tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post4235422402173456416..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Chris Huhne - The Mary Whitehouse of the Climate Change DebateIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-19760943547604820292007-03-26T01:11:00.000+01:002007-03-26T01:11:00.000+01:00Wondered if you've seen this Iain?http://www.teleg...Wondered if you've seen this Iain?<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/26/ncorrect26.xml<BR/><BR/>Chris Huhne MP: a clarification<BR/><BR/>Last Updated: 12:53am BST 26/03/2007<BR/><BR/>In Janet Daley's column "Green lobby must not stifle debate on the environment" (Monday, March 12), she referred to the letter which Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat shadow environment secretary, wrote to Channel 4 executives concerning their decision to commission Martin Durkin to make the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.<BR/><BR/>The Daily Telegraph is happy to make clear:<BR/><BR/>• Mr Huhne's letter was not an attempt to prevent the film being shown or suppress debate on the issue;<BR/>advertisement<BR/><BR/>• He attached an article by George Monbiot that alleged that the Independent Television Commission had upheld complaints about the making of a similar series for Channel 4 in 1997;<BR/><BR/>• He asked Channel 4 to comment on the proposition that, if Mr Monbiot was correct, it seemed "particularly odd" to commission Mr Durkin again.<BR/><BR/>The Daily Telegraph regrets any misunderstanding that has arisen.Inamicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568351031853796862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-37366909727967885292007-03-14T12:39:00.000+00:002007-03-14T12:39:00.000+00:00Macles.My point about the the 800 year lag between...Macles.<BR/>My point about the the 800 year lag between warming & CO2 increase is nothing to do with the cause of the warming. The Green answer to this evidence that CO2 is an effect rather than a cause of warming is that the initial warming increases the CO2 which in turn increases the CO2 & so on. I don't actually believe this because it doesn't explain why warming gets followed by little ice ages rather than increasing exponentially. However taking it as the basis for the alarmist case it would mean that the turnover of environmental CO2 would be 800 years & thus not an urgent problem.<BR/><BR/>Calvin is one of many people going on blogs denouncing the programme but instead of putting arrguments putting links to realcilmate etc. When you follow those links you invariably find them full of sound & fury signifying very little & refering on to other similar links.<BR/><BR/>This is a herd mentality rather than original thought or even original rewriting of other's thoughts.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-71878715203348124702007-03-14T00:53:00.000+00:002007-03-14T00:53:00.000+00:00P.S. Al - the beard. Not good.P.S. Al - the beard. Not good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88425880845544327602007-03-14T00:50:00.000+00:002007-03-14T00:50:00.000+00:00Calvin Jones, you know what? STFU."climate denial"...Calvin Jones, you know what? STFU.<BR/><BR/>"climate denial"??? Hello? I deny that I am in a climate?<BR/><BR/>You're yet one more Al Gore jerk. In fact, Calvin, you may even be the failed Al posting anonymously. Yeah. Calvin's good as a pseudonym for a pseud. If so, Al, go away somewhere and stop bothering the real world. Get a degree in hanging chads. You dropped out of law school. You dropped out of theological school. You lost the presidency of the United States.<BR/><BR/>Any chance you could shut up now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34144828034516420282007-03-14T00:07:00.000+00:002007-03-14T00:07:00.000+00:00Read Melanie Phillips on the great "climate change...Read Melanie Phillips on the great "climate change" con. She quotes reputable science: http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1468<BR/><BR/>It's as the people here (well, the sane, grounded, earthed ones) have been saying on Iain's. It is a huge con and there are billions of pounds invested in it. [She doesn't say this, but why else would multi-loser, but rich, Al Gore be involved?]<BR/><BR/>It's a con. By the usual suspects. The one-worlder, anti-progress small-planeteers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25484562339765084772007-03-13T21:52:00.000+00:002007-03-13T21:52:00.000+00:00neil craig: You misunderstand the nature of the 'l...neil craig: You misunderstand the nature of the 'lag'. 