« Previous | Main | Next »

BBC stifles climate change debate, says Sissons

Post categories:

Shanta Barley | 18:56 UK time, Monday, 13 July 2009

Britain's longest-serving national news presenter, Peter Sissons, has delivered a withering critique of the BBC's stance on global warming, claiming that it is 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle the views of climate change sceptics.

petersissons.jpg

'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change', he told the Daily Mail.

'The corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't', Sissons concluded.

Follow up: Unpredictable weather: why the climate is not a model citizen
Follow up: Is the climate warming or cooling?
Follow up: Giant trees decline in Yosemite: climate change may, or equally may not be to blame

Comments

  • 1. At 7:16pm on 13 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle the views of climate change sceptics."

    Would this be the same "effective BBC policy" that stops Garry Glitter from appearing to give his side of things?

    It isn't wrong to stifle the views of denialists. They HAVE no ideas. They have a negative idea: AGW is wrong. Doesn't matter why, it just is, M'kay?

    "The corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't',"

    Uh, countless?

    Only if he's including blog posts and repeats of blog posts.

    I suppose it could just be that he hasn't bothered counting.

    However, the AAACS polled their science members. 84% of them considered AGW probably or certainly true.

    Seems it is possible to count them all right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 7:28pm on 13 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    PS I wonder if Peter has ever read these skeptical "papers" and tried to understand?

    If he'd tried one of these of the "uncountables":

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick6.php

    he may not have counted so many of them as useful...

    Maybe someone in the BBC can let him know!

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:51pm on 13 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    'when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.'
    That's such a vague statement (to put it mildly).

    Shanta, could you contact Peter Sissons and ask to name some of those he thinks reputable or some examples of such evidence?

    Without some examples we could be talking of any person or any piece of evidence, no matter how far fetched. The sceptics can't even agree amongst themselves as to alternative hypothesises for the causes of warming in the 20th century, whether CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas etc, etc.

    If Sissons does think something important is being sidelined then please ask him to name the person and research paper etc.
    If Sissons would like a second opinion then ask the Royal Academy to put up a counter argument about the evidence he wishes discussed.
    If he does I'd also be happy to give my opinion, just for the purposes of this blog debate.

    Otherwise this will just degenerate into another bash the BBC exercise or playground shouting match. Without a specific example[s] I do not see much point in continuing debating this.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    PS: For those interested in such things: El Nino sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and related atmospheric pressure conditions have recently been confirmed as having formed in the Tropical Pacific. This El Nino is currently projected to last at least until Christmas, but this is early days yet.

    Not sure why El Nino and La Nina are important? Do a Google; there are many sites about it on the Web.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 9:36pm on 13 Jul 2009, DavidSRoss wrote:

    @ SheffTim

    Quite possibly there is more to Peter Sissons current observations than just the Global Warming angle but as you say it couldn't hurt to hear Sissons be more specific about what he meant exactly.

    But to speculate, when it comes to the specific "the science is settled" accusation, he may have (accidently?) hit upon a correct criticism, when he says:

    "there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't"

    I think that most of the scientists who support any variation of AGW theory would find the "settled" phrase a gross simplification.

    It sometimes does seems to be a type of remark used by less scientific minded, more politically minded supporters of the social change called for, for which the term "Global Warming" is put forward as the driving causal reason, maybe these are the type of people he is refering to that he encountered at the BBC?

    But the phrase is also used by the more scathing sceptics to imply a rigid un-scientific mindset supported by people who should know better.

    Searching the phrase "the science is settled", on Google and you certainly seem to get a more hits showing sceptics using the phrase as point of derision rather than any serious scientist using it as a valid defence.

    William Connolley seems to think so in this interesting Wiki article that is apparently slated for deletion,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 11:44pm on 13 Jul 2009, Infloresence wrote:

    I think Sissons 'problem' maybe that there aren't only two sides to this arguement, since the effects of global warming not certain, you can't say it isn't happening, CO2 levels have risen significantly since the 1890's, the discussion is how these changes will take place and when, or to put it simply Where will the rain fall now?
    Even before we started to burn hundreds of tons per year of fossil fuels there were considerable variations in the climate. How can you say that burning millions of oil per day would not cause more change?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 08:19am on 14 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Sissons makes a good point.

    Check this unbalanced BBC web page titled: Climate scepticism: The top 10.

    The first thing to stand out is that the Counter claims get more space then the skeptic position.

    But it's much worse than that. The whole premise of the page is wrong - that skeptics have a single voice and the alarmists get the last word.

    Skeptics come in all shapes and sizes and do not have to agree on or even advance an alternative explanation. They can just point out the failures in the alarmist position and the folly of some of their proposals.

    For example the bio-fuel fiasco. Burning food in cars then showing genuine surprise when poor people cannot afford food.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 08:32am on 14 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    first paxman, then this blog, now sissons

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:11am on 14 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Did Richard get back after being called in to see the headmaster ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 10:42am on 14 Jul 2009, Richard_Cable wrote:

    Yes, I'm back at work, but not yet properly back in the saddle yet I'm afraid. Struck down with meningitis, of all things. I blame climate change.

    Re: yeahwhatever's opening comments:

    Would this be the same "effective BBC policy" that stops Garry Glitter from appearing to give his side of things?

    It isn't wrong to stifle the views of denialists. They HAVE no ideas.


    Surely stifling debate is a) undemocratic and b) unscientific? What about Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

    Here are some earlier thoughts on the subject:

    Bloom blog: Denier, sceptic or creationist? How about none of the above?

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:13am on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Surely stifling debate is a) undemocratic and b) unscientific? What about Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?"

    There are always two sides to an argument.

    But sometimes one side is just plain wrong.

    Should the wrong side be given equal time?

    Here's a piece of advice from someone on another blog that bears thinking about when considering "debate":

    +++++++++++++++
    However, I find 2 criteria are largely sufficient to decide where the balance of credibility lies in this climate debate.

