BBC Blog Network

User Profile

bsacr2005

Listed below are comments made by bsacr2005 between Wednesday, 9th July 2008 and Monday, 19th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Monday 19 October 2009 10:44pm on 19 Oct 2009 Copenhagen:

There has been an interesting development on the Copenhagen front: it turns out that Lord Monckton has discovered that the draft treaty contains plans to introduce a form of one-world government.

This smacks of backroomdoor-ary. You can forget about carbon and taxes: this is the real agenda.

I trust the Tories will not let matters rest there: Lisbon could turn out to be a picnic by comparison.
Greens on trial 10:52pm on 14 Oct 2009 Q. What-if carbon emissions are not the main player in the tendency to warmth as the IPCC has assumed? [It doesn't take one to be a deeply rigorous scientist to wonder out loud when upper ocean warming is going to get going again, after all.]

A. Then we'd be wasting billions of pounds if we persist with uber-fast reductions of CO2[, before (i) we are really ready to roll out such game-changing technology efficiently, and (ii) are not really sure that we'll get a decent bang for our bucks!]

Fact: Given that the truth is climate is order upon order of magnitudes of greater complexity than anything that CO2 might do (even interacting with water vapour etc), implies that we *will* be wasting billions somewhere along the line in the rush towards the low carbon economy "dogma" [, if only because there might be some more important combination of factors that we could be redirecting our resources towards which would increase our environmental resilience in a measurable way, nevermind how importantly CO2 will be regarded down the line].

Political argument: Given that all political parties are committed to reducing waste in government, ought not *some* thought be given to alternatives to the IPCC-line, which has been shown to be overestimating Man's (in its terms =CO2's) impact. [It downplays other anthropogenic impacts, to its discredit, but there you go...what do you expect from an agenda-driven outfit? Obama wasn't the first recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize well before his time (by way of the leftish Norwegian govermental committe responsible, not the Swedish academy as people often assume)...and who knows *possibly* in complete contradistinction to actual events...]

Possible conclusion: one idea might be to slow down the rush; take soundings as to what might be achieved at reasonable cost. [Ooooh but what would that do for scariness-which-the-eco-fraternity-have-become-so-reliant-on, the green movement, government tax coffers and generally fluffy-wuffy politicians' manifestos: heaven forefend!]

Implication1: we need to take IPCC scariness out of this debate - temperatures are still lower by some margin that at other points in history and CO2's impact is logarithmic, i.e. a decreasingly important effect per additional unit volume.

Implication2: we need to become more circumspect.

Implication3: in short, we need a more grown-up debate.

Afterthought: By the same token, there is no harm in weaning ourselves off say oil and gas in medium to long term as energy sources. We do need more R&D into long-term energy sources. Reliable renewables such as wave and tidal power have much to offer (not least because they don't require traditional backup), but must be introduced with sensitivity to environmental impacts. If battery/other storage technology advanced significantly that might hold out hope for solar and wind actually being efficient. Nuclear power can make a contribution that should not be belittled.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion 09:00am on 05 Apr 2009 See this contribution from Prof Roger A. Pielke, Sr.

http://climatesci.org/2009/03/31/open-letter-by-the-cato-institute-on-climate-science/

Here is a scientist who reports anthropogenic land use and aerosols as being at least as significant as CO2 in terms of their climate forcing impacts, and who regards upper ocean temperature as the best metric for warming and cooling of the climate. He is committed to understanding climate at the regional level which is, he argues, much more important for policymakers when it actually comes to decisions about actions to be taken on the ground. He resigned from the IPCC in 1995.

This debate could move on if there was a far greater appreciation that the IPCC is an agenda-driven organisation that does not treat all peer-reviewed published work with an impartial eye.

It ought to be "discovering the extent to which" Man has impacted (and will impact) the environment, not "backing up the presumption" that the anthropogenic GHG impact is going to deliver such-and-such amount of damage.

It is the difference between open and closed minds.
Carbon: How much is enough? 2:00pm on 29 Mar 2009 #42
Sorry, maybe I've got it wrong - silly me believing that peer review might actually be some sort of guarantor. In some sense, of course, it never is: it is just a guide to the possibility that this piece of work is new, original and significant. Peer review is oversold out there in the real world.

The thing is the G&T paper may well turn out to be full of misconceptions or misguided reasoning, just as I've no doubt that many a completely off-the-wall computer-model based pro AGW paper has managed to "pass muster" in the (let's be blunt) *potentially* woeful world of "peer review".

[Of course it is well known that there are vast swathes of peer reviewed published work out there that the IPCC does not trouble itself to investigate with anything like an impartial eye (together - let's be fair - with some work that turned out to be falsified so it would be justified in putting that work to one side) because such work does not fit its agenda.]

But the point is these "IPCC-ly incorrect" views *exist* and many many more of them should inform the public debate, that the picking apart of their crassnesses, together with the lauding of their insights, can inform us all, alongside a similar endeavour with respect to IPCC-kosher views as well.

The BBC's line - via its dodgy deal with the Royal Society, which I note Jeremy Paxman has publically admitted that he felt both the relative lowliness of his place within the BBC hierarchy, whilst betraying a sort of askanceness/bewilderment that such editorial decisions might have been
instituted (on the quiet...) - denies us the sort of free discussion that any truly impartial broadcaster ought to feel honour-bound to deliver upon. [And of course at the highest level, the BBC Trust does embrace this notion!]

