Finding a climate for growth

Speaking about all, well some, in this world obsessing, why on Earth on the home page do I click on a video on a topic I am interested in, economy vs. environment, and end up with yet more agenda-driven drivel I could give a hoot about on an overseas aspiring pol? Is Mrs. Palin a default setting in your office?

As to the agreeable (new adjective du jour?:) Mr. Brown, it might be worth looking back and seeing what he has said (or, more likely open-endedly mis- or possibly not spoke) vs. what he has done, on most things but in particular anything to do with my kids' futures on this planet.

As to the awesome thought and authority that has gone in to this... "This is not the time to abandon a climate change agenda which is important for the future... The climate change agenda is part of the solution for many of the problems we face as a world economy"... well, I bet those words stopped all those rowing in their tracks with their substance, depth, detail and insight.

But at least some, somewhere, will be happy. 'We' have yet another, brand new target. Apparently.

Let the lobbyists out of the traps and the subsidies flow!

Ed Miliband must be completely stupid if he thinks that the UK can cut its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. At least the Polish and Italians are intelligent enough to see that to follow this foolish Eco-fascist agenda will destroy their economies.

The only way for the UK to meet this target would be to build at least 100 new nuclear power stations and switch to electric cars. Even then the population would need to lead lifestyles not dissimilar to cavemen and choice of employment if any would be severely limited.

Fortunately I don't have any kids and will probably be dead by 2050.

The new Climate and Energy department doesn't even have a web site yet according to Google

The electorate will never, ever accept frozen or falling living standards to pay for a programme of social & financial reorganisation based on a theory which is continuing to look more threadbare by the day.

The theory that emissions of man-made CO2 is causing the world the warm dnagerously, and will lead to catastrophe is so insane, so lacking in any common sense or humility, that it is staggering otherwise intelligent people are prepared to give it succour.

I blame the decline of organised religion, among other factors.

And I note the 'commitment' to cutting emissions by 2050. We'll see how it all pans out in five years, shall we?

Somehow, I think these may be revised along with some of the central tenets of this utterly ridiculous theory which journalists and politicians think ordinary people are concerned about as much as they are.

They aren't. And when it starts to hit their already crippling budgets, then things will really get interesting.

ED SAYS WE MUST LEAD THE WORLD

Remember those car stickers that said: "Don't follow me - I'm lost!"

My personal plan is zero carbon long before 2050 and I think Ed might ponder that, if he goes on being so annoying, he might end up joining me.


AND THE GOOD NEWS

J Gordon Brown is going to keep a bleary eye on pump prices (they will cringe and go down) so all those deprived of work, can drive about lagging lofts at little or no cost!

gooner no 1 (post 4) says "theory that emissions of man-made CO2 is causing the world the warm dnagerously, and will lead to catastrophe is so insane, so lacking in any common sense or humility, that it is staggering otherwise intelligent people are prepared to give it succour."

Obviously, the deliberations of the UN-sponsored commission on climate change, which included scientists ranging from the 'we're probably all doomed' to deeply sceptical about the whole thing, completely passed him by. For the record: it accepted that the Earth is getting warmer and human activity is a significant factor in it. Very cautious language which, nonetheless, indicates that rising temperatures and the consequences of it are accepted. The only people barking around here are those wandering about with their eyes shut.

Why the fear of moving to a low-emissions economy? It is a fantastic opportunity for manufacturing business, with high-tech and low-tech openings for everything from back-garden windmills to thin-screen photovoltaic receptors (lot of work to be done there). It's potentially as big an industry as the auto sector in the 20th century. Seize the opportunity, don't seize up mental capacities.

Incidentally, brossen 99 (post 2) the small number of nuclear power stations we currently have provide 20% of the country's electricity. 100 - with the improved technology now available - would keep the lights burning round the clock across half of Europe.

Am I alone in noticing that all the "action" is to cut the amount of CO2 we are still continuing to pump into the atmosphere, i.e. to reduce the rate of increase of CO2 levels.

The way these are presented is that the actual CO2 levels are being cut, which is clearly not the case.

If anything has been proven by this financial crisis, it is that people largely don't give a hoot climate change.

Read Bjorn Lomborg - the only person who has confronted the issue of what, really, is money well spent. His Copenhagen consensus rightly highlights how we should address real problems in our world.

I confess I find it utterly shameful that for $50bn, so much could be achieved to alleviate developing countries' problems, but we don't do it. Yet when our own livelihoods are threatened, we have no hesitation of throwing hundreds of billions at the issue. Climate change is real, but it is utterly irrelevant to the lives of billions of people whom we could and should help today.

it really is simple....we will never vote for planet saving measures no matter how we dress them up as painless and 'we won't even notice' because human beings are incredibly stupid as the only species that defecate in their own environment, kill each other off by the million and never learn a single lesson so why should climate change even get a cursory glance? This week of all weeks this could not have come at a worse time, with banks in freefall and families stretched to the absolute limit the message is liable to be screamed off the page...so go on then, forget about it and lets all shrivel up together in about eighty years as long as the footsie looks better....

Any coverage of the Canadian election ? ..... oh dear its finished ... i missed it .... cant miss the US one though ... what a pity, its OK though, when Newsnight runs a US election piece theres always Euronews.

without a commitment to a feed in tariff its just govt spin. In germany the feed in tariff supplies more power than the whole uk nuclear and generates 100,000s of jobs. 19 EU countries have a feed in tariff. The uk govt has smothered every bill trying to bring it in? There is another bill in the pipeline. Will ED kill that too?

we have millions of acres of factory roof that could be earning money.

for some reason the feed in tariff was also omitted from the last NN report on green energy in germany? which given its huge impact is surely a huge oversight and keeping the public in the dark about the benefits?

Ah, the main page has been changed (must be more Palin stuff going up soon by way of compo). You're welcome. Not for Newsnight flagging a change that might have caused confusion.

Now, as we are on a roll, and speaking of things that come and go at whim (especially back here in the UK), any chance of finding out what happened to that funny 'vote' on the money fix we're in, that you guys promised a few days ago?

Or has that dropped off the radar as being 'soooo early this week'?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If we keep burning fossil fuels, all of which we will need to import by then we will have no economy left.

Green is good, all measures supposedly for it are worth doing anyway. Certainly for all individuals, basically it is all money saving. Get off the throw away society. Short lived stupid human behaviour.

Mere 'growth' that is based on products that have to be replaced rather than maintained is not worth having. Built in product death for the sake of forcing repeat activity needs to change.

CORRUPTION AGAIN? WE COULD NOT BE THAT DUMB? (#11)

First an apology Bookhim: as a technology bloke, I have been reading your constant postings on two way grid/feed-in, taking due note, but presuming there must be some flaw in your stance. The next bit is embarrassing: I sort of felt if Germany had been that successful we would have at least done SOMETHING along those lines. I don't know where to put myself. I have just been here: REDACTED
Redacted and British governance go hand in hand; the question is whose gain is Britain's loss?
Making no move on the two way grid is as indefensible as no move on 'none of the above'. My heart sinks as I write - the unbelievably devious charlatans that feign government in this country, have got more hidden agendas than Screwtape. No wonder the Money Mess was designed in The City, it was the only place they could find a mind sufficiently delighted by Machiavellian acts to pull the 'darned' Temple down on himself.

As dear old Terry Thomas used to say: "An absolute shower!"

15. the nuclear lobby have a track record in DDT [Department of Dirty Tricks].

given the benefits to ordinary people of a feed in tariff on so many levels its a wicked thing to block.

further oil has fallen 50%. Gas hasn't fallen even 1%. There is a serial failure [first financials now energy] of the govt regulators.

The political class are the guardian class. It is clear they do not guard the nation from exploitation by first the financial and now the energy oligarchy.

..."The renewables industry in this country exists in spite of the government, not because of it," says Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South.....



https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jul/23/germany.greenbusiness

ELECTRICITY CAN GO IN AS WELL AS OUT

I followed the link (#17) and then the crowning factor of the two-way grid dawned on me; IT IS ALREADY THERE! Knockers of wind power often cite the cost of cabling to distant parts as a negative. Almost every dwelling in Britain has a power supply - it's a no brainer (except to UK government).

I realise now why bookhimdano is going spare. This should, most definitely, have featured in Susan Watts' green piece. Please address it Newsnight.