    1) Who is telling a self-consistent story, and who is merely picking nits, wherever they can be found or imagined? (Hint: the ideaa la Moncktonthat warming on Mars proves Terrestrial warming to be solar in origin is not logically consistent with the idea that all Terrestrial warming is an artifact of UHI.)
    2) Who is responding constructively to opponents points, and who is content to cut-and-paste ad nauseam, no matter how many times an argument may have been answered? (Hint: the saturated gassy argument was made at the turn of the century20th century, that isand has definitely been shown incorrect since the days of Gilbert Plasss climate research in the 1950s. Yet it is so distinctly undead in the blogosphere that RC has devoted a whole post to it.)

    In short, behaviortactical behavior, if you willis enough to reveal who is really investigating and who is just debating.
    ++++++++++++++

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:16am on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The first thing to stand out is that the Counter claims get more space then the skeptic position."

    Mostly because they don't die unless you yell it out.

    cf "saturated gassy" arguments.

    And maybe the reason is that the denialist position is just a short and unscientific headline that reads whereas the answer is science and an explanation.

    "Why does the wind blow?"

    is a LOT shorter than the explanation. Unless like Calvin's dad, you say "Because the trees are sneezing".

    And how does that factoid you found prove anything anyhow?

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:22am on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "How can you say that burning millions of oil per day would not cause more change?"

    By denying it's happening until you can no longer (80's-90's: its not proven to be warming).

    By denying our role (it's not us in the 90's-2000's).

    By denying the science (there is no scientific consensus).

    By denying the statistics (It's been cooling since 1998. No, 2001. No, 2003, No...).

    By denying that it's possible to do anything about it (There's no point unless China starts in 90's, there's no way to get all of us to change, putting targets means we can't change [jon's argument, though who knows why], it's all too late)

    By denying that CO2 reductions will help (it's just that there are too many people).

    And by jumping on anything that could put doubt on the idea, whether it has been tested, is significant or any of the other requirements they put on AGW science before they are convinced from their "skepticism".

    That would be how.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 11:42am on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Have a read:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    The skeptics asked a question.

    Their question was answered.

    The *real* skeptics accepted the proof.

    "skeptics" today still ask the same question and do not know the answer or ignore it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 12:39pm on 14 Jul 2009, Gates wrote:

    You have to draw the line somewhere. I am a firm believer that everyone has a right to their own opinion. But News should be Facts and facts only. The trouble with this issue is that people depend on places like the BBC for Facts. The BBC have a duty not to publish things from unreliable sources, or inaccurate/frivolous reports and findings. The general public will take what the BBC says as fact, its supposed a public service for reliable, honest, unbiased information. There is little if any research or findings from the climate change skeptics side of the argument that hasn't been proved to be unreliable or not thorough enough to be valid.

    The other problem being that its an organization run by people, and people have opinions that effect their decisions.

    Just take the American Press for example. CNN and MSNBC will generally cover the Obama administrations progress on climate change issue as a positive thing, but FOX covers it all as being negative to the country. They can't both be right. News should be facts not opinions, but as long as people are the editors their personal views will always effect how things are expressed, which will in turn be conveyed to those consuming the information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 1:47pm on 14 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Shanta

    Any truth that the BBC "sponsored" the Manchester Report and, if so, should the BBC be sponsoring such a report or could this be construed as bias?

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 2:28pm on 14 Jul 2009, Shanta_Barley wrote:

    Hello Mango,

    Could you give me a few more details?

    Cheers,
    Shanta

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 2:35pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "or could this be construed as bias?"

    Always.

    See Colbert and his "Reality has a Liberal Bias".

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 5:15pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Shanta, you may want to read about the report here:

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 5:18pm on 14 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Shanta #16

    It's here on Richard Black's blog

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/07/as_regularly_as_one_hour.html#P82870119

    I should reiterate it's not confirmed, but the poster seems pretty sure the BBC logo was there:

    There were BBC logos on the 'sponsored by....' posters in the hall where the ideas were presented, but you've been very quiet about it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 5:22pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    re 18, posted to the wrong place. Meant to go for the EPA report. If I can find that thread...

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 11:33pm on 14 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    Richard, I'll tip-toe back into this debate to respond to your comment #9 above.

    From the link you gave: '"Why the need for name-calling? Surely it's a tactic that can only make the debate less scientific rather than more? Does lumping everyone you disagree with under a single label make your views more compelling or simply make your opponents easier to stigmatise? Discuss."

    I agree that name calling does little more than pander to the supporters of what has become an increasingly partisan debate, or simply make the name caller feel smug.

    That name calling includes describing those that believe there is a case for anthropogenic climate change as 'climate alarmists', 'eco Nazis' (My views are quite right-wing on many issues, but I follow where the science leads) and describing climate change as a 'hoax' (a hoax has to be deliberately perpetrated) etc.
    At least those on the sceptical side should accept that proponents of anthropogenic climate change genuinely believe in their case.

    Richard: "Surely stifling debate is a) undemocratic and b) unscientific? What about Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?".

    Personally, I don't mind open debate on this subject or any other subject; I'm opposed for example to the no-platform approach to people such as David Irvine, I'd rather debate the issue[s] in the open.

    The climate debate involves earth's climate, past climates and past climate changes, the physics and chemistry of greenhouse gasses, the carbon cycle, meteorology and a host of other related topics which are all big subjects (and from major fields such as geology, earth sciences, oceanography, biology, physics, chemistry and history etc) and it is natural that people will lack information, have questions, come up with their own ideas etc; particularly when many have little basic scientific knowledge to start with; and their views will inevitably be shaped by their political viewpoint. (It's a pity science lessons in schools can't generate such curiosity and stimulation, but that's by-the-by.) many are simply trying to make sense of these big subjects and feel they have enough information to make an informed opinion.

    There is however a distinction between those I've described above and those with a ulterior ideological or commercial agenda setting out to discredit the idea of anthropogenic climate change, often relying on the general public's lack of knowledge on many subjects to sound convincing.
    And there are those that aim to do this and devote considerable funds to it; blogs such as desmogblog and sourcewatch etc devote themselves to exposing it; e.g.
    http://www.desmogblog.com/wanted-coal-industry-spin-doctor-ethics-not-required

    I think there is a fair comparison between those that have an ulterior motive [above] for challenging and discrediting the idea of anthropogenic climate change and creationists that wish to overturn evolution; be it by Intelligent Design or a literal reading of their scripture.

