Rachel Maddow takes on Glenn Beck and his insistent lies, in this instance about global warming and what he has claimed and not claimed.
This guy's relationship with the truth is tenuous to say the least.
This idiocy appears to be everywhere on Fox News. If it snows on the East Coast of the US, then this is proof that global warming is a hoax.
Glenn Beck goes on to state that "the progressive agenda is more important than the truth to these people", using the recent snowfall as further proof that progressives cannot be trusted.
Greg Gutfield pops up on Hannity to proclaim the recent snow as "the death knell of the climate change world. It's over... We are watching desperation in motion. I love it."
It's mind-numbing to watch an entire TV network lend itself to this kind of idiocy.
I mean, who cares what those pesky scientists are saying...
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.Glenn and Insanity say it's all hot air - pun intended - so let's go with them....
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel Maddow takes on Hannity's idiocy.
This has got to be the coldest winter that I have ever experienced. Normally we get snow for a few days in winter - every couple of years - and that's the end of it.
This year the snow has not gone away and I've awoken this morning to find that yet more of it has fallen overnight. There has now been snow for the past two weeks and temperatures in some parts of Britain have fallen to as low as -15 degrees.
And today, for only the second time in history, a gas balancing alert has been issued warning people that the country might run out of gas.
When we speak of global warming we tend to think only of things getting hotter but the truth is that what we will experience is much more weather variations at both ends of the spectrum.Meanwhile, the National Grid issued a gas balancing alert, for only the second time, asking for less gas use as it brought in more overseas supplies.
The extra gas being brought in - including supplies from Belgium and Norway - is necessary to meet rising demand after a 30% rise on normal seasonal use during the cold snap.
The gas balancing alert (GBA) was issued on Monday afternoon. It warns customers to reduce fuel consumption and encourages suppliers to bring in more gas.
The only previous time a GBA was used was in March 2006.
I am reluctant to say that there is clearly something changing in our weather, as we all know that aberrations can take place from year to year and it would take at least a decade before we could say that we can see a pattern.The BBC weather centre said in most areas where snow had fallen overnight, it would amount to "a good covering of a few centimetres," however there could be as much as 10cm (4ins) in areas such as the Pennines.
There have also been snow showers across both northern and southern Scotland, also of "a few centimetres".
The weather centre said that later in the morning snow showers would become more frequent across the rest of Wales and into the Midlands and south-west England.
And into Tuesday evening there is the possibility of very heavy snow showers across southern England.
The centre said temperatures have averaged around -5C (23F) in towns across the UK, although in some remote rural areas, such as the highlands of Scotland, temperatures were predicted to fall as low as -15C (5F) during the early hours of Tuesday morning.
In China more than 2.2 million pupils in Beijing and nearby Tianjin enjoyed a day off as officials took the rare step of closing thousands of schools. Temperatures in the Chinese capital are expected to fall to –18C on Tuesday night, with predictions they could reach –32C in the northernmost parts of the country by Wednesday morning.That's simply horrendous.
Mark Lynas has an article in today's Guardian which lays the blame for the lack of success at Copenhagen squarely at the door of China:
You can read the whole thing by clicking here.Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
China stand accused of having "systematically wrecked" the Copenhagen climate summit because it feared being tied to a legally binding target to cut the country's soaring carbon emissions.
A source present as heads of state and government drafted the final document gave this account to The Independent:[T]he key element of the agreement, a timetable for making its commitments legally binding by this time next year, was taken out at the last minute at the insistence of the Chinese, who otherwise would have refused to agree to the deal.
Also removed, at Chinese insistence, was a statement of a global goal to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, and for the developed world to cut its emissions by 80 per cent by the same date. The latter is regarded as essential if the world is to stay below the danger threshold of a two-degree Centigrade temperature rise.
The "50-50" and "50-80" goals have already been accepted by the G20 group of nations and world leaders who were negotiating the agreement, including Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Kevin Rudd of Australia. They were said to be amazed at the Chinese demands, especially over the developed nations' goal. The European official said: "China thinks that by 2050 it will be a developed country and they do not want to constrain their growth."
Welcome to what the world might look like once the Chinese overtake the Americans. They sound as intransigent as any Republicans."There were 25 heads of state in the room; this was about six o'clock on Friday night. To my right there was President Obama in the corner, with Gordon Brown on one side, the Ethiopian President on the other, the President of Mexico, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea...
