What a lot of rot!

We wouln’t have ‘global warming’ (if there really is such a thing) if the these tree huggers didn’t keep spouting so much hot air.

Report abuse

If you are all sitting down,I have to say I tend to agree with Huw, if we are all paying extra taxes in order to force us to reduce our carbon footprint it is totally illogical on the surface for the government to allow such an expansion. Perhaps someone could explain?

I also agree that it is illogical for our government not to tax aviation fuel or allow VAT on Air travel.

But I would point out that it is a little bit more complicated;

Our Government is bound by the EU which is itself bound by the Chicago convention of 1944, which says countries have agreed not to impose any taxes on aviation fuel used in international flights.

The EU commission says “Aviation fuel for commercial aircraft is currently completely exempted from excise taxes as international conventions effectively disallow taxation. This situation is reflected in current Community regulation.”

Aviation Fuel Tax exemption was also confirmed by an ECJ ruling in 2006.

Vat of course is an EU controlled Tax and it has been agreed that VAT can be charged on internal British flights.

Having said that there are measures that could be used and in fact some EU states already doing so.

As Huw knows I do not subscribe to the GW arguments however I can still see and still appreciate the inconstancies. Because it would seem that the government are trying to force us out of our cars and to aeroplanes.

Report abuse

whats wrong with developing defunct military sites as airports,it makes more sense to me.

Report abuse

or is prees heath too close to home?

Report abuse

Good on yer Huw, these characters will still be shouting out for more run-ways and airports when they put one in the Quarry or in their backyards – I don’t think. Marvellous it is when what is proposed won’t affect any of these bloggers at all.
A few more protests in the past and this country wouldn’t be in the god awful mess that it is. As for shrewsbury resident, the arguments you use are utterly ridiculous. Fact, Gatwick, Heathrow, Stanstead and loosely, Luton, are all “London” airports and “gateways”. Fact, you can fly long haul all you wish via other countries who are daft enough to permit extra runways. Fly via Schipol to anywhere in the world, Fly via Charles de Gaul to anywhere in the world, fly via Ciampino to anywhere in the world, the same number of flights have to leave London whether one flies direct to Sydney, Saigon or South Africa as what there does when one flies via a European airport. Fact, one can generally get a cheaper flight to Australia flying from Heathrow via another European Airport than what one can flying Quantas or BA direct from Heathrow.
This proposal should be opposed and good luck to those who do. “Vital” economic point my foot, Gatwick is just down the M25 and Stanstead is just up the M11.
When is this country going to say, things are at their capacity, there will be no more expansion, make do with it and adjust things accordingly. ie, Build a new Motorway and it will quickly be choc a bloc so then build another one – absolutely idiotic philosophy.

Report abuse

you soap dodging socialists should be ashamed of your anti competitive anti economy rhetoric whilst our nations on its knees financially we must back such projects, you wont get me to agre with gordon clown on much but on this i say get the NIMBYs out of the way and get on with it

i doubt the chinese would think twice about airport expansion, you fools will drag us down

Report abuse

any disused military site would be ideal as there is some basic infrastructure there that could be easily improved, there are plenty of such sites across lincolnshire,notts, shropshire, sussex etc instead of using them to house asylum seekers and increasing overcrowding in the skies over london and surrounding areas. so come on, parliament, use your brains for once. oops forgot some of you own too much land in the above named areas to allow this to happen.

Report abuse

no doubt you lot dont fly then right :)

Report abuse

The business advisers say we need it to compete with the ROW, its a very difficult decision like Michael Brown says LHR is in the wrong place like Orly in Paris so the French built CDG but they have the luxury of more space than us.

Report abuse

Hi Stuart…….I did a little trivia survey today to see how many Canadians knew that Brum was Britain’s second city. I asked 11 people and only one had heard of Birmingham – she was a travel agent – though thought Manchester was the second city. The people I asked were business owners, employees and two high school students. This goes along with the National Geographic survey which found that almost 60% of Americans couldn’t find England on a map of the world.

The point I am making……..thought it was clear enough! Why should my tax dollars be invested in the UK when we don’t have the money to improve our own infrastructure?

Report abuse

Thanks for all this feedback.

I would like to respond to each of you in turn.

First of all, Steve.

You doubt that there is such a thing as man-made global warming.

Anthropogenic climate change is accepted by the following institutions;

the IPCC, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences.

‘Hippies’?

Report abuse

Ken, your point about the Chicago Convention of 1944 is well taken.

Our hands are tied internationally by a convention, written before understanding of climate change became widespread.

Ken Adams, for those of you who have not come across him before, spreads mis-information about anthropogenic climate change on the Shropshire Star sites.

Report abuse

I would ask shrewsbury resident if s/he thinks I am a NIMBY?

I live in Shrewsbury.

Which long-haul destinations can you ONLY get to via Heathrow?

Report abuse

The reality is that Heathrow is the only airport in the South East with a significant scheduled long-haul network. The dominant airlines at Stansted, Luton and London City are exclusively short-haul operators. Even Gatwick has a relatively modest long-haul timetable. From Heathrow, British Airways operates 75-80 long-haul services a day. From Gatwick, we operate nine.

Heathrow is the long-haul airport for the South East, providing around 80 per cent of all intercontinental services. You cannot provide global connectivity if all you do is shuttle passengers around Europe.

Report abuse

Michael Brown, following on from your point about Paris CDG…

It is completely WRONG to suggest that Heathrow must expand in order to keep up with other EU airports like Paris.

Research from HACAN shows that in 2007, a combined total of 139 million passengers used London’s airports – Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City.

That compares with 88 million who used ALL Paris airports, London’s closest European rival.

Heathrow remains the busiest airport in Europe, and the busiest international airport in the world.

Its expansion will increase all the hidden costs I outlined in #24.

Report abuse

Well, willie walsh, why would anyone in their right mind wish to fly British Airways on long haul from LHR direct for an exorbitant price (meaning one departure flight from LHR) when they can fly cheaper and again only involve one departure flight from LHR by flying to a European or other foreign airport and then flying long haul to their destination for a lot lower sum.
Compare your fares with Emirates via Abhu Dhabi to Australia, or Singapore Airlines via Singapore to Australia, or Japan Airlines via Tokyo, or Lufthansa via Frankfurt or KLM via Amsterdam, Air France via Paris etc etc etc etc.
For the luxury of a direct longhaul from LHR with BA, customers pay through the nose for it and plainly raw commercialism is at the back of your argument and sheer profit motivation.
Your comment, “You cannot provide global connectivity if all you do is shuttle passengers around Europe”, is silly and the gobbleddegook of pure self interest. It is not a question of “shuttling” around Europe, it is a question of flying on one of the scheduled short haul flights from Heathrow then changing to the same airlines long haul flight at their base airport wherever that may be. The commercial question here is, if foreign airlines can do this more cheaply than BA, why do BA passengers have to pay more to fly direct.
One does not have to fly on a “dominant” airline to fly longhaul from other airports, why must one fly on a “dominant” airline?. What you mean by the “dominant” airline is of course BA, and pay over the odds for the privilege. It matters not that “longhaul” may be “modest” from those airports, the fact remains that they are provided and available.
If I was going to use the nom de plume willie walsh on this stream, I would make sure that the argument that I used was a bit more convincing and factual. You have convincingly proved that from the point of view of BA that the argument is purely economic and, selfishly for the good of BA, rather than all the other “moral” and environmental issues, like those in the case made by Huw Peach.
If the planned new run-way comes to fruition and, if it runs true to form like Terminal 5, we are not only going to end up with an environmental disaster of the first order, we are also going to have an almighty catastrophe in terms of operability, organisation and management that greeted users of T5.
The Airports in the SE are big enough as they are, company competition, profitability and pure unadulterated self interest are behind the plans to extend them.

Report abuse

#18 john I regretfully have to agree wholeheartedly with you on what you said.

Report abuse

JOHN BOY, it’s not a question of either/ or.

We have to cut carbon by insulating every home, every business, every public building, and every school..

We of course have to make surface transport greener with a modal shift to rail.

Governments undermine the vital measures that many thousands of people are already taking in their daily lives, by making crass decisions like this one.

Report abuse

Huw; would you not be better advised to direct your question 36# to the government.

It is the government who have decided without proper parliamentary scrutiny to ignore all the environmental considerations and negate all of the measures they are forcing us to take in the name of global warming. They do not seem to have connected the dots of their own arguments, that in order to meet the targets they have signed up to, they are going have to shrink the economy of the country. Weren’t these the same lot who were at one point talking about joined up government?

Report abuse

I think, however, that readers of this thread would be more interested in some sort of comment from Capt Chaos.

He says there is a ‘massive debate’.

The Royal Society says there is NOT a massive debate in the scientific community.

The Royal Society says this ‘massive debate’ is a political debate which has been generated by free-market think-tanks (eg International Policy Network, the George C Marshall Institute, the Scientific Alliance or Ken Adams’ favourite the Heartland Institute), funded by Exxon Mobil, among other corporations.

If you are interested in how this mis-information is then re-produced in the corporate media, then read my e-mail exchange with the Independent’s Dominic Lawson (8 June 2007), who relies on the plausible sounding ‘Scientific Alliance’ for his mis-information about climate change.

I do say this more in hope than expectation, though.

Naomi Oreskes, a US academic, has confirmed that there is a scientific consensus on climate change, and that this consensus is NOT accurately reflected in the political debate, (Science magazine, December 3rd 2004).

The scientific institutions I quoted in #21 say that policy-makers need to take anthropogenic (man-made) climate change seriously.

The Royal Society accuses Exxon Mobil of undermining the consensus in order to exert a malign influence on the policy makers.

It would be great if Capt Chaos could prove what a super-hero he is and respond to these points rather than running away, as usually happens on these threads.

Report abuse

You argue there is no scientific debate and dismiss any debate as being a political debate only, citing the Royal Society. But the organisations cited use scientific evidence to back their arguments, so there must be a scientific debate. Some studies confirm the theories; some question the theories and offer a different reason for global warming, and some studies point out mistakes in other studies and so on. This of course is set against the background that the climate is now and has always changed naturally, and also that scientific theories are never proven only disproved.

Therefore to claim that there is no scientific debate is ludicrous.

You mention the Hartland institute and say it is my favourite…. is it? If so I must admit to being confused. However the point is, that the debate has moved on from questioning the various scientific theories associated with Global Warming and moved onto questioning the motives of anyone who does question the theories.

So because the Hartland Institute does question the consensus you claim it naturally follows that it is only doing so for dubious motives.

To back your assertion you say Hartland is funded by Exxon Mobil, but you did not say by how much. The Institute says no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget.

So Exxon Mobile is providing 5% of the funding for The Hartland Institute, and this funding is corrupting the science.

But on the other hand the Royal Society funding from the government amounts to 68.2% of its total funding.

So using your argument we can deduce that the Royal Society has been corrupted by government funding.

We now have a big problem, the governments are funding nearly all of the scientific studies into global warming that produce evidence for only one side of the debate, and private companies and individuals are funding the other side.

The British government is funding the Royal Society which is taking the unprecedented step for any scientific organisation of arguing the debate is closed and actually demanding that scientists who still question the theories should be starved of funding from private companies.

Has the substantial public funding contribution to the debate on one side been a benefit for the independence of truth or has it merely turned its recipient organisations into semis detached government agencies, which are only to willing to promote the government funded side of the global warming debate.

It is after all your argument that the funding body corrupts the science.

This is without doubt a very important question, because the governments are using the so called consensus to set in motion a massive social manipulation at incredible costs to the public in terms of extra taxation, extra costs and lowering the standard of living.

But now we discover that the British government is only paying lip service to the concept, because as you say, their stance over the third runway is inconstant with their argument over global warming, leaving their green credentials in tatters.

Report abuse

Ken Adams, I’m sorry if the Heartland Institute is not your favourite organisation, and therefore withdraw that statement.

It just seemed from this discussion (http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/04/25/climate-criticism-unfounded/ #11 ) that you were quite reliant on it for your information.

According to this article explaining the work of free-market think tanks (‘Revealed: oil-funded research in Palin’s campaign against protection for polar bear’ October 1st 2008 ), the Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

You believe the Heartland Institute’s claim that no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget. On the basis of their mis-representations of the scientific debate (See ‘Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial’ Guardian, 20 September 2006)

I would be more inclined to believe them if their contributions were open to public scrutiny.