    "The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community. The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution. Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about 'if' evolution occurred, but 'how' it occurred."
    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
    Wedge strategy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

    Richard, where do you (and the BBC) draw the line in the evolution/creationism debate? Should you run a news headline presenting as a fact 'Evolution is dead' based on a book by a creationist? (Or in the case of a Holocaust denial book for that matter?)
    At some point both you, I (and organisations) have to form an opinion on a subject.

    As far as global warming, and consequent changes to climate, are concerned should the airing of contrary opinions (that may be more controversial and have very little scientific substance behind them) to the current majority consensus all be presented with equal weight and credence and as an unquestioned 'facts'?

    For every new idea that has gained acceptance, there are far more examples of new ideas that were shown to be wrong.

    Where the sceptics are weakest is in presenting a coherent, plausible counter hypothesis supported by research. They are deeply fragmented, with individuals either repeating old arguments or coming up with their own novel ideas that gain little support, even from other sceptics. Often many are driven by a fairly obvious libertarian agenda. Others by a desire to protect commercial interests.

    How much credence and coverage should one give them? Not all hypotheses and arguments are of equal weight, nor should they be given equal weight out of some misguided sense of providing balance.

    Final thought. Those with a conservative (small c) mindset are those most resistant to new ideas and information. Be it women vicars in the C of E, evolution, granting independence to former colonies or banning smoking on the tube or education for girls in Afghanistan etc, etc. It can be argued that the more conservative the mindset the more tenaciously they will cling on to old, familiar ideas and oppose new ones. (And it can be argued provide a social feedback mechanism to those that rush to adapt to new ideas and methods.)

    Is it surprising, for example, that Sarah Palin (and those she appeals to) both disbelieves in global warming/climate change and believes in creationism? I don't mind such view being expressed, but such arguments should presented as being what they are - political argument, not science.

    PS. Nothing concrete back from Peter Sissons I take it? Pity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 02:14am on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Hi Tim !

    You wrote:

    "Where the sceptics are weakest is in presenting a coherent, plausible counter hypothesis supported by research."

    It doesn't work like that. If a hypothesis looks wrong you say what's wrong with it. You don't have to come up with a better hypothesis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 04:04am on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    I'm confused here. Should we

    a) stick to the science (like Tim suggests)

    or

    b) start talking about Sarah Palin and women vicars (like Tim suggests)

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 06:53am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Richard_Cable - delighted to see your returning to health. Also, terribly sorry to hear you have been suffering from meningitis. I wish you a continued, speedy recovery.

    You have been missed.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 07:29am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Tim

    I am afraid I must disagree with you on several fronts.

    First, I have a certain admiration for Ms. Sarah Palin - I was totally unaware of her views on evolution vs. creationism. They have nothing to do with the reasons for which I have some admiration for the lady. I could really not care less about her views on creationisms - it was never a part of her political platform.

    The simple fact is that most people in the world belong to one religion or another. All religions rely upon faith to support the beliefs of that religion. Some of the assertions of many religions are pretty difficult to support without faith - yet they are still believed. Surveys today show that many people, in many different religions believe in some kind of "creationist" belief or another. They don't need science, they have their faith.

    Not to be rude, but please define for us an "acceptable set of religious beliefs" which one should have to contribute to the (very real) debate regarding the theories of climate change and AGW. Many who immigrated to America did so because of religious intolerance in the UK. Something to ponder there. I await your response on "acceptable beliefs".

    Yes I am a skeptic, but not a "denier". I am very skeptical of the science of climate change and global warming because it is in its infancy. I think it very arrogant to think "the science is settled" or that we know enough to "reliably predict climate change" much less "control climate change". We really know so little about earth's climate system, we have barely scratched the surface of what there is yet to be learned.

    For the entirety of my life, I have heard those who cry out "the sky is falling" - yet the sky has not fallen. Unless you live in the third world, barely surviving from one day to the next.

    I agree with Mr. Sessions assertion regarding the BBC - as well as many media sources.

    It used to be that journalism was an honored profession at a news source. Not it would appear to be "what sells". (no offense, Richard and Shanta, I do enjoy they way you present the stories of the day...pretty fair in my view). It used to be that reporters and newsmen (or women) reported the facts and opinions on both sides, doing their best to remain impartial in presenting the "news" - and let the reader or viewer decide.

    For the most part, that appears to no longer be the case. Who can you trust nowadays? Reporters whos bias is clearly evident? Scientists with a vested interest? Politicians and policy makers? (please...)

    There are so many other urgent environmental and humanistic issues other than AGW (which I might add, is much more poorly understood).

    The scientific debate exists - regardless of your opinion or mine (which is that we need to do more real research as opposed to modelling exercises). But it would appear that the "establishment" has moved on, not to what the most important environmental issues are and how we should address them - but to "how much should we promise to cut emissions by and what dates do we set for our targets". All nice and neat - politicians garnering votes by making promises they have no hope of keeping - all for a problem we really don't understand well enough.

    Meanwhile, real people and real environments are suffering horribly all over the world - an not because of CO2 emissions, but because we in the West "deny" real development to the third world.

    I freely admit I am a "skeptic", but not a "denier" - "deniers" exists on both sides of the debate. Those who's beliefs are so rigorous that their minds are no longer open to considering any opposing view. One can only compare such belief (on both sides) with religion and "creationism".

    As you create your more complex carbon markets, keep in mind, they solve nothing. The natural environments and peoples of most of the world will be unaffected. But, alas, you will feel better.

    I won't.

    Shanta & Richard, I do enjoy the perspective you provide and meant no offense whatsoever to either your integrity or style. Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 07:32am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Tim

    BTW, Sarah Palin appeals to me in a variety of ways - and I do not believe in creationism...your characterization is flawed as is your logic in this post.

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 07:59am on 15 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    #22. "You don't have to come up with a better hypothesis."

    Yet there are sceptics (hardly any whom are working scientists in the climate field) that claim the warming in the 20th century was caused by solar variation, is of a cyclical nature ('natural cycles'); that cosmic rays explain all past and present climate change and so on. Counter hypothesises ebb and flow in the blogsphere like a teenagers fads; many sceptics do try and present counter hypothesise.