"If China had not been in that room you would have had a deal which would have had everyone popping champagne corks. But this was the first sign that China is emerging as a superpower, which is not interested in global government, is not interested in multilateral governance that affects its own sovereignty or growth. You could tell this lack of engagement through the process; they play a much cleverer game than anyone else. They were running rings around the Americans.
"It's always easier to block than to try and get something. The Americans will probably be given some of the blame because that's the conventional narrative all the pressure groups have – that the rich countries are bad, they didn't give enough money or they would not create enough mitigation targets."
The source went on: "But the truth is, I was in that meeting and the 'Annex 1', rich countries had mitigation targets of 80 per cent by 2050 which everyone supported, and it was taken out by the Chinese. The deal was watered down because the Chinese wouldn't accept any targets of any sort, for anybody. Not themselves or anybody else. Legally binding stuff was taken out by the Chinese as well and there was a lot of anger in the room. It was controlled but it was very, very clear what the feelings were.
"The Chinese were happy as they'd win either way. If the process collapsed they'd win because they don't have to do anything and they know the rich countries will get the blame.
"If the deal doesn't collapse because everyone is so desperate to accommodate them that they water it down to something completely meaningless, they get their way again. Either way they win. I think all the other world leaders knew that by that stage and were just furious that they couldn't do anything about it.
I love it when ridiculous American climate change deniers step away from their Fox News platform and into the real world. When they get there, they are often surprised by the reaction of journalists, as they are so used to being taken seriously by nutcases like Hannity.
This happened yesterday to the father of climate change deniers, Jim Inhofe, when he flew into Copenhagen to tell the world that there was no such thing as climate change and that it was all a grand hoax.
At a sparsely attended news conference he was rounded on by the European press, or at least by the very few who bothered to attend:
With that he slunk back to the US.But Inhofe’s aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman — wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots — held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center.
“We in the United States owe it to the 191 countries to be well-informed and know what the intentions of the United States are. The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”
A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”
“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”
One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”
Obama has called it "meaningful" and "a first step", which was the first sign that Copenhagen might not have delivered everything that we all hoped for.
Known as the Copenhagen Accord, the new agreement falls massively short of the ambitions many people had centred on the two-week meeting in the Danish capital, in the hope of a major new effort to combat the global warming threat. Although in principle it commits – for the first time – all the countries of the world, including the developing countries, to cut their emissions of the greenhouse gases which are causing climate change, the accord is not legally binding, merely a political statement.I think Obama is right when he states that this will be "hard to achieve", especially as India and China are being asked to cut back on emissions at a time when some of their population are still without electricity.
They key timetable for turning it into a legal instrument by this time next year, which is what the world desperately needs so that cuts in CO2 emissions really are carried out, was dropped from the text during the immensely difficult and seemingly-intractable talks which lasted all day and late into the evening. In effect, that makes it toothless. Mr Obama himself admitted that a binding deal would be "hard to achieve".
So, it is easy to be disappointed at how little was actually achieved; but, after the years of the Bush administration, in which the US refused to even ratify Kyoto, we should acknowledge the fact that an agreement has been reached at all.The day's most remarkable feature was a direct and unprecedented personal clash between the US President, Barack Obama, and the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, in which Mr Wen took deep offence at Mr Obama's insistence – in public – that the Chinese should allow their promised cuts in greenhouse gases to be internationally verified. When the President, in an unyielding speech, said that without international verification "any agreement would be empty words on a page", that was too much for Mr Wen. He left the conference in Copenhagen's Bella Centre, returned to his hotel in the city, and responded with a direct snub of his own – he sent low-level delegates to take his place in the talks.
A high-level source told The Independent that the US President was amazed when he found who he was negotiating with, and clearly regarded Mr Wen's absence as a major diplomatic insult. He snapped: "It would be nice to negotiate with somebody who can make political decisions" although last night urgent diplomatic efforts were underway to try to bring the two leaders face to face for a second round of talks, to patch up the disagreement.
It's refreshing to hear a Republican abandon the general right wing madness on this subject and accept what scientists are actually saying on this subject.
Gordon Brown has condemned Saudi Arabian and American Republican sceptics of climate change as being "flat Earth" cynics.
