Dutch court orders carbon emissions cut to protect citizens

[eliotness]

^^

Yes, and when 'b' turns out to be correct, as it increasingly appears to be, the lack of conflict will be seen as a devastating weakness.

Even the UK Met Office is now warning of a mini Ice Age. Northern Europe, they estimate, will see cooling in the range -0.4 to -0.8 °C over the next few decades.

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The next few decades are nothing for the timeframes we're talking about.

I can only repeat something I wrote earlier:

"The scientific community, the people who know what they're talking about, almost unanimously agree that it is happening, some Thai Visa posters, real experts of course, disagree."

As one previously of that scientific community of which you speak, I saw how much financial incentive and political pressure was being put on these groups of scientists to prove global warming was happening. When no amount of selective data management was sufficient to hide the real truth, they decided to call it "climate change". That's OK since in no period of recorded human history has the earth's climate been "stable", so I have no doubt climate change is happening.

The problem is how much do man's activities effect that change and do the Dutch, a very advanced and energy efficient country, really believe that a 25% cut in their carbon emissions will make any effect globally.

As an aside, will Royal Dutch Shell be affected by this ruling ?

Climate change is the new religion and those who disagree will be burnt at the "reduced CO2 emissions" stake.

Throughout history nature, mother earth, has given man some nasty wake-up calls, one of the most recent was Mount St Helens in the USA, where the ash cloud affected the weather in the Northern Hemisphere for at least 2 years, giving really bad winters. A thousand years or so ago the earth was subject to something akin to a nuclear winter lasting decades following major volcanic eruptions around Indonesia. One volcano can spew out as much greenhouse gases in one day as all the cars on the planet do in one year (if posters challenge me on this I'll try to get the reference). Man has a super inflated opinion of himself, but mother earth just keeps reminding us that she is the real boss.

[stevenl]

"The problem is how much do man's activities effect that change and do the Dutch, a very advanced and energy efficient country, really believe that a 25% cut in their carbon emissions will make any effect globally."

I would presume the Dutch court does not believe a 25% will make any effect globally, but it will mean the Dutch have made a good effort at protecting its citizens. Because that is what the Dutch court has said: the government has a duty of care towards its people, and at the moment the policy is not meeting that duty of care.

"As an aside, will Royal Dutch Shell be affected by this ruling ?"

Not directly, because this ruling forces the goverment to implement new/changed policies. Those may affect Shell's operations in the Netherlands, positively or negatively, nobody knows until those policies are known.

[Seastallion]

Clearly your argument was about CO2, because you were referring to the 'laudable decision' by the Dutch court, and that court's decision was all about CO2.

Quote: "The court is ordering the Netherlands to reduce CO2 emission by a minimum of 25% (compared to 1990) by 2020, while current ambitions are hovering at 16%."

It shows how difficult it is to hold any sort of sensible debate on this topic, when so many people don't know the difference between pollutants (particulates, SOx, and NOx etc) and the entirely benign gas CO2 which is crucial to our survival.

If you want to talk about particulate pollution in Shanghai, I'm sure there's a thread for that somewhere. You don't need a face mask as protection against CO2....

Clearly, you're not comprehending where I am and was coming from. I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

You started your discourse with me with a flame about my science literacy, and you continue on about CO2 which I never mentioned, and you're still not getting my point.

You jumped to a conclusion about CO2, when it would have been far better to jump to logical progression of thought.

If CO2 emissions are reduced, so will the accompanying pollutants and GHGs.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Do you really think that by cutting down CO2 emissions that GHGs and particulates will remain? How is that done? How does a government reduce CO2 emissions and not at the same time reduce GHGs and pollution?

[RickBradford]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

[connda]

CO2 + Sunlight = Food and Oxygen.

Global warming. My patuti. Study historical climate cycles and paleo-climatology. The Neanderthal bankers couldn't make billions of clam shells promoting 'Global Warming Tax'.

Edited June 25, 2015 by connda

[Seastallion]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.

Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

[eliotness]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.

Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

[eliotness]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.

Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

[stevenl]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.

Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

"The dutch have acted to appease a pressure group".

No, an independent judge had decided the Dutch government was not meeting its duty of care.

[eliotness]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.
Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

"The dutch have acted to appease a pressure group".
No, an independent judge had decided the Dutch government was not meeting its duty of care.

The article said the courtroom was full of anti greenhouse emissions activists, or something similar. I have known several judges, do I think they live in the real world, sadly I have to say no, their intentions may be good but they live on a totally different planet than ordinary people. As Holland is a narrow coastal country then air pollution produced internally will be soon removed by the wind. It will be the air pollution from the Ruhr, apologies to my German friends, that will have much more effect on the Dutch people.

[stevenl]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.
Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

"The dutch have acted to appease a pressure group".
No, an independent judge had decided the Dutch government was not meeting its duty of care.

The article said the courtroom was full of anti greenhouse emissions activists, or something similar. I have known several judges, do I think they live in the real world, sadly I have to say no, their intentions may be good but they live on a totally different planet than ordinary people. As Holland is a narrow coastal country then air pollution produced internally will be soon removed by the wind. It will be the air pollution from the Ruhr, apologies to my German friends, that will have much more effect on the Dutch people.

A pity you don't understand the ruling, the Dutch justice system or anything else in this thread. But please keep posting if you enjoy that.

[Usernames]

People have to decide whether to believe:

a ) the satellite data and the ocean buoy data, which show no temperature rise, no acceleration in sea level rise, and no loss of polar ice, or

b ) people like the Pope, Bob Geldof and Prince Charles, who believe we are doomed unless we dismantle capitalism with immediate effect.

I thought the Dutch were smarter than that. After all, if anyone knows about dealing effectively with the sea, they do.

The Pope apparently has put air conditioning in his target. Not too good for those of us living in Bangkok. I guess the Vatican can keep theirs, however. It's just the little people who need to sweat so the pontificating maximus can feel good about himself.

[attrayant]

People have to decide whether to believe:

a ) the satellite data and the ocean buoy data, which show no temperature rise, no acceleration in sea level rise, and no loss of polar ice, or...

Gee is that how it works? When we've got extremely complex scientific data sets from geophysical and atmospheric phenomena, we drop it in the public's lap and let the laymen decide what's right?

Let's try that with other areas of scientific research and see what happens. Which one of these drugs is the safest and most effective? Forget the FDA and all that clinical trial nonsense; let the public decide!

What's the holdup with building a nuclear fusion reactor? Get rid of all those nuclear physicists and high technologists and let the public sort it all out!

Yeah, that'll work.

[attrayant]

As one previously of that scientific community of which you speak, I saw how much financial incentive and political pressure was being put on these groups of scientists to prove global warming was happening. When no amount of selective data management was sufficient to hide the real truth, they decided to call it "climate change".

[snip]

Climate change is the new religion...

It's interesting when somebody outs themself like this. We're speaking of the community of climate scientists which, if you had ever been a member of, you'd surely know that the term "climate change" has been around since the 50s.

[eliotness]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.
Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

"The dutch have acted to appease a pressure group".
No, an independent judge had decided the Dutch government was not meeting its duty of care.

The article said the courtroom was full of anti greenhouse emissions activists, or something similar. I have known several judges, do I think they live in the real world, sadly I have to say no, their intentions may be good but they live on a totally different planet than ordinary people. As Holland is a narrow coastal country then air pollution produced internally will be soon removed by the wind. It will be the air pollution from the Ruhr, apologies to my German friends, that will have much more effect on the Dutch people.

A pity you don't understand the ruling, the Dutch justice system or anything else in this thread. But please keep posting if you enjoy that.

Sorry if I do not have the knowledge of the Dutch justice system that you obviously do. Please could you therefore explain what is was the judge actually ruled on, as I guess I'm not the only one "barking up the wrong tree" cheers

[eliotness]

As one previously of that scientific community of which you speak, I saw how much financial incentive and political pressure was being put on these groups of scientists to prove global warming was happening. When no amount of selective data management was sufficient to hide the real truth, they decided to call it "climate change".