    There are different flavours of sceptic argument, mostly playing to public opinion. There are sceptics who deny that there has been any climate change (we hear less of those nowadays.). There are those who accept that there is global warming, but deny that humans cause it (solar variation is a popular counter proposal) yet fail to come up with the research and evidence that builds a plausible counter case; (any counter hypothesis has to sway opinion in the scientific community.) There are sceptics that accept there is human caused global warming but claim it will be harmless. Others do back of an envelope calculations that show any rise in temperature will be small. There are those that say we're on the verge of an imminent ice age and so on. There are people who have very little understanding of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but who are ideologically opposed to government regulation and use any argument to undermine any case that might call for it. Of course there are also contrarians who will always oppose a majority view, whatever it is.
    Deeply fragmented amongst themselves as I said.

    "If a hypothesis looks wrong you say what's wrong with it."

    To overturn a paradigm you have to convince those working in the field. A century ago, over decades, more and more geologists became convinced that the case for landscape modification by the action of glaciers, particularly in mountainous regions and in the northern hemisphere, was more convincing than the argument that all land forms could be explained by a single biblical deluge. This also means overturning the belief that earth was only 6,000 yrs old and so on.
    To overturn the paradigm that greenhouse gasses warm earth's atmosphere and that adding large quantities more will result in increased warming (and consequent changes to climate) a majority of those working in the scientific community have to be swayed that a counter paradigm is more plausible.
    By all means say what you think is wrong with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis; so far majority scientific opinion finds these counter arguments (and any counter hypothesises) deeply unconvincing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 08:41am on 15 Jul 2009, Bishop Hill wrote:

    SheffTim

    I agree with pretty much everything you said in that last post. I'm not sure what your point is though. I think you agree with Larry that it is not necessary to propose alternate hypotheses. That doesn't mean you can't propose alternate hypotheses. Sure, some of them may be kooky, but this is irrelevant.

    We should all, as sceptics in the wider sense of the word, be chucking bricks at the AGW hypothesis just to see if it's right or can be improved. To return to the point of the original post here, that means that the BBC should be giving some time to sceptics of the calibre of Lindzen or Spencer to put their case. It also means that people arguing for the AGW case should be challenged by BBC reporters. I can't remember this ever having happened before, although Peter Sissons clearly got away with it once.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 08:43am on 15 Jul 2009, Bishop Hill wrote:

    Cue YW....

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 08:45am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The simple fact is that most people in the world belong to one religion or another."

    But some people will believe their religion over their own experience.

    Roy Spencer is one.

    Rather than believe his geological evidence and his biological evidence, his religion has the right answer. Despite having nothing to support its stance on the creation of life's rich variety.

    "One can only compare such belief (on both sides) with religion and "creationism". "

    If you're speaking like the Queen, yes. But it is YOU that can only compare such belief in that way. And that is by ignoring the evidence before you. YOUR position is religious.

    "and I do not believe in creationism."

    Why?

    You must keep an open mind....

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 08:46am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "It used to be that reporters and newsmen (or women) reported the facts and opinions on both sides, "

    This would rather require there to be facts on the denialist side.

    "It's all a big scam" has no facts behind it.

    "It's cooling" has no facts behind it.

    All the strawmen you make up and burn down have no facts behind them.

    If you want the counter arguments to be presented, put some FACTS behind them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 08:48am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    ""Where the sceptics are weakest is in presenting a coherent, plausible counter hypothesis supported by research."

    It doesn't work like that. If a hypothesis looks wrong you say what's wrong with it. You don't have to come up with a better hypothesis"

    It DOES work like that.

    Or shall we have responses like to your "it's cooling", it's wrong because it's still warmer than any year in the 1930's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 08:50am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Not to be rude, but please define for us an "acceptable set of religious beliefs" which one should have to contribute to the (very real) debate regarding the theories of climate change and AGW"

    None.

    Since science and religion talk about completely different things. Therefore in answering or inquiring about science, NO religious belief should be in play.

    Just like when answering or asking questions about what the 10 commandments mean you should bring metallurgy into it.

    PS you'll need a thory too, not a WAG.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 08:52am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I freely admit I am a "skeptic", but not a "denier""

    Which is a problem, since you're not a skeptic, you're a denier.

    You cannot be a skeptic of the position of the pro-AGW debate since you don't even know what the science IS on the AGW side. You ask questions that are answered in the IPCC reports, proving you haven't read them. Then say you don't believe them.

    But you haven't read them.

    You cannot be skeptical of what you do not know. You can just deny it or accept it (then go off and see for yourself).

    You are a denialist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 08:59am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    I might have known Bish would have bashed me yet again.

    What?

    Am I not allowed to post?

    Why?

    Because I keep pointing out your lies and hypocrisy ("I hate people who are rude" then point out rudeness in people who deny AGW but no problem for you there. Or your rudeness. Or how you accept rudeness from AGW deniers on your very own blog).

    You're a hypocrite Bishop.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 09:02am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "That doesn't mean you can't propose alternate hypotheses. Sure, some of them may be kooky, but this is irrelevant. "

    It's very relevant.

    Our recent global warming is the result of the Flying Spagetti Monster. His Chosen (the pirates) have died off and He is punishing us by turning up the heat.

    It's a kooky hypothesis and this is completely relevant to the idea that this hypothesis IS COMPLETELY WRONG.

    I have an alternative hypothesis to your statement that you don't like rudeness.

    You LOVE rudeness as long as it backs your dogma that AGW is wrong and it's all a scam.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 09:08am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "We should all, as sceptics in the wider sense of the word, be chucking bricks at the AGW hypothesis just to see if it's right or can be improved."

    Real skeptics are.

    But at the turn of the 20th century, there was the argument that CO2 could not have an effect on global temperatures because it was saturated.

    Brick thrown.

    In 1950, the computers were powerful enough to do the calculations the physics showed had to be done.

    And that showed that saturation of CO2 didn't matter, it still had a considerable effect on global temperature.

    Improved the theory.

    But still today we get (even on this very blob, read Chutney's latest attempts or CuckooToo's older rants) people saying that there can be no effect from more CO2 since it is saturated.

    If you're still throwing the same brick, you're not a skeptic.