800 year lags are documented in the paleoclimate record, and occur when climate is 'forced' first and foremost by so called Milankovitch cyclicity - 3 variations in Earth's orbit, and rotation on differing time scales. <BR/><BR/>Our current situation bears no relation to the past glacial-interglacial transitions. Today, the CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by us. It requires no external forcing mechanism to pre-warm the atmosphere and hydrosphere in order to begin to release CO2. And our current best understanding of the recent (last ~150 years) of warming requires anthropogenic CO2 as the principal forcing mechanism. I hope you see this is not the same as paleoclimatic events of the Pleistocene.macleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10744781349665009240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-33495914913576934492007-03-13T21:14:00.000+00:002007-03-13T21:14:00.000+00:00One of the scientist's on the program, who wasn't ...One of the scientist's on the program, who wasn't aware of it's bias, described it as,<BR/><BR/>"as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24680740728183569652007-03-13T19:31:00.000+00:002007-03-13T19:31:00.000+00:00The easy question is who is paying for all this in...The easy question is who is paying for all this information to come out. There is a load of money going in to proving man made global warming, and very little going into proving it isn't - yet when an anti mmgw paper comes out, everything including the kitchen sink is thrown at the author to try and discredit them - making you wonder if they are the equivalent of whistle-blowers trying to stop the gravy train!<BR/><BR/>I tend to take the view that if you need to give someone a particular answer to get your hands on research funds - you would be stupid to risk getting future funds by going against the grain!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-29732124995774122412007-03-13T17:53:00.000+00:002007-03-13T17:53:00.000+00:00Well Mark that is a theory which depends on the as...Well Mark that is a theory which depends on the assumption that more CO2 won't just be absorbed by more tres, oceanic abrobtion, etc. Amother one is that the increase in carbon increases plant growth (which it certainly does) & thus stabilises the cycle.<BR/><BR/>However even if you are right then the cycle appears to be 800 years long (that being the historic lag between warming & CO2) which means we don't have to worry till coming up to 2800AD. In which case we have more urgent problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-58240829426196147112007-03-13T17:26:00.000+00:002007-03-13T17:26:00.000+00:00Huhne's reference to "923 peer-reviewed scholarly ...Huhne's reference to "923 peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles on climate change in the last ten years" is no doubt a reference to the utterly discredited "research" done by Naomi Oreskes. For an explanation why it is total rubbish go here <BR/>ohttp://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htmfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-13869181701231696292007-03-13T17:07:00.000+00:002007-03-13T17:07:00.000+00:00There is no doubt that we are introducing new carb...There is no doubt that we are introducing new carbon into an otherwise closed system when we burn oil, coal or gas. That alone is a fact.<BR/><BR/>Will this have a significant effect on the climate or will the change of equilibrium re-absorb this "New" carbon. I don't know and nor does anyone else as far as I can see.<BR/><BR/>I do know that I can't change the direction of the wind by lowering my kecks and farting.<BR/><BR/>All responses to the "problem", if it is a problem are based on the "something must be done, this is something therefore it must be done" political analysis.<BR/><BR/>Be afraid, be very afraid. That is what our masters want.<BR/><BR/>Personally I would like to analyse the problem, if there is a problem and create an effective carbon sink. Billions of trees probably.<BR/><BR/>The programme is a valuable if tendentious addition to the debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67216138417992476742007-03-13T17:00:00.000+00:002007-03-13T17:00:00.000+00:00IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4I attended a lec...IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4<BR/><BR/>I attended a lecture by one of the most senior automotive engineers in the world (on the greening of the auto industry) late last year and he had been tipped off that the upcoming IPCC report would dramatically reduce the CO2 ppm distaster point from (I think) 550ppm to below 450ppm. Sounds a bit pre-ordained to me.<BR/><BR/>I'm very unsure about all this. I read a lot of enviro-apocalypse books when I was a teenager (most had been published in the early 1970s). Stuffed with certainties about food shortages and water shortages most, if not all, that was 'certain' just did not happen.unothordox behaviourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09133540661080476463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-69145703438799033382007-03-13T16:34:00.000+00:002007-03-13T16:34:00.000+00:00Neil Craig:OK, another way of looking at it: the 9...Neil Craig:<BR/><BR/>OK, another way of looking at it: the 97% of emissions come from short term carbon capture and release, i.e. vegetation that grows and then rots, really just CO2 going round in a cycle in an ecological system that after millions of years has become pretty stable. <BR/><BR/>We are adding 3% a year to that figure, with CO2 from carbon deposits laid down millions of years ago. It doesn't sound much because we are used to running 3% deficits and paying 6% interest, but in ecological terms 3% a year sounds like quite a lot to me.