Another day, another name! This time were so bad we are "worse" then "deniers" were......"saboteurs"..Doug if you read this you may want to let us know why the so called "science" of AGW is supported by Politics and NOT by real time observations.
Some of us are awake. Some of us are asleep. It is that simple. Those of us trying to educate our fellow citizens about global climate change are no one special. We are just people who see and cannot look away. We understand. We know the truth. And we love our children or feel a moral obligation to others beyond ourselves. We've studied the science and have grasped the obvious. We cannot rest even though deep down we fear it might not matter in the end. We have to do this. We must. We have no choice.
Calling the deniers by the name deniers is too kind. A better name would be saboteurs. A saboteur is someone who engages in sabotage. "Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction."
The saboteurs have one aim. Delay. They pretend to participate in this process in good faith but they cannot be trusted. Nothing they say can be believed. They offer us nothing. They come in the name of science but they deliberately deceive. They are the enemies of the Earth, our children, their own children, future generations, the poor and non-human life.
You may have noticed that I have started to take note of the so called "scientific" Journals and Newspapers who have reverted to what is best described as "name calling" when they descibe people who dont agree with "man made" climate change.
This issue has become so rife that even the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, resorts to "name calling" by using the word "denialists" as if it's an OK thing to do. How can you debate with, or have any respect for people who do that, what thay are doing in effect, is making sure they are taking a moral high ground.
The "D" word to throw back at them is "Disempower".
Whenever people are faced with "name calling", as if what you have to say is unworthy.......you should make it clear that they are trying to disempower you, they are trying to take a moral high ground by depriving you of power or influence in order to make their point. In this respect their argument of the science being settled and therefore not open to debate is a "straw man". Science has to stand up to debate and skepticism, and "man made" climate change is no differant, what we ALL need is DEBATE.
The President of the Royal Society can be seen to try and Disempower people with their views on "man made" climate change with the following article in the New York Times with name calling.
Whatever it is, here is a question for the editor of Nature to answer:
Should Nature.com readers assume that people who disagree with "man made" climate change are "naysayers", whatever that is, and that it is perfectly OK to print this expression in a scientific journal?
To take this further...........if you don't agree with people who disagree with "man made" climate change you can call them what you want and have it published in Nature.com......and what do I think of so call scientific publications who promote this view........they should be removed from the label of scientific status.
29 August 2012 - The Met Office long-term UK climate averages have leapt forward a decade into the 21st Century to give the most up-to-date picture of our climate today, as well as an insight into how it has changed.
These 30-year averages are a standard way of assessing climate, providing a benchmark for a 'normal' month, season or year across all parts of the UK. They are updated as soon as possible after the end of each decade.
The 1981-2010 averages have just been released, adding to the existing 1971-2000 and 1961-1990 averages. In future the monthly, seasonal and annual climate summaries for the UK will use these new 1981-2010 records as the benchmark period.
Figures for 1981-2010 show that the UK's annual mean temperature is 8.84 °C, and that we get 1154 mm of rain and have 1373 hours of sunshine on average each year. By looking at how these values have changed compared to previous 30-year averages, we can see some interesting trends.
The Met Office is commonly associated with producing forecasts for Earth. However, since February 2011, we have been working in partnership with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the British Geological Survey (BGS) to develop a UK-based space weather forecasting service that will monitor the way the Sun’s matter and energy changes and then predicts how these changes are likely to affect the Earth’s environment
The Sun is constantly moving and changing and often throws out large eruptions of plasma called Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) which can cause geomagnetic storms and send currents through power lines if they track towards and reach the Earth. These can then damage transformers and entire power grids. CMEs can also disrupt high frequency radio communications and GPS.
The last major geomagnetic storm affected Quebec, Canada on 13 March 1989 when six million people were plunged into darkness as their power grid failed.
The Met Office Hazard Centre currently has forecasters trained in space weather forecasting, and awareness is being raised across different industry sectors to make them aware of their potential vulnerability and how we can help lessen the risks.
The above YouTube and comments posted in February this year displays some images from the UK hot summer of 1976 showing people collecting water in buckets and signs placed from water companies to save water.
So far the historic data and reasoning is that 2012 will again be another very dry year for the South of England and we will again see similar images and warnings, but with one big difference, if I am not mistaken, and that is a full assault on the "Climate Realists" who have stood up to the "man made" climate change industry.
The message against us will be something like...."man made" co2 is responsible for the UK drought and water shortage and if we don't do something now we will expect more of the same.....it will also be put forward as further proof that the world is heating up, and they told us so.... etc.
On February 20th I posted Why did the latest England Drought Summit NOT include leading long range weather forecaster Piers Corbyn?. So did the "Drought Summit" get the best advise without the use of Piers Corbyn............According to those who attended the meeting Summer 2012 in the UK could be in store for a major drought situation just like 1976. I will keep you posted when more is known. A couple of questions will crop up during this crisis, the first will be, has the South of England enough reservoirs for the population and secondly what measures have been taken to create a desalination plant to help out in such emergencies. And one other thing....this will be going on during the Olympic Games...GR
...The Met Office said it was looking at ways to develop long-range forecasting.....Last year, the committee heard from the Royal Meteorological Society that more supercomputers were needed to carry out complex calculations and the potential economic benefits of more accurate forecasts were "enormous" in terms of improved contingency planning for emergencies.
The Met Office will NEVER produce long-range weather forecasts all the time they ignore the output of the Sun. If the Met Office got together with Piers Corbyn and WeatherAction.com they would have NO NEED of a super computer and have the best weather service in the world...GR
A recent, prolonged lull in the sun's activity did not prevent the Earth from absorbing more solar energy than it let escape back into space, a NASA analysis of the Earth's recent energy budget indicates.
An imbalance like this drives global warming — since more energy is coming in than leaving — and, because it occurred during a period when the sun was emitting comparatively low levels of energy, the imbalance has implications for the cause of global warming.
The results confirm greenhouse gases produced by human activities are the most important driver of global climate change, according to the researchers.
They found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low. By comparison, the planet receives 0.25 watts less energy per square meter during a solar minimum, than during a period of maximum activity in the sun's 11-year cycle. (Currently, the sun is in the midst of Solar Cycle 24, with activity expected to ramp up toward solar maximum in 2013.) .
CLICK to read the above report from Wynne Parry, LiveScience.com at Space.com