[snip]

Climate change is the new religion...

It's interesting when somebody outs themself like this. We're speaking of the community of climate scientists which, if you had ever been a member of, you'd surely know that the term "climate change" has been around since the 50s.

You are of course correct, and I remember in the 70s everyone was talking about the coming ice-age, but my point was that the people pushing global warming have now adopted the climate change slogan and turned an interesting topic into a type of fundamentalist religion.

As for "outing" myself, you obviously haven't read some of my previous posts. Nearly 40 years working with pollution, it's effects, it's mitigation and trying to apply international standards. I'm actually proud of the work I did, but sad that I didn't do more.

[eliotness]

People have to decide whether to believe:

a ) the satellite data and the ocean buoy data, which show no temperature rise, no acceleration in sea level rise, and no loss of polar ice, or...

Gee is that how it works? When we've got extremely complex scientific data sets from geophysical and atmospheric phenomena, we drop it in the public's lap and let the laymen decide what's right?

Let's try that with other areas of scientific research and see what happens. Which one of these drugs is the safest and most effective? Forget the FDA and all that clinical trial nonsense; let the public decide!

What's the holdup with building a nuclear fusion reactor? Get rid of all those nuclear physicists and high technologists and let the public sort it all out!

Yeah, that'll work.

You hit the nail on the head there and that is the problem, the data is incredibly complex and choosing which data sets to use can influence the report findings. A couple of years ago a group of very influential climate change scientists were "outed" for only using that data which fitted in with their theories and ignoring that which didn't.

When there is so much data, so much financial pressure and so much political pressure is it any wonder that these guys come up with what their masters want to hear.

Please don't think scientists are infallible, sure some think they are, but to quote you about drugs, there have been cases where drugs cleared for public use have had bad side-effects e.g. thalidomide.

As for nuclear reactors, it is the public ( in the UK ), by means of planning permission, that have the ultimate decision if a nuclear reactor should be built. I've not heard of a fusion reactor being available yet, I thought they were all fission reactors, but no doubt you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

[RickBradford]

Gee is that how it works? When we've got extremely complex scientific data sets from geophysical and atmospheric phenomena, we drop it in the public's lap and let the laymen decide what's right?

If you were even slightly interested in the data relevant to the climate debate, you would know the answer to this question already.

a ) The satellite temperature data is gathered and made available online as the RSS dataset and the UAH dataset. These are fairly similar. The RSS dataset shows no global warming for 18 years and 7 months.

b ) Sea levels are measured by the Jason-2 satellite and the data is made available online by the University of Colorado. Current estimates are that sea level is rising by an average of 3 mm per year. This figure is generally higher than that measured by a network of tide gauges, collected by GLOSS.

c ) Polar ice measurements are gathered and made available online by NASA (Arctic shrinking, Antarctic at record high)

As for the others, the Pope has declared that capitalism is bad (odd, only 30 years ago, the Catholic Church was saying Communism was bad), Bob Geldof said humanity would be extinct by 2030 due to global warming, and Prince Charles said we only had 100 months to save the world (mind you, that was back in March 2009, so we've used up 75 months already).

[attrayant]

When there is so much data, so much financial pressure and so much political pressure is it any wonder that these guys come up with what their masters want to hear.

It's talk like this that brings up the boogeyman of the Illuminati and New World Order. How do you go about muzzling tens of thousands of scientists all over the world? Even when a community tries to do it, there's an enormous stink raised and it's surely no secret:

Florida officials prohibit the use of the terms "climate change" and "global warming" because it doesn't fit with the political adgenda.

Please don't think scientists are infallible, sure some think they are, but to quote you about drugs, there have been cases where drugs cleared for public use have had bad side-effects e.g. thalidomide.

I've never said or implied such a thing. Of course science makes mistakes - that's how we find out what's right and what's wrong. But looking back through history, it has always been science itself that has corrected its own mistakes. I've recounted the story of N-Rays many times in science discussions. Who was it that found N-Rays to be a myth? Was it the general public? French politicians? No - it was other physicists.

