James Delingpole

James Delingpole: Why can't the BBC be impartial in the climate change debate? 

The Beeb constantly resorts to 'experts' whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid

26 October 2013

9:00 AM

26 October 2013

9:00 AM

 ‘Well, you’re arguing facts against opinions. OK, I mean, the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has rocketed up since the Industrial Revolution, and continues to rocket up, is a fact. Now, it’s so much a fact that even the climate change deniers look away from it and don’t deny it.’
— Professor Steve Jones, Feedback, BBC Radio 4, 18 October

Have a look at that last sentence. It represents such a cherishably stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble, fallacious, dishonest and misleading argument that if it turned out the speaker in question was a professor of logic or philosophy you really might want to shoot yourself in despair.

Can you see what the problem is? Let me explain. This angry professor character wants us to believe that there are people called ‘climate change deniers’ who are so far outside the pale of reasonable discourse that even when they are right it’s another sign of just how wrong they are.

Atmospheric CO2 has been rising since the Industrial Revolution, Jones is telling us, but those pesky deniers are so slippery that they refuse to deny this fact. If they did, presumably, it would make Jones’s job a lot easier because then he’d be able to provide a clear example of these wrong ‘opinions’ deniers supposedly hold. Apparently, though, Jones is unable to produce such a clear example. So instead he has to fabricate one and — in the very next breath — to discount it by conceding that actually this is a point on which ‘even’ the ‘deniers’ agree.

Am I being too harsh on Professor Jones? His field is genetics rather than atmospheric physics, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised if he sounds here like a rather desperate man flailing well beyond his pay grade. Had he been quizzed on his specialist subjects — drosophila and snails — I expect he would have been absolutely first-rate. We can hardly blame poor Jones the Snail if the BBC asked him to pose as an expert on an area about which he would seem to know less then bugger all, can we? Well yes, actually. I think we rather can.

You see Professor Jones is no common or garden snails expert. He also happens to be the author of a 2011 report for the BBC Trust on the BBC’s science coverage. The report was commissioned partly in response to complaints by those pesky climate ‘deniers’ that they don’t get a fair hearing from an organisation supposedly committed by its Charter obligations to impartiality.


Jones’s report was adamant that they shouldn’t. ‘Denialism’, he argued, is typical of a range of belief systems, such as that ‘AIDS has nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US government plot.’ The evidence for ‘global warming’ was now so ‘overwhelming’, he concluded, that it would be quite wrong for the BBC to imply that it was a two-sided debate by giving swivel-eyed climate ‘deniers’ airtime.

When the report came out I remember being gobsmacked by its chutzpah. (As too was Christopher Booker, whose magisterial demolition of both Jones’s report and the BBC’s climate coverage generally is well worth reading on the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s website). Here, I’d naively imagined, was the perfect opportunity for the BBC to ’fess up to — and remedy — over a decade’s worth of inexcusably one-sided climate coverage. Instead — in the fine tradition of the Climategate inquiries — it had denied all culpability with a ‘move along, nothing to see here’ snow job.

But that was two years ago, since when there have been many new scientific developments not necessarily to the advantage of the alarmist view so doughtily championed by the likes of Jones the Snail. As Matt Ridley noted with characteristic verve and charm in last week’s Spectator cover story — ‘Panic Over!’ — the case for catastrophic man-made climate change theory grows weaker by the day. Why then, does our biggest media organisation persist in pretending otherwise?

An answer, of sorts, was provided by last week’s edition of Feedback, in which apparently ordinary, typical BBC listeners queued up to complain about World at One’s coverage of the new IPCC report. What had upset them was that the main ‘expert’ quoted by Radio 4 was an Australian ‘denier’ called Bob Carter and not a ‘qualified climate scientist’.

There were several details that Feedback curiously neglected to mention. One was that at least one of those ordinary, typical complainants runs a green energy company. Another is that ‘Bob Carter’, whom it described as a ‘geologist’, is in fact a distinguished professor whose specialist field — marine palaeoclimatology — puts him in a rather better position to comment authoritatively on climate change than, say, some Johnny-come-lately geneticist.

Not, of course, that we should set too much store by the Appeal To Authority. If someone has his facts right on climate change, then he’s still right regardless of whether he’s a geneticist, a marine geologist, or the bastard offspring of Adolf Hitler. If, conversely, he has his facts wrong on climate change then no matter how great his credentials — even if he’s Regius Professor of Global Warming at the University of Climate Change — his facts will remain stubbornly wrong.

Here’s what Professor Carter was quoted saying: ‘Climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.’

Funny, I mused, how not a single one of the experts marshalled by Feedback — not even the great Jones the Snail himself — felt capable of challenging this proposition. Hmm. I wonder why that could be.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Angus2100

    Delingpole relies almost exclusively on rhetoric and emotive language to put forward his case. He has no qualifications in climate change science, physics, geology or any of the other physical sciences. He is a journalist who took an interest in climate change in recent years, and realised that using rhetoric was a suitable tool to garner a loyal following of like-minded climate change denialists.

    At a fundamental level, he doesn’t understand how the climate works. I doubt he could answer many of these questions correctly:
    – What is blackbody radiation and how is it calculated?
    – What is irradiance and what is its units of measurement?
    – What’s the absorption spectrum of CO2?
    – How is solar variability measured?
    – Beyond land surface temperature, what are nine other indicators of global temperature?

    He would likely respond with: ‘I don’t read research papers on climate science. I’m an interpreter of interpretations. But I’m right about everything’.

    • Sheumais

      He might well do, but as he is quoting a specialist in marine palaeoclimatology in comparison to a geneticist, his argument is more credible than yours. I can imagine your head bobbing manically when the BBC’s Roger Harrabin expounds the latest alarming discoveries of the general consensus of IPCC contributors, despite Harrabin’s academic qualifications being identical to Delingpole’s.

      At a fundamental level, describing those who point out, incontrovertibly, that many of the alarmist claims on which our governments’ energy policies have been recently founded are unsupportable and inexcusable as climate deniers is an argument more appropriate for a primary school playground than a mature discussion by reasoned adults. Who is denying there is a climate, or that it changes?

      Those who decide we must always pay more tax don’t read scientific papers either and neither do I, yet I’ve had to buy a new snow shovel to deal with the winter weather we were assured would never appear again. I didn’t need to read a scientific paper to see the snow, just as I don’t need to read a scientific paper to see the effects of glaciers on the local topography. Again, no scientific paper was required for me to be aware the glaciers are no longer there and that even Bruce Forsyth couldn’t remember a time when they were.

      Be honest, you only have a problem with someone’s qualifications when they disagree with you and that’s why you ignored the snail specialist in the article above. Delingpole may not be right about everything, despite his claims, but he’s more right than you on this subject.

      • Angus2100

        A totally predictable response from one of Delingpole’s minions.

        • Ian Woolley

          So what?

          • Angus2100

            How could being servile be for the greater common good?

            There is no more globally important pressing issue than climate change. And yet an unqualified denialist is helping to comprise society’s ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

          • PlasteringPaver

            the climate is changing, always has, always will. the poles had melted a bit last year, they all cried. the poles are frozen again this year, didnt hear them cheering

          • Angus2100

            As the Arctic sea ice is melting, would would expect its melt to be drawn as a straight line graph, with every year decreasing the same amount as the last? That there wouldn’t be any fluctuations?

            The important point is the obvious trend. As seen here:

            http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep13.png

          • rtj1211

            The interesting thing is that when the warming occurred, little melting occurred, and now temperatures have remained static for 17 years, the melting has occurred.

            What will happen when the temperatures drop back again??

          • Angus2100

            The warmest year on record was 2005, followed by 2009 and 1998. That was the warmest decade on record. That was a 0.05C / decade increase in temperature.

            Winter skiing resorts have been losing a lot of money, not only because of erratic snowfall, but also due to shortened skiing seasons. This trend has been continuing for over ten years now and has been seen in Canada, Australia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the US.

            More than 95% of glacial ice is in decline. The Siberian permafrost is thawing. The first ever cargo ship made passage through the Arctic region this year, which was possible due to summer melt in the Arctic. Kilimanjaro and many other mountains are losing their snow and ice cover. These are all indicators of global warming, not cooling.

          • HookesLaw

            For a start Kilimanjarois down to local effects.
            We are in an interglacial – we would expect glaciers to be in decline.
            There is record snow in Colorado – starting early after finishing late
            http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/colorado-record-snowfall-year-accelerates/

          • Angus2100

            How do you substantiate your claim about Kilimanjaro’s snow and ice retreat as not being part of a global trend? Similar changes are being see on every continent.

            Here’s the glacial changes since the end of the little ice age: http://i.imgur.com/F98icxE.png

            The number of natural disasters: http://i.imgur.com/1BMr5Kx.jpg

            Glacial mass balance: http://i.imgur.com/CgQz62y.png

            All this information is consistent. The only context under which climate science could be considered flawed, to the degree to which denialists claim, is that it’s the broadest, most cleverly orchestrated and most successful conspiracy in world history. So denialists would prefer people listen to their ‘real science’.

            This clip puts it quite succinctly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvsPXA4z8U&t=5m58s

            > There is record snow in Colorado – starting early after finishing late

            It’s called climate change, as local impacts may differ from the trend of global warming. You have no counter for the fact that the global ski industry is losing money due to erratic snowfall and shortened ski seasons. There may be some that are currently experiencing higher levels of snowfall, but you are disregarding the vast majority where then snowfall is worse off.

            Lastly, there’s this: http://i.imgur.com/3VPhmSP.jpg

          • JabbaTheCat

            “How do you substantiate your claim about Kilimanjaro’s snow and ice retreat as not being part of a global trend?”

            Go and look up the effects of deforestation of the lower slopes, and surrounding area, to Kilimanjaro, and then you will understand why there has been an adverse effect on the snow and ice on the upper reaches of the mountain.

            Hth.

          • MacH

            Angus, what part of the world “global” do you not understand?

            http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=313e458a31&e=c5b7f2141b

          • Angus2100

            The GWPF has no credible scientific standing.

            Do you have a link to a credible source?

          • MacH

            Eh? The source of the data is NASA. GWPF merely reported it. Now one has to wonder about your cred.

          • global city

            You really have bought into all the shit, haven’t you?

          • Angus2100

            Know that your ignorance s neither a skill nor a strength.

          • alpha2actual

            The Antarctic sea ice is expanding and has continuously for the past 33 years. Insofar as 90% of the the globes total ice load is sequestered in the Antarctic… you get the picture.

          • rtj1211

            And you are seriously expecting us to trust you when all the efforts being proposed have 0.002 effect on temperature but will cost £1trn or more this centurty??

            You have the credibility of a polar bear at the equator.

          • Angus2100

            Adaptation will continue to increase, year on year. We can see the changes taking place in the insurance industry across the globe, where they are having no choice but to increase premiums to cover extreme climatic events.

            Mitigation is a wiser approach than adaptation. If we let things continue with business as usual, then adaptation (and damage costs) are likely to rise to 20% Global GDP per year.

            We all know how we got into this mess. So we cannot claim there’s no way to mitigate. There are countless options, as individuals and communities, to reduce our impact.

            Major flooding this year alone:

            – Boulder, Colorado. worst flooding in 100 years
            – Calgary, Canada. worst flooding since 1902
            – France. worst flooding for decades
            – Northern India. worst flooding 50 years
            – Passau, Germany. worst flooding in 500 years
            – Prague. worst flooding for decades
            – Queensland, Australia

            – Beijing, China. worst rain in 60 years

            This isn’t normal. So don’t claim it is. And don’t claim that you don’t have a clue about why these extreme weather events are occurring more now, than they did a decade ago.