However, according to this article asking questions about the Heartland Institute’s funding for a conference of climate sceptics (Eco-soundings, Guardian, Wednesday 5 March 2008) their contributions are NOT public.

For those who have never heard of think-tanks funded by ExxonMobil and want to find out more, I recommend ExxonSecrets, a Greenpeace site which documents how much think-tanks like the Heartland Institute have received from the most profitable company in the world.

For evidence on how wrong this group has been in the past, people might be interested in the fact that the Heartland Institute

a) questions whether tobacco is harmful to people’s health

b) was an enthusiastic supporter of the disastrous Iraq War

Report abuse

Ken, let’s take a closer look at your ludicrous and intellectually indefensible comparison of the Royal Society, an independent scientific institution, whose mission is to enhance our understanding of science, with the Heartland Institutean ideological think-tank, whose mission is to turn out free-market propaganda and climate change denial for its corporate masters, who have calculated that the best way to ensure their profits is to challenge inconvenient science.

The Royal Society’s funding is open.

It is publicly accountable.

As a public institution, it promotes scientific inquiry and discussion and debate of the major scientific issues of our times.

On its website, there are a series of links to Science stories in the news from these newspapers; Financial Times; Guardian; Independent; Daily Telegraph; Times; Daily Mail.

The Heartland Institute’s funding is -for some reason or other -NOT publicly available.

Perhaps you could explain why, Ken.

It is NOT publicly accountable.

It is NOT reflecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change (see #21).

And it is transparently obvious that its information is ideologically-motivated.

The Heartland Institute’s main story on its website is: ‘More than 70 scientists, economists, and climate experts with a skeptical view of climate change alarmism will gather in New York City March 8-10, 2009 to discuss why they believe the global warming crisis has been canceled–and whether a crisis ever really existed in first place.’

So, to tobacco-cancer denialism and war-mongering, we can add ludicrous and irresponsible climate change denial.

Over to you, Ken.

Report abuse

That really is the point isn’t is how can you claim the royal society is independent when it gets most of its funding from the government, I would not call that independent! and just look at its stance on global warming; you say “it promotes scientific inquiry and discussion and debate of the major scientific issues of our times.”

The most important issue of our times has to be global warming, rather than promoting scientific inquiry and discussion and debate on global warming it is attempting to close down the debate claiming the science is settled. This at time when every week brings new evidence to the table.

In what way is the royal society publicly accountable?

You say the Heartland Institute is NOT reflecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Tough Luck!

Why is it supposed to do so? Is there some law that requires scientists to cease investigating a problem at a certain point? Is there some law that denies those scientists a public platform for their discoveries?

And by making the point : Firstly you are promoting the idea that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, when such a claim is beginning to look ludicrous as more and more scientist are confirming they opposes the very idea of a consensus.

Secondly you are denying the reality of science that it only takes one to disprove a theory.

Thirdly you are denying the reality that severally theories on climate change have already been successfully challenged.

We have witnessed the problems caused when we follow a so called scientific consensus which is then proven to be wrong. How many times must we be pilloried on the same mistake of allowing a new scientific consensus to dictate policy making.

Dr Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, writes:
Peer Review and Scientific Consensus
Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

Report abuse

Huw; The Iraq war was supported by many, including our own government and our own parliament, even though it was later discovered that there were very serious questions about the evidence the government produced, we the people voted the Labour party into office again, so we are in a way all culpable. The person who took us into the war is now lorded all over the world and has just been awarded a medal by the American President and is in the running to become the first full time President of the EU, if the does not make you question the political elitism of the present day nothing will.

So the very fact that the government appeared to manipulate the evidence over the weapons of mass destruction etc should be a signpost to us not to take at face value government backed evidence that support government policies. Much, much more so when an organisation, claming to be independent but actually supported by the government, also tries to tell us the debate is closed and takes the unprecedented step of attempting to deny funding for any studies questioning the evidence.

Ignoring all the questions relating to the proof that the earth is warming due to mans actions. The global warming argument seems to rely on the notion that warming is a bad thing, hence your figure of deaths in poorest countries, which is contested in any case.

I understand that the whole idea that global warming is bad, is opposed by other evidence where global warming is not considered such a bad thing. If the argument only considers the suggested downsides and does not even recognise that there is a plus side to the question it is only half an argument. I believe we have exchanged views about this before so you know that there is a plus side to global warming fewer deaths form cold shorter growing seasons more crops ect ect.

You pick three things which you claim the Heartland Institute supports ( I have not even looked to see if that is the case) and ask us to believe that it is a corrupt organisation based on your definition. But that is only one side of the argument, others might well believe that an opposing view should also be considered and opposing scientific evidence should have a platform.

This whole idea that one side in science is telling the truth and the other is lying is an invention used to quash debate on any chosen subject.

Just because for instance Michael Mann announces something; that does not become an automatic unquestionable truth, in science all claims to theories are put under the microscope to see if they hold water and are open to question at any time. If the theory has holes in it then the theory is changed, with GW this seems not to be the case, instead the studies questioning the truth of a theory are consider to be lies. That really is not science.

What you seem to be doing is taking an announcement that something is proven at face value and ignoring anything that contradicts or questions the theory.

In the first half of the last century there was a solid scientific consensus on a theory that the mental illness was a genetic disease, this linked in with the widespread concept of Eugenics at the time lead the theorist to conclude that mental illness could be eradicated. Thus the politicians acting on the scientific consensus introduced a policy of compulsory sterilization and I am not just talking about Nazi Germany, look it up and you will see that although there is still a scientific debate abut a link about mental illness as a genetic disease, we no longer forcible sterilise those we consider mentally ill. One of the problems of allowing a supposed scientific consensus to dictate political policy, following the GW alarmists concept we would still be sterilising the mentally ill because the debate would have been closed.

Report abuse

Huw Peach, with regards to your comment about mine questioning the £13billion figure that you came up – you kindly point me to a report written by someone who I believe would have an agenda to make the numbers look as bad as possible to try and justify there aregument.

One of the biggest issues I ahve with regards to climate warming – would it have happened anyway, otherwise what caused the climate to change so dramtically from relatively normal weather to iceage and back again, not too many cars and planes about then I believe.

Report abuse

Richard Breeze (#51), you need to look at the science rather than the partial, corporate-funded think-tanks that Ken Adams favours, which are so secretive and unaccountable about their funding.

Your argument is dealt with on the Royal Society’s site under Misleading Argument 1: ‘The Earth’s climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.’

As for your scepticism about the report I highlighted, are you then denying that

1) air travel is subsidised by the tax payer?

2) health costs from pollution are externalised onto the local population and the airlines do not pay for the damage they cause to people’s health?

3) noise pollution is externalised by the airlines onto the local population?

4) this expansion will undermine our legally binding climate goals?

Report abuse

Huw,

A couple of quotes from Goethe’s buddy Schiller…

Opposition always inflames the enthusiast – never converts him.

and..

It does not prove a thing to be right because the majority say it is so.

Report abuse

Ken, I will deal with your first couple of points quickly and then return to others later.

You said I had ‘ignored the point about the government funded research that produced the evidence that convinced the House of Commons to vote for sending our troops into Iraq. Yet you seem happy to accept at face values the government funded actions of the Royal society.’

It may not have dawned on you yet, but the letter at the top of this thread shows that Greens do NOT take at face value claims made by the Labour government on Heathrow.

Nor did the Green Party take claims about Iraqi WMD made by the Labour government and the Conservative Party (and partisan, corporate-funded institutions like the Heatland Institute and the Independent Institute) at face value.

Instead, on climate change, we trust the scientific institutions I cited in #21.

And on Iraq, we trusted Hans Blix and former weapons inspectors, who told us that Iraq was almost entirely disarmed.

Just as we are keen to highlight the way in which Labour is betraying everything it has said on climate by pushing for aviation expansion, we were active in 2002-3 highlighting the deceptions of the government (along with many sincere and honest politicians within the Labour Party and the Lib Dems and 15 Conservatives).

We want integrity in government.

That is why we have called for Tony Blair to be impeached over Iraq.

Report abuse

Sorry Huw:

You claimed the Royal Society is accountable to the public IN WHICH WAY IT IS ACCOUNTABLE. Please do support your claim.

I have made no claims with regard to the Independent Institute.
Please see 50#

You are a one for the red herrings!

Report abuse

You say I ‘keep banging on about 5% funding from Exxon Mobil to the Heartland Institute’

I don’t.

First of all, I do NOT accept the 5% figure.

You may choose to take what the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute say at face value.

I choose not to, because they have very wisely decided to keep the level of their corporate funding secret.

Nor do I accept what you say ‘we have agreed’ in #44 first line.

It would be a useful service to readers interested in the truth if you could indicate where I agreed, Ken.

What is indisputable, though, is that ExxonMobil -in 2005 alone- distributed $2.9m to 39 groups, that misrepresent the science of climate change.

With the stakes being so high, it is disgraceful that the most profitable company in the world ($40 billion in 2007) is spending its money in this way.

Report abuse

62# I have not got the first idea, however when I tried your wording on Goggle second down was the link to WIKI, that was the one I quoted, so your reference to some allegedly denialist site is immaterial and yet another distraction. If you are researching perhaps you could consider that this other site also quoted WIKI? Hence your implication is back to front.

Anyway does it really matter: the fact is that the cold kills more than the heat hence I have supported my argument that the AGW alarmists always look at the down sides and ignore the upside, of global warming, and ignore the good aspects of a warmer climate.

61# Sorry Huw, you argument here is based on the idea that the big corporations are misrepresenting the science. Instead of showing us where they are doing this, you concentrate on their support of research, as if this proves your point, it does not.

Further your point is that government sponsored research is sacrosanct and independently financed research is corrupted. Faculty and scientifically no research and no theory is beyond question.

I wonder why you choose not to accept the figure of 5% funding, when using your Exxon Secrets it is easy enough to check, as they have taken the figures from Exxon Mobiles annual reports these show donation to Heartland from 1998 to 2006 with amounts varying from the lowest $7,500 to the highest $115,000 none of these figures amount to more that 5% of Heartland funding in any given year.

I fail to understand what is disgraceful about a company using some of its profits to finance research into the effects of its products. That is the point is it not, the idea that the stakes are so high, are they really that high? The government obviously do not think so, otherwise they would not have given the go ahead for the third runway.

60# Oh! I seem to be getting wilful again sorry! You can list all the government backed intuitions in the world for all I care, those government funded organisations either base their stance on the IPCC or are involved in preparing the IPCC report to policy makers, which is a political process. You are thus creating nothing more than a self serving cycle, in order to allow you to claim some sort of majority, when you know full well that science does not work that way.

57# These are not scientific institutions there are government organisations; see above.

Which neatly brings us back to the Royal Society which is yet another government funded organisation and I note that yet again you have declined to support you statement that that it is publicly accountable.

What about the new Antarctic research that shows that after all that the Antarctic is warming. This new information goes against the consensus, and the understanding of just about all scientists, should we discount that evidence because it does not agree with the consensus now tell me this report disgraceful?

Report abuse

I do not accept that cold kills more than heat.

And I certainly do not accept it from you or the angry, anti-internationalist websites you rely on for information.

It is simply astonishing to me to witness a world, which is so devoid of compassion and empathy.

The Himalayan glaciers which feed Asia’s life-supporting rivers could be gone by the middle of next century, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (see Times 17th June 2008, ‘UN warns of growth in climate change refugees’).

Rising sea levels and storm surges could force 34 million people to flee their homes in Bangladesh over the next several decades.

It seems that the fate of ‘climate change refugees’ like these -and potentially billions of others- does not concern the autistic climate-denial-blogosphere in the slightest.

Report abuse

Ken, you said that the institutions I cited in #21 ‘are not scientific institutions’.

It’s hard to know what to say to this without being unkind.

I would just say that it’s all very well having a world view, but surely, for your peace of mind, it ought to correspond to the way things really are.

If the institutions in #21 are not, in your view, ‘scientific institutions’ then I think we have a right to know which institutions you think ARE scientific institutions.

Report abuse

Huw,

What worries me most on the various Star forums is the lack of basic English skills. Surely as an educator in the public system you must be embarrassed, yet nobody seems to be addressing this problem.

Many of the writers seem unable to communicate their thoughts ……how sad is this?

How much money has gone into educating these people? Where does the money come from and at what cost to the environment. Moreover, it seems the younger the writer the worse their communication skills are.

