Dear God Carrington. Can\’t You Do Logic?

Are rising bills at the supermarket checkout turning out to be the first tangible impact of climate change on the daily lives of all Britons? It very much seems so.

The damage wreaked by the dismal summer of 2012 on UK harvests was revealed on Monday and will push food prices up. In these austere times, with food banks feeding the hungry, that is going to hurt.

There are two lessons to be learned. First, the UK is not going to gradually warm into a pleasant Mediterranean climate, with sunny resorts on the coast supplied by burgeoning English vineyards. The heating of the climate system leads to greater extremes in weather and greater damage. Second, with much of our food imported from around the world, the totals we tot up at the tills is at the mercy of global warming\’s impact on the whole globe.

Sigh. If we import much of our food then it doesn\’t particularly matter what the climate is in England then, does it?

As to global warming\’s impact on the whole world. Well, the grain belt will move north, opening up vast areas of Russian and Canadian prairies. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will increase plant growth. Anything else you want to add?

34 thoughts on “Dear God Carrington. Can\’t You Do Logic?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Anything to add? How about biofuels being the biggest load of rotting pig’s tripe in an otherwise rancid vat of offal that we call the EU?

  2. Its nice to see that the outriders for ‘climate change’ are getting ahead of the official line. According to the official Defra website on the effect climate change will have on the UK, we are due to experience increasingly hot and dry summers in the UK, particularly in the south.

    Details here:

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/

    and here:

    http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=87852&filetype=pdf

    So which is it to be boys, hotter drier summers, or colder wetter ones? I mean it would be nice if the climate change brigade could pick a prediction and stick to it for longer than 5 minutes.

  3. Trying to argue with a Climate Change Zealot is like trying to argue a Catholic out of believing in God.

    How many times have I been told by CCZs that one instance of blistering heat or freezing cold is just weather?

  4. john miller: you’ve got that slightly wrong – blistering heat is of course evidence of global warming, freezing cold is obviously evidence of climate change. As is wet weather, windy weather, dry weather. Its all evidence in favour of whatever they decide its evidence of, and as a result we must all do as they say.

    Or else.

  5. john miller – There is certainly something Jesuitical in the intricate intellectual knotwork of the climate change true believers.

    However, on the plus side, Catholic theology teaches that human life is sacred.

    The climate changers view mankind as some sort of invasive pest that should be cut down to size for the sake of “the planet”.

  6. It’s not going to be easy to grow wheat in newly temperate areas which have had little or no topsoil since the last ice age.

    It’s foolish to try to deduce anything about global temperature trends by looking at the weather in the UK, which is highly atypical of its latitude.

  7. “It’s not going to be easy to grow wheat in newly temperate areas ”
    It’s easy to grow wheat now. What it isn’t easy to do is to get a decent crop yield because the growing season is too short. Furthermore, historically it would have been possible to grow wheat there & may well been done. The dreaded ‘climate change’ (if it happens) will only be returning the areas to the climate they had when wheat was first developed.
    Out of interest, anyone know if there actually are areas that will be newly ice free for the first time since the last ice age? If GW is a reality. The Antarctic Peninsular has certainly been ice free because there’s plenty of vegetation. The ‘Ice Man’ who, was revealed up in the Alps a few years back, appeared to have succumbed to a snowstorm on what had been an ice free pass which became glaciated.

  8. Even the super-pro AGW Met Office don’t ascribe this years washout summer to AGW. They admit it’s due to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation.

  9. Come to think of it there was a fascinating article (in the Telegraph?) a week or so ago about the abundance of neolithic structures in the Orkneys. Some of the richest finds in Europe.
    Even with today’s agricultural techniques & a degree of trade it’s doubtful if the population the islands can currently sustain would have the spare capacity to contemplate those sorts of massive construction projects.

  10. Come to think of it there was a fascinating article (in the Telegraph?) a week or so ago about the abundance of neolithic structures in the Orkneys.

    That’d be the early oil fields. 🙂

  11. Nothing yet from William M. Connolley or Arnald on this one ? The usual drivel again exposed by the semantic shift from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ in the last 10 years as Socialism clad in a green uniform.

  12. WMC’s been a bit busy lately. He’s on a new mission to remove all biographies of sceptical climate scientists from Wikipedia as ‘not notable’. He’s started with the low-hanging fruit of non-English-speaking scientists, since when one googles for English terms regarding their work, little comes up. It’s led to the amusing situation where the native-language pages have extensive biographies, whilst the English wikipedia has no mention of the scientists at all.

  13. @Dave: he’s only allowed to edit dead people’s wikipedia pages, which will probably limit his targets a bit, given AGW is only a decade or two old and few of the protagonists have dropped off their perches yet. But the good news is that I now know who Marcel Leroux was, and what he had to say on AGW.

    So thank you WMC for publicising him to the world!

  14. When I was a kid scientists talked about the new ice age. And we were running out of oil.
    These days they talk about global warming, and oil still seems to be flowing.

    I don’t subscribe to the climate change religion. I’ll wait until science figures out the facts (rather than theories) and agree amongst themselves that yes xxxx is happening. Whatever xxxx turns out to be.
    Doesn’t of course prevent zealots on all sides along with both business and governments taking advantage…. and the media stirring things up if it will sell a story.

