As an American living
abroad (in Thailand) I deeply appreciate your reporting with respect to climate
change. This important issue is almost entirely absent in the US media and when
it is represented, it is characterised as an issue that remains highly debatable
scientifically. As a result of your efforts and the UK government's efforts the
UK is the global pace-setter and its businesses and citizens will benefit.
am sure many Americans share my fervent desire that our leaders and press would
similarly rise to the challenge.
Suzanne Bond Hinsz
I have two
Firstly: There are many cynics who point to the fact
that scientists will not state the global warming case as being "proved":
this is a major point of their argument and one which needs addressing.
think that it should be pointed out that in hard science theories can never be
proven, only postulated with experimental data to back the hypothesis. Theories
can only ever be disproved.
Therefore it is up to cynics to come up with
other models and hypothesise that fit the observed data both in terms of background
and carbon modified changes and which fit in with the timescales observed (the
latter being a major factor: it is the speed of the changes and the correlation
with measured human activity which is so convincing).
On the BBC
series 'State of the Planet' David Attenborough used a very simple illustration
of what persuaded him it was an overlay of the regular background climate
change, due to solar cycles, etc.. combined with the recent trends due to CO2
emissions and modelled predications. The correlation was extremely strong and
Secondly: Even if the case is not proven as it
cannot wholly be sound risk management would state that the potential consequences
are so massive that we have to assume it is valid and take evasive action. As
an example, the risks to an individual, on a day to day basis, of having a car
accident are actually very low but we have to wear seat belts on every
journey, since the consequences of an accident if not doing so are so significant.
My comment would be that it is presumptuous in the
extreme to conclude that we humans are the sole cause of increasing global temperatures.
A more accurate assessment would be that we are adding a minor amount of greenhouse
emissions that contribute to the overall climate change we are experiencing as
part of the Earth's natural hot/cold cycle.
Unfortunately, the latter does
not inspire the required panic needed to promote political action and funding.
Nor would accepting this as the most probable truth keep those funded and supported
by money earmarked to combat the causes of global warming in liquid cash.
think that globally, temperatures are changing, but no one cares to mention the
areas where temperatures are actually dropping, where 'changing' is the operative
word, not 'rising'.
To that end, I would recommend that each and every
one of us carefully consider the agenda of the individual putting forward their
own brand of global warming calamity. To do so reveals the uncomfortable truth
that in many cases, the messenger is only using the story to further line their
own organisation's pockets at the expense of our own sleepless nights.
Another irresponsible media event... You know that the East
Anglian coastline is sinking, and has been since the last ice age, and not the
result of recent hysteria over global warming. 1953 floods and the Lynmouth disaster
were weather events which have always reminded us of the power of nature.
recent, incomplete, IPCC review was stitched together by bureaucrats and their
prognosis is a consensus of guesswork.
Why not try to present a more balanced
debate, devoid of celebrities and failed politicians, incorporating the increasingly
convincing scepticism about anthropogenic climate change.
afraid that the media's single-minded efforts in trying to convince everyone of
impending disaster by man-made climate change - the justifications for which are
tenuous at best - are simply distracting us from many other more important environmental
I was surprised to see in a magazine this week an article which
began "Given the changeable climate over the past two weeks......" when
it's self-evident that climate can barely be measured in any units shorter than
decades. The terms 'climate' and 'weather' have become interchangeable in some
people's minds and no-one in the media appears to be trying to change that confusion.
In fact last year's weather was extreme only in its lack of drama, a fact which
the insurance companies are currently celebrating.
As for the effects of
anthropogenic CO2 on global warming; it forms such a minor - and diminishingly
important - part of greenhouse gases as to be insignificant even if the half degree
increase in global temperature over the past 125 years does actually constitute
a correlatable effect which I don't believe it does.
Did the media buy into
the "New Ice Age" story in the 1970s? You bet!
is good news for the news makers even if the facts don't stack up. But never let
the facts stand in the way of a good story.
I have just
read the synopsis of the show regarding climate impact on the UK and am alarmed
at the bias vitriol it has chosen to broadcast.
The programmes content
and objective are instantly questionable...
More details of the Inside
Out survey are required. I know no-one who took part, and a straw poll in my office/amongst
friends counters the statistics quoted for your programme.
Dr David Viner
is one of the 2,500 scientists who helped contribute to the intergovernmental
panel on climate change report. It has since been established that far less than
the 2,500 scientists involved actually approved of the outcome of the report,
as many had left the panel due to understanding that the "science" behind
the report was totally flawed...
