6 Responses to “Climate Adaptation Getting a Wider Hearing”

1. Keith Grubb says:

   April 4, 2011 at 4:32 pm

   I’m onboard, as long as it includes adaption for a colder planet, IMHO is exactly what we face.

2. r. murphy says:

   April 5, 2011 at 1:24 am

   So what  model would this compensation system resemble? Auto ins.? Who determines liability? How are damages assessed? How are the judgements enforced? How could this not possibly become another UN? How could we assure awards are actually used for mitigation? How might the system be aborted if natural variation proves to be king and we cool?

3. Barry Woods says:

   April 5, 2011 at 6:06 am

   there appears to be a big discussion amongst greens about nuclear.. both Lynas and Gerge monbiot seem to be turnong pro-nuclear from a real world climate change adaptation perspective.

   George Monbiot is burning some green bridges (in fact he is napalming them)
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

   George Monbiot: “The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.”
   “I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink ““ in most cases they referred to publications which had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (I have posted our correspondence, and my sources, on my website.) I have just read her book Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer. The scarcity of references to scientific papers and the abundance of unsourced claims it contains amaze me.
   For the last 25 years anti-nuclear campaigners have been racking up the figures for deaths and diseases caused by the Chernobyl disaster, and parading deformed babies like a medieval circus. They now claim 985,000 people have been killed by Chernobyl, and that it will continue to slaughter people for generations to come. These claims are false.”

   this is sacriligeeous talk amonst many environmentalists/greens. he’ll be called a heretic next.

4. Hannah says:

   April 5, 2011 at 7:00 am

   …. George is obviously curious enough to ask questions and open minded enough to look at the facts and make up his own mind, also if it means changing his mind”¦”¦”¦.. hats off.

5. Barry Woods says:

   April 5, 2011 at 7:19 am

   I am also impressed, remember he also called for Jone’s resignation when bad behaviour and FOI issues came to light…

   He also said following reading a book very critical of him, had to change his mind on meat production and waters/resources consumption (can’t find the link) which was another green icon. Similalry said on the record that SOlar is a con in the UK (ie viable where lots of sun) just not the UK on current technologies. lots of greens got upset abouthat as well

   personally I think, when he eventually realises that AGW is an almost exact parallel and he hasn’t really looked at that yet, he might be a bit upset 😉

   ie. how curious has he been before with the IPCC (how much non peer reviewed stuff has greenpeace and the WWF got in?) much of CAGW he has perhaps taken on similar trust to anti-nuclear lobbying greens. Cognotive dissonance at work?

   The commentors are not being kind to him at CiF, many seem to want to beliebve in 100’s of thousands of deaths due to chernobyl, as it sits within their world view, despite the facts.

6. Hannah says:

   April 5, 2011 at 7:44 am

   Barry, I actually, in the name of keeping an open mind, went to one of his “left-hook” debates. Well, it was more like a lefties “love fest” to be honest but the guy is clearly not stupid. Hilariously enough he seemed rather taken aback by some of the comments from his devout followers. Sadly I had to leave before “Question Time” ;o)