BBC BLOGS - Newsnight: From the web team
« Previous | Main | Next »

Friday 18 December 2009 - the plan so far

Verity Murphy | 13:03 UK time, Friday, 18 December 2009

This is the last programme before we break for the Christmas holiday, and it the last Newsnight Review before it relaunches in Glasgow in January.

Tonight on Newsnight we are "going big" on Copenhagen.

US President Barack Obama has called on leaders to come together at the UN climate summit as a deal hangs in the balance.

Our Science Editor Susan Watts is at the conference, and we will be talking to key players and analysts on the programme, as we try to determine if the summit will end with a bang or as a damp squib.

More details later.


  • Comment number 1.


    Copenahagen is not about SCIENCE, yet you have sent your 'Science Editor'. Meanwhile, here in the UK you do appalling science in a fools-kitchen.

    What you needed at the Copenhagen Fudge Factory, was the Newsnight Psychiatric Editor (or, failing that, Sociological Editor). Do you have either?

  • Comment number 2.

    1.haha. that is naughty barrie.

    yes it's not about science. its about money, religion, politics. all of whom wish to fund their ambitions, delusions and vested interests through £100 a year energy bill tax on us.

    ...Wall Street sees carbon trading and related derivative products as the next big thing in financial innovation. Critics say it's the next big financial mess.

    the banking industry...has hired more than 100 lobbyists to work almost exclusively on ensuring their role as central players in the carbon market.

    Such "over-the-counter" derivatives are harder to track and parties to a transaction do not have to post collateral with a clearinghouse to back up their trades. That makes it difficult to assess the level of risk in the overall market - one of the reasons OTC derivatives such as credit default swaps have been fingered for causing the 2008 financial meltdown..

    sound familiar Paul?

  • Comment number 3.

    ..Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change....


    ..Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19, 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."....

    it seems the 'reason' why the establishment and others do not listen to non man made climate scientists is because they do not provide peer reviewed papers proving man is NOT responsible for climate change?

    which is like saying unless you produce peer reviewed papers proving fairies do not exist then they do and anyone who says they do not is to be ignored and called 'a denier' and 'flat earther'?

  • Comment number 4.

    The Chinese don't want to be monitored.

    Those scenting money want it for compo and not actually, as such, dealing with anything climate related by way of mitigation. Much less accounting for it.

    And I think President Obama actually talked about not talking but then did little on doing. Again. Hope! Change!

    And Mr. Brown and Miliband. E seem to be on twitter fretting more and more about how they are not getting the credit they deserve whilst everyone else is selfishly ignoring them giving away anything not nailed down as they're toast anyway in a few months.

    I sense tomorrow's BBC headlines are writing themselves: Saviours of the (11th) hour!

    Rose petals being prepared as we speak.

    ps: Is it true that Justin Rowlatt is to be made Chief Science Officer for services to settling, while Susan Watts is to move to post-production on account of that nifty way of getting a piece to reflect what should be said?

    Unique. And yours for just £142.50pa.

  • Comment number 5.

    iraq inquiry

    Lt Gen Sir Robert Fry

    thought the uk military had something to 'teach' the USA forces in Iraq.

    the assumption was always that the uk would have a 'limited liability' in iraq.

    the role of uk special forces in destroying AQ in iraq was 'historic'

    the same mistakes of iraq were repeated later in afghanistan.

    fighting wars on 2 front put immense strain on uk military

    by 2006 the uk had lost 'intellectual' leadership.

    by 2006 the only plan was to forget all that exemplary example of nation building stuff get out asap.

    there was an essential mismatch between the politicl ambitions on the world stage and the resources behind those ambitions.

    any undertaking on the world stage should only happen if the full force of the nations resources are behind it.

  • Comment number 6.

    "NO WE CAN'T!" (various excellent posts above)

    Still no airing of the NIPCC report. And I was watching the final part of 'Climate Wars' where professor wobbly-head trumpeted that the cooling, ASSUMED to be caused by the ONE EVENT of Pinatubo, PROVED THE MODEL WORKS (implicitly for CO also!).

    This is the guy who rebuffed a thought from me, as 'not a peer reviewed paper'.
    I suggest he is MADE of peer reviewed paper, and not half the tiger he thinks he is.

  • Comment number 7.


    '...Can arguments over money and transparency be resolved?'

    Probably NOT! But who's surprised. Anyone with any basic common sense, a desire to seek the truth and a wider world view than world leaders and world leading journalists (you'd call them deniers or flat earthers) but perhaps without the titles, scientific qualifications, skewed value system and self financial based interest required to interest that powers that OUGHT NOT to be, have known for a very long time that it’s because it is entirely THE WRONG ARGUMENT .

    Come on Newsnight, as the year draws to a close, redeem yourself. Take a risk. Go out on a limb. Ask the question that others dare not ask. DOES the whole shebang really matter at all???????

    Can anyone hear you shout in cyber space?????????????????

    P.S. Think I’ll have a nice piece of Wensleydale instead.

  • Comment number 8.

    4. At 3:45pm on 18 Dec 2009, you

    I was wrong.

    There was no hope.. or change.

    What we got was 'progress' (several times in one sentence) and 'momentum'.

    First from Pres. O and then echoed by PM B

    At least the time for talk has passed. Apparently.

    Money is on the table. As to reducing those pesky GHGs...

  • Comment number 9.

    Who said a week is a long time in backside covering?

    Far from progress and momentum, from these two towering statespersons (well their 'people') we now have... blame.

    With, in the case of one G. Brown, a bit of a pitch that would make the Mafia proud.

    "You don't want to wake up to horse's backside 'deals' beside you in bed? Put me in charge of 'protection' in future.

    Lessons have been learned, and for me, this is the right thing to do.'

    Looking forward to the new year's first batch of read-out press releases in support when our 'news' media start drifting back from school hols.

  • Comment number 10.


    Or, better still, SPOIL PARTY GAMES.


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.