This video is currently unavailable
Can’t see video? Update Adobe Flash Player
Video may take a moment to load. Return to Video Index
The Shropshire Star video team today launches the second of a two-part series of films about climate change - and a record number of comments have already started to flood in.
The videos - produced by Shropshire Star video journalist James Shaw - take a look at the two sides of the debate, with both the green and cynical lobbies getting a chance to have their say.
Last week’s video, which centred on how climate change could be a threat to the planet’s future, has seen people from around the world e-mail the Shropshire Star with comments.
This week’s film takes a look at the argument against man-made climate change.
Shropshire Star Electronic Editor Chris Leggett has been impressed with the number of comments sent in so far - the most for a video on the site.
He said: “The discussion so far has been very in-depth and has often been very technical.
“It has shown that this video has struck a nerve - there are many people worried about climate change, but some cynics want to wait for more evidence.
“Sixteen comments is a record for a Shropshire Star video.”
James believes this week’s video exposes a fascinating divide in opinion regarding climate change.
He said: “It has been incredible to see how divided people are on this issue, which some say could be one of the biggest problems the earth faces. It is also interesting to see how others believe the complete opposite.”
See Also:
72 Comments
This issue is so important that it is essential to view all of the scientific evidence from both sides. There is a very valid argument that the seas absorbe CO2 during global warming and then release it, a process which takes about 800 years, thus atmospheric CO2 increases follow and not preceed global warming. We could in fact be experiencing CO2 releases from the last major warming which took place at the time of the renaissance although emissions from fosseil fuel usage certainly add to this.Many scientists believe that the renaissance itself was due to the increased trade resulting from warmer weather.
Report abuse
For the best available scientific information, I would encourage readers of this debate to investigate the authoritative contribution to this debate of the ROYAL SOCIETY, whose past presidents include Sir Christopher Wren, Samuel Pepys and Sir Isaac Newton and whose current president is Lord Martin Rees of Ludlow.
The Royal Society has an excellent website which debunks many of the misleading arguments that are used by industry-funded public-relations firms, working for big multinationals selling fossil-fuels, and those who use their websites.
The Royal Society is trying to communicate the most reliable science; ie science that has undergone the peer-review process.
Clear rebuttals are given for each of the misleading arguments that are often presented to sow doubt and/or confusion.
Report abuse
Motorwayman says, ‘Many scientists believe that the renaissance itself was due to the increased trade resulting from warmer weather.’
I would be grateful if you could name 3 of these scientists so that I could research this further.
Thank you in advance.
Report abuse
who really cares about all this?????
Report abuse
The weather is unpredicatable and subject to natural variation and cycles. It is very arrogant of politicians to believe man can influence the weather. In truth we cannot even forecast the weather accurately more than a few days in advance. There is no doubt however that governments are taking advantage and using the weather to justify new taxes. Only recently the massive difference in ‘green’ tax take compared to spend emerged, many billions being taken a few million spent.
Report abuse
Unfortunately, the Royal Society has degenerated from the august and objective body it used to be to the hysterical organisation we see today, far removed from what it used to stand for.
I wonder if Hugh Peach can explain why official temperature records show a cooling from 1998?
Researchers now admit they were wrong - 1934 was the warmest recorded year, not 1998.
Then we went into a period of cooling that lasted until the 1960s, when carbon dioxide was increasing by a huge amount.
Temperatures down as CO2 increased.
Destroys all credibility in the human induced climate change theory, doesn’t it?
Better find another bandwagon, Hugh, the killer blow to your alarmism is on its way. Do you know what it is?
You will, give it a few years.
Report abuse
Huw
The Royal Society’s level of information is disappointing for a scientific body, the website does not mention or provide links to the sources that support their statements and expect the reader simply to believe what they say.
Further there are direct links between the Royal Society and the political body of the IPCC via Sir John Houghton FRS.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761
The Royal Society’s main funding, to the sum of £30 million, is from the government (DTI).
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1139
So I wonder just how politically independent the Royal Society really is?
Having read the so called ‘Misleading Arguments’ section I noticed this quote:
“measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures”
This couldn’t be because the IPCC or their so called scientists have removed the last 34 years of tree ring data which shows a decline in temperatures and destroys the alarmists beloved ‘hockey stick’ graph? And the so called man-made global warming theory in the process - the only man-made global warming it appears is due to this bad science and not CO2.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579
Over the last 100 years we have been responsible for several coming ice ages and several global warmings and none of these so called catastrophes have happened and neither will this latest scare.
Global warming is nothing more than a government sponsored scam and the likes of Green Peace, Friends of the Earth (who are multi-million pound organisations incidentally) and yes the Green Party are all profiting from this alarmism.
Report abuse
danny dichio asks the question, who really cares about all this?????
My answer would be compassionate people living in Shropshire who are concerned about the lives of vulnerable people in the poorest countries of the world, danny.
In 2000 more than 150,000 premature deaths were attributed to climate change impacts, according to the World Health Organisation.
These impoverished people are disproportionately affected by a problem which I they have had little or no impact on.
Report abuse
Huw
People have been dying ‘prematurely’ because of climate for millions of years - it is unfortunately like dying itself a fact of life and no amount of compassion is ever likely to change this fact. What I find disturbing is how this fact is being plagiarised as a means to buy support for your alarmist views that promotes de-industrialisation that is going to have a far greater impact on these poorer countries.
I note also you use the term ‘climate change’ which includes both warming and cooling, yet the alarmist solution is to reduce CO2 which only allegedly should reduce temperature increase - this is done I am sure to deliberately confuse.
Report abuse
I quote Malcon Fairweather
“Researchers now admit they were wrong - 1934 was the warmest recorded year, not 1998.”
Er no they don’t, and if this is the level of accuracy of Mr Fairwaether’s comments perhaps they should all be discounted. The figure he quotes is for the UNITED STATES only ( not including Alaska). Tha adjustment to the figure is 0.02 degrees C, taking it from the previous second hottest US year to the highest US year. BUT ONLY THE US, a very small percentage of the world’s surface, not the Globe, and I do believe this discussion is about Global warming. The global hottest years are still 1998 and 2005 and the trends are still rising.
Report abuse
I am interested to see that Huw Peach can spend so much time commenting on this subject.
You don’t by any chance earn your living from the promotion of “green” issues, do you, Huw?
It greatly concerns me that so many of those who are pushing “global warming” issues (or imminent ice age approaching, whichever is most credible in the current temperature swing) are actually making a career from the concerns that they are promoting.
It is alarming that both “imminent aice age” and “global warming” are promoted with the same alarmist “already too late to avoid damage” and we must act NOW to minimise damage” pitch.
This approach indicates a flair for propaganda rather than an actual dispassionate scientific concern.
But the promotion of such people’s careers is intended to reduce the wellbeing of us all, focussed as it is on “man-made” allegations, NONE OF WHICH have been proven.