Another day, another shift?

I note that, for now, Mrs. Palin is again the featured home page heroine of a story on UK energy policy.

Now, if we could such rotation into power...

You know what I found most telling about Mr. Miliband (the Even Younger)'s vox pop was his acknowledging that he, and indeed most, involved would not be around in 2050.

For a pol today, that is enough for me to know that a) it ain't going to happen, but b) a lot of folk are going to see target-based careers enhanced and/or making a load of money in the short term looking like they are trying.

Meanwhile, this is another press release that I imagine is already filed.

If we are going to be exposed to this government's latest whirly wheeze, and especially with a ringing stamp of 'You're all doing very well, aren't I' from Young PM Queeg, might we at least have a bit of historical context from the last decade to see how the latest claims might stand up and/or work out.

Stuff like, oh, I don't know, this...

"Loophole in minister's new emissions target"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/loophole-in-ministers-new-emissions-target-964301.html

Like "telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes".

I think it's time for a jaunt up to a snowy, melty place again to warn us of the consequences.

DOING AND BEING

Nice to have the relevant clip up (pity about the intrusive two speed art).

Sad that it has taken a crisis to get a bit of comment on what has been obvious since Greeks wore short togas. More sad that underlying principles are still not addressed.

We are schooled for DOING. Just BEING bewilders and terrifies most people. Quiescence, of self and society, requires wisdom brought out by maturity; both predicated on a secure childhood.

This is not a petty monetary mess; it is an existential blind alley. We have lost awareness of the faculties we must now apply.

WE NO LONGER KNOW WHAT WE ONCE KNEW.

It seems that we’re honouring aviation pioneers while supposedly trying to cut emissions. Just as we allowed the bankers to go too far, so we have allowed aviation to go too far. Surely we can stop abuses such as flying to New York just for a weekend of shopping can’t we?

It's the way we use coal that's the problem. It can be converted to gas and pumped into the natural gas mains system so it can be burned for heat or power by the end user at vastly greater efficiency, but wouldn't produce such good profit for the producer as just burning it to produce electricity. A suitable tax system would enable this to happen.

Lagging your loft is the single most cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions. It’s astonishing that obviously intelligent media people like Kirsty Wark, are unable to comprehend this. It isn’t enough, obviously, but it is important and how have we reached 2008 to find there still people who haven’t insulated their damn lofts? Can we start fining people who haven’t done it yet and then those who haven’t done their cavities either?

In 1974 I argued with my father about the merits of adopting an alternative lifestyle,his retort put very strongly was"you are not going to lower my standard of living".34 years later we are still debating this issue,even though it has been established that our standard of living and the energy required to support it ,is the problem.I find it hard to believe that with rising population growth we can reduce our carbon emissions enough to stabilise the earths temperature,without radical changes to city planning,house design{better thermal properties}transport and the way we consume.And consumption is a problem because millions of jobs are dependent on the sale of products with short life spans that need replacement.Voluntary reduction of our carbon footprint is better than compulsion,if we are to survive.

Interesting point, Susan. I've been thinking about this ever since this "global crisis" started. So many of us, including the leaders of the G7, seem to think we can have our cake and eat it: we can have perpetual economic prosperity, while at the same time reduce our CO2 emissions, and I just don't believe we can. Conceivably, it might be achievable if all the industrialised nations spent as much on clean energy and alternative fuels as they did on extracting every last drop of oil from the Earth, or burning coal. But they don't. And even if they did, it's a big stretch to think we could achieve and maintain our current level of energy consumption and lifestyle while reliant solely on renewable energy; an ever growing middle class in India and China will simply make that infinitely harder. It seems to me we have a hard choice: either we reduce our standard of living, or we carry on the way we are. The former is Utopian fantasy; the latter is suicide.

80% by 2050 is an achievable aim, besides which you almost always have to aim higher than the goal to achieve it. This can be accomplished without resorting to a Mediaeval lifestyle. Underground Coal Gasification (UGC)could supply all our existing gas fired power stations (GFPS)and simple dissociation could give ample hydrogen feed to a Fuel Cell Power array to replace the GFPSs as & when. The array's output could be supplemented by Solar/wind etc. technologies (acting as an energy storage device)and the fuel cell integrates all the sources to guarantee continuous supply. Fuel Cell efficiency is around 90% so the CO/CO2 emmissions are more than 50% less than any "engine" using the Carnot Cycle (where 60% of the energy is lost through heat, friction and exhaust gases) for the same output. Noone has to go down a coal mine to get the energy out and we have reserves for at least the next 200 years. By 2050 carbon capture should be sufficiently advanced to reduce our emissions even further. Diesel engined Hybrids with solar panelled roofs further increase vehicle efficiencies and diesel can be made from renewable sources (used chip fat and a bit of methanol from biomass). Work smarter not harder.

Dear Susan

Your whole article is based on the Hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will causes dangerous global warming.

I suggest that you type into your search engine "Robert Carter you tube." Mr Carter is a Scientist and demonstrates quite remarkably that there is no evidence that carbon emmisions will cause dangerous global warming.

You may also wish to read the report by Wegman on the flawed construction of the Hockey Stick graph. Which is at best a mistake and at worst a scientific fraud.

The BBC continues to campaign on behalf of this issue without investigating alternative scientific views or in the case of the recent Climate Wars series not allowing proper debate.

Billions of pounds have and are being spent on this nonsense whilst millions of people have no clean drinking water.

But so what, lets see:

1 Have one million britsish people died of BSE.

2 Have children died because of parents concerns not to vacinnate against MMR.

Continue the good work, you and your colleagues are building up a good case for the abolition of the liscense fee because of your campaigning on this issue.

Wrap up warm its getting colder just as it has done for the last 10 thousand years.

Where ignorance is bliss tis a folly to be wise.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The science now suggests we need to cut deeper - perhaps as much as 90% by 2030 if we are to avoid the runaway greenhouse effect. Sadly the evidence emerging suggests that the 6 main positive feedbacks are being detected a lot sooner than originally predicted. If we allow temperatures to increase by 6 degrees C, or more this century, agriculture will become a virtual impossibility, with a consequential crash in the human population. For those that don't get these things - that means utter human misery on a totally unprecedented scale.

Now to the solution - we can easily cut 90% by 2030, just as we can easily cut 80% by 2050. I always urge people to remember what the USA did within 2 years and 10 months of coming into the WWII - they halted their manufacturing model, turning all production over to armaments; they defeated the Nazis, that had swept through most of Europe, they went on to develop the nuclear bomb, and defeated the Japanese empire. The solution was incredibly simple - the determination to do whatever was necessary to achieve the aim.

In practical terms that means banning certain activities, like driving huge fossil fuel inefficient cars, banning retailers, factories and offices from leaving on lights, advertising, and other non-=essential equipment on at night/when not in immediate use. We need to turn off our street lights late at night and stop retailers from leaving their shop doors open - heating the high street in winter and cooling it in summer!

These are merely examples of the types of changes needed but there are high intensity industrial users that need to conduct their activities only when the renewables are in full flow - in time to the tides and coinciding with high wind speeds.

But, a fabulous human life can go on - we can opt to build wind farms everywhere with energy storage facilities as backup. We can run our cars on compressed air technologies (look up the MDI Air car on your search engine), we can insist that only zero emission cars like battery electric and compressed air be sold within 3 years. (Don't forget manufacturers can do it, if they want, in 12 months). Government should initiate the full range of fiscal measures to ensure that every home, new and old, has a solar water heater fitted and superb standards of insulation. All new homes should be carbon neutral now - not by 2016!

Finally - it's investment in the zero emission technologies and no other. Clean coal with CC&S, tidal, wave and biomass. If we can make it work we can go for nuclear fusion in around 2025 (not nuclear fission, because the first major calamity and we will watch helplessly as the public close all conventional nukes down!).
Let's not forget loads more buses and walking and cycling - which help to solve the obesity crisis too.

Good times indeed! There's nothing to fear in saving the lives of our children from the utter horror of rapid climate change.

I think that the technology already exists for very clean, green, 'cheap' energy ....unfortunately it will never happen because society just doesn't work on the principle of benefiting everyone...the energy companies are too big and powerful they do not want to loose any profits......the government doesn't want to loose any taxes.. and nobody is allowed to get anything cheap.

UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS

Anyone really understand climate? Thought not. Anyone know how many factors feed in? Thought not. With half an idea of Chaos Theory, should we not accept that the whole show could snap into reverse tomorrow? As various posters have said before: the only positive thing to do is prepare for the unknown. And, poignantly, that would tally with a more pragmatic lifestyle. Just what the money doctor ordered.

At 6:51pm on 17 Oct 2008, Pomangerugby wrote:

'Have children died because of parents concerns not to vacinnate against MMR'.

Unfortunately, yes they have. The tragedy of that debate was that it was MMR vs nothing, instead of MMR vs three single injections. The best outcome would have been MMR paid for by Govt with opt-out parents paying the difference between MMR and three single injections. Parents' worries assuaged, choice preserved, herd immunity OKed.

This 'green' debate is equally bedevilled. We don't have nearly good enough data for nearly long enough to be arguing in this way.

1. I'd suggest a completely new set of measurement stations, all 50 miles plus from civilisation, all standardised, monitored and checked to ensure compliance is 100%, overseen by a non-partisan group representing scientists, governments, industry and citizens. Abandon all those at airports or in cities where urban heat islands distort. An equal number in all parts of the globe, rather than EU and US predominating.
2. I'd be open to the following affecting climate: volcanoes, magnetic flux changes, sea temperature fluctuations, solar irradiation, lunar effects, chopping down trees (plant them again?), cows belching methane and, yes, humans heating houses.
3. I'd have a moratorium on all this SCAREMONGERING and I'd personally arrest ANY SCIENTIST who goes to the Press with scare stories totally inconsistent with the data (I'd do the same with scientists claiming miracle medical breakthroughs, which actually might occur in 20 years).
4. I'd also REQUIRE equal representation for oil, gas, electricity companies and their customers in debates about this issue. I'm sorry: 'socialists', 'greens' and those lining up juicy state contracts are no less prone to lying than oil companies. Fact.
5. I'd REQUIRE government to put out, in very simple terms, the current capacities of energy supplies, the length of time they will last, the amount we need to generate anew and the capabilities and costs of various ways of doing it.

I'm tired of lying rubbish: if Govt means anything it means putting the facts to the people and it means standing up to bullying Americans, Russians or anyone else on our behalf where energy policy is concerned.

Doesn't it?

Susan Watts,

Stu Ostro (Weather Channel Senior Meteorologist) has done a 341 page (30Mb) pdf of slides from a presentation. It's available here: https://i.imwx.com/web/multimedia/images/blog/StuOstro_GWweather_November2008.html

Stu makes a pretty convincing case that we have been seeing AGW impacts on weather for a few years. The abnormal synoptic patterns he describes indicate that we are already seeing the wider impacts of the ongoing loss of the Arctic ice pack (both sensible and latent heat flux impacts). Bear in mind the modelling work showing Stratospheric cooling due to the enhanced Greenhouse Effect causing spin up of the polar vortices (tending +ve AO).

In light of Stu Ostro's observations and arguments I'd suggest keeping in mind the work of Dorthe Dahl-Jensen who's team have found evidence of "a massive 'reorganization' of atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere": https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm

I'm sure you'll find this issue is not yet ready for being broadcast by the BBC, but Ostro is on to something interesting. This has the potential get real nasty, real quick. You may want to keep an eye on it.

Best of luck to Miliband, but there's still not enough urgency. It's easy to talk about climate change, but few people seem to actually want to act. Hopefully with the new incoming American president there will be greater urgency - without America on board, global talks are doomed to fail.

As someone who lives in an agricultural community in South America, it's easy for me to see the effects of climate change in the Americas. Bolivia's glaciers are shrinking. Many islands in Panama and Belize are going underwater. And the weather is increasingly erratic. Further afield, the government of the Maldives is already making plans for where their people are going to live in 20 years as they don't expect their beautiful islands to be about very much longer.

Climate change is here and now. It's always the poorest people who will be most affected. We as "Westerners" have a duty to help them out and take the lead in tackling the problem, rather than blaming things on China and India. Now is the time - and with America's new president we can only hope...

Dear Ms. Watts and Mr. Miliband,

I am writing to let you know that I do not necessarily accept the call for a reduction in carbon emmissions made by your advisory committee. This policy will be extremely expensive to implement and may possibly be based on fallacious science. I do not consider any such expense to be a reasonable cost under the terms of my contract with my landlord, who happens incidently to be a Local Authority.
As part of its climate policy, the government(Department of Local Govment and Communities) has already told Local Authority Landlords to replace communal boilers and install combined heat and power systems at a cost of ?15,000 approx per dwelling. This bill is sent to leaseholders under the terms of a private leasehold Contract. Nationally the Government plans to spend ?1.5 billion aprox. on this programme. Such communal systems do not generally exist in normal bulidings because of their high maintenance and administrative cost. They are simply not cost-effective, but the government prioritises fuel-efficiency at any cost. Unfortunately, for lessees that attempt to challenge these bills at the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, they find that this tribunal, the LVT, is under the control of the Department of Local Government. and Communities. They cannot get a fair hearing at the LVT and such lessees are now fighting similar bills, relating to government policy, in open court. It is an inconvenient truth for central government that a Landlord, facing a choice between breaking a government policy or breaking a legal contract, should honour the contract and disregard any obligation of obedience to central government that they may bear as Local Authorities. The costs of government policy has been inflicted on lessees in many areas of housing policy, apart from climate change. This administrative conduct amounts to stealth tax.
I will write to you again shortly about the fallacious science that underpins much of government policy in the area of climate change.

Yours sincerely, SWatts2

Dear Ms. Watts and Mr. Miliband,

The Ministry of Agriculture, now known as DEFRA will confirm that local global warming is good for English wine-makers and the growers of Kent cherries. Sea level, by contrast, is the most threatening aspect of climate change, if it leads to major flooding of urban areas. The other night Mr. Miliband said that sea level will increase 1 metre in the next 100 years. This is the first time I have heard a government minister make a definite prediction on the subject. What we can now reasonably expect is an honest commitment from Mr. Miliband to change his opinion if sea levels have not risen by a given amount by 2020, 2350 and so on.
Sea levels have been rising at a rate of 20 cm per 100 years since 1600 AD, with no discernable increase in the industrial period 1775-1975 AD. During this time there has been a large amount of coastal land reclamation in countries such as Holland. Data based on the last 30 years, since 1975, suggest that sea level is now rising at 35 cm per 100 years. No one is sure about what the future increase will be. The government's claim about a greatly increased future rate of increase can be tested and falsified. If the period 1990-2090 is used as a test, we are effectively 19 years into an experiment. It is only necessary to defer the implimentation of the Kyoto agreement by 20 years in order to get a reliable result. On a worst case scenario, the cheapest thing to do would be to invest in a new Thames barrier that would buy us about 90 years of time to carry out further research and get to the bottom of this contraversial subject.
We have just spent £15 billion attacking Iraq and when we got there we could not find any weapons of mass destruction. What a pity we didn't carry out further research before spending that money. We have also spend a lot of money on an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.
Governments make mistakes. It is foolhardy to start spending when the science is still so uncertain.

Dear Ms. Watts and Mr. Miliband,

The government has stated that sea levels could rise by 1 metre during the next 100 years as a result of human activity, if no action on climate change is taken. The underlying assumption of a 1 metre increase is highly contentious and the true increase in future years may be far lower. The "consensus" range of scientific prediction varies from 20 cm. to 90 cm. per 100 years; and there are also extreme points of view outside this range.

It is a fair assumption that the U.K. economy contributes 5% approx. to such increases. Therefore, the maximum overall effect of climate change policy in the UK is limited to restraining sea level increase by 5 cm. per 100 years, assuming the government's assuptions to be correct. The policy question facing the government is whether it is worth undertaking expensive measures inside the U.K. to prevent an increase of 5 cm in sea levels. The Stern Report looked at this matter and produced a conclusion that supported government policy. The report was purely economic and made no allowance for scientifc uncertainty. The science was merely taken, from the government, as a given. In dealing with questions of social time preference, inter-generational welfare distribution, cost-benefit discounting and so on, the Report used the lowest possible rates. These were dictated at the outset by treasury guidelines and resulted in conclusions that supported government policy. It is therefore highly misleading to represent the Stern Report as an independent report.