The report also falls down as a result
of how it was funded and therefore the aim of the report was questionable before
it ever began. It, therefore, should not be presented to the public as a definitive
study. It is important that if the BBC do choose to use it at all, that they also
refer to more factual evidence that actually contradicts it.
Viner says that coastal erosion is likely"... Genius! No wonder he has his
own TV show! We have had sand on the planet for millions of years... Coastal erosion
is not new, nor a product of climate change. Buildings in Norfolk have been falling
into the sea for as long as people have been building them. Even insinuating this
is a result of climate change is preposterous.
Dr David Viner states that
"2007 is already predicted to be the hottest on record". Who's records?
There are records that show Greenland was once Green and farmed upon as opposed
to it now being covered in snow. Will 2007 be warmer than it was then? We will
all be advocating the "hockey stick" temperature charts next...
"But the industry it spawned is the reason why our planet is warming now
- and why Ironbridge itself is at risk." It is the BBC's job to report the
facts. This quote is biased and unsubstantiated... There is no link to industry
and climate change and it is essential that in the show Dr David Viner expressly
point out that this is only an opinion...
Mullions harbour wall is (like
the cliffs in Norfolk) likely to be breached and erode due to, yes, erosion. As
mentioned earlier this is not related to climate change. A man made stone structure
will over time erode as a result of wind, water and salt. This man is a scientist
and should try to recreate scaled controlled conditions to see this for himself...
Finally, Dr David Viner concluded "As our BBC poll shows, some of
you are still cynical about it. The changes we've already seen in England in this
film, are just the start unless we, and the world, change our energy consumption."
The changes in the film are not the start of anything. They are clearly just examples
of general climate impact and erosion. They do not demonstrate climate change
and more importantly, go no way whatsoever to linking climate change to man made
The entire programme is flawed, biased and in-line with the BBC's
one way agenda on the issue of climate change. There is not one example of irrefutable
evidence anywhere on the planet that can link humans to climate change. The only
way the BBC can win over the 22 million people in this country alone (figures
based on the BBC poll that confirms 34% of non-brainwashed educated people do
no attribute human activity to climate change) is to open the debate up.
a scientist who can prove Dr Viner to be confused... Let us see the facts... Please
stop this one sided journalism now and allow the public to make an educated informed
The threat of climate change to mankind
does not come from the weather per se but rather from our response to the perception
of the threat.
The science from the IPCC does not suggest catastrophic
meltdown of the planet, one degree warming in 100 years with a sea level rise
of about 34 cm is a realistic probability. Current research from US administration
funded organisations such as NOAA (see their carbon tracker) are enhancing our
understanding of the greenhouse effect, it may well prove that we are currently
overstating its importance in the radiative forcing (planetary warming) and that
CO2 emission strategies (Kyoto) will simply not bring about the desired result,
but simply impact negatively on world economic growth.
Last week Bjorn Lomborg
gave testimony (US House of Representatives) which outlined highly focused and
cost effective ways of tackling climate change which I think many Kyoto adherents
would find quite shocking.
He gives an example of a targeted malaria program
costing $3 billion annually which would save 85 million lives if initiated before
Kyoto ($180 billion annually only 140000 lives saved).Statistics aside
perhaps the shock lies in recognising that the climate isnt the problem
- its the social policies we adopt to tackle the disease. This applies to
storm surges, hurricanes and so forth. Message; think smart.
Managing Director, plantessential
Your climate change report
fails to mention:
i) the social effects of housing and agricultural loss
as sea levels rise and ALL rivers increase flood threat due to that rise;
ii) the spread of sub tropical disease and pests to Britain as global temperatures
iii) the positive feedback mechanisms, for example in the Arctic, that
can sharply accelerate the rate of rise, and the fewer negative feedback mechanisms
that could contain the rate.
Ignoring point three I suggest that to propose
the possible advantageous effects of climate change can out weigh the effects
of points i) and ii) is irresponsible.
I have been studying the process
of global warming for some thirty years. So far the forecasts of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel have become fact and at a faster rate than predicted in
In brief we have no time to lose.
to get at truth about climate change. Suspect we are being "conned"
by Governments in the interests of taxation/revenue generation. QUESTION:- Why
has the discovery that CO2 build up occurs after a warming phase and not before
it, thereby making it the RESULT of rather than the cause of global warming???
