Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate
oi yoi | 31.10.2008 08:58 | Climate Chaos
Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.
In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and consent.
The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute. Amendments by the Government threw emissions from shipping and aviation into the monitoring program, and also included a revision of the Companies Act (c. 46) “requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about emissions of greenhouse gases from activities for which the company is responsible” by 2012.
Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won’t be as bad “as people say”.
Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.
ed.. ( it's the coolest it's ever been, the only co2 emissions that are warming our planet are the ones coming out of your hot heads, your being used to push more hot nuclear power stations and a global carbon based tax system on us all, for gods sake get a grip on yourselves you nut jobs )
The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute. Amendments by the Government threw emissions from shipping and aviation into the monitoring program, and also included a revision of the Companies Act (c. 46) “requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about emissions of greenhouse gases from activities for which the company is responsible” by 2012.
Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won’t be as bad “as people say”.
Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.
ed.. ( it's the coolest it's ever been, the only co2 emissions that are warming our planet are the ones coming out of your hot heads, your being used to push more hot nuclear power stations and a global carbon based tax system on us all, for gods sake get a grip on yourselves you nut jobs )
oi yoi
Additions
oi yoi and climate change denial
31.10.2008 10:00
First oiyoi consistently reposts a link to a climate change denial video (1) put out by a bunch of 'free market conservationists' - ie extreme right wing libertarians. now he gives us an unattributed article (2) from Andrew Orlowski of the Register. According to wikipedia (3):
"Orlowski has produced numerous articles that attempt to cast doubt over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, or global warming. His articles often favour non-scientific pundits over the expert scientific community, for example his defence of non-scientist Christopher Monckton against the American Physical Society"
Strangely enough, Orlowski neglects to tell us how he knows that "60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change".
1:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/411890.html
2: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski
"Orlowski has produced numerous articles that attempt to cast doubt over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, or global warming. His articles often favour non-scientific pundits over the expert scientific community, for example his defence of non-scientist Christopher Monckton against the American Physical Society"
Strangely enough, Orlowski neglects to tell us how he knows that "60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change".
1:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/411890.html 2:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/ 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski
oiyoiwatch
Your sources stink.
31.10.2008 10:54
Does it not concern you that you are touting the views of a bunch of right wing libertarians whose primary motivation is the protection of property rights?
If Orlowski is defending the views of the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (1) does he also endorse Monckton's views on AIDS?
"Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult").[29] Monckton appeared on the BBC's Panorama programme in February 1987 to discuss his views and present the results of an opinion poll that found public support for his position.[24] In 1999 the British gay rights group OutRage! launched a campaign to force the manufacturer of Monckton's Eternity Puzzle to disassociate itself from him because of his views.[30] Monckton has since clarified his views on AIDS, stating that "the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work."
Do you really think that these are the kinds of sources that are going to be respected on a site like IMC uk?
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Views_on_AIDS
If Orlowski is defending the views of the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (1) does he also endorse Monckton's views on AIDS?
"Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult").[29] Monckton appeared on the BBC's Panorama programme in February 1987 to discuss his views and present the results of an opinion poll that found public support for his position.[24] In 1999 the British gay rights group OutRage! launched a campaign to force the manufacturer of Monckton's Eternity Puzzle to disassociate itself from him because of his views.[30] Monckton has since clarified his views on AIDS, stating that "the article was written at the very outset of the AIDS epidemic, and with 33 million people around the world now infected, the possibility of [quarantine] is laughable. It couldn't work."
Do you really think that these are the kinds of sources that are going to be respected on a site like IMC uk?
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Views_on_AIDS
oi yoi watch
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
slur
31.10.2008 10:33
oiyoi
oh yoy, it's oi yoi again
31.10.2008 11:40
Well, you either do it in a way that helps people listen, or you do it in a way to get their backs up because that's what you really want - let me guess why you post here...
You presume to know what people reading indymedia think, what people protesting at Heathrow last year think - that's presumptious and doesn't give people credit for thinking.
Climate chaos is what is here and worse coming. If you insist on calling it global warming to then debunk it by saying, "hah, it's colder in such and such a place now", that's just because that's your agenda.
You say you can't see polar bears so therefore it's all lies - yeah, and every country I've not seen does not exist, etc blah. Not very rigorous logic I'm afraid. Yes I believe the World Health Organisation that 150,000 people each year are already dying from climate change, and yes I believe the UN IPCC report (of 2,000+ scientists) that it's human-induced climate change that's the problem now and is dangerous like never before.
Even if I didn't believe the scientific consensus, the precautionary principle tells us that if we act now, we might stand a chance, and if we're wrong about the changes, it doesn't really matter. If we don't act now, either all those scientists are wrong in which case we'll be alive, or they're right in which case all humans (apart from the super rich perhaps) will die. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Yes climate change is still much debated, but only quite how bad the future will be for humans (no, it's not just about polar bears). If you want challenges to the global consensus, you only have to look (as you do) to the few oil-funded talking heads that are still around and trotted out at every opportunity, or the ex-Revolutionary Communist Party "we want capitalism to crash and burn itself" agenda of the producers of that Channel 4 climate denial programme. And if you believe them, well, keep your head in the sand and it'll all be alright eh (and don't waste your time here).
wasting my time away here...
It's far worse than what people say
31.10.2008 11:49
"Christian Aid is angry. The British government has just "eviscerated" the Climate Change Bill, claimed the agency."
And the situation is far worse than the governments business-as-usual agenda, see for example:
Climate Code Red: the Case for a Sustainability Emergency
Chris
conspiracy time
31.10.2008 14:37
Let's look at how this conspiracy would work shall we? At some point between the collection of data by a speccy academic in a weather station, analysis by the climatologists, and the headline announcements, someone is crossing out figures and putting in new ones. Or having a quiet word with the scientists ("You're really fond of that collection of Dr. Who DVDs aren't you? It'd be terrible if they all got broken wouldn't it?") Or maybe the academics themselves are thinking "right - for year's everyone's been taking the piss out of us: now we're going to terrify them".
Thing is - it's all very watertight. Even assuming the respective governments are that keen to introduce unpopular taxes (just listen to any talk radio show), the idea of them all - from scandinavian social democrats to George W for chrissakes - getting together to hatch this megaplan is just silly. They've only just finished faking 9-11 and Diana's death for a start. And where would they get all the white cats to stroke?
Sooner we get a looney-filter on indymedia the better
phatts
3 questions for oi yoi
01.11.2008 01:16
2. What effect does melting of the polar ice have on it?
3. And what is that likely to do in the short-to-medium term to the climate of northern Europe,
especially on its western seaboard and islands?
Oooh..more complicated than you thought, innit?
Just a couple more things to sort out. That thing you're sitting on...yes, yes, that's it. That's your ARSE. Your ELBOW, on the other hand, is that knobbly bit half way between your armpit and the fingers you type crap with.
Stroppyoldgit