´óÏó´«Ã½

As I remember it the reasons given for dropping the enquiry was:
That the enquiry could go on for another 18 months and at the end of that time, they still may not have sufficient evidence to bring forward a succesful prosecution.
I will be interested to hear if people thought that continuing this enquiry and the loss of the jobs that could come from that decision would be a price worth paying.
I think the correct decision was taken.

As I understand it, we in the UK contribute 2% to global warming. I stand corrected if this figure is wrong.
However I would object very much to be taxed on air travel until India China and the USA started to do something about the pollution those Countries are spewing out.
I am sure I am not alone in this point of view.
David Cameron thinks at the moment he is on a winner with this.
I think when he reads the press we might see another of his about turns.

Upgrading Britain's Trident Missile system with spending £20 billion for 3 or 4 submarines seems silly when our NHS is in great need of finances. We have only recently finished paying the USA (our allies!) for the 'lease lend'for them to take the credit for the second world war. Who are we defending against anyway!!

Dear Newsnight

We are supposed to be a tough warrior nation but the people of this country have reacted with such weakness and pitiful resignation as our democratic wishes are trampled on over Trident, war against Iraq, investing in the NHS and helping the starving of the third world or stopping the terrible things taking place in Darfur and elsewhere.

Why? Perhaps that is the question Newsnight should be asking. If we are not prepared to fight over these things what would we fight for?

I remember going to help some people surrounded by a gang at Kings Cross Station, all the other commuters were going to great efforts to look the other way.

Is this what has become of our nation?
Have we have turned into a load of spineless cowards?

Yours
Bob Goodall

Ref Bob Goodall #4

" ... Is this what has become of our nation? .... Have we have turned into a load of spineless cowards?"

No, despite the best effort of the RIGHT ON, PC & pro-MULTICULTURALISM crowd of the left, ultra liberals & liberal left et al & their numerous failed efforts at societual engineering since 1960's

Ref the other things you mentioned, gut feeling, local & national press reveals:

- a minority (not a majority) wanted to STOP THE WAR .....

- a minority (not a majority) want to STOP TRIDENT .....

- a majority (not a minority) want to START SOMETHING IN DARFUR .....

- a majority (not a minority) want to SAVE THE NHS .....

The above issues not the preserve of the Left or ultra Liberals.

Domestic & International policy ultimately largely reflective of a 'c'onservative national British character.

But the failure to deliver against such is down to NEW LABOUR

The confusion over such is a reality that minority political pressures groups mistake quite often

Ref London, the place is such a 'wonderful' melting pot (esp in the evening) would be highly surprised any recognisable national character (other than degrees of tolerance/indifference) given its so culturally diluted (based on 15 years of town living)

As ever, London NOT representative of the rest of the UK

vikingar

I am sorry that Government minister Nigel Griffiths has resigned over the decision to replace the Trident system which has been taken by the Government. This system has to be replaced for the sake of the future defence and security of this country against future and existing enemies. Some of whom we know and some we do not. The stronger defence we have against other countries and people that want to harm us in any way we have the better in my view. If we value our freedom which I am sure we all do, it has to be paid for. Considering it is taxpayer's money that will pay for the replacement it should be with the best system there is available. This may not be the cheapest incidentally. There will always be good valuable arguments as to what this system should be.

Why does Newsnight insist on presenting dubious anti-global warming pieces? Not the first time I've seen this kind of nonsense on Newsnight in recent weeks. The true debate about global warming is not whether or not it is occurring, or whether it is man-made, it is what we should do about it.

This is not to agree with the anti-modernisers of the left-green hue but to try to move the debate on.

The C4 doc was nonsense. Al Gore's film is not 'emotional' but factual and included the key statistic about how many scientists agree with manmade climate change and how many don't - it's something like 99% to 1%. Why does Newsnight keep on repeating the views of the 1%?

What a confused load of nonsense on the global warming myth idea. Might I suggest you talk to your guests before getting them on. Your "sceptic" turned out to be unable to talk about climate physics - making the whole piece a complete waste of time.

If you can't do a subject properly please don't bother.

Why does Newsnight insist on presenting dubious anti-global warming pieces? Not the first time I've seen this kind of nonsense on Newsnight in recent weeks. The true debate about global warming is not whether or not it is occurring, or whether it is man-made, it is what we should do about it.

This is not to agree with the anti-modernisers of the left-green hue but to try to move the debate on.

The C4 doc was nonsense. Al Gore's film is not 'emotional' but factual and included the key statistic about how many scientists agree with manmade climate change and how many don't - it's something like 99% to 1%. Why does Newsnight keep on repeating the views of the 1%?

Having watched Robert Wardle squirm in answering questions in relation to the dropping of the investigation into BAE/Saudi arms deals fraud I was re-affirmed in my belief that if one company should be investigated for corruption it is BAe! In addition, one regime that should be investigated for corruption, involvement in terrorism and other nefarious activities it is Saudi Arabia! How much longer are we going to accept these powerful 'elites' being allowed to get away with behaviour which would lead to severe punishment amongst the general public? I was utterly ashamed of the cowardice and lack of honour portrayed by this, so-called, public servant.