Why is this fact never discussed? Nor do we get told the fact that the
ice is thickening significantly in Antarctica? We are usually only shown film
of ice flows melting and "splashing" into the sea. I suspect we are
not giving our children the true facts on which to base their judgements for the
future well being of the planet.
Please ASK THESE QUESTIONS,because the
honest answers are not forthcoming from our "leaders in Government Departments
The climate is warming, and things are changing,
that there is no doubt about.
I too am very concerned about global warming,
its causes and effects. AND more importantly what we should be doing about it.
is one massive environmental problem that seems to be being ignored though. (Arguably
it is as big and may well soon be bigger than all of man's emissions each and
Over the last 25 years there has been a fall in natural
sequestion, from one natural source of over 4 Gt annually, it is getting worse,
and could become, much, much higher, far outstripping man's emissions... (Man
emitting about 5.5 Gt annually, and rising.)
Carbon footprints etc,
should not be the main concern at present.
Restoring this one natural carbon
sink should be. In fact it could be far larger than that, so buying us valuable
time to develop the technologies we need.
Given the size of this environmental
problem we really should all be aware of it, but we are not, why?...
I read through this "contemporary climate change course"...
Global Climate Change website
Here is what we should be really concerned
about, and what we should be doing at a far faster rate if the seemingly "unavoidable"
catastrophes of climate change are to be at least attempted to be avoided, or
Oh dear, it's an American idea and company, is that why it
is apparently being ignored, for once they seem to be right..
ignore the importance of oceanic plankton blooms at our perilous...
recently watched Earth Story and Blue Planet, there seems a wholeness and rightness
to both of these. As there appears to me at least, to the idea oceanic plankton
blooms have been nature's lungs for this planet. Without them the planet will
fail to "breath" and so will we.
The great climate swindle is
not whether the sun or man did it, etc, etc,etc, that's almost immaterial. See
The biggest "swindle" is not looking to the oceans,
Many thanks to the BBC), I refuse to be "swindled"
(by any side)...
What a load of rubbish, arent
we good boys doing our bit the presenters should have spoken Chinese and
directed the programme eastwards this might have been of better use
our contributions can be likened to wearing a hair shirt it hurts so it
must be doing some good somewhere.
Why do you
persist in showing the cliffs crumbling away on the East Coast, when at school
we were always taught that since the United Kingdom became separated from the
rest of Europe the United Kingdom has continued to tilt and, as a result the East
Coast is slipping into the sea whilst the West Coast is rising?
But then we
are now expected to blindly accept the new god of global warming.
otherwise interesting and informative programme was marred by your presenters
making statements such as "Carbon emissions are causing climate change"
and "We can do something to prevent climate change if we change our lifestyle",
as though it is a proven fact.
Opinion on this is divided, and until it
is proven one way or the other it is a theory. Until the cause of climate change
is proven, your so-called scientists should respect this and state that, "Carbon
emissions are a possible cause of climate change".
There is much evidence
to indicate that the rise in temperature is causing the increase in naturally
produced carbon dioxide and not the other way round.
The rise in temperature
could possibly be caused by an increase in solar activity, and therefore may be
well beyond man's ability to do anything at all about it. Until we know one way
or the other, please keep an open mind and be more factual so as not to mislead.
I found your programme last week interesting, especially when
your Presenter was in the South West off Wembrey Beach looking out towards the
Mew Stone rock. It may be of interest to you that the warming of the Sea in Northern
waters as in the Channel, North Sea and Atlantic was known some 30 to 40 years
ago. I was told this is the 1970/80 era.
The person who told me was at
the time the leading Planktonologist at the I.M.E.R. Lab's, now know as Plymouth
The Laboratory he worked in carried out Plankton
Surveys with ships towing a catcher at a certain depth and distance while on passage,
the plankton taken in the catcher was then checked and it was found then that
this was from warmer waters...
NO MENTION OF HOW
MUCH TEMP HAS INCREASED.
NO MENTION OF HOW MUCH SEA LEVEL HAS INCREASED.
VALIDITY IN SURVEY AS QUESTION PUT IS AMBIGUOUS - FROM WHAT SOURCE ARE PEOPLE
EXPECTED TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS?
2,500 IPPC SCIENTISTS, (OR WEATHERMEN?).
AND HOW MANY SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD?