          • HookesLaw

            And the link is?
            There is none.
            What evidence other than a few headlines do you have for unusual climate events?
            What evidence do you have that flooding is caused by climate as opposed to urbanisation and mass warer run off or building on flood planes?

            This year is the lowest atlantic hurricane season in 45 years

          • Angus2100

            > And the link is?

            There is a long term trend of increase atmospheric water vapour concentrations. This is consistent with warming oceans.

            > What evidence other than a few headlines do you
            > have for unusual climate events?

            If you understood probability, then you would appreciate this: http://i.imgur.com/qFLPDKf.png

            These extreme weather events are happening in the context of a warmer planet. If there are a dozen hundred-year climate events, at a specific location, then understanding that they are occurring in the context of a warmer planet, there’s a higher probability that each extreme event can be attributed to global warming.

            > What evidence do you have that flooding is caused by
            > climate as opposed to urbanisation and mass warer run
            > off or building on flood planes?

            The rainfall depth measured at meteorological stations show the trend of increasing rainfall

            > This year is the lowest atlantic hurricane season
            > in 45 years

            You only mention the Atlantic ocean? What trend are you trying to deduced from a single year deviation?

            ——

            I can clearly see that you are trying to gather whatever scraps to make a plausible case. A bit like this: http://i.imgur.com/ZkyLCQ5.gif

          • HookesLaw

            What climate change? There has been no global warming for 17 years.
            You spout garbage. Why is a slowly warming climate so disastrous?

          • Angus2100

            This will clarify things for you: http://i.imgur.com/E2eKP7L.jpg

            The most extreme effects are being felt in the poorest countries. If the food price goes up slightly, then what do we care, living in developed westernized countries is generally quite comfortable. we’ll always have food on the table and a roof over our heads.

            For those people who live on the breadline, if their subsistence crops fail, or they can no longer afford the increase in food prices. What do you think will happen to those people????

            The WHO has shown that 150,000 people die annually, directly caused by climate change related stressors.

            You do not know your subject well enough, and you rely on overly simplistic reductions made by unqualified commentators in the media. That is not real science.

          • global city

            I notice a distinct shift in your approach, from the ‘scientific’ certainty to the moral pleading?

            Nobody has died from CAGW.

            hundreds of thousands die every year due to cold… extra deaths, every cold winter. As the bills begin to come in in order to ‘tackle global warming’ these will only increase…. and just to think, we are only at the start of this mad, ecodream.

          • Angus2100

            A number of people, naively think, that climate change is only about science. No, it’s not!

            Science has shown a very high probability of risk of harm.

            Ethics state, given the risks and causes of harm, what if any action should be taken.

            Ethics and law, gives guidance about how responsibilities and human rights relating to the risks and causes be handled.

            Economics and ethics helps in guiding how money and resources should be apportioned towards mitigation and adaptation.

            If you don’t want to believe, whilst sitting in relatively comfortable home in a developed country, that 150,000 people die annually, then you are in effect supporting denying people their most basic human rights.

          • global city

            and the whole moral blackmail of those who wish to control the world rests on demands of the sort you have just made.

            It STILL doesn’t make the scientific claims stack up for the warmists.

            try and think through this problem. If the science was so cut and dried then why have those at the very heart of the hypothesis manipulated and adulterated the stats, the data, the models and the results?

          • Angus2100

            > hypothesis manipulated and adulterated the stats,
            > the data, the models and the results

            One formal inquiry after the next has shown the allegations of professional misconduct to be entirely without basis.

            Are you now going to claim that the legal system is flawed too?

          • global city

            Really?

            Please provide a link to any reporting on these formal inquiries?

            If what you assert had any basis in truth then those who had originally made the claims of manipulation would have been lambasted all over the media, in the way that anyone who has put their head over the parapet has been denounced, Great Leap Forward style.

            Please list as many as possible, as I’m sure greater authorities than I will be able to knock them sideways when they see them.

        • PlasteringPaver

          that reply was like a dagger in my heart……

        • PlasteringPaver

          so what should have been my reply? i havent got time to study climate change. all i can do is look at whats presented to me as a member of the public. all that i see is a phony reason to tax me even more….

          • Joe G

            And have you truly looked at all the evidence presented to you as a member of the public? If you haven’t got time to look at an issue, how can you make conclusions about it? Make time for it, it’s important.

            You don’t need scientific credentials to investigate the evidence further, to be more of an interpreter rather than an interpreter of interpretations. You just need a healthy intellectual curiosity. Of course, the Regius Professor of Global Warming at the University of Climate Change will always know immeasurably more than you, but you should look at the scientific evidence more yourself.

            I think we’d both agree that this is an important issue, whether you think it really exists or you think it’s a liberal conspiracy to tax you to the hilt. Either way, it matters. Assess the evidence directly, don’t read conspiracy into the presentation of various opinions and what agenda they might represent.

          • Angus2100

            I understand. But lacking some knowledge about the subject will make it difficult to discern between what is right and what is wrong. On the face of it we’re all paying higher taxes, and we’re all already paying high taxes on other things.

            To a large number of people, climate change appears to be irrelevant in their day to days lives. It’s effects appear to be happening in far off distant countries, and the worst risks appear to be quite a long way off. The conclusion they usually come to is that CC is neither actionable nor perceptible and is therefore irrelevant. When people have to drive their kids to school soon and plan their next holidays, they then say that they have far too many other things to worry about.

            We must not forget that the ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to it’s children. Towards the second half of this century we run the risk of making extreme climatic events the norm, flooding low lying areas, crop failure, increasing conflict caused by climate related stressors etc. (remember the heat wave in Europe during 2003, it had a death toll of 70,000).

            We owe it to our kids to at least not pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. even just a few years ago people would very rarely want to talk about climate change. I’m now finding people will voluntarily raise the subject, to try and understand things better. This is the direction we need to go in.

            Also, in most countries solar energy has reached price parity (it’s as cheap as or cheaper than getting electricity from the grid), people can start saving money after 6-7 years, which can go towards the children’s education etc.. Showing benefits of action whilst reducing barriers to change.

          • Sheumais

            Did you read this article or did you just instantly adopt attack mode when you saw the author’s name? Do you understand how publishing magazines works?

          • Angus2100

            Honestly, I read the first couple of paragraphs, then quit.

          • Sheumais

            Then you have confirmed the value of your comment.

          • Baron

            Read it again, Angus2100, and move you lips, it may help.

          • rtj1211

            I have read a great deal about it and I am still skeptical.

            Here are a few questions I’d like to ask you:

            1. At what concentrations of carbon dioxide do absorption of radiation lead to linear increases in temperature and beyond which do increases become asymptotic?
            2. Why do the alarmists make so much of manual thermometer records which are the least accurate and reliable over their time of use, when satellite-based measurements, radiosonde-based measurements suggest rather less reason for alarm?
            3. Why did the alarmists deny the importance of oceanic parameters until recently, trashing those ‘deniers’ who raised a legitimate scientific issue? Why are they allowed to assimilate that into their continued trashing of ‘deniers’, when they were ‘deniers’ themselves about the role of oceans in climatology?
            4. What evidence do you have that computer models are ever going to predict climate accurately?
            5. What evidence do you have that the ‘global warming’ since the Little Ice Age has been anything other than beneficial for humankind? Would you prefer to go back to dying in the cold??
            6. Do you consider the skepticism of John Christy to be incompatible with him co-ordinating the satellite temperature record since 1979??
            7. Can you distinguish the ‘blackbody’ physics lessons from a multiphase complex system called ‘earth’s climate’?

          • salieri

            “We must not forget that the ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to it’s [sic] children.”
            Phoney, tendentious, mock-caring, prescriptive, self-referential Telemachian claptrap: circular, meaningless and also untrue.

          • Angus2100

            You’re a self-serving individualist then?

          • global city

            and that is what it really all is about.

            It is a political/moral/philosophical issue in the end… and nothing to do with science. The nascent hypothesis of AGW was hijacked almost instantly by the deep greens and commie sorts.

          • Angus2100

            You are fearful, aren’t you? fearful of ‘commies’? fearful of your lifestyle needing to change? fearful of your community having to change? fearful of what risks lie ahead?

            With all of the comments you have made so far, paints a clear picture of where you stand:

            [Me] [Science] [Healthy Scientific Skeptic – has issue with a few things science has to say about a subject]
            .
            .
            .
            .
            .
            [Dubious skeptic – refutes many things that science claims about a subject]
            .
            .
            .
            .
            .
            [You] [Denialist – refutes almost everything science has to say about a subject]

          • MacH

            Angus2100, I would like to see you get into a debate with the poster above named “FreetheCO2”. I have a feeling he would trounce you with solid physics. Not that you would ever admit to being trounced. You’ve shown a remarkable degree of closed mindedness here.

          • Angus2100

            Of course you are going to claim that I’m being closed minded.

            I was previously unaware of climate change as an issue, then I heard more about it. For a long while I didn’t pay much attention, essentially disbelieving. Then reading up. Then trying to understand more of it, then believing. Then denying again, as it was a way to improve my view of the future.

            In all conscience I returned to the subject as I realised I couldn’t renege on my responsibility to my kids, nephews and niece.

            I can imagine that your stance on the issue has never wavered from the norm promoted by the community to which you subscribe. No?

            So, I had changed my mind. So who is closed-minded?

            Even though FreetheCO2 has a laundry list of questions, I will try and reply to him when I have a bit more time

          • freetheCO2

            @Angus2100:disqus “Even though FreetheCO2 has a laundry list of questions, I will try and reply to him when I have a bit more time”

            You mean you will try to reply to me when you’ve looked up a number of stock replies over at skepticalscience.com.

            Bring it on. I am done with mithering warmie bedwetters, particularly the doom merchants and clueless mouthpieces at the BBCO2.

            If you are going to try to tell me that a cooler sky can make an already warmer surface even warmer, then I recommend you save your CO2 laden breath.

            How remiss of me: have a nice day.

          • Angus2100

            > I am done with mithering warmie bedwetters,
            > particularly the doom merchants and clueless mouthpieces
            > at the BBCO2.

            Are you getting emotional?

            > If you are going to try to tell me that a cooler sky can
            > make an already warmer surface even warmer, then I
            > recommend you save your CO2 laden breath.

            Rambling? Science doesn’t like rambling. Please be succinct.

          • MacH

            I don’t consider myself to be a member of a community but rather as someone who has researched both sides of this issue and come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is a false paradigm. It falls apart on the known laws of thermodynamics. It postulates that the Earth receives more energy flux from the atmosphere than it receives from the sun. How can that be possible? It isn’t! I think you need to do a bit more research in the right areas. Your community is actually doing a disservice to your family by subjecting them (and the rest of us) to massively expensive measures aimed at preventing an imagined future catastrophe that isn’t happening and can’t happen. We are all paying dearly for those measures. Climate changes all the time, Angus, and the small warming we’ve experienced is well within the range of normal variability and well known natural cycles. Those who claim otherwise have a devious agenda.

          • Angus2100

            > It postulates that the Earth receives more energy flux
            > from the atmosphere than it receives from the sun.

            That’s a bit vague. Please can you detail

          • MacH

            It’s not vague at all if you’re familiar with the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis as presented in, for example, the Kiehl-Trenberth [et al] Earth Energy Budget. Perhaps you’re not?

          • Angus2100

            With FreetheCO2 spending more time creating fictitious arguments, to support his case doesn’t give his standing any more credibility than your own. It may give the appearance of legitimacy; but his assertions still go counter 97% of climate science. His case is irrelevant.

          • MacH

            I don’t see you rebutting his “fictitious arguments”, Angus. But it’s no surprise to me that someone who argues from authority has no chance of standing toe to toe with an astrophysicist. BTW, all three iterations of that specious 97% argument have been thoroughly debunked.