The “green” lobby is reduced to claiming a “consensus” which does not actually exist.
My understanding is that the 2,500 “scientists” claimed by IPCC to support the contention (a) did not all share the same view and (b) mainly comprised government representatives, not scientists in the relevant disciplines.
Report abuse
Is Hugh going to address the issues raised, or is he just going to continue trotting out emotive nonsense?
Report abuse
Harvey Unwin said “The figure he quotes is for the UNITED STATES only ( not including Alaska). Tha adjustment to the figure is 0.02 degrees C, taking it from the previous second hottest US year to the highest US year. BUT ONLY THE US, a very small percentage of the world’s surface, not the Globe, and I do believe this discussion is about Global warming.”
Yes, but the US is allegedly a major polluter, so if “global warming is man-made, why is the USA’s trend out of line with the majority of countries where there is relatively little such pollution?
Unfortunately, the “greens” need global warming to be man-made because they could not use natural causes as a stick to beat us with to reduce our car use (the real thrust of their agenda, although they have recently shown willing to add aircraft to their “anti-lifestyle” agenda if need be.
Anything to destroy the modern economy.
Report abuse
It amazes me how much bile the perfectly sensible topic of “Have We Affected Our Environment?” generates. Evidence for this bile lies above; the writers, it would seem, have alot to lose, like their cosy, easy lives.
Incidentally it is the *rate* of change in our climate that should cause concern. Climate change is normal; change at the present rate is not.
Report abuse
While arguments about the technical evidence are continuing, various Shropshire communities are sufficiently convinced to be taking grassroots action. In Bishops Castle the Wasteless Society has trained residents in assessing a household’s “carbon footprint” and showing ways to save resources and money. Church Stretton has set up a Climate Care group, which is holding a public meeting on 25th September, & I read in the Star last night that Little Wenlock is taking action too.
So obviously many of us are already acting on the precautionary principle!
Report abuse
I can’t speak for Huw Peach but I know I don’t make anything from considering the evidence for Global warming to be credible. However, unlike many on here I have spent some time reading the peer reviewed scientific papers that have supported and modified the theory. How many on here have?
Let’s take Malcolm Fairweather, for instance, who accuses othersof not addressing issues but has managed to get his facts hopelessly wrong.
Or take Bruce Young who clearly doesn’t understand that a scientific theory cannot be proven , only tested. If it fails the test the theory is altered or thrown out, to date anthropomorphic global warming is still being tested and hasn’t yet failed the test. You cannot prove the laws of gravity but I don’t think we are going to go flying off the planet just yet.
The use of the term “climate change” is generally meant to mean warming in this context not cooling and CO2 by its long retention in theatmosphere and relatively higher concentrations that other greenhouse gases is a significant cause of a green house effect.
People are quite right to point at water vapour as a greenhouse gas - but due to precipitation if left to its own devices would be lost from the atmosphere. This is quite diificult to explain but it is the constant presence of CO2 and other long life GHGs that adds to the feedback effect. CO2 isn’t being removed as fast as it is being put into the atmosphere, by vegetation because we are putting out , from all sources more than vegetation can take up at this moment.
Report abuse
In response to Bruce Young above: I happen to know that Huw Peach is actually a full-time teacher of foreign languages. His tireless work on environmental issues in carried out in his spare time.
You are correct to say that the allegations of global warming are not yet proven - however, there is a considerable body of evidence, backed by peer-reviewed science,not propaganda, which suggest that the phenomenon does exist. Plus there is the evidence before our own eyes of extreme weather events occuring with increasing regularity around the world.
By the way, did you watch the Great Green Debate on Channel 4 on Friday 7th Sept. Personally, I felt the arguments of the “believers”, including Toby Juniper and Malcolm Meacher, were eloquent and convincing in the face of a largly hostile audience.
Report abuse
In comment 11 Bruce Young accuses me of promoting green issues because I make my living from them.
Baseless accusations are not going to get you very far in a debate like this, I’m afraid.
If you had just spent 5 minutes on Google you could have discovered that I am NOT making money from this.
Next time it might be worth doing some research before making factually incorrect accusations in public.
Or using factually incorrect arguments on the subject of climate change, for that matter.
You may also find that sticking to PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE gives you greater credibility when debating matters of such importance.
Report abuse
Harvey Unwin is right to highlight the fact that, as the Earth warms, the absorption of carbon dioxide by vegetation and oceans - known as “carbon sinks” - is reduced.
Here is some extra information about this phenomenom.
VEGETATION AND SOIL
In February 2007 the IPCC concluded (Guardian, February 9th 2007)’As the world warms up the oceans become less able to dissolve carbon dioxide.
‘At the same time carbon dioxide that now fertilises soils will reach saturation point.’
‘As temperatures rise even further, many plants will become stressed by drought conditions and microbes in the soil will start breaking down organic matter from dead plants faster, meaning large areas of land will begin emitting carbon dioxide instead of acting as an overall sink for the gas.’
OCEANS
The Guardian (May 18th 2007) reported on a four-year study by scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA), British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry.
They concluded that oceans which soak up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are working 30% less efficiently than a quarter of a century ago.
CO2 IS MAKING THE OCEANS ACIDIC
An article in the Guardian on February 4th, 2005 reported a scientific study by the Plymouth Marine Laboratory which shows that extra carbon dioxide in the air, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is not only spurring climate change; it is also making the oceans more ACIDIC - endangering the marine life (plankton) that helps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
I would be grateful if sceptics could respond to this information.
Report abuse
From Dave Bingham
One of the most recent and significant reports on climate change was the Stern Report produced by Professor Nicholas Stern in 2006.
He reviewed the scientific evidence in depth and looked at their economic implications.
Here are some of his conclusions:
With no action to cut greenhouse gases we will warm the planet another 2-3 degrees centigrade in 50 years.
Floods, diseases, storms and water shortages will become more frequent.
The effects of climate change could cost the world between 5% and 20% of GDP
Action to reduce greenhouse gases and the worst of global warming would cost 1% of GDP.
It makes economic as well as environmental sense to tackle the causes of climate change!!!
Report abuse
Personally, I hope we ARE responsible in large part for climate change. If we are, then we can at least do something about it.
The actions we need are not a return to a pre-industrial society, but rather a re-ordering of priorities.
Commentators make great play of the theory that governments are promoting the idea of climate change to raise more money. If this is true, then using some of the cash to research alternative energy sources would make sense. Anything which increases the efficiency of cars and lorries, for instance, would have a number of other benefits - less reliance on unstable regimes;
cleaner air in an age when asthma is increasing;
less destruction of land and communities caused by prospecting and extracting fuel;
more revenue from selling leading edge technology;
These same benefits could also be had from investing in distributed electricity generation,as Denmark does.
Why do we think it’s ok to use all of the world’s fossil fuels in this lifetime? Reducing our use would leave more for future generations.