If anyone wants to claim that there are errors in what climate scientists tell us, then they need to apply climate science to identify the mistakes and issue corrections that can gain broad scientific consensus. Contrary to the simplistic and naive suggestion that "the public should decide", it won't be the public or the Koch Brothers or their minions in the general public who get to decide what's happening with the climate. If the world worked like that, we'd have headlines in the newspaper like this:

News Flash: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies*.

*hat tip to Scott Westerfeld.

[RickBradford]

But looking back through history, it has always been science itself that has corrected its own mistakes.

Quite so. And the enormous tragedy is that there is such a difference between Real Science and the science of AGW (man-made global warming).

Real science never ends, but is an ongoing cycle of testing and correction. AGW tries to break that cycle by claiming "the debate is over" and "the science is settled". Anyone who disagrees is a "flat-earther".

Real science says "Question everything". AGW says "Questioning AGW is reckless because it threatens the planet."

Real science develops hypotheses that are falsifiable via testable predictions. AGW isn't falsifiable because it makes contradictory, changing predictions. More hurricanes (see Al Gore's movie cover) or fewer hurricanes (reality now attributed to AGW), more snow or less snow, warmer or cooler than average temperatures, etc. are all cited after the fact as proof of AGW.

Real science relies on skeptics to make progress. Many real scientists spend their careers try to disprove accepted wisdom. AGW, on the other hand, intimidates and vilifies skeptics as "non-believers", equating them to holocaust deniers.

Real science accepts that bad predictions imply bad hypotheses. When AGW predictions are wrong they don't question the hypothesis...they just change the predictions and rebrand the movement.

[eliotness]

When there is so much data, so much financial pressure and so much political pressure is it any wonder that these guys come up with what their masters want to hear.

It's talk like this that brings up the boogeyman of the Illuminati and New World Order. How do you go about muzzling tens of thousands of scientists all over the world? Even when a community tries to do it, there's an enormous stink raised and it's surely no secret:

Florida officials prohibit the use of the terms "climate change" and "global warming" because it doesn't fit with the political adgenda.

Please don't think scientists are infallible, sure some think they are, but to quote you about drugs, there have been cases where drugs cleared for public use have had bad side-effects e.g. thalidomide.

I've never said or implied such a thing. Of course science makes mistakes - that's how we find out what's right and what's wrong. But looking back through history, it has always been science itself that has corrected its own mistakes. I've recounted the story of N-Rays many times in science discussions. Who was it that found N-Rays to be a myth? Was it the general public? French politicians? No - it was other physicists.

If anyone wants to claim that there are errors in what climate scientists tell us, then they need to apply climate science to identify the mistakes and issue corrections that can gain broad scientific consensus. Contrary to the simplistic and naive suggestion that "the public should decide", it won't be the public or the Koch Brothers or their minions in the general public who get to decide what's happening with the climate. If the world worked like that, we'd have headlines in the newspaper like this:

News Flash: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies*.

*hat tip to Scott Westerfeld.

There are several points you raised:

The climate change industry is funded extensively and backed by rock and film stars and even royalty. The whole industry is regarded as "cool" (no pun intended) by young people. Climate change scientists are the super heroes of the science world. Chemistry, physics and biology are boring and lack public funding and public adoration. If you are a scientist which would you choose, a well paid job, enough money to take care of your family, locations all over the world, good future prospects and public acceptability of your job. Or would you want to be struggling to find a vacancy, liable to redundancy at the whim of a multinational, poor pay, everyone thinking you are a nerd. What would you choose ? - but if you rock the boat, your career's f____d. Several scientists who have spoken on TV in the past giving opposing views to global warming/climate change now no longer appear on TV, their views are not wanted.

You certainly did imply that scientists know better. Scientists are just people with some specialised knowledge, but like all of us they can, and do, make mistakes. They can be prone to tunnel vision and are subject to pressure from those paying their wages.

You say scientists can be relied upon to correct other scientists mistakes, oh yeah I bet that's welcome news to all the parents of thalidomide children.