What was that Global Warming farce about? Fair play to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for actually covering the topic of solar induced climate change as aired by C4 last week.

However, why was there a climatologist on the side of the Carbon-haters vs a Entomologist on the side of the skeptics.

The guy clearly stated he wasn't a climatologist, the BBc went all the way to Paris for this man! I know of a Hydrology Professor & a Geology Professor at Bristol University who both have serious misgivings about man-made Global Warming. I'm sure their are thousands more in the UK who could have argued toe-to-toe with the IPCC representative.

Where's the balanced impartiality??

I wondered when I saw tonight's programme if the sceptic scientist had been even been briefed on the subject of the debate. I'm sure there must be some scientists out there in denial about global warming, couldn't one of them have spoken in the debate instead of one who denied being a climatologist and refused to speak on the physics of glbal warming

In reply to Tom about global warming.

I think your statistic about 99:1 scientists in favour of man-induced global warming may be not entirely accurate. I am an environmental science graduate currently studying engineering at Bristol Uni. From my small sample of scientists, it seems that the majority of research scientists involved with Climate, water and geology are skeptical about the story we are told in the media.

They also say they are afraid to speak out about it. It is a highly emotive issue and people have lost their jobs for not toeing the official line. I think this may be the real reason for the perceived imbalance in the debate.

Joel

The debate on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" was timely.
The main point of the ice core data was to demonstrate that temperature rises occur before CO2 rises.
(The extra CO2 comes from the oceans which have vast quantites dissolved in them)
This was not known when the global warming hypothosis was first postulated. Rather it appeared that increasing CO2 caused the temperature to rise.
Your pro-warming guest nervously admitted that this part of the film was correct but then tried to mitigate it by invoking the feedback argument.
Also his assertion that everyone was free to contribute in the IPCC seems a little weak when the summary (ie headlines) are written before the real report is compiled. This must surely put pressure on the contributers to conform.
All in all shoddy science.

So, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wants to talk about the Global Warming debate stirred up last Thursday by the Channel 4 documentary, and what do you do: you frame it as a "Is CO2 the reason for Global Warming?" question, put some graphs from the documentary concerning the link of Global Warming and Sun activity, and bring in the only scientist represented in the documentary who is NOT a climatologist, paleoclimatologist or physicist! Obviously, the man refuses to talk about something he is not an expert in (which does him credit), and you end up with a half-baked dishonest debate. The presenter hints that some of the scientists in the documentary were misrepresented, but fails to mention who or why and gives no proof of it; and then cuts short the whole thing as it becomes obvious that the intended objective, namely rubbishing Channel 4 in its daring attempt to actually talk about the reality of what Global Warming is, is not going to happen. When in the documentary they talked about bad reporting, they meant things like this! How fitting that you prove them right.

"One of the PM's closest aides Ruth Turner wrote of her concerns that "Lord Levy had asked her to lie for him" [1]

Thank fully he can turn to any one of the innumerable lawyers in New Labour, believe one needs to restart his practice after the summer :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]

Bruce Kent says he has left the Labour Party because of its policy on nuclear defence. I left the Labour Party in the 1980's when Neil Kinnock dropped the policy of unilateral disarmament, which in my view is the only moral stance.

Now Kinnock says he would vote against renewing Trident if he were still an MP! What hypocrisy.

How this government can have the audacity to propose spending billions on a useless replacement of Trident while cutting spending on benefits, NHS, education, housing, pensions, the arts, sciences etc etc is beyond belief.

I do hope whichever planker booked your supposedly sceptical scientist will be sacked. It led to just about the least informed debate I've ever seen on Newsnight.

Also, it might have been reasonable - given you played a huge clip of it - to point out that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" was not the first film made by this director for Channel 4 - a previous one ("Against Nature") led to a C4 apologising after a damning verdict from the ITC. With one scientist quoted in this film already complaining that he was selectively quoted (which was the complaints made about the last one) we may be about to see history repeat itself.

Lord Drayson , Minister Of Defence, states in so many words, it is imperative the government gives the green light to proceed now with a "New Trident" policy. To delay this decision would endanger meeting deadlines to replace ageing submarines. When challenged on having a full public debate he offered up two examples... that's a full debate!
This is from the man ,reportedly Paul Drayson, who was given a peerage on May 1st & after a few months gave New Labour a cheque for £500,000...so one could surmise he's a Blairite if one were that cynical!
Deputy Leader of the House Nigel Griffiths MP(long, long, time friend of GB) handed in his notice today because of his forthcoming anti Trident vote( along with many other Back bench MPs) on Wednesday against his/their party... which all commentators recognise will not make any difference to the vote because the Tories will make up numbers. However looking at forthcoming elections in their own backyards they will have kept faith? with their electorate at least, downright hypocrisy? I trust they will see through this sham!
Kinnock has also declared he puts his weight against the government on this issue... so GB will inherit a leftish party when PM .....& Blair will have his legacy....
Methinks Knacker of the Yard could still upset the applecart.