Report abuse
I just look at the way CO2 has increased in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. And I look at what impact you’d predict that would have on the world’s climate. The answer is, a range of possibilities of which what we’re seeing is somewhere in the middle. So I’m not interested in arguing about whether.
What I do find scary is the possibility that we’ve already put so much CO2 into the atmosphere to cause really big changes in 10, 20, 50 years time. And we’ll just have to watch without being able to affect it much. So let’s get serious, pronto!
Report abuse
Malcolm Fairweather asks if I am going to address the questions raised or simply trot out ‘emotive nonsense’.
This comes from a man who is unable or unwilling to respond to Harvey Unwin’s point (Comment 10), pointing out a gaping falsehood at the centre of his argument, ie that the global hottest years are 1998 and 2005 (not 1934 as Mr Fairweather falsely claimed)
This also comes from a man who refers to the Royal Society as a ‘hysterical organisation’. This is hardly calm, rational, open-minded debate at its best, Mr Fairweather.
Report abuse
Earlier I made the point that climate change is responsible for the deaths of 150,000 people every year.
Andy L responded to this by saying ‘people have been dying ‘prematurely’ because of climate for millions of years - it is unfortunately like dying itself a fact of life and no amount of compassion is ever likely to change this fact.’
I would disagree most strongly.
If Andy L is right, and humankind had shrugged at every problem, dismissed it as a ‘fact of life’, and had done nothing about it, we would not have abolished slavery, we would not have introduced universal health care and education, we would not have relieved the suffering of people affected by natural disasters and there would not be so many of us demanding action on climate change.
Humankind shows itself at its best when it acts out of compassion, and at its worst when it acts for reasons of hatred, greed and ignorance.
If it is accepted in peer-reviewed science that anthropogenic climate change could potentially lead to millions of deaths by the end of this century (James Lovelock talks about ‘billions’ dying), then it is probably clear to most compassionate people (ie the vast majority of people in this country) that we have to act.
To me, people, who dismiss unequivocal, scientifically robust statements about climate change from respected institutions such as the Royal Society and the IPCC, and simultaneously ignore the scandalous actions of Exxon Mobil to warp this debate, need to be clear with readers about whose interests they feel compassion for.
Report abuse
Andy L accuses Greens of attempting to de-industrialise poorer countries.
Andy L: ‘What I find disturbing is how this fact [150,000 climate change deaths every year] is being plagiarised as a means to buy support for your alarmist views that promotes de-industrialisation that is going to have a far greater impact on these poorer countries.’
Let’s be absolutely clear on this. Greens are NOT promoting de-industrialisation, Andy; we are promoting a GREEN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION of renewable energy, a waste-less society (see Bishop’s Castle), and a carbon-free economy.
Andy L then finishes his contribution by accusing Greens of deliberately trying to confuse people.
Andy L: ‘I note also you use the term ‘climate change’ which includes both warming and cooling, yet the alarmist solution is to reduce CO2 which only allegedly should reduce temperature increase - this is done I am sure to deliberately confuse.’
First of all, it is basic meteorological science to say that CO2 has heat-trapping qualities, Andy.
If you have peer-reviewed scientific evidence to reveal to Shropshire Star readers that CO2 does not trap heat, then please produce it.
Otherwise they may conclude that the aim of your baseless allegation is ‘to deliberately confuse.’
I look forward to hearing from you.
Report abuse
Tony Foote (Comment 5) makes 2 points; one about the unpredictability of weather and one about the gaping discrepancy between green tax income and expenditure.
On the first point, I would agree with him to a certain degree; yes, the weather is unpredictable.
However, I would say that when predictions (global warming, increasing extreme weather, hotter droughts, much more intense rainfall, flash flooding) start to match what is actually happening, it would be foolish to ignore them. Does Mr Foote simply ignore ALL predictions made by scientists on principle?
On the second point, I agree with him again, but my conclusion is different from his.
I believe the British public would be far more content to see green taxation go up if they could see the tangible benefits in greener transport, greener energy production, greener town planning etc.
The previous German coalition government, which included the German Green Party, provided the German public with incentives to put solar panels on their roofs.
Home-owners with these roofs were able to sell electricity to the national grid when they weren’t using it.
The only reason the UK does not have as many domestic solar panels as the fore-sighted Germans is because our government is not re-investing the revenue from green taxes in sufficient amounts into practical and popular schemes like this.
Mr Foote is right to point out the current discrepancy between carrots and sticks.
What would he feel if politicians matched green taxation with green expenditure and increased the number of incentives to encourage us to go green?
Report abuse
Huw,
CO2: I have never said that CO2 does not ‘trap heat’, so stop playing the politics in putting your words in my mouth - CO2 is after all one of the many natural and important factors that enables life to exist on this planet. What I, and I am sure many sceptics, disagree with is the ’sexing up’ of the CO2 facts, as the climate politi-scientists like to do, to make the heat trapping qualities appear dangerous to life - this is simply unproven alarmism, it not the fact the CO2 ‘traps heat’ that is important but by how much and that is very little.
In short the ‘heat trapping’ qualities of CO2 are so small in the greater scheme of things that it has a negligible effect on temperature - a fact the alarmists do their very best to exagerate.
As for your weasel worded comments on de-industrialisation and compassion - if you are so compassionate as you would have us believe don’t waste your efforts on this global warming nonsense and do some real good in campaigning to stop the illegal war in Iraq.
For the people who rely on the politically correct beliefs of global warming alarmists you need to remember that the climate scaremongery has being going on for the last 100 years…
1895 - 1924 Global Cooling Declared
1929 - 1969 Global Warming Declared
1969 - 1976 Global Cooling Declared
1981 - 2007 Global Warming Declared
…and the Green Party and other environmental groups need this latest global warming scare to give them any chance of having any credibility whatsoever, and governments another reason to gain even more access to your hard-earned cash - well it won’t last long so make the most of it Huw.
Report abuse
2 points
Firstly, by what basis does Andy L make the assertion that the heat effect of CO2 is negligible? I’ve explained above how rising CO2 levels will effect the temperature feedback - but I would like to know on what basis he argues with that.
Andy L gives a very finely written timescale of various climate scares but can he defien who declared them at teh time and what the level of research was to support them?
Andy may well want his solid proof unfortunately by the time he has it, to his satisfaction at least , due the the apparent lag it will be too late to stop the problem.
That is the key point to the issue. The risks are so great that we cannot just wait out the next 20 or so years to confirm every prediction, we need to be starting to change behaviours now.
Now, here’s the interesting point, if we can start to move to a carbon free economy, at little cost over the longest timescale possible, it’s a decision we can reverse later in the face of any new evidence ,should it arise, that disproves the global warming hypothesis.
Unfortunately , if we wait, take no action for another two decades, and don’t succeed in averting what may be a global crisis it’s likely that we will not be able to reverse the warming quickly enough to prevent a runaway warming.
And, in that event, the potential deaths due to global warming will be many times greater than those caused by the Iraq War.