The Green party wants to reduce class size which may work (to improve reading and writing skills) but then again it may not. The party doesn’t give any figures as to what this may cost the taxpayer. What surprises me (though perhaps it shouldn’t) are the typos and indeed spelling mistakes in the Green Party’s message on education. Interests for example is spelled intrests several times.

Now back to Schiller:

It is easy to give advice from a port of safety.

Report abuse

Pointing out the funding source for research is not addressing the results of the research; you seem to be particularly hung up by the source, is this because you want to distract attention away from the research.

I have already explained your method of misdirection, just repeating the process does not clarify anything, other than your refusals to address research that questions your creed.

You say you do not believe the cold kills more than heat, but two distinguished scientists have written a report which conflicts with your belief, we have seen your reaction.

Please do not partially quote, in an attempt to confuse 57# These are not scientific institutions there are government organisations; see above. Where I wrote those government funded organisations either base their stance on the IPCC or are involved in preparing the IPCC report to policy makers, which is a political process.

I again note you have refused to back your absurd claim the Royal Society is publicly accountable.

I also note you have not addressed the new report about the Antarctic which shows it is also warming, considering your reliance on THE CONCENCUS what is your view of this report which disputes THE CONCENCUS?

Report abuse

Tony, could you have a quick word in Ken’s shell-like about the spelling of consensus?

Report abuse

Ken, it is clear that W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson were convinced by the consensus on climate change.

Why are you only convinced by their conclusions about the effect of cold weather in temperate climes, and not by what they say in their paper about GLOBAL warming?

In the paper you cited, they said,

‘The direct effects of heat already cause substantial numbers of deaths among vulnerable people in the summer. Action to prevent these deaths from rising is the most obvious medical challenge presented by a global rise in temperature.’

This is a very good example of what I said in #66 (paragraph 5) that the denial industry ‘uses SELECTION, not invention.’

You –or rather the writer you plagiarised -have selected information OUT OF CONTEXT, and ignored the wider conclusion.

Report abuse

Tony, can you give me some advice?

You said (#69), ‘the younger the writer the worse their communication skills are.’

Communicating seems to be a problem for me at the moment, so I wonder if you could give me some advice on improving my skills.

I am currently having problems communicating with a gentleman, who labours under the delusion that the Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, the Royal Society of Canada, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, l’Académie des Sciences (France), die Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), the Indian National Science Academy, the Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society (UK) and the National Academy of Sciences (USA) are not scientific institutions.

Yes, he really does.

I’ve tried logic, ridicule, I’m even considering a friendly stab at humour, but nothing seems to budge him in his counter-factual belief.

Could you give me some help in improving my communication skills.

As you may be aware, I need help communicating with someone with a SELECTIVE impairment.

Any ideas?

Report abuse

Sorry Huw, I was in a hurry this morning and dashed of my response, I have since re-read your questions concerning BA perhaps a fuller response from me is required. I should say that although I do not intend to sidestep the BA issue, I do not see how it fits into the general debate on global warming, though it might form part of an argument against the government’s decision.

To be honest I have not studied any of the information concerning the runway project and only have scant understanding of process that produced the government’s response. I am not qualified to asses whether the government were right or wrong, to take a different view than the Green Party and other concerned environmentalists, not to mention those who will be displaced. But I do agree with you on the issue concerning the apparent double standards from a government that advocates the concept of mans effect on Global Warming.

I have no idea weather you are fully explaining the issue of manipulating employees with regard to their pensions but will take your word that this is the case and it did happen as your describe, in that case my view is that BA were wrong.

Likewise I have not looked at what BA said about emissions, but on the surface it would seem that it is blindingly obvious the claim was as you say a gigantic fib. I cannot see how increasing air and ground traffic can do anything else.

I have explained my point about the difference between a private company and the people we elect to run this country, a private company has a duty to make a profit for its shareholders that is its reason for existence whatever field it inhabits. Our government has a duty to protect the nation state and its people, that duty is non negotiable, that is what they are elected and paid for doing, that is their job. Hence there is an inbuilt duty to be open honest and to act in the public interest.

It could well be argued that a private company also has social duties such as looking after the environment for instance; I would disagree, because it is the government’s job to look to those issues. Quite clearly the government does and will continue to make the companies responsible for their impact on the environment but I feel that is a different matter than having an inbuilt duty.

I am not a supporter of big international companies although it might seem that I am.

Report abuse

Nearly fell off my rocking chair … Huw asking me for my advice!

Really I can’t help much, though you might make a better stab at humor (or humour) as you folks say.

G.B.Shaw quotes:

England and America are two
countries separated by a common language!

and….

He who can does. He who cannot, teaches.

Report abuse

One of the most famous scientists in the world, Professor Stephen Hawking, who was awarded the Royal Society’s Copley Medal, in October 2006, said. “As scientists, we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.’ (Independent, January 18th 2007, ‘Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change’)

We know that Tony and Ken spread mis-information and do not want the public to recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change which Professor Hawking was speaking about.

If readers are galvanised by opposition to the denial industry and inspired by the desire to do something practical to stop Heathrow’s expansion, I recommend getting onto the ‘Greenpeace plot’ website.

For those, who are unaware, Greenpeace have bought a piece of land in the middle of the proposed third runway site at Heathrow.

Readers appalled at the short-sighted actions of unaccountable corporations and governments doing their bidding can add their names to this plot to show that they approve of this action and want meaningful action to stabilise our climate.

Report abuse

One of the most famous scientists in the world, Professor Stephen Hawking, who was awarded the Royal Society’s Copley Medal, in October 2006, said. “As scientists, we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth.’ (Independent, January 18th 2007, ‘Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change’)

We know that Tony and Ken spread mis-information and do not want the public to recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change which Professor Hawking was speaking about.

If readers are galvanised by opposition to the denial industry and inspired by the desire to do something practical to stop Heathrow’s expansion, I recommend getting onto the ‘Greenpeace plot’ website.

For those, who are unaware, Greenpeace have bought a piece of land in the middle of the proposed third runway site at Heathrow.

Readers appalled at the short-sighted actions of unaccountable corporations and governments doing their bidding can add their names to this plot to show that they approve of this action and want meaningful action to stabilise our climate.

Report abuse

Ken, you say we should not be ‘trying to manipulate the climate’.

We are already, though.

The vast majority of scientists in the world contend that we ARE manipulating the climate by chucking ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

That is why they point out that we need to reduce or stop them -something you virulently oppose for transparently obvious reasons when one knows the sort of publications you rely on.

Politicians have responded to this scientific consensus (President Obama is aiming for 80% reductions by 2050), though not nearly fast enough in my opinion.

The reason for the glacial speed of achieving meaningful political action on climate change is the efforts of advertisers, PR agencies, right-wing think tanks, corporate media, corporate lobbyists and anonymous blogs who cloud the issue of climate change, mis-represent the scientific view and confuse the public into thinking that there is still a major debate going on in the scientific community.

Just as with smoking, there is no major debate.

The big difference, though, is that campaigners know much more now about the techniques used by corporations and the PR industry to fudge issues and mis-represent science than the early anti-smoking campaigners.

And that is why the denial industry needs to be exposed to some fresh, clear democratic light here in Shropshire in every public forum.

David Attenborough is presenting a programme about the summer melt in the Arctic tomorrow evening at 9pm on BBC 1.

He became a member of the ROYAL SOCIETY in 1983, because -as The Royal Society’s statutes state- he had made “a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science”.

Sir David’s DVD on climate change, ‘The Truth About Climate Change’, was released in June 2008.

You asked about the Royal Society’s accountability, wilfully ignoring my answer in #52.

But I will repeat my answer anyway:

Those who substantially contribute to the improvement of natural knowledge and accurate information are accountable to the public and are helping the public to see things clearly.

These are all things that you are working against, Ken, and that is why I urge people who oppose Ken to add their name to the Greenpeace plot.

Report abuse

You asked about Antarctica, and I didn’t respond because I thought you were making my argument for me.

According to Science Daily (Feb. 9, 2009) —

‘Climate change is about to cause a major upheaval in the shallow marine waters of Antarctica. Predatory crabs are poised to return to warming Antarctic waters and disrupt the primeval marine communities.’

This article goes on to quote Rich Aronson, professor of biological sciences at Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne.

“Unless we can get control of ship traffic and greenhouse-gas emissions, climate change will ruin marine communities in Antarctica and make the world a sadder, duller place.”

Professor Aronson works for a scientific institution, Ken, and he is contributing to the improvement of natural knowledge.

Report abuse

Ouch…now that really hurt Huw. Huw is up to his usual antics of putting others down to make himself (and of course his Green comrades) look GOOD.

But when you put others down Huw you only bring yourself down too. It makes you look ever so silly. So let’s start discussing stuff with a … what shall we say … more intellectual, reasonable view than the ‘cloak and dagger’ antics of Green Party ideologues.

We are looking for solutions not … controversy when it comes to the world’s environment.

The ball is in your court … but can you catch it?

Report abuse

Tony, we started debating with each other on November 2nd 2007 ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ #73 ).

Could you point out where in that entire discussion you were ‘looking for solutions’?

To me, correct me if I’m wrong, your contributions seemed to be characterised by lots of ‘putting others down’.

Are you not in danger of being accused of projection, Tony?

Could you point out to me how many ‘solutions’ Ken Adams has suggested?

What do you think of Ken’s view that scientific institutions are not scientific institutions, Tony?

Report abuse

Huw; you force me once again to ask you not to partially quote in order to misrepresent, you have had ample opportunity to either withdraw your assertion that the funding body corrupts the findings, or to explain that if it does how is it that government funding at a far greater level does not have the same effect.

After all everyone involved relies on supporting the theory in order to keep the funds flowing. So which of the intuitions you quote are not government funded? Or perhaps if you prefer you could list those organizations in receipt of government funding which do not support the theory?

Report abuse

Yet again I must ask you not to misquote! I am interested in the accountability of our government. I am a democrat and believe that unless those who make our laws are accountable to the people we have lost democracy.

Never mind asking me to comment about Mr Lewis or him on me what about you responding to my questions?

Report abuse

In response to #92, according to the New York Times, (‘Study Finds New Evidence of Warming in Antarctica’ January 21, 2009) the authors of the study you mentioned, Dr. Steig and Dr. Shindell, found that from 1957 to 2006, ‘temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.

In West Antarctica, …the warming was even more pronounced… In East Antarctica, where temperatures had been thought to be falling, the researchers found a slight warming over the 50-year period. With the uncertainties, East Antarctica may have indeed been cooling, but the rise in temperatures in the west more than offset the cooling.’

The article goes on to explain that ‘many atmospheric scientists attribute [the cooling] to emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed high-altitude ozone.

Because those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse.’

You suggested that a consensus had been over-turned, when in fact these scientists have just made a major contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge in a complex area.

In the article both Eric Steig and Drew T. Shindell reinforce the overwhelming consensus, which Dr Vicky Pope, of the Met Office Hadley Centre, wrote of today: that the IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE PROFOUND AND WILL BE SEVERE IF GREENHOUSE GASES ARE NOT CUT DRASTICALLY AND SWIFTLY OVER THE COMING DECADES.

I wonder, Ken, if you could comment on what the 2 scientists you cited said about their findings:

1) Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, “We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases”

2) Drew T. Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said, “It’s extremely difficult to think of any physical way that you could have increasing greenhouse gases not lead to warming at the Antarctic continent.”

Both of them, like W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson (#70 + #75), support the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real and that human beings can and should do something to mitigate it.

Would you not agree that citing them as witnesses weakens rather than strengthens your already thread-bare argument on climate change.

Report abuse

Opinion Polls do NOT equate with democracy, in fact they subvert it by replacing an accountability at the ballot box with so called consultation, which is pretend democracy. This is one of my main gripes with Margot Wallström Vice president of the EU Commission, who seems like you, to believe that asking a thousand odd people loaded questions, replaces the need to actually hold elections and offer choice to over 500,0000000 people.

In the case of the USA I do not deny they have just elected President Obama on a radical carbon-cutting mandate. But the salient point is “they have just elected.” They went out and actually voted for him, he has a clear mandate. With that I have no argument. Even though I disagree with his measures if he carries them out, one can only hope he sees sense before beggaring the country.

The Antarctic: you have sidestepped the issue, you claim a consensus, you argue that anyone who produces a study which contradicts the consensus is only doing so from the point of vested interests. Yet here we have a study which breaks the consensus and you accept it with open arms, does that not raise questions about your reliance on the consensus, and your claim that there is no debate.