          • Angus2100

            I have replied to FreetheCO2’s comment.

            Thanks for telling me that the source of misinformation is from an astrophysicist, since by definition astrophysics doesn’t deal with the details of planetary climate. Although with him being a scientist, I would have expected him to spend the care and attention on a subject, rather than coming to arbitrary, unjustifiable conclusions.

            Also, surely whenever any academy of science puts forward a public declaration of their standing on a scientific subject, then that standing would have been achieved by the agreement of the academics and researchers who represent those academies. And since _all_ established academies of science agree with AGW, the majority of those academics and researchers, by deduction agree with AGW.

          • MacH

            Two more lame arguments, Angus. First, in order to qualify as an astrophysicist, one must have a solid grounding in atmospheric physics. Secondly, all you’ve done here is fall back on another fallacious argument from authority. Scientific organizations don’t do science; they merely represent their members’ interests, one of which is shilling for more government grants. AGW has been a goldmine for “climate scientists”. They have a symbiotic relationship with politicians seeking new sources of tax revenues.

          • Angus2100

            Are you a conspiracy theorist? Do you believe that man landed on the moon? do you think that the US government was directly responsible for 911?

            And don’t be shy in reading my comment to FreetheCO2.

          • MacH

            I see that you replied to FreetheCO2 five hours ago. Perhaps I goaded you into it since you took so long. We’ll see what he has to say, if he happens to see your post. Your reply to me is just a list of red herrings.

          • Angus2100

            > Scientific organizations don’t do science; they merely
            > represent their members’ interests, one of which is
            > shilling for more government grants

            By claiming that CC science is a hoax identifies you as a conspiracy theorist. Best not to believe everything you think.

          • MacH

            Yes, I am a conspiracy theorist, and you are one of the anti-human “useful idiots” pushing the conspiracy against CO2. I see that you have finally responded to FreetheCO2. Did I goad you into it, or were you waiting for someone higher up the chain to provide a specious bit of flummery that you could cut and paste? The writing doesn’t read like you.

          • Angus2100

            Trying to Google for answers to those questions is not likely to yield much, as the questions are all mine. In describing the questions I had to spend more time and effort in the careful selection of words to be more specific and avoid ambiguity.

            Btw, naysayers of climate change generally fall into the category of being: white, male, conservative, anti-egalitarian, highly-individualist, with anti-environmental attitudes and highly distrustful of institutions. Do you fall into this category?

          • MacH

            The work is your own? In that case, you have my deepest sympathy.

            Btw, true believers in AGW are always trying to discredit skeptics and deniers by categorizing them in pejorative ways having little or nothing to do with climate science. See, for example, DeSmog Blog, skepticalscience, sourcewatch, and even realclimate. This puerile practice reflects more discredit on those who engage in it than on the people they seek to marginalize with disingenuous innuendo. Do you want to associate yourself with this immature behavior?

            Btw2, I’ve never come across a skeptic or denier who doesn’t believe that climate changes.

          • Angus2100

            I wasn’t trying to be judgemental.

            Would believe that just minutes ago I was as the London stop of the End the Fossil Fuel campaign, hosted by Bill McKibben and the head of Greenpeace. The main focus is divestment, and it’s gaining momentum, very quickly. quite profound really.

            I was reminded that Rex Tillerson, the head of ExxonMobil, earns 100,000 US$ per day. Doesn’t he have an incentive to keep business as usual? and he has also acknowledged that fossil fuels are causing significant warming. though he believes technology will have a solution

          • Angus2100

            After having a look at the reply to FreetheCO2, how about considering an alternative mental model:

            ‘A thickening blanket of carbon dioxide that traps heat’

          • Brent

            ‘Climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual
            about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice
            volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.’

          • Fergus Pickering

            Sorry. Which countries are these?

          • global city

            You have just perfectly illustrated the main drive behind the CGW meme.

            It doesn’t matter how things are, it is always about how things should be, and if collapsing capitalism and living more humbly is a result od a scare, even one that turned out to be wrong, it was still worth it…. ‘for the children’.

            The same children who would be condemned to lives of misery and poverty if we ruin tings so comprehensively in these times that they have no means of bettering themselves.

            Why not apply the precautionary principle to that?

          • Angus2100

            > It doesn’t matter how things are, it is always about how
            > things should be, and if collapsing capitalism and living
            > more humbly is a result od a scare, even one that turned
            > out to be wrong, it was still worth it…. ‘for the children’.

            Don’t lie. I didn’t claim that, nor imply that.

        • nealasher

          You mean a reasonable slap-down to the usual ad hominem?

        • Fergus Pickering

          Do you know what a minion is? Don’t use words when you don’t know what they mean?

        • itdoesntaddup

          Harrabin has a degree in English. Shouldn’t he be telling us about Chaucer?

        • grammarschoolman

          It would be just as predictable to assert that Paris is the capital of France; I believe people do so all the time. That doesn’t make it any less right.

      • PlasteringPaver

        sure i read somewhere that some volcano somewhere erupted and in a short
        space of time spewed out more CO2 than the entire human race in its
        existence had managed. don’t remember seeing or reading about the poles
        melting, sea rising and continents disappearing? oh yes, remember
        reading an article about how trees and plants where bigger now since
        there was more CO2 in the atmosphere……

      • Angus2100

        So you’re claiming that your being ignorant of the details is irrelevant?

        • Sheumais

          No, I’m pointing out your evasion of the facts as presented in this article makes you appear foolish.

    • c777

      “What is blackbody radiation and how is it calculated?
      What is irradiance and what is its units of measurement?
      What’s the absorption spectrum of CO2?
      How is solar variability measured”?

      None of which were reflected accurately in “the scary” model predictions which when compared to observed data don’t fit.
      Which tends to suggest exaggeration.

      How about its all just junk science?

      There fixed it for ya.

      http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.jpg

      • Angus2100

        Sorry to tell ya, but you’re naive. Science doesn’t work like that.

        • rtj1211

          Science works by scientists getting funding. To get funded the funders need to want to fund. So scientists must do work that funders want to fund.

          Lo and behold, if the funders want to hear ‘global warming’, the scientists who get funded will give them ‘global warming’.

          That’s how science works. I’ve seen it in biology, in physics, in climate science.

          Scientists sing for their supper.

          • ilma630

            It takes a brave scientist to refuse to go with that flow, which is why many didn’t and kept quiet. They need to pay their mortgages and feed their families. However, the tide is turning, and a growing number are kicking the ‘gravy train’ habit and speaking out against the junk science that is AGW and the GHE. Expect the ‘denier’ chorus to grow and grow – it will not now remain silent.

    • A totally predictable response from someone with very little grasp of the English language, the point that was being made, or anyone’s right to express their viewpoint other than their own. …..Pompous, presumptive and dishonest.

      • dalai guevara

        Fenbeagle, hold your horses. You will need to do more business with China now, whether you want to or not.

    • dodgy

      ..At a fundamental level, he doesn’t understand how the climate works…

      That makes him eminently qualified to join the list of IPCC experts, then.

      At a fundamental level, NO ONE understands how the climate works. And the IPCC has now admitted as much. The one thing we’re sure of is that simple calculations treating the Earth as a black body with CO2 absorbing and re-emitting radiation DON’T provide correct answers…

      • Angus2100

        So, no one has any knowledge about the climate on which any meaningful predictions can be made? And therefore we can just accept mankind’s fate as sealed and therefore giving justification to carry on with business as usual?

        All modelling, of any physical system, is going to have inherent approximations and some assumptions. We know this.

        Obviously they take into account more than just solar irradiance and blackbody radiation, vastly more. We know this.

        Do we know there catastrophic climate change will result from our continued ‘business as usual’ approach with burning of fossil fuels. Yes, absolutely!

        • rtj1211

          And the more crude the modelling, the less reliance should be placed upon it if billions must be spent.

          From a biological standpoint, what is amazing is that human life has lasted so long, the obvious corollary being that the earth must have very strong self-sustaining properties, which include plenty of shock absorbers to maintain conditions within relatively stable ranges.

          The starting point for common sense climate research, therefore, is not ‘disaster, disaster’, but understanding the feedback mechanisms which preserve stability, in order to understand what it would take to evade them.

          The evasions occur every time a glacial becomes an interglacial and probably any time that major tectonic shifting takes place, if a huge meteorite penetrates the atmosphere sufficiently to fill it with aerosol particles or if the sun went doolally and either went totally quiet or off-the-scale active.

          Broadly, however, we have a self-correcting, stable system.

          • Angus2100

            The probability is that there’ll be between 1.5 and 4.5 deg C warming by century end. With 3 deg C warming having the highest probability of occurring. This is based on expected population growth, fossil fuel usage and deforestation trends, as well as modelled positive feedbacks etc.

            International law and ethics states quite clearly that when there is credible evidence of a degree of risk of harm to people or ecosystems, caused by our actions, then we are obliged to act to mitigate that risk. Having a wait and see approach is not ethically supportable when those whom are most at risk have least contributed to the problem and have not consented to be placed at risk.

            Whether it’s the disposal of nuclear waste, elimination of DDT, banning of CFCs etc. we need to take the precautionary approach, and act in ways to reduce the risk of harm to others. In these cases, a country / company cannot claim that reducing / banning something should not happen because it would reduce their profits. It’s not ethically justifiable.

            Implementing CC policy needs to be based on the collective decisions of all stakeholders. We should not allow a well-off developed country to arbitrarily decide the fate of poorer countries. There needs to be transparent, comprehensive, international debate to form CC policy.

          • salieri

            “International law and ethics states quite clearly that when there is credible evidence of a degree of risk of harm to people or ecosystems, caused by our actions, then we are obliged to act to mitigate that risk.”
            More claptrap that you have just made up. Let’s put subjective ethics to one side – not ignore them: please don’t misinterpret me on purpose – what international law are you referring to?

          • Angus2100

            Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you have to label it as claptrap.

            Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
            the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and,
            the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

          • salieri

            I understand very well that you said International law. Quote it, then.

          • Angus2100

            this is tiresome. All this effort, for people who will just out-of-hand deny:

            The Universal Declaration on Human Rights identifies the following as entitled to rights protections that are relevant to climate change:

            (a) Life, liberty, and security of person. (Article 1)

            (b) Right to an effective remedy by national tribunals for violations of fundamental or constitutionals rights. (Article 8)

            (c) Full equality to a fair public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of a person’s rights and obligations. (Article 10)

            (d) Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence. (Article 12)

            (e) Freedom from being arbitrarily deprived of property. (Article 17)

            (f) Right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (Article 25)

            (g) Rights to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms can be fully recognized. (Article 28) (UN1948)

            The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) identifies the following as entitled to rights protections relevant to climate change protections:

            (a) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. (Article 11)

            (b) The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

            a. To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

            b. Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

            (c) The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health… The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:… (c) prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, and occupational and other diseases. (Article 12)

            The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) identifies the following as entitled to rights protections that are relevant to climate change protections:

            (a) Inherent Right to Life. This right shall be protected by law. (Article 5)

            (b) Right to be protected from arbitrary and unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home…. (Article 15)

          • salieri

            What is tiresome is your trotting out of impressive-sounding but vacuous labels, cut and pasted off some water-melon website.
            The part of your post that I challenged was the assertion that according to International law “when there is credible evidence of a degree of risk of harm to people or ecosystems, caused by our actions, then we are obliged to act to mitigate that risk.”
            I said you made that up. Quite clearly you did.

          • Angus2100

            When you start talking about water-melons I can clearly see you are sold on Delingpole, your mentor.

            You’re a waste of time.