Report abuse
Andy L, who doesn’t trust the respected Royal Society to tell the truth because it receives a grant from the government, and who thinks there is a big conspiracy in the IPCC, is cross that I accused him of denying the fact that CO2 traps heat.
In this sentence he puts me right:
Andy L: ‘it (sic) not the fact the (sic) CO2 ‘traps heat’ that is important but by how much and that is very little.’
So Andy doesn’t deny it, then, he just says it is ‘negligible’, which the dictionary defines as ‘so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded’.
Andy L.’s grasp of basic meteorological science is revealed to be lacking yet again!
The accepted science (that which has gone through the peer-review process) tells us that EVEN IN TINY CONCENTRATIONS CO2 HAS A LARGE INFLUENCE ON OUR CLIMATE.
If you don’t believe me, Andy L., then educate yourself by searching for Greenhouse Effect on wikipedia.
Alternatively, if you are pushed for time, why don’t you re-read Harvey Unwin’s first contribution (Comment 16) which was very clear?
Andy L’s final salvo is to rubbish my ‘weasel-worded’ point about compassion and urge me to ‘campaign to stop the illegal war in Iraq’.
For his information, the Green Party DID campaign against the illegal war in Iraq. I attended public meetings, where Paul Marsden MP and others spoke against the war, and I wrote letters to the press.
Derek Wall, our principal speaker, re-iterated our call for a withdrawal of troops very recently on 28th August, for example.
Green MEP Caroline Lucas called for Blair to be impeached for misleading the country over Iraq on 22 October 2004.
Greens also had policies against the 1990s US-UK imposed sanctions, which were blamed for the deaths of 5,000 Iraqi children a month. And we also oppose the arms trade, which kills so many civilians worldwide every year.
Does that answer your point, Andy L?
Report abuse
Harvey Unwin:
I don’t suppose this is Deputy Chairman (Membership and Fund-raising): Cllr Harvey Unwin of the Telford Conservatives is it by any chance?
If it is I wonder what funds can be raised by ‘green taxes’ Mr Harvey?
You said:
“I’ve explained above how rising CO2 levels will effect the temperature feedback - but I would like to know on what basis he argues with that.”
I must have missed this explanation because all I saw was the usual platitudes. You say you have read the “peer reviewed scientific papers” I assume you mean only those that the IPCC publish.
In which case you need to do some more reading I would suggest for starters Roger Pielke’s criticisms, Stephen McIntyre’s debunking of the ‘hockey stick’ and the link I posted earlier on how the IPCC truncated the tree ring data to exaggerate the truth - I would be interested on your’s and Huw Peaches take on that particular gem.
There is plenty more that shows the politicised global warming to be the scam it really is - if you really do care to look that is.
Report abuse
Huw
That’s right take my words out of context you ignored the ‘in the greater scheme of things” bit - all you are showing people who read this debate is just how small-minded you really are and that you are willing to do and say anything but get to the truth of the matter.
I mean where on Earth do you get this little nugget from?
“The accepted science (that which has gone through the peer-review process) tells us that EVEN IN TINY CONCENTRATIONS CO2 HAS A LARGE INFLUENCE ON OUR CLIMATE.”
What accepted science? Where is your scientific proof of this alarmingly inaccurate statement? You condemn ‘vile lies’ - yet you make statements like this - shame on you. Ah! Hang on you’re a politician aren’t you? Now everything becomes clear.
From the 2000 scientists working for the IPCC (it was 2500 at one time maybe the other 500 have seen the light), that really amounted to around 38 scientists - the rest are politicians and bureaucrats - probably looking to feather their nests like Al Gore in some way.
Dennis Avery and Fred Singer certainly don’t agree with the so called consensus either and more climate scientists are joining the ranks of sceptics. How many scientist have left the IPCC because of the ’sexing-up’ of the facts or because their science is being misrepresented? As I understand quite a few.
Report abuse
Andy L
Yes, that’s me. But you are a little behind the times I’m afraid I resigned as deputy chairman 5 months ago. But then the site hasn’t been updated. I’m honest about who I am and don’t hide behind a pseudonym - what is Andy L’s politics?
And I’m of the quite clear view that we shouldn’t be looking to raise taxes overall nor do I see any reason why reducing carbon emisions should lead to increased taxes. Try looking to the contract and control system suggested by the UN which is a mechanism to alloacte costs to carbon dioxide producers but also, and here’s the point, cause behaviour and technological changes that will enable our society to cope without a loss of nett income. But you don’t appear to have read that. Now I have read the tree ring article and I’m still mulling it over and checking those peer ereviewed papers which ANDY L obviously doesn’t like reading much. And you know what it’s interesting. However, I have also read this debunking before and have found after some checking that the base facts were incorrect.
For instance, the “debunking” of the hockey stick which I read some months ago, was carried out by deleting and smothing data separately and differently from the rest for no apparent cause - exactly what is suggested by article on the tree ring data info.the attempt in essence was to reduce the effect by deliberately distorting the data. When this was discovered the debunkers were caught out. It looked very much like they had lied to suggest the warming wasn’t happening.
Now I’m not saying this is the case with the tree ring data but with a lot of actual, as opposed to proxy evidence, of temperature change I still need to be convinced. Because tree rings aren’t actual temperatures and if you have actual temperatures why rely on less relaible tree ring data, even if it makes sense further back in history when no other data is available?
Report abuse
Having spent a little longer looking at the tree rind data article
I suggest Andy L looks at the methodologies for generating them.
And I’m still waiting for Andy L to respond to the point about CO2 levels.
As for the IPCC - no I came to the IPCC late I’ve been reading articles published in scientific journals since I was a science student, completd a degree in enginerring and applied it. So no Andy L my sources are somewhat more diverse.
Report abuse
Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive who has criticised work by Mann et al on the hockey stick graph, which shows temperatures rising rapidly in the 20th century.
Andy L says McIntyre ‘debunked’ Mann’s work, but after 20 minutes on wikipedia I discovered the following;
According to Roger A. Pielke Jr, work carried out for the US Congress in 2006 by the National Research Council constituted a “near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.”
Could you defend your use of the word ‘debunked’, Andy L?
Report abuse
Steve McIntyre is on the IPCC review committee and presented at the US Congress 2006 and put simply is concerned with the misuse of data.
Roger Pielke is concerned with the politicising of science, the use of consensus and better peer-review controls. The quote you make was not made by him it was made I believe in the report ‘Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years’ if you had bothered to read his blog properly you would have seen this.
The debunking is now two fold first the selective use of data that omits the medieval warm period at one end and the second is the removal of the tree ring data at the other - without either of these two ‘adjustments’ there would be no hockey stick and the results would have been judged unremarkable.
Worse however is that it shows science is being twisted to meet political agendas - and that’s very bad.
Report abuse
Acording to wikipedia, the scientist Roger A Pielke Sr said this about man’s effect on climate change.
