Politicians failing on climate change, says UK’s adviser
Climate Change Committee Chairman Lord Deben
(CNS): The British government’s official climate change adviser and the chair of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben (John Gummer), has said politicians and policymakers are failing to rise to the challenge of a rapidly warming planet. Pointing to the mounting evidence and trends, from melting polar ice to record temperatures and rising sea levels, the Conservative peer called on politicians to act with more urgency. “The thing that I want to bring home to policymakers is that this is increasingly urgent,” he said after the publication of his committee’s annual progress report.
The UK will miss its legally binding carbon budgets in 2025 and 2030 because of failures in cutting emissions. This news comes at a time when the whole planet is dealing with record-breaking temperatures and an avalanche of news about alarming climate-related events.
Deben said that while no single weather event could be attributed to climate change, the signs of a planet in crisis were undeniable. “This is extremely urgent because these things are now happening much more often and – in aggregate – it is clearly because of climate change.”
Maintaining that mankind is responsible for fuelling climate change, he said it was “no good saying ‘oh well, it will all work out one way or another’. We are responsible, and if we don’t take on that responsibility we are shoving it on to our children and no parent should do that in any circumstances.”
The proportion of people in the United States who believe climate change is real and human-caused is higher than it has been for more than ten years. The annual survey conducted by Muhlenberg College found 73% of Americans surveyed believe there is solid scientific evidence of climate change, while 60% said they believe humans are at least partially responsible for the rising temperatures.
“One reason is simply the evidence,” said Chris Borick, a Muhlenberg College political scientist who helped launch the survey in 2008. “The evidence of declining polar ice that seems stronger every year. I think Americans are now, on the whole, coming to terms that we’re living in a different climate.”
The survey found that political persuasions remain the biggest indication of who believes in climate change as right wing special interest groups have been very successful at sowing doubt in the phenomenon. But now, regardless of their political persuasion, more people are experiencing the impact of climate change themselves, which scientists believe is undermining climate change deniers.
The recent record-high belief in climate change science corresponds with record-high temperatures observed by climatologists this year. May was the hottest May ever recorded, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But people’s own observations factored into the survey results, as they notice their gardens growing differently or dwindling snowfall.
“Experiences with weather do have influence on views of climate change,” Borick said. “I think it’s part of the equation.”
Category: Science & Nature, Weather
Believers don’t really believe it either. If they did they would view it as an existential threat. When people are faced with an existential threat, in this case human caused global warming they don’t:
Use airplanes
Drive anywhere except to work or to get life preserving essentials
Use air conditioning whatsoever
Cut their lawn or trim their trees
Use a cell phone except in emergencies or for work
Buy any products that through manufacturing contribute to global warming (all of them) unless to preserve their life
Use computers or the internet to post inane comments or check their social media
Greedy so called developed countries created this environmental mess. Now they want poor people to pay for it. I bet they have the “solution” which they will compel you to pay for; at the same time enriching themselves some more. They gave you your “devil and You “saviour”. If you complain they will call you a racist,terrorist and other terms to deflect you from thinking. They invented and maintain the racist world control system to benefit a select few. You are only a pawn in their evil system. You don’t have to believe me, just examine who controls the world’s economic policies and if you are not programmed to see through their lenses you would “know”
replies here make you lose faith in humanity/intelligence….. believe in science….or belive in youtube nonsense funded by oil industry,,,,,
These politicians knows how to put a tax on the issue, but don’t know how fix/prevent the issue from going any further. They themselves need fixing .
This man is the new Jesus Lord and master don’t crucify. It makes sense. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles machines cleaner air no pollution greener grass trees a new beginning for the present and future generation to come where there is no fog of diesel smoke not even carbon monoxide. Experience teaches a fool to be wise through experience not age. But the rich make these things not politicians the politicians only keep them going for collections.
I believe the Earth is doing what it has done before in the past ( ice age then melting). I really don’t believe we can do anything about it. We could make Cayman higher? But then all the environmentalists would have a protest. I say fill the swamp and make it as high as the landfill. Then IF the sea rises quicker then we anticipate, we can at least have someplace to run to.