In truth, the U.K. economy has a neglible effect on sea level change and, for this reason, it participates in an E.U. wide-policy. However, the main producers of CO2 emissions are the large countries such as U.S.A., China and India and they will probably decide this matter according to their own interest. There has been wide-spead questioning of E.U. policy from a range of countries including Poland, U.S.A., Australia, China and so on. In reality, there will be winners and losers, if a "worst case senario" occurs. The agricultural areas of South Eastern Australia might turn to desert, whilst areas such as Siberia and North Canada might become important agricultural producers. It is therefore wholly unhelpful to speak of a "worst case" scenario or to assume that weather patterns circa. 1750-1950 A.D. are an economic and human optimum.

The government's policy on restraining sea level increase is complex and , perhaps, muddled. For, example, wind power plant is being located in off-shore in order to protect the Scottish landscape. The policy is therefore intended to balance a number of conflicting enviromnental considerations. The decision to locate off-shore adds 20% to the cost of renewables and it is therefore difficult to accept the a government claim that that there is a climate crisis or "20 years to save the planet", as some commentators have suggested .

A second example is nuclear energy. It does not produce CO2 emissions; it should therefore be exempted from the climate change levy, if it is to enjoy a competitive advantage over conventional fossil fuels. It is not exempted. Nevertheless , the government, after much delay, has accepted that its own policy assumptions lead inexorably to a nuclear future. It has reached this conclusion by imposing its own assumptions about discount rates, as the Stern report did, and also, by imposing unquantifiable constraints such as energy security.

The truth is that climate change, sea level increase and energy policy are subject to a variety of conflicting considerations. These matters are based on political and personal choice in regard to risk. There can be no over-arching economic solutions.

Yours sincerely,
swatts2

Dear Ms. Watts and Mr. Miliband,

It cannot be stressed enough that the entire science of climate change is uncertain. There is doubt whether the planet is warming; this depends on what time-frame and what section of the graph one looks at. There is doubt about what the causes of climate change might be and the extent to which human activity may be reasponsible. There is also doubt about the consequences of climate changes. Climate change is not uniformly disadvantageous to mankind and must, inevitably, have some beneficial effects.

Having said that, it is worth summarising the extreme view that the entire notion of man-made climate change is rubbish. As you know, this view is rarely given a fair hearing.

CO2 constitutes 3% approx. of atmosphere, which is largely made of Oxygen (20%) and Nitrogen(75%). Climate change sceptics reject the claim that an increase in CO2 to 4.5% of total atmosphere could ever cause a 2-5 centigrade increase in global temperatures. They consider a 1 or 2 percent change in CO2 composition of atmosphere to be immaterial.

Atmospheric CO2 derives from many sources. Vegetal matter, both when alive and when it decays, releases gas, including CO2. Mineral matter releases gas through the process of weathering and erosion because water contains small amounts of acid that recact with the land mass of the planet. Volcanic events also release gas. Animal matter, both when alive and when it decays, releases gas, including CO2. In this context, the addition of one extra source of CO2, namely, human burning of fossil fuel, is considered by climate change sceptics to be negligible . The broad ratio of Nirogen/Oxegen/CO2 in the atmosphere is fixed by planetary factors.

Many climate change sceptics, whilst admitting that the planet is warming, claim that the direction of causation is the reverse of what environmentalists claim. It is increases in temperature that cause CO2 emissions to rise because higher temperatures cause greater evaporation on ocean surfaces, higher rain fall and more active plant growth that leads ultimately to increases in CO2.

Such sceptics consider the term "green-house gas" to be unhelpful because all gases have insulative and heat conducting properties. The principal "green- house gas" may, in fact, be considered water vapour. Cloud cover traps heat below and its white surface refects light energy above. Liquid water also absorbs heat and the ocean currents transport heat throughout the planet. In this context, the effect of an increase in atmospheric CO2 can only be negligible. Such sceptics claim that subtle variations in atmosheric composition can only have a minor effect on weather patterns. Weather is largely determined by the sun and the rotation of the earth. There is no thermostat on the sun. Inevtably it has has large variations in energy output that have yet to be fully understood. Certainly, it does not operate for the benefit of mankind. As for the rotation of the earth, it causes atmosheric gas and the liquid of the oceans to spin relative to solid matter. These are the immense forces that drive the ocean currents and the winds of every planet from Jupiter to Earth. And the gravity of moon also determines ocean movement. In such a context, the enviromentalist claim that a modest increase in atmospheric CO2 from one biological source, human activity, could have a significant effect on planetary temperatures and climate systems, must be open to serious doubt.

A further determinant of planetary weather on the geological time-scale is the radiant heat from the Earth's core, that drives volcanic activity and causes the continental plates to more. Their placement in relation to the sun determines heat absortion and ocean currents etc.

In conclusion, the science of planetary weather systems has not began to approach the point where it can confirm or deny environmentalist claims about human activity. No scientist has yet reached the point where he can understand and fully explain the cause and duration of Ice Ages. These are thought possibly to be caused by cyclical changes in planetary rotation etc. It is, therefore, premature for governments to adopt an alarmist theory of weather based atmospheric CO2. At the present time such environmentalist claims must be considered little more than "end of the world" superstitions.


Yours sincerely,
swatts2

Dear Ms. Watts and Mr. Rippon(Current Newsnight Editor?),

I have recently read through a number of blogs on the Newsnight site in the hope of finding replies and contributions from the Newsnight reporters and editors. I did not find anything.

Here is what the previous editor said about this blog site:

"You can engage us in conversation and we can - and should - explain our inner thinking."
Peter Barron 30 July 2008.

The essence of a conversation, including a blog, is that it must be an interactive two-way process. The current arrangement seems to be little more than a series of e-newspaper articles, combined with a e-letters page where readers, like me, can let off steam in a semi-public place.

I very much hope that you, and Ms. Watts in particular, will repond to the comments I have posted by posting a reasonable reply or contribution.

There are other places where I could "rant" and I do not particularly need this blog site in its current state as part of the TV licence fee.

Yours sincerely,
swatts2

31,000 academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

It urged the US government to reject the treaty and said: "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

It added: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments."

The petition was reissued last year by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research group, partly in response to Al Gore’s film on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth.

Its president, Arthur Robinson, said: "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can’t continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject."

One of the signatories, Frank Nuttall, a professor of medicine, said he believed the Earth was becoming warmer, despite his signature.

"This issue is whether the major reason for this is from human activities. I consider that inconclusive at the present time," he said.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, said: “The world’s leading climate experts at the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that it is greater than 90 per cent likely that human activity is responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. That is a pretty strong consensus.

“The science has come a long way since 1998 and it continues to point in one direction - the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous climate change.” The Royal Society provides a web page that claims to refute all the arguments of the climate sceptics. Here is the link:
https://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229&gclid=CLf4qNiFxpgCFQ00QwodzRJo1Q

However, the argument is full of words like:" may...might...likely...could...probably..."
The bottom line is they don't know. Also, many of the arguments about "negative" effects are politics dressed up as science.

Planetary Weather and Planetary Rotation.

It is a striking feature of planetary convection systems that they exhibit directionality. One of the most significant factors determining climatic conditions on any planet is likely to be the effect of planetary rotation. This force operates independently of temperature and may well be more significant than variability in the chemical composition of atmospheric gas or the liquid of the oceans.

In the upper atmosphere or stratosphere the jet stream flows from West to East. This fact is presumably explained by the direction of the earth’s rotation. Closer to the surface of the planet there is a contra-flow system that also exhibits a similar directionality. Water rising in the east falls on the land mass lying to the west. For example, water from the Indian Ocean falls in Africa . Water from the Atlantic falls in Brazil and water from the Pacific falls in Queensland and South Eastern Asia. As a result of such rainfall patterns, the major desert areas tend to lie on the Western side of continental land masses. In Africa there is Namibia and Western Sahara . In the Americas there are the deserts of Chile and California . In Asia much of the desert is found in the south western part of the land mass.

A similar directionality exists in the surface liquid of the planet. The Gulf Stream is the best known part of a global conveyor belt of ocean currents that takes 1000 years approx. to circulate the planetary ocean system. The cool high density current flows in an east to west direction, whilst the faster flowing, lower density current flows in a west to east direction.

