Comments for en-gb 30 Mon 26 Jan 2015 02:28:32 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at JaneBasingstoke @WendyRainbow #12Tragically when it comes to mischief making, there is no straightforward way for moderators to recognise it. You have to let people tell mischievous lies as and when they want to. Then you can expose and tackle those lies where there is evidence. And the cash strapped BBC certainly doesn't have the resources to do any more than it does now.However there is one approach that the BBC may have to implement. Scrapping BBC comment threads altogether to save money and/or comply with competition laws. Perhaps that is what your "birdie" meant. Fri 24 Dec 2010 13:42:52 GMT+1 Brunnen This post has been Removed Fri 24 Dec 2010 13:42:33 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @GeoffWard #24 Fri 24 Dec 2010 13:39:47 GMT+1 JaneBasingstoke @WendyRainbowWolfiewoods may have started out as a satire of some of the keener environmentalists like the fictional and funnier Ethan Greenhart. But he has been taken literally, and he has not rushed to fix this.Are you familiar with some of the unpleasant policies of Pol Pot? Fri 24 Dec 2010 13:18:30 GMT+1 GeoffWard I had thought that the 'baddies' were the US, China & Japan.It seems from this blog that Canada is at least as bad. Canada has 'decided not to try' to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets.At least the 'big 3' are trying to do it, albeit outside the legal form; Canada is not even trying, apparently. Why does Canada think it has no responsibility? Is it not a per capita world major polluter? Fri 24 Dec 2010 13:03:11 GMT+1 Yorkurbantree A well rounded article to finish off the year. Good stuff.On the subject of 'restricting' people from posting, I think the current rules are fine. You can't ban people from making challenging comments because that really would restrict debate and give the conspiracy theorists something to genuinely feel aggrieved about. You can't even stop people posting garbage science because that would require the mods of sites like this to have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of all the science, which is frankly unrealistic on a 24hr a day blog. As ever, freedom of speech is the best weapon of the rational. Anyone with an ounce of common sense is going to read a comment like 'communist conspiracy to take money away from us', on a blog like this, as laughable ideologically driven paranoia.Even on this blog you have posts 2 and 3 behaving like members of a cult in using the same phrase, post 10 using lots of capital letters, post 11 repeating a joke that was made the other week, while the latter few posts are riddled with deeply scientific phrases like 'I imagine' and 'based on people I have spoken to...'. Let them type away to their hearts content I say Fri 24 Dec 2010 12:44:51 GMT+1 Barry Woods As the warming rate is currently about 0.05C per decade, and we may even se a negative rate soon (ie cooling :;) where are this guys facts coming from.......... Fri 24 Dec 2010 12:40:45 GMT+1 Barry Woods I just see the 4C by 2050 as just the latest pre-conference hype....Presumably this would mean sea levels would be on track as being ever higher as well.. ie the temperatures are shouted out as being 'worse than we thought'Yet the very same Tyndall centre is part of the AVOID consortium that advices the DECC.Has said that 2m plus is VERY unlikely , and that 59cm is the WORST case scenario. ie most likely - upto 2 feet in 90 yearss (which at current rates is more likley probably a foot) Reported 6th December 2010This post IPCC 2007 and pre copenhagen scare has been quietly forgotten, for the latest piece of alarmism.Did the BBC report the sea level GOOD NEWS - the Guardain, Telegraph and Daily Mail did (allbeit buried away pg 19, half a column) us not pretend that the sea level scare stories were not ramped up just before Copenhagen.Guardian: 'Copenhagen Diagnosis' offers a grim update to the IPCC's climate science - 25th November 2009 (- 6 days after climategate)"Twenty-six climatologists—including 14 IPCC members—have released a startling update to the [IPCC AR4 ] panel's work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries."At Cancun they were saying 2 metres only a few weeks ago (and the Telegraph) - did the Met Office choose a good day to bury bad (Good actually) news? course it was allways very controversial...Jan 2010: The Times: Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’Critics say an influential prediction of a 6ft rise in sea levels is flawed science faces a new controversy after the Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit which suggested that global warming could raise sea levels by 6ft by 2100. The research, published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, created headline news during the United Nations summit on climate change in Denmark last month. It predicted an apocalyptic century in which rising seas could threaten coastal communities from England to Bangladesh and was the latest in a series of studies from Potsdam that has gained wide acceptance among governments and environmental campaigners. Besides underpinning the Copenhagen talks, the research is also likely to be included in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would elevate it to the level of global policy-making. However, the studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts. Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: "These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory." the Sea Level Good News: has the exact three things reported by the papers. (pg2)6th December 2010:Daily Mail: sea levels VERY unlikey, atlantic conveyor belt not slowing down, Old forest was thought to be carbon neutral but, in fact, still absorbs CO2. It therefore has the benefit of helping to slow climate change,Part of the AVOID program.....a consortium funded by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change: if temerperatures of 4.0C by 2060 is on the cards... what happened to sea lvels rising due to temperatures?I had this info from the Met Office Press Office, when I asked..."The Hadley Centre have provided the following information:The publication is at: scroll to the bottom of the page where there are a number of PDFs. See 'Risks of dangerous climate change'. Fri 24 Dec 2010 12:34:01 GMT+1 blunderbunny Straying dangerously on topic, I just wondered what people thought of this quote from Richard article above:"There is currently nothing substantive to suggest we are heading for anything other than a 4C rise in temperature, possibly as early as the 2060s... it is hard to find any scientist seriously engaged in climate change who considers a 4C rise within this century as anything other than catastrophic..."So, that would need to be nigh on a +0.8 degree per decade increase between now and 2060!!!!! Doesn't that seem a tad, and I'm using tad in it's loosest possible meaning, too agressive even for most of our warmist friends ;-)Just curious, as these sorts of things get printed and then "some" people start taking them on board as being actual facts, rather than wild/rabid speculation and then off we go with all of this CAGW lunacy.Sorry, the words "lunacy" and "rabid", probably don't help my curious plea, but honestly what else can you call it?Regards,One of the (Ever Curious) Lobby Fri 24 Dec 2010 11:19:38 GMT+1 blunderbunny @spectrum"On the other hand, an honest and vastly more intelligent scientist, Freeman Dyson thinks climate computer models are useless. So, I imagine do 90% of physicists."Well, I've only conducted my own straw pole, but I'd say that wasn't too far off the mark. Even amongst my atmospheric colleagues, the figures wouldn't be that dramatically different, maybe 75-80%.There are a wide spectrum of opinions, of course, but most tend to the non-catastrophic end i.e. Luke (1.0C) to very Luke warmers(>1.0C), plus there are still a few what are you talking about? It's just a trace gas types;-) As ever, the 64 trillion dollar question is climate sensitivity to C02 and as ever, most if not all, direct observations tend to indicate that it’s low to very low. Until, this can be robustly demonstrated to have changed, opinions are likely to remain very much unchanged. Regards,One of the Lobby Fri 24 Dec 2010 09:34:23 GMT+1 JunkkMale '10. At 7:18pm on 23 Dec 2010, Shadorne wrote:As usual the BBC has totally missed the point.Hardly fair to tar an entire organisation with the same brush on the basis of the outpourings of one of its (admittedly few) 'qualified' 'experts', though locating interesting alternative discussions can be a tricky trek... mixed beat 'climate correspondent', who may be less familiar than others.'12. At 9:05pm on 23 Dec 2010, WendyRainbow wrote:As I understand it the existing rules will be applied differently so that sincere opinion is allowed but patterns of mischief making will not.'Or, just in case that model proves impractical, watertight oversight gets applied before even posting. It would also save a fortune.Hughie Green will be greatly missed. I mean that most sincerely, but would be interested in methodology should any seek to divine otherwise. Fri 24 Dec 2010 09:16:53 GMT+1 Cariboo Polar Bears seem to be doing alright but the Inuit were saying that all along. Fri 24 Dec 2010 07:33:59 GMT+1 spectrum "Last week, Kevin Anderson, head of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, wrote that the outcome offers small comfort:"There is currently nothing substantive to suggest we are heading for anything other than a 4C rise in temperature, possibly as early as the 2060s"On the other hand, an honest and vastly more intelligent scientist, Freeman Dyson thinks climate computer models are useless. So, I imagine do 90% of physicists. Fri 24 Dec 2010 00:43:10 GMT+1 Cariboo In letters to the editor in my local paper there was a letter extolling the dangers of AGW and the need to cut CO2. I replied to this letter by bringing up Di-hydrogen monoxide and how this chemical has managed to get into everything and the dangers associated etc. The editor did not seem to like the subject. Thu 23 Dec 2010 22:50:13 GMT+1 Cariboo #11. ShadorneMet Office New Supercomputer - $30 Million Pounds If the Met office went back to pre-computer methods of knowledge, experience and intuition base forecasting (like the forecasting of the D day weather window). Then 30 Million Pounds could have be spent on alleviating the problem of eating or heating that the poor in the UK seem to have. People dying of exposure seems to be more acceptable than the same people creating CO2 to stay warm.In western Canada the Farmers Almanac (published yearly) forecasts weather better than Environment Canada does. One has to wonder if modern technology is always an advancement. Thu 23 Dec 2010 22:43:18 GMT+1 bowmanthebard WendyRainbow #12 wrote:Who is Wolfywoods?Barbie, meet Ken. Ken, Barbie. You is a wonderful ironist! Thu 23 Dec 2010 21:54:34 GMT+1 WendyRainbow Re my post @ #4. As I understand it the existing rules will be applied differently so that sincere opinion is allowed but patterns of mischief making will not.Who is Wolfywoods?Wendy Thu 23 Dec 2010 21:05:07 GMT+1 Shadorne Met Office New Supercomputer - $30 Million PoundsMet Office Annual Budget - $170 Million PoundsMet Office total ineptitude at forecasting harsh winter weather - PRICELESS!I wonder how many others are beginning to think we would be better off spending all this money on something else - The homeless? Clean drinking water in Africa? Lower taxes? Thu 23 Dec 2010 19:32:17 GMT+1 Shadorne As usual the BBC has totally missed the point.Man-made climate change is a COLOSSAL waste of tax payer money.100's of BILLIONS of dollars for something we can do NOTHING about.100's of BILLIONS of dollars for what is looking everyday more and more like a "SCAM". A "SCAM" to those who bother to look out the window or who have been shoveling all the snow or to those who were stuck in European airports due to harsh winter weather! To those people, the death of "Old Man Winter" in the UK, as foretold for the past three (harsh) winters by the Met Office, is indeed greatly exaggerated!The evidence for man-made Catastrophic climate change simply does not exist except in the fabricated realms of the dreamworld of computer models and espoused by those who benefit from promulgating this nonsense.The BBC and Richard Black should be screaming from the roof tops that there are much more important REAL environmental issues that could use these 100's of BILLIONS of tax payer's money.What a COLOSSAL waste of money. Shame on the BBC for supporting such a waste. This kind of profligate spending on a worthless cause is something compassionate citizens and die-hard environmentalists everywhere should scorn: funds wasted on this non-issue has left many worthy and real environmental issues underfunded!Shame on you all. Shame on the BBC. Thu 23 Dec 2010 19:18:49 GMT+1 bowmanthebard Calling JaneBasingstoke... calling JaneBasingstoke...Hypothesis: WolfieWoods = WendyRainbow? Thu 23 Dec 2010 19:10:33 GMT+1 Jack Hughes Wind power currently 0.7% of usage.3.1% of our electricity came from France in the last 24 hours.Source: Thu 23 Dec 2010 18:30:26 GMT+1 bowmanthebard WendyRainbow #4 wrote:On the previous thread Greenpa called for a change to the house rules such that serious discussion could take place on this blog without being wrecked by a barrage of misinformationPresumably, by "serious discussion" you mean an exchange of views which agree with your view, you being the final arbiter on matters of truth and falsity. Thu 23 Dec 2010 17:44:12 GMT+1 MangoChutney @WendyRainbow #4On the previous thread Greenpa called for a change to the house rules such that serious discussion could take place on this blog without being wrecked by a barrage of misinformation, he sights the recent changes to the NYT green blogs screening process. If what a little birdie has told me is correct then such changes will be coming to the BBC in the new year. Should be interestingOtherwise known as censorshipI'm sorry, Wendy, I may not agree with the barrage of misinformation spread by the AGWer's, but I think they have a right to express their opinion without censorship by the BBC/Mango Thu 23 Dec 2010 17:08:46 GMT+1 blunderbunny @WendyRainbowSorry Wendy, but I believe you've been misinformed. The BBC have been told that they have to be more impartial, not less, when it comes to reporting the science of climate change:, if you think that there's going to be any wholesale censorship of anti-CAGW viewpoints on these BBC blogs, then I think that might be wishful thinking. The house rules are explained here: you're looking for more partisan view points then you can always hang out on Mr. Monbiot's blog or perhaps on Joe Romm's place ;-)Regards,One of the (Always Helpful) Lobby Thu 23 Dec 2010 16:48:30 GMT+1 WendyRainbow “So should the push still be for a legally-binding treaty? Or should movers and shakers take the line that the scale of the cuts is more important than the legal form of a new agreement, and work with governments to increase their ambition?”Legally binding targets are a bit like motorway speed limits, people do break them but without them people would drive a even faster.On the previous thread Greenpa called for a change to the house rules such that serious discussion could take place on this blog without being wrecked by a barrage of misinformation, he sights the recent changes to the NYT green blogs screening process. If what a little birdie has told me is correct then such changes will be coming to the BBC in the new year. Should be interestingWendy Thu 23 Dec 2010 15:57:02 GMT+1 Spanglerboy Richard are you seriously still writing about global warming?What about sparing a few thoughts for your fellow citizens struggling to survive in fuel poverty? Oh I forgot you care more about blue chinned tuna than you do about the citizens of your own country.Time for a reality break Richard. Controlling global carbon emissions is the stuff of dreams. Wake up and smell reality. It smells cold. Very cold. Thu 23 Dec 2010 15:56:08 GMT+1 Jack Hughes Richard are you seriously still writing about global warming ? Thu 23 Dec 2010 15:38:25 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan After the bankers robbed all the treasuries and the governments have no intention or power to recoup the losses, there is little that can be done. Political climate change is what is needed and a balance between the needs of business and the needs of everyone else. What are being called "rich" countries are broke...politically and financially. The middle class will drive this change through purchasing power. Governments tend to follow as statesmanship and leadership require independence and they are all on the leashes of banking and big business. People solve problems, politicians take credit. Thu 23 Dec 2010 15:10:10 GMT+1