          • salieri

            I don’t know about mentor (??) but yes, I agree with JD on this issue. By all means express a contrary view but you don’t do your side any favours by laziness and dishonesty. Or of course the careless exaggeration which was the subject of the article in the first place.

          • Angus2100

            I would expect you criticise anything I say.

            And it’s ironic that you would say that I’m lazy, since your inability to understand climate change science is a direct result of your lack of attention and mental rigour.

            But it’s primarily driven by your unwillingness to even consider challenging the norms and beliefs of the social and political groups to which you subscribe. You’d rather play it safe as its important to your sense of belonging.

          • global city

            GIGO.

            You have been programmed with garbage. A court case would easily solve the issue about who corrupted what data when, etc.

            Even a debate would perhaps clear the ground, but none of the top adherents of AGW mania will face any sceptic of note. You know the ones, eminently qualified to talk authoritatively on the science you thought you would hint at knowing in order to bamboozle all the obviously stupid and uninformed characters who ‘follow Delingpole’.

            your attempt to eliminate a tranche of your opposition in one snooty go has failed and your pretensions have been embarrassingly exposed on a well visited website.

            Good job that the internet aids anonymity hey?

          • Angus2100

            > A court case would easily solve the issue about who corrupted what data when, etc.

            You’ve asked for inquiries into professional misconduct of climate scientists. Well, that’s already taken place, and they have been shown to be entirely innocent of the charges you claim.

            Even though I don’t particularly like him, It was quite embarrassing to see Monckton being dismissed in front of a panel, as being unqualified and unfit to give evidence, and also that his comments had not basis in fact.

            Similar thing when Delingpole was interviewed by Paul Nurse, the then head of the Royal Geographic Society. Paul asked Delingpole a question, only for Delingpole to become silent, followed by him squirming and then immediately trying to divert the conversation elsewhere, to more comfortable ground, it was uncomfortable, ouch!

            Bit of a similar thing with Lord Lawson, when he was asked what his scientific credibility was. At least he was honest when he admitted that he didn’t have any qualifications in the neighbourhood of science.

            Is this the best denialist have to offer. Is this their frontline defence?

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “Similar thing when Delingpole was interviewed by Paul Nurse, the then head of the Royal Geographic Society.”

            After confounding JD with an irrelevant rhetorical device, the fool Nurse and his colleague Dr. Bindschadler of NASA then made a huge factual error concerning the contribution of mankind to the Global CO2 cycle, which the show’s host permitted them to get away with.

            Nurse’s colleague on the show Dr Bindschadler subsequently acquired a Disqus ID in order to post an apology on JD’s blog**.

            It was very noticeable that Nurse lacked the honour or courtesy to do the same.

            Funny how you alarmist bedwetters in your haste to denigrate JD always seem to forget to tell the whole story, isn’t it?

            But by no means surprising, just par for the course is all, after all, now your false religion has effectively collapsed, insults and lies are the only defences you have left.

            ** Herewith blog in question.

            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074031/sir-paul-nurses-big-boo-boo/#disqus_thread

            Scroll to the post that commences:

            bindschadler • 3 years ago
            I have submitted the following as a Letter to the Editor

            Naturally, I don’t expect you to acknowledge YOUR mistake (?) either, Angus.

          • Angus2100

            What? A scientist confounds a journalist with a rhetorical device, huh?

            Paul Nurse, like most scientists, isn’t particularly gifted at communication. He simply asked Delingpole whether he understood what a ‘consensus’ was, and then Paul went on to provide an analogy. Delingpole was speechless. he just squirmed and tried to change subject.

            A cautionary note that it’s embarrassing – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU&t=3m11s

            Here’s one with Monckton. It’s also so embarassing that I feel sorry for the poor chap – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvsPXA4z8U&t=5m59s

            Both Delingpole and Monckton are two of the best representatives that denialists can put forward to support their case. Can’t they do better than that?

          • jazz606

            I don’t think DB was either speechless or squirming. It was just that the the analogy being entirely specious was unanswerable. ………so he didn’t…..answer it.
            A consensus between medical professionals on how to treat a cancer patient might be consensual but it is based on established science not on established consensus (if such a thing were possible).

          • Angus2100

            There’s no evidence in any domain of science that is not vulnerable to falsification. And know that climate science doesn’t employ a process that is distinct from other domains of science.

            Consensus implies a formal, collective declaration of agreement. That’s what has already been reached in climate science about the primary forcings on the climate. Your perception may be that climate science is compromised in some way, is only because you want to believe that.

            Newtonian mechanics, for centuries, had been considered to be a complete and ultimate description of gravity, and along with that was the view that time was universally synchronous. The atom, the electron, the photon. These are all vulnerable to revision.

            Your wanting to create a differentiation between what’s called ‘established’ in CC science and ‘established’ in other sciences, shows bias. Established means the same thing to all sciences

          • jazz606

            “………Your perception may be that climate science is compromised in some way, is only because you want to believe that…….”

            I’m not even sure that Climate Science is science at all, but thank you for telling me what I want to believe and I really liked the Newtonian red herring.

          • Angus2100

            Your ignorance of the subject is neither a skill nor a strength.

          • global city

            That was embarrassing, but not for Monkton. he was railroaded. I have seen panels use the same tactics over and over again.

            is that really the only two demolitions you can proffer?

            Why not check out the other links on that page to the same Congressional Hearing?

            It is quite interesting.

            delingpole is not a scientist ans wasn’t actually demolished.

          • Angus2100

            We agree that it’s far easier to make an arbitrary assertion, than for someone to refute that assertion.

            Here’s a climate scientist being challenged by a roomful of skeptics. watch and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1771KJRxThc

          • global city

            arrrgh!

            They stray all the time from the core hypothesis, merely commenting on their own observations of climate variation and attributing these to CAGW.

            Secondly, they just accept the core conclusions of those who have worked up the hypothesis, without mentioning the adulteration that has taken place, in the modelling code, the collation of the historical weather records, the hyper valuation of stats that work for a warming trend and the elimination of those that could lean toward a cooling trend.

            They have accepted the .8 degree in a hundred and fifty years, with no irony.

            They repeat claims that the oceans are rising, getting acid, warming and hiding warming they thought would be atmospheric.

            and on and on and on.

            I’ve seen communists win over an audience, even though what they spout is absolute bollox!

            They are convinced that the science is settled, so generally do not even check to see if the things they assert beyond their own area of expertise has been contested, which most of it will have.

          • Angus2100

            Positive feedbacks are really quite simple to understand. I mean, ice reflects more solar radiation that dark ocean water. Does it not?

            I don’t want to be rude. But I have better things to do with my time, than waste it on trying to converse with someone who neither understands, nor is willing to put the time in to understand, climate science.

            Adios

          • global city

            Yeah, positive feedbacks are easy to understand. What the warmist scientist advocates have done however is to apply them to a system of which there is no evidence… and they amplified the affect they attribute to them massively.

            feel free to ignore my posts, fool, do not try to sign off with a flourish and a dismissal however, as doing that always makes the perpetrator look like the main arsehole!

          • Angus2100

            Satellites are measuring an averaged incident solar irradiance of 1368 W/m2.

            a) At a latitude of 80 degrees North, by how much is radiative forcing (in W/m2) increased if the incident surface of sea ice (albedo 0.8) changes to open water (albedo 0.06).

            b) Then, considering an area of 1km2 of ice at 80 degrees latitude that changes to open water. What would be the increased energy accumulated over a one hour period (in J), based on the radiative forcing calculated in a.

            c) Considering that it takes 2540kJ to boil one liter of water at STP, how many liters of water could be boiled with the energy calculated in b?

          • global city

            LoL! Well, I’ve just googled the answers to those questions, but if you want to know the answers yourself you will just have to do likewise.

            Just think of the terrible assumption that you have obviously jumped to in order to think making that little test was worth the effort…. dat must men i nowe nuttink.

            Better scientists than you have deduced that the calculations used by those who built the climate models have either miscalculated or, more likely deliberately exaggerated the amplification effect of those positive feedbacks … I take the word of those scientists, the ones who do not have a vested interest and have proven integrity. Who are your warmist heroes of the scientific method?

            I had better make an admission before you catch me out though, hey? I do not do my own climate chaos research!!!

            Do you?
            Get serious, you prick!

          • Angus2100

            I don’t know if you’ll be able to Google the answers, as I’d created all of the questions.

            The questions are devoid of any modelling. This is based on science that has existed prior climate change science being formally founded.

            So, I can see quite clearly you don’t have answers for the questions I’d asked and can easily deduce you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You instead rely on interpreter of interpretations and others who don’t really understand scientific fundamentals of the subject.

            Why not take a rest from the subject, and go back to watching your favorite Fox News show.

          • global city

            Arh! I see what you are trying to do, you tiresome troll, but all you have done is to expose your own insufferable delusion that you have some advantage in the subject. You also reveal your inability to appreciate or grasp subtle humour!

            I am happy to take my interpretations from an interpreter of others work, though I am capable of understanding the science as well as most people in this country, when it is presented properly. This how most of us get our information on this subject, including yourself I would suggest? Am I wrong?

            I am curious to know exactly what your credentials are in the science of climate change research and how much original research you have led? It must be really important stuff and you must be really clever to be able to cobble stuff together without even referring to the pronouncements of George Monbiot.

            Just in case you’re totally confused. I didn’t take a moment’s glance at your list of silly questions…. why on Earth would I have?

          • Angus2100

            I can understand your frustration of feeling defeated

          • global city

            How so?

            You have offered no killer piece of evidence that refutes the contention that CO2 is not the mega problem we have been led to believe.

            You actually fell at the first hurdle in your quest, even before you got onto me. You have made a number of serious errors for someone debating these issues on the blog section of a political magazine’s website. Perhaps that is why the rest of the usual pack of CAGW nuts have not joined in your game?

            I am offering my opinion about something I have built an opinion about having looked at all sorts of work, by all sorts of serious researchers and academics. I have not made any claim to extra competence or scientific qualification to justify my opinions, other than having arrived at that opinion by doing as I outline above.

            You however, have tried to dismiss the whole body of counter evidence and anybody who has been convinced by it by pretending you have arrived at your opinions by something other than researching the subject in the usual ways. I suggest that you haven’t. I do have the suspicion that you are not a climate scientist yourself… or anything remotely connected with that work.

            So you are just peddling.. or is that parroting, the consensus opinion.

            You clearly still believe all of the fairy stories that have been spewed out by the IPCC, to such an extent you feel no need to even give the counter research the once over. If you had you would not be so gobsmackingly arrogant.

            smileyface emoticon!

          • salieri

            Ah, so finally we reach the real agenda: “the social and political groups to which you subscribe”. What do you presume to know about the groups to which I subscribe, you sad little foreskin? Nothing: it’s the assumption of an illiterate poser caught out when stretching the truth. The only group I belong to is a choir.

          • Angus2100

            Do you live as a hermit? Do you vote? Do you have views about what you read in the newspaper? Which news channel do you watch? Do you believe in hierarchical organisational and social structures? Do you believe individualism is important? Do you have liberal views? Do you believe everyone on this planet has equal rights? Do you try and do good in the community by helping the less fortunate? Do you believe the less fortunate are solely responsible for earning themselves a better life?

            I believe that you, like everyone else, has definite views on most of these questions.

            Belonging to a group may be implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious. Membership of particular social groups has a strong bearing on whether you’re likely to believe in climate change or deny.

          • global city

            Look. You have to provide unadulterated scientific evidence if you wish to change peoples’ minds. as the IPCC can’t actually provide that do not get upset when your pathetic attempts to claim the high ground by cutting and pasting stuff fails to convince?