‘the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is INCONTROVERTIBLE (my capitals) as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers’
Roger Pielke Jr (his son) says, ‘The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.’
Andy L, who rejects the respected IPCC and is now on record as saying mankind’s effect on the climate is NEGLIGIBLE, might do well to research scientists whose names he invokes to support his flimsy arguments.
Harvey Unwin asked him very courteously to defend his assertion that Carbon Dioxide’s heat-trapping effects are NEGLIGIBLE.
Could he now do so? No more red herrings, please.
Report abuse
Fred Singer has a conflict of interest.
It is true he is a scientist who questions the scientific consensus on climate change.
However, it is also on record that his organisation SEPP (whose websites sceptics like Andy L. use) received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000. Just look up Fred Singer on wikipedia to confirm this.
Fred Singer is also notorious for disputing the links between passive smoking and lung cancer in the early 1990s.
Report abuse
Dennis Avery is not a scientist but someone who works for a right-wing think tank in the USA, called the Hudson Institute, which, according to ExxonSecrets.com, has received money from Exxon Mobil as well as other corporations which reject government regulation.
Mr Avery’s main aim is de-regulation, but to do this he has to take on environmentalists and a scientific consensus, which even with the money of his backers is proving impossible to budge.
No-one can now claim that the de-regulation of the US bank lending markets and the resultant financial crisis it has sparked across the world are a powerful endorsement of the deruglatory approach favoured by Mr Avery.
Or does Andy L think that ordinary people’s best interests are going to be served by deregulating Exxon Mobil, who -like Andy L- falsely claims that Carbon Dioxide has a ‘negligible’ effect on the climate?
Report abuse
Andy L, who refuses to defend his false and ridiculous claim that Carbon Dioxide has a ‘negligible’ effect on the climate, used Roger A Pielke Jr to substantiate his attack on Mann et al and their ‘hockey stick’ diagram, showing rapid global warming.
Not only does Roger A. Pielke Jr regard Carbon Dioxide as an important driver of climate change (see above), but according to his ‘Quick Reaction to the NRC Hockey Stick’ blog on June 22, 2006 (easily found on Google), he regards work carried out for the US Congress in 2006 by the National Research Council as a “near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.”
In Comment 35 Andy L denies Roger A Pielke Jr sais this:
Andy L: ‘The quote you make was not made by him’. Andy L then accuses me of not having ‘bothered’ to research it properly.
This is another bare-faced lie, as anyone reading this thread with a search-engine can instantly discover.
Just research Hockey Stick Controversy on wikipedia and read the section marked National Research Council Report.
Report abuse
In comment 31 Andy L makes the completely indefensible claim that the IPCC consists of only ‘38 scientists’ and says the ‘rest are politicians and bureaucrats’.
This, again, is a bare-faced lie, which can be exposed in seconds using Google.
In fact, more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers contributed to the IPCC.
Andy L, your credibility in this debate has been utterly annihilated. By your own words.
I suggest another sceptic takes over, who understands the importance of sticking to verifiable facts.
Report abuse
The IPCC reports are written by the lead authors, not 2500 scientists making up the working groups. You can read online the comments made by reviewers, and see many of them rejected out of hand.
A new paper has been submitted that surveys the views of IPCC Working Group 1 scientists. About half agree with the report, about 20% think it doesn’t go far enough, and about 20% feel that it is exaggerated. Science is about who is wrong, and who is right.
Report abuse
I’m glad to see Paul Biggs has re-introduced a more courteous tone to this discussion. Thank you.
However, I still think that the lies, red herrings and distortions used by the sceptic side have done a massive amount of damage to their credibility.
Could Mr Biggs provide the title of the paper he mentions in Comment 41 so that I can research it and respond to it?
In the meantime, I would like to know what Mr Biggs’s views are on the following point.
In Comment 49 of the Climate change to blame? video thread http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/climate-change-to-blame/ , he quoted work carried out by the political scientist, Roger Pielke Jr of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado.
However, Roger A. Pielke is on record as saying, ‘The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And ON THIS BASIS ALONE I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.’ (my capitals)
In light of the fact that the IPCC is 90% certain that mankind is contributing negatively to climate change, in light of the fact that some scientists think the IPCC has not gone far enough in highlighting the potential for catastrophe if we dod not limit greenhouse gases, and in light of the fact that Roger A Pielke Jr (whose name Mr Biggs invokes to support his arguments) is in favour of following the IPCC recommendations on reducing greenhouse emissions, Mr Biggs’ stance in this debate looks increasingly untenable.
Report abuse
Huw,
Be careful not to confuse Pielke Sr with Pielke Jr.
Pielke Sr:
“In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.
Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.
Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
Report abuse
Quote Roger Pielke Sr:
“Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by “just a few dozen scientists.”
And as Paul Biggs points out many of the 2000??? reviewing scientists that criticise the IPCC report have their comments rejected out of hand.
It seems Huw your primary source of information is Wikipedia - a free-for-all written and amended by unknown unqualified authors wanting to make a point, so it is impossible to differentiate fact from fiction. It certainly is not as authoritative as you seem to give it credit for - I notice you make an awful lot of references to it, as do most GW alarmists.
Report abuse
Huw,
It seems that the only scientists you regard as respectable are those who support the political correct alarmist view the rest are working for Exxon.
For some reason these scientists and their science is corrupted by oil money yet those working for the government are not corrupted by government funding opportunities.
That oil companies tell lies through science and politicians are incapable of doing the same.
Again - we know politicians lie and that they are easily misled (at best) we don’t have to look any further than the Iraq war to see that.
Friends of the Earth and Green Peace are multi £million organisations selling scare stories and doing very nicely as a result. The political parties are hoping to win votes and the government has created an opportunity to introduce more taxes - a lot of people have a lot to gain from selling the global warming scare story.
Report abuse
Mr Biggs, before quoting Roger Pielke Sr, begins Comment 43 with the suggestion that I am ‘confusing’ Pielke Sr and Jr.
This is clearly not the case, as anyone reading this thread can attest within 10 seconds.
In Comment 49 on http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/climate-change-to-blame/ Paul Biggs clearly invoked Roger A. Pielke JR. to substantiate his argument. Andy L does the same in comment 30 on this thread.
It is there in black and white. Do you both deny it?
This same Roger A. Pielke Jr, who Mr Biggs and Andy L refer to, is on record as saying that he is personally convinced of the need to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, because of the IPCC’s recommendations (see wikipedia).
Roger A. Pielke Jr is also on record for his criticisms of the journal Paul Biggs uses, Energy and Environment (see wikipedia).
I outlined why Energy and Environment is unreliable as a source in Comment 59 on http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/climate-change-to-blame/.
Furthermore I clearly distingusihed between the two Pielke’s on this thread.
I clearly did not confuse the two.
And Mr Biggs’s clumsy attempt to sow doubt and confuse the issue has backfired, yet again doing immense damage to his credibility.