Essentially all that is needed to start the ball rolling is for IPCC-sceptical climatologists (and scientists from related fields) to be interviewed with the same respectfulness and open-mindedness that was enjoyed in that interview that John Humphrys had with the mathematician the other day, who was endeavouring to explain why his simple observation of couples in conversing on contentious issues for a limited period was a good predicitor of the sustainability of their relationships (at least in the medium term).

Having got back to that remedial level of interviewing impartiality and respectfulness "capability" on the climate issue, the next step would again be to take bunches of highly respected scientists, who
(a) support the IPCC; and
(b) are sceptical of its stance for various reasons;

and allow both separately and jointly conversations to be freely engaged in with some overseeing figures like Paxman, Humphrys, David Dimbleby, Nicky Campbell, Jeremy Vine and Melvyn Bragg. You could even go to the broader scientific-broadcaster community itself and take advantage of the skills of the likes of Robert Winston and Kathy Sykes.

The outcomes of such discussions could then be fed into ongoing debates with people from the policymaking fraternity.

The BBC would no longer be an impediment to free and open discussion of
this important topic, but a facilitator.

Remember that the uber amounts of money at stake (with essentially no guarantees of any observable benefit) lead to the onus being on those who wish to spend such sums being able to back up their claims to a very high standard of certainty: that level of certainty is nowhere to be found at present.

Otherwise you've got PlayStation4 computational modelling (which currently enjoys abysmal predictive capability) leading us all a merry dance that will vie with the efforts of banking community over recent years in the seemingly never-ending quest to over-promise and under-deliver.
Carbon: How much is enough? 4:40pm on 28 Mar 2009 It is incorrect to suggest that there is no serious scientific debate about anthropogenic greenhouse gas impacts leading to climate change.

Here is a reference to peer reviewed article that appeared in a physics journal recently:

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics"
Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

The BBC (online, offline, TV, radio, and in every other sense) should be bound by its own Trust's "Wagon Wheel" report, that demanded that "discussion in the round" be adhered to (particularly) on contentious issues such as this, where there are no straightforward pro and anti stances, but rather a range of views, legitimately held (even if not all can be backed up rigorously).

It is not the BBC's job (whatever they may have "agreed" at a "senior management level" with the (in-the-pocket-of-the-woefully-inadequate-IPCC) Royal Society behind closed editorial doors) to "preach" on any subject, least of all the pseudo-morality of the Green fraternity on their notion of "climate change".

Humans do impact climates, but exactly how is something which is part of an ongoing scientific dialogue.

The BBC could turn over a new leaf, and win back vast amounts of credibility, if it would just come clean and acknowledge that this is the actual state of play and the IPCC version of reality is just that: a narrow perspective that is challenged scientifically somewhere in every continent in the world.
Monday, 21 July, 2008 11:08pm on 21 Jul 2008 Now we know that you've got the *former* Chief Government Scientific Advisor we virtually know that the debate will be a sham: try getting Professor Sir David King to debate toe to toe with Lord Monckton and he'd be eaten for breakfast - except of course Sir David would decline. (Monckton, may not be formally scientifically trained but he can definitely "handle" scientific argument up there with the best of them; he didn't get a standing ovation at the Cambridge Union on a whim...)

King's position is to essentially parrot the IPCC/Royal Society/Met Office/etc. line that is being shown up for the utter tosh that it is day by day and month by month: he should be ashamed of himself for having been party to the propagandization of science - as should they.

The problem with this whole issue is the lack of full and frank public debate from which the mainstream media raises their collective game and tries to tease out the subtleties - in effect taking on part of the scientific method (to be sceptical) into their souls - you wouldn't have thought that journalists would find the very difficult: funny old world...

If only you could temporarily ditch Susan Watts (who doesn't "do balance") and replace her with Robert Pigot - tearing himself away from the Archbishop of Cant.'s little global difficulty (for a short "sabbatical") - you might come away more fully enlightened as to the rich and glorious complexity that is the subject matter of the climate science endeavour, coupled with how far it has to go to really deliver actual substantive, predictable theory. "Will that be just the one decade Sir, or would you like a half dozen...?"

Why not take the BBC Trust's advice and re-instigate "Impartiality" - "Wagon Wheel"-style or otherwise now, rather than when the proverbial starts hitting the fan?

And in that vein, maybe you could find the time to host a series of Newsnight full-length programme debates, one of which must only contain those who dis the IPCC on at least one level: contrary to what you might have been led to believe, they are on many a street corner, hang around some of our most illustrious academic, public and private institutions and some might even be BBC employ-or-contract- "ees"...
Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 07:52am on 09 Jul 2008 Jeremy Paxman could try being a bit more sceptical in his voice when he blithely writes up what the papers are saying about G8 targets not being anything like enough:
a 50% cut is mega...and almost certainly unrealistic (without something like fusion coming on stream).

It wasn't that long ago when Paxman was wondering out loud about the BBC senior management decision to leave impartiality on climate change behind.

Even a year on from the "Wagon Wheel "report we've still got that boneheaded decision in place: so much for BBC Trust authority.

In any case, the IPCC's "consensus line" is so exposed now (scientifically) as to do mainstream journalism that avoids addressing that fact unworthy of the name.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

bsacr2005