NORFOLK EROSION. WHY NO MENTION OF
HOLLAND'S NEW DEFENCES KEEPING N SEA OUT AND CAUSING IT TO SURGE MORE ON GREAT
BRITAIN'S EAST COAST?
ANTI-CAR QUIP - BUT IT'S OK FOR VINER TO USE A HYBRID.
ANOTHER CASE OF 'I CAN BUT YOU MUST NOT'.
TYPICAL ENVIRO POSTURING.
MENTIONED BUT NO MENTION OF HOW MUCH CO2 BRITISH TRAFFIC ADDS TO WORLD'S OVERALL
CO2 EMISSIONS. WHY???
IS IT BECAUSE IT IS RIDICULOUSLY SMALL???
STORMS ETC BUT STILL NO MENTION OF HOW MUCH SEA LEVEL HAS RISEN - OR INDEED TEMPERATURE.
AREN'T ALL CITIES HOTTER THAN SURROUNDING COUNTRY?
DIFFERENCES IN NATURE LIFE
STYLES HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR CENTURIES. IT IS NO DIFFERENT NOW. IT IS JUST LOOKED
AT WITH A DIFFERENT EMPHASIS TO FIT IN WITH THEORY OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING.
LIKE THIS ONLY PROP UP FLAWED THEORY IN AN ATTEMPT TO PERPETUATE ALRMIST PROPAGANDA
TO KEEP THE PUBLIC COMPLIANT.
BUT TIME IS RUNNING OUT. ALWAYS FIGURES MENTIONED
ARE FOR "END OF CENTURY".
12 YEARS AGO IT WAS "IN A HUNDRED
YEARS" BUT AS THE YEARS GO BY AND NOTHING HAPPENS ENVIROS SIMPLY START SAYING
A LONGER PERIOD IN THE FUTURE.
WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS ORDINARY OLD CLIMATE
PITY PROGRAMMES LIKE INSIDE OUT DON'T EMPHASISE ON CONTINGENCY
PLANS FOR THE INEVITABLE RATHER THAN EXPECT THE PUBLIC TO BE DUPED INTO THINKING
CHANGING A LIGHT BULB OR NOT DRIVING CARS WILL NOT ONLY STOP GW AND CLIMATE CHANGE
BUT REVERSE IT!!!!
"Ironbridge in Shropshire
has an illustrious past - it was the cradle of the Industrial Revolution. But
the industry it spawned is the reason why our planet is warming now - and why
Ironbridge itself is at risk."
This is an erroneous statement.
to perceived opinion there is no definitive proof that CO2 causes global warming.
in CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be caused by increasing temperature, rather
than the other way round.
The earth's temperature has always fluctuated
before man started pumping out CO2, as evidenced by the fact that mean temperatures
were higher in the middle ages than they are now.
In fact temperature variations
have occurred far faster than we are currently experiencing - such as at the end
of the 18th century.
Even if CO2 is a factor man contributes a fraction
of the CO2 released by natural factors such as the sea.
There are many factors
involved in increasing temperature - the varying degree of activity of the sun
being one of them.
The issue of man made global warming has been
hijacked for political reasons, perhaps to slow industrial progress in the developing
Many scientists are afraid to speak out against the hysteria as
they may be labelled as being in the pockets of the oil companies.
may be sound reasons for reducing our carbon footprint but please do not fall
into the trap of thinking that man controls the climate exclusively!
Your programme on climate change was very one-sided. It is not
unreasonable to assume the climate is changing but is it man-made? I don't believe
it. Where is Dr Viner's proof that it is man-made? I am afraid it just does not
exist. His "proof" lies purely in projections produced by computer models:
adjust the parameters of the model and you can come up with any result you want.
As the recent Channel 4 documentary illustrated, carbon dioxide concentration
follows temperature by several hundred years - not the other way around.
is no doubt that carbon dioxide concentration has increased. Since 1815 the concentration
has grown from around 0.028% to 0.035%. But the anthropogenic contribution is
only about 3%, the bulk being produced by natural means. Therefore, reducing emissions
by around 20% will only reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a fraction
of a per cent. What affect will this possibly make to anything?
models which Dr Viner and his ilk rely on deal with carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic
greenhouse gases; but there is no model in existence dealing with water vapour,
which is the major greenhouse gas. And if the earth is warmed by the greenhouse
effect, it also cools by convection and evaporation. I don't think these important
climatic changes are included in computer models, almost rendering them a waste
of time and money.
I cannot believe that there are not a considerable number
of scientists, whose voices we do not seem to hear, who do not believe these assertions.