It is a reasonable prediction that a similar conveyor belt must exist in the internal liquid core of the planet. Low density fast moving material will flow from west to east whilst a deeper current of hot dense material will circulate in an east to west direction closer to the centre of the planet.

The speed of rotation is presumably fastest in the equatorial or tropical zone. In regard to weather systems, one therefore finds the active tropical weather systems enclosed by stable high pressure areas in the polar regions.

A cross section of the planet shows it to be composed of a gas atmosphere and two liquid zones, the inner core and the oceans. It is probable that this causal mechanism, planetary rotation, dominates the effects of minor variations in temperature or CO2 composition. There are other many factors effecting climate including the distribution of the continental land mass and the seasonal gyration in axis of the planet. The notion that a fractional change in the level of Co2 could have such large effects on planetary climate is intrinsically improbable.

Is temperature increase good for the planet?
In regard to the animal world, there are entire branches of the animal kingdom, such as reptiles and insects that thrive with higher temperatures. The fossil record shows the existence of large tropical reptiles that required temperatures in excess of 5 degrees cent. more than todays levels. Tropical forests are robust and adaptable systems over a quite wide range of mean planetary temperatures. It is believed that dinosaurs lived with atmospheric C02 concentrations of 1000 per million (i.e. more than double todays level of 380ppm.) The ecological systems of the planet are thus highly adaptive and there is no optimum temperature for the planet. Some habitats will thrive whilst others will suffer as a result of temperature change. It is simply not a scientifically meaningful question to ask if temperature increase is good for the planet.
Aside from factors such as human destruction of forest habitats, temperature increase per se has a number of generally beneficial effects on plant life. Higher temperature causes increased evaporation and rainfall, which is beneficial for plants. Temperature increase also raises the tree line. In the equatorial zones, such as the Bolivian Andes and the Himalayas, the tree line is almost 5000 m, whereas in northern Scandinavia it is 1000 m. approx.(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treeline%29
Thus temperature increase enlarges the envelope in which plant life is viable. Incidentally, CO2 in small quantities is beneficial for plants and enhances plant growth. It is a sort of air borne fertiliser or plant food. It is also possible that temperature increase would enhance agricultural productivity on certain upland habitats. These are the main ecological advantages of planetary temperature increase.
The climatic effects of temperature increase can be summarised as a series of shifts in the main climatic zones. Globally there are a number of distinct climatic zones. These are attractively illustrated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MeanMonthlyP.gif This interactive map shows the seasonal oscillation of weather around the equatorial zone. The highest levels of heat and rainfall are concentrated in the tropical/equatorial zones. The map shows the effect of planetary rotation on habitats, due to the Coriolis effect. Tropical/monsoon rain patterns lie on a sort of S.W. to N.E. axis as does the band of desert areas running from the south western Sahara to the Gobi deserts.
In terms of a schematic summary the other main zones or global habitats are: desert, polar/tundra, savannah/Mediterranean and temperate/agricultural.
Temperature increase is liable to have the following broad consequences on these habitats:
Tropical/equatorial zone: intensification
Savannah: diminution
Desert: intensification.
Temperate/agricultural: intensification.
Polar/tundra: diminution.

[The current debate relates to mean temperature and does not necessarily imply a change in maximum and minimum temperatures (e.g. lowest polar and highest desert temperatures).]

In human terms it is notable that there will be large agricultural gains in areas such as Russia, Canada and Scandinavia. Climatic conditions in the United Kingdom are benign across the entire range of temperatures currently under political consideration. Intensification of desert areas is a process that has been going on since the end of the Ice Age. It is very notable in western China and the Gobi desert. In fact, trade routes over the Silk Road were known to have shifted northward before the time of Marco Polo as a result of desertification. Global temperatures have been increasing since the end of the Ice Ages. In general terms an Ice Age will have a dry climate with low sea levels because most of the planets water is frozen in ice sheets. Strictly speaking the increase in sea levels since the Ice Age is a non-climatic phenomenon. Sea level increase is the only possible danger facing the U.K. There is no significant sign of it at present.
By contrast, a warm period is associated with rainfall, evaporation, higher cloud levels and higher sea levels. Thus there is a correlation between moisture and warmth that is particularly strong in the equatorial regions. Moderate global warming , in aggregate, is therefore likely to be beneficial for life forms, in particular plant life.

Here is an example of the sort of reporting that gets ignored by the BBC.
..............

article from Daily Telegraph:

"....If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

Related Articles
The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing
An Inconvenient Truth exaggerated sea level rise
Nobody listens to the real climate change experts
Climate change: Rising tides
Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths'
Climate shift 'poles apart'
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'

CO2: the historical facts.
In the period 1770-2010 CO2 rose from 280 parts per million to 390 p.p.m. - up 40% in 240 years. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes a 3deg.c. or 4deg.c. increase in temperature. Therefore temperature has increased 1.5deg.c. to 2deg.c. during the industrial period 1770-2010. There are various causes of CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 has natural variability. Human activity is therefore responsible for less than 2deg.c. of global temperature increase in 240 years. During the period 1960-2010 global temperature increase has been 0.5 deg.c. So the current rate of global temperature increase based on historical fact is 1deg.c. per 100 years. Such modest changes in recent years are due to the industrialisation of China and India etc. Russia is the economy with the highest carbon emissions per unit of GDP. Claims that temperature will rise 5deg.c. during the next century are based on computer predictions that extrapolate this trend and apply various complex assumptions that favour the activist policies.

Differing causes of temperature increase.
Temperature can rise as a result of Greenhouse effects, increased solar activity or a change in the level of cloud formation that comes about because of interactions between the planets weather systems and events in the heliosphere(i.e. cosmic storms). Amongst green house gases, CO2 is a relatively harmless gas that benefits plant life.

Marine effects of temperature increase.
Due to the capacity of water to absorb large amounts of energy, the effects of temperature increase in the oceans are limited. Heat at the surfaces is transported to the interior of the oceans. There is likely to be a marine equivalent of a tree line i.e. a superficial area where certain forms of life are sustained. Co2 enhances growth in plants but increases corrosion in calcium structures such as shells and coral reefs. Seawaters contain different habitats associated with differing energy levels. Coral reefs may be compared to the tropical and equatorial rain forests of the sea. Planetary rotation and the Coriolis effect significantly affect structure and direction of ocean currents.

If the BBC wants to do a programme on climate scepticism, here is a useful Wikipedia link and The Daily Telegraph has regular coverage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Here are two more websites for general discussion on climate change scepticism:

https://climatedebatedaily.com/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

The Hadley predictions are mostly reliant on scenarios relating to population growth, technological development, deforestation etc. Only 1/3 of underlying CO2 ppm increase is diectly attributable to burning fossil fuel. The IPCC admits that these scenarios are basically guesswork. See:

https://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/


The Hadley centre has been told by government to make a long-term weather forcast, UKCP09. It is little more than government funded propaganda.

Joke Global Warming Policy 1. If you see Ed Miliband, please ask him to invade Zaire, instead of Afghanistan, in order to save trees; and Zaire is a one war where there is incidental collateral benefit. We would save a lot of human life by stopping them being so beastly to each other!

Joke Global Warming Policy 2. The fact that dwarfs all others is population growth; if world population goes from 6 billion to 9 billion between now and 2060, then one will certainly have increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm. The only country that has faced this fact properly is China. They have already achieved a zero population growth target. So we shouldn't be lecturing them about CO2 emissions from industrial production. Please ask Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn to make foreign aid, funded by the tax-payer ,dependant on a vasectomy programme for recipients!

Welcome to the environmental policies of the BNP(joke!).

"The Hadley predictions are mostly reliant on scenarios relating to population growth,"

No they aren't.

Given that your opening statement is so blatantly made up, is there any point going on?

"The IPCC admits that these scenarios are basically guesswork. "

Doesn't look like it, since they guess what humans may do and then model that. The models aren't guesswork, though you would probably like that insinuation to be taken on board.

"It is little more than government funded propaganda."

Tin foil hat needs replacing!

No, it isn't. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

"The fact that dwarfs all others is population growth;"

Done the maths on that? And why would that prove AGW was wrong?

"make foreign aid, funded by the tax-payer ,dependant on a vasectomy programme for recipients!"

Have you had the snip?