    You're a denier.

    You should also make sure that your brick is solid enough to be called a brick. E.g. "it's cooling" when the data being used doesn't say it.

    And when bricks are thrown back at YOUR missapplied hypotheses, you go all "Huh, you're just closed minded" or other irrelevant attacks. Or shut up for a while until maybe people can't see your earlier version punctured and repeat the same tired old rubbish all over again.

    That isn't skepticism. That's denialism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 12:10pm on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    The biggest problem for the BBC is when they link almost any outdoor or foreign story to global warming:

    BBC: Children die in harsh Peru winter
    Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March.

    Well if these unnamed experts were any good they would have predicted the cold snap in March instead of waiting for July - and done something about it.

    It's a relentless drip-drip-drip style of propaganda. I've stopped watching wildlife programs because they are so monotonously on message about endangered species, climate disaster, evil mankind, blah blah.

    And don't get me started on the preachiness of children's TV in the UK. Ned Flanders on stilts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 1:23pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Well if these unnamed experts were any good they would have predicted the cold snap in March instead of waiting for July - and done something about it."

    Weather != Climate.

    The only propoganda is the continued bringing up of irrelevant points in the hope that some of the muck sticks.

    "It's a relentless drip-drip-drip style of propaganda."

    So stop it then. Shut up, read the science and stop repeating the tired old hat arguments that have nothing to do with the science of climate change or the proof or it.

    Read this:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    And if you disagree with it, come back with comments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 10:54pm on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 41. At 11:10pm on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 42. At 03:17am on 16 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #27 @Tim
    #28 @Bishop

    Are you not saying the same thing? Do you Tim, not agree with Bishop's assertion that "we should throw bricks at AGW Theory" - to see if it holds water or where we poke holes in it? To develop a better understanding? (What is a dumb American doing here anyway...) I think that we can all agree on the following statements:

    1) The earth appears to have warmed over the last 150 years

    2) That man has had some effect upon climate change

    In reality, science today cannot even agree on "how we measure global temperatures" - thus while we believe it has warmed, we really don't know how much it as warmed globally. With regards to the second assertion, again, it is a matter of degree - just how much, and by which actions. I personally believe that land use has played a significant role - more so that CO2 emissions.

    The point is that the science is still very immature. The think it is "settled" or even that we have barely scratched the surface is very arrogant in my view. Do you not agree? We didn't even KNOW about the PDO until 10 years ago - we really still don't know how it works and what drives it. There are some theories, but all have holes in them.

    Would we not also agree on these two statements:

    1) Climate science is still in its infancy and we still have much to learn

    2) The current theories will evolve and be supplanted by new theories as we learn more and develop a better understanding of the processes, mechanisms and feedbacks involved,

    We have so much more to learn. The thing that bothers me the most about climate change is that there are many environmental issues that we know so much more about that are essentially ignored - to our detriment. If we don't really start protecting and restoring our natural environments both on land and in the sea, we will lose them forever. Not only that, but think of all the strife and suffering in the third world. My whole position is that we should be focused on developing the third world. Africa in particular. Only then, do we have a chance of preserving and restoring the incredible environments and ecosystems there. Even if you believe 100% in everything in the IPCC reports - what is more realistic - stabilizing and reducing CO2 Concentrations in the atmosphere: 1) Cutting emissions in the west by 87% by 2050 or 2) Restoring natural sinks (like rainforests, wetlands, forests, bogs, etc) and improving their ability to naturally abosorb CO2 by 3%? Both will achieve the same underlying objective: stabilizing and reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

    Cutting emissions by 87% by 2050 is neither realistic nor viable IMHO. Preserving and restoring natural sinks and improving their efficiency by 3% seems much more realistic to me. But to do this, we must develop the third world with cheap energy and cheap food. Even if you believe 100% in the current theories of AGW and CACC, what has more chance of success? One time reduction in emissions (87%) - or permanent restoration of natural carbon sinks (for 3% improvement)?

    In any case, I hope I have provoked some thought in our discussions. I have much enjoyed the discourse with both of you over the last month as well as others. You are obviously both intelligent and well read.

    Unfortunately, I tire of the abuse here. To be honest, I came here for the intelligent discourse and civilized debate. Unfortunately, I have been rather ill for about 9 months - although things seem to be improving. I have found other blogs which, while some abuse exists, are much more civilized. I also received a call which may lead to a research position at a University near here - working on developing new parallel processing algorithms for mini-supercomputers. They are aware of my situation and are offering a lot of flexibility. So, hopefully I will be truly productive once again soon. Thank you both (and many others) for the intelligent discussions amist all the noise.

    Cheers for that.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 09:34am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Cutting emissions by 87% by 2050 is neither realistic nor viable IMHO."

    Fair enough.

    The politicians who have advisers who have much better qualifications than you in this line of work think otherwise.

    "To be honest, I came here for the intelligent discourse and civilized debate."

    What? You mean "CO2 lags temperatures!!!!!" which has been answered for DECADES is "intelligent discourse" when being regurgitated again here today on these blogs????

    Your partaking of such muck-slinging and tired old catchetisms shows that all you want is to be treated as if you have something relevant to say when you don't.

    You do not.

    "In reality, science today cannot even agree on "how we measure global temperatures" "

    Well that's easy to make sure happens, isn't it? Just disagree with how global temperatures are measured and hey presto! There's no agreement!

    "With regards to the second assertion, again, it is a matter of degree - just how much, and by which actions. "

    Not if you read:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    and the ICC reports (which we already know you haven't since you state skepticism about assumptions of what the IPCC report says that are not in the IPCC reports)

    "The point is that the science is still very immature"

    Incorrect. 1850's it started. But then again, you've been told that many, many times. And deny that it's been answered just so you can say it again. Truth doesn't matter if it gets in the way of "the message".

    "1) Climate science is still in its infancy and we still have much to learn"

    Disagree. 1850's and most of the questions of general trend were answered in the 1950's and 1960's.

    Detail and increased accuracy is still being improved. But being unsure doesn't stop CO2 having to create more than 1.5C per doubling and just as likely to create 4.5C per doubling. It DOES NOT say that CO2 has a minor effect.