Even Dr. Steig only 11 months ago said the fact that the Antarctic was not warming was consistent with greenhouse warming models and the sceptics were wrong to ague that the evidence of no warming at the Antarctic conflicted with the claims of global warming. So there is no way you are going to convince me that this new study does not overturn the consensus.

That is not to even begin looking at the methods used in this study, which overturned all previous evidence and conflicts with the consensus. And not to mention another co author was Michael Mann who produced the infamous Hockey Stick Graph, which also overturned the consensus, but was decidedly demolished later studies.

Report abuse

Ken, you say you are ‘a democrat and believe that unless those who make our laws are accountable to the people we have lost democracy.’

How can readers possibly think that you are a democrat if you spend every contribtion you make trying to undermine the vital values of our democracy: trust, tolerance and respect for our institutions?

How can you call yourself a democrat if you hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, when it comes to holding international corporations, who are mis-leading the public, to account?

How can you possibly call yourself a democrat if you say that wanting ‘to do what is best for the planet and for the environment’ is an ‘ideology’ ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/30/uk-waste-policy-is-tax-scam/ #66 )?

What sort of democrat denies that scientific institutions are scientific institutions?

What sort of democrat refers to the Met Office Hadley Centre as ‘alarmists’?

We know that is is in the interests of the Heartland Institute’s funders’ to mis-represent the situation in this way. As an example of this try googling Manhattan Declaration and you will be taken straight to the corporate funded Heartland Institute.

So what sort of democrat defends these orchestrated, corporate-funded mis-representations to protect a tiny elite at the top of the corporate ladder?

The scientific evidence of human-induced climate change is OVERWHELMING (#96).

So what sort of democrat spends large parts of their time spreading the absurd notion that climate change is some sort of government plot?

As you well know, only a tiny number of individual scientists have made statements opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

The Leipzig Declaration and the Oregon Petition (to be found on the Exxon-funded SEPP website ( -see http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/04/25/climate-criticism-unfounded/ #18 for brief analysis of Fred Singer’s SEPP and remember that Fred Singer worked closely with the tobacco industry to deny its effects on health ) are widely seen as fraudulent publicity stunts, which have been invalidated by subsequent research.

If Mr Adams disputes this, then I challenge him to name ONE scientific institution which disputes the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

NO SCIENTIFIC BODY OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STANDING REJECTS THE BASIC FINDINGS OF HUMAN INFLUENCE ON RECENT CLIMATE CHANGES.

As this is the case, what sort of democrat undermines science, which will enable ordinary people to make wise choices for their children’s future?

Most people living in our democracy today are demanding MORE REGULATION of our over-liberalised international finance system?

Yet Mr Adams’ whole philosophy opposes the regulation that ordinary democrats want.

He even claims that the biggest scam in history, which was made possible by the lack of a international regulatory framework, has nothing to do with government! ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/30/uk-waste-policy-is-tax-scam/ #56 ).

We know the anti-regulatory philosophy of the Heartland Institute has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors.

As such I see this is anti-democratic in its emphasis.

What sort of democrat are you, Mr Adams?

Report abuse

You say that you hope Obama ‘sees sense’.

Obama, like most people on earth except you, Ken, does see sense on climate change.

He recognises that the IPCC, the Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, the Royal Society of Canada, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, l’Académie des Sciences (France), die Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), the Indian National Science Academy, the Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society (UK) and the National Academy of Sciences (USA) are making a substantial contribution to our understanding of climate change.

“Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve chosen delay over decisive action. RIGID IDEOLOGY has overruled SOUND SCIENCE (my capitals). Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Now America has arrived at a crossroads.”

Most people in the world can see that Obama is a true democrat, Ken. Why can’t you?

Report abuse

If readers want to know how to take on the orchestrated attempts of the climate change denial industry, I can show you by dealing with Ken’s point about the Hockey Stick Graph.

He said this reconstruction of past temperatures was ‘decidedly demolished [by] later studies.’

Once again this is simply not true.

New Scientist magazine has got an excellent rebuttal of the denial industry’s myths, which is easily found by googling ‘New Scientist climate myths’.

In its rebuttal, New Scientist magazine cites the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science, America’s foremost scientific institution, which was asked by Congress (which is accountable to all US citizens, Ken)to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.

It concluded: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) (authors of the Hockey Stick Graph) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.

This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”.

Could Mr Adams explain to readers, who don’t want to be bullied into line by corporate-funded propaganda, in what way this report ‘decidely demolished’ the Hockey Stick Graph?

I recommend the New Scientist’s rebuttals of climate change myths to those readers who might be inspired to get active to preserve our collective (Mr Adams’ included!) future.

Report abuse

“How can readers possibly think that you are a democrat if you spend every contribtion you make trying to undermine the vital values of our democracy: trust, tolerance and respect for our institutions?”

Huw; yes a good point, it is quite clear that I do not trust our political organisation, this however is not based on any party affiliation. I do see very serious problems when our democracy is removed and those we elect are no longer the ones making our laws and those who are making our laws are not accountable to the British people. I see problems when organisations which are supposed to be independent are in fact supported by the state and owe their existence to the state and thus follow the political line of the party in power at any given time. I see problems when so much of our political debate is confined to increasing smaller areas of public policy because the political parties are on the same bandwagon and much of our policy is outsourced to the international organisations.

I have tried to explain that our governments are supposed to dictate the laws under which corporation are allowed to operate, this point seems to evade your interest, basically if you have a problem with corporations you can like the rest of us direct your problems to our government. Of course direct action would also have an effect that is up to you and your fellows, but by taking that direction you would be confirming my view of our political process.

I could not follow much of the rest of your argument which was sort of a tirade of insults based on a particular view that international corporations are funding an anti- democratic attack on the alarmists theories.

You seem to have a funny view of democracy preferring only the advancement of your world views, I am a democrat because if you win an election based on green policies I will accept the results.

Huw, with respect I would not suggest you entered a debate on the democratic principals of the EU. It is not a democratic institution, we the people of this country have never given our consent to political union. It enables our ministers to bypass our own parliament and makes our parliament a charade. We have no control over the policies the EU pursues, we have no control over the direction of the EU. We could perhaps build on making the EU democratic, but first I would suggest we would need to decide if we wished to exchange our present citizenship.

Huw; it really is no good you continually listing government sponsored intuitions that either rely on the IPCC methods or contribute to them. I have just exploded your myth of a consensus and you have refused to address the base of your argument that the funding body corrupts. If there is a vested interest on one side of the debate there is also a vested interest on the other side, you fail to note that point preferring instead to smear anyone who disagrees with your view.

Report abuse

The IPCC was formed to investigate the affects of human causes of climate change, so its mandate presupposes the AGW premise, it is clear that if were there no or very little human impact, then the IPCC would be out of a job and the many studies financed by governments would loose their funding streams.

This fact is deemed not important, yet a small amount of funding from big business is deemed to be a corrupting influence. In fact much of the Green argument relies on creating the impression that the case has been proven and the only ones not agreeing are only doing so from a position of vested interest. You constantly refer to the denial industry yet refuse to recognise the very much larger alarmist industry and its vested interest.
I find the inconstancy in this position disturbing.

Report abuse

I have asked you time and again to confirm which of your organisations are not funded by public money or to explain to us why one funding stream corrupts but another much lager funding stream does not!

You have conspicuously refused to address that question. Yet now you ask what the vested interest is behind the IPCC, etc and tell us there is NONE.

Well there is, all the organisations to which you refer are publicly funded and therefore have a vested interest in continuing to receive their funding, the global warming industry is paying their wages, paying their mortgages, paying for their children’s education etc. The global warming industry is a massive multi-billion dollar industry funded mostly by the taxpayer though mainly government grants.

There is your vested interest.

The Taxpayer Alliance has estimated after Freedom of Information requests to a random sample of 30 councils across the country asking for details of council employees working to reduce carbon emissions in their area.

Assuming that council employees working to curb carbon emissions are paid, on average, at the mid-point of that salary range (£29,283), the total pay of local
government staff working to curb climate change is over £102 million.

There is a vested interest because without global warming all these people would be out of work. That is just one example!

Now I happen to believe that scientific studies should be judged on their scientific value and not on the funding body, it is the Green lobby which constantly uses the references to the funding body in order to dismiss out of hand scientific studies that conflict with their agenda without ever allowing the studies themselves to be considered. You keep demonising the Heartland Institute and try to argue it is corrupt because it has in the past received funding from Exxon Mobile, even though you have been told that it has never received funding above 5% in any year from Exxon even though you can check that figure you still insist it is corrupted.

I say let the science speak for itself and get away form this stupid un-provable obsession you have with the funding of any organisation that does not toe the Green Agenda.

Has it never entered you head that there are many people out there who do not agree with you, many people who can see though all the rubbish you throw about and are turned off by the very methods of you employ to silence uncomfortable arguments.

Well if you cannot Huw, you are the one representing a political party that is going to be asking people for their votes, they might well pause before placing their cross beside the Green party candidate and ask themselves now what has this party got to hide. Me I do not mind I just want to know that those spending my money have a very good cause for doing so, and so far I find the arguments totally unconvincing.

Report abuse

Ken, you didn’t respond to the points I made to your Hockey Stick Graph point.

I used information to rebut your points from NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE, and I recommend that others who want to unmask the denial industry in a public forum do so, too.

New Scientist reported a 2006 study (#107), which said that the Hockey Stick Graph ‘has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence’.

I wonder if you could respond.

Report abuse

National Geographic magazine understands the way our planet works better than most and relies for its information on peer-reviewed science, produced by people who work in scientific institutions.

This is an extract from the National Geographic’s ‘Big Thaw’ edition, which Tony ‘looking for solutions not … controversy’
Lewis (#91) didn’t seem keen to discuss for some reason (#19 + #34)

‘From the high mountains to the vast polar ice sheets, the world is losing its ice faster than anyone thought possible. It’s no surprise that glaciers are melting as emissions from cars and industry warm the climate.

But lately, the ice loss has outstripped the
upward creep of temperatures.

The temperature threshold for drastic sea-level rise is near, but many scientists think we still have time to stop it, by sharply cutting back consumption of climate-warming coal, oil and gas. Few doubt, however, that another 50 years of business as usual will take us beyond a point of no return.’

This sort of reality is undeniable to most thinking people, and is salient to a discussion about the biggest aviation expansion in a generation in the UK.

Tony Lewis, if you are still around, I wonder if you could comment on this?

Ken, earlier you smeared everyone who thought scientific institutions were scientific institutions saying they were defending ‘vested interests’.

The National Geographic’s mission statement is ‘INSPIRING PEOPLE TO CARE ABOUT THE PLANET’.

Report abuse

115# Yes I did respond Huw, see 108# I said you had misquoted me and that the Hockey Stick Graph has been busted by further studies, that show any information fed into the system, including telephone numbers will produce the Hockey Stick signature the real question is how on earth such material which overturned the scientific consensus and eradicated from the record known and provable historical facts, such as the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age, managed to get through the peer review process and was allowed to be used as the major hook proving AGW in the IPCC report to Policy Makers.

112# Huw I do tend to agree with you on the point you raise about large companies and the weakness of our political leaders in the face of their power. You mention the Guardian report about corporations are paying very little tax, I would not argue with you, there is a problem. I would suggest the Guardian is perhaps the wrong organ to quote, as I understand it also pays very little tax, but I do not say that in an attempt to discredit your point. I noted yesterday that, I think it was Friends of the Earth, have reported the closeness of big business lobbyists and the EU think tanks? big business is right at the heart of decision making for the whole of the EU.

Disregarding you point about putting our futures at risk, which I assume is an allusion to AGW, I do see that there is a very big problem when big business is so close to government, I see it as an attack on democracy, we elect our government to protect us the people and our national state, not to cosy up to big interest groups and put their interests above ours.

I see this as a cancer at the heart of our political system, however instead of deriding big business, which is only after all doing what for instance the Green movement is doing and that is to try to get close to the leavers of power in order to promote their own agenda, I feel our answer lies in attacking those we elect and pay, because at the end of the day it is our government whether in the EU or this country which is going to make the decisions.