          • Angus2100

            The scientific community for a long time believed that skepticism was a knowledge deficit issue. They have fortunately realised, that in most cases what appears to be stubbornness to accepting facts, is merely denialism masquerading as skepticism. So they can now aim their efforts elsewhere. Trying to have dialog with extremists, is invariably fruitless. Better to reason with a more moderate, receptive audience.

          • global city

            That is pure, twisted political assertion masquerading as some sort of psuedo-psychology.

          • Angus2100

            Do you understand what the ‘knowledge deficit issue’ is?

            Why don’t people eat more healthily when they hear about the risks of a fast food, low nutrition diet.

            Why don’t people drink less alcohol when a government implements social education campaigns about the risks of excessive drinking?

            You get the drift?

            That is social psychology.

            see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model

            see “We Don’t Really Want to Know” – http://oae.sagepub.com/content/19/3/347.abstract

          • ilma630

            As we have just witnessed, the IPCC’s ‘probability’ is in reality a guess. They simply don’t know! All they have are computer models that are programmed with CO2 to increase temps, and guess what, that’s what the output says. A circular self-delusional argument if ever there was one. Computer models are NOT evidence.

            The IPCC have just had to halve their guess of climate sensitivity to CO2 but the real-world observational data is demonstrating ZERO sensitivity.

            The precautionary approach is very dangerous when based upon wrong assumptions. You end up doing more damage from unintended consequences, usually a lot more. Even today, the drive for renewable energy based on this precautionary approach has driven up energy prices so much that it kills thousands of old and frail who can’t afford to heat their homes. How many people were injured or killed in the last 3 harsh winters because the CO2 believing Met Orifice said they were going to be warmer, so causing non-preparedness (I took separate, independent advice, and purchased winter tyres – which proved to be the correct advice and choice)? If you want to take precautions, base it on solid evidence, and not the unsubstantiated ‘belief’ as AGW is now being revealed to be.

          • global city

            The precautionary principle has no basis in international law.

          • Daniel

            “The probability is that there’ll be between 1.5 and 4.5 deg C warming by century end.”

            4.5 is over half a degree per decade. Doesn’t seem very likely — in fact I’d be surprised if tempartures increased 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.

        • MacH

          “So, no one has any knowledge about the climate on which any meaningful predictions can be made?”

          Apparently so, Angus. Even the IPCC admits that all of their climate models have failed the test of accuracy up to now. Could it be that the basic parameter common to all of the models is wrong? That would be the presumption that global warming is caused by an atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The models appear to be casting doubt on that hypothesis.

        • ilma630

          A2100. How about a basic question? Define ‘climate change’, as without a definition with quantifiable parameters, it can’t be measured.

          Next, similarly define ‘dangerous’ and ‘catastrophic’.

          Then state ‘how we know’, with reference to those definitions.

          If your can’t measure these, they cannot be deemed ‘scientific’, and are worthless, invalid and even unsafe as parameters for governments to set policy, enact regulation and law, and charge taxes.

          Then state why man’s ~3-4% of atmospheric CO2 is ‘catastrophic’ when nature’s ~96-97% is not.

          Then state why CO2 is ‘catastrophic’ when (i) it’s needed for all life to survive (a benefit), and (ii) as StateWeShouldBeIn has stated, “water vapour absorbs dramatically more energy at the relevant wavelengths”.

          CO2 is a bit-player in the climate system at 0.04% concentration, is a good energy conductor (it cannot store energy!), and ocean chemistry is the prime determinant of atmospheric concentrations, i.e. warming oceans out-gas CO2 and cooling oceans absorb CO2, i.e. temperature LEADS CO2.

          • Angus2100

            ‘Catastrophic’ and ‘dangerous’ are subjective value judgements of the damaged caused to ecological systems and social communities. Science cannot make value judgements for us. That falls in the realm of society, politics and policy makers.

            The WHO currently attributes 150,000 annual deaths directly to stressors from AGW. And yet we are only 0.8 deg C above pre-industrial levels.

            An analogy. Someone with a healthy body weight, consumes 2500 calories per day. That person, without changing their activity level, decides to consume an additional 3-4% calories per day. On the face it, it sounds quite innocent and harmless. What will happen in a couple of years if that person continues to consume an additional 3-4% calories? Where will those extra calories go?

            Also, the climate is complex. Increased CO2 levels can be both the cause and consequence of increased global temperature. Skeptics don’t appear to have the mental model to understand the concept. Since warmer oceans liberate CO2, does that mean that CO2 cannot cause atmospheric warming.

            Following that reasoning, it would mean that any gas that is soluble in the ocean and is liberated on warming, could not in turn contribute to warming.
            Methane clathrates are locked in store, at depth in colder ocean waters. There’s no doubt that warming oceans will cause the methane to be released to the atmosphere. Do you deny that methane causes warming?

          • ilma630

            As ‘Catastrophic’ and ‘dangerous’ are subjective value judgements, they can’t then be used as science to create the argument that they are objective measurable effects that then require a response. It’s exactly the same circular argument that the IPCC uses with it’s models, when they program them to show a temperature response when an CO2 input is given, then say that because they show a temperature response to a CO2 input, that confirms the models. It’s not evidence, but sheer conjecture.

            Whether the WHO state one figure of another, it’s the change in the figure due to temperature that’s important, and colder weather kills more people than warm weather does, and look at the 3 past UK winters, ALL colder and harsher than forecast by the Met Office. Combine that with unnecessary green taxes and levies driving up energy prices, and you have a deliberate kill policy.

            Yes, the climate is complex, so complex in fact that the extraordinarily simplistic blame-levelling at CO2’s feet is extraordinarily dumb. You cannot have massive policy and tax responses by inference, i.e. the IPCC cannot say what causes the temperature changes, so therefore it must be man’s CO2, therefore we must reduce CO2 – dumb and anti-scientific!!

            Continuing on the CO2=warming theme, there is as yet no causal evidence that CO2 drives temperature, none! It is a massive assumption, but rather than actually consider other factors, and take a cautionary approach, i.e. let’s not rush into policies that may be entirely wrong, the IPCC flatly rule out any consideration of the sun and other natural forces, not just because they don’t understand them, but because they want to proscribe the political solution. You only have to look deeper into the IPCC, as Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise has done in her “…Delinquent Teenager…” book, to see that they are not a scientific organisation at all, but an overtly political one. It’s all there in black and white.

            As for sceptics, you will find they have a broad and more open mind than the pro-CAGW ones, as they don’t assume that CO2 is to blame but do consider the many other factors and forces that drive the climate, and also believe that the scientific method should apply, i.e. testing hypotheses with observational data, not trusting simplistic computer models. Remember, the IPCC’s core claim is that man’s increasing CO2 emissions are driving the global temperature up to dangerous levels – no more, no less. The fact that temperatures have flat-lined for 17 years despite continued CO2 rises busts that hypothesis in itself, but we come back to the definition of what is ‘dangerous’. All the related IPCC predictions have never materialised. But what do we see? The scientific method that abandons the hypothesis in the face of the evidence? No! We see the increasingly shrill squeal from those supporting the conjecture (as it now is, not even a hypothesis any longer) accusing those who don;t agree as being ‘deniers’, and a lot worse.

          • Angus2100

            Why is Mars at -50 deg C and why is Venus hot enough to melt lead? Know that the Earth is currently at an average temperature of +14 deg C, but would be an an avg -18 deg C if carbon dioxide were absent from the atmosphere.

            Question: How can science work out what stars and planets are made of?

            Why not have a look at scientific literature (even going back many decades, before CC was even raised as an issue). And take a look at the absorption spectrum of the carbon dioxide and other elements.

            We all know that ozone absorbs UV radiation. Don’t you believe its possible for other gases to absorb radiation in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum?

            Lastly. There’s a strong tendency for people in social and political groups to avoid deviating from the norms of that group. Those social forces largely restrict what you believe as being right and wrong, and between what is true and false.

            We must remember that we are in essence just tribal animals, with some, although not unique intellectual ability. Science is the best approach humanity has yet developed in trying to make sense of the world and everything in it. Divorcing yourself from science is the opposite of progress.

        • dodgy

          …So, no one has any knowledge about the climate on which any meaningful predictions can be made? …

          Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that if the IPCC predicted that the temperature would go up, and it’s been going down for the last 17 years, then the top world climate science organisation isn’t able to produce a meaningful prediction. So the answer is yes, no one has enough knowledge of how things work to make a meaningful prediction.

          Your turn…

          • Angus2100

            The temperature hasn’t gone down. 2005 was the hottest on record, followed by 2009 and 1998. Making last decade the hottest on record. 0.05 deg C / decade increase.

            Question. Beyond ocean surface and land surface temperature, do you know of any other indicators of global warming?

          • global city

            Articulate, well prepared (or is that versed?), wrong!

          • Angus2100

            Making arbitrary assertions about something being wrong is neither a skill nor strength. Please substantiate qualify your claim

          • dodgy

            Tell it to the IPCC, not us. They are the ones who say that it’s gone down and they don’t know why…

            Other indicators might be a tropospheric hot-spot? Oh, wait a minute – perhaps not… 🙂

          • Angus2100

            > They are the ones who say that it’s gone down
            > and they don’t know why.

            That’s a blatant lie.

          • dodgy

            “Most simulations of the historical period do not reproduce the observed reduction in global-mean surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that the trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability, with possible contributions from forcing error and some models overestimating the response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.”

            For the benefit of propaganda-spewing automatons like Angus, ‘medium confidence’ means that ‘we don’t know’…

        • Bosanova

          I admire your faith, for it can be no more than faith, but don’t share your convictions.

          You say: “Do we know […]. Yes, absolutely!” I’d say: “errm, maybe, maybe not, convince me as I’m presently not convinced by what the BBC would have us believe is “consensus” opinion. It’s their (and your) dogmatic “certainty” that raises my hackles and suspicions the most. As others have commented here, a genuine scientist would keep an open mind and, while stating current opinion/theory, say where doubts and uncertainties remain.

          I’m not a climate expert – but I have a career lifetime of building mathematical models, first as an engineer, and laterly financial models. This is what causes me to be sceptical about the certainty with which AGW proponents advance their arguments. With engineering models, our understanding of structural and aerodynamic phenomena (my area) is pretty mature/advanced these days (if not yet perfect), yet my models would still contain simplifying assumptions. However, I could get feedback by comparing with an actual physical model/structure/test that I use to validate my model. Climate models I would classify alongside many financial and economic models in that the validation of the model is not possible in a short time frame – we may apply all the latest thinking and theories, yet they remain still just theories, yet to be validated by the passage of time. When I build a financial model about the prospects of a company, let’s say BP for example, one thing I can be certain about is that it is almost certain to be proved wrong in the not too distant future as my assumptions are proved wrong by new events (change in strategy, oil leaks, economic climate…). But it is still my best tool (however imperfect) for making an investment decision.

          It still remains that environmental models, from 20-30yrs ago, that predicted a rapid growth in global temperatures, have been shown to be wrong. Perhaps two decades ago the AGW theories appeared reasonable given our understanding and empirical evidence at the time. However, the environment didn’t cooperate and temperature rises have slowed/stagnated. Yet rather than say “OK, our models over-simplified, or missed a key variable, let’s update and run the numbers again” the pro-AGW lobby (for, yes, it is a lobby) become ever more entrenched in their prophesies of doom – you must admit it stretches credulity.

          • Angus2100

            I appreciate your balanced and moderate approach.

            I haven’t paid much attention to the BBC’s coverage of climate issues. However, reaching consensus is a largely formalised, iterative opproach of successive refinement of all of the primary details of the understanding of the climate. It indicates an advancement beyond opinion and dissent, to become an accepted as knowledge of how carbon dioxide and other primary climatic forcings can impact the climate. That doesn’t discount the possibility of other partially unpredictable forcings on the climate from changing the outcome of what the models had projected.