My personal belief is that the majority of scientists make these claims in order
they can secure government funding.
I am not a scientist but I am an engineer
who works on facts, and I don't see any facts that the climate change is man-made.
How arrogant can we be to believe we can overide nature?
If the BBC provides
a platform solely for the doom-merchants like Dr.Viner then lay people are only
going to get one opinion. Open it up and give the sceptics more airtime.
I have lived in Madeley for 25 years and to my recollection there has always been
floods in Ironbridge - sometimes more than one during a winter, and some years
none at all.
I am so cross - your scientist from Anglia
University is making the same mistake that so many others are making - that 'thousands
of scientists world-wide agree that global warming is caused by an increase in
However, this is unproven and no evidence that the relatively small
amount of co2 due to man is causing global warming, was put forward on your programme.
Evidence is not the opinion of many but is the result of research and scientific
findings. The planet is quite capable of warming and cooling all by itself and
has done so long before we came along.
Co2 is one of a number of greenhouse
gases, the more significant being methane and water vapour. All greenhouse gases
form naturally without our help...
Consider this why did the planet cool
between 1940 and 1970 at a time when co2 produced by man was increasing? Consider
this why does the planet warm, has the sun got a part to play for example?
debate which provides evidence that the current global warming is due to man should
be re-opened, before you make yourself look even more unscientific.
Regarding the carbon neutral calculations for the farm in Reading.
note that Professor Tim Jackson translated the energy used by the farm into carbon
during the year, but there was no discussion about the offset of these emissions
by natural absorption into the biomass.
If this had been considered, then
the carbon neutral point would be lower and might be lowered still further by
planting crops which absorb more carbon. This is an especially important point
to make, as higher CO2 levels actually promote plant growth and thus the ability
to absorb more carbon.
Watched the programme
but did`nt get any real answers. Can someone please explain why the CO2 build
up occurs AFTER a warming phase and not BEFORE it??
As an engineer, this
suggests to me that CO2 is the RESULT of global warming rather than the CAUSE!!
No satisfactory explanation is ever given for this phenomenon.
much of the problem is cyclical due to our planet being on an elliptical "orbit"
around the Sun and hence, over a period of years, being closer or more distant
from the Sun? Accurate records do not go back far enough to be able too observe
this cyclical effect with any accuracy but I feel it is highly significant to
global warming .
Also I am being told the ice is thickening significantly
in Antarctica, according to the geologists who frequent that region, yet television
programmes only ever portray large chunks of ice breaking off the ice flows, smoking
car exhausts on a line of commuting/stationary vehicles and the need for us to
use alternative means of transport etc, etc to make a difference.
just is not an alternative unless you live in London or work within a short distance
of your home. Major town to major town is possible but village to village [or
to the hospitals, a journey of about 8 miles] is something of an adventure taking
about 4 hours to accomplish!
At the risk of appearing cynical I cannot
help feeling that our "political leaders" are welcoming the current
interest in this subject as a future means of generating revenue . If it didn't
raise money, our government would not be as interested...
have just watched the inside out North West programme on climate change and would
like to comment as follows:
1. I am not convinced that human activity
is the cause of the climate warming . It seems a few scientists have colluded
to deliver a wonderful weapon for the politicians to use to create unnecessary
harm and misery.
We all know how scientists gave politicians the Atom Bomb,
and we now know how unsafe that has made the world.
2. I accept that regardless
of doubts over the cause of climate warming, it will be beneficial to reduce pollution
of our air in a sensible way.
The endless directives from the media and
politicians aimed at people will not have any major effect on reducing pollution.
it is another worry on top of all the stress of life in our ever complex way of
life which will cause mental problems for many of our fellow citizens.
feel it is damaging for the media to frighten people by suggesting that if they
do not adopt the endless directives fired off at them. They will be responsible
for all the predicted devastation which is forecasted.
3. The village
in Cheshire where the residents have formed a co-operative to help each other
save energy etc is a happy example which should be promoted by the media and politicians.
main benefit from this group activity is a team spirit which has brought the community
The fellowship resulting is very helpful in promoting
Please can you produce programmes which are informative and also
promote happiness and fellowship.
A follow-on based on communities forming
their own self help groups would be a breath of fresh air.
Do not involve
government politicians or experts - they will only create havoc. But use sensible
people with an interest in reducing pollution and waste.
improve the environment, the government has to do a lot more than what it does.