The problem you have Huw, is your absolutism, all must be reduced to black and white, this blinds you the real complexities. I can disagree with you strongly on AGW yet at the same time I can agree with your comments about big business and government weakness to deal with them effectively. I am not for instance anti- regulatory, I will take your word the Heartland Institute is against regulations, it matters not to my arguments, because I am not opposing the cosiness of governments with big business because I believe big business is destroying the planet but because it is destroying democracy.

Report abuse

#119 New Scientist reported a 2006 study (#107), which said that the Hockey Stick Graph ‘has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence’.

I wonder if you could respond to this scientific submission to the US congress in 2006.

Could you perhaps comment on why New Scientist regards your view of the Hockey Stick Graph as a ‘myth’?

Report abuse

At the bottom of #79 you said ‘I am not a supporter of big international companies although it might seem that I am.’

You have up until now defended Exxon’s contributions to the overtly propagandist Heartland Foundation, which spreads myths about climate change. These are helpful for its paymasters, Exxon, and for other corporate funders.

Philip Morris International is the world’s leading international tobacco company and the third most profitable international consumer goods company.

According to the George Monbiot article, which I quoted earlier, Philip Morris also contributes to organisations like the Heartland Institute.

I wonder if you could give your comment, as someone who is ‘not a supporter of big international companies’, about Philip Morris’ funding of the Heartland Institute.

There are details about this on the excellent Canadian website, Desmog blog (11th February ‘A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke’), which seeks to clear the air of the mis-information put about by the denial industry.

Report abuse

122# Huw, you do not have to try to convince me of the problems with our government or the major political parties and conflict of interest abound in the system, I have not come across the particular one you mention, but there and plenty more to choose from, I feel though it would be unfair to mention individual ones, but we all read the headlines and can compile our own lists .

I think you know my position on reclaiming energy from rubbish, sorry if you find it inconvenient, but reclaiming energy is not as Friends of the Earth will have you believe re-branding incineration, it is reclaiming energy from rubbish. There is a difference, only your absolutists attitude refuses you the opportunity to see it. Yes you are most defiantly wrong to draw any conclusion about me sporting any organisation?

122# Lobbying; it would seem that Friends of the Earth are complaining about the lobbying by big business, what they seem to be saying is big business is confusing the lobbing by Friends of the Earth by perhaps spending more or being better equipped. So FoE in fact support lobbying, just not that which gets in the way of their own lobbying. For my part I would question the whole process because in the same way big business is threat to democracy so is green lobbying, you are both attempting to influence policy makers with your particular opinions.

123# Already addressed this point several times try to move on please. I have neither defended the Heartland Institute nor Big business and certainly not Exxon Mobile. You seem to be getting desperate and are grasping at straw men yet again.

Report abuse

It was interesting that the New Scientist article was written and published yet the two people who had discovered the mathematical problem were not interviewed. You also did not mention that in the same article it is reported that “Mann accepts that some of the measurements he used do not directly represent temperature change.” perhaps you missed that bit, it is quite understandable it is easy to miss something you are not looking for.

You mention one study I believe there were a lot more than one, but would suggest if you have a computer programme that has a mathematical fault in it no matter how many times you run the programme the fault will still be there, you have to remove the fault first.

You mention a scientific submission to the US congress in 2006. Also in 2006, the US Congress requested an independent analysis of the methods used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to determine its climate predictions and the resulting environmental consequences. This resulted in an “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction”

Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.

In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature
reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of co authored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

So we appear to have a closely knit clique of around 50 scientists who review each other work co author papers and generally support each other.

They cannot however escape the obvious that either the Hockey stick is wrong or all the documentary evidence from the period is wrong and all the science supporting. the documentary evidence is also wrong. The other thing is the IPCC were also totally wrong.

Either that or the questionable evidence produced by Mann, which is not supported by anything other than members of his clique is wrong. Well we already know Mann’s methods were wrong, he has already admitted as much and has corrected his studies.

Report abuse

Ken, in response to #125, you wanted me to move on from criticising the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute, and you claimed not to have defended them or Exxon Mobil.

One of the problems with this sort of approach for you is that anyone can read back over this thread and affirm in seconds that what you have written is utterly untrue.

For this reason I would like to stay on the subject, as it is a rich seam to mine.

You claim that you do not support these institutions but are willing to cite them and to make out that the Independent Institute is somehow independent of its corporate funders.

Here is another distortion.

In http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/30/uk-waste-policy-is-tax-scam/ #62, you said ‘I had a look at the Green party site and found it amazing on how may issues we agree and issues that prompted me to start Blogging in the first place.’

As with your other distortions, I see NO evidence for the above whatsoever.

Instead you characterise caring for the planet as ‘an ideology’ and have said nothing on the subject of climate in the course of our many ‘debates’, which can survive sustained questioning.

By the way, have you come around to the idea that scientific institutions are scientific institutions yet?

Report abuse

129#
Huw, I do not mind who you criticize, please feel free, I am merely asking you to live by your own rules, I do not hold out much hope of that happening but there is no harm in trying.

Anyone can read back and if they do the will find that I have not defended Exxon Mobile or the Heartland Institute.

Sorry Huw I do not support these institutions but am willing to cite them is that support in your view?

As you say anyone can read back, perhaps you would like to indicate where I have said the Independent Institute is independent of its corporate funders.

Its all news to me, a distortion certainly, but I think not mine!

Well Huw, if you do not see where I could possible support the Green Party perhaps you are right, on the other hand, perhaps you do not know the policies of your own party, I know which it is, because the Green Party does have policies with which I agree. Sorry to offend, but it really is your own fault for trying to put people into little boxes.

No I do not characterise caring for the planet as ‘an ideology’ I say you approach the recycling issue from an Ideological position because you are more interested in maintaining recycling than you are about dealing with the issues recycling was introduced to deal with. The difference between us here is that I am not interested in recycling for its own sake only whether it will do the job we are paying it to do. I see you are still clutching at straw men.

Report abuse

132#
Well in fact I said at 126# “The fact that you accept the Mann studies which overturned the consensus of the IPCC, indicates you do not hold any respect for any information from which ever quarter, which contradicts the alarmist view”

But we are becoming accustomed to your selective quoting!

The point I was making was you have claimed constantly that the evidence is overwhelming and have constantly claimed the Authority of the IPCC cannot be questioned and that anyone who does it is implied in the pay of big oil.

Yet here we have a brand new study which at the time totally contradicted all the scientific evidence and also contradicted externally documented historic periods. So you obviously do not believe the IPCC is always right. You do not seem to have a problem with the contradictions and inconstancies of your own argument. This is amplified by your reaction to the new Antarctic study co authored by that Mann again. This also contradicts your own scientific consensus and the Satellite records of temperatures over the past thirty years and you say it adds to the evidence, well it does if it is correct, but it leaves your claim to authority and your absurd claim the debate is over in tatters. Because you do accept that new studies can affect the consensus, but it would seem only if they conform AGW if they do not then you dismiss them out of hand as lies and misinformation.

I haves said constantly that studies which contradict the claimed consensus is not misinformation it would appear that at last you agree.

However; I am extremely interested to find which information that does contradict the alarmists view, you do respect, Oh do tell please!

Report abuse

Dr. Spencer also details some of the methods used by global warming alarmists, he says these are increasingly laced with insults and attacks directed toward anyone who might disagree with them.

Listed below are ten propaganda techniques:

Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population.

Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action. Also, Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited.

Bandwagon: Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking”. Also,

Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

Flag-waving: An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. Also, Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.

Ad Hominem attacks: well we have seen plenty of those you might like to try some of the others for a change? Perhaps not!

Appeal to Prejudice: Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Black-and-White fallacy: Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice.

Euphoria: The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale:
Live Earth concerts organized worldwide in 2007 by Al Gore.

Falsifying information: The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization. Pseudo-sciences are often used to falsify information.

Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. Also, Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience.

There you go Huw, a few ideas for you but please don’t forget Dr Spencer believes in AGW and is not supported by Exxon Mobile.

Report abuse

Oh dear Huw, I seem to spend about half my time correcting your misinterpretations, is this a deliberate ploy?

I said;

Before the Mann`s study the IPCC reports do show the MWP and LIA, this means that the scientific evidence at that time matched known and clearly documented historical facts. Because the evidence matched these facts, there were external references that supported the science.

However the previous warming period was problematic for the alarmists because their argument is that the use of fossil fuels in the past century has introduced much more C02 into the atmosphere and that is driving Global Warming.

This was a problem for the Alarmists, who faced with the inconvenience of these historical episodes found it difficult to convince anyone that it was human’s influence that was driving the present warming.

I did not as you misinterpret say Mann found it difficult to convince anyone.

The real question as I have said before is how did such a study pass peer review and become the main hook proving human influence in the IPCC report to policy makers.

There was to use your touchstone a clear consensus that both the MWP and the LIA were real events yet this study airbrushes them out of history.

Did the scientist not think hang on a minute here is a study that contradicts all scientific evidence of the MWP and LIA which are events also documented externally. Let really look at the evidence and at the methods Dr Mann employed to arrive at this ground breaking work. Apparently not nevertheless the IPCC used and promoted the study and it was not until later that the problems were discovered and then not by the Mann clique or the IPCC.

I cannot see the relevance of the Keith Briffa, comment, however I do believe the consensus is that C02 levels follow and do not precede periods of warming. Of course the Gore camp prefer to ignore this small but salient point in order to support their AGW argument.

Yes the Hockey Stick suddenly becomes of secondary importance when it is disproved, but it was not secondary at the time it was the headline, it was the study that overturned the consensus and was used extensively to promote the present period of warming as unprecedented.

Report abuse

“Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong.

Gore calls C02 “Global Warming Pollution” but C02 cannot be a pollutant because life on earth could not exist without it. It is like saying air is polluting the atmosphere.

However the real rise in C02 levels are already showing that the IPCC predictions are way over the top, the IPCC show three possible intensities of predicted C02 rises, the actual recorded rise is about half of the predicted mid range. So even if C02 were the driver of Global Warming, this fact alone would require all of the IPCC’s projections of future temperature increase to be halved.

The IPCC predicted that the temperatures would rise in fact the temperatures have been falling.

Going back to an earlier point 99#
Referring to the Steig, Shindell, Mann
Antarctic report

Quote; “many atmospheric scientists attribute [the cooling] to emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed high-altitude ozone.

Because those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse.”
This argument was the one used for reducing chlorofluorocarbons use, as stated this action was supposed to result healing the hole in the ozone layer. The fact is that although we have phased out these chemicals, the hole has not as scientists predicted healed, in fact it has gotten that much bigger. Scientists have now realised that they had puffed up the caustic power of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbons by at least a factor of ten. So we have banned the use of these chemicals at a great cost to no good effect, because it just isn’t working.

Report abuse

Oh so none of this is true? Of Dr Spencer
He was NOT a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center?

He did not receive NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites?
He has NOT provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.?
He was NOT Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001?

His work has NOT been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies NASA, NOAA, and DOE

He did NOT receive his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981

Those are direct questions I expect an answer!

Ad Hominem attacks: well we have seen plenty of those

Now do you wish to respond to the point he made?

Dr. Joanne Simpson retired from NASA she admitted to a long-held skepticism regarding the role of mankind in global warming.

NASA’s Administrator, Michael Griffin, admitting that he was skeptical of the urgency of the global warming problem?

John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is manmade…and adding “climate models are useless” for good measure.

NASA wanted Congress to fund new satellites to study the problem. It was a team effort to get that accomplished.

That NASA’s James Hansen routinely ignored NASA policy, and said whatever he wanted to the press and to Congress without getting approval first. The reason why everyone at NASA looked the other way was that we were trying to get congressional funding for satellite missions to study climate.

Oh dear Huw are you saying powerful big international companies go our and kill 150,000 people each year. We have already decided that cold kills more than heat.

I am not silent on what you claim is misinformation; I have said repeatedly that I do not consider scientific studies that question your alarmists views as disinformation. The fact that you do only proves that you have closed mind with regards to the sciences. Nothing can be considered that conflicts with the Alarmists claims no matter how outlandish those claims are.

You have not proved that the Heartland Institute is a propagandists organisation for the powerful?

I believe we have already agreed that Exxon only ever gave tops 5% of the Heartlands funding, I did give you information on how you can confirm those figures.

Also you have reused to acknowledge that the funding body corrupts, I have offered proof that government funding corrupts, your only answer you have is the old Ad Hominem attack.

Report abuse

By the way, the melting of the Arctic permafrost will release tonnes of methane and carbon dioxide, which will add to the heating effect, as methane traps 20 times more heat than CO2.

Carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, stays in the atmosphere and continues to heat up the earth a century or more after it is emitted (CFCs were banned by the Montreal Protocol in 1987 but -as you pointed out- are still damaging the ozone hole).

Therefore we have got to stop new emissions (like those created by aviation expansion) and start cutting urgently.

Report abuse

Further to my rebuttal of your Arctic sea ice point in #142, George Monbiot has done some research today on this myth. (Guardian 18th February, 2009, George Will’s climate howlers)

Monbiot contacted the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center to ask if a similar claim by Washington Post journalist, George Will, was correct.

The Arctic Climate Research Center’s Bill Chapman wrote:

‘No, it is not correct. I don’t know where they are getting that.

As of today, there are 1.43m km sq less Arctic sea ice than this same date in 1979. (Roughly the size of two Texas-sized states).’

Report abuse

143# Yes Huw, the case is clear, permafrost melt will add to methane and C02 levels, but this does not prove that man is creating the conditions that cause permafrost melt. In fact any betting man would put their money on the Sun because that is where the present evidence is pointing, the sun is now entering a quieter period after several years of high activity when the temperatures rose the temperatures are not rising now they have flat lined for several years and I believe are now falling, as evidenced by the recent cold weather experienced.

If however you are right then we do have a very big problem because the politicians do not seem to be taking you seriously enough.

What is the balance by the way of natural Co2 and mans industrial production of C02?

Report abuse

145# Monbiot is wrong and is being mendacious, the same level of Ice in the Artic now as 1979 is a fact admitted by the Arctic Climate Research Center in a statement.
The Arctic Climate Research Center’s Bill Chapman wrote:
‘No, it is not correct. I don’t know where they are getting that.
It seems George Will was getting his information from the Daily tech website and (No I do not know if it is listed at the Heartland Institute.)
It would also seem that the information is quite correct (Arctic) sea ice area, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article.
Statement related to Daily Tech article of January 1, 2009
On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled “Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979” appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change and/or global warming.

One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979.

sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article.

The statement in full argues against that in the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. It also includes an argument with reference to the Antarctic based again on computer models.

You can find a link on Cryosphere Today.

The point being is as we have seen the predictions are that each years melt would not be fully made up with the winter freeze, this has been disproved as we are back to 1979 levels at present, which means basically there has been no loss of ice during the past thirty years. A graphic example can be seen at Cryosphere Today by running the video there you can see the constant shrinking and growing of the Ice cap.

Report abuse

Your point about the sun in #147 is dealt with by the Royal Society on the section on its website, which deals with misleading arguments.

Misleading argument # 6.

There is another section called ‘climate myths’ on the New Scientist website which deals with the sun and cosmic rays etc etc

Alastair Sawday Publishing brought out a slim book in July 2008 entitled ‘What About China?’ which also debunks myths which justify inaction on this all-important issue.

Report abuse

In #42 you said I had not proved that the Heartland Institute is a propagandists organisation for the powerful.

Here are a selection of stories from the site:

‘Asbestos Removal: Our Most Costly Environmental Scam’; ‘Brief of Amici Regarding Abuse of Science by EPA in Dioxin Cancer Risk Management’; ‘Crandall Canyon Mine Had Very Good Safety Record’; ‘Take away Al Gore’s Nobel peace prize’; ‘Fox News Interviews President Bush’; ‘World Nations Competing With Tax Cuts, Not Hikes’

Who benefits from this propaganda, Ken?

People whose buildings are contaminated with asbestos? People concerned about dioxin emissions from a local incinerator? Miners who died in Crandall Canyon? Objective journalism? Users of public education or health care?

Or the Heartland’s Institute’s corporate funders?

I believe we have already agreed that the Heartland Institute gives NO information on its corporate donors.

You defend their line that they regret this.

Again this beggars belief.

PS I have just purchased Sharon Beder’s 2006 book, ‘Free Market Missionaries: the corporate manipulation of community values’.

There is lots of information on the Heritage Foundation, but none unfortunately on the Heartland Institute.

Her excellent ‘Global Spin’ woke me up to what multinational corporations were doing ‘to put environmentalists out of business’.

That is why I would like to publicize her work here in Shropshire.

Do let me know if you want to know what she says about the think-tanks you like to cite.

Report abuse

You said that my rebuttal about Arctic sea ice failed.

In my opinion, repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.

In #150 I quoted from the Cryosphere Today site that you cited in #149.

Anyone clicking on to it today will see a rebuttal of the Washington Post George will article, which shows that George Monbiot was right and that it is you who are being mendacious.

Cryosphere Today: ‘This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.’

Report abuse

I agree with you that the EU has got to become more democratic.

This is why the Green Party is pushing for extra powers for the European Parliament to hold the executive to account.

Report abuse

I note you keep getting in your little puffs for your side of the argument, may I therefore take this opportunity to recommend an anatomy of the scare phenomenon:
Scared to Death

Scaremongering From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth
– By Dr Richard North and Christopher Booker

The big scare is a recurrent feature of life in Western societies. The sequence of crises that have afflicted us – from salmonella in eggs to listeria to BSE to the Millennium bug – has culminated in recent years with the rise of global warming and the spectre of climate change. In the theory of man-made global warming we have the scare to end all scares, the scare that presents us finally with a vision of the end of the world as we know it. What is remarkable about this sequence of crises is not just the sheer number of them, but also, despite the differences between them, just how much they have in common.

The London Book Review said of this book:

For many readers, or at least those who took much of the news of these scares at face value, this is going to be something of a shocking read.

For example the chapter entitled the ‘Great Asbestos Scam’ was a real eye-opener. And, for those who are sceptical the authors are at pains to provide plenty of references to follow up.

Though it has to be said that scepticism is little displayed by the media who helped to whip up these scares.

The current scare is, of course, global warming (though the more savvy environmentalists have taken to calling it climate change, a recognition that warming isn’t happening as much as we have been lead to believe). Here the authors take apart the myth of a scientific ‘consensus’, and carefully demolish the lies and inaccuracies in much of the climate alarmism that still infects the popular discourse.

There is so much to commend in this book. Not only is it packed with solidly researched evidence, it’s also a gripping narrative read. There are few books on current affairs that really qualify as page-turners, but this is most definitely one of them. If EVER A BOOK DESERVED TO BE ON THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM IT IS THIS ONE It ought to be required reading for every adult in the country too.

Sounds good! unfortunately I have not round to buying it yet. Just in case either of the authors are paid by Exxon Mobile.

Report abuse

156# Huw, a simple statement that the Sun is the biggest factor with regard to the Earths temperature and water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas is not misleading.

The statement that the sun has been in an active period and is now entering a quieter period is not misleading.

Saying the last couple of years has produced some of the coldest whether periods is not misleading.

The only possible thing that just might be misleading is linking the two. But I note that some scientists were saying a couple of years ago that the sun was the main contributor to warming and as it went into a cooler period this would be reflected in the earth’s climate. I also note that the alarmist were not predicting such an event with their computer models.

157# The Green Party are also against the Lisbon Treaty.

One of the questions I always ask is what will a party do if they fail to make the EU democratic. Giving the EU parliament greater powers will not be effective in making the EU more democratic. The parliament is not elected on a platform of policy pledges and hence choice for the voter. Where there is no choice there is no democracy. The commission is not elected or controlled by the parliament and the parliament cannot introduce legislation.

But these points apply equally to all parties who take the view that we should remain in the EU and so is not an argument against the Greens in particular.Which has the distinction of at least being clear about why they want power rather than wanting it for its own sake

Report abuse

Readers have probably already come to their own conclusions about how reliable the information on your website is, Ken.

I see little appeal for true democrats, interested in democratic qualities like truth and justice, to be using your website, which seems to recycle deregulatory propaganda, which benefits only the corporations that pay for it.

After all, on this thread alone you give us a flavour of your views.

You

a) deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
b) deny the empirical facts of peer-reviewed science
c) deny that scientific institutions are scientific institutions
d) plagiarise anonymous sites, set up to confuse not to illuminate
e) cherry-pick science out of context in a deliberate attempt to confuse the public
f) avoid any comment on the likely fate for a sixth of political inaction on carbon emissions

What is more, the ‘free’-market values and de-regulatory propaganda on your website are completely out of synch with the times.

Millions of people across the world are losing their jobs after their bosses’ creditors, the banks, collapsed.

The banks have collapsed because the over-liberalised financial world was not under democratic control, and was allowed to turn into a casino.

So-called ‘globalisation’ was not adequately regulated by governments.

We’ve tried out the crazy de-regulation you advocate, Ken, and it doesn’t work.

It’s time to try something else, and at the same time make the global economy sustainable so that our grandchildren can prosper in the future.

Report abuse

On its website the (US) National Snow and Ice Data Center provides the following information in the Frequently Asked Questions section.

‘Is Arctic sea ice really declining?

Yes, the data show that Arctic sea ice really is in a state of ongoing decline. The reason we know this is because satellites offer us a long-term record.

As of September 2007, the September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 was approximately -10 PERCENT PER DECADE, or 28,000 SQUARE MILES PER YEAR.

Although the 2008 sea ice minimum was slightly above the 2007 record, the rate of decline since 1979 increased to -11.7 PERCENT PER DECADE.

September is the month that Arctic sea ice melts back to its lowest point, known as the annual minimum, and is an important indicator of overall ice conditions.

However, sea ice in the Arctic is in decline in all months and the DECLINE IS GREATER AND THE RATE FASTER THAN NATURAL CAUSES COULD ACCOUNT FOR.

2008 had more sea ice than 2007; why?

A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years?

For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008).

COMPARING LONGER TRENDS AND AVERAGES IS MORE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE NATURAL VARIABILITY, OR NATURAL SHIFTS IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM CAUSE CHANGES FROM ONE MONTH TO THE NEXT.

Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of TRENDS.

This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.

As an analogy, consider statistics from sports. ONE GAME DURING A WINNING SEASON WHEN THE HOME FOOTBALL TEAM LOST BADLY WOULDN’T BE INDICATIVE OF THEIR SEASON AS A WHOLE.

AND COMPARING THAT ONE BAD GAME YEARS AGO WITH A REALLY GOOD GAME THIS YEAR WHEN THE TEAM MANAGED TO WIN 28-0 DURING A TERRIBLE LOSING SEASON, WOULDN’T BE A FAIR COMPARISON EITHER.

HOWEVER, PLOTTING ALL OF THE GAMES ON A LINE GRAPH WOULD GIVE AN ACCURATE INDICATION OF HOW THAT TEAM DID THAT YEAR.

And taking the scores and plotting them over several decades, would indicate whether the team has a significant trend over its history.’

Report abuse

As for the sensor error you pointed out in #160, that is true.

However, your conclusion shows your determination to cloud the issue, rather than to further understanding.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center says on its website, that, ‘while dramatic, the underestimated values were NOT outside of expected variability until Monday, February 16.

Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check in the coming days.

Sensor drift is a perfect but unfortunate example of the problems encountered in near-real-time analysis.

We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive…’

Report abuse

163# Get of it Huw if your ideological alarmist position was supported by unquestionable science you would not need to resort to this insulting farrago of outright lies and misleading implications.

164# Huw I am quoting a fact confirmed by the University of Illinois Sea Ice is at the same level it was thirty years ago, THAT IS A FACT NOT A DISTORTION AND NOT DECEIT!

I showed you where to find the relevant document from the University of Illinois confirming that Gorge Wills and the Daily Tech article were correct to say sea ices was at the same level in 1979. You obviously have found it because now to cover your tracks you start talking about trends.

NOBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT TRENDS! Monbiot was not talking about trends he made a clear statement that the Sea Ice was not at the same level as 1979 that is contradicted by his own source. Although I will repeat he was probably given wrong information, that is clear because as we both know the wrong information is on the front page of the web site. You have to go down a level to find the full story.

165# The argument is each year the melt will be greater and the refreeze will not recover fully the ice lost, this is contradicted by the recover of the ice to 1979 levels.
Do not forget we were told that the Arctic would be free of ice this last summer it was not, we are also told it will be free of ice by 2013 we wait to see.

The whole alarmist’s concept if fought with questionable assumptions, the first one is that there was something like pre-industrial average temperature that the recent warming could be judged against, we have already discovered the problems with that assumption as shown by the existence of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period.

166# Yes this point is covered in the Daily Tech article:
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That is the problem with predictions!

