suggesting the expert scientists were wrong?

Climate scientists aren't much better than economists.

Not that it matters. It's just a political issue.

[i]I was once stuck on the M62 for an hour.
Eventually we got turned round back to the next junction and I went home again. [/i]

Any excuse not to go any nearer to Leeds or L'pool is a winner in my book.

I was taught of the impending ice age as a kid. Are you suggesting the expert scientists were wrong?

Did an expert scientist teach you?

Or did your teacher get that out of some textbook, which was in fact poorly reporting speculation about statistics?

Did they say WHY an ice age was 'impending' ?

Was that before or after a huge effort on climate research?

I'm surprised this is still going on. Lifer killed it on the first page IMHO.
[img] [/img]

Regardless of the number crunching, the vast majority of resulant actions of the whole climate change stuffs is for the good of all.

Oh, and a recent posting on the bad_astronomy blog demolished David Rose's Arctic ice argument with one graph.

It's fine for people to disagree with prevailing opinion.

Ageed.

It's not fine for people to disagree because they WANT to and simply lack a complete understanding.

No. That's fine too.

Or for people to simply assume that after a few newspaper articles they know more than expert scientists who've been studying it their whole careers.

No. That's also fine.

They may not be right....but ......that's fine as well.

A simple question:

Can anyone point to a prediction of today's climate from 10 years ago that is correct? (from any side)

I'm beginning to suspect the science of haruspicy is just as credible, and at least it has the benefit of being able to provide a haggis afterwards.

Did an expert scientist teach you?

Or did your teacher get that out of some textbook, which was in fact poorly reporting speculation about statistics?

Did they say WHY an ice age was 'impending' ?

Was that before or after a huge effort on climate research?

The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong. Quite how wrong is open to speculation.

The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong. Quite how wrong is open to speculation.

Newton's theory of gravity is wrong.

Yet its good enough to put men on the moon.

If we wait for a perfect theory before taking any action we will be screwed

The only thing we know for sure is that current theories are all wrong.

Why do you say that?

They may not be right....but ......that's fine as well.

It's fine in the 'I don't care abotu science' world, but the problem with assertions about climate is that they are definitely in the science world.

I could bang on and on about 2+2 making 79, legally, but if I waded into a debate about arithmetic with that one, I'd be considered wrong on quite a few levels.

Regardless of the number crunching, the vast majority of resulant actions of the whole climate change stuffs is for the good of all.

Like more expensive food and deforestation because of biofuels?

http://grist.org/article/europe-says-its-own-biofuels-policies-increase-food-costs-50-drive-deforestation/

Like more expensive heating so more people die in winter?

http://www.eas.org.uk/key_issues_fuel_poverty.php

No, not like those.

That's just crap policy.

I could bang on and on about 2+2 making 79, legally, but if I waded into a debate about arithmetic with that one, I'd be considered wrong on quite a few levels.

And that would be fine.

You would be wrong, people would tell you, and you would either change your mind, or you wouldn't.

Define 'fine'

I'm sure you don't need my help to know what "fine" means. 🙄

Fine is a subjective term.

Science is all about finding truth. So if you join in a scientific debate but disregard the steps necessary to establish truth, your contributions may not be worth very much. So I would assert that it's not 'fine' to join in a scientific debate without observing the principles of science.

Science is all about finding truth.

Science is more about proving old truths are wrong. Science doesn't just stop. Luckily as it happens, or we'd all be still preparing for the imminent ice age.

Fine is a subjective term.
Science is all about finding truth. So if you join in a scientific debate but disregard the steps necessary to establish truth, your contributions may not be worth very much. So I would assert that it's not 'fine' to join in a scientific debate without observing the principles of science.

Fine.

this "scientists were telling us we the next ice age was about to descend on us" meme.

Which scientists - I've done a admittedly rather brief literature search on google scholar and not turned up much.

...or is someone just getting about confused about timescales and Milankovich-Croll cycles? (which are still running - and will soon (that's a "geological" soon....not a "human" soon) push earth into another ice age...assuming a few preconditions are met (eg cool enough for summer snow cover persistence across northern hemisphere etc).

Those preconditions themselves may of course be negated by anthropic carbon cycle short circuting.

Science is more about proving old truths are wrong. Science doesn't just stop. Luckily as it happens, or we'd all be still preparing for the imminent ice age.