- and finally we have gone from a thread about a Dutch court's ruling to a world's environmental crisis. Sorry but you have gone way beyond guilding the lilly on that one.

[Seastallion]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.

Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

Just a couple of points....cutting lead out of fuel reduced lead pollution. But other pollutants remain.

GHGs include some of those that you say are not mentioned.

[stevenl]

Sorry if I do not have the knowledge of the Dutch justice system that you obviously do. Please could you therefore explain what is was the judge actually ruled on, as I guess I'm not the only one "barking up the wrong tree" cheers

So first you judge the system, and then you admit you know nothing about it. Thanks for highlighting one of the problems of a forum like this.

Edited June 26, 2015 by stevenl

[eliotness]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.
Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

Just a couple of points....cutting lead out of fuel reduced lead pollution. But other pollutants remain.
GHGs include some of those that you say are not mentioned.

Problem is they replaced the lead in fuel with Benzene, sort of replacing one pollutant with another.

Sure other pollutants remain. There are tables showing the "climate change potential" of most airborne chemicals and because of this manufactures have been forced to develop "better" chemicals (e.g. for use in aircons). Car manufactures have made massive improvements to the performance of their engines (which annoyed the hell out of governments whose fiscal plans were relying on huge revenue from petrol sales - so the robbers just increased the tax) The emissions of NOx and SOx have been reduced by closing down most coal fired power stations. Most of the dirty industries have either closed down or moved to India, China etc. Got to be careful though when talking about airborne pollutants as they have widely different effects, some contribute to warming, some cooling, some affect the ozone layer and so on and so on.

So just for the sake of keeping on track, did the Dutch judge specify which type of emissions were to be reduced ?

[eliotness]

Sorry if I do not have the knowledge of the Dutch justice system that you obviously do. Please could you therefore explain what is was the judge actually ruled on, as I guess I'm not the only one "barking up the wrong tree" cheers

So first you judge the system, and then you admit you know nothing about it. Thanks for highlighting one of the problems of a forum like this.

Obviously English is not your first language, please read again what I wrote. I said I do not have the knowledge you hint that you have. If you now saying having no knowledge at all is less than you obviously you have very little or no knowledge either. Thank you for again highlighting one of the problems of a forum like this.

[Seastallion]

I never mentioned CO2, and I was referring to this from the opening line of the OP; " A Dutch court ordered the government to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions"

**SIGH**

CO2 is a greenhouse gas .....

I thought everyone had made it at least that far.

"even bigger sigh". You have not made it anywhere.

Read back...look at your accusations, look at your spin, look at your initial miscomprehension of my point...try to understand...and try not to make it any worse by wiggling away on a tangent.

YOU are the one going on about ME referring to CO2 as a pollutant! NOW, you are trying to.... look, I could go back and quote the things you've said...but it's not worth it.

I'll state again, what the Dutch court has ordered is laudable and Dutch people will not be breathing as much pollution

as before.....because with a reduction in GHGs (or CO2 emissions), there will be less air pollution.....because by reducing those GHGs, or CO2 emissions, the accompanying pollutants will also be reduced.

Ok you have a valid point, but please airborne pollution affecting human, flora and fauna health goes way beyond what you suggest. For example in 1973 I was part of a team checking pollution in Manchester. The rain was pH 5.0, the Lead content of the roadside dust was in the hundreds of ppm. The sulphur emissions from British coal-fired power stations were causing major problems with acid rain affecting forests in Norway.

Since that era Europe has reduced it's air pollution significantly. They closed down the worst industries and moved production to the likes of India and China.

The Dutch were talking about greenhouse gases, but this forum has expanded it to include all airborne pollution. There is no mention in the original article about HFCs or similar propellants, NOx, SOx, methane, particulates, or many other forms of air pollution. The Dutch have acted to appease a very vocal pressure group. They may, in good faith, have set an example to the rest of the world, but do you really believe the rest of the world, outside of the EU will listen and follow their lead ? Sadly I think not a cat in Hells chance !