Fear not, Jon Jon got this.
100,000+ scientists with decades of training and education, lifetimes of research experience and profound knowledge of their subject = Climate change is real, we must do something
Vs.
Handful of useful idiots taking 5 mins to watch a Youtube video funded by polluters with a financial incentive to keep polluting = ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!!1 THEY JUST TRYNA RIP US OFF!!!1!!!
SMDH
100000 + scientists. What a crock. Put a link to that list. You actually believe the bs youre shoveling?? Complete loonacy.
You couldn’t get 98% of scientist to agree what the actual temperature is inside a supermarket. But of course they all agree within decimal points of the actual temperature of the globe for the last 3billiin year. What utter crock of shit!!
Stop being pigeons people.
Yea, I think you need help.
What a mess the world is in; countries are “legally binded” to combat the farce that is “global warming” / “climate change”.
I would call it pseudoscience, but that would be a compliment.
First world citizens better wake up quick and see that their governments and “respected organisations” are full of absolute and money-grubbing CRAP!
Idiot
You scared bro?
Love that. I’m getting a t-shirt made with that line.
so Moses now sayin its pointless wasting money on piers when dem cruise ships will be able to float all de way up cardinal avenue and drop the customers right at those jewelry shop doors?
News flash; this is not the only thing our elected representatives are ineffective at. A shorter list would be just what are they any good at except collecting a pay check. Guess MLA Harris can make the rounds on talk shows with the PPM propaganda.
Women beater Harris, you mean?
Anything we do in the Cayman Islands is about as useless as trying to blow out a forest fire with a breath.
caymankind….
The writer is right! Cayman could plant mangroves over 100% of the island. It won’t have a any impact in reversing climate change; as long as the “developed” countries continue to do what they do!!! Not “Caymankind”….fact!
Cayman cannot solve the problem themselves. However, they can choose to either part of the problem or part of the solution.
In other words Cayman can enact regulations that harm Caymanians and residents financially and do net zero to mitigate global warming.
Yeah sounds wonderful.
How about harms us 0.1 and helps 0.2 (use whatever metric to compare oranges to apples that you like). Is that OK?
Or we could focus on adaptation, so help the world 0.2, help Cayman 0.7 and cost 0.1. That sounds even better.
3.49pm you need to wash in cold water to cool yourself down. As for waxing profoundly I think your wax will soon melt.
All of Lord Derbin’s quotes above are a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority; he uses his own opinion as evidence of the veracity of his claim.
Climate change is anything but a foregone conclusion, and to cherry-pick recent wx events as evidence of a long-term trend is extremely disingenuous.
CNS, why don’t you organise a debate, with rules and procedures and allow us a small forum section in which we can wax profoundly with supporting links.
I have grown weary of people like Lord Derbin talking to us, the great unwashed, as though we are children without a lick o’ sense.
Here’s a hint for those of you with a nose for the truth: Follow the money of the carbon business and see in which way and how they benefit. There is no question that every place humanity settles, it compromises and contaminates the Earth. The question is, is a gas for which all life on Earth depends, responsible for these horrors which we are told will occur?
yep…keep swallowing the fake news. you believe in a conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists worldwide???….you are lost……………..zzzzzzzzzzzz
Trillions worth of taxes globally and hundreds of billions in research grants tend to sway people and opinions. Just FYI with regard to your pure incorruptible science people. We can certainly see this virtue also exampled by politicians around the world? Isn’t that right pigeon?
100’s of billions, trillions of dollars?! LOL. If science was funded to that degree we’d all be living on Mars by now!
Also, do you think there’s no money in oil & gas?! Absolutely no massive financial incentive to muddy the waters on climate change?
SMDH
As if oil and gas companies do live on this planet too. That’s a stupid argument.
Educate yourself pigeon. Over 312 billion spent on reasearch alone as of 2012.. never mind the total tax revenue of global carbon taxes
You can’t debate with the obsessed fundamentalist science deniers who have bought into denying climate change as part of a political agenda which prioritises nationalism over international co-operation.