    We still have much to learn in metallurgy.

    Doesn't stop high-strength compound armours saving tank crews in war from death.

    But you demand over-stating the uncertainties so that you can have delay while your sun shines. You'll be gone soon so it doesn't matter what mess is left behind. That's SEP.

    "Not only that, but think of all the strife and suffering in the third world. "

    Which won't be made better when they have their very own dustbowl. Or get flooded out and have to move (what do you think will happen when Bangladesh is flooded and they want to move to Pakistan or India? Do you think it will be tea on the lawn and gentlemen's agreements???).

    And none of the actions taken to mitigate AGW stop other works to end suffering in the third world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 09:36am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 45. At 09:41am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Do you Tim, not agree with Bishop's assertion that "we should throw bricks at AGW Theory" - to see if it holds water or where we poke holes in it"

    Yes, but you're picking up bricks that have so often been thrown and shown to be unworkable in disproving AGW they are practically dust.

    Skpetics throw a brick, see if it works and if it doesn't STOPS THROWING IT.

    Denialists think "I don't remember throwing this brick before. I'll throw it now!" then pick the brick up again and think "I don't remember throwing this brick before...".

    See the continued "800 year lag". Or "CO2 won't have an effect because it's saturated" or "Volcanoes are doing it".

    The skeptic throws an idea out, listens to the response and then accepts it. Because they don't know if it's right.

    The denialist throws an idea out, listens to the response and then ignores it. Because they know it's wrong. And if the idea didn't work in showing it, it must be because of a big conspiracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 09:42am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 47. At 09:42am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I would also suggest that the overwhelming number of scientists hold to some religious beliefs or another. Should they all not be banned?"

    No.

    Why the heck did you ask such an idiotic question?

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 09:43am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    In post 41:
    "I came here for the debate - fortunately there are other, more civilized forums which I can participate and engage in lively discourse as well as intelligent debate."

    In post 40:
    "Please grow up. Does your mommy know what you are writing on the computer?"

    Would you guess from these statements they were made by the same person???

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 09:47am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 50. At 2:06pm on 16 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Dear Shanta Barley

    Please could you thank Peter Sissons for his incisive comments.

    I have been in contact with the BBC over a number of years because in respect of global warming it has been acting as a defacto campaigning organisation.

    Providing no balance and destroying many of its programmes with ridiculous unfounded statements on climate change.

    The good thing though is despite all the propaganda a majority of people believe its a scam to raise taxes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 2:28pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Please could you thank Peter Sissons for his incisive comments."

    Based on saying what you want to hear, I take it.

    "Providing no balance and destroying many of its programmes with ridiculous unfounded statements on climate change"

    There are two sides to every argument. Sometimes one of them is just wrong.

    And the BBC are placing a lot of your unfounded statements on climate change up on the web...

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 01:04am on 17 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @Ewe (Tup)

    Tourette's was once considered a rare and bizarre syndrome, most often associated with the exclamation of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 09:15am on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    and Village idiot was once considered a prestigious job.

    Glad to see you're keeping the dream alive, wrapupwarm!

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 2:33pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Richard Proudly Proclaims:
    "Surely stifling debate is a) undemocratic and b) unscientific? What about Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?"

    Then what happened here?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/deep_sea_heat_now_theres_the_r.html#P82998391

    "Defend till it is slightly inconvenient" seems more your metier...

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 5:14pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.

    Tom Tripp, a metallurgical engineer for U.S. Magnesium and Grantsville city councilman, is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which shared the Nobel Prize with Gore in 2007

    http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_12854537

    Perhaps the BBC should run this as a headline story to give balance to the Climate Change debate?

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 5:53pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And why do you believe him and not the thousands of scientists who work in climate?

    Do you hear your car engine making funny noises and talk to your tanning specialist to find out what's wrong?

    "is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

    And you too can become such a member of the IPCC.

    Just ask for a copy of the report to review.

    That's all Tom did.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Operations

    "Drafts of these reports are made available for comment in open review processes to which anyone may contribute."

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 5:57pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 58. At 6:01pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Tom Tripp, a member of the IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC "lead authors"

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 6:12pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And unsurprisingly, Chutney didn't read what he quoted, just quoted what he'd read

    "And you too can become such a member of the IPCC.

    Just ask for a copy of the report to review."

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 6:19pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The bureau, in promoting the event, described Tripp as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, elevating him to that status because he is one of several thousand members of a U.N. panel that shared the prize with former Vice President Al Gore"

    Doesn't sound like an a priori expertise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 6:27pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-expert-reviewer

    "Expert reviewer for the IPCC" doesn't mean that they asked him to review material -- all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft."

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 6:46pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

    List of contributors, Volume 3 Industrial Processes and Product Use

    Lead Author Tom Tripp

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:54pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And all you have to do is ask.

    There's not even a requirement to read the draft report.

    So if he had no input whatsoever, why are you bringing that in?

    Lies, damned lies and denialism...

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 8:03pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Looking at chapter 3 introduction:

    Authors
    Sections 1.1 a nd 1.2
    Jochen Harnisch (Germany) and William Kojo Agyeman-Bonsu (Ghana)
    Sections 1.3 and 1.4
    Timothy Simmons (UK), Jos G. J. Olivier (Netherlands), Domenico Gaudioso (Italy), Michael Gillenwater
    (USA), Chia Ha (Canada), Leif Hockstad (USA), Thomas Martinsen (Norway), Maarten Neelis (Netherlands),
    and Hi-chun Park (Republic of Korea)
    Section 1.5
    Deborah Ottinger Schaefer (USA)
    Contributing Authors
    Section 1.2
    Maarten Neelis (Netherlands), Jos G. J. Olivier (Netherlands), and Timothy Simmons (UK)
    Sections 1.3 and 1.4
    Martin Patel (Netherlands)

    But he does appear in

    Section 4.5 : Magnesium Production
    Gabriella Tranell (Norway) and Tom Tripp (USA)

    Now, how does reporting on how magnesium is produced get you to understand climate science?

    You're still talking to your chiropodist about the fungus growing on your Koi Carp, when there's an exotic fish salesman from Japan just down the road...

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 8:05pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Maybe Chutney's teleprompt needs to think things through a little longer...