Just a couple of points....cutting lead out of fuel reduced lead pollution. But other pollutants remain.

GHGs include some of those that you say are not mentioned.

Problem is they replaced the lead in fuel with Benzene, sort of replacing one pollutant with another.

Sure other pollutants remain. There are tables showing the "climate change potential" of most airborne chemicals and because of this manufactures have been forced to develop "better" chemicals (e.g. for use in aircons). Car manufactures have made massive improvements to the performance of their engines (which annoyed the hell out of governments whose fiscal plans were relying on huge revenue from petrol sales - so the robbers just increased the tax) The emissions of NOx and SOx have been reduced by closing down most coal fired power stations. Most of the dirty industries have either closed down or moved to India, China etc. Got to be careful though when talking about airborne pollutants as they have widely different effects, some contribute to warming, some cooling, some affect the ozone layer and so on and so on.

So just for the sake of keeping on track, did the Dutch judge specify which type of emissions were to be reduced ?

I accept all that.

My take on the OP, from the opening line (reduce GHGs) plus a follow-up line (reduce CO2) infers they want the government to tackle CO2, and by doing so improve the quality of the air.

Just because GHGs and CO2 were mentioned does not mean that the decision had anything to do with climate change.

That's my take, anyway.

[RickBradford]

Just because GHGs and CO2 were mentioned does not mean that the decision had anything to do with climate change.

That's my take, anyway.

Well, if you had read the story, you would see it had everything to do with climate change.

From a statement by the citizen's group (Urgenda) which forced this wretched decision:

"This is the first time that a judge has legally required a State to take precautions against climate change. This verdict will provide support to all the other climate cases around the world."

“All the plaintiffs are overjoyed by the result. This makes it crystal clear that climate change is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with much more effectively, and that states can no longer afford inaction."

And from the court decision:

"The parties agree that the severity and scope of the climate problem make it necessary to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

It could hardly be clearer that this is entirely about climate change.

[eliotness]

Mr Seastallion, you could have a point, which nearly everyone missed. Was the judge talking about the "local" environment or the "global" one ?

If he was talking "local" then it makes better sense. I just wonder though as The Netherlands is such an advanced and energy efficient country already is there scope for such a reduction ?

Also The Netherlands sits on a coastal plain, with no high mountains and deep valleys and is subject to wind from the North Sea which should ensure the air is cleaner than most of the industrialised nations. So is an increase in emissions reduction from 17 to 25% really going to make such a difference to the health of the people ?

[Seastallion]

Mr Seastallion, you could have a point, which nearly everyone missed. Was the judge talking about the "local" environment or the "global" one ?

If he was talking "local" then it makes better sense. I just wonder though as The Netherlands is such an advanced and energy efficient country already is there scope for such a reduction ?

Also The Netherlands sits on a coastal plain, with no high mountains and deep valleys and is subject to wind from the North Sea which should ensure the air is cleaner than most of the industrialised nations. So is an increase in emissions reduction from 17 to 25% really going to make such a difference to the health of the people ?

It's how I read it. (From my very first post on this thread, despite some fanatical and illogical climate change denier trying desperately to misconstrue my words to turn this thread into a climate change argument).

The argument brought to the court was that the government has a duty to look after it's citizens.

""The state must do more ............. in view of its duty of care to protect and improve the living environment," read a statement from the court."

(emphasis mine).

That climate change was also mentioned is because, I suspect, that climate change activists were involved in the case. The order suits their agenda too. Win-win.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Seastallion

[RickBradford]

The court made it clear it was speaking "globally".

Therefore, the State should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts.

Any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change and as a developed country the Netherlands should take the lead in this.

Urgenda also referred to the global nature of their actions (too many to cite individually), although they referred to "international celebrations for climate breakthrough".

The case was brought by an organisation set up to fight global climate change, and that is what the case was all about and that is what the court ruled on.

The court's press release is at https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Den-Haag/Nieuws/Pages/State-ordered-to-further-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.aspx

Edited June 26, 2015 by RickBradford