Yesterday the Daily Politics broadcast a debate on global warming between two leading professors in the field. It was calm, civilised and informative.

Above all, it showed that there are real differences to debate and that those who've tried to shut debate down -- not just scientists, the green lobby and politicians but many in the media too -- might be doing us a disservice.

We plan more debates on the run up to the Copenhagen climate summit.

President Obama echoes most mainstream politicians in the Western world when he insists "the science is settled". Many viewers watching yesterday's debate must have wondered if that is really true.

Moreover our debate was staged in the aftermath of leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's climate research centre, a leading advocate of man-made global warming of international repute, suggesting something of a cover up when it comes to the raw data on which it bases its conclusions.

Even George Monbiot, one of the country's leading exponents of global warming, describes these e-mails as "a major blow" to his side of the argument.

Indeed in this morning's Guardian he says they could "scarcely be more damaging" and confesses to being "dismayed and deeply shaken by them ... There appears to be evidence here to of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request ... worse still, some of the e-mails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics or to keep it out of a report by the IPCC [the UN's official body on climate change] ... the head of the [university's] unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the e-mails should be re-analysed."

Mr Monbiot, quite reasonably, doesn't think the e-mails are "the final nail in coffin" of global warming theory, as some sceptical bloggers are claiming. His faith in the theory remains pretty much intact; but he is enough of a believer in full disclosure and transparency to be shaken.

To call for Phil Jones to resign is quite remarkable: he is probably Britain's leading global warming scientist.

Mr Monbiot's honest and fair reaction to the e-mails is in stark contrast to David Aaronovitch's response, who (for reasons he doesn't give) dismisses the e-mails as "quite inconsequential" in today's Times.

Some will wonder what his qualifications are for such a de haut en bas judgement. Whether you agree or disagree with Mr Monbiot, nobody can doubt his expertise in such matters, which is why many will conclude that his response is much more significant (and reasonable).

One thing seems pretty sure: the debate certainly isn't over!

Correspondents are reminded to keep their comments brief and relevant to the content of Andrew's blog.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

We live in an increasingly sloppy world these days, especially when it comes to journalism.

The Sun has made much of the apparent mistakes in Gordon Brown's letter to the mother of a soldier killed in action, including getting her name wrong (he called her "Ms James" when her name is Mrs Janes).

Now a Sky News blog post has fun at the expense of The Sun, pointing out that:

"The Sun's Political Editor, Tom Newton Dunn, has just spent the entire Politics Show over on the Beeb calling Labour's Phil Woolas [a government minister] 'Andy'. Easy mistake to make no doubt, but not as easy as calling Jamie Janes Jamie James! Talk about the teapot calling the kettle black."

Sky News should be careful about kettles and teapots. It is true that the Sun's political editor called Phil Woolas "Andy", but it wasn't on the Politics Show: it was on our very own Daily Politics! What was that about teapots and kettles, Sky?

Andrew (Neil), Andy or Phil (Woolas) and Tom Newton Dunn on the DP (or Politics Show!)

So this is what it has come to: the Sun attacks Gordon Brown for getting a name wrong. The Sun's new political editor then gets the minister's name wrong, calling him "Andy" throughout his interview on the Daily Politics, then Sky has a laugh at his expense at its blog - but then gets the name of our programme wrong in the process.

Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath, calm down and concentrate on what's important, like the recession, unemployment and our predicament in Afghanistan.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Government ministers have been out and about this morning flogging the virtues of their plans for forcing RBS and Lloyds/HBOS to sell off some of their assets and increase competition for our money on the High Street. Let me mark your card with a sceptical pen.

First, this isn't really the government's plan at all. It is being forced on London by Brussels, which has insisted on a more competitive environment as the price for the multi-billion pound state aid pumped into both banks.

Second, if the High Street needs more competition, why was it that, only a year ago, the government encouraged Lloyds and HBOS to merge? Many commentators, consumer groups and bankers warned this would create a high-street behemoth and HBOS could have been bailed out by the taxpayer without a merger (as was RBS). But Gordon Brown was so keen to save HBOS that he intervened personally with the then Chairman of Lloyds to say competition rules would be waived to allow the marriage to take place. Lloyds' shareholders (which through our pensions probably means you and me) paid dearly for this shotgun wedding -- and now, only a year later, the giant is to be unravelled.

Third, be suspicious about claims that the proposed sell off will herald a new age of high-street competition. RBS has agreed to sell off its insurance arms (so a new master for Churchill) and to get rid of the few branches it still has in England which trade as RBS (NatWest in Scotland will go too). This will still leave RBS with over 2,700 branches throughout the country -- as well as its vast international operations.

Lloyds will also suffer only mild pruning. It's being told to get rid of its smaller building societies (which it intended to do anyway) and its TSB branches in Scotland. That will barely dent the 30% share of High Street deposits and loans it currently accounts for.

Bottom line: RBS and Lloyds will continue to dominate High Street retailing banking for the foreseeable future in this country -- and it will be a long time before any new competition will rival them.

Gordon Brown welcomes banks plan

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?