Finding new truths and proving old ones wrong, yes - there's a lot of overlap.

Afaik the only reason for suggesting there was an ice age imminent, incidentally, was that they tend to happen every 100,000 years or whatever the number is (recently) and it'd been about that long since we had the last one. [b]I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.[/b]

Which scientists - I've done a admittedly rather brief literature search on google scholar and not turned up much.

No idea, I was 7.

There was a documentary on it while back.

Afaik the only reason for suggesting there was an ice age imminent, incidentally, was that they tend to happen every 100,000 years or whatever the number is (recently) and it'd been about that long since we had the last one. I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.

Yeah, that's the one.

Bloody good job we're pumping co2 into the air. An ice age would be a lot worse than a bit of warming.*

*Doctor Lovelock says the UK will be fine.

I am willing to be corrected though by someone who knows more about the subject than me.

ah....see...that's called science that is

No idea, I was 7.

There was a documentary on it while back.

brilliant

considered stand up comedy?

I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,

but like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it

In any case, it's the pace of change that's the problem. If/when the natural ice age comes in, it'll likely take thousands of years, allowing us to adapt.

like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it

No doubt.

I don't doubt that there's a 95% chance they're right.

In any case, it's the pace of change that's the problem. If/when the natural ice age comes in, it'll likely take thousands of years, allowing us to adapt.

No worries. We fixed that problem.

temperatures remain static for the past 15 years!

Static?

Lets have a look at the most reliable, longest set of direct instrumental data we've got, something thats pretty much beyond reproach:

[img] [/img]

Static?

Its only static if you cherrypick your starting year

Otherwise we're quite clearly on trend for a regression to mean

kimbers - Member

I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,

but like many aspects of science a lot has happened since the 70s and Im willing to believe the (tens?) of thousands of man hours of research that have been put into climate science since then and indicate that the world is warming and that humans are causing it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

[img] [/img]

n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

Static?

Lets have a look at the most reliable, longest set of direct instrumental data we've got, something thats pretty much beyond reproach:

careful

That's the CET - and is only valid for a small part of the planet...so you can't draw planet wide inferences from it(albeit it is the best long period observation sequence we've got)

but it is no more valid to cherry pick one small spot on the planets surface than it is for someone to cherry pick eg start and end dates of a sequence...eg why last 15 years and not 20 or 10 years

here's a better illustration showing the wider context

[img] [/img]

n the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

There you go. The period I was in primary school.

Quite why climate change was such a big topic is a mystery but at least I was paying attention.

heres the guardian extrapolating from the IPCC data

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive

kimbers - Member

heres the guardian extrapolating from the CET data

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/sep/27/climate-change-how-hot-lifetime-interactive

I don't think that's an extrapolation of the CET - they are simply stating what the likley global mean temp (not Central England Temp) will be as you get older based on a the IPCC projections.

Central England temp may not behave the same as global temp over that time period (why should it in a complex system)

sorry corrected

Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 95% sure its caused by humans! Hmmm.... will it be 90% next year?

I was going to write something a bit more intelligent about statistical interpretation, but then I realised that wasn't necessary. I can just rewrite the above:

[i]Now even the most vehement Scientific advocate of man made global warming is only 5% sure its not caused by humans! [/i]

And:

Fine.

Who let the four year old in the room? Because that's about the level your 'fine' argument is at.

what level of certainty do politicians need to act on anything ...bedroom tax/Iraq WMD/parking cameras.

I'm guessing it's 110%

About climate change? Not going to happen. Not in a democracy.

Climate change may be a priority for lots of people, but it's not the highest priority. Those high priority things are the ones that will suffer if any government tries to tackle climate change.

He's right.

some bloke on radio (biz news - really early) made the point that some insurance co's were now getting shirty re downstream value of fossil fuel companies share prices and were considering selling out...as cost of cleanup weren't built into fossil fuel share prices...an interesting angle.

It may be that pressure comes from there not politicos.

I saw the same doc as 5thelephant,

Me too

I see Zulu is still mixing up energy and temperature.

Climate change may be a priority for lots of people, but it's not the highest priority. Those high priority things are the ones that will suffer if any government tries to tackle climate change.

The trouble with this argument is that by the time it becomes the highest priority, it will already be far too late

Proof of global warming scaremongering
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-computer-models-collapse/