The Man from " The Serious Fraud Office" was a mite too keen to state it was his decision to stop the alleged Saudi Arms deal corruption investigation...no pressures from the politicians et al!! Good man, I'm sure they will all rally around you if it all goes belly up!following the USA inquiry!

I don't particularly regard myself as being " right wing " but surely the need to renew the nuclear deterrent is a no brainer. There are plenty to the left of British politics who would desire to uninvent the wheel when it comes to nuclear weapons, but this is totally unrealistic. The fact is that successive governments have used the nuclear umbrella to significantly reduce our conventional armed forces. With the closure of the civilian infrastructure ( like ROF ) needed to supply what remains of our armed forces we have no chance of defending out country using conventional means. The nuclear option is the only worthwhile defence capability we have left, to get rid of it would open us up to invasion by anyone. It is also a comfort to many people that we are able to turn any nation into glass if they ever threaten our sovereignty, or commit any major terrorist act against us. Perhaps we should brandish our nuclear deterrent more openly, for example threatening to nuke Khartoum if Darfur is not sorted quickly.

As for the BAE inquiry, surely enough has got out into the open to tarnish the legacy of the Thatcher government and cause everyone to believe that the Saudi's and probably many other Arab states and developing countries in general are corrupt. There are thousands of jobs hanging on the latest BAE contract and perhaps some people would be glad to see these jobs lost if it reduced our contribution to global warming. On both the aforementioned I believe that the government are doing the right thing

It looks like the global warming high priests have got a serious ideological problem on their hands after the Ch 4 documentary which the newsnight clip managed to portray very effectively. Even with the relatively "light weight " Gavin Essler in the chair the priest from Reading was totally unable to counter the argument that CO2 rises after temperature. Through experience I am generally very suspicious of anyone outside the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in a crisp suit and tie, most of them are " ten bob fat cats " who owe a fortune to the banks etc and are therefore high class virtual slaves to the system. The same principle probably applies to most politicians who promote the green religion. The main point about the Ch 4 documentary was that most of the scientists appearing against the current popular CO2 theory were in casual dress and looked like they were generally " bought and paid for " and not a slave to anyone.

Yes, was a shame Prof Reiter couldn't be drawn to talk climate; but you got two sides, with the 'Swindle' and your studio interviewee. It's about time the public realised that our CO2 will lead to warming that will lead to more CO2 (and water vapour, and methane)...
As for fliers - come down to Earth! You're missing a load of life right on your doorstep. The faster you travel, the more you miss. You'll catch me holidaying with Sustrans, in good company.

Gavin rightly made the comment that most of us are not scientists. So do we need to be a scientist to know who to believe?
How about telling us about who funds the scientists.
Paul Reiter is researching Dengue Fever for the Institut Pasteur. Who funds the Institut Pasteur's research on Dengue Fever? Total Oil. So any guesses why Paul Reiter wants to say global warming is not caused by CO2 created by humans (including burning oil)? (This info from Total and Institut Pasteur websites)

I was glad to see this issue discussed on Newsnight and although the contributors were not ideal, I thought it was valuable and informative. The C4 documentary was extremely good. It is vital that it is taken seriously, as, in my view, the erroneous theory that global warming is caused by humans is now causing serious problems.

Politicians, who can only trust the dominant scientific view, are developing policies that will affect us all, all based on a fallacy. It is vital that this is discussed. Many scientists are too frightened to speak out, as if they don’t continue to get their grants, they don’t have a job. It is vital that they are allowed to do true scientific research into this, without pre-assumptions. At the moment, this is impossible.

How can anyone really believe that a few puny humans can change the climate of a planet? This is true human arrogance. Does no one realise the vastness of the oceans and the atmosphere? Did you humans cause the ice ages or the following periods of warming? No, of course not.

There are very good reasons for limiting our use of fossil fuels, but global warming is not one of them.

The global warming piece was a tease, please Newsnight, a full debate. This issue is so important because global warming hype is taking the energy and dedication of a whole generation away from the many solvable enviromental problems we face. These kids will be lost to the enviromental movement forever when it becomes clear that the science, in particular the computer modelling that drives so many headlines, is not as clear cut as we have been lead to believe. Newsround will not be reporting on this until you have...

As an atmospheric scientist, I can say there is a great disparity between the current public debate sparked off by the recent Channel 4 documentary and the debates going on in scientific circles, something that the programme only briefly touched on. The question in the media eye is simply weather global warming is caused by man or not, but mainstream science and the policymakers are more concerned with quantifying the effects of individual factors. CO2, solar cycles, aerosols, clouds and whatever else are all considered and hotly debated. As pointed out, there is no such thing as a 'consensus' in science, so to make an IPCC report you take a balanced culmination of the best levels of understanding and uncertainties, and you get the "90% likely" conclusion, which is by now merely a by-product of climate science as a whole.

That said, while the details are very highly contested, the vast majority of scientists will still say that human activity is changing the climate. I've not met many who don't, put it that way.

