Wining The Battle, Losing The War

This blog had been pretty inactive as well as the usual reason of being busy with work I also got re-married in that I have now been married for 25 years and decided to do it all again but this time In Las Vegas,  with Elvis of course,  which took a lot of organisation.

I also treated myself to a Nexus 7 tablet which I am slowly writing this on, using an app.  The irony is that I am now probably on the internet more but in less convenient position to knock up a post.

But during my sabbatical I have been thinking that the battle to get the problem of climate change raised and publicly accepted has been won. Unfortunately not purely by the science but the ever increasing record number of weather events now being called Global Weirding or the New Normal. Even before Tropical Storm Sandy caused so much loss in the climate denial stronghold of the US, polls show that concern about climate change was high and most believed that anthropogenic causes do have some responsibility. With Sandy that level of acceptance has only increased and unless we enter into an unlikely prolonged period of climate stability, what the weather will most likely have in store for us will only harden those views. That battle is effectively won.

But the cynic in me worries that the war is being lost or may even already be lost. Even the re-election of Obama,  the only choice if anything can be done to tackle climate change globally,  is little comfort as there seems little appetite with politicians to do anything.  We are in the same position we were in decades ago.  Adaption rather than any attempts at mitigation seems to be favoured and Sandy shows just what we can expect with adaption.

People like me don't need to be alarmist, the conclusions of the science are alarming enough. What to do? We can keep on raising awareness,  keep on confronting denial,  keep on tackling ignorance in the best way we know, but in the end all that effort will pale beside what people are going to experience first hand with floods, droughts, storms and other extremes that are lining up to convince people where sound science has failed for decades. By then the door to mitigating solutions will have closed and adaption will mainly be one of repairing after the damage and the pain has occurred.

Am I wrong to feel that I am looking at the horse bolting?  


  1. I do something similar. I have a blog

    I hope you will continue making posts here (you arn't quiting are you?! it sounds like that in your post) , it would be a shame for this sort of excellent fact checking to stop.

    1. No I'm not quitting but admittedly I have been very inactive because I have been busy with other things. I still follow and comment on various sites but just don't seem to get the time to translate that to posts over here.

      I do like your blog and will be a follower from now. I may even mirror some of your posts on mine, (full credit given of course), as an easy option to keep mine more active if you have no objections.

    2. Oh sure, use whatever material you like from me. I can't promise I won't make mistakes from time to time though, I am only human! But I will try and correct any if they arise :)

  2. I used to enjoy the dodging and twisting. Sitting here and finding the name for the excuse and reading reams of incorrect presumptions.

    Consensus is the epitome of anti-science. Galileo faced a consensus. A modern typical left wing meme now for Con then Censure.

    The Philippines would not suffer their common tornadoes if there smaller temperature variances due to GW. Heat must meet cold (or vice versa) for strong weather. Blowing Hansens manipulations out of the water. As goes hot water at that time, it wasn't showing all that strongly on the ENSO graphs but a cold front came South to cause it.
    "Global warming theory requires that the Arctic warms, which means less cold air to form tornadoes. People who claim that global warming brings more or stronger tornadoes, are scientifically illiterate. Which of course is the norm for climate experts." lol

    The very dataset the climatologists wanted as empirical to the effects of CO2 show no warming for 18 years and still counting. (RSS). Incidentally, UAH which is found to be highly manipulated is 10 years of statistically zero global warming.

    The sea is heating like atomic bombs.. Only when you read one dataset. Actual measurements from all other sources flat out argue this.

    You cannot read sea temperatures to very fine levels beyond instrument accuracy and call it "scientific" then say it is empirical. Take two ordinary thermometers. Read at depths. For argument one reads 14C but 1% of the time shows 15C.. The final number is not 14.1C because the other thermometer might not see 15C due to the accuracy of same thermometers are only accurate to 1C. Try this in engineering and they will sack you.

    As goes CO2 causing warmer weather. Another fail. Totally at odds with MODTRAN, actual readings and empirical temperature data.

    So whats left? Maybe this video from 2003. I suggest signing the petition too!