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 10:04pm on 17 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 67. At 10:25pm on 17 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 68. At 05:37am on 18 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @toughNeilHyde,

    While I would agree with you 100%, unfortunately, you are wasting your time. Do not stoop to their level (or his level) of name calling, abuse, etc...

    Einstein's quote brings to mind one of the tenets of science: "Science can never prove anything in and of itself, it can only disprove".

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 08:26am on 18 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    In fairness, he has gone from denying Tom Tripp is a member of the IPCC Nobel prize winning team (#56, 59, 60, 61, 63) to listing Tom Tripp as a lead author of the IPCC (#64)

    Tom Tripp is a member of the IPCC, a lead author and is critical of the IPCC claims on AGW

    Of course, YW will still deny Tom's credentials, because it suits YW's agenda of dissemination of false information and in #56, 59, 60, 61, 63 & 64, there is adequate proof that YW first lies about Tom, tries to denigrate Tom's role at the IPCC (including reference to the Desmogblog rag) and, even after he accepts Tom's role is genuine at the IPCC, tries to make some idiotic comparison with fungal growth and Koi carp!

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 09:49am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    However he was only writing about what the procedures of the manganese operations are.

    He wasn't repeat WAS NOT a lead author of Volume 3 like Chutney said (though he hasn't admitted that at any point he lied). He wasn't even the lead author of Section 4.5 in that volume.

    And it was explaining how manganese operations go in industry.

    Now how does that make him know climate science?

    A question Chutney is rabidly trying to avoid answering.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 09:50am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Do not stoop to their level (or his level) of name calling, abuse, etc..."

    Why not? You do Lazzer.

    Then again it's a denialists modus operandi to deny something inconvenient like their own descents into abuse name calling etc.

    Or, indeed, the fact that they continually regurgitated the same tired old mantras of "this is why AGW is wrong" when they are not proofs and have been asked and answered many times before.

    Deny anything that counters their dogma is their MO.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 09:58am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 73. At 10:00am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 74. At 10:11am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 75. At 09:49am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Funny that Neil goes on about how someone who marches to a tune, never wavering from "the path" is an idiot. Yet here he is repeating the same denialist creed.

    Still saying "it's cooling!!!" when it's warming. Still saying "it's all a green enviro-nazi conspiracy" when he has no proof. Still repeating "CO2 can't do it" when it can.

    Never wavering from the ideal that AGW is wrong.

    And just like they never notice any evidence that they may be wrong in their dogma, they never read what may show them up for the trolls they are. It's always "someone else".

    It's always "their fault" not "my fault". They are NEVER wrong. And if the science isn't showing they are right, that is just proof that the science has been "got".

    The same tin-foil hattery that says that the twin towers was crashed into by government officials to start the war on terror. The very lack of proof is proof of the conspiracy.

    Brothers in arms with the denialists...

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 11:47am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "(including reference to the Desmogblog rag)"

    Which shows what you have to do to get the "IPCC expert reviewer" tag.

    It wasn't until you made a mistake by saying he was lead author in Volume 3 that I could even find his name.

    And even then I had to go through several chapters of volume 3 to find him.

    Yet being second author on one section of a volume, in your eyes, makes him a lead author of the entire volume...

    And still no explanation why writing about manganese production enables him to understand the climate science.

    This isn't a required course to become a CEO of a mining company...

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 11:47am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And I notice that Laz, true to form, read nothing about the history of CO2 and climate in the link given.

    He'd just have to ignore it all, since it doesn't support his preconceived notions, so it would be a waste of time doing so.

    But for someone who wants *debate* you do rather need to know what you're talking about.

    I guess Laz just wants to continue to decieve so that he can have his pals say "see! there are still very many questions not answered! have a look at this BBC blog, for example!".

    Unfortunately, when the deceptions are thrown open, the blog can't be used as "evidence" (since denialists don't care about evidence just the volume).

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 11:48am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Please grow up. Does your mommy know what you are writing on the computer?"

    Do you know you're beating your own arguments up with your childishness.

    Now you not only have no facts on your side, you're removing your rhetoric!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 11:48am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I may even post a comment, but I don't think I will hang around for the ABUSE from the pet Troll "

    Aren't you undermining your arguments with rudeness, Lazzer???

    You GET abuse because you DESERVE abuse.

    You have NO CLUE what you're talking about, you just come on here to spout your political dogma and ignore anything said that doesn't support it.

    The presence of such as you in the debate will not be missed when they leave because their ignorance are shown up every time they try it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 10:49pm on 20 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    @79.

    Time to take a look in the mirror, I think...

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 11:01pm on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    @80. Why, do you think you need to shave now?

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 11:23pm on 20 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Tony-B

    Cheers Mate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 01:17am on 21 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Neil,

    In my early studies, one of the first things I was taught was that "science can never prove anything, it can only disprove". It is an axiom which actually dates from the time of Socrates [pronounced SO-CRATES, dude - in California...LOL). As "true" as it was then, it is just as "true" today (that is to say: it has yet to be disproven). We hold to "scientific truths" only until they have been disproven - never proven. Often there is a "lag" in the development of another plausable theory to replace one which has been disproven. Of one thing I am fairly certain - we have barely begun to even scratch all there is to learn. I have no doubts that most of the current theories on just about any field of science shall be displaced by "newer, better" theories over the next hundred years or two.

    My whole point on this blog and others is that the "science" of climate change is so immature...it is constantly changing and evolving. I am skeptical of the "magic tipping points" for runaway warming, however, I do look and history and see lots of "tipping points" for Ice Ages, in the "relatively recent past" - and they do seem to happen right when CO2 concentrations peak. I really don't know - and I am very skeptical of anyone who believes they "know without a doubt".

    I do believe that computer models are not useful in the context in which they have been employed. With a system such as Earth's climate system (an incredibly complex chaotic dynamic system), trying to make "accurate predictions" is well beyond our wildest capabilities. Models serve a purpose in identifying those areas where we should perhaps focus some effort - hard, field science - to better develop our understanding of the interrelations of all the processes (and the processes themselves) which drive climate change. A long standing theory is that climate models will NEVER have the ability to make accurate predictions beyond a couple of weeks (E. Lorenz, 1961), repeated by Gavin Schmidt (NASA) last week. Perhaps this theory shall be proven wrong, but I doubt anytime soon. (Modeling was my field of study at the University, particularly chaotic dynamic systems - and I have made a career from modeling differnt dynamic systems.)

    While I am skeptical of the "science of climate change" - I am even more skeptical of the "politics and policies of climate change". The one thing I aspire to make people think about is that: there are two sides to every equation (or every coin, if you prefer). Even if you are 100% behind the whole AGW and CACC "thing" - there ARE other solutions - which solve a lot of other problems at the same time. Regressive taxation schemes such as "cap and trade" are no the answer (in my view). They only serve to make a few people richer and the rest of us poorer. They create a whole "economy" - a very expensive one at that - which does nothing to address the real environmental and humanistic problems which have plagued mankind for the entirety of my lifetime.

    Consider the damage that is happening this very moment in the third world. There are people sleeping, with hungry bellies next to a dung fire, trying to stay warm in a straw hut on a Southern African winter's night. In the morning they will rise, and collect whatever they can to burn for cooking and warmth, hunting whatever possible and hauling water by hand to irrigate their meager substenance farms. They are raping the environment for necessity, while their corrupt governments are allowing massive destruction of natural environments for a few measly kickbacks.

    The real answer lies in developing the third world - with cheap energy, cheap food and the ability to feed themselves. Only then can we make progress on preserving and restoring the natural environments which have been so severly damaged. We must find the means to tackle corruption and ignorance in the third world to have any hope of achieving these goals.

    By developing the third world, we could restore the natural environments (read "carbon sinks" - if thats your thing) and really do something to reduce misery and strife in the world today. We call that 2 birds with 1 stick here...actually three when you consider that we need only increase natural aborbsion of CO2 by 3% on an annual basis to stabilize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Which seems more achievable? Reducing emissions by 87% or restoring habitats and environments and improving aborbtion by 3%? Think of what we could do to restore natural sinks such as forests, rainforests, bogs, wetlands and the like. We could eliminate the need to worry about CO2 emissions. Newer, cleaner, better sources of energy will be developed - but they will be developed much faster with a robust economy. Please, if you don't mind doing so politely, where I am wrong in my thinking? My main argument is not around the science (of which, I admit, I am very skeptical), but really around the policy. Are there not other options? Why should we not consider them - those that are realistic and viable? (as opposed IMHO "dumping massive amounts of limestone into the ocean [or iron]"). Let us focus on developing the third world and restoring the natural environment (and carbon sinks), a reduction in population growth will follow as well as eduction, etc...

    Imagine an Africa which could not only feed itself, but was politically stable - instead of a "Drag" on the world economy - a contributor. Hands down, Africa could be the Number One tourist destination in the world - think of all the natural beauty there is to see there - as well as the history. South America would not be far behind...

    Ah, but who am I kidding - its all about the "quick buck"...

    Cheers and Thanks Mate.

    @yeah_whatever: Elvis is dead, and I don't feel so good myself, so please just don't bother with me - am I even worth your time? Have you nothing better to do than kick an old man while he is down?

    Regards.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 07:08am on 21 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @LarryKealey

    well written and absolutely agree with everything you say

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 08:54am on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    @84.

    Yeah, see. No problem with swearing if it's done by "your lads".

    Pathetic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 09:01am on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "In my early studies, one of the first things I was taught was that "science can never prove anything, it can only disprove"."

    And after 150 years and more, CO2's affect on the global temperature has not been proven wrong.

    Plus: you never take this stance when it comes to "AGW doesn't exist". A thesis which, by your lights is never proven. Yet you act as if it is.

    "The one thing I aspire to make people think about is that: there are two sides to every equation (or every coin, "

    A point taken up by those with no facts to their side.

    It doesn't matter if someone says that 2+2=5. Someone debating it does doesn't make it true.

    You've stopped your faux science at least. Now you're moving on to the fluffly hand-waving.

    Think about this:

    What if you're wrong and AGW is real.

    90% of scientists who work in the field say it's correct. Over 50% of all scientists thing it's correct.

    You don't even know what the IPCC and AGW science IS, as proven by your queries about things like "Why does the IPCC concern itself only with CO2?" which is answered in the IPCC report and all the models and papers that appear.

    But you haven't read them.

    As a Loyal Texan, Oil Is King. And AGW is a Liberal Conspiracy.

    So you haven't read what you're skeptical of.

    But what if YOU are wrong and AGW is right?

    What's the point of making new forests when flooding forces us to consider the homes of our families or the squirrels.

    Hmm?

    No, you're just 100% certain that AGW is wrong. Aren't you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 09:01am on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Cheers and Thanks Mate."

    See the hypocrite?

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 09:59am on 21 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango - #84

    Thank you very much.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 10:05am on 21 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Tim,

    What do you think? I am curious. Not regarding the "problem", but rather the current "policies" and "proposed solutions"?

    Kindest.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 10:40am on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
    Albert Einstein "

    Ah, he quotes Albert there.

    How then has climate science managed to survive 150+ years without being disproved?

    And can he turn that on to his own raving on how AGW is wrong?

    Yet when one of HIS points is proven wrong, he just avoids saying it. Never considers that maybe other points are wrong too. Then repeats them, or has one of his denialist compatriots say the same debunked hypothesis over again. And, strangely, doesn't take them to task. A *skeptic* would.

    But then again he's not skeptical of AGW. He's of the religious conviction that it's wrong. And denies anything exists that doesn't bolster that meme.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 09:45am on 22 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    @87

    See the hypocrite?

    Excellent.

    Yeah-Hotweather HAS finally looked in the mirror!

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 09:48am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Ah, Toady-B is doing his Parish Priests' work...

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 10:45am on 22 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    @92

    No - the only religious zealots around here are members of the Church of Fear (aka AGW fundamentalists)

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 10:51am on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Funny, denialists are always squarking "Ecos want us in the stone age! Ecos want us in the stone age!" or "Cost trillions! Cost trillions!".

    Running round trying to get everyone too scared to do anything, to move even.

    The Church Of Fear is in the neo-con camp.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.