Vikingar (apropos #5)

normally ever so keen to list your sources for the tendentious pieces you submit here, I note none above.

Without recourse to your usual name-calling and paranoid ramblings, could we have a direct response to this rebuttal?

Above, you claim "a minority (not a majority) want to STOP TRIDENT."

A Mori Poll late last year found, well, quite the contrary (46% do not wish to replace Britain's nuclear weapons, against 44% who do and 10% undecided). Only 33% thought Britain ought to replace Trident, 54% did not with 13% undecided.

A more recent Populus poll (late Feb) found that 24% of people wish Britain to have the best possible deterrent (ie replacing Trident) while a similar number thought that, although we keep the current stockpile, we should not commit now to having new nuclear weapons in 20 years. 19% wanted to scrap all existing nuclear weapons now, and 29% though we ought never to have had them and should not have them now.

My question is very specific, and I would ask that you address it in a specific manner: how did you reach your conclusion that a 'minority' oppose plans to replace Trident? If there is no data to back up your claim, will you now retract your assertion as incorrect?

Keith

What a disappointment! Newsnight had an opportunity to start taking us back to reality, away from the CO2 warming hysteria, and you blew it. Where was Gavin's brain?

Brian Hoskins actually admitted on screen that temperature changes _led_ CO2 levels and Gavin did not pick up on it. This could have been the start of the most significant news story that Newsnight has ever covered. At least it warranted a follow up question.

It may seem that I'm picking up on a minor technicality, but in science it's those little niggley bits of evidence that drive the quest for truth. You can't just ignore the evidence because it doesn't fit a hypothesis.

Please, please Newsnight, give it another go. You might just be onto something huge...

Good to see Newsnight acknowledging the importance of a story broken by rival Channel 4's Dispatches (The Great Global Warming Swindle), but this was not enough.

The issue of whether CO2 or solar activity is responsible for climate change is of huge importance to us all, in money, development - and lives.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ have a duty look into this on our behalf with real tenacity and scientific skepticism.

I still look to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ first for news and guidance, but for how much longer, I don't know.

The serious fraud squad who dropped the investigation into the dealings with saudi and british contracts was a revealing interview.whilst recognising that in business and life ,backhanders and sweeteners will be almost normal protocol,the practice of gaining contracts by the use of large cash incentives deposited into bank accounts(swiss proberbly) or nights out with prostitutes is regarded internationally as illigal.The argument that jobs could be on the line,can not be a good enough reason to drop this case,and lets not forget that the contract is for military fighter jets and not farming equipment.The relationship that exist with saudi and britain is based on this one fact,Oil is at the heart of our continuing the good relationship with saudi,not to mention the petro dollers we can get our grubby hands on when selling military hardware to states such as saudi.The director of the serious fraud squad had to take the "fly out of the ointment" for the sake of the special relationship,i just enjoyed his answers to the difficult questions that were put to him.I wish i had the brass neck that he clearly has,sitting very comfortably,he was like a character out of the tv show THE BILL,a criminal by all accounts found with his pants down and getting grilled by DC Hardface,"so your telling me you saw nothing and heard nothing",pants down replies,"seen nothing and heard nothing,that is correct mr hardface".wow,what balls this man has.
call me the dark armchair cynic that i am,clearly political pressure was his main reason to drop this case,but can i also suggest that the slush fund had some spare for the director of the serious fraud squad as well.
( i awate the late night standard issue kicking in my door for that one)

post script unrelated to above post
can KEITH FLEMMING please reread my post 26th of febuary @17.you say that my comments can be "close to the incitement to racial violence". i think its important to fully read a comment if you wish to respond critically.can i give you a clue to whom i was poking my stick at=lawyers.
you dont need to apologise,we all make mistakes

Mr Wallace,

I do apologise, and you are quite correct. You weren't inciting racially motivated violence, just violence against human rights lawyers. My bad.

Keith

Maybe the Director of the SFO was simply not prepared to be a Dr D. Kelly MKII?

Many are confused about this lag issue, but as the climatologist pointed out, few claim that CO2 is the cause of glacial cycles, just an important amplifier of an orbital induced change in temperatures. Increasing temperatures cause the oceans and land to release CO2, this amplifies the initial warming. In this instance, we have released CO2, that is accumulating in the atmosphere. As CO2 is a greenhouse gas, known since 1859, it will increase temperature. The problem that the scientist tried to point out, is that the warming we are causing may lead to more CO2 from the biosphere, amplifying the warming we have induced.

To state that A causes B, therefore B cannot cause A is a non-sequitur. Eggs cause chickens, and chickens cause eggs...