I hope we’re both around in 50 years when Mount Trashmore is the only part of Grand Cayman above the high tide mark.
I’d love to hear what you have to say.
So, because life on earth is carbon based you feel that there can never be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? That’s blatantly flawed logic.
Judging by your comment you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of climate change influenced by human activity. You might not see climate change as a forgone conclusion but the vast majority of qualified climate scientists do… What are your qualifications? If you don’t know what you are talking about, feel free to refrain from misleading people with your incorrect unsubstantiated opinion.
During the Cambrian period. The Co2 levels were at 7000 ppm. How can that be, and what brought it down since then? Also, what is the correct climate of the earth for this epoch mr. Science man?
1) Geochemical Processes – Atmospheric carbon is constantly getting bound into rock, etc., and released (its a cycle). To hyper-simplify, think of coal, oil, etc. That was prehistoric atmospheric carbon that became geochemical carbon.
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Drivers_of_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration
– https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
2) The correct temperature, for me, is one NOT hot enough to bleach coral reefs. 1.5 To Stay Alive.
– http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/21/1-5-to-stay-alive-uns-warming-goal-feels-the-heat/
And yet according to scientists, the earth temperatures were cooler during the Cambrian period. Further, a drop in global temperature preceded a drop in co2 levels during Ordovician period. The same is true in the Silurian period only in reverse. A temperature rise comes before a rise in co2. During the cretaceous period, temps rose and co2 declined over a period of 100 million years. Naturally, this is all explained away as uncertainty where there’s a divergence in the narrative. But when the charts fit the narrative everything is absolute.
Scientist that disagree with the narrative are maligned and ostracized. Sad so many people have bought into the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.
“According to scientists…”?
And yet, according to scientists, climate change today is real.
Exactly, a point that you seemed to have missed. Thanks for adding the “quotes”…lol
So you didn’t bother reading the link which debunks your spurious red herrings. (Figured you would go there.) Good job. You proved what they say about you right: Can’t be reasoned with.
PS> The links are for those honestly trying to understand what’s going on and willing to listen.
Sure, have read many links and looked at many graphs and charts. Read articles promoting AWG and others that are critical of AGW. Where the charts diverge from the narrative there’s always “uncertainty”.
Your links have nothing to do with my comment.
When temperature goes one way and co2 goes the other over and over on the “scientific” charts then you have to wonder. Apparently, you have blind faith that scientists have figure out how that happened 200, 300, 400 million years ago. I think you’ve been had.
While co2 levels can be reasonably measured historically through core samples, temperature is pretty much a wag before modern instruments. Wild assed guess.
Why don’t you try and do some critical thinking on your own.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! The correct temperature is to not bleach coral reefs????? You think this is the first time in the history of the earth coral was bleached??? There is coral on top of the Cayman brac bluff!! You utter blistering moron!!!
Geologic uplift. (Not coral bleaching.) Next not-a-point?
Do you think the coral was bleached as the seas were lowering? Bleaching == coral death. There are myriads of reasons for this not just climate change and there is no proof or compelling evidence that “global warming” is causing coral Death! Pure speculation.
What brought down the high carbon dioxide levels during the Cambrian period were, among other things:
a) The tropical rain forests of the carboniferous period that we see today as coal seams. Coal is at least 65% carbon and it all came from the atmosphere.
b) The laying down of up to 1000 feet of limestone during the carboniferous period. Limestone is at least 20% carbon and it all came indirectly from the atmosphere.
c) The hundreds of feet of chalk laid down during the Cretaceous period. Chalk is at least 25% carbon and it all came indirectly from the atmosphere.
When coal is burnt, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
Any other questions?
So what you are saying is that the earrh did it. But it cant do it *this time* so we need carbon taxes and al gore to fix it.
Bingo
Please don’t try and use science, when you clearly don’t understand science.
Thanks for that.
I’ll tell Nick McCave that he ran a rubbish department when he was Professor of Earth Sciences during the time I studied with him.