The government has to improve local transport so that it is cheaper to travel
on rather than travel by car, and stop wasting energy such as lighting in government
buildings and using aeroplanes.
Just relying on ordinary people to
save the planet by saving waste paper, glass, and tin cans, also using energy
saving light bulbs won't make a lot of difference.
Why not give everybody
grants for insulation for their houses?
Mr Eric Allen
I have had
an interest in the climate change issue for some time and remain sceptical about
man`s contribution. The Vostok ice core samples show that temperatures have been
cycling over a range of some 12 deg C for the last 400,000 years.
during that period, carbon dioxide levels have mirrored the changes in temperature
when mankind was not a factor. Climate change may be occurring, but I doubt if
the proportionally small amount of carbon dioxide produced by man's activity has
any significant bearing. I believe that carbon dioxide forms about 0.04% of the
earth's atmosphere, the bulk of that being from natural sources.
needed is a real debate, not about if the climate is changing (I have no doubt
that it is), but about man's contribution to the total carbon dioxide level and
whether that has any PROVEN effect on global temperatures.
elevated temperature itself drives the carbon dioxide level up?
like to see both sides of this debate aired on TV by eminent scientists, not TV
Being a scientist, I don't totally agree
with the way the carbon footprint is calculated and personally think only fossil
fuels (coal and petrol) should be taken into account as gas is considered renewable
over a man's lifetime (or at least when I was learning at university). But again
the whole issue of carbon footprint/ greenhouse gas etc
is much more complicated
than the catchy headlines...
To conclude on a positive note, Id like
to say that I like your regional programs. They are interesting when you watch
them with a critical mind.
Dr Christophe Fromont, Organic Chemist
have just seen your programme on global warming. It was very informative, but
has it helped reduce pollution in any way? NO - it is just another programme/article
that keeps on and on about global warming.
I have a website that when used
to its full capacity will greatly help cut pollution and ease congestion in the
UK to start with, then hopefully Europe. I am a struggling business with a great
idea, like many others out there.
Surely that 30 minutes you have just
used, should be showing businesses that companies/businesses and private individuals
can use and how the effects of these companies will help reduce pollution.
have contacted many corporations, businesses and people that go on and on about
these issues but have not yet had anyone take up the challenge of doing something
about it, instead of talking about it.
Perhaps this could be a great formula
for its own programme / documentary each week showing struggling businesses that
want to help the environment it would make great viewing and help make these companies
successes and in turn help the environment.
cyclist, I think there are far too many cars in London. I say this because the
number of cars at the side of the road blocking bus lanes and sitting on double
yellow lines always astounds me, it's also very inconvenient for me and other
cars when I keep having to pull out to get past them.
Why does everyone
have one when cycling as cheaper, healthier, greener and more often than not,
Like many householders I am trying
to do my bit: so far, BIODIESEL from recycled cooking oil, RAINWATER HARVESTING
for loo flushing, extra insulation and energy use reduction and buying produce
locally where possible.
Planned: PHOTOVOLTAIC electricity generation once
I have secured the grant BIODIESEL - I am curious that this was not mentioned
in the farm feature.
RAINWATER HARVESTING for flushing loos - this can
be such a simple way of saving water - the system I am installing here of 2 tanks
(total 700litres) is gravity fed - mains still connected in case of drought.
OUT - great programme tonight by the way.
programme but I'm afraid quotes like -
like Birmingham fare worse during climate change because of what's called "the
urban heat island effect", as David Viner explains:
absorb the heat of the sun so they're always hotter at night. 2007 is already
predicted to be the hottest on record.
"And global warming means by
the end of the century it could be up to 4 degrees C hotter in Birmingham.
air condition uses more energy and brings more pollution. It's a vicious cycle."
Midlanders can expect drier summers and wetter winters.
of England is also more susceptible to freak storms such as the tornado which
hit the city in 2004..."
... are now the IPCC/UKCIP trademark.
Of course you would expect someone who is one of 2,500 scientists to be quoting
from the report.
But where is the real evidence? What is actually meant
by drier summers and wetter winters? For Birmingham there is no evidence in the
200yr+ climate record of such a change.