Could you please now answer the question, Mr Biggs?
In view of the fact that the IPCC is 90% certain that mankind is contributing negatively to climate change, in view of the fact that -by your own admission (Comment 41)- some scientists think the IPCC has not gone far enough in highlighting the potential for catastrophe, and in light of the fact that Roger A Pielke Jr (whose name Mr Biggs and Andy L invoke to support their arguments) is in favour of following the IPCC recommendations on reducing greenhouse emissions, would you not agree that your stance in this debate is untenable?
Report abuse
Please explain if global warming’s nonsense, who’d paying off David Attenborough?
And even if, by some minisule miniscule change global warming is some natural phenomenum (contrary to 99.9% of scientists - and there’s never 100% certainty about anything - that’s how science works), surely there are a millino reasons to move to a fossil fuel free economy anyway? Pollution, energy security, cost etc etc.
This is not about political correctness or alarmism. It’s about science, and somethign called the precautionary principle.
Today’s debate is over how we can get ourselves off our oil additon, and whether we can do it fast enough. Get with it.
Report abuse
Felicity:
“contrary to 99.9% of scientists”
You maybe gullible enough to not only accept the political science but even expand on it - it’s not just 2500 scientists any more it’s now 30,000.
Report abuse
Andy L see comment 16 and tell me and what basis you argue with it? How is it a platitude?
Report abuse
Andy L (still hiding behind a pseudonym I notice)
Where does the figure of 30,000 come from? I can’t see it in Felicity’s post.
Your talk of “politicised science” appears merely to be a smear, if you can’t disprove the science smear the proponents. It appears that you cannot argue your case without insulting or besmirching the intellectual or moral integrity of your opponents. This is sad - there is much to be discussed and argued about inclimate science ( for instance how to test the conclusions of, say, the IPCC in a scientific way) but the debate is not advanced by invective and merely damages your position.
Report abuse
There are 10 well described forms of climate denial. They range from the simplistic “all scientists are wrong”, through “its all a political job” to my favourite “its a trick to put up taxes”. Several of them have been exhibited in this discussion. Denial means “head in the sand”; its a refusal to accept that changes take place on all sorts of scales, including the global. We can use our intelligence to spot these changes and to take appropriate collective action.
Report abuse
Pielke Sr:
“In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.
Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting regional and local climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.
Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
Pielke Jr is interesting - he accepts consensus - then spends much of his time debunking attempts to establish a link between hurricanes and global warming, plus he has just publsished a criticism of Stern.
Report abuse
Harvey:
It is a platitude because you make the same trite unsubstantiated statements that all alarmists use when talking about global warming.
You use the generalised term ‘climate change’ to confuse? exagerate? inflate? the term ‘global warming’ incorporating all
weather conditions when disucussing only temperature - this is one way used to spin the facts.
You say you have read the peer-review papers (IPCC report I still assume) - but have you read the scientific criticisms?
You abmonish Malcolm Fairweather
“Let’s take Malcolm Fairweather, for instance, who accuses othersof not addressing issues but has managed to get his facts hopelessly wrong.”
…then come out with this:
“You cannot prove the laws of gravity but I don’t think we are going to go flying off the planet just yet.”
… I mean ignoring the mathematical proofs available isn’t this observable evidence proof enough that gravity exists?
“CO2 by its long retention in theatmosphereand relatively higher concentrations that other greenhouse gases is a significant cause of a green house effect.”.
Where is the proof for this? And what do you mean by ‘long retention’? CO2 is a trace gas.
“People are quite right to point at water vapour as a greenhouse gas - but due to precipitation if left to its own devices would be lost from the atmosphere.”
So water vapour is only a main GHG for a short period of time then is it? Because ‘if left to its own devices would be lost from the atmosphere’ - in otherwords water vapour would not exist in the atmosphere if left alone?? - what rubbish.
Although the percentage varies regardless of precipitation it still remains the main GHG.
“…it is the constant presence of CO2 and other long life GHGs that adds to the feedback effect. CO2 isn’t being removed as fast as it is being put into the atmosphere, by vegetation because we are putting out , from all sources more than vegetation can take up at this moment.”
We are putting out a fraction of the CO2 compared to natural sources and when compared as a GHG results in a negligible effect on temperature.
Report abuse
Martin:
“There are 10 well described forms of climate denial.”
This is the typical type of propaganda used by alarmists it is know as ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ not a new political tool.
These 10 ‘forms of climate denial’ are all based of assumed facts based around unprovable beliefs such that them applying the ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ tool are right (and therefore good) and everyone who oppose their beliefs are automatically wrong (and therefore bad) - your problem is your assumptions and beliefs are fundamentally wrong and the fact that you are reduced to using emotive reasoning and ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ simply shows that you are unable to prove your case.
Report abuse
The Shropshire Star has certainly stimulated a debate on climate change with all the earlier comments going back and forth.
What appears to have been omitted so far is that, regardless of quite what position one takes on climate change, there is the issue of a finite fossil fuel - oil - which cannot be ignored. The National Petroleum Council, a body which The Independent newspaper advises as reporting to the US government, states that “the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources … is unlikely to meet … growth in demand over the next 25 years”. Oil production could become “a significant challenge as early as 2015″. This is similar to the prediction of the International Energy Agency that oil supplies could become “extremely tight” in five years.
The report “Hard Truths about Energy” by the NPC is remarkable in that its chairman, Lee Raymond, recently retired chief executive of ExxonMobil, oversaw its conclusion that “an effective global framework” is necessary to manage emissions of carbon dioxide “incorporating all major emitters” and urges the US to cut the pollution that causes climate change.
Report abuse
Harvey:
“Where does the figure of 30,000 come from? I can’t see it in Felicity’s post.”
30,000 scientists: Well the Oregon Petition contains 17,200 American scientists that have signed saying:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
This is just American scientists - yes 30,000 is an estimate (in fact I expect an underestimate) - but 2500 scientists that supposedly represents the majority consensus of scientist is not 99.9%. Put another way if the 17,200 dissenting scientists were to represent all of the 0.1% then there are 17,182,800 scientists that believe in global warming and not 2500 - according to Felicity.
“It appears that you cannot argue your case without insulting or besmirching the intellectual or moral integrity of your opponents.”
Ah good I’ve hit a nerve - tell me where I have been insulting? As for ‘besmirching’ you only have your self to blame.
I notice your posts still remain without substance.
Report abuse
Andy L where to start?
let’s talk about CO2
OK - Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, no argument, but it leaves the atmosphere by rain or snow rapidly. The fact is the as CO2 levels rise it increases the greenhouse gas effect overall - or don’t you agree?
It is also a more effective green house gas than water vapour - but not the main one. However, what we are talking about are marginal changes to overall temperature here. Up to 6 degrees, is the worst case scenario, if levels keep rising. But Water vapour already provides around 30 degrees of warming.
