[climate change] there are other issues interwoven with it which are more immediate

As with so many issues but particularly with this one, people rush to judgement, according to predisposition, then seek out authoritative sources to back that view, eventually falling into "camps".

What follows is a whole jargon, complete with buzzwords and one or two word insults for the other point of view but worse than that, an intractable commitment to one's own side, which gets more and more deeply entrenched, so that any new evidence is either skipped over or else the devotee gives a shout of anger and desperately seeks for the refutation in a google search.

In this, there is no attempt to find the middle way, to lay everything one set of scientists say and everything the other set of scientists say, side by side, in one place and to try to find the truth somewhere in there. There is only a determination not to concede anything to those bstds on the other side.

The scientific method? Hardly.

Now, this climate business is clearly one where this process is in operation and someone who tries to steer a middle course gets both "climate loony" and "ostrich" thrown at him. Your humble blogger has used the ostrich pic himself so who's innocent here?

It comes down to perceptions in the end, not scientific evidence because these days, it's almost rent-a-scientist in this respect. The BBC is pushing hard to get people to accept man-made climate change, in order to enable the governmental programme to blame both the people and international pressures for everything the government has done and at the same time to further enslave us.

To this end, they say that the sceptics are more usually:

# Men more than women

# Rural more than urban

# Older people

# High earners

# Conservative voters more than Lib Dem voters; Lib Dem voters more than Labour voters

I ran this post on anecdotal evidence from Canada and as you see, it was virtually ignored, compared to my other posts, neither comment referring, except in passing, to the issue. I'm sure if I'd run "further evidence of government climate fraud", it would have got twenty comments or so.

There is very much a geographical consideration in this.

Having been back in England now through a full set of seasons, it is true that there's little to establish, on these islands, whether there has been change or not, let alone whether it is man-made. Therefore the battles I was having on the issue, from Russia, with Brits, now shows me that we were arguing at cross purposes. There is very real evidence, not in Moscow, which has its own micro-climate but further inland and north. There's little observable evidence in Britain as yet.

There has been a shift in seasons by a few weeks in Russia and it has certainly warmed up - the snow is later and less. This is supported by the Canadian findings as well, so the northern regions seem to be getting it first. They'd hardly notice it near the Equator.

There has always been wild weather in Australia but now there seems far more weird weather and that's one to watch. I've read of some places that actually seem to be cooling, if anything. A warming-sceptic paper makes some good points here, before talking demonstrable rubbish. It speaks of those predicting cooling as "good scientists" and those predicting warming as "failing to appreciate".

It slips these judgementss in under the radar because of the article's overall appearance of a scholastic tone, which the uninitiated will take as "scientific", whereas a scientist would know that one should not seek to convince by rhetoric. As I.A. Richards said, in Science and Poetry [1926]:

We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.

Hence I trust no report from either side quoting "good scientists" and this is a case in point:

The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.

That's rubbish. In Russia, it is quite observable, as it is in the Arctic and Canada. In fact, it is conceded in the statement:

The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers.

So, in other words, there is change.

Oh yes, they say but not man-made. That is not what they said in the previous quote. You see, it's not so much the arguments one way or the other I'm annoyed about - rather, it's the shoddy manner, slipping judgements into the discussion which have no place being there.

Now, let's get down to the issue:

This says:

"The warming during a transition from glacial to interglacial period is due (more) to solar forcing (increased temperatures caused by more sunlight) than to CO2 forcing (increased atmospheric CO2)," Nicolas Caillon, a climatologist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, told United Press International.

This says:

A straightforward calculation reveals that when the CO2 in the atmosphere reaches twice the pre-industrial level, the enhanced greenhouse effect alone (i.e., neglecting any response by the earth to the enhanced greenhouse effect) will warm the earth by 1.2 to 1.3˚C. There is no significant controversy among scientists about this part of global warming. The earth will in fact respond to the increased temperature. This is called “feedback.” There is controversy about the magnitude of the feedback.

All I get out of that is that there is no case for bloggers leaping on one or the other views because it seems a whole lot more complicated than simplistic positions would have us believe. It also seems most unevenly distributed - cooling in the south, warming in the north.

It seems to me is that there is change, to a large extent blamable on the governments but also on Chinese coal burning, the North American automobile and also on the industrialization which has implications, not just for climate but for the quality of the atmosphere and on governmental policies which, for political reasons, allowed the situation to develop.

We either have no governments and are responsible for our own affairs or else we do have governments and they are expected to justify themselves by not fiddling about, signing protocols but by taking measures, such as investment incentive in viable new technologies.

Then there is sheer population, a point conceded and indeed promoted by Them themselves. Prince Phillip's foot-in-mouth at least has the positive effect of him blurting out truths. Population increase is the single greatest threat we face because on this turn all the questions about water [governments and Them controlling the supply of potable water to an extent not seen since ancient times], Sicily being a case in point, as well as food and living space.

So, it seems to me that the questions of:

1. industrial and automobile pollution;
2. governmental control and constriction of water and food supplies;
3. sheer population increase ...

... are the major factors at this time. Climate change is not so good for many species but human impact, to any significant degree, is in a second wave further down the track. Yes, people will need to be moved from the coastal rim, yes, there are changes needed there and yes, it is terrible that salmon and bears and other animals are dying out, not to mention the flora.

It is terrible that fish supplies will be from farms because farms are controllable, as are other food supplies. Point two just above is a most significant problem right now but nothing to what is down the track when the big squeeze comes.

Where I live, it is not possible to do one's own farming [local government zoning regulations] so we are dependent on supermarkets, controllable by governmental regulation - the disappearance of carrier bags is directly attributable to government, as is the disappearance of certain medicines and certain foodstuffs.

We are living artificially, at the whim of the government and on the big chains which are themselves dependent on government largesse, in other ways, e.g. planning permission, carparks etc.

So yes, climate change is an issue but there are other issues interwoven with it which need addressing more immediately.