There once was a man from the Old Bill,
whose case was a bit of a thrill,
But the Bosses they said no,
This fight you must throw,
And pretend there's no trouble int' mill.

reading the comments about the Global Warming Debate convinces me that joe public will never be able to make a truly informed decision as to the merits of the case. I watched the Channel 4 programme last Thursday and found it compelling. However the points which were raised can never be dealt with in the time that Newsnight alloted to the debate. As with so much so called debate nowadays, the ones who shout the loudest will always win out, whether their arguments are spurious or not.The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is at the forefront of the propaganda war, every morning they quite happily trot out the latest in global warming predictions or the latest on what we are doing wrong.As with all the media in this country they want confrontation not debate. As a layman I want to see eminent people from both sides telling us what they believe to be true, perhaps then I can make my own mind up before all the politicians tax us out of existence in the name of the environment.The quote from the channel 4 programme which stays with me the most is "you are treated like you have denied the Holocaust if you disagree" How true of so much nowadays, we will never get the calibre of politicians we deserve as long as this is the case.

What happened to the Global Warming story last night?

A cogent clip posing two pieces of evidence against the current CO2 warming hypothesis, and you field:

- A pro-CO2 interviewee who you don't pin down and get to address the problem

- An anti-CO2? interviewee who turns out not to want to make any comment at all!

If this were a boxing match I would be crying 'Fix!' and demanding my money back!

For a point by point response to the C4 swindle programme by Sir John Haughton, ex IPCC and Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution see:
One of the more reputable scientists from MIT who appeared on the swindle film says he was swindled and mislead about the film:

Climate change has become the new witchcraft; you either agree with every aspect of the dogma or risk being branded as evil and consigning your grandchildren to the fires of hell. Even the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is guilty, with yesterday's 6.00pm News linking global warming to the coastal erosion affecting a coastal village. Totally untrue - I've lived by the coast all my life and this type of erosion is simply an ongoing and natural effect of the age-old battle between land and sea.

Newsnight has a strong reputation and should be confident enough to stage a proper debate on climate change, where all the facts can be aired without fear of hysterical abuse.

How depressing that Newsnight gave space to the idea that there continues to be a 'debate' about AGW - despite many of the comments expressed here, there is no debate, and the processes are well understood (as comment 26, a climate scientist - expressed so well).
As for why such a mismatch of guests, and thus a complete lack of any real debate? For a start, there is a very limited pool of 'deniers', so the chances of getting someone is fairly limited (particularly if they possess a PhD, relevent or not). The normal goto person for this sort of thing, Philip Stott, is due to engage in a debate with the guys from RealClimate.org tomorrow in the US

so he was probably not available. Then there is the fact that deniers seldom debate real experts, such as the Prof., simply because almost none of them have any expertise in the science (see and Desmogblog and Sourcewatch for examples). Thus actually debating an actual climate scientist, and a member of the IPCC would look most unattractive to the average denier/pundit. A perfect example of this is the interview with Nigal Calder about a month ago on the programme, where is was made to look a complete idiot by a prof. of Physics from Imperial College. Its also of course why you got no other views (aprt from the misrepresented ones) from the C4 programme - denial works only in a vacuum of other information.
Of course the chap who did take part was on the C4 programme to make the IPCC process look bad, but had no idea about anything else.
The reason why the item appeared? I suspect a misguided idea of 'balance', something which has allowed the denial industry to paint a picture of arguement where there is none. Lazy journalism, the desire for polarised views and soundbite aruements are all to blame. Perhasp a better item would have been to show how small a number of people in the scientific community belive this stuff, and how they are given such wide coverage. The person who thought the the Prof. made a omentus slip - no, he didn't - the time lagg in the ice cores was easily explained by him, and was not a glimpse into the AGW conspiracy.
BTW - Joel Netley - I'm a bit concerned at your comment 'I know of a Hydrology Professor & a Geology Professor at Bristol University who both have serious misgivings about man-made Global Warming' - I'd be somewhat surprised at such views from such an institution
, particularly as the Glaceology Centre is involved in studying climate change You also say 'I am an environmental science graduate currently studying engineering at Bristol Uni. From my small sample of scientists, it seems that the majority of research scientists involved with Climate, water and geology are skeptical about the story we are told in the media.' I don't know who you are talking to, but the number of researchers at Bristol who are involved in studying climate change in one way or another (such as Professor Paul Valdes, Jonathan Bamber, Dr Marion Bougamont to name only a few from one department) makes me wonder why you dont just talk to them instead, or simply just look at the journals - Nature and Science are available and clearly don't reflect the attitudes you report.
For a better debate, the Real Climate one should be good, and hopeful more satisfying.

why didnt you ask steiner for some examples of him being misrepresented??

why didnt you ask the gw expert to explain the 800y lag? the answer he gave was just waffle?

why doesnt the bbc employ more scientists, engineers and economists fo the austrian school?

watts and flanders just dont make the grade

MikeB writes a big wedge of prose yet still fails to grasp what concerns many of us. Groups with an axe to grind are currently able to link almost anything to global warming and get away with it. It's all very reminiscent of the atmosphere at the height of multicuturalism, when you were able to label almost anything as rascist and be pretty confident of not being challenged.

The debate that we're being denied is not so much about the 'science' itself, but the way in which it is being interpreted and misinterpreted by some to further all sorts of agendas. If we don't openly discuss the issues we may live to find that some aspects of the cure end up being as bad or worse than the disease.

Classic denial, and classic pandering to the common wisdom.