  15. Scientists have figured out the facts, which are that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer. There are many commentators here who wish that to be untrue, because its truth encourages governments to intervene in energy markets, and they hold such interventions to be undesirable. However, scientific truth does not change in the face of political theory.

  16. “increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer.”

    Even if that statement were true, which it’s not, at least without some caveats like ceteris paribus which make it meaningless, it still doesn’t actually raise any problem. The issue is what follows, when catastrophic consequences of warming are suggested. Very few reputable scientists – I’d go as far as to say none at all – support any of the theories about catastrophe.

  17. “How about biofuels being the biggest load of rotting pig’s tripe in an otherwise rancid vat of offal that we call the EU?”

    Living up to your handle, eh, Subtlety?

  18. Gene & BiS
    Yes the Austrian police / archaeology investigation was a shambles, they only discovered the arrow head that killed him once the corpse was transferred to Italy.

    Looking at the map you can see that access is a lot easier from Italy, and the Oztal would have been subject to avalanches and serac falls, being narrower and north facing.

    So for generations the southerners would pasture on land that the northerners considered theirs. Hence a fight when the snows were rare and there were no glaciers in the Alps.

    All because people were driving big cars 6,000 years ago.

  19. Carrington went to Germany as a guest of the country’s renewable industry and wrote several glowing articles about Germany’s renewable energy sector. He then received an award by the British renewable energy industry for those articles.

    It’s like these people have no self-awareness whatsoever.

  20. Only PaulB has it right.

    Burn stuff, stuff happens.

    Pretending it doesn’t ignores nature.

    Good luck on reasoning that one. Oh, you have? Wibble.

  21. @ PaulB
    Burning fossil fuels warms the place up. Burning billions of tons of coal and oil each year warms up the planet.
    You don’t need the disputed claims about the side-effects of CO2 to establish that.
    In the last 40 years we have burned 178 billion tonnes of coal and 130 billion tons of oil.
    The question is not whether AGW exists but merely how significant it is and whether we can do anything about it. Since China consumes roughly half the coal burned on the entire planet and its coal consumption is growing at around 10% per annum (more some years, less in others) that all depends on persuading the government that does most in interfering in the market to radically change its policies and cut back on economic growth. The UK consumes less than 2% of primary energy so it’s government’s actions can only have a marginal effect – the latest data show that its total fuel consumption was less than the year-on-year *increase* in China’s consumption of fossil fuels.

  22. john77: We can’t say to China “our per capita fossil fuel energy consumption is twice yours, so we want you to cut back”. Or rather, we could, but it’s not going to work.

  23. I omitted Paul B in my list of the usual suspects. Still, at least nothing from Connolley. The other two reveal their Communist leanings with the usual ‘science is settled’ bs.

  24. @ PaulB
    Well, if you want to cut down on world consumption of fossil fuels you’ll have to find a way to make it work. (Bit less than twice, actually).
    China is the largest and only a whisker from being the dirtiest consumer of fuel on the planet – its coal consumption is more than three times the *total* fuel consumption of India, the only country which has a comparable population.
    The USA is the next biggest problem but at least its fuel consumption has marginally declined since the turn of the century while China’s has *more than doubled*

  25. john77: the only comparison that makes sense is on a per capita basis. Of course China needs to restrain itself, but the USA and Europe need to take the lead.

  26. Scientists have figured out the facts, which are that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer.

    Eh, that’s only a “fact” if atmospheric CO2 concentration is the only variable in the system, which obviously it is not.

    You may amused to know that the scientists promoting “catastrophic global cooling” back in the 70s. It went something like this: “We have figured out the facts, which are that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric soot, and increasing atmospheric soot blocks sunlight and makes the planet cooler”.

    Obsessing over one minor variable in a complex system with thousands upon thousands of variables is bad science.

  27. You may amused to know that the scientists promoting “catastrophic global cooling” back in the 70s.

    That might be amusing, but it’s not true. It was never the consensus view.

    Obviously carbon dioxide is not the only variable in the system. But it’s an important one, and unlike all the others it’s been in our power to cause it to vary quickly.

  28. Van Patten: ‘The usual drivel again exposed by the semantic shift from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ in the last 10 years as Socialism clad in a green uniform.’

    Global warming and climate change are different things. The latter is caused (in part) by the former.

    The shift to ‘climate disruption’ is what you should be griping about.

  29. @ PaulB
    *Some* of Europe is taking a lead in reducing energy consumption – places like the UK and Norway and France and Italy (and most of the former Warsaw Pact who are still making major improvements in energy efficiency) – but others (except, perhaps, of Germany which has modestly reduced energy consumption which may or may not be totally due to replacing brown coal in East Germany) seem to think that building windmills is a valid alternative; Spain and the Netherlands have actually increased energy consumption in the last decade *by more than their total renewables* i.e. they have increased fossil fuel consumption at the same time as building windmills. Denmark has reduced energy consumption marginally but by less than half the %age of the UK or Norway and uses significantly more per head than the UK despite the UK’s greater industrialisation and greater use of energy for domestic heating; Spain uses 25% more energy per head than Portugal and more than 10% more than Italy.
    If you want Europe to take a lead then it needs to uniformly reduce energy consumption not give the impression that half the countries are weaselling out by pretending windmills are an alternative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *