Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml en-gb 30 Sat 23 Aug 2014 18:12:52 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml Gates http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=99#comment170 Australia is the harbinger of change for global warming. If you think a few degrees hotter would be quite pleasant here in the UK, imagine that in the hotter parts of the world. "Climate scientists warn that Australia: condemned by prolonged drought and increasingly deadly bush fires in the south, monsoon flooding and mosquito inflicted fevers in the north, declining wildlife population, collapse of agriculture and killer heat waves, epitomizes the “accelerated climate crisis” that global warming models have forecast." Wed 21 Oct 2009 14:27:26 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=98#comment169 It was a good try, I think, but I dont know whether it has got us much further... Wed 21 Oct 2009 10:58:27 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=98#comment168 To revive this thread one more time ... this is a very funny clip from today's Democracy Now showing the Yes Men spoofing the American Chamber of Commerce and Fox News.http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/20/yes_men_pull_off_prank_claimingAlso worth watching from the same programme is this piece on how big corporate interests influence the climate change debate.http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/20/pr_executive_james_hoggan_on_james Tue 20 Oct 2009 20:39:07 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=97#comment167 David_McNickle, @139 you wrote: "As coal, oil, and gas are eventually going to run out ... alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used."The "Peak Oil" concept is that we are now at or rapidly approaching (or possibly have recently passed) the point at which oil is at the peak of its production and use. In consequence of which "alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used."I never said (or meant to imply, or did imply, or even IMO seemed to imply) that you mentioned Peak Oil. You didn't. I did. I mentioned it because the Peak Oil concept is basically the same concept (or a similar concept to) the concept that you described.Still don't get the head-burying thing, sorry! Tue 20 Oct 2009 16:10:31 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=97#comment166 I don't 164, You said in reply to mine, "That's the peak oil concept.", which I didn't mention. I mentioned nothing about whether or not we had reached it, just that it was running out. Bury you head and you don't use fuel. Tue 20 Oct 2009 15:58:15 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=96#comment165 Lady_Sue, I believe the unprecedented level of CO2 represents a clear danger for life, in particular human life, and that it is essential to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and to find alternatives to them.In that connection I believe it is necessary for everyone who is aware of the situation to do whatever they can towards creating a positive outcome to the Copenhagen climate conference. Tue 20 Oct 2009 11:45:44 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=95#comment164 @156 Lady Sue I have been very very clear about my questions!!! I am not asking you about Global Warming or any other temperature thingy!What I would love to hear are your thoughts on the CO2 issue. Way back above somewhere, we agreed (i think?!) that atmospheric CO2 has not been at this level for 420,000 years, and is still rising.How does that grab you?!What do you think about unprecidented levels of CO2 - or are you ambivalent?n-nxx Tue 20 Oct 2009 11:33:13 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=95#comment163 @158 David_McNickle wrote: "Did I mention 'Peak Oil'? No. We have been running out of these natural resources ever since we started using them. Bury your head in the sand if you want."No, I mentioned Peak Oil. The reason I mentioned Peak Oil is that what needs to be done about it is basically the same kind of stuff that needs to be done about climate change, ie reducing the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them, as so eloquently expressed by Lady_Sue @120.Not quite clear where the head burying comes in. :) Tue 20 Oct 2009 11:22:29 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=94#comment162 Not at all, Sid. I believe in free speech. And what I want to freely point out to Lady_Sue is as follows: Lady_Sue: If you genuinely meant what you said @120, that "I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing" then you need to support the steps that are most likely to bring that about, rather than to do everything you can to try and discredit those who are trying to do so. Tue 20 Oct 2009 11:12:54 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=94#comment161 idcam - so you're asking us to stop discussing what we want to discuss, and join in a discussion about what you want to discuss? Tue 20 Oct 2009 11:03:16 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=93#comment160 Well, I'm arguing that the time for discussing "whether climate change is happening or not" is gone, that it is now firmly established that it is happening, and that to continue to debate the question on a public forum is not merely navel-gazing but works actively to undermine the efforts of those who are trying to do something positive about the consequences.Accordingly, I repeat (and correct the grammar) my assertion to Lady_Sue: if you genuinely meant what you said @120, that "I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing" then you need to support the steps that are most likely to bring that about, rather than to do everything you can to try and discredit those who are trying to do so. Tue 20 Oct 2009 10:51:46 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=92#comment159 idcam - I think you may be missing the point. This particular discussion is about whether climate change is happening or not, and if it is how much it is due to human activity. Also, to a lesser extent, about scaremongering. I'm arguing that climate change sceptics (those who think there's no climate change, or that human activity has no effect) are wrong. Lady Sue is arguing that some of them are right. What you are suggesting is that we should have a different discussion. Well, why should we? If you don't want to join in this one, you don't have to! Tue 20 Oct 2009 10:38:18 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=92#comment158 @156 Lady_Sue wrote: "Yes, let's reduce use of fossil fuels, let's be responsible about any impact we might be having on our environment (and I mean this on the most basic level, everyone taking responsibility for their own actions)"Chance'd be a fine thing! Since when has it been safe to expect "everyone taking responsibility for their own actions"? The only chance there is of "everyone taking responsibility for their own actions" is if things are re-arranged so that is what 'everyone' (including Big Business & Governments as well as billions of individuals) perceives as in their own best interests. That means discussing it and making treaties and other arrangements, which is what Copenhagen and the whole Climate Change lobby is about. It is about getting people to agree to undertake those responsibilities! If making that happen involves a bit of 'scaremongering' then so what? Lady_Sue, if you are genuinely meant what you said @120, that "I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing" then you need to support the steps that are most likely to bring that about, rather than to do everything you can to try and discredit those who are trying to do so. Tue 20 Oct 2009 10:28:25 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=91#comment157 idcam 148, Did I mention 'Peak Oil'? No. We have been running out of these natural resources ever since we started using them. Bury your head in the sand if you want. Tue 20 Oct 2009 10:22:52 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=91#comment156 Lady Sue:Steve FieldingYou offer Steve Fielding’s views as part of your ‘masses of evidence for those of us who are open minded in looking for it.
’ Steve Fielding is an Australian politician who attended a conference of climate change sceptics, and asked questions of the US administration (he was not satisfied with their response). As I said - I don't accept what he says because he doesn't understand the science. My question is: why prefer his views over those of expert scientists? If someone said that John Prescott had attended a conference of climate change sceptics, and asked questions of the US administration, and now had doubts about climate change, I’d say they were clutching at straws.SourcesYou say: ‘I do keep giving my sources. With respect, you keep willfully ignoring them.’The only specific source I can find is Plimer’s book. I told you what I think of that, and await you reply.In your #114 you say “you will find any amount of scientific research, petitions and reports that counter the claims. Many well respected scientists and scientific bodies have also disputed it.” I find that a little vague, to be honest.In your 141 you say: ‘2. "Most scientists disagree with him" - not according to the information I have under reference;’ but you don’t say what information you are referring to.If you have referred to other sources and I have ignored them, please accept my apologies and tell me where they are.Gordon BrownTo be honest, I’m not entirely sure of the relevance of GB to a discussion about human activity and climate change. About as relevant as Steve Fielding, perhaps.Solar activityMost scientists believe that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change. The IPCC says that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the effect due to greenhouse gases.National Centre for Atmospheric Research et al (Sept. 06): 'Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today’s rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing.'http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2004/wigley.shtmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060914095559.htmHeliophysics and the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (Sept. 2006): ‘Sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present.’http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2006-9b/hl2006-9b-en.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html
What scientists doI have said before, and I repeat, that what scientists do is speculate. They collect data, wonder how it all fits together, form a hypothesis, and test their hypothesis by collecting more data. If the new data doesn’t fit the hypothesis, they change the hypothesis. I regard this sort of speculation as essential to scientific activity. You say it’s just speculation, and speculation won’t convince you. I wonder if you could clarify this for me please? Tue 20 Oct 2009 09:59:10 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=90#comment155 nikki, the graph you refer to, showing variations in climate change going back 420,000 years, illustrated that this 'global warming' is part of an ongoing climatic pattern and is an example that shows we 'insignificant humans' have very little impact on it. The CO2 levels being high possibly reflects a natural increase over this time. "Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean."Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.idontcare@152, re. the '50 days' quote: I know what he is saying (that there are 50 days to make a decision), it is the 'scaremongering' way in which he is saying it (implying something must be done within 50 days) that I object to. It is an example of just that type of 'spin' being used internationally that has everyone quaking in their boots.Yes, let's reduce use of fossil fuels, let's be responsible about any impact we might be having on our environment (and I mean this on the most basic level, everyone taking responsibility for their own actions) but don't treat the general public like a load of idiots that need to be frightened into agreeing with whatever policy the governments wants to implement for their own reasons (see mine @128).Sid@155: you are forgiven. Tue 20 Oct 2009 08:06:55 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=90#comment154 Sorry for being silly. Mon 19 Oct 2009 21:52:26 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=89#comment153 I admit I was being a bit pedantic. Sorry! Mon 19 Oct 2009 21:31:47 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=88#comment152 @151 idontcareanymore - I see!! When you said in post 148 "We are not running out, and...." you meant me to understand " We are running out..." And Lady Sue: I would love to hear your thoughts on the CO2 issue. Way back above somewhere, we agreed (i think?!) that atmospheric CO2 has not been at htis level for 420,000 years, adn is still rising.How does that grab you?!n-nxx Mon 19 Oct 2009 20:47:38 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=88#comment151 The "50 days" will be the number of days from now to when the decisions and agreements have to be made at Copenhagen, not the time by which the necessary actions need to be completed. So no, it doesn't sound like Shakesperean witchery, Lady_S. It just sounds like Gordon bumbling, in his usual well-meaning way, towards complete incompetence. The consequences of doing nothing, however, which despite your declared enthusiasm for "reducing the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them" appears to be your objective, Lady, would in all likelihood be ultimately catastrophic. Mon 19 Oct 2009 20:18:02 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=87#comment150 Nikki Noodle, If you were to examine your empty wine bottle closely enough, under a microscope, you would find there is still wine in it. Even if you wash it out thoroughly as you can manage under a tap I defy you to entirely get rid of every single molecule of wine. That's what I meant by "not running out completely" of oil. There will always be some left in the ground, we'll never get it all out, but for practical purposes the cost of extracting those last dregs would become prohibitive. I was not meaning to suggest that no worries 'cos the oil will never run out. Quite apart from the requirements necessary to combat global warming, it is the fact that we are at (or extremely close to) peak oil production that makes it imperative to start putting into practice the ways to reduce use of fossil fuels and to find alternatives to them, as proposed by Lady_Sue. Mon 19 Oct 2009 18:46:13 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=87#comment149 Sid@144: 1. don't be silly! Fielding being Australian is neither here nor there - that he is challenging the climate change debate and, not being a scientist, is asking some questions and getting answers from scientists (in Washington) is the relevant point.2. I do keep giving my sources. With respect, you keep willfully ignoring them. Agree with nikki and others that it is important for us all to be responsible about the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives. However, if I may cite the BBC One Minute World News today by way of topical example - does this sound like the calm, cool (no pun intended) voice of reason OR does it rather smack of scaremongering? : [quote]The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".[unquote]"50 days to save the world from global warming" - Does this smack of "bubble bubble toil and trouble" to anyone else? Mon 19 Oct 2009 18:34:47 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=86#comment148 Sorry to turn up late at this party!!@148 idontcareanymore writes "(in absolute terms) we will never run out completely" a concept I would love in a wine bottle, a teapot, or planet Earth. But, regretably for all concerned, we live with finite resources. And in the last 12 years, we have consumed more fossil fuels than has ever been mined or extracted in our entire history. Not only are we living with finite resources, but our rate of consumption is still increasing!!! We are accellerating towards a painful diminuation of fossil fuels, if not a complete lack!!!Many posters write about 'average planet Earth temperatures' over the last 10 years or so. Tbh, I dont really know about that, or even care very much. CO2 levels are at 380ppm - a level not seen for 420,000 years, or more. And it might be as Lady Sue suggests in post 105, that we can rest easy because the last decade hasnt shown any correlation between temperature and CO2, or that scientists are discussing mechanisms, or that the oceans may, or may not, be a heat sink, or a heat pump for all I care.I dont mind what scientists currently believe to be a valid mechanism. We are hurtling towards 400ppm CO2 on our planet, and our children will not thank us IF we could have done something to turn that around, and instead we sat on our back sides, playing with our golden joy sticks.noodlexxA link for Hawaii CO2 Data:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends Mon 19 Oct 2009 18:13:10 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=85#comment147 David_McNickle @139 wrote: "As coal, oil, and gas are eventually going to run out ... alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used."That's the "Peak Oil" concept. The idea that right now oil is at the peak of its production and use. We are not running out, and in absolute terms we will never run out completely, but from (approximately) now on the extraction and production of oil will become increasingly difficult and expensive. Some argue that this will act as a force on the market in favour of the very alternatives required to combat global warming, however while that is no doubt true, to simply allow that to happen without making a positive effort to overcome the problems would probably prove to be the most painful way of dealing with it (akin to waiting for starvation and hunger to become the norm before bothering to increase food production).@146 Sid wrote: "Yes, of course we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, we also have to be clear about the role of scientists and charlatans in our society. Why do we have to do only one?"Because the near certainty of the fossil fuel thing is a zillion times more important than the slight possibility of the odd charlatan amongst the earth scientists. Mon 19 Oct 2009 17:43:46 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=85#comment146 #145. idontcareanymoreWhat I am saying is I don't remember these scientists presenting their work. An edited, cut down version may have been presented.However, you must admit the Prophet Dawkins has a much higher profile.Now this reminds me of another quirk of science debates in the media. When the Prophet Dawkins speaks about the Prophet Darwin other scientists don't come on to argue against evolution. No, religous people are lined up to gainsay the facts of evolution.The debate about global warming appears to be conducted via pressure groups on either side, hence public confusion. This confusion has lead to deniers sowing the seeds of doubt. Mon 19 Oct 2009 17:38:39 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=84#comment145 idontcareanymore @ 145Yes, of course we have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, we also have to be clear about the role of scientists and charlatans in our society. Why do we have to do only one? Mon 19 Oct 2009 17:27:08 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=84#comment144 Looternite @123 said: "What I cannot remember is an actual earth science scientist presenting his work directly."Well I'm pretty sure there have been plenty on various programmes over recent years. Costing the Earth and One Planet are two radio programmes in which I'm confident such scientists have participated. But all this nit-picking is completely irrelevant, even Lady_Sue who seems intent on debunking the whole idea of global warming felt obliged to admit that "I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing."So I don't see where the beef is. The global warming lobby demands precisely those actions, so why not simply accept the need for change and get on with bringing that about instead of wasting all this effort and hot air on arguing about science?What matters now isn't who believes what but how to persuade the world to take the necessary steps to actually reduce the use of fossil fuels and find alternatives to them. Mon 19 Oct 2009 17:13:50 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=83#comment143 Lady Sue:1) Would you believe what Fielding says if he was a British govt minister? 'John Prescott changes mind over climate change'. I don't accept what he says because he doesn't understand the science.2) You keep referring to your own sources, but without identifying them. This makes it difficult for me to assess your assertions. In this context, it's worth reading Kurt Lambeck's review of Heaven and Earth:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htmPlimer asserts that El Niño is caused by undersea earthquakes; I'd be most interested to see references to any other earth scientists who believe this. Likewise his bizarre belief that the sun is made of the same stuff as the planets. I'm afraid his science just doesn't stack up.3) Sorry if I wasn't clear about this: what I mean is that a dip or plateau in the data doesn't mean there isn't still an underlying trend upwards. You refer to a plateau since 2001, presumably as evidence that global warming is not taking place. I'm saying it's quite possible to have a plateau (or even a dip), but still to have an overall underlying upward trend. We're not talking about weather - we're talking about climate. Mon 19 Oct 2009 16:40:55 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=83#comment142 Ln, make that 140. Hey, why can you use my last name and I can't? Ain't fair. Mon 19 Oct 2009 16:39:58 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=82#comment141 Ln 14, Oh yes, I forgot. Mon 19 Oct 2009 16:37:49 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=81#comment140 Sid@132: 1. see my 128 para 2, which begins, "Australian Senator Fielding...". He went to Washington to find out more from the scientists. The comments reflect his finding from those scientists. You don't want to believe what he reports because it runs contrary to what you have been led to believe; 2. "Most scientists disagree with him" - not according to the information I have under reference;3. "One thing the scientists don't say is that there will be no year-to-year or even decade-to-decade variation." This has me perplexed. What are the 'pro climate change' scientists saying if not this?I will read your article and comment later. Many thanks for your input and links. Looternite: too obscure! I don't know what the joke is. Don't risk posting it, it is of little consquence.lucien: that would be a one-off and sadly would not qualify as data, for or against. David@139: have already stated that I approve of alternative methods for fuel production - rare event - we agree. Mon 19 Oct 2009 16:17:58 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=81#comment139 #136. David_McNickleI think you know it was you, my friend. Mon 19 Oct 2009 16:00:55 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=80#comment138 As coal, oil, and gas are eventually going to run out, arguing about global cooling/warming is like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nobody is giong to convince anybody else, but alternative ways of producing fuel will have to be used. Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:48:52 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=80#comment137 l_d 134, I've seen that hundreds aand thousands of times. Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:17:14 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=79#comment136 Ln 135, And remember, some people only get referred in retaliation. Purer than the driven snow, they are. Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:15:56 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=78#comment135 Ln 133, So who was that poster? Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:13:31 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=78#comment134 #134. lucien_desgaiI have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:05:48 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=77#comment133 131 Lady_SueYou've obviously never seen an hirsute teddy drop dead in an ice-cream van. Mon 19 Oct 2009 15:00:53 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=77#comment132 #131. Lady_SueOn another thread a blogger posted a funny comment said by John Cleese regarding Terry Jones. The programme was on BBC television and was about the Monty Python team. Monty Python was shown on BBC Tv. Yet Cleese's comments were not acceptable on a BBC blog. Usually there has to be an object of the joke for it to work. If the English were to become as sensitive as others then a lot of comedians are going to be signing on. Mon 19 Oct 2009 14:22:39 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=76#comment131 I'm afraid you won't persuade me with this sort of thing, Lady Sue!1) Steve Fielding is an Australian senator, not a climate scientist. Why should I believe what he says in preference to what the scientists say?2) I have read Plimer's book (and plenty more). If I remember correctly (not guaranteed) he puts quite a lot of emphasis on solar variation as a major component of climate change. Most scientists disagree with him. Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science says of his book: "If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it.""The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02." I'm sorry - anyone who thinks that what has happened in the last eight years is relevant to the climate change debate is badly confused. (As is anybody who says 'Global warming? But I'm freezing!') One thing the scientists don't say is that there will be no year-to-year or even decade-to-decade variation.Regrettably neither Plimer nor Fielding provide the sort of evidence I'd need to change my mind.This is an interesting article, from last year: http://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics Mon 19 Oct 2009 14:13:01 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=76#comment130 Looternite, I've never known an instance where humour/wit has been referred, unless it has serious elements of bad taste or is objectionable for other reasons. This sadly occurs all too frequently with particular bloggers who then jump up and down complaining they are referred all the time and spitefully refer others in retaliation. It gets tiresome. Mon 19 Oct 2009 14:07:37 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=75#comment129 #129. Lady_SueOr being funny! Mon 19 Oct 2009 13:46:55 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=74#comment128 Thanks Fifi. I am very much enjoying this climate change debate as I trust my fellow froggers are. Looternite: one can only get referred when one crosses the boundaries of the House Rules - or decency and respect for other bloggers. Mon 19 Oct 2009 13:35:33 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=74#comment127 Sid, let's not "leave it there". It seems there is masses of evidence for those of us who are open minded in looking for it.For example, Australian Senator Fielding attended a conference of climate change sceptics and had briefings with White House advisers and with the Energy and Commerce committee in Washington in June. He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change. ('The Age') It was also covered in 'The Wall Street Journal': "Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S."and "In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted.The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day."Looternite@123: excellent observation. Let's hear it from the scientists.With apologies for the length of this comment. Mon 19 Oct 2009 13:29:20 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=73#comment126 #125. FifiYes grown up debate can flourish as long as we are not constantly referred. Mon 19 Oct 2009 13:23:06 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=73#comment125 #124. idontcareanymoreApology accepted, my friend. Mon 19 Oct 2009 13:21:28 GMT+1 Fifi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=72#comment124 May I compliment froggers of all persuasions for the grown up and civillised manner in which they are conducting the explorations of their differing points of view and conflicting interpretations of past and present events. This is the main reason why the PM blog is a paradigm of informed and intelligent debate; an example of how the introduction of interactivity to a broadcast medium can expand and improve the service provided by the BBC and further the public understanding of difficult topics and contentious current affairs.Hurrah for the frog! Hurrah for froggers! Mon 19 Oct 2009 13:18:29 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=71#comment123 Looternite @118: You are correct, you did mention overpopulation long before I did. I apologise for having overlooked it. Mon 19 Oct 2009 12:50:03 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=71#comment122 Sid, idontcareanymore, Et alI think I know why people like Lady_sue have a problem with the global warming issue.I think it is that the scientific arguement is carried out in the media by the green groups spin doctors. What I cannot remember is an actual earth science scientist presenting his work directly. What tends to happen is a spokesperson from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party etc. telling us what scientists are saying. This means that global warming deniers can quote "scientists" who disagree.As these green groups are seen as "political" therefore their message is seen as tainted. Plus of course this holier than thou attitude of these "Green hair-shirts wearers" gets up peoples noses.Your links, Sid, graphs show without doubt that CO2 is increasing and needs to be tackled.Lets hear the media interview the scientists directly whether for or against, not the spin merchants. Mon 19 Oct 2009 12:46:04 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=70#comment121 Lady_Sue @120 you say "I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing."If you are serious about that then you should support the general aims of the Climate Change lobby, even if you don't actually wholly agree about the science. In this world if you wait for everything