167# ‘while dramatic, the underestimated values were NOT outside of expected variability until Monday, February 16.

Quite! Read it again Huw! They are saying they were not concerned by the readings they were receiving because they were expected. I assume because they were relying on computer predictions of the expected trend! It would have been interesting to see the quick reaction, were the readings not in line with the expected trend as it was the recovery of the Ice was an unexpected event. That’s the problem with predictions!

That in reality has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of ice forming, an occurrence The National Snow and Ice Data Center were blissfully ignorant of until they began to receive emails from concerned readers. They of course have no data to back up their fond belief that the readings were correct up to early January.

Report abuse

#169, we know YOU are not talking about TRENDS, Ken.

If you did, then you would not come out with your mis-representations.

But that is because you are not a climatologist.

You are wilfully ignoring the fact that, when talking about climate change, it is the TRENDS that count.

Denialists like you, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Peter Roberts and Paul Biggs like to quote science OUT OF CONTEXT ignoring trends over time.

What counts is trends over time.

You can find out about scientific method in the New Scientist, which also gives useful well-researched rebuttals to the climate change denial industry.

Report abuse

171# Minbiot was not talking about trends he said it was factually wrong that sea ice was at the same level as 1979 he did not mention trends. You introduced a new aspect when I proved both you and Monbiot wrong. And yes I accept you were wrongly informed but the fact remains you were wrong. Accept it gracefully and stop trying to wriggle out of it by introducing something that was not involved in the original. The fact is that the mistake in the measurements when unnoticed for so long simply because they were relying on forecast trends they would still be relying on them now if readers had not noticed the problem and sent emails, in fact the first questions about the accuracy of the measurements were rebutted.

All we know now is that despite all the predictions to the contrary and the going on about the loss of sea ice, it has this year expanded to the same level as 1979, thus it is going against the trend, it is unexpected according to the models. You accuse me of mis-representations but you are the one guilty of that because just about everything you claim is a cherry picked misrepresentation of the real scientific findings and given an alarmists spin.

172# Huw; you do nothing but disparage anyone who disagrees with you and beatify alarmists like Hansen and Gore.

I ask you again to confirm that the funding body corrupts and if it does why is public funding any different.

I at least have given the detail of one co – scientist of Hansen who openly says that the prospect of funding was always on the minds of the scientists.

All you have offered is unsubstantiated smears, that is all you do, that is what you do, put some bones on it! Where exactly is the science wrong that you call misinformation? I do not wish to know about it being wrong simply because it funded by an unspecified corporate secret body, I want you to show where the science is wrong in itself.

I have said continually, ignore the funding body and look at the studies. But you seem to think you are offering some sort of public service by lying about the science of Global Warming.

Every single piece of evidence you have about global warming comes with a disclaimer from the scientist who did the study, it might happen it might not happen, this reflects the uncertainties in the science. Yet you insist on presenting those finding as facts and anything which contradicts them as misrepresentations.

Report abuse

Actually, you don’t need to substantiate that accusation with any empirical evidence, Ken.

In our brief acquaintance, I am well aware that facts and evidence have never been important to you in the past.

So why should they be now?

Simply put, this ‘debate’ boils down to the fact that these institutions and individuals are providing citizens in our democracy with scientific information, which vested interests and their propagandists find inconvenient, but which society must respond to urgently; and that you disagree.

the IPCC, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the UK and the USA, as well as the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences; European Academy of Sciences and Arts; Network of African Science Academies; the International Council for Science; the European Science Foundation; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the Federation of American Scientists; the World Meteorological Organization; the American Meteorological Society; the Royal Meteorological Society (UK); the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society; the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; the American Geophysical Union; the American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Chemical Society; the National Research Council (US); the Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), the American Quaternary Association; the Geological Society of America; Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia); the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; the European Geosciences Union; the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics; and the International Union of Geological Sciences; the World Health Organisation, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; National Geographic; New Scientist; David Attenborough, James Hansen; Al Gore; Professor Stephen Hawking; W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London (see #54 and #75), and the CBI ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/11/27/not-just-the-climate-is-changing/ ) to name but a few.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: ‘A person hears only what they understand.’

Perhaps I should have followed Billy Connolly’s life lessons more closely.

‘Avoid bigots of all descriptions.’

Report abuse

A new report by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) was published last month has received very little media attention possibly because it was written in Japanese.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a Japanese government advisory panel.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change and compares them to ancient astrology.

After listing many faults, and the IPCC’s own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

“[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,”

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”

This report argues that

Global Warming has halted:
AND THER IS NO PREDICTION OF THIS HALT IN GLOBAL WARMING IN IPCC SIMULATIONS. Just as there was no prediction of the increased ice levels in the Arctic this year.

Scientific Understanding and Uncertainty
When constructing models, if our scientific understanding is poor, we are not able to capture the model. But we should pay attention to the importance of the naturally occurring processes when our scientific understanding is not yet clearly decided.

The limits of modeling aerosols and clouds
The indirect effect of aerosols and aerosol generation as the greatest uncertainty is becoming widely recognized,

Predictability and estimation rules
The 4th Evaluation Report is confident of the reliability of its assessment that previous data does not differ from its model. But a more effectively persuasive assessment of its predictive ability has not come forth. This is like the ancient Greek Thales predicting solar eclipses, future predictions should be tested in practice.

Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming theory still hypothetical
To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report’s conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability.

The Science is settled is it HUW?

That is basically what I have been telling Huw, as he constantly attempts to portray the alarmists theories as solid facts and any scientific studies that question those theories or offer an alternative explanation of the warming we have witnessed, or offer an alternative to the alarmists scenarios, are nothing but corporate funded orchestrated attempts to control the debate and spread doubt and mis-information.

He is substituting the truth for an unproven and un-provable theory and then attacking anyone who questions the theory.

Report abuse

In #176 you said ‘you do really need to substantiate your unfunded accusations with empirical evidence! That is always the case in debate you either put up or shut up! If you cannot offer real evidence then withdraw the accusations.’

For your information, Ken, the IPCC and those scientific institutions came to their conclusions using empirical evidence.

Do you know what empirical evidence is?

Or are you so intolerant of empirical evidence which undermines your extreme worldview that you are going to now start a debate about what constitutes empirical evidence?

Report abuse

Could you give me the source of your Japanese research story, Ken?

The only websites, which I could find, were all blogs, which say climate change is not happening, and I don’t trust them for the reasons I have given above.

Would it be possible to show me an IMPARTIAL source, which ran this story, rather than one, which is partial to its own group or politics and is intolerant of those who differ?

By the way I don’t see Eurealist as ‘impartial’, either.

Report abuse

181# No Eurealist is not impartial it is not intended to be, but then neither is any political blog, eurealist though is impartial as regards party politics. The EU is not impartial either it seems to have a really big problem with being so, considering it is using our money on its propaganda. At least I pay for my blog without any assistance from anyone.

No Huw, I am not going to play that game you attempted that before 70# as I said that is all you do when confronted with evidence you do not like smear it. If you do not believe the translation then translate it yourself, or if you can find an English translation, but as the report by the Japanese scientists did not support the IPCC I doubt very much that something you will accept would bother to translate it. However you have just proved the point, here we a have a scientific report from a scientific institution which does not agree with the findings of the IPCC and you are already trying to cast doubt on its veracity.

And with respect who are you to demand impartiality, you are not impartial, so how dare you demand from others!

179# I am asking you to substantiate your smears against those you attack, you say you do not have too, well I am sorry but to be believed you do. The choice is yours you made the unsubstantiated smears not me.

I do not have an extreme view, what is extreme about not being convinced by people who cherry pick science to reach an alarmist conclusion and then refuse to allow debate by trying to argue that the scientific evidence is conclusive. Even as their whole argument is being torn apart by the reality of their failed predictions.

180# Yes I know the views on climate change vary it is you who is claiming a consensus for the alarmists view. And you have missed out a whole other lot of scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC, thousands of whom have been prepared to sign various petitions stating they are not of the consensus. And please keep in mind only 20% of the IPCC are involved with climate.

The 4,000 scientists who signed the Heidelberg Appeal against the rampant pseudoscience surrounding the issue. An irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development.

The Oregon Petition
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The Leipzig Declaration
we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models — and unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the existing climate record. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on.

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that — contrary to the conventional wisdom — there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever — in direct contradiction to computer model results.

The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on
Greenhouse Warming
Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.

Signatories of these amount to 35,000 climatologists and meteorologists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners

THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
Now see where the golf balls land! Because that is the biggest lie of all there is no scientific consensus. You can only claim there is by cutting out all those who disagree just as you have shown by your imagined spread of scientific views. I would not particularly place James Hansen in a different category to the ones who believe climate change will kill billions what was he called coal trains — trains of death wasn’t it?

I see we have introduced a New word “contrarians” One who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom, as in buying securities that are unpopular at the time.

We have just dispensed with the concept of a consensus it does not exist so there can be no prevailing wisdom that supports the alarmists view. 35,000 climatologists and meteorologists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners have said so!

Report abuse

Naomi Oreskes’ one-hour YouTube lecture called the ‘American Denial of Global Warming’ (easily found on Google) gives an excellent overview of the science of climate change from the 1850s to the present day.

Is a also brilliant exposé of the denial industry and its tactics.

Oreskes highlights in her lecture the now infamous 2002 memo to President George W. Bush from corporate and political consultant FRANK LUNTZ.

In it he outlines the tactics that Bush should pursue in discussing global warming.

This is exactly the same tactic that you use, Ken.

“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

Why do you think that Luntz is now distancing himself from this memo, Ken?

If readers are interested in discovering the history of climate science, then Naomi Oreskes’ lecture is a must.

Oreskes shows how the leading experimental physicist of the 19th century, John Tyndall (1820-1893) discovered the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide and water vapour.

Peter Roberts from the so-called Drivers’ Alliance follows Luntz’s tactic by questioning Tyndall’s well-established research dating back to the 1850s here ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/08/30/climate-change-to-blame/ #8).

What do you think of Mr Roberts’ tactics, Ken?

In the early 20th century scientists realised that if carbon content changed, the climate could change, too.

Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish chemist, was most famously associated with this conclusion.

The British engineer, Guy Callendar, argued that this warming effect was already happening in the 1930s.

So the basic physics of the greenhouse were already understood in the 1930s.

Or do you dispute even this, Ken?

Gilbert Plass of the American Institute of Physics refined this further in the 1950s using upper atmospher spectroscopy (satellites) to work out that the absorption bands of carbon dioxide and water vapour did NOT overlap.

His work was important because it showed that the carbon dioxide problem was a real one.

What do you think of this work from the 1950s, Ken?

In 1957 Seuss and Ravelle published a significant paper in the journal, ‘Tellus’, in which they said humans were performing a ‘great geophysical experiment’.

They concluded that fossil fuels had accumulated on earth over the course of hundreds of millions of years of geo-physical time, and that humans had since the Industrial Revolution begun burning those fossil fuels at a very rapid rate.

Hundreds of millions of years of energy was being released in a matter of decades.

Is Eurealist really so relaxed about the consequences of this insight from the 1950s, Ken?

I will not review all the rest of the science up to the present day, because it is probably mopre familiar.

In the second half of her lecture, Naomi Oreskes looks at the denial industry and the success of think tanks (like the George C. Marshall Institute) in spreading doubt and mis-information about the science of climate change.

She looks in particular at how scientific uncertainty became a POLITICAL tactic.

After watching this lecture, Ken, it might be interesting to hear why, in your opinion, the US Republicans have had to abandon this tactic.

After all, on June 2nd 2005, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California, said ‘I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now.’

Furthermore, Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain pledged carbon dioxide cuts of 60% to the American people and was defeated by a candidate promising 80% cuts by 2050.

And I recommend Naomi Oreskes’ lecture to Shropshire Star readers.

It is easily found on Google.

Report abuse

184# Now let me see I have got this right you are not attempting to cast doubt on the report from the Japanese scientists, you are however attempting to cast doubt on the source of the story in the west? Sounds like double think to me! No you are already using your smears again. If you do not believe the translation translate it yourself, but until you do you have no proof whatever that the Japanese scientists did not conclude

“[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,”
We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”

The blogs I rely on! which blogs do I rely on and which are anonymous? Stop this endless series of undefined smear tactics; if you wish to argue a point do so, but for goodness sake please be specific so we all know what you are accusing whom of and can respond.