The guy on Newsnight IS a scienist, just not a Climatologist. The IPCC Doc states that Malaria carrying Mosquitos cannot exist outside of temperate zones. The fact that thousands of Eskimos were killed by Malaria (a report submitted by this guy) was deliberately deleted by the report - which is why he resigned.

There is NO (by which I mean not a shred of) scientific evidence that man made (Anthropormorphic - sounds terrible doesn't it) CO2 is the cause of Global Warming but there is every evidence to suggest that it provides a new found dictatorship for all those who've ever wanted one.

It is wrong, it is untrue and it is unjust.

The reason we have hoodies, hopeles Youth and everything that goes wth it, is that the despondant can get away with it every time they look a contemporary in the eye and say - "well what did you do expect after you'd destroyed the planet?"

We, the current (ruling?) genetration can't deal with them because we are racked with guilt - we think they're right.

Now is the time to fight back, we have nothing to apologise for, we have left a great legacy. Let's get on with it.

Look at the facts, understand them, all will become clear.

This is getting beyond parody....

Paul Cheverton says environmentalists can link anything to climate chnage and get away with it - Jappo echoes this saying its an excuse for dictatorship.

Then Jappo blames environmentalists for problems with hoodies! Now I've had the odd run in with delinquent youth, but so far noone has demanded my wallet to make up for my carbon footprint.

However stepping back from whether it is environmentalists or sceptics who responsible for all the ills of the world (I sit on the fence there), and given Newsnight ought to be a calm an rational place disseminating facts rather than rants, will it be telling its viewers that the temperature graph it showed as part of the clip from the C4 documentary was not in anyway accurate. It was headed "NASA" but nothing like the latest data NASA have on their website - nor was it obviously an odler out of date NASA data set. IN fact the Director told the Independent (he is quoted in this Wednesday's paper) that "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find."

Given his whole argument rested on this data, this seems a somewhat cavalier approach.

I'm not ranting, not raving...just saying perhaps you would offer all the facts and we can all make our own minds up.

I watched the interview with the SFO on the subject of the alleged bribery of Suadi officials, but I got the rather frustrated when the obvious question wasn't asked: - "if there was no risk to national security, would the case have gone to trial?"

Thank you Sarah for your comments, you are an oasis of sanity !
Jappo seems to have closed his mind to any evidence of AGW, which considering the amount of material around, seems remarkable. The NERC (which you and I pay for) has an excellent guide here and the Met Office has another very good guide
. If you want to debate with real climate scientists, then is the place to go. Please have a look, otherwise you could be accused of 'classic denial'.
Both Jappo and Paul Cheverton seem to have the same agenda - Greenpeace , FoE and 'the greens'/'politically correct brigade' are out to control our lives, and drag us back to the Middle Ages. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Greenpeace are as powerful as you think, they are not doing a very good job, considering that emissions are due to rise, airports are due to expand and energy efficiency continues to be extremely low. It would be interesting to find out whether 'green groups' or the CBI have more influence on government - judging by the record of the last 20 years, the greens are hardly the force you imagine.
But if you think that it is the left/Green taliban/eco-facists, etc which continue to push AGW, then could I remind you that the people who have recognised Climate Change as a threat include Baroness Thatcher (a trained chemist), the Pentagon (a threat to the security of the US) and even the Republican Senator from Alaska (the state has oil, but is thrawing out rapidly). And may I point out that the chap who did appear on Newsnight might have had an issue with whether mosquitos can live in cold conditions, but that really does not invalidate the IPCC reports on Climate Change, does it?
Lets actually try to improve our 'legacy' to future generations - we can't undo what has already been done, but we can stop it getting worse. But the first step is to see that there is a problem, otherwise we simply are in denial.

So, Al Gore (and other political opportunists keen to stimulate their apathetic electorates to vote given that turnouts are so dismally low, and general interest in politics is pitiful) asserts that there's a correlation between global warming and C02.

This is true - just as there's a correlation between SES and IQ (or educational attainment, and crime), but what is the temporal order if any?

Now, most folk question the above contingency even less that they do climate change, but there are those who are waking finally up: and to the associated inexorable rise in crime since the end of WWII), or are they?

Heretics say there's a correlation between sun-spot activity and global warming, and this is NOT popular with "watermelons" etc as they can't make political capital out of that given that it's not under human control (so nobody can make people feel guilty, just depressed, and there's no political capital in that as politicians want "hearts and minds").

So, the (potential) causal relationship between solar flares and global warming is rendered politically incorrect, whilst the less scientifically credible (but financially/politically/career very rewarding) notion that CO2 *causes* global warming is reinforced as there's a silent majority out there which might be mined through fear conditioning and hubrism!

Substitute SES (or crime) and IQ/educability into the above, ponder on correlation not being causality (but "complicated"), and you get the picture of what's going on (if you haven't all along).

There's votes to be captured in these ills and snake-oil bills, (sorry..).. pills, and these are just two examples.