Denying this problem until it's too big to fix appears to be an obsession - nay, a religion - amongst the far right.Sceptics in the UK and the US have moved to capitalise on a series of hacked emails from climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia, claiming they show attempts to hide information that does not support the case for human activity causing rising temperatures.
On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US Congress have used the emails to claim the need for urgent action to cut carbon emissions has been undermined.
But tonight the prime minister, his environment secretary, Ed Miliband, and Ed Markey, the man who co-authored the US climate change bill, joined forces to condemn the sceptics.
"With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics," Brown told the Guardian. "We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal."
"It is profoundly irresponsible for people like Nigel Lawson, who has held high office, and David Davis to be doing what they are doing. It is very dangerous. People sabotaging the [Copenhagen] process deserve the name saboteur," Miliband said. "There are interests who do not want an agreement at Copenhagen. Anyone who comes forward at this moment and starts saying 'we can stick our heads in the sand' is irresponsible."David Davis went as far as to claim that the leaked emails seemed to show leading scientists "conspiring to rig the figures to support their theories". Oh, how the right wing have come to love their conspiracy theories.
I don't quite understand how denying something which, in the scientific world, is almost universally accepted, has become such a defining principle to so many on the far right, but it undeniably has.All of the top 10 Tory bloggers either doubt or dismiss the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity, according to a survey of the views of top Conservative thinkers on the web. The views run counter to David Cameron's focus on environment issues and will deal a blow to his hopes of changing the Tory party's anti-green image.
All 10 bloggers, including MPs, MEPS and key Tory thinkers, reject or question the view that climate change is caused by humans, and many disagree with their leader that addressing it should be an urgent policy priority if they win power.
The Obama administration are coming to Copenhagen with a proposed target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, although they are keeping their figure to between 14% and 20% from the 2005 level, as they say they have to be realistic about what they can legislate.
I'm presuming that Obama is taking this stance because he still has to get anything he agrees to through the house and I suspect the Republicans will do their damnedest to prevent him from achieving anything on this subject."The one thing the president has made clear is we want to take action consistent with the legislative process," the official told reporters. "[We] don't want to get out ahead or be at odds with what can be produced through legislation.
The Observer reported on Sunday that the US was considering a "provisional target" at Copenhagen.
Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, told the Observer: "What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation."
Some say that he is spreading himself too thin, but I love the fact that he hasn't given up on the battle against climate change.
As he says here, "the naysayers are becoming marginalised."
There is a serious rift developing between the Obama administration and Europe over how to best tackle climate change, especially over the structure of a new worldwide treaty on global warming.
And it appears that this is all to do with the Republican party's refusal to accept global warming as the threat which almost every other nation on Earth recognises it to be.
I don't think there are any European leaders who do not accept that Obama is serious on the subject of climate change in a way in which his predecessor was not. And I think we can all agree that Kyoto is regarded as poisonous in Washington.The dispute between the US and Europe is over the way national carbon reduction targets would be counted. Europe has been pushing to retain structures and systems set up under the Kyoto protocol, the existing global treaty on climate change. US negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design.
The issue is highly sensitive and European officials are reluctant to be seen to openly criticise the Obama administration, which they acknowledge has engaged with climate change in a way that President Bush refused to. But they fear the US move could sink efforts to agree a robust new treaty in Copenhagen.
The US distanced itself from Kyoto under President Bush because it made no demands on China, and the treaty remains political poison in Washington. European negotiators knew the US would be reluctant to embrace Kyoto, but they hoped they would be able to use it as a foundation for a new agreement.
If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a replacement framework, the source added, a delay that could strike a terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. "In Europe we want to build on Kyoto, but the US proposal would in effect kill it off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes time. It could be 2015 or 2016 before something is in place, who knows."
International law supersedes domestic law, and in the US it does so by becoming the supreme law of the land, so it is a bizarre point that the Obama administration is trying to make here.The US is yet to offer full details on how its scheme might work, though a draft "implementing agreement" submitted to the UN by the Obama team in May contained a key clause that emissions reductions would be subject to "conformity with domestic law".
Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being forced to implement international action it does not agree with. Farhana Yamin, an environmental lawyer with the Institute of Development Studies, who worked on Kyoto, said: "It seems a bit backwards. The danger is that the domestic tail starts to wag the international dog."