to be proved to the complete satisfaction of every single person then you'll wait forever. Sometimes, and IMO this includes the case of the environment, in order to get done what needs to be done it is necessary to go with the flow. Provided that you perceive it to be a good flow, which your words indicate you do (as do I). So I don't see what is the point of the "stand" that you are making against the Climate Change lobby. Instead why not simply encourage everyone towards "a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them"? Which you yourself say "is a wholly good thing" and is all the environmentalists are asking for! Mon 19 Oct 2009 12:36:57 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=70#comment120 Lady Sue: "...any amount of scientific research, petitions and reports that counter the claims. Many well respected scientists and scientific bodies have also disputed it."I'm sorry, I can't find any of the scientific research you refer to (there is, of course, plenty of garbage out there).Nor can I find any well-respected scientists and scientific bodies who dispute climate change/human influence on climate change."My point is that the current data being quoted for climate change purposes is being carefully selected to support the speculation and in some cases (as illustrated in the comments under the New Scientist articles) is either not supported, or the data quoted is highly suspicious, or both." Any evidence? (The comments in the NS you refer to are generally ignorant as far as science goes.)You still keep saying that you cannot accept speculation, where I think that's essentially what scientists do. I do wonder why you accept the speculation of the sceptics, but not of the majority of scientists. If you're not prepared to say how you think scientists work/ought to work, or to provide evidence for your assertion that the majority of scientists are wrong, we'd probably better leave it there. Mon 19 Oct 2009 12:17:09 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=69#comment119 idontcare@115: in countries where the over 18 population are legally obliged to vote the 'none of the above' camp register their objection with a 'donkey vote' (1,2,3..) or spoiling the ballot paper. I wonder how many people go to the polls with the intention of doing so and change their minds once there and instead register their preference? idontcare@117: no, sorry, this debate arose because there are skeptics like me who doubt the "established fact". I don't subscribe to notions and speculation or, as you observe "buzzwords" that create (forgive the mixed metaphors) media band wagons on an international scale. However, I would like to make it clear that I think a reduction in the use of fossil fuels and finding alternatives to them is a wholly good thing. I don't approve of what, in my opinion, is scare-mongering on a massive scale, in order to get backing for it. Millions being wasted. Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:45:59 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=69#comment118 l_d 113, Circumcised isn't a foreign word. Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:39:14 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=68#comment117 #117. idontcareanymoreI agree with you and as I said in my #78 above - Too Many People. Too slow down future fossil fuel use we have to consider expansion of birth control. Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:30:48 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=67#comment116 Re: Climate Change.The time for arguing about the fact of Climate Change is long past. Climate Change is now generally regarded as established fact and the question is not whether it is correct or how many people believe in it, but what needs to be done and how that is to be achieved. In the (extremely unlikely) event that it eventually proves NOT to be as huge a problem as it currently appears to then those steps, if taken, are in any case likely to prove to be extremely beneficial to future generations. However, climate change is only one symptom of the massive "health problem" which humanity now presents the planet on which we all live. There are far too many of us and we are collectively consuming the available resources far too rapidly. The next buzzword to appear looks like "peak oil" and my guess is that will soon start to replace climate change as the Number One problem. The elephant in the room however, as it has long been, is global human population. Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:19:35 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=67#comment115 At least climate change deniers can no longer claim that their nonsense doesn't get a fair hearing on the BBC. If you didn't just see Andrew Neil's extraordinary questioning of Hillary Benn on the Daily Politics then watch it later on the i-player. Mon 19 Oct 2009 11:17:05 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=66#comment114 Re: #107. Looternite:A £10 off the Council tax is not much of an incentive. I'm for something more substantial. How about a substantial (eg: £100) "Voting Levy" added on to the Council Tax. Then when you vote you get a voucher which you can submit in place of that levy?I don't regard refusal to participate in the democratic system by voting as being a "human right", but if it is then that provision could easily be fulfilled by the addition of a "None of the above" box on the voting slip. Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:50:35 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=66#comment113 Sid@106, your para 2:"Don't we have to go with the theory which best fits our current data?"My point is that the current data being quoted for climate change purposes is being carefully selected to support the speculation and in some cases (as illustrated in the comments under the New Scientist articles) is either not supported, or the data quoted is highly suspicious, or both. If you google (I'm afraid I don't know how to do those helpful hyperlinks) the 'Australian Sceptics' mentioned on Saturday's PM, you will find any amount of scientific research, petitions and reports that counter the claims. Many well respected scientists and scientific bodies have also disputed it.Perhaps we should agree to disagree? Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:22:24 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=65#comment112 111 DMcNAt least three foreign words by my count. I think they allow 'Meshugganah', but you really never know. Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:13:15 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=64#comment111 110 DMcNYou sound like my aunt! :o)I think in those days racist language was more a lot more pervasive across the board.When I first came out as gay to my mother she did (Maureen Lipman style) try to matchmake me with a jewish gay friend who was training to be a doctor. Thankfully she soon got over it. Mon 19 Oct 2009 10:05:43 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=64#comment110 l_d 109, Read 110 quickly, I used a furrin word. Mon 19 Oct 2009 09:57:48 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=63#comment109 l_d 109, I grew up near two Cleveland suburbs with large Jewish communities and delivered flowers to lots of Bar Mitzvahs because my boss (Italian) had lots of Jewish connections, so heard the word 'goy' used in negavitive terms often, "Oi, our Marsha has a goy for a boyfriend! Probably not even circumcised. Meshugganah!". I knew a nice bagel shop, though. Mon 19 Oct 2009 09:56:45 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=63#comment108 108 DMcN'Goy' is a ugly word (even in yiddish - contrary to wikipedia) that is generally only (and quite rarely these days) used by older members of the jewish community. I believe the word may have been introduced to this thread as an attempted illustration of 'Jewish' racism. All ethnic & religious gropings have unpleasant terms for other communities including many directed at jews. The fact that a small number of people in a community use such language does not support a description of the whole community or its culture as racist. Mon 19 Oct 2009 09:02:07 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=62#comment107 Ln 97, I've known the word 'goy' for ages, and it always had negative connotations where I come from. Mon 19 Oct 2009 08:48:04 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=61#comment106 #105. Lady_SueI have had this discussion with Lib/Dem councilors before. They always express concern regarding low turn outs and yet when I have asked them "what are you sugesting" they have no plans apart from something has to be done.People I know who don't vote say "I ain't bothered who gets in, it makes no diference to me"The concerned worried classes wring their hands and say, oh dear something has to be done.Making people vote is not generally considered in line with "human rights" and freedom of choice not to participate is a right, surely.That is why I suggest incentives ie £10.00 off the council tax bill.Some have suggested money off council run things like swimming pools or sports etc.Well I for one never go to the swimming pool and I don't go to the sports centre but I always vote. Mon 19 Oct 2009 08:39:03 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=61#comment105 Lady Sue @ 1051) Do you think the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink is infinite? Climatologists don't.2) Don't we have to go with the theory which best fits our current data? If you say this is 'speculation' and it won't convince you, then where do you get your conviction from?The converse of Russell's suggestion is also true - the fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is utterly absurd. Mon 19 Oct 2009 08:03:05 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=60#comment104 Looternite@80: then you can fully expect that political parties who can whip up the most fervor in their supporters will always be elected. My father and all of my uncles fought too, for democracy. How can a true representation of what everyone wants be assessed if people can't be bothered to participate in the voting process? The idea of a council tax levy for those who don't bother is an amusing concept.nikki@82: the paragraph from which you quote goes on to say, "Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures." Sid@84: in previous postings on this topic there were arguments of 'scientific fact' purported to refute my hypothesis. Speculation is not going to convince me. The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. Bertrand Russell Mon 19 Oct 2009 03:37:28 GMT+1 Idcam http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=60#comment103 I've just been looking at the BNP website. There's a picture of Nick Griffin opposite Jack Straw with a second-by-second countdown to Thursday's Question Time. So Griffin obviously thinks it's a big deal.Just thought I'd mention that. Not quite sure why. Sun 18 Oct 2009 22:23:41 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=59#comment102 DoctorDolotsSorry, yet another correction - the first link I gave should have been the followinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people#Chosenness_is_not_superiority Sun 18 Oct 2009 17:33:22 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=59#comment101 ooops missed off the letter 'A'University of California - Los Angeles. "Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report." ScienceDaily 9 October 2009. 18 October 2009 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm Sun 18 Oct 2009 17:26:21 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=58#comment100 93 DoctorDolotsAs I explained in an earlier post there is no concept of superiority in jewish theology - these wikipedia links give more information.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people#Views_of_chosennesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people#Charges_of_racismSimilarly you would have to look very hard to find a jewish organisation or even an individual jew who espouses jewish exceptionalism - it's in no way part of the culture nor the faith and I'm at a loss to understand why you're so adamant that it is. Sun 18 Oct 2009 17:26:15 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=57#comment99 @72 Lady Sue - Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. "It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new."UCL have published a report into ice core data in the Antarctic.n Sun 18 Oct 2009 17:23:55 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=57#comment98 sorry, another clarification! The final paragraph of 98 was in response to points made by Doctordolots, not Looternite. Sun 18 Oct 2009 15:57:25 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=56#comment97 97 Ln'Goy' is a term an elderly aunt of mine (now dead|) used to use. It is an unpleasant and racist yiddish term for non-Jews. You're probably unfamiliar with it because it's largely fallen out of use.I suspect the Doctordolots deployed it to highlight jewish racism. Yes some jews use racist language as do some members of all minorities and many members of the majority population. But I doubt that (s)he would brand any other minority culture racist on that basis.I have already explained why Jewish theology doesn't argue for Jewish exceptionalism and that a notion of superiority would be utterly alien to the overwhelming majority of Jews and Jewish organisations - it has no place in the culture. So why persist in the accusation other than to encourage dislike of jewish people? Sun 18 Oct 2009 15:55:32 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=56#comment96 #94. David_McNickleYou've looked up "goy" on Wikipedia haven't you. As I have also, as I had not known this word before.You live and learn. Sun 18 Oct 2009 15:41:22 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=55#comment95 Correction to previous post: the post number references 49 and 50 should be the other way round. Sun 18 Oct 2009 15:38:52 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=54#comment94 93 Doctordolots Would you be happy to share with your jewish friends (some of whom, I'm sure, are your best friends) the sentiment contained in the quote "I agree totally with you about Judaism and have always thought it racist and elitist" and that "I believe the Hebrew faith is itself racist as it involves the belief that Jews are the chosen people of God and are therefore in this respect superior to Gentiles"?The first quote being from your post #49 and the second from Dry's post #50 with which you "agree totally."I was unsure about whether or not to complain; the reason why I did so was because that sort of bile against any other minority group I'm quite sure would fall foul of the BBC blog rules and be removed. I don't believe that anti-semitism should be treated as a lesser form of racism. Sun 18 Oct 2009 15:37:29 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=54#comment93 DD 93, Nice term, 'goy'.In English, the use of the word goy can be controversial. Like other common (and otherwise innocent) terms, it may be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews. To avoid any perceived offensive connotations, writers may use the English terms "Gentile" or "non-Jew". Sun 18 Oct 2009 15:34:18 GMT+1 DoctorDolots http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=53#comment92 74. lucien_desgai Try telling that to a friend of mine back in the sixties who married a goy. Her parents, kosher butcher and wife, disowned her and refused to meet their grandchild. The mother would occasionally leave parcels of meat outside the front door, presumably so her disowned daughter could stay kosher and thus not be totally damned. Progessive or secular Jews have a fight if they come from 'traditional' backgrounds. There was no intention whatsoever to encourage dislike of Jews, I have, as stated, had many Jewish friends. The criticism was of the faith/culture of Judaism, and was abundantly clear. Perhaps you are too sensitised in the present climate and see bias and incipient racism where there is none. You should be more careful before knee-jerk banning motions, that way lies to the burning of books one doesn't like. Sun 18 Oct 2009 14:56:25 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=53#comment91 91 LnYes, and I made it very clear from the off that my problem with the posts was not their critique of Israel but their assertions that Judaism is intrinsically racist and that Jews consider themselves superior to non-Jews. I have myself posted criticisms of Israel on this blog.Opposition to Israeli actions or the occupation of the west bank and Gaza should not be conflated with anti-semitism. Equally, criticism of Israel should not be used as a lead-in or cover for anti-semitism. Sun 18 Oct 2009 13:26:24 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=52#comment90 #90. lucien_desgaiI think that you will agree that part of the problem here is that if anyone is critical of Israel. Then people like Melanie Philips or the Jewish Defense League accuse these critics of anti-semitism. We all know that non-jews have to be very careful in discussing Israel or the jewish faith.It is now mimicked in the muslim community as any criticism is declared islamaphobic and hence racist. Sun 18 Oct 2009 13:14:43 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=52#comment89 89 LnI don't really want to go too far into defending jewish customs and practices, I am an atheist and my relationship with my jewish background is complicated. I just felt that the remarks made by two other posters were very wrong and intended to encourage dislike of jews. Sun 18 Oct 2009 13:06:12 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=51#comment88 87. & 88 lucien_desgaiI am pleased to hear that things have moved on.I have no problem with the Jewish community.In fact, way back in the 1980's, I went passed the George Street , Luton entrance of Marks & Spencer and a small group of muslims were handing out leaflets.I was given one and it was calling for a boycott of jewish businesses like M & S as a protest against Israels treatment of the Palestinians.The person who gave me the leaflet was about 10. I said "you should not be doing this as it is racist". as soon as I spoke an adult from the group asked what was my problem.I explained that calling on a boycott of Jewish businesses was racist, however they should campaign for a boycott of Israelie products and services.At which a second adult approached and had not heard in full my argument, he declared me a "jew-lover" and using Anglo-Saxon language suggested I go away.This was the 1980's, years before 9/11 etc. Sun 18 Oct 2009 12:58:50 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=50#comment87 86 LnI think you'd also find that attitudes have changed enormously since the 1960s. I'm sure that many jewish mothers would prefer their offspring to marry within the community but - outside of the small ultra-orthodox community - it's very rare these days to hear of heavy duty pressure being applied. Sun 18 Oct 2009 12:40:50 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=50#comment86 86 LNActually, inter-marriage involving jews are so high that some say that the long term viability of the UK Jewish community is threatened. Despite this familial resistance to 'marrying-out' is no greater in the jewish community than many other minority groups (and large parts of the majority white non-jewish population).Also, the posts about which I complained were not making points about inter-ethnic / inter-religious marriage. Sun 18 Oct 2009 12:34:49 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=49#comment85 #74. lucien_desgaiIn the late 1960's I went out with a girl from a Jewish family. She told me that her family were unhappy that she was going out with a non-Jew.The relationship did not last and I wonder if she eventually married within the Jewish community and complied with her family. This makes strict Jewish families look racsist from the outside, I think you will agree.If I applied similar stictures on who my son or daughter could marry I would be accused of being a racsist. I only said to my children marry for love not duty and if their partner truely loved them they would not insist that they convert.In a truely multi-cultural society inter-marriage would be normal and accepted. Sun 18 Oct 2009 12:23:34 GMT+1 mikidorlico http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=49#comment84 Dear PMThe simple, plain weather forecasts offered recently have been a delight. Please continue with them. There have been times when one rather expects the BBC weather presenters to break into rhyming couplets, so ridiculously artful and elevated have their reports become. Could you perhaps start another campaign addressing a different aspect of the BBC’s irritating and sometimes indecent habits? A programme is no longer followed by a few seconds of dignifying silence in which we may reflect on it. We will be told without a moment’s hesitation that, for instance, the News will be next, and that this will be followed by some other named programme. Then, without any further hesitation, a preview of some other programme will be inserted, before the News itself is delivered. We are being uncomfortably stuffed by the BBC in this and other ways. Yours truly,Michael George Gibson of The True English (Poetry) Party and a member of The Queen’s English Society. Sun 18 Oct 2009 12:13:16 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=48#comment83 Lady Sue - thanks for your reply.1) Sid@69: note the repeated phrase "very likely". Speculation not fact. Yes indeed - speculation is what scientists do. (I sometimes think scientists are their own worst enemies on this; any nutter can come along and say 'This is only a theory', and the scientists all say 'He's absolutely right!' Well yes - as I say, that's what scientists do. They have theories - and they test them.2) Sid@70See Nikki Noodle's #82.3) "Sid@71: the most interesting and enlightening sections of the New Scientist articles were the comments made by scientific 'bloggers' who strongly dispute the claims..."I'm afraid I can see no evidence that these climate change deniers are scientists. The quote you find particularly amusing appears to confuse weather and climate. (I've often noted that the more prone contributors are to conspiracy theories and the like, the less literate they are - as is the case with a number of the responses to the NS articles.)The post of mine that was removed last week said that 97% of US climatologists believe both that the climate is changing and that part of the change is due to human activity. Scientists who don't believe that usually come from other branches of science (like David Bellamy). Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:46:13 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=47#comment82 Ln 81, I told them that I was leaving the beach and the post was referred. Somebody said, "Yeah, yeah, you've said that before.", and I asked where I said it. As it had been deleted... Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:34:50 GMT+1 nikki noodle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=47#comment81 @72 Lady Sue - I have that page open in front of me too. The one about Ice core data from Vostok. And it *does* show data going back 420,000 years. That's the beauty of it.Never in those 420,000 has CO2 been above 310ppm. Never. Not even once. And now CO2 are at 380ppm, and rising. The actual quote from that page is: "Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series"This is not in dispute (I think you'll agree).So.We need now to know is whether the CO2 rise either causes or follows a rise in temp. Who cares?!!! The graphs you are looking at show some sort of link. Either cause or effect, but I dont mind which, it doesnt matter a jot to me. Cos either way, we stand at on the threshold of something not seen on this planet for 420,000 years.Please note, I am not talking about weather. Or temperature in the last 10 years, or even 100 years. I dont know about Sids graphs and links. All I am talking about is the dawning of an epoch of CO2 not seen in 420,000 years. n-nxxhttp://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:26:28 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=46#comment80 #79. David_McNickleI have no idea, as I don't bother with the Beach, as I tried to be funny over there and got critised and referred. Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:19:50 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=46#comment79 #36. Lady_SueMy father, my uncles and their generation risked their lives, and many gave their lives, in the fight for freedom and freedom means the right not to vote.We could of course try incentives ie £10.00 off the council tax to people who vote. Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:17:31 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=45#comment78 Ln 77, OK, who referred my latest post on the Beach? Sun 18 Oct 2009 11:11:47 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=45#comment77 #69 + #70 + #71 + #72 SidThanks for the graphs. I have no doubt that global warming is happening. If there is an underlying natural process elevating global temperatures. Then our consumption of fossil fuels will make it worse - no argument.As I have been saying for 40 years oil, gas and coal will run out eventually and so we should look for alternatives. It is now more urgent as these fossil fuels are contributing to global warming.Mind you the ultimate cause of global warming is too many people. Sun 18 Oct 2009 10:55:01 GMT+1 Looternite http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=44#comment76 #63. David_McNickleI hadn't noticed other people admitting their referring.I have noticed that you get referred a lot however.Usually because you are trying to be funny. Sun 18 Oct 2009 10:44:11 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=43#comment75 A better Graf:http://www.amelianow.com/spring06-pierce.jpg Sun 18 Oct 2009 09:20:54 GMT+1 David_McNickle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=43#comment74 l_d 74, Remember, as some say here, "Some of their best friends are 'martians' (or something like that). When I was in elementary school, my best friend was Jewish and nobody cared one bit. I even loaned him a sports coat for a Bar Mitzvah. I wonder what Marvin is doing now... Sun 18 Oct 2009 08:57:49 GMT+1 lucien desgai http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=42#comment73 65 DMcNThe mods have restored posts 49 and 50 - it is apparently ok on a BBC blog to say that "the Hebrew faith is itself racist as it involves the belief that Jews are the chosen people of God and are therefore in this respect superior to Gentiles."I am Jewish hy birth and atheist as an adult, although I still regard Judaism to be an element of my identity. There is a strong cultural element to Judaism and British law regards Jews as a race.As a religion Judaism never supports a literal reading of the old testament, it is interpreted as a series of hitorical parables designed to guide followers to lead a holy life. Unlike most other religions Judaism considers heaven to be open to all people who lead a good life, observant or non-observant, of all faiths and none.Throughout the centuries Jews have been the victims of racism and in recent times Jews prominently stood shoulder to shoulder with African Americans in their struggle for civil rights and equality. No Jew that I have ever met believes that their religion makes them in any way superior to other human beings. To suggest otherwise is wrong in fact and hateful in intent. Sun 18 Oct 2009 08:48:40 GMT+1 Lady_Sue http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=42#comment72 nikki: After googling 'ice core data' (so I would better understand your reference) I found some relevant research on ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica. The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters (just over 2.2 miles deep) and give data on Greenhouse Trace Gases back 420,000 years. The graph shows what looks like a series of joined up 'U's detailing peaks and troughs in temperature and CO2 concentration going back 420,000 years.The research states: "Thus we seem to be headed for some very large climate changes. Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly - as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years."Sid@69: note the repeated phrase "very likely". Speculation not fact. The Australian interviewed on PM strongly objected to propaganda which stated that humans were responsible for climate change when there isn't "a shred of scientific evidence" to support this. Sid@70: the data and graph on your link go back only to 1850. Compare with Vostok site data going back 420,000, above. Sid@71: the most interesting and enlightening sections of the New Scientist articles were the comments made by scientific 'bloggers' who strongly dispute the claims, variously stating the: The "articles and reference sources have more 'myths' than you (New Scientist) try very lamely to dispel"; "Of the 22 climate models utilized by the IPCC in analyzing man-made global warming, THEY ALL CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. Given how little we know about atmospheric and ocean science, particularly in light of our infancy in modeling global systems and the lack of proven model specifications, the odds that all 22 would come to the same conclusions is truly astronomical"; "Frankly these computer model predictions should be confined to a college campus and not ever be let loose as science by the IPCC who's credability is already seriously in question on so many basic science issues."and rather amusingly: "The operative analysis horizon was 100 years for most models and for some, they were taken to 300 years. The computer models these guys use can't even forecast the local weather for next week with any reasonable degree of accuracy!"Grateful to both for information and links but, rather than dispelling my skepticism, on the contrary, you have provided information which reinforces it. Sid, I'm yet to check your fourth link but will do so at a more reasonable hour. Sun 18 Oct 2009 04:27:49 GMT+1 Sid http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2009/10/pm_glass_box_for_friday_2.shtml?page=41#comment71 And you can read the IPCC's latest report here:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm Sat 17 Oct 2009 17:35:16 GMT+1