Here are some sites that have the SCIENCE:

https://www.ipcc.ch
https://www.giss.nasa.gov

and some blogs to counter the tinfoil-hattery of post 46/47:

https://www.realclimate.org/
https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

"If the BBC wants to do a programme on climate scepticism,"

Except that has no skepticism in it. It repeats the same tired old canard that has been answered before.

If you want to read how the history of climate change went, read:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

And avoid the propaganda sites swatts2 puts forward.

"CO2: the historical facts."

If you want the historical facts, read the links above. Not swatts2's dogma.

And in case you think the Daily Torygraph is worth reading and balanced, this quote will show how wrong that assumption is:

"Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet,"

This would be because (as the prediction in the IPCC report says itself, as anyone who READ the bleeding document would have known), the IPCC figure EXCLUDES the effects of melting land ice.

This is because the Western Ice Shelf could tumble hundreds of cubic kilometers into the sea at any time. It's held back by the ice further inland, but the strength decreases as the temperature goes up, but like ANY such failure of structure, it is not an event that can be tied to a date.

So it doesn't put the effects of such an event in the list.

Hence you're comparing the laden swallow's flight speed with your favourite colour.

A fact that would be stupendously obvious to an unbiased reporter.

The Torygraph piece is pushing an agenda. It hopes you won't read anything else. It has found a willing host in swatts2...

Dear Yeah_Whatever,
Thanks for your blog 49 about my views. You can read more at blogs 7-9 and 11 in Possible unease over climate model stretching and also at blog 14 in The politics of tackling climate change- Justin Rowlatt. It seems that few people are using this site. That is an advantage. Hopefully, BBC newsnight journalists may read what we say. Here are some comments on what you wrote:
1 Population Growth.
2.2 tons of CO2 are emitted per year, from energy use and land-use change, by each person in low-income countries. 5.6 & 15.4 tons are emitted by residents of middle- & high-income countries, respectively. (Source: World Bank). From this one can estimate that a 3 billion global population increase over the next century would have an emissions value equal to several USAs.

2 Propaganda.
Last night Edward Miliband said that climatic change in the UK would be devastating. UK climate change is benign across all temperature ranges under consideration. Our government has already adopted a policy on the low carbon economy. Bureaucrats have a job to do and they are exaggerating the threat of climate change in the UK. The Hadley centre has been co-opted into doing a long-term weather forecast. In fact, temperature increase is probably ecologically beneficial for the planet in general terms. Reptiles and insects certainly like increased temperatures.

3 https://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/

I posted a blog that quoted from this IPCC link. It was removed by the BBC moderator because I broke the BBCs quite strict rules on copyright. Anyone interested will therefore have to follow the link and read the text. Whether one calls it guesswork, speculation or theoretical modelling of scenarios, the basic fact is that the causal links are not understood and there is a very wide range of possible outcomes. People do not know. The role of water vapour, as a greenhouse gas, is poorly understood. It is inappropriate to speak of forecasting and predicting in such circumstances. This is what the IPCC says about their own scenarios. Burning of fossil fuel by the western world plays only a part in these scenarios. Various cultural items such as deforestation, population growth and agricultural usage are collectively more important than burning of fossil fuel by the western economies.

4 Sea levels.
I have acknowledged a danger for the UK because of future sea level increases. At some point the UK should perhaps strengthen the Thames Barrier. One could then forget about the problem for another 90 years. This is the approach that has been taken in Holland for the last 400 years. The government currently has no intention of rebuilding the Thames barrier at present.
The world is about 20,000 years away from the next Ice Age and sea levels will continue to rise for thousands of years. Fortunately, one need not worry about Antarctica but the Greenland ice cap could possibly melt during the next several thousand years, with or without human activity; and human habitations in coastal areas would then be flooded. Such an outcome may be bad for human beings but it is of no consequence for the planet.

5 CO2 parts per million.
I acknowledge that there is a C02 temperature effect: a doubling of CO2 causes a temperature increase of 3c+/-1. Therefore CO2 has a diminishing temperature effect and past economic activity was more heat-inducing than future economic activity will be. Atmospheric CO2 also has a saturation value. That is why dinosaurs could lively happily with CO2 ppm at 1000. Historically in the period 1960-2010, C02 increased at a rate of 125 ppm per 100 years. Only a small minority of scientists entirely deny the CO2 greenhouse effect. The relevant question is how significant is the CO2 effect?, not does it exist?. This question is in part political, not scientific. (Please remind me how the converse effect of temperature increase causing CO2 operates.)

6 "What people needed and wanted was a stereotyped form of history, without too much attention to the truth" -You're talking about the denialist crowd here, aren't you?

I am saying that both left and right-wing individuals will exaggerate to suit their own political ends. Ultimately, climate change is a political dispute not a scientific issue. For example, questions like does every human being have an equal right to live a certain CO2 life style? are hardly scientific. All these things were prematurely decided by bureaucrats at Kyoto without due democratic discussion. The bureaucrats now make a living from exaggerating the importance of what they do. Gordon Brown said he anticipates creating 1.2 million green jobs. He did not say how many would be public sector supervisors. Check out this link for a daft government business venture, launched at taxpayers expense
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/businesses/consulting/

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dear Moderator,
I think your administration of the house rules is getting a bit sily. Quotation from a book that is for private sale should be judged by a different standard than quotation from a newspaper article. Do you seriously think that Christopher Booker would object to the fact that I posted a part of his newspaper article on your web site? Given that he is a journalist who wishes to publicise the subject and also, given that he believes that the BBC does not provide fair and balanced coverage of the the climate change issue, he would obviously have no objection to such a post. He would encourage it. I would suggest that you reconsider your rule in respect of quotations from newspapers and freely available public documents such as IPCC reports. Please use a bit of common sense.

Dear Moderator,
I hope you will let this post through after giving consideration to blog 55. An example of coverage from the Daily Telegraph that is not mentioned on the BBC:

"...Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus'' bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade'' scheme, which would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

The written answers produced by the minister's own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding's team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced "Due Diligence'' paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government's reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill..."

" 2.2 tons of CO2 are emitted per year, from energy use and land-use change, by each person in low-income countries. "

And the average US citizen produces 20 tons a year of CO2.

So it isn't so much a problem.

In fact, we could probably effect a change equal to reducing the human population by 1/3 by removing all USians.

"Quotation from a book that is for private sale should be judged by a different standard than quotation from a newspaper article."

Didn't work for me. Remember: you still have to pay to defend yourself in court even against a baseless charge of copyright infringement. And with ISP's wanting a three-strikes law, the BBC ***webblogs*** can't afford three claims, even baseless ones.

1) How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising?

Look familiar?

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

A similar "cooling period" is "seen" (as long as you don't sweat any, you know, PROVING there's a cooling) in 1910, 1945, 1990.

Yet the 2008 is warmer than even the warmest year before 1998.

Therefore the answer to #1 is "it is not cooling".

"What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past?"

CO2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

See how after CO2 increases, temperature increases?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

where release of greenhouse gasses including CO2 produced a spike in temperatures.

"Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections? "

The models haven't been proven wrong.

The model outputs have a range and the current trend of temperature is within the range expected from these models.

And this one does kind of rely on the first question being considered "true" which it is not as shown in post #57

And swatts2 seems to have missed reading in this thread (to which he adds another post, apparently, from their question answered in #57, without reading any posts)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/06/stretching_climate_models_to_p.html

"From the hadley data that Jack used to "prove" it was cooling, the anomaly average for the last 10 years is:

.404

The anomaly average for the 10 years previous to that is

.238

Therefore this decade is warmer than the previous decade.

I take it you both will now be convinced of AGW.


You can check the data here:

https://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt"

"he believes that the BBC does not provide fair and balanced coverage of the the climate change issue"

And David Ike believes Tony Blair is an Alien Lizard in disguise.

Just because he believes he isn't getting the attention he wants, doesn't make it biased when he doesn't.

It doesn't matter how many times you say 2+2=5. It remains wrong. And demanding that your side be heard because there's people out there who believe that 2+2 equals 5 in the interests of "balance" is false.

Dear Yeah_Whatever,

I am grateful that you continue to correspond with me. I note that we are the only two who make use of the site at present. Let us hope that we do not appear ludicrous to the rest of the world.

