Thought You’d Seen Every Conceivable Position on Climate Change and its Mitigation?  Nope.

fli-food-production-climate-changeHere’s a radio interview that aired yesterday with British MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who appears likely to take over control of the Conservative Party from PM Theresa May.  There are lots of wild things to be learned about this gentleman, but here’s something you won’t find elsewhere: a unique approach to climate change. 

Rees-Mogg is a believer in the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory, and he advocates spending resources to deal with it.  But it’s where and how those pounds should be invested that make this is a one-of-a-kind proposal.  He wants to use engineering to adapt to rising sea levels.

No changes in energy consumption, or other contributors to the problem. No attempt to deal with desertification, shortages of food and potable water, wildfires, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, or rising mortality rates from airborne toxins. Just seawalls (or whatever) put in place to address the world’s (1.8 million mile) coastlines.

I was driving when I heard this and I laughed so hard I had to steady the car to keep from veering into another lane of traffic.

If it’s possible for a man with this position to be taken seriously, it makes one wonder: What will we have next?  A world leader who maintains control of his government and the popular support of one-third of its people after publicly defending the Nazis and the KKK?  Could something like this really happen?  Oh, wait….

4 comments on “Thought You’d Seen Every Conceivable Position on Climate Change and its Mitigation?  Nope.
  1. Glenn Doty says:

    Craig,

    There is no doubt that the rising seas will have to be accommodated. We’ll lose some land and have to build up seawalls and dredge the channels for more material so as to build up the land around coastal cities…

    That’s going to happen. We have to brace ourselves for these expenses – along with dozens of other ~trillion dollar accommodation costs – no matter how diligently we pursue mitigation strategies… we’ve already crossed enough major tipping points that many of these great expenses are unavoidable. We’re now mitigating to try to avoid other even greater tipping points that will carry far greater accommodation costs.

    So it’s not funny that he wants to build sea walls. That’s necessary. It’s just sad that he doesn’t yet understand how big this challenge is, and how much bigger it theoretically can/will be if not mitigated.

    • craigshields says:

      Sea walls around small pieces of pricey land like New York City are one thing; building them around 1.8 million miles of the world’s coastline seems like another. Am I wrong here? Who’s going to pay to erect sea walls around the entirety of Southeast Asia?

      I’m also unconvinced that sea-level rise is a greater danger than the other effects of global warming as I discussed in my piece.

  2. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    I f you met Jacob Ress-Mogg, I’m sure you would find him the same sincere, absolutely authentic person, morally principled, very bright, eccentric person, I know him to be.

    Jacob Ress-Mogg had made, and continue to make, an enormously valuable contribution to the Conservative Party,the government the UK Parliament and public life in Great Britain.

    However, the idea of Jacob Ress-Mogg being PM, is pretty far fetched, (he’s not even a cabinet minister). Britain is not the US. Jacob Ress-Mogg’s rigid Catholicism would make him unacceptable to party moderates.

    Like Glenn, my part of England is not likely to be affected by rising sea levels as the home counties are fairly inland, but I do have a home on the Thames so I suppose I have a dog in the fight so to speak.

    When it comes to concern about rising sea levels, there seems to be a curious disconnect in public acceptance.

    On the one hand, when people are asked about rising sea levels due to climate change, most people nod wisely and agree. Therefore logically,beachfront, river frontage, estuary and island residential real estate should be worthless !

    In fact the reverse is true ! All over the world, beachfront, river frontage, estuary and island residential real estate commands significant premiums.

    The question must be asked, why ?

    Why would a wise man like yourself, convinced of imminent danger from catastrophic rising sea levels choose to locate himself and his family in the beachside city of Santa Barbara ?

    One explanation could be that like the inhabitants of Pompeii, people don’t really think it will happen to them ?

    Maybe, or then again just maybe, people don’t really believe sea levels are really rising enough to cause concern.

    In the UK, many inland towns exist where visitors are surprised to notice street names, Inns and churches with names you’d normally expect in towns with a harbour. The reason is because only two centuries ago these towns were harbours !

    Over the past 5000 years Coastlines are continually shifting and changing, for all kinds of reasons.

    Is it because the general public have grown weary of sensationalized, reports in the media from climate alarmists, that turn out to be nonsense ?

    The NYT and most mainstream media trumpeted the news of yet another “climate change ” disaster in New Orleans.

    The NYT quote New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board director Cedric Grant, who blamed widespread flooding on “climate change.

    Grant stated with confidence, “All water pump stations were working at full capacity, but overwhelmed because We are now an era of climate change, where we have these rains every week, every month,” Grant said. “And it’s not just us. It’s the rest of the country that’s experiencing the same weather patterns.”

    The NYT’s own expert panel, all nodded agreement and torrent of expert scientific opinion following confirming this result was predicted .

    Except it was all untrue !

    Grant lied ! The sole reason the city flooded, was the 100 year old pumping system failed. It failed through lack of maintenance and a lack of modernization.

    Maybe the public is beginning to pay more heed to publications like the National Review which lists too many similar alarmist inaccuracy for them all to be wrong.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450361/new-york-timess-climate-change-leaked-report-was-actually-public

    It’s very difficult to measure, and even more difficult to establish any discernible rise in sea levels. A 50 years study at the Panama Canal shows no indication of rising sea levels.

    So that leaves NASA. Only a few years ago NASA announced it finally had the scientific tools to not only determine the rate of sea level change, but the cause.

    At last, we had reliable, sensible, scientific information !

    Except, maybe not. A new debate has arisen among NASA scientists as to whether the influence of early assumptions has misdirected the collection of data to produce inaccuracies.

    Some NASA scientist have become uncomfortable simply accepting without question information contributed by many organizations including NOAA and the National Science Foundation.

    Maybe all this uncertainty has produced disbelief and apathy with the general public.

  3. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    When did President Trump,”publicly defend the Nazis and the KKK” ?

    He may not have attacked them in a way you and others would like, he may have endorsed the opinion of the Charlottesville police chief and live videos proving the Presidents assertion that many different violent extremist groups took part, was accurate.

    He may have defended the constitutional right for any group with a lawful permit to legally demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean he agreed with their cause.

    He condemned all violent demonstrators. He issued a further statement expressing his personal dislike of racism, intolerance,
    and white supremacists.

    Surely, as President his first duty is to the constitution. That duty requires him to be even handed and to uphold everyone’s constitutional rights ?

    Should he only uphold the rights of those with whom you agree?

    Interestingly, he’s also closer to the views of the local people than the hysterical media or his critics. In most Southern States,the majority of citizens don’t view the statues as oppressive or racist.

    Not even a majority of Afro-American citizens of Southern States want them removed.

    The issue has the potential to become bitterly divisive. But the divisiveness is not of the President’s making. The divisiveness has been fueled by the outpouring of outrage and indignation from “politically correct ” advocates and opportunists living thousands of miles away, with no understanding or regard for local sentiments.

    I write this from the eye of the storm, not in New York, or California.