<BR/><BR/>If we put an extra 3% a year into the atmosphere it doesn't necessarily all get absorbed by natural processes. The earths ecology would probably adapt to absorb the extra CO2, but that sort of change takes time, meanwhile we are putting an extra 3% into the atmosphere every year.<BR/><BR/>So let's call it an extra 30% a decade or 300% a century - a century is still not a long time in geological terms. Does that sound significant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-47697049577562330392007-03-13T16:10:00.000+00:002007-03-13T16:10:00.000+00:003% of CO2 produced by 2 legged creatures bad97% of...3% of CO2 produced by 2 legged creatures bad<BR/>97% of CO2 from 4 legged (& 6 since termites make more CO2 than cows & far more rhan us) bad?<BR/><BR/>I'm unconvinced.<BR/>I am also unconvinced by James's leaked memos from the "lets drown ourselves" conspiracy. If he gets it wrong about Iain's remarks here, or rather not here, then his memos may be dubious too. <BR/><BR/>The "search" which was unable to find a mention of scepticism on 928 articles has been used repeatedly by alarmists as if it proved something. All it proved waas that the woman who conducted it didn't find the rest of the 10s of thousnads of documents on warming available & didn't conduct much of a search. Typical.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-51192313753296548442007-03-13T14:56:00.000+00:002007-03-13T14:56:00.000+00:00Neil Craig: The 3% difference may not sound a lot,...Neil Craig: The 3% difference may not sound a lot, but it is 3% that was not produced 100 years ago and it has to be borne in mind that there has been a pretty much one way movement upwards in CO2 concentrations at an average of about 0.4% compound growth year on year for the last 50 years from 315 ppm to 375 ppm. I am not a climate scientist so I cant say how much that 25 billion of man made emissions contributes to the increase in CO2 concentration, but skimming the literature, it seems that about half of that CO2 does get absorbed into the natural process (incresing the acidity of the sea), whilst the rest increases the atmospheric CO2. I have no idea whether this behaviour would peak, or whether there might be a positive feedback whereby higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and water in the atmosphere and therefore greater warming. <BR/><BR/>On balance, rather like the question of whether we can trust the Iranians to own nuclear weapons, I would rather not find out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-62207097310057059192007-03-13T13:09:00.000+00:002007-03-13T13:09:00.000+00:00Neil Craig, as Macles says, 3% of total CO2 being ...Neil Craig, as Macles says, 3% of total CO2 being manmade is actually very substantial- you are trying to compare a balance sheet with an income statement. To quote Al Gore:<BR/><BR/>Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really. There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people. One of their internal memos leaked and here is what it said according to the press. Their objective is to reposition global warming as a theory rather than fact. This has happened before. after the Surgeon General's report. One of their memos leaked 4 years ago. They said, "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a controversy in the public's mind." But have they succeeded? You'll remember that there were 928 peer reviewed articles. Zero percent disagreed with the consensus. There was another study of all the articles in the popular press. Over the last fourteen years they listed a sample of 636. More than half of them said, "Well, we are not sure. It could be a problem, may not be a problem." So no wonder people are confused."Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39486581075758410342007-03-13T13:05:00.000+00:002007-03-13T13:05:00.000+00:00"Anon @ 2.02pm,You are a particularly unpleasant s..."Anon @ 2.02pm,<BR/>You are a particularly unpleasant sort of coward aren't you? Why don't you have the guts to stand by the attacks you make with your name? "<BR/><BR/>Sarkis, it's probably either (a) Chris Huhne himself, or (b) the same anonymous poster of last week who thought he was a very clever little boy posting; "same old tories, same old racists" on this blog over and over again.<BR/><BR/>Some things never change.<BR/><BR/>Trace the IP address and track the snivelling little shit down!