Now this is tricky bit, needs a bit of thinking. Water vapour in the atmosphere at any one temperature is kept approximately in equilibrium between precipitation and evaporation. This is an equilibrium based to an extent upon the level of water vapour in the atmosphere. That must be the case otherwse we would have runaway cooling or runaway heating - understand so far?
Ok, as you increase the level of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere you alter the temperature and hence the equilibrium level of water vapour, so the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere in higher amounts increases the temperature and the equilibrium level of water vapour in the atmosphere (due to increased evaporation) - CO2 IS rising in the atmosphere, measurements show this annually, so the greenhouse effect rises as does temperature. Do you understand now Andy L? BTW CO2 levels aren’t trace they are quite measurable. CO2 per mole is also a more effective greenhouse gas than water vapour.
Report abuse
Additionally, Andy L, you say that we are putting out fractions of the amount of Co2 that natural sources do. Quite right - but you don’t mention that the fraction isn’t miniscule. But the fact is that CO2 levels are rising which, given that the atmosphere isn’t shrinking, must mean that it isn’t being removed as fast as it is entering the atmosphere, otherwise there would be no accumulation would there?. QED, no alarmism just a statement of the obvious.
Report abuse
Now as to the Oregon petition.
It was sent in 1998 to approximately 10 million degree holders. It misrepresnted itself as being sent by the NAS and was sent with a covering letter which puported to be a research paper but wasn’t.
It’s a list of some scientists but also includes the likes of GERI Halliwell and at most has 2600 physicist and climatologists but propbaly far fewer climatologists.
Now that suggest that 99.9% of scientists don’t agree with it doesn’t it , Andy L?
Report abuse
Robert Saunders makes a good point - most of our effort should go into alternative but VIABLE sources of energy - which is why ‘King Canute’ polices of futile attempts at climate control using a single small factor are so dangerous. We also need a policy of adaptation to inevitable climate change.
Report abuse
nady L - please prove the theory of gravity. I’m not denying its existence I’m asking you to prove the theory used to explain it. You can’t, a theory cannot be proven 100% , it cannot be done, it can only be disproved. So by stating that global warming isn’t proven -it’s a smear. And Maths ISN’T gravity it’s a description of the effect in another manner. The maths doesn’t prove that gravity holds good in all locations or times.
While I’m at it, I’ve checked and I’ve only used the term climate change once and then to explain the context of its use by others.
Finally, when insulting I was using it to describe your comment to Felivity of being gullible. Though I’m not convinced you are being anything but insulting when you infer that anyone interested in the subject, who takes a different view, and who has done any campaigning is using the subject to attempt to riase taxes.
Report abuse
Andy L. continues to hide behind a pseudonym.
His flimsy and misleading claims that global warming is a ’scam’ and that carbon dioxide has a ‘negligible’ effect on the climate have been shown in this debate to have zero credibility.
His lies and distortions (which I drew attention to above) can be discovered within 10 seconds simply by using Google.
And his determination to ignore the reality of anthropogenic climate change enters an almost comical level, when he feels he has to rubbish any institutions that contradict his viewpoint.
Thus the Royal Society, Wikipedia, Oxford University Press, science teachers who write text books on the subject (Andrew Allott -Comment 42 http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/climate-change-to-blame/) are instantly rubbished because they dare to contradict his magical belief in his own infallibility.
Andy L. also has a worrying lack of any sense of irony, attacking Martin’s comment 51 for using ‘emotive reasoning’.
Where did your ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ come from, Andy L?
Martin didn’t accuse you of being a Nazi.
Nor has anyone in this thread.
Martin simply made a calm and rational observation that you have your head in the sand, when it comes to anthropogenic climate change.
Harvey Unwin has done an excellent job at explaining the scientific process (which you clearly do not understand) to you and other readers.
Are you going to respond to his points?
Report abuse
Harvey Unwin Comment 57:
“OK - Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, no argument, but it leaves the atmosphere by rain or snow rapidly.”
Precipitation is constantly being replaced and H2O accounts to about 90% towards the overall greenhouse effect.
“The fact is the as CO2 levels rise it increases the greenhouse gas effect overall - or don’t you agree?”
Yes but it’s actual effect of man-made CO2 has which is what we are concerned with as this is what green politics and taxes are claiming to be able resolve, is being disproportionally ’sexed up’ by politicians like yourself and Huw.
” It is also a more effective green house gas than water vapour - but not the main one.”
No - H2O is not only more abundant it actually traps heat over a larger range of wavelengths than CO2 therefore the properties of H2O alone makes it a far more efficient GHG.
“BTW CO2 levels aren’t trace they are quite measurable. CO2 per mole is also a more effective greenhouse gas than water vapour.”
No - CO2 is a trace gas accounting for 0.038% of the atmosphere if that is not a trace gas tell me what is.
Also global CO2 quantities are not known for sure they are variable therefore estimated and not measured and is not not ‘more effective’ as previously pointed out.
Report abuse
Huw Peach:
“His lies and distortions (which I drew attention to above) can be discovered within 10 seconds simply by using Google.”
All this shows is just how good the propaganda is and has absolutely no reflection on fact - making points such as this simply shows desperation.
“Where did your ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ come from, Andy L?
Martin didn’t accuse you of being a Nazi”
You clearly do not know what ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ means it reference to Hitler is merely an example of how the ‘holier than thou’ use fallacious associations through emotive reasoning to win their arguments and I am not going to explain again. See comment 54.
“Martin simply made a calm and rational observation that you have your head in the sand, when it comes to anthropogenic climate change.”
He referred to the ‘how to talk to a climate sceptic’ or some other such texts that employs fallacious association in order to persuade people to side with the alarmists. Which has lead in some quarters for calls for global warming sceptics to be considered as being on par with holocaust deniers now if that is not ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ then I don’t know what is.
Report abuse
Paul Biggs carries on regardless despite being caught out (see Comment 46 above) mis-representing me as confusing the two Roger Pielkes.
At the end of Comment 46 I asked him some straightforward questions which he has refused to answer. I will therefore repeat them, in the hope that he has an answer, which satisfies open-minded readers.
In view of the fact that the IPCC is 90% certain that mankind is contributing negatively to climate change, in view of the fact that -by your own admission (Comment 41)-some scientists think the IPCC has not gone far enough in highlighting the potential for catastrophe, and in light of the fact that Roger A Pielke Jr (whose name you and Andy L invoke to support their arguments) is in favour of following the IPCC recommendations on reducing greenhouse emissions, and in light of the fact that Roger Pielke Sr (who you quote) agrees with the US National Research Council assessment that mankind’s impact on the climate is INCONTROVERTIBLE (see Comment 36), would you not agree that your stance in this debate is untenable?
Report abuse
Paul Biggs mis-represents Robert Saunders’(Comment 55) contribution in Comment 60 above, and suggests they are in agreement.
In fact Mr Biggs’ utterances are diametrically opposed to what Robert Saunders says.