POLITICS.
By all means exterminate the Yankee, as you facetiously suggest. Alternatively, let the third-world people, whose loins overflow, be given a vasectomy. It would achieve the much the same purpose in terms of restraint of global atmospheric CO2. The important point for us both to see is that these are political choices, not scientific matters. There is no open political debate on these matters in the UK. There is no political debate over the fact that climate change affects different countries differently. Consider the situation in the EU. Hungary has no coast, so it is not significantly affected by sea levels. Climate change in the UK is benign. Yet both our government and that of Hungary have signed up to a common EU climate policy that is extremely generous to the rest of the world without proper debate about the national self-interest in our respective countries. We listen instead to Ed Miliband claiming, preposterously, that the effects of climate change in the UK will be devastating. This is mendacious propaganda.
There are many alternative environmental policies to what our governments propose, coming both from both the left and right of the political spectrum that will rarely get a fair hearing. I will give a few examples. The West could invade Zaire, instead of Afghanistan, in order to save trees; and Zaire is a one war where there is a significant collateral benefit. The West would save a lot of human life by stopping a war that has killed over 3 million in the last decade. Of course, environmental policy that uses military aggression might be unacceptable to most people. It is never been discussed. Another policy would be to deal with the effects of temperature increase by population transfer; for example to allow island states, such as the Maldives, to be flooded and then to offer them refugee status in the UK. Migration, in whatever form, has always been a useful route to economic growth. The Western economies have absorbed large amounts of migration and entire societies, such as those of Australia and Israel have been established by population transfers. These sorts of political solutions to environmental crises are off-limits at institutions like the World Bank and the UN. Consequently, the costs of such population displacement are deliberately exaggerated by advisers such as Lord Stern. Returning to the issue of population limitation it should be noted that some decades ago the Indian government used to have a compulsory vasectomy programme for the poor. The only country that has faced this issue properly is China. They have already achieved a zero population growth target. So the West should not berate China about CO2 emissions from its industrial production.
In this context it might be noted that much of Chinese emissions comes from their export sector, which exists for the benefit of Western consumers, and therefore the current global free trade arrangements are based on a high emissions global trade structure. This sort of green economics that argues against free trade and in favour of local industrial production is not compatible will mainstream or establishment views and rarely gets discussed. The costs of such population displacement and all such matters are deliberately exaggerated by advisers such as Lord Stern.
If we cannot agree on science, then let us agree on the extent to which we are politically manipulated.

POINTS of CLARIFICATION.
At one point you stated that I had misunderstood one of the blogs but I could not follow your meaning. Please explain again. Also I asked if you would remind me of the mechanics involved in the theory that temperature increase causes CO2 emissions to rise. Is the idea that, as oceans warm, they absorb less CO2 and consequently more CO2 remains in the atmosphere? Is the idea that, as high latitude regions warm, methane is released into the atmosphere and subsequently decays to atmospheric CO2? Would it be true to state that that certain groups of sceptics share such theories with alarmists that refer to these processes as the cause of runaway climate change? Let me know what you think.

"Alternatively, let the third-world people, whose loins overflow, be given a vasectomy. It would achieve the much the same purpose in terms of restraint of global atmospheric CO2."

No it wouldn't because it wouldn't remove the USians who manage 10x the African use. It would also not kick in for 50 years.

But I suppose it would be acceptable to do ANYTHING as long as the corporations are allowed to run free.

"There is no open political debate on these matters in the UK."

There's no open debate on kiddie porn either. And if there were, anyone against making it illegal would be risking death.

Debate is used to decide what to do about the facts.

The facts are that CO2 production is the biggest single cause of global warming in this age. And it's our CO2 doing it.

So we should stop it.

It's not like we need to any more.

"There are many alternative environmental policies to what our governments propose,"

Yes, and they've proposed this one.

Which you don't like, but then the world isn't run for your benefit.

"China...They have already achieved a zero population growth target.So the West should not berate China about CO2 emissions from its industrial production."

I agree.

"At one point you stated that I had misunderstood one of the blogs but I could not follow your meaning. Please explain again. "

Explain what?

"Is the idea that, as oceans warm, they absorb less CO2 and consequently more CO2 remains in the atmosphere?"

Yes, but the entire ocean not just the top bit needs to be affected.

That has taken of the order of 1,000 years to manage in the past.

"Would it be true to state that that certain groups of sceptics share such theories with alarmists"

Uh, that's redundant. The "skeptics" ARE alarmists.

" that refer to these processes as the cause of runaway climate change?"

But ocean CO2 is increasing because the ocean isn't in equilibrium with the content of the atmosphere so there's a density gradient.

And if that CO2 from the ocean is a problem, why is CO2 from the burning of 10 trillion kilos of oil and associates each year not a problem?

It's enough to add 40% to the air's CO2 concentration even after half of it went into the ocean surface.

Does the CO2 know where it came from and, feeling sorry for Exxon et al, decide that they will just dodge the IR rather than sit there and absorb it like it's lazy ocean relatives?

Also note that 180-280 was all it took us to go from glacial to interglacial by the Vostok records.

280-380 can't have "no effect". And if the ocean decides to give some CO2 up, that'd go over 500 more than likely. Unless we can get the CO2 levels down and the temperatures back to normal before the deep ocean notices.

But we can't wait until it goes belly-up before starting. That would rather be like waiting for that thing with the wires and cylinders and the ticking noise to actually go "boom" before you decide it's a bomb and the bomb disposal squad needs to be called for...

If you want to go that route, please do so on your own planet.

Dear Yeah_Whatever,
You write: we can't wait until it goes belly-up before starting You sound a bit alarmed! Please take a look again at blog 43 and think about the birds and the bees. Then you can enjoy the following:

Vagueness, Uncertainty and Proof.
The entire science of climate change is intrinsically uncertain because the claims of climate change scientists are vague at all levels of explanation. The climate sceptics will never be able to disprove conclusively the greenhouse theory until they know, precisely, what they are supposed to disprove. The claim that human activity causes dangerous climate changes can be analysed into a number of vague and uncertain claims. Apart from factual uncertainty, such claims involve qualitative judgements and usage of terms that are intrinsically vague. Vagueness first enters into the definition and measurement of temperature increase. There is doubt whether the planet is warming; this judgment depends on what time-frame and what section of the graph one looks at. Scientists cannot agree universally on this most elementary fact: whether or not the planet is in fact warming.
Let us assume that the planet is warming. The theory that CO2 causes such temperature increases has never been clearly and precisely stated in a readily testable fashion. The basic theory is that a doubling of CO2 causes a 3c +/- 1c temperature increase. In other words, a 2c range of temperature readings is compatible with the theory. However, a variation of 2c is more than 10% of typical temperature. This is a quite wide margin of error. The only definite fact we have is that atmospheric CO2 has increased since circa 1750 from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. The dating of this fact confirms something we all know, namely that human activity is releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but no definite and clear connection with temperature increase has yet been established. A sceptic who wanted to doubt this historical reading of atmospheric CO2 could point out that there has only been fifty years or so of precise annual measurement of atmospheric CO2. Readings for the earlier periods are not established with the same level of precision nor are there regular annual readings for earlier times. The statement that there was 280 ppm CO2 in 1750 is based on calculation, inference and approximation.
There is also an equally plausible theory that postulates the converse effect: temperature increase causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. It is therefore important to distinguish correlation and causation. The most that is established so far is a possible correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2.
The next stage of the greenhouse theory is the claim that such alleged temperature increases are causing climate change. However, the term climate is vague and, unlike temperature, climate is not a readily measurable quantity. Climate refers to a combination of physical factors such as rainfall, wind and temperature. But the term climate also has a utilitarian aspect; climate is judged by weather it is pleasant, healthy or conducive to agricultural production etc. These are in part qualitative judgements. The term climate refers to the pattern of weather over a year but there is no fixed and precise meaning in the term a pattern of weather. An additional complication is the fact that temperature itself is a physical component of climate and the relationship between temperature and climate is not merely causal. In sum, change of climate is not a quantifiable term. It is impossible to measure changes in a non-quantifiable term. The same is true of terms such as ecological balance. Further subjectivity is introduced with the use of the term dangerous climate change.
In addition to vagueness of formulation and meaning, there is factual uncertainty about the underlying causes of atmospheric CO2. It is asserted that in future human burning of fossil fuel will produce 35% of emissions but the remaining 65% is not properly accounted for. There is no clear scientific formula to explain how biomass absorbs CO2. Without a clear formula, the role of deforestation and agricultural use in trapping CO2 remains unclear. Atmospheric CO2 derives from many sources. Vegetal matter, both when alive and when it decays, releases gas, including CO2. Mineral matter releases gas through the process of weathering and erosion because water contains small amounts of acid that react with the land mass of the planet. Volcanic events also release gas. Animal matter, both when alive and when it decays, releases gas, including CO2.
The factual uncertainties that apply to CO2 also apply to other greenhouse gases. In particular, water vapour (H2O) is the most powerful of green house gases. It is very poorly understood. Its reflective properties change with density. White cloud reflects solar heat on its upper side but also acts as an insulating layer that traps heat beneath the cloud cover. Cloud cover, unlike CO2, is local. The maximum cloud cover is 20% of the earths surface and it would presumably increase with temperature. Then there is the role of rainfall that aborbs and moves large amounts of energy. None of this is understood and properly quantified. The greenhouse effects of H2O dwarf the CO2 effect. And then there is the ocean, which is another vast and unfathomable area of ignorance. Here there are those who conflate the problems of climate change with the issue of rising sea levels.
At the next stage, various complexities, feedbacks and counter-effects are alleged to exist that enhance or moderate the basic greenhouse effect of CO2 in such a way as to make the the CO2 theory compatible with almost any observable state of affairs. Few of these explanatory items are precisely quantified. By altering one parameter or another within the complex model of a climate system, the greenhouse effect can be reconciled with almost any observed state of affairs. To re-iterate, the only fact we have is that atmospheric CO2 has increased since circa 1750 from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million. The dating of this fact suggests that human activity is releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. No definite connection with temperature increase has yet been established.
Conceptual vagueness is compounded again when the term human activity is introduced. As the proverbs say, one mans poison is another mans meat. There is political dispute about the consequences of climate changes. Climate change is not uniformly disadvantageous to mankind and must, inevitably, have some beneficial effects. When there is universal agreement that a problem exists, there will not necessarily be political agreement on how best to solve it. The issue of climate change policy is thus always political and the world community will always be faced with conflicting political choices. It should be noted that the greater part of the problem, should it exist, will be caused not by current western consumption, but by the increase in future global population levels. When politics is mixed with factual uncertainty and intrinsic vagueness of terminology, it is scarcely surprising that controversy arises. The climate sceptics will never be able to disprove conclusively the greenhouse theory until they know, precisely, what they are supposed to disprove.