I can understand Europe's frustration with Obama's position. But, when he requires a two-thirds majority to get any treaty ratified by the US Senate, I understand where Obama is coming from as well. He is facing a Republican party who will say no at any opportunity.The move reflects a "prehistoric" level of debate on climate change in the wider US, according to another high-ranking European official, and anxiety in the Obama administration about its ability to get a new global treaty ratified in the US Senate, where it would require a two-thirds majority vote. The US has not ratified a major international environment treaty since 1992 and President Clinton never submitted the Kyoto protocol for approval, after a unanimous Senate vote indicated it would be rejected on economic grounds.
The US proposal for unilateral rule-setting "is all about getting something through the Senate," the source said. "But I don't have the feeling that the US has thought through what it means for the Copenhagen agreement."
According to Pat Buchanan, the Republican party are in great shape, global warming is a hoax, and Al Gore's belief in global warming is similar to the birthers beliefs about Obama's birth certificate.
Buchanan is their perfect representative at the moment. He lives totally in his own world. A world built, exclusively, by whites according to Pat.
This is why it was so important for the world to have Barack Obama elected:
Under the previous administration this would simply have been impossible to imagine. Not only because country's like China and India might go on polluting, but because somewhere deep down the Bush administration loathed all talk of climate change as lefty tree hugging.The world's richest nations agreed last night to cut their carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 in a dramatic attempt to secure a new global deal to combat climate change.
Leaders of the G8 group of countries also agreed to set a limit of C on global temperature rises, the first time they have imposed such a ceiling. In return, they urged developing countries including China and India to cut their emissions by 50 per cent over the same period.
President Barack Obama cleared the way for what Gordon Brown called an "historic agreement" at the G8 summit in Italy by signing the US up to a firm emissions target for the first time – a complete contrast to the intransigence of his predecessor, George Bush. The G8 move is designed to revitalise United Nations-led talks on a global "son of Kyoto" agreement, which reach a climax in Copenhagen in December.
Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
And I suppose he was right. But I am left doubting the benefits of democracy every time I realise that a supposedly educated electorate elected this dumbass to represent them.
Sometimes you read things which leave you open mouthed. Like this:
America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, with key players spending $44.5m in the first three months of this year in an intense effort to cut off support for Barack Obama's plan to build a clean energy economy.
The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
A defeat for the bill would have global consequences.
These guys come across like the bad guys in a Batman movie. And yet, mark my words, we will see Republicans taking to the airwaves and spouting whatever silly talking points these guys come up with. Their aim, as always, will not be to win the argument - which they simply can never win - but it will be to slap the bottom of the pond and, hopefully, to muddy the water enough to give the Republicans cover to vote against such a blatantly sensible policy.
Environmental groups are being vastly outspent in advertising by the major corporations, which is to be expected in such a major battle. But, whilst this might give welcome cover for Republicans to oppose Obama's bill, there is simply no excuse for any Democrat to do the same.Despite its global significance, the fate of the draft "cap and trade" bill now lies in the hands of just a dozen Democrats, who have yet to back Obama's energy transformation. The Democratic leadership cannot take their support for granted. Seven of those pivotal Democrats received campaign donations in excess of $100,000 from the oil and gas industry, coal producers, and electricity firms during last year's elections, according to an analysis provided to the Guardian by the Centre for Responsive Politics. Another two received more than $90,000 last year.
Environmentalists say those Democrats, who hold the balance of power on the committee, pose a far greater threat to the chances of passing climate change legislation than a full vote in the House of Representatives. "If they can get that bill through the subcommittee what is going to emerge is a piece of legislation," said Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund. "So this is ground zero for the vote."
New Labour appear to be following Obama's lead in seeing the recent collapse in the financial markets as a way to question the rigidity of the market based philosophy of the past thirty years.
The problem with a market based approach is that the market is obsessed with one thing and one thing alone: profit. The market does not consider the public good, it does not question whether the areas in which it makes profit are good for the environment or not, it simply asks if there is money to be made in that area.In an interview with The Independent, Lord Mandelson said the drive could create hundreds of thousands of jobs in hi-tech and low-carbon industries over the next 10 years, to compensate for the smaller financial services sector that will emerge from the current recession.
The new strategy marks a reversal of the Government's free-market approach since Labour won power in 1997, as ministers follow the bailout of Britain's ailing banks by intervening in other key areas of industry.