Is it just me or are the vast majority of people who reply on this topic only able to because of the security that a defence system such as Trident provides. Lets put this bluntly, the very presence of a Trident has prevented another world war. Nobody would like to see a nuclear weapon used, but the very threat that they could be is what deters potentially dangerous countries from even attempting to arm themselves. Plus if people have read the facts about the new trident they would know that it has a reduced number of nuclear warheads and an increased amount of cruise missiles. It is therefore desinged to fulfil the role of an attack submarine just as an Astute submarine will, so it's good value for money. People sleep easy at night because of the security that a Trident system provides.

Gavin Essler did well to ask about the 800year time lag of C02 after temperature.

He should arrange another similar debate and ask the question again.

Why worry - within 60 years there will be an Islamic State in Europe with Nukes - Britain, with the Button in Londonstan.
So the French will keep their's on Ready Alert.

Re Global warming debate...

Why are the ignorant dismissing the channel 4 program as nonsense? Or is the clue in my question!

Who were the incompetants from both sides of the debate that stuck their stammering heads out of the ground on the 'Today' program this morning at about 08:45 like a pair of moles staring into the sunshine? From what I could decypher the pro co2 driven man accused the channel 4 program of lies and then was asked to state a few of them specifically and then didn't state anything that the program didn't agree with! Then the program defender didn't take the opportunity to dismember the accuser!
Why is the data for the graphs not made public so that we can all do some plotting! In reading graphs it is important to look at the points where the graph changes direction otherwise there is no way of telling the dependant variable.

On the humans causing global warming myth...

The scentific consensus now is that it is all our fault. As a scientist (although not an expert in this area), I am pretty well convinced that this is not true.

It brings to mind an early scientist who stated, against the opinion of ALL the other scientists on your planet at the time, that the earth goes round the sun.

I think he was proved right. Scientific consensus means nothing.

I am still completely amazed how an intelligent race can behave so stupidly, so often.

Is there any hope for you humans?

Mark Sheperd (post 53) asks why the data isn't made public for the temperature graphs. It is - as was pointed out in several earlier posts.

The problem is that ther programme did not use the publicly available latest data set from the NASA website - it used something quite different. The different data (I'm still not sure where it came from, but the director has admitted the timescale was wrong) showed a correaltion between temperature and sunspots. The real data did not.

As this the entire thesis of the programme rested on this relationship, it is hard to see how it can be considered amazingly accurate.

Jim Baker (apropos #54),

I can find no other way to intepret what you say, other than that you are proposing that, because Galilleo was correct in the face of the scientific orthodoxy of his time regarding the relative movement of the sun and planets, scientific orthodoxy is always wrong. Or are you saying that you are a Gallileo of our times (although, as you admit, you are not a climate scientist, you claim to be "pretty well convinced that this is not true")?

You don't say quite what area of science you are an expert in - I wonder how you would feel and react if you were to be told by a climate scientist that whatever orthodoxy of thought holds in your area of expertise was wrong?

Feel free to criticise climate scientists, their methods and their conclusions - just don't use sloppy arguments like the above, which is just silly rhetoric.

Keith

With reference to post #56 from keith fleming

Firstly, thank you for responding to my post. You were a bit rude, but I welcome your criticism.

I was not proposing that "scientific orthodoxy is always wrong", of course it isn't. My point, (OK, with a simplistic example, and hopefully, some humour), was that it can be, and sadly, often has been.

I don't think I was using "sloppy arguments" or "silly rhetoric", just making a simple point.

Don't forget that in the 70s, the global cooling that was detected was also blamed on us burning fossil fuels!

Scientists, particularly in universities (where I work), depend totally on grants, and once the bandwaggon gets rolling, the money takes over.

All I am asking for is a more scientific analysis of the true situation, without pre-assumtions, The C4 documentary did not entirely achieve this, but at least it raised the issue.

From my informed, but not expert view, I still think it is unlikely that humans are causing global warming.

We don't need debate from entrenched positions - we need some good science!

To Jim Baker

Global cooling has been measured, modelled and explained as one result of burning fossil fuels. "Dirty" burning of fuel creates soot and other particles that do cool the climate (like a fine layer of cloud essentially - some have called this effect "global dimming"). From roughly the 40's to the 70's these effects did rather compensate for the warming effect of the carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere. And as engines and factories cleaned up a bit, the cooling effect reduced and the greenhouse effect became much more prominent.

So it is wrong to pose this as something that dopey scientists proposed in the 1970s and imply it means we can't trust scientists now.

And as for your call for a "more scientific" appraisal of all this - can you name another field with quite such enormous scrutiny, and such an amazing body of scientists collaborating as within the International Panel on Climate Change?

I'm not arguing there are not things we don't know, or shouldn't try harder to find out - but we have an international scientific body which has convinced oil companies, NASA, the CIA and almost every Government in the world that the science is well founded.

What I find astonishing is who you aim your comments at. Given programmes which raise alternative ideas (like the GGWS) are so frequently exposed as distorting data and views (see endless posts above) surely your are much better asking such questions of the people responsible for such programmes?

to Martyn (post #60)

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your sensible arguments after the abuse I have received for expressing my doubts, from other contributors.