            It’s unfortunate that when the word consensus is mentioned outside the domain of science, it tends to raise suspicions. I guess it makes many think there’s a group of scientists get together in a group, and over a couple of drinks decide to make a decision, a consensus.

            Climate models have a fairly broad range of projections for century end temperatures. Ranging between 1.5 to 4.5 deg C increase from current temperatures. There are various models, most of which have been trained on historical data. The outcome with highest probability is a 3 deg C temperature rise.

            The models include numerous projections for the increase in global population, rates of deforestation, energy use per capita, volcanic activity, solar activity, timings and magnitudes of positive feedbacks etc. And even the markets could make an indirect, but significant impact on emissions by throwing its full weight behind the promise of renewables. With solar already reaching price parity in most countries, its future looks every promising and much needed. Climate science fully acknowledges uncertainty in the models.

            When people hear about global average temperature, they usually identify with global ocean surface and land surface average temperatures. A less obvious consideration is that the oceans store close to 90% of global warming temperature. Beyond those temperature measurements, the upper stratosphere is cooling whilst solar radiation is largely constant, another indicator that the Earth is warming. There’s also sea level rise, currently 3mm/annum, which can only be attributed to thermal expansion of water and meltwater runoff. There’s also higher atmospheric humidity leading to greater rainfall and more flooding.

            Some people say that water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. And that’s true, however, water vapour stays in the atmosphere for a relatively short time. The existing carbon sinks (land, vegetation, ocean) can only absorb a limited amount of CO2 each year, resulting in increased atmospheric concentrations. The ‘lingering’ time for the unabsorbed CO2 is in the order of hundreds of years. The last time, 55.6 million years ago during the a period called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, that CO2 concentrations were particularly high, it took the formation of the Himalayan mountain range to expose enough rock with which the CO2 could chemically bond to form carbonates, thereby eliminating large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, and thereby reducing the global temperature.

    • StateWeShouldBeIn

      Angus2100, I have a First and a PhD in Chemistry from one of the top 10 universities in the world, so I can answer all of your questions, but let me ask you one- what is the point of your comment, other than sneering? If everybody without specifically relevant qualifications exited the climate debate, there would not be many people left (would you?), but the same could be said of most debates. Don’t know how to price an IPO or structure a CMBS? Well, shut up about banking regulation. And so on. Your reduction of the climate debate to a game of Top Trumps is hardly the level of debate you accuse those who disagree with you of being incapable of attaining.

      The use of climate change “denier” or “denialists” speaks volumes- it shows that scientific debate has been usurped by politics. You don’t hear those disagreeing with Superstring Theory called deniers. The idea that all the science here is settled is as ridiculous as saying that all the science on breast cancer is nailed down. I would agree that some of the dissenting voices do themselves no favours in the way they present their case, but there are holes in the climate change arguments- why have we seen cooling as CO2 has reached an all-time high? Why is the focus on the absorption spectrum of CO2 when water vapour absorbs dramatically more energy at the relevant wavelengths? What is the true contribution of solar activity? I could go on (and on and on).

      As you can guess, I do not accept the current view on climate change based on the evidence presented so far and am shocked that politicians have lapped it up unquestioningly. But as a scientist, my mind is always open- it might well be true but has not yet been demonstrated to anything like the level needed for scientific certainty. How many climate change “believers” have similarly open minds?

      • Thats_news

        Could this be that you are a real scientist, in the best possible sense of that word?

        • Angus2100

          His expertise of science is largely domain specific. Your belief that since he has expertise in one domain of science, that his position on climate change must be valid. Read up on ‘expert fallacy’. (see my reply above)

      • Angus2100

        Water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but its atmospheric residence time is very short; as in there’s precipitation. The oceans, land and vegetation are carbon sinks, however, there’s a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be absorbed each year. You should understand this?

        Although carbon dioxide is a less powerful greenhouse gas, its atmospheric residence time is of orders of magnitude greater; as in hundreds of years, that’s why we now have a carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration of 400ppm.

        Also, land surface and ocean surface temperature are not the only indicators of planetary temperature. More than 90 percent of global warming heat is absorbed by the oceans. When people speak about slowdown of Earth temperature they are invariably speaking on averaged land and ocean surface temperature, discounting the warming of the oceans. Are they are also discounting that other ‘slowdowns’ occurred during the latter part of the 20th century.

        Is it reasonable for a scientist, in any domain of science, to make broad assertions about the findings of other domains without first understanding the fundamentals?

        A denier is a term used by both psychology and sociology; why do you believe it’s a term that’s used exclusively by politics? And therefore assume that since the word has been used that climate change is a political issue?

        I could equally use the terms: naysayer, contrarian or literal denialist. Skeptic doesn’t describe the stance of those who attempt to counter every significant point of evidence that the Earth is warming significantly.

        It’s understandable that someone living in a developed country, who has little means to perceive long term, localised climatic trends. The causes of climate change are diffuse (emitters are global), the effects are diffuse (difficult for people to identify distant and localised climatic trends), the harm is mostly happening in poorer nations (people living in hotter countries and with fewer resources are less able to limit the risks caused by climate change), chronologically distant (the worst effects will be experienced by future generations).

        Someone living in a developed country typically perceives many more immediate, localised issues that need their attention: driving their kids to school, planning their next holiday, trying to maintain or exceed the lifestyles of others in their community.

        —-

        The only context under which the denialist view would be feasible is that climate science would have to be: central to the most successful, most cleverly orchestrated, global conspiracy in world history.

        Do you appreciate the trends evident in these graphs:

        http://i.imgur.com/CgQz62y.png

        Glacial changes: http://i.imgur.com/F98icxE.png

        http://i.imgur.com/qFLPDKf.png

        Lastly, the global winter sport industry is experiencing decline due to the long term trend of increasingly erratic snowfall and decreasing ski season length. Think about it.

        • CarbonFooledYa

          “..there’s a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be absorbed each year. You should understand this?”

          How do you know that? Ocean biota turns CO2 into carbonate which is fixed into rocks at the bottom of the ocean. The biota is alive and responds to stimulation and speeds up production as necessary.

          I believe the real reason for the CO2 increase is deforestation, not direct emissions. That human direct emissions cause the CO2 increase is just another unproven assumption in the climate alarm industry.

          “carbon dioxide…atmospheric residence time is…hundreds of years,”

          How do you know that? If all natural sources of CO2 (ocean outgasing, vegetative decay etc) were turned off, and we left the sinks on, it would take only four years for all the atmospheric CO2 to be sucked up. Natural sources and sinks in the carbon cycle are about 26 times bigger than human emissions.

          The endless lingering — the “long residence time” — of CO2 in the atmosphere is just another lie pedalled by the Alarm Engine. Earth has had carbon emissions and rates of CO2 increase many times in the past, and much bigger than today, and Earth’s feedback mechanisms kept the carbon in check.

          Turns out earth has self regulating systems including for CO2, temperature and so on. Jee, who would have thought, with life being on planet earth for millions of years, that planet earth was self-regulating, and wasn’t so fragile?

    • Baron

      We are reasonably sure what the density of CO2, the temperature were doing between the year 1000 and today. In that span of time, the two variables correlated only from around 1800 to 1998, not before 1800, or since 1998.

      Only a moronic mind would argue that the 20% of the correlative period is more important than the 80%, in which each the CO2 density and the temperature went happily their own way.

      • Angus2100

        > Density

        You mean concentration?

        For at least 10,000 years, the climate had been relatively stable. Agreed.
        Carbon dioxide is the dominant climatic forcing that has increased global average temperature since the start of the industrial revolution.
        If one only considers global averaged ocean surface and land surface temperatures, then the last 15 years would appear to be slightly off the mark, as it’s only gone up by 0.05 deg C / decade. Agreed? Although there have been a number slowdowns in temperature increase over the previous century. Do you agree with this?

        However, it wouldn’t be correct to only consider surface temperature, especially when 90% of global temperature increase has occurred in the oceans. So when you claim that average global temperature has slowed down, do the figures you rely on include deep ocean temperature too?

        Well I can answer it. They don’t. In making your claim you haven’t disclosed all of the facts.

        • HookesLaw

          The climate has not been stable for 10,000 years. That covers the present interglacial and with ups and downs its been slowly warming.
          In terms of why we have the ups or downs you might want to consider that pesky yellow thing in the sky.

          As for why we are in an interglacial and what might come next – well you are the know all, you tell us.

          • Angus2100

            Again, you don’t know your subject:

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/petit150.jpg

            I don’t want to be rude, but I have better things to do with my time. Last week I spent almost a full day replying to one denialist after another. It’s more productive to speak to more moderate, legitimate skeptics who have a greater understanding of science.

            Adios.

    • Teacher

      To Angus 2100:- From my position as a fully qualified scientific ignoramus it looks as if you know what you are talking about. It might well be that you know more than James Delingpole about what seems now to be characterised ‘man made climate change’. However, James, as a clear sighted, rational, first rate writer quite rightly offers the contrary evidence and views which science is always boasting it needs to evince the scientific ‘method’ which delivers as much truth as it is possible to know. However, in the case of climate change it is most suspicious that the global-warming-bunnies cannot cope with contrary facts or evidence and mostly seem to throw tantrums with their fingers in their ears berating the ‘opposition’ with epithets which are the environmental equivalent of ‘racist’, that word of all words invoked to shut down debate.

      Secondly, James Delingpole counters not just the ‘dodgy dossiers’ of ‘evidence’ but also those leftist, and environmentalist forces which seek to hoist the climate change debate to their own authoritarian agenda, an example of which, in this piece, is the undoubtedly biased BBC which promotes leftist propaganda from a near monopoly position given the latest statistic, that 80% of people take their news from the Beeb.

      Personally, I think that the climate might well be warming or at any rate changing (as it has done for millions of years within very wide perameters) but that a greater danger to mankind is the authority seized by the climate change lobby to bend, control and oppress on the back of it. Manipulation of the evidence and truth is but a preamble to the abuses which will follow it.

      If you read Delingpole’s œuvres complètes on the subject rather than just one article you will find he does offer evidence for his views and that while he is superb at comic ‘rhetoric and emotive language’, this is not all he offers. There is substance as well as style. And he does not suggest he is ‘right about everything’. Alarmingly, and what is such a give-away about the so-called scientific lobby, is that it is it is the climate change evangelists who think that they are right and that everyone should do as they say.

    • alpha2actual

      “The study, which used 39 climate models to make a single temperature index for places all over the world….” The operative word here is models, the IPCC is all about predictions and models which have exhibited time after time no correlation to reality.

      The updated edition of Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science – makes a compelling case that the computer models, hypotheses, and policy prescriptions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are at odds with reality. –

      • Climate models project an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3°C over the past 15 years; in fact, temperature stasis or slight cooling has occurred.

      • Climate models project an ocean warming of at least 0.2°C since 2000; in fact, no warming is observed.

      • Climate models project the appearance of an upper troposphere hot-spot in tropical regions; none is

      observed.

      • Climate models project late twentieth century warming should have occurred towards both poles; in fact, warming was confined to north polar regions.

      • Climate models generally assume a climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2 above preindustrial values, whereas meteorological observations are consistent with a sensitivity of 1°C or less.

      • Climate models underestimate surface evaporation caused by increased temperature by a factor of 3, resulting in a consequential underestimation of global precipitation.

      • Climate models represent aerosol-induced changes in infrared (IR) radiation inadequately, despite studies showing different mineral aerosols (for equal loadings) can cause differences in surface IR flux between 7 and 25 Wm-2.

      • Deterministic climate models have inherent properties that make dynamic predictability impossible; introduction of techniques to deal with this (notably parameterization) introduces bias into model projections.