Back to the Heartland Institute I see! they were quite clear why they do not publish details of their sponsors, it is because people like you would do exactly what you are doing and that is to create the impression that anything from the Heartland Institute is tarnished because this or that company has been a sponsor and this as you intend gets in the way of actually debating the science.

Hence the Exxon Mobile smears, you have not even attempted to show where the science has been corrupted, you just invite us to agree with you that the simple fact of mentioning a particular funding body prove your point that it is and should thus be discounted.

You are all fluff Huw: if you are going to accuse any one of anything, please be prepared to back it with some proof. So now I would like you to tell us exactly which scientific studies have been corrupted by Exxon Mobil small donations to the Heartland Institute?

Every one also knows that all the scientists paid from the public purse rely on keeping the show on the road in order to keep their funding streams open. It is sort of sauce for the goose!

The climate has always changed and the climate will always continue to change, and the alarmists also cherry and pick quote out of context to imply that man is responsible.

There is no scientific consensus that supports the alarmists views.

Report abuse

#187 you said ‘The blogs I rely on! which blogs do I rely on and which are anonymous?’

In http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/04/25/climate-criticism-unfounded/ #11 you gave a very revealing list of the sources for your information: that is why in #18 I exposed them to the democratic light of day. )

I would also direct you back to what I said in #62 on this thread.

This little experiment of cut-and-pasting your words showed a Google list of sites, the most popular pf which was ANONYMOUS.

I invite doubters to try the same experiment.

Report abuse

Getting back to the subject of this thread again, Peter Mandelsohn’s friend, the PR professional, Roland Rudd, represents airport operator BAA, which -it has been revealed- had lots of access to mininsters in the run-up to the short-sighted and environmentally disastrous Heathrow decision.

Rudd met ministers 5 times in 10 days in the run-up to Labour’s unpopular decision to go ahead with Heathrow expansion.

We have discussed Exxon Mobil’s PR work.

What are your views on corporate PR, as a ‘democrat’?

Report abuse

190# What on earth do you mean are you really asking us to believe that the climate does not change naturally? And the only change we have seen has been caused by humans burning fossil fuels? That is a simply stunning admission.

I did respond to your mention of Naomi Oreskes

I said; Naomi Oreskes produced a paper claiming there was a consensus on AGW this claim has been questioned by others who say the study was faulty. You now tell me that she has produced a video detailing the denial industry I would not have thought considering her obvious pro AGW stance that she would particularly meet your very strict IMPARTIAL code! Or does that only work one way?

Who am I to deny scientific research? I am not convinced by the AGW arguments firstly, because there is contradictory evidence that I find more compelling. Secondly, just because they have been talking about global warming since 1890 is not confirmation of global warming, because they were talking about global cooling in the intervals, I assume by your description of the Naomi Oreskes feature that she has merely left out the inconvenient bits, much in the style of Gore. But most importantly I am not convinced by the alarmists because of the Neo Marxists methods used by people like you to close down the debate. I want to know what you are so frightened of, to use such dishonest tactics in order to smear other scientists and other commentators, with the vilest of slurs, with the clear intention of discrediting them. The only answer I can come up with it must be the weakness of your case because only those with a weak argument would stoop so low. So you do not do your own cause any good at all by this constantly lying.

In particular with regard to this post, I have stated several times I am not pro- deregulation, and do not support big corporations yet you continue to insult me by saying I am, when you have no proof what ever for that lie. And why do you believe it just to issue an affront to my sincerity and my integrity by linking me to ex-RBS chief Sir Fred Goodwin and his disgraceful £16m pension.

That is the problem Huw the alarmist science is not established, you are cherry picking science for those bits which suit you and calling that established.

I did not watch the two videos for previously mentioned reasons! you are the one demanding impartiality yet you not your self are not impartial and you do not offer impartial evidence.

I have already responded to the FRANK LUNTZ Memo which you claim was leaked? Proof please.

I said: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”
But that is exactly what you are attempting to do to convince the public that science on Global warming is settled and that it confirms the alarmists claims. That is why you take so much trouble to attack any scientist or organisation which does not sign up fully to the cause, this is instead of actually debating the science.”
I could also add FRANK LUNTZ makes it clear that the President should “defer to scientists and other experts in the field” I am assuming that this is a real memo? Proof please. You have the particular distinction of believing that your ideology is not to be questioned, thus you feel you can insult anyone who does, that is the worst kind of fundamentalism.

Report abuse

Well at least we agree on Mandelson…

In response to #193, No, Ken, I didn’t do all those things you say.

I’m sorry if I you are cross, but I am interested in the truth, and I think the sources which I have listed are reliable and that those that you list are not.

Now that even the US Republican Party has abandoned your tactic of spreading doubt and wilfully ignoring the bigger picture, do you not agree that even Eurealist will eventually have to accept what David Attenborough calls ‘the truth about climate change’?

I am, like many people in the UK, also interested in justice for the people in the poorer parts of the world, who you wilfully ignore and who are going to be the first to be affected by the denial industry, that you propagandise for.

This denial industry makes it easier for big powerful, well-connected polluters like BAA and their PR aides (#191) to get their way, against massive public opposition, and with appalling consequences for the people in the front line of climate change.

I regard truth and justice as some of the most fundamental values in our democracy.

As a ‘democrat’, I would have thought that they would have some resonance with you, too.

I do not accept ANY of the accusations you have made of me, although I have now to concede that an earlier point I made (#62) about cutting and pasting your words in #54 no longer obtains.

The site which WAS at the top of the Google list, then (but NOT now) was an anonymous blog called ‘An Honest Climate Debate’, which used your words verbatim.

As a ‘democrat’ do you believe voters should put their trust in anonymous sites, which quote bona fide scientific studies OUT OF CONTEXT?

In #192 you said that I ‘attemted (sic) to discredit a scientific study publish in the Southern Medical Journal’.

This is false.

I denigrated 2 sources, which quoted this bona fide scientific report OUT OF CONTEXT.

One was the anonymous source I have just mentioned, which I would hope that most ‘democrats’ would denigrate.

The second source, which used your cut-and-pasted words from #54 verbatim was ‘The New American Magazine’.

If Shropshire readers want to find out the politics of this publication, just put ‘The New American Magazine’ into Google.

2nd in the list is an article from this mag saying that Obama is a ‘terrorist sympathizer’.

The magazine is an offshoot of the right-wing John Birch Society, mentioned in Sharon Beder’s book Free Market Missionaries, which I have just finished.

According to wikipedia, the John Birch Society opposes organisations like the United Nations. And it opposes wealth redistribution and economic interventionism: the sort of things Obama is trying to do with his Green New Deal.

What sort of policies do you think this magazine is recommending to people being thrown out of their jobs and homes at the moment, through no fault of their own, Ken?

As a ‘democrat’ how popular do you think the idea of government non-intervention would be here in Shropshire at this time, Ken?

As readers can check, I did not denigrate W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson.

I simply pointed out that their work related to TEMPERATE CLIMES, whereas the people who are in the front line of climate change are in the hotter regions of the earth.

That is why Kenyans and Cambodians are speaking at the CAFOD meeting with James Hansen of NASA in Coventry Cathedral on THURSDAY, MARCH 19TH 2009 from MIDDAY.

In #75 I also pointed out that W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson were convinced by the consensus on climate change.

I hope now that most people can see that the denial industry uses SELECTION, not invention.

Ken quotes them because he is convinced by their conclusions about the effect of cold weather in temperate climes.

He is, however, as unable to explain why he does NOT agree with what Keatinge and Donaldson say in their paper about GLOBAL warming, as he is to comment on the scientific discoveries of Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass and Seuss and Ravelle.

Could you debate the science now and explain WHY you think all these scientists are wrong, Ken?

Report abuse

Eurealist readers with an open mind might want to watch those two short videos (The Most Terrifying Video You Will Ever See (Parts 1+2)’), which Ken feels are too partial.

They might also want to make their own minds up about James Hansen by going along to listen to him in Coventry cathedral later this month.

Just a thought…

Report abuse

195# I am not cross just calmly pointing out your methods of deception! you say you are interested in the truth and do not believe my sources, the point is you invent problems with any and all information not in line with your views thus you need not even consider the evidence. This exactly what you did with the quote about cold and deaths which I offered as an alternative view to your accusation of indifference over suggested deaths from global warming.

My Original quote:
In an article entitled, “The impact of global warming on health and mortality,” published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note: “Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
That was from WIKI Answers and I have no idea if any of the people or organisations mentioned are funded by Exxon Mobile.
I quoted the scientists and their organisations and told you where I got the quote but you went and searched for some reason to discredit the original quote, although I had already told you exactly where the information came from and exactly the names and organisations of the study publishers. You just invented a reason to cast doubt on the findings by as far as I know inventing this other site, and then claiming I had plagiarized it.

I told you where so there could have been no mistake! I told you who and which organisations so I did not plagiarise by attempting to use the words as my own.

As I said you will use any artefact in order to discredit any information that conflicts with the alarmists fear mongering.

You say you are interested in truth! I would like to see some evidence of that claim instead you persist in telling outright lies as you did here.

I note you continue to act in the same manner even though you can be in no doubt where the information came from. You still refer to this supposed blog you found and now you introduce yet another source to denigrate “The New American Magazine” I have never heard of it. So what on earth has anything in that magazine to do with my original quote or W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note: Nothing!

So you did attempt to denigrate these two scientists by linking them to your supposed shady sources. If all you wanted to say was there worked referred to TEMPERATE CLIMES you could have said it without all the repulsive muck you cast about, and if you had read the original quote you would have seen it says quite clearly;

Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics.

This has nothing to do with your claim that about the hotter regions of the earth. As it was introduced because the AGW always look at the downside and none of the pluses of warming, always supposing you can prove it is still warming.

Report abuse

197# EUrealist Readers with and open mind surely that’s an oxymoron?

Report abuse

Ken, you said that you want to debate the science of climate change.

Up until now, though, you have avoided any discussion of the fact that W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson recognise in the paper you cited out of context that global warming IS taking place.

You have also avoided discussing any of the scientific discoveries of Tyndall, Arrhenius et al.

If you put ‘david bellamy george monbiot channel 4′ into Google, you can watch a very interesting discussion about the science of climate change and glacier melt from the Channel 4 News on 10th May 2005 about the science of glacier melt.

Bellamy says climate change is not anthropogenic.

Monbiot points out the dodgy websites, which Bellamy sourced his information from.

Jon Snow wonders why Bellamy did not check his facts before writing to the New Scientist.

Bellamy recently declined Monbiot’s offer to discuss the science again on January 16th 2009.

What do you think?

Report abuse

Do you deny that Kenyans and Cambodians are in the front line of climate change, Ken, and that they will not be as reassured by Keatinge and Donaldson’s work as you clearly are, because they do not live in TEMPERATE CLIMES as we do?

Report abuse

203# There is no doubt that there has been some recent warming, but there is also evidence to show that the warming trend has now passed and temperatures have levelled out. Although I understand the idea of your consensus is that this present levelling is only masking a general warming trend.

As you pointed out and I believe I pointed out earlier, there has since around 1890 been a series of warming and cooling debates in the scientific community, each in turn have been reported in the press in the manner of scare stories. The sequences can be traced back and when you do it soon becomes evident that during times of warming the warmists have the upper hand and during times of cooling the reverse is true.

For instance although Arrhenius was the first to calculate how an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might affect the air temperature, but his findings were rejected or ignored in the early decades of the 1900s, but by 1933 Kincer and 1938 confirmed a significant warming trend. In the 1940s the warming came to an end and a cooling trend developed and in the 1970s it was claimed that this cooling was the first indication of a new Ice Age, possibly brought on by industrial pollution.

Tracing back press reports over the period confirms the idea that to a certain extent the press reports of scientific understanding were focused on and followed the natural flux in climate variability.

The interesting point about the findings of Arrhenius was that for years they were not accepted by the prevailing scientific “consensus” of the day, yet now you defend that consensus.

It has also been proved the C02 levels follow Global warming periods they do not precede it so there must be some feedback affect at work.

As you often mention the Royal Society this will be of interest:

‘It will have come to your Lordships’ knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years abated.

‘This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and given us leave to hope that the Arctic seas may at this time be more accessible that they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations’

That was the President of the Royal Society, speaking to the Admiralty in London on November 20, 1817.

Source Roger Helmer MEP

Report abuse