Your points are well argued and I really am aware of the evidence. The theory of human-induced global warming is consistent with the way the evidence has been interpreted and may even turn out to be correct but I am not convinced.

There is no way that a non-expert like me can counter the arguments of such a large body of scientists that believe in the theory.

But, despite what you say, it is still only a theory, albeit the "accepted" theory.

The reason that I was asking for more scientific investigation was that the arguments are now often presented more like a religion than a scientific theory. Those of us with doubts are "heretics" or even more sinister, the accusation of "global warming denial", like holocaust denial.

Yes, there has been a lot of "research", but perhaps too much looking to confirm the theory, rather than looking at fundamentals and possible other explanations. With our system of peer review and the competition for grants, I think a lot of the research may have been a bit biased.

The current consenus view is, as you say, influencing decisions and policies throughout the world and changing our lives. If there is just a chance that the consensus view might be wrong, we need to keep looking. It is vital that we establish the truth.

An intersesting link:

Two very well respected scientists, who believe in it all, warning about all the hype.

If commonsense does not surface soon, I think I will just return to my home planet...

"And as for your call for a "more scientific" appraisal of all this - can you name another field with quite such enormous scrutiny, and such an amazing body of scientists collaborating as within the International Panel on Climate Change?"

Why, yes. Almost anybody. You see, the IPCC is NOT a scientific organisation at all, it is a POLITICAL organisation. It takes input from scientists who it pays, but the IPCC is an international panel of government officials. It's job is to produce a political consensus. The scientists are paid to produce what the government officials want to hear, and are regularly sacked when they don't.

Incidentally, you can tell easily identify people wanting to close the debate down by their continual reference to the Mann site 'Real Climate'. This was set up to try to defend the 'hockey-stick' graph which has been so comprehensively disproved - for a more balanced view try the 'Climate Audit' site!

"dodgy geezer" makes a good point. As a scientist myself, working in a different area, I am used to scientific debate. But on climate change, it seems to be something completely different.

Political - certainly. Religious fervour - sadly yes. There is NO actual proof. The best we have is circumstantial evidence. Yes it is strong, but more than that is needed to change the policies of the world.
Correlation does not imply causality!

Anyone still following this discussion might be interested to look at this book:

"The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change" by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, both well respected scientists. Quite cheap from Amazon!

It is my belief that a lot of people are going to feel pretty stupid in a few years time, when global cooling starts. Will the political solution be to say no tax on big cars? The trouble is that it could be 20-50 years. Let's be more open to the alternative ideas now, and look into them, not just blindly accept a theory that really is, still only a theory.

"How can anyone really believe that a few puny humans can change the climate of a planet? This is true human arrogance. Does no one realise the vastness of the oceans and the atmosphere? Did you humans cause the ice ages or the following periods of warming?"

Who would have thought that "a few puny humans" could have drastically reduced ozone over the Antarctic? Or raised the atmospheric CO2 content by 20% ? When "a few" means "6 billion", the numbers start making sense. The "true human arrogance" is to believe that we can forever escape the consequences of our actions.

Just because humans didn't cause previous episodes of climate change doesn't mean we can't cause one _now_.

i don't like Global warming

I thought everyone had given up on this and gone away!

I appreciate the comment from Karl Zimmerman, especially as he seems able to make his point without abuse or insult!

Yes , I think we humans may have made a small contribution to affecting the ozone layer, it is much easier to see a connection and a mechanism. But even this might be wrong. We don't know a lot about it, but it is probable that the ozone "layer", may also have changed significantly over time, without human intervention.

Unfortunately, the mechanisms of global warming are far more complex.

Our planet and our solar system are dynamic. It is a miracle that we are here! Just a few parameters, slightly changed, would have meant no life on earth!

I can't be absolutely sure that our co2 emissions are not having a significant effect, obviously they must have some effect, but I am fairly sure that they are NOT causing global warming.

If this is the case, we need to prove it, and all the hype and political action does not help with this. As I have said before, what we need is some good, independent science!

In message #66 Olga says "I don't like global warming". Well I don't like the global warming hype, the biased research and the pseudo-religious preaching.

This is a plea for some sanity!

Best wishes to all who have bothered to read all this.

If global warming is for real, why was the temperature lower in Sardinia last summer than when I visited it in 1974? Answer that if you can!

I read all of the complaints about the Global Warming Swindle, but why has it been Expunged from the Internet. Science is best served by open debate, not censorship. The point about research monies is well-taken. I want to see research funded, not based on desired conclusions. Adolf Hitler used such a research scheme. If what this show is incorrect, I want that standpoint funded also so that we can get to some real conclusions. Research based on simulations is dangerous. The UK electronic stock exchange was based on simulation. When it was brought up, it immediately failed - the simulation was not quite accurate. No fault of the scientists, the assumptions were fair, but just not correct.

i think that this great global warming swindle is a lie and aload of crap

i believe global warming is real and even if it isn't it is good to help our earth in case it comes in the near future

i believe global warming is real and even if it isn't it is good to help our earth in case it comes in the near future