The Business Secretary said: "If markets fail or don't work efficiently, government has a role to play – as we saw in the financial markets." He insisted: "The Government's job is not to substitute for markets or displace the private sector. We are not into bailing out the past, but removing the barriers to investing in the future."
His "strategic plan" will be a central part of a "going for growth" Budget to be announced by Alistair Darling on Wednesday.
It could lead to hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money being used to fund the expansion of "green" industry. Projects funded could include wind, wave and nuclear power, and electric and hybrid cars. Digital communications, pharmaceuticals, life sciences, aerospace, business services and electronics may also be in line for such "green" funding.
The idea that the market would always self correct was one of Reagan and Thatcher's barmiest ones, and it certainly ignored the fact that a market which pursued only profit could not be expected to acknowledge other global realities such as global warming.Claiming the interventionist approach would help Britain emerge more quickly from the downturn, he said: "We have to grow our way out of this recession, not simply sit back on our hands, do nothing about it and let events take their course." The shift is designed to answer criticism from business that other governments, notably France, are doing more to help their domestic industries than Britain is. "We cannot be the odd one out," Lord Mandelson said. He insisted the change would not mean "economic nationalism", because the Government still supported open markets and free trade.
The Business Secretary added: "To justify government action, there will have to be a real opportunity to make a difference, and any government initiative must make a genuine long-term impact to give value for money to the taxpayer."
Other proposals include: ensuring that high-growth, high-innovation firms get the financing they need; more government support for exporters; more aid to turn bright ideas into "world-beating" products; and exploiting opportunities created by university researchers.
The document insists the Government will not "pick winners", opt for state ownership of industry, "override market forces or ignore market signals". Its new activism "does not imply a fundamental change in our view of the relationship between the market and the state.... However, the way the Government sees its own role in the market needs to change in order to deliver a more coherent and effective approach." This means "a readiness to intervene where necessary" by "supplementing" rather than "substituting itself for the market" and "correcting significant market failures."
It says the credit crunch showed that markets cannot be relied upon to serve the public interest. "In future there should be no barriers of mind-set that hold back sensible and prudent intervention," it adds. "This is not activism for its own sake." While not denying Britain "the huge benefits of free enterprise," the Government recognises that the private sector "has important limits."It's taken nearly thirty years for someone to say that. The market does not serve the public interest, it serves the needs of shareholders. The two things are not synonymous.
It was hard to listen to Gordon Brown's plea to the American Congress and to imagine him making such a plea during the Bush years. It would simply have appeared as an utter waste of everyone's time.
He was, of course, recognising that the Bush years were over, and with them, hopefully, the days of American unilateralism.The prime minister's 36-minute speech won 19 standing ovations but was, at crucial moments, received in silence on the Republican side of the aisle as he made the case for a united global effort to revive economies and to turn away from the Bush doctrine on the environment.
Brown said that during this peacetime crisis it was the task of government as "the representatives of the people to be the people's last line of defence".
Urging Congress to have "faith in the future" and in itself, he won strong applause when he called on members to recognise "now more than ever the world wants to work with you".
Brown tried to challenge as well as flatter in the speech, which was delivered to a crowded, but not completely full, chamber. He urged the joint meeting of both houses to sign a climate change agreement this year by saying: "I believe that you, the nation that had the vision to put a man on the moon are also the nation with the vision to protect and preserve our planet Earth." It was notable that the Republicans sat stony in response while the Democrats applauded.But he managed to lose the Democrats and the Republicans when he delivered the message that he traveled across the ocean to deliver.
It was a noble effort, and I thought a good enough speech, but I doubt that Brown is enough of a star player for this good speech to have much impact in the United States.Brown also challenged Congress by asking: "Should we succumb to a race to the bottom, and a protectionism that history tells us that in the end protects no one? No. We should have the confidence that we can seize the opportunities ahead and make the future work for us."
Neither side of the aisle applauded, but the prime minister forced his argument, predicting that the stricken global economy would double in size over the next 20 years as China and India became consumers of goods from the west on a massive scale.
He won his strongest applause - again mainly from Democrats - when he argued that "wealth must help more than wealthy, and riches must enrich not just some of our community but all our community". The Democrats also lit up when he demanded an end to offshore tax havens.