It is not getting stormier nor
are summer thunderstorms increasing or getting worse and Birmingham is as likely
to have a tornado as Manchester, Cardiff, Leeds and Sheffield - it is a combination
of geography and meteorology which are the determining factors.
research on summer heat in Birmingham using a 200 yr record shows that:
- the number of warm days (max >=23C) has remained almost constant over at
least the past 120 years;
- the highest temperature (hottest day) has
also remained near constant over the most recent 120 years;
there has been a change in that the duration of warmth (hrs) each summer (May-September)
has increased so that warmth during a summer day now last from 9am to 18h, whereas
around 50 years ago warmth only lasted from 12h-15h.
this, days with long duration sunshine (>12 hrs) together with high UV receipt
(sunburn days) have/are showing an increase over recent 10 years.
John Kings, Meteorologist now Science teacher in Coventry
Why are you giving so much air time to these hysterical cranks?
the planet is warming but it is a natural phenomenon. This week we had an "expert"
stating that global warming will cause high winds. Could he actually explain the
mechanism of this engine which will drive these winds? It's easy for these experts
to make statements on air but they have no actual facts.
We also heard
that atomic power stations have a carbon footprint during their manufacture. Well,
so do the millions of wind turbines you will need.
Also the sanctimonious
fool using the train. Where does she thing the power comes from to drive that?
She is polluting on someone else's doorstep. I note the train had few passengers
so it was using a huge amount of energy to transport each passenger. They would
have been more environmentally friendly in their cars.
for you. IF you are correct that humans are causing this, why treat the symptoms?
Surely what you should be tackling in that case is the the cause, overpopulation
in the world. Too many people are fouling the cage!!!!
We are all beginning
to switch off to this constant dripping tap from the vociferous greens.
Nobody disputes global warming but as every climate scientist
knew until recently what controls the weather is the activity of the sun not carbon
Carbon dioxide follows temperature increase not the other way
round.The good news is that the suns activity is forecast to decrease after 2011
so we should make the most of the warmer weather while it lasts.
remember the very cold winters of the 1960's when the sun was not as active This
talk of excess carbon dioxide is madness - why not methane, a much more important
greenhouse gas or water vapour?
Science demands proof and we have none
at all, in fact the opposite...let's have some real information from real climate
scientists not environmentalists with a different agenda to follow.
Another example of the biggest load of biased academic drivel
- try referring to geological history scales of the changes to earth climate issues.
This is utter rubbish cleverly edited as ever by loony environmentalists who
have never done a real day's work in their life other than mess around in university
environments at taxpayers' expense. All they are doing is making sure they have
an income - and for sure they were never taught this 20 years ago.
higher sea levels recorded in recent past (look at raised beaches NW Scotland)
- far higher temperatures (coal and oil deposits) - far lower temperatures (formation
of R Trent trench).
There is no doubt that global warming
is happening. However, despite numerous theories, there is absolutely no definitive
proof that it is caused by carbon emissions. Such is the crusade that anyone who
dares question it is considered to be committing 'high treason' whereas we need
an open debate on the issue.
The government must be loving it. They can
use it as an excuse to heap more taxes on us and make money.
stupidity in this country is the fact that so many houses have been built either
by the coast or next to rivers. If this had not happened there would hardly be
Didcot A Power Station wastes almost
70% of its heat up the chimney and then dumps most of its coal ash into beautiful
Radley Lakes instead of recycling it into cement and bricks and blocks. The combined
extra CO2 production is about 300% more than if these wastes were avoided. So
the CO2 produced could theoretically be reduced to 25% of todays production.
But thats not the end of the story. An even greater reduction could be achieved
by burning gas instead of coal.
Coal fired electricity generation has just
been announced as causing the UKs CO2 production to have INCREASED
just because it is more profitable to companies like RWE npower to use the old
inefficient coal-fired plant, Didcot A, instead of the more modern, more efficient
gas plant, Didcot B. And you can smell the extra pollution in the air. Have you
noticed it recently?
Why then does BBC South Today promote daily the image
of this polluting company by portraying its image at the start of the programme?
Smoking should be banned and Didcot A should be pensioned off.
pressure on the environment is best attacked by making the greenest decision of
Dont have any children.
You can then
live the most un-green selfish lifestyle of all, with the most huge carbon footprint,
safe in the knowledge that looking at the big picture you will have contributed
less to global warming than the most eco friendly veggie who only rides a bicycle
but who has had 2 kids, 4 grandchildren, 8 grandchildren etc etc
will contribute much less eco damage, climate change etc in the in the fullness
So enjoy the Lamborghini, foreign holidays by air. Turn
up the central heating. But dont expect anyone to visit you when you get
old and decrepit.