      • Limitations in computing power restrict climate models from resolving important climate processes; low- resolution models fail to capture many important regional and lesser-scale phenomena such as clouds.

      • Model calibration is faulty, as it assumes all temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution has resulted from human CO2 emissions; in reality, major human-related emissions commenced only in the mid-twentieth century.

      • Non-linear climate models exhibit chaotic behavior. As a result, individual simulations (“runs”) may show differing trend values.

      • Internal climate oscillations (AMO, PDO, etc.) are major features of the historic temperature record; climate models do not even attempt to simulate them.

      • Similarly, climate models fail to incorporate the effects of variations in solar magnetic field or in the flux of cosmic rays, both of which are known to significantly affect climate.

      • Angus2100

        Your flaw was to rely on ‘Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’ as your source of information. It’s funded by the Heartland Institute, a pseudo skeptical think tank whose primary purpose, regarding climate climate, is to attempt to discredit any scientific evidence that shows the risks of harm directly attributable to our consumption of fossil fuels. (Heartland played an equally devious and immoral role in trying to discredit the science that was showing that tobacco smoke harmed human health).

        Why are your trying to promote the views of a pro-pollution lobby group?

        There has not been any cooling. 0.05 deg C / decade is not cooling. The last decade was the hottest on record. Additionally, there have been a number of periods during the last century when warming slowed, only to resume a long term warming trend.

        Why do you fail to mention these occurrences? Have you not seen this clarification before? http://i.imgur.com/xhnWFh2.gif

        Why not provide references to issues raised by legitimate research groups?

        Wall Street Investor Group Presses Oil Companies on ‘Unburnable Carbon’:
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/investor-group-presses-oil-companies-on-unburnable-carbon-.html

        Big Oil’s days are numbered.

        • alpha2actual

          Big Oil days are numbered yeah right, Each Gigawatt of renewable energy requires 900,000 Megawatts of standby,, this is basic grid balancing reality.

          • Angus2100

            Then go and tell Germany that what they have achieved is not possible. More solar plants are coming online that can provide power 24/7. http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/solar-storage-plant-gemasolar-sets-36-day-record-247-output-12586

            Companies and individuals are rapidly realising they can replace most of their grid-based electricity, with localised renewable energy. Even in regions that have relatively low sun-hour ratings. That’s the way the market is going, and that’s why Saudi Arabia is investing $109 Billion in solar before 2020. That’s why Warren Buffet has invested over $2 Billion, in spite of Buffett typically being weary of technology stocks.

            Power generation is destined to become decentralised, and in the process saving people and businesses money. Is that not a good thing? Big Oil, will suffer and suffer big, but I see that as a good thing.

            > Medieval warming period

            Was not a period of global warming. You claim it was global. Science shows it was localised.

            > no warming for the past16 years

            You get stuck on the point that you don’t realise 0.05 is not zero. And have you forgotten to mention that more than 90% of planetary warming is being experienced by the oceans.

            Q. Did you understand this graph?: http://i.imgur.com/xhnWFh2.gif

            Why are you so determined to deceive?

          • alpha2actual

            Germany’s agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start. When you’ve lost de Spiegle and the Economist on renewable energy it’s over and the BBC will follow.

          • Baron

            Angus2100: “Companies and individuals are rapidly realising they can replace most of their grid-based electricity, with localised renewable energy….

            Way back in the 60s last century, the Chinese Government urged people to make steel in their backyards, a fat lot of good did it do to the ordinary lives of people. What you’re proposing will lead to the same result. It’s an utter waste of resources.

          • Angus2100

            Honestly, why do you think renewables are the same as backyard steel? How do you justify drawing a parallel?

            These 3 graphs showing PV installation growth, Effective installed power and PV module cost, will clarify things:

            http://i.imgur.com/8T8nG0x.png
            http://i.imgur.com/JZINqY3.png
            http://i.imgur.com/gUE9q5v.png

            Solar is now well below US$1 per watt.

          • alpha2actual

            Commercial renewable energy projects are economically untenable in a free market environment therefore they must be heavily subsidized. As a result electric power consumer’s State and Federal tax dollars are subsidizing projects that will double their electric utility bills over the lifetime of the project. This has to be the most creative Ponzi scheme yet invented. If you are interested in this comment I really suggest you Google a New York Times article from November, 2011 entitled “A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search” that describes in great detail the “financials” of a large commercial solar project in California. This is a 1.6 billion dollar project totally funded by State, Federal taxes and Grants that guarantee a 384 million dollar profit to investors before construction begins. The money quote, P.G.& E., and ultimately its electric customers, will pay NRG $150 to $180 a megawatt-hour… that was about 50 percent more than the expected market cost of electricity in California from a newly built gas-powered plant. While neither state regulators nor the companies will divulge all the details, the extra cost to ratepayers amounts to a $462 million subsidy, according to Booz, which calculated the present value of the higher rates over the life of the contracts. Bottom line the cost of solar panels is irrelevant what is relevant is the cost per Kw to the consumer.

          • Angus2100

            Right now, I could buy non-subsidised solar and start making energy savings after 6-7 years. Money that could be put towards my kid’s education and other productive things.

            To put subsidies in perspective: The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011.

            For too long the fossil fuel industrial has enjoyed a privileged position of large scale subsidies. This can not, and will not continue. Saudi Arabia is investing $109 Billion in renewables by 2020. The markets, in Wall Street and elsewhere, are following.

            Do you understand the trends shown in these graphs?
            (The cost per solar kWh is dropping significantly, year on year.)

            http://i.imgur.com/8T8nG0x.png
            http://i.imgur.com/JZINqY3.png
            http://i.imgur.com/gUE9q5v.png

            The long term phase-out of fossil fuel has already begun, and unless if one could control the markets, there’s no stopping the phasing out of fossil fuels.

          • alpha2actual

            The preponderance of the Fossil Fuel subsidies are Tax Credits available to all business, including renewables, applicable to the obscenely expensive exploration and field development phase of the production process. Only a fraction of fossil production goes to electrical power generation. Therefore in order to make an accurate comparison, the calculation of fossil fuel subsidy are the amounts dedicated solely to electric power production. The US Energy Information Agency is the go to government source for unbiased data. Here is a listing of Federal subsidies dedicated for electric power production by source, fiscal 2010, dollars per Megawatt. Oil and Gas $0.64, Hydropower $0.82, Coal $0.64, Nuclear $3.14, SOLAR $775.64, WIND $56.29. You don’t need a Harvard MBA to grasp that there is something amiss here. Without subsidies and mandates this nonsense wouldn’t be happening in the US.

            Moving right along, 18 Federal agencies pissed away $22.6 billon in grants in research on climate change research and climate change abatement last year. Globally $359 Billion was pissed away on Anthropogenic Climate Change Abatement by developed economies last year. An amount found wanting by the warming hysterics who feel that $700 Billion is barely sufficient. And yes it takes both sides of the isle, the Crony Capitalists, Crony Socialists and the latest addition to the mix Green Robber Barons.

            By the way, check out how the renewable energy policies have worked out in Europe in regards to the recession. Spain solar has crashed, Cap and Trade market is in the tank, Germany’s offshore wind debacle, UK canceling all of it onshore wind projects, etc.

            .

          • Angus2100
          • alpha2actual

            Yes. I’m also familiar with the consulting firm that created them through the DC Law Firm I retired from, your point?

          • alpha2actual

            The health and uninterrupted functioning of international Fossil Fuel Markets determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only Exxon Mobil, and Chevron, and IBM, and Google, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, and Union Carbide. Those are the nations of the world today. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, it has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, to see that… perfect world… in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company of fossil fuel conglomerates, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

  • brossen99

    It all hangs on their pension fund !

    http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/green-taxes/

  • Rog Tallbloke

    Well said Dellers.

    • JabbaTheCat

      +1

  • freetheCO2

    The physics underpinning the atmospheric GHE are fundamentally flawed in the UNIPCC approach. The UNIPCC approach is to start with an assumption that average energy flux in must = flux out.. Nature doesn’t have a law for the conservation of energy flux; it does have one for the conservation of energy.

    By the UNIPCC approach, the temperature produced by sunlight at the surface (using 240 W/m^2 via SB equation) is capped at -18C. So, sunlight produces below freezing temperature and can’t melt ice, or evaporate water, we are to believe. The GHE needs to be created to explain the actual ‘average’ temperature of +15C. Does anyone believe, from their own experience, that that description of sunlight rings true? A +33C temperature freebie from a cold sky?

    Then they turn the globe in to a ‘flat plane, let’s-all-be-illuminated-at-once/4’ fiction. This keeps the arithmetic sweet but it is physically meaningless because it doesn’t actually happen. If you do it the correct way, 1/2 the globe absorbs a linear average of 480W/m^2, which gives a linear average temperature of +30C, which seems a lot more in keeping with observation.This temperature can melt ice and evaporate water. It generates the water cycle, which cools the surface.

    I doubt if anyone at the BBCO2 understands that, just because the atmosphere radiates energy, the radiated energy can cause zero heating, zilch, nothing, zip, if whatever it bumps in to is already warmer than the source of that radiation. Unless, that is, someone at the BBCO2 would care to make an argument to falsify the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Be careful too with the notion of adding fluxes, if you think this will also always result in a temperature increase. For example, if I were holding a suitably shaped thermometer in one hand, the reading would stabilise at body temperature (+37C?). If I then also hold it with my other hand (adding more flux), the reading will not rise above the original.

    Pics & numbers here:

    http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/09/25/fraud-aghe-18-conserving-wattage-not-physics-rant-free/

    The author is an astrophysicist (MSc). The article is a bit verbose, but definitely worth a read.

    • ilma630

      The author at climateofsophistry is not just an astrophysicist, but a working engineer on space vehicles, i.e. satellites, where radiative heat transfer HAS to be calculated and engineered correctly, otherwise hundreds of millions of pounds worth of satellite gets fried.

      The physical theory behind the GHE, or rather the absence of any accepted physical theory supporting the GHE is the position taken by the body of scientists at PSI, whose work is also worth reading.

    • Baron

      You are a star, freetheCO2, but a fat lot of good will it do. The political gnomes have got hold of the idiocy, and they will not let go. The scope for taxing the ecochondria furnishes is virtually limitless. They can probably devise a tax just on people who don’t buy it.

      Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.

      • freetheCO2

        Thank you Baron, much appreciated. If we have to win the argument by one brainwashed mouth breather at a time, then that will be fine. I am a patient man.

        You are right, They are well dementat.

        • Bellevue

          Freethe CO2……. what a name!!!! I love it….

          • freetheCO2

            Thanks Bv. I’m all for lightening the mood, whilst highlighting the special kind of stupid that believes heat can be received once and used many times, adding yet more heat to already warmer things.

    • Angus2100

      The IPCC doesn’t claim that energy flux out must equal energy flux in. However, in radiative equilibrium, a steady state is reached where the energy flux incident on the upper atmosphere equates with the energy flux transmitted from the atmosphere.

      Think of a cold nickel sphere (as in those videos). Where on heating with a welding torch, less heat is radiated from the sphere’s surface, until a point of thermal equilibrium is reached, at which point the amount of heat incident on the surface equals the amount of heat radiated by the surface. Agreed?

      In the absence of an atmosphere the Earth’s surface would be -18 deg C. Agreed?

      As carbon dioxide’s spectral absorption bands are primarily at 4200-4320nm, 2000nm and also 2700nm. These spectral bands are within the infrared region (700nm to 1mm). Agreed?

      In spite of the Earth being a cold -18 deg C, it will still act as a blackbody radiator with the transmitted radiation being dominant at longer wavelengths. We can see using Wien’s Law that a temperature of -18 Deg C (255K), the spectral peak of radiation transmitted is at 11370nm (with the intensity tapering towards longer and shorter wavelengths). This is consistent with a radiation intensity of 240W/m2. Agreed?