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-57160074589780718032007-03-13T12:43:00.000+00:002007-03-13T12:43:00.000+00:00Chris Huhne? Well, he would say that wouldn't he!Chris Huhne? Well, he would say that wouldn't he!Arden Foresterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03209824268395133604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46787772041349460122007-03-13T12:26:00.000+00:002007-03-13T12:26:00.000+00:00neil craig: The remaining 97% of carbon 'emissions...neil craig: The remaining 97% of carbon 'emissions' are the carbon cylce itself. As a cycle, it is natural. Though absolute concentrations of CO2 vary over time, tey tend to vary over much longer periods than at present. Our actions are not part of the 'natural' carbon cycle. They are over and above it. Thus, the 3% figure is utterly irrelevant. The magnitude of man-made carbon emissions is best summarised as having raised atmospheric CO2 levels by approximately 100ppm (i.e. 30%) over the last 100-150 yearsmacleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10744781349665009240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-56779868284111623012007-03-13T12:06:00.000+00:002007-03-13T12:06:00.000+00:00Mark according to a recent Parliamentary answer to...Mark according to a recent Parliamentary answer to John Redwood manmade CO2 amounts to 3% of the total which can properly be denied the label "substantial".<BR/>http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=66#comment-298<BR/><BR/>James says that Iain has "had to back track quote a bit here".<BR/><BR/>In fact Iain has, probably wisely in light of his duty not to express negative opinions of specific party policy, said absolutely nothing on comments here.<BR/><BR/>Durkin has clearly been effective as a journalist even if you disgree with what he says.<BR/><BR/>Actually james, I think you probabaly owe Iain Dale something pretty close to a retraction...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-87667393882236039172007-03-13T10:43:00.000+00:002007-03-13T10:43:00.000+00:00Science demands hypotheses for how something happe...Science demands hypotheses for how something happens be advanced and tested. You will find that the so-called startling new and supressed hypotheses and data regarding climate change, 'exposed' in the C4 program, have been out-and-about in the peer-reviewed literature for some time. As alternative hypotheses to MMGW, they have failed, been rejected, shown to have been based on flwed data (not always the authors fault, but unfortunately the case). One hypothesis for MMGW still stands. It is that man-made additions of CO2 to the atmosphere have warmed the Earth significantly over the last 100 years, and are predicted to continue to do so. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414" REL="nofollow"> </A>macleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10744781349665009240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-44456970928801291302007-03-13T10:41:00.000+00:002007-03-13T10:41:00.000+00:00Mark that is a good counter blast I do not take ...Mark that is a good counter blast I do not take what you say as gospel but it has a sincere ring .<BR/>We should remember that there are large vested interests in keeping the Greenists at bay as well as tax and control temptations for the worlds bureaucrats to exaggerate the problems. neither has a clean pair of hands<BR/><BR/>I was only blogging yesterday that theare is an allegation in new Scienstist that the IPCC report was sytematically neutered due to poltical pressurre . IE it is possible the problems are far worse than they appear.<BR/><BR/>i think the lies that have been told and the careers that have been piggy backed have done a great deal of harm here . Cynicism is natural and the wors t offenders are the Green Party who are collection of dogs on string people looking for a cause.<BR/><BR/>they do it great harm by associationNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-72112520231240424012007-03-13T10:03:00.000+00:002007-03-13T10:03:00.000+00:00Chris Huhne uotes the Oreskes study that all 928 s...Chris Huhne uotes the Oreskes study that all 928 studies published on Climate Change in the peer reviewed literature supported the 'concensus'. Perhaps he is unaware that this study was almost immediately shown to be fallacious due in the main to inappropriate methodology. The work was repeated by Benny Peisner who came to a completely different conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34348066239960867572007-03-13T09:55:00.000+00:002007-03-13T09:55:00.000+00:00Well, Iain you have had to back track quite a bit ...Well, Iain you have had to back track quite a bit here. The fact is that Durkan is nbg as a journalist, and the only other people who seek to cast doubt on the thesis that 1) global warming is happening and 2) it is substantially man made are those in the Bush administration with suspiciously close links to big oil. Actually I think you probabaly owe Chris huhne something pretty close to a retraction...Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24846996428122689962007-03-13T09:06:00.000+00:002007-03-13T09:06:00.000+00:00Huhne's letter isn't in The Telegraph this morning...Huhne's letter isn't in The Telegraph this morning. Quite right too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com