Monday 23 November 2009

Global Warming ???

Debate with 

Andrew Neill, Prof Watson and Prof Singer.

Towards the end The incidence of 

The Cambridge Research Unit.



Professors on climate change debate

The Daily Politics-Mon, 23 Nov 2009

The Daily Politics-Mon, 23 Nov 2009

Programme information

Climate change sceptic Professor Fred Singer, and Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the department of the environment debate the issues over climate change and global warming.


 

SYNCHRONICITY...

And just when it seemed like the BBC might be having second thoughts on the validity of the AGW agenda is has pursued with such vigour! 

"Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever. They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns. Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month."
The tone and content of the debate this morning could not be clearer - the world is going to suffer unprecedented global warming unless our leaders at Copenhagen gain agreement on how to tax the hell out of us and cripple our economies. Talk about hot air...

Posted by David Vance at 08:51 Links to this post 3 comments 
Labels: 

BBC "SAT ON CRU FILES FOR A MONTH"

Truly astonishing things are beginning to happen at the BBC over the CRU emails. First, Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics yesterday posed some decent questions about what had gone on at CRU and about the climate change record generally. Second, a genuine climate change sceptic (Professor Fred Singer) was allowed to speak, only the second time in recent history that I've seen this happen. Thirdly, Neil worked hard to expose the vacuity of the warmist stance.

I've never seen an interview like that on the BBC, ever, and believe you me, I've searched. 

Next, the fanatic warmist Harrabin actually seems to be treating the CRU hacking as a story that might matter. Perhaps it's because his chum George Monbiot has called for the resignation of CRU boss Phil Jones, but whatever the reason, I've seen correspondence that shows him to be on the case. And last night, he actually broadcast a piece on Radio 4 which, to quote the excellentBishop Hill, was "not a complete whitewash". That's a miracle. 

Finally, there could be even further reverberations to come. It seems that the BBC weather reporter Paul Hudson - he who last month shocked us all by becoming one of the first BBC staffers to admit that there were holes in warmist propaganda- has revealed on his blog that he had received, and had been sitting on, the hacked email files from CRU for more than a month. You couldn't make this up.

Posted by Robin Horb

Not in a bad way...

We finally got a discussion about the CRU emails on the BBC with Lord Lawson and UEA Professor Robert Watson appearing on the Today programme this morning. Listen here.

I, like Cassandra in the comments, was struck by the little qualifying statements made by Professor Watson:

"These scientists at the University of East Anglia are both honourable and world class. Their data is not being manipulated in any bad waywhatsoever… these scientists are not manipulating or hiding anything… UEA work with the British Met Office and they're absolutely beyond doubt that they have not manipulated the data in any negative sense…"
Depends what you mean by "bad" and "negative", I guess. Fiddling the code, changing results, deleting emails, claiming to have lost data and threatening to destroy it rather than release it through FOI requests, getting those who disagree removed from prominent positions, refusing to include contradictory research in the IPCC report - just a brief list of the things done by these "honourable and world class" scientists. But not in a bad way.

Here's a neat little quiz highlighting some of the honourable activities revealed by the emails.

I'm reminded of the words of comedian Dom Irrera:
"When people say to me, "Can I be honest with you?" No, please be as misleading and deceitful as possible, that's all I'd expect from a lowlife scumbag like you. And I don't mean that in a bad way."
(Update - sorry, didn't notice that David had already posted on this.)

Update 13.15. Tonight's edition of Newsnight:
Susan Watts will be bringing us the latest on the story that the e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.
Watts, you may recall, is no stranger to the manipulation of information where climate change is concerned.

[Newsnight also has a film on "controversial" Polish MEP Michal Kaminski. How many BBC reports have there been on this one man? Where are the equivalent investigations into senior European politicians with "controversial" left-wing backgrounds (the new unelected European foreign minister, for example)?]

Update 16.15. Compare and contrast.

From Richard Black's blog:
Update 2 - 0930 GMT Monday 23 November: We have now re-opened comments on this post. However, legal considerations mean that we will not publish comments quoting from e-mails purporting to be those stolen from the University of East Anglia, nor comments linking to other sites quoting from that material.
From this morning's Today programme (emphasis added):
When the Sultan of the Gulf state of Oman was overthrown by his son in July 1970, the coup was painted as a family affair. But secret documents obtained by the BBC prove that the British government helped plan the revolt, partly to safeguard its interests there. The papers, which were released by mistake and have now been closed again to the public, are the subject of Radio 4's Document programme. Mike Thomson reports on how the documents show that ministers ordered British officers seconded to the Sultan's army to help oust him by force if the coup appeared to be failing.
CRU emails? No way!
State secrets? Meh.

Update 16.30. BBC weatherman Paul Hudson (whose article "What happened to global warming?" caused such a stir) is quite happy to link to the emails on his blog.

Update 18.20. Thanks to Guest in the comments for spotting once again that the BBC WHYS blog has bumped its post on climate change, making myupdated link redundant as the earlier one. In its latest version the blog now asks:
So, is it hard to engage people in a debate over what to do about climate change simply because they believe that climate change is a conspiracy?
As anybody who has given more than cursory glance to the emails will know, it's the people behind climate change alarmism who have been refusing "to engage people in debate", preferring instead to hide and manipulate data while smearing those with opposing views.

Update 18.40. One more thing - the WHYS blog, like Paul Hudson but not Richard Black, does link to the emails. Rumours that the online editors are all away on a BBC course called "Arse and elbow - how to tell the difference" are unconfirmed at this point.

Posted by DB at 10:35 Link

Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’

'Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

I am angry, and so should you be.'

Read more...


Climategate: Scientists Would Rather Change Facts Than Their Theories




Posted by Britannia Radio at 18:21