      Now add an atmosphere to the Earth that consists partially of CO2. The carbon dioxide will absorb a quantity of the longwave radiation that had been transmitted by the Earth. Once in an excited state, carbon dioxide will retransmit long wave radiation, however, due to rayleigh scattering the radiation transmitted by the CO2 molecules will be diffuse (equal amounts of radiation is transmitted in all directions). The effect is that heat (long wave radiation) that was previously escaping Earth is re-radiated in all directions, with some of the heat being radiated back towards the Earth, thus a further heating effect is experienced by the Earth’s surface.

      Along with CO2 there are other gases that have spectral absorption bands in infrared. These greenhouse gases also include CO2,CH4,NO and H2O.

      This is why in the absence of CO2, NO, CH4 and other greenhouse gases, the Earth would indeed be at -18 deg C.

      > Does anyone believe, from their own experience, that that
      > description of sunlight rings true? A +33C temperature
      > freebie from a cold sky?
      (‘believe’, ‘own experience’, ‘rings true’, ‘freebie’, ‘cold sky’. Huh? does science go against your ‘feelings’?)

      You made a scientifically meaningless statement.

  • dodgy

    Winter policy for environmentalists:

    Vote Green – Go Blue

    • dalai guevara

      vote blue get turquoise more like.
      DC does not understand what it means to go green.

      nb. I am not talking about bleedin’ windmills.

      • dodgy

        vote blue get turquoise more like

        Do you go turquoise when you’re very cold? How classy!

        • dalai guevara

          No Greenie goes turquoise when they are cold. They vote with their feet and leave a smaller carbon footprint.

          • Maria Sanchez

            Like Al Gore for example, with only 3 houses and one condo, ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet, and his 100 foot houseboat?

    • kate

      Watch No Global Warming, Earth’s Cooling, claim scientists. http://kwn.me/kt48

    • JemyNicolo

      I think I’ll get a second opinion? http://bit.ly/14FZmbd

    • SteveButtler

      Now the question arises “Was Hurricane Sandy supersized by climate change?” http://goo.gl/AqH3uv

  • “not a single one of the experts marshalled by Feedback — not even the great Jones the Snail himself — felt capable of challenging this proposition. Hmm. I wonder why that could be” Could that be because he is right?

  • Rodney G James

    You know as well as anyone, the BBC is no longer capable of being impartial, because it is following a n ideological programme of liberal politically correct metro views. Time to carve up and sell off this monstrosity and replace it with PBS of one TV staion and 2 radio ones in line with the original charter.

    • Craig M

      The BBC has never been impartial, that they even have that myth mentioned is testament to the pr machine. And btw despite appearances they are not left or right but smaxk down the middle of establishment. Whilst the left/right argue over their imagined left/right bias we miss the point of their shoddy output. Divide and conquer my friends.

  • mikewaller

    As a reviewer of TV programmes, I think James Deringpole a genius. Indeed my wife and I are currently enjoying every moment of “The Wrong Mans” (sic, and BBC2) which we would not have looked at had he not spoken so highly of it. However beyond that he drives me to despair

    For example, “Here’s what Professor Carter was quoted saying: ‘Climate has always changed and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.’” sounds wonderfully reassuring until one realises that these common or garden climate changes would, had we been around, had massive implications for human beings. For most of our history we had time horizons that afforded no conception of what had gone on in the past. Tragically. our growing awareness of what can happen has been part of a scientific revolution which has also resulted in massive capital investments in infrastructure and human habitation in places that are at very serious risk from, inter alia, climate changes of any causation. It is therefore more than just prudent to do whatever we can to ensure that it is not us that causes the next big shift.

    Then we have: “As Matt Ridley noted with characteristic verve and charm in last week’s Spectator cover story — ‘Panic Over!’ — the case for catastrophic man-made climate change theory grows weaker by the day”.

    In fact, Ridley – fresh from his “no tomorrow” catastrophe at Northern Rock – did not say that there would be no man made climate change. What he was arguing was that on the basis of data so far provided it would do more good than harm up until around 2080 . Beyond that the data suggested its effects would become increasingly negative. To this, I pointed out that given the sheer scale of the world’s climatic system, the notion that we could just trundle along to 2080 and then do something about it, was arrant nonsense. If we are to have any hope of insulating it from our emissions, we have to have started yesterday. From Ridley on this, “no answer came the brave reply”.

    I also raised another issue. One of the possible explanations of the recent slow-down in global warming is that emergent economies – along with ourselves – are now putting so much particulate filth into the air significant quantities of solar energy are being reflected back into space. In short, we may be witnessing a titanic struggle between man-made global warming and a man-made nuclear winter. And please remember (a) regardless of which wins, the latter is likely to make our environment deeply unpleasant and (b) developed economies abandoning their attempts to protect the environment from their activities is a surefire way of ensuring that their new rivals keep churning out the filth.

    I do hope James is braver than Matt in picking up these points.

    • Sheumais

      How prudent is it to base policy that is definitely adversely affecting people’s lives on assumptions that have not produced the predicted results? People are struggling to buy basic foodstuffs due to elevated prices arising from their use to produce biofuels, which consume more energy in production than they can reproduce when burned. Funeral directors in the developed world will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a cold snap in the winter that now won’t have to be as severe as the last one to kill those who can’t afford to heat their homes at even higher energy prices. That’s not prudence, that’s manslaughter.

      • mikewaller

        Biofuels in the form of maize has next to nothing to do with global warming. In the US is seems to be a racket for paying more to farmers as the expense of the world’s starving. On the wider point, higher prices are simply something we will have to get used to. Not long ago it was said the US consumed 60% of the World’s energy. Now those pesky non-Caucasians want their share.

        Beyond that, I think it insane to rely almost totally on massive power stations, nuclear and non-nuclear and remote renewable generation. I can think of 4 or 5 ways in which we could lose the National Grid for a prolonged period and without very local generation that can stand alone,we would be in an unimaginable fix

        • Sheumais

          “Biofuels in the form of maize has next to nothing to do with global warming.”

          I’m afraid you’re quite wrong. It is inextricably linked with energy policies, as it is categorised as renewable energy and the EU has imposed a quota for its inclusion in diesel fuel. Not that normal diesel is causing the planet to warm at an alarming rate either, despite many hysterical claims to the contrary.

          • mikewaller

            I know what maize-derived biofuels are supposed to be; I was merely expressing the view that their chief function seems to be putting cash into farmers’ pockets, particularly in the US. There, as a direct consequence of reducing the overall supply, the cost of basic foodstuffs went through the roof in Mexico with resultant riots.

            As for diesel engines, my understanding is that one of their main shortcomings is the huge number of particulates they put into the atmosphere. As I suggested these may, in fact, be acting against global warming but when added to the total amount of muck that is now being sent up, particularly in the northern hemisphere, the long term consequences seem to me pretty threatening.

          • Sheumais

            Whether or not that particular pollution is significant, the excuse used for imposing biofuels is global warming/climate change. Money and politics lie behind the imposition, but they do, at least, offer an excuse. It seems the excuse is not believed to have to be a good one.

      • alpha2actual

        The Ethanol program is a prime exemplar of the state of the renewable energy nonsense today.

        After 30 years and 40 Billion Dollars even the Environmentalists have turned on Ethanol yet the Crony Capitalists keeping pushing this boondoggle. Corn ethanol is a net carbon emitter after factoring in land usage, carbon footprint of fertilizer, fuel expenditure etc. Ethanol is corrosive and can’t be transported by pipeline, call in those nasty 18 wheelers. It takes 1 gallon of water to crack out 1 gallon of gasoline while 2650 gallons of water begets 1 gallon of ethanol factoring in the agricultural usage. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer per acre of corn which adds to runoff into the Mississippi then into the Gulf of Mexico which will have the biggest recorded dead zone this year. For comparison 1 acre of Soybeans uses no fertilizer. What’s more, burning corn ethanol in gasoline releases more benzene, a known carcinogen, and other toxic air pollutants that have been linked to asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments.

        The amount of corn consumed by this program could feed 570 million people. It’s astounding to me that 40% of the total US corn production is consumed by this moronic program and after 30 years Congress is just now attempting to shut it down by not subsidizing it.

    • Dougie

      Twenty years ago, climate change experts were telling us we were heading for a new Ice Age. Then they changed their tune. They were wrong then (according to you) and could equally well be wrong now. While we wait to find out, it would be a lot cheaper to invest in measures to mitigate the impact of any long-term warming than to attempt – and inevitably fail – to reverse the direction of climate change.

  • Western Guy

    Climate has always been changing. Warm-cold; warm-cold for billions of years. Putting up wind mills will not change that!!

    • Maria Sanchez

      At least windmills kill some of those pesky birds.

  • Bearspaw

    There must be something about one’s proximity to Drosophila that causes otherwise sane men to be stricken with climate fanaticism. The world’s most prominent Drosophila/climate change expert, David Suzuki, also believes that ‘deniers’ should suffer for there intransigence. Too many hours spent watching the little sex fiends multiplying, no doubt.

  • dalai guevara

    James, all year you have been pestering us with bird cull figures, peat bog contamination from windmill foundations and IPCC reports. All this was directly from the Friends of the Earth playbook, you have argued just like they would.

    Is it because you never had that PETA girlfriend and now find yourself catering for the ‘fully-grown’ Ukip clientele? Bjorn Lomborg never appeared quite so vulnerable.

  • bengeo

    Delingpole is trying to get onto The Drudge Report pages to boost his rating with his employer.

  • ClimateLearner

    Well said – all of it. Well done. Jones is a one-man scandal, a loquacious oaf who has not outgrown his juvenile leftism.

  • mikewaller

    Come on, James, make Boy and Girl proud by facing up to the issues I have raised!!!!!!!

  • David Prentice

    If I could characterize the BBC’s global warming cheerleader-in-chief Roger Harribin’s journalistic output: Doomed! We’re all doomed!

  • The Red Bladder

    ” Why can’t the BBC be impartial in the climate change debate?” Why can’t anyone? I am sure many of us would simply love to read an honest opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about and has no financial foot in either camp. Not really a great deal to ask, is it?

  • ohforheavensake

    Why can’t they be impartial? Because this is based on the evidence. And there’s a right, and a wrong way of interpreting it.

    And James is wrong. He howls and blusters, but he really doesn’t know anything. Having him in a climate change debate would be a bit like holding a healthcare debate between a qualified doctor and a man who believes that chewing seaweed cures everything. One person knows what they’re talking about: the other person doesn’t.

  • Day Day

    How do you become a millionaire? First become a billionaire, then invest in green energy.

    • Angus2100

      Ah, pleazzee!

  • David
  • Fergus Pickering

    Why does the Beeb…? Why, because it is the Beeb of course.

  • TwistedLefty

    i suppose i’ll have to wait a month to read this, as i have passed my limit of free articles…

  • gavmac

    Oh go on then, James – shoot yourself in despair.

  • Jacques Protic

    Long overdue for BBC to lose it’s coveted status and the never ending public funding. BBC must be privatised Still remember Robin Aitken’s book ‘Can we trust the BBC’ the answer then was NO and six years later it still projects it’s own agenda and it can never be trusted BBC must go and especially BBC WALES which is a vile organisation controlled by Welsh speaking ‘elite’ for the benefit of 10% of Welsh population – See glasnost.org.uk

  • AndyPlatt

    They do report it impartially. Climate change denialism is ‘so far outside the pale of reasonable discourse’ that there really is no need for their viewpoints to be included for a debate to be balanced. You might as well demand that they include the people who blame unemployment on pixies in economics debates.

    • Martin Jennerson

      no is denying