For let us remember there is a common bond that unites us as human beings across different beliefs, cultures and nationalities. It is at the core of my convictions, the essence of America's spirit and the heart of all faiths And it must be at the centre of our response to the crisis of today. At their best, our values tell us that we cannot be wholly content while others go without, cannot be fully comfortable while millions go without comfort, cannot be truly happy while others grieve alone.It was hard to listen to Brown speaking without hearing Obama stating, "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper."
Viewed from my window it looks like a winter wonderland but the Met Office are warning that we are actually witnessing, "an extreme weather event" and that the snow is set to stay for the next week.
On TV they are warning that it might get as cold a minus 5 and the BBC are currently telling me that it is "very dangerous out there".The heaviest snow for two decades moved into Britain on a freezing easterly wind last night after gathering strength over the North Sea. Falls of up to 10cm (4in) are predicted initially on the south-east coast and inland as far as London before the storms head north.
It was already causing chaos last night as trains were delayed and some airport runways temporarily closed. Gatwick and London City airports were both temporarily shut as their runways were de-iced, although City failed to reopen, as it closes ordinarily at 10pm. A Gatwick spokeswoman said that 23 flights had been cancelled and 18 diverted, although the runway reopened at 10pm.
A number of train services linking London and the south coast were also delayed or cancelled as snow drifted on to the tracks. And all London bus services were withdrawn, according to Transport for London's website.
High ground in Kent and Sussex could see as much as 20cm fall. "Severe disruption to roads and airports is extremely probable during the peak of the Monday afternoon rush hour," said Tom Defty, head of forecasting operations at MetService.
Contrast that with what is currently taking place in Australia:So, in Australia they are suffering from excessive heat whilst, here in London, we are witnessing "an extreme weather event" which is so cold that you have to look back some twenty years to find anything comparable. And what is happening here is set, for the first time anyone can remember, to last for a week.Leaves are falling off trees in the height of summer, railway tracks are buckling, and people are retiring to their beds with deep-frozen hot-water bottles, as much of Australia swelters in its worst-ever heatwave.
On Friday, Melbourne thermometers topped 43C (109.4F) on a third successive day for the first time on record, while even normally mild Tasmania suffered its second-hottest day in a row, as temperatures reached 42.2C. Two days before, Adelaide hit a staggering 45.6C. After a weekend respite, more records are expected to be broken this week.
Ministers are blaming the heat – which follows a record drought – on global warming. Experts worry that Australia, which emits more carbon dioxide per head than any nation on earth, may also be the first to implode under the impact of climate change.
Barack Obama appears to be perfectly serious about tackling climate change and has appointed one of the world's leading climate change experts as his administration's chief scientist.
Obama is breaking away from the last eight years of "do nothing" politics, breaking away from Bush's habit of appointing people to top positions who come from the very industry's whose actions have been harming the environment and is appointing the kind of people who most understand what needs to be done, even if we don't like what it is that they tell us.The president-elect's decision to make Harvard physicist John Holdren director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy reveals a new determination to draw a line under eight years of US policy that have seen George Bush steadfastly reject overwhelming evidence of climate change.
News of the appointment was hailed by scientists around the world, including former UK chief government scientific adviser Sir David King. "This is a superb appointment," he told the Observer. "Holdren is a top-rate scientist and his position on climate change is as clear as you could get. This is a signal from Barack Obama that he means business when it comes to dealing with global warming."
Obama also used his weekend radio address to announce that respected climatologist Jane Lubchenco is to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The appointments follow Obama's selection of Steven Chu, a Nobel prizewinner, to the Department of Energy, where he has been directed to lead the development of alternative energy sources.
"Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation," Obama announced. "It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and ... worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology."
In one telling remark, he added that respect for the scientific process was not "just about providing investment and resources. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted nor obscured by politics nor ideology."For far too long both politics and ideology have been used by the Bush administration to obscure scientific facts.
Holdren, whose expertise runs from nuclear-weapons proliferation to global warming, recently warned in a speech at Harvard that he considered "global warming" to be a misnomer. "It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign, and what we're experiencing is none of those. There is already widespread harm ... occurring from climate change. This is not just a problem for our children and our grandchildren."This change in attitude at the highest level of the US government when it comes to the issue of climate change is long overdue.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