Robert Saunders (Comment 55) quotes respected international energy analysts like the International Energy Agency and the National Petroleum Council which predict price rises in oil as supplies get tighter in the next few years.
Robert Saunders therefore questions our reliance on this increasingly expensive and (for our climate) dangerous oil economy.
Paul Biggs says (Comment 60) Robert Saunders ‘makes a good point.’
Could Mr Biggs then explain to readers how he can agree with Robert Saunders’ point that “an effective global framework” is necessary to manage emissions of carbon dioxide “incorporating all major emitters” when he is on record in this debate (below) as saying the complete opposite.
Paul Biggs: ‘Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low’ (Comment 7 http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/climate-change-to-blame/ )
Paul Biggs:’Climate change can’t be tackled by tryibg (sic) to manipulate atmospheric CO2′ (Comment 66 http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/climate-change-to-blame/.
It is clear that the citations made by Robert Saunders diametrically contradict Paul Biggs’ untenable and unscientific stance in this debate.
And surely it is clear to him that the VIABLE alternatives to the oil economy will not become available without fiscal carrots and sticks.
How would Mr Biggs bring about these viable alternatives without the green taxes and tax incentives he so loathes?
Report abuse
Harvey Unwin Comment 58:
“But the fact is that CO2 levels are rising which, given that the atmosphere isn’t shrinking, must mean that it isn’t being removed as fast as it is entering the atmosphere, otherwise there would be no accumulation would there?. QED, no alarmism just a statement of the obvious.”
To me the most disturbing fact is the attack on CO2 being a cause, alarmists even trying to claim it is a pollutant, but this does not tackle deforestation. CO2 is an essential gas needed to speed up vegetation growth but that would mean embracing CO2’s essential qualities which would undermine the climate propaganda for need for green taxes.
Harvey Unwin Comment 59:
I think you have tried to weasel out of this one Harvey - you’re going to have to explain the how 2600 known dissenting scientist enables the claim that the remaining 99.9% agree? There were one or two false names that have been removed as I understand and if we were to agree to the 2600 descenting scientists being of any relevance then where does that put the consensus view regards to the 2500 that believe in global warming? It certainly is not a majority in any case is it?
Harvey Unwin Comment 61:
First gravity is not a theory. Second the axiom was the existence of gravity per se and not ‘that gravity holds good in all locations or times’. Second ‘mathematical proof’ does not require 100% or absolute proof - if such a thing exists? You clearly do not understand the concept of mathematical proof.. As for the rest of your rant on the matter of proving global warming there are no comparisons between how science defines gravity and how science defines global warming never mind the man-made aspect, there are worryingly misrepresentations regards the data and the science is far from complete to be useful. What I find interesting is when arguing your point about proving gravity you take on the same scepticism as I do global warming - isn’t that odd?
Report abuse
Andy L
A far more interesting series of posts.
Now, first point gravity et al. I’m quite capable of dealing with mathematical proofs thank you and am quite familiar with them. I understand that a mathematical proof is axiomatic base and that it is impossible to prove those axioms and that all further proofs are based upon them. That the axioms are held to hold true DOES NOT make them true. But in any event what we are talking about is proof of any theoretical scientific theory. Manmade global warming is a theory, the theory of gravity as dscribed by Newton and Einstein are also theories. You cannot prove any of them. You can test the predictions they make and discover whether the predictions match the outcome of the test. If they do you have greater confidence in the theory, if not the theory is found to be faulty and is scrapped or modified. As yet no test has disproven relativity hence our confidence in it is extremely high. However, despite what you may think the theory isn’t proven only not disproved- hence it is still called a theory. You may say that it is unproven, in fact it IS unproven. The same actually applies to the LAW of gravity. It has survived every test to date but in fact there is a possibility that a test may find that the law fails somewhere or somewhen. It too is unproven. You continually make the point that climate change models are unproven , it’s the same smear that creationists use awit evolution, my reply is that the models are unproven but they aren’t disproven - despite the best efforts. To be fair we will know soon enough if the models ARE wrong.
Report abuse
Andy L (Comment 60) attempts to justify his smear that Martin (Comment 51) was referring to him as a Nazi.
But once again, even the briefest glance through the posts of those demanding action on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, NOT ONE of them even intimates this.
We don’t think you are a Nazi, Andy L. What comes through most strongly is that these people feel your ideas are ABSURD and not based on science.
What is also clear is that people regarded the ‘debate’ as over years ago and are now taking action themselves in their own families and communities.
Madeline Haigh (Comment 15) talked about Bishops Castle’s Wasteless Society initiative, which has trained residents in assessing a household’s “carbon footprint” and showed them ways to save resources and money.
Church Stretton’s Climate Care group held a public meeting just yesterday evening on 25th September on cutting carbon emissions locally.
Little Wenlock is taking action, too.
Shrewsbury is about to complete its SUSTRANS cycle network.
I spoke earlier about Germany’s positive moves into the solar economy.
Val Oldaker (Comment 21) praised Denmark’s foresighted policy of distributed electricity generation.
People are putting solar panels on their roofs here in Shrewsbury.
Architects tell me INSULATION is becoming very popular, too. Lots of people all of a sudden are doing this to reduce their house’s carbon footprint and save money in the long term.
In Comment 27 you finished by saying ‘It won’t last long so make the most of it.’
Do you really believe all of these people are going to change their minds because people like you with zero credibility left in this debate get cross with them from behind a pseudonym?
Report abuse
My goodness Mr.Peach you Brits are really behind the times! Living in Switzerland in the early ’60s we sorted our garbage and recycling was a way of life for the majority of burgers. Initiatives to reduce traffic in urban areas was already in full swing and likey the best public transit system in the world was developed. Public spaces were generally clean and tidy as opposed to the litter scattered everwhere in Britain.
Today geothermal heating and cooling systems are commonplace in Switzerland.
Here in BC I designed and built my first solar water heater 30 years ago - though somewhat primitive it supplied my family with hot water for three summers. For the winter I built a series of pipes through my wood stove - worked like a charm - all the hot water we needed and then some.
British house design lacked proper insulation, double glazed windows, efficient heating systems and houses were generally cold, damp and draughty. I trust things have changed for the better!
Report abuse
Could Tony Lewis explain to readers whether the Swiss initiatives to recycle, cut urban traffic and develop excellent public transport happened by magic or whether they were the result of policies proposed by competing political parties, responding to the public’s desire for action on the environment?
Report abuse
I’m rather late getting back to you on this Mr. Peach - but better late than never.
One thing for certain is that the Swiss don’t take too much notice of the Green party evangelists. Not wasting the earth’s resources is, for the Swiss, a way of life.
Obviously in Great Britain you have different values - does it stem from the over paid and over fed educators who have recently held students and poor working families to ransome -just so that they can get an extra helping of the community pie?
What kind of roll models are teachers for the children of Great Britain Mr. Peach?
I’m sure you’ll let us know what you think.
Report abuse