"The theory that CO2 causes such temperature increases has never been clearly and precisely stated in a readily testable fashion."

Yes it has. For the last 60+years.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Read up on the history, not your demagogue.

"The basic theory is that a doubling of CO2 causes a 3c +/- 1c temperature increase."

It's also been proven in measurements from the Vostok ice cores and other places.

Measurement.

"The claim that human activity causes dangerous climate changes can be analysed into a number of vague and uncertain claims."

Or you can read the solid and accurate claims in the IPCC report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/

"However, a variation of 2c is more than 10% of typical temperature. This is a quite wide margin of error."

So?

The variation of a six-sided dice number is 3.5. A 100% error. It's even wider.

Yet you can determine whether a dice is loaded or not by rolling not once but several times. 10,000 times would give you a 1% error.

You do not understand statistics apparently, yet you use your lack of knowledge to "prove" AGW wrong.

"but no definite and clear connection with temperature increase has yet been established"

Yes there has.

Tyndall, Arrhenius showed that CO2 causes trapping of heat and that would cause temperatures to increase if CO2 increases. Calder showed that CO2 could explain the inexplicable size of the temperature difference between ice age and interglacial. Without CO2 the difference could not be explained.

"It is therefore important to distinguish correlation and causation."

Yes. Tyndall and Arrhenius came up with the causation. The correlation came later and proved it.

Or would you say that Newton's laws of motion are wrong since he just found a correlation between how fast something accelerated when pushed and the strength of that push? After all, that's how you work out F=ma: a weight on a frictionless slide (air puck) on a slope and measure the times taken to go past markers. But that is just correlation! Ergo, by your lights, Newton's laws are not true.

"climate is not a readily measurable quantity."

Yes it is.

How else do you get people saying "it's a wet summer this year, isn't it?"?

"The term climate refers to the pattern of weather over a year"

followed by

"but there is no fixed and precise meaning in the term a pattern of weather."

Yes there is: climate. You wrote it yourself.

Summer warmer than winter. There's a pattern.

"It is asserted that in future human burning of fossil fuel will produce 35% of emissions but the remaining 65% is not properly accounted for."

Yes it is. You even say where it is in the next sentence. This is a continuing pattern for you, isn't it.

"In sum, change of climate is not a quantifiable term."

Yes it is.

Average UK summer daytime maximum temperatures is nowadays 14.1C.

And that number was less than 14.1C in the 70's or 30's or 10's. Are you saying you can't quantify a difference between two numbers???

What is subtraction?

"In particular, water vapour (H2O) is the most powerful of green house gases."

True but if the temperature isn't high enough, it falls out as rain.

You know what rain is, don't you?

"It is very poorly understood."

By you, yes, since you follow with this:

" Its reflective properties change with density."

Nope, water vapour doesn't reflect. Water condensed into droplets in clouds do, but in that form it isn't a GG any more.

You are confusing your inability to understand as the lack of understanding of climate scientists.

"The greenhouse effects of H2O dwarf the CO2 effect."

And the effects of both are well known.

H20 causes nearly 30C of warming. Since 5C is enough to melt all the ice caps completely and drown oxfordshire, and 5C is dwarfed by 30C, how does this prove AGW is no problem?

It doesn't if you think about it.

"Then there is the role of rainfall that aborbs and moves large amounts of energy. None of this is understood and properly quantified."

It is. Climate doesn't CARE that the 4pm rains fell at 6pm. Just that they fall and produce about 120mm over the spring months (or whatever your seasonal average rainfall total is for your area).

Just because you don't know if it's quantified doesn't mean it isn't.

"And then there is the ocean, which is another vast and unfathomable area of ignorance."

Yours maybe.

But it doesn't act contrary to its physical properties and produces nothing that will negate AGW.

"effect of CO2 in such a way as to make the the CO2 theory compatible with almost any observable state of affairs"

That may be how YOU would do it, but it isn't the way the models do it.

Take the GISS source code and look at the code. Find where they fiddle it like you say.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Learn what you want to converse on before you spout out about it.

"To re-iterate, the only fact we have is that atmospheric CO2 has increased since circa 1750 from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per million."

No. We have spectral analysis of triatomic molecules. We have temperature records. We have quantum radiative transfer equations and computers to compute the values this side of the heat death of the universe.

We have biological systems changing their habitat and habits, melting ice and glaciers.

But you don't look so you don't see so you confuse your lack of knowledge with lack of the rest of the world.

"No definite connection with temperature increase has yet been established."

You said that earlier.

Tyndal and Arrhenius showed the link. Gilbert Plass showed that the saturated gas argument doesn't apply in the real world since the height at which the heat is lost to space gets higher up and as you go higher up, you get less heat.

These are definite connections between temperature and CO2.

But read that link here it is again. It explains what you do not know.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"Climate change is not uniformly disadvantageous to mankind and must, inevitably, have some beneficial effects."

Being killed in an accident has some advantages. Your estate gets your life insurance.

Of course, they lose the house breadwinner and a loved one and the person insured is dead, so in general, people prefer NOT to die.

What advantage is there if Oxfordshire floods? Milton Keynes too will flood? I prefer to keep Milton Keynes in those circumstances.

You?

"When politics is mixed with factual uncertainty and intrinsic vagueness of terminology,"

Which you brought in in error. Because you want to believe that AGW doesn't exist. Merely because you don't understand the science doesn't mean the science isn't understood.

This is manufactured uncertainty.

And when trillions of dollars are at stake, there's plenty of reason to manufacture false debate.

"The climate sceptics will never be able to disprove conclusively the greenhouse theory until they know, precisely, what they are supposed to disprove"

The climate "skeptics" don't produce any proof of their own position. They don't WANT proof they want uncertainty. Even if they have to make that uncertainty up.

Because while they can say there's uncertainty, they can get what they want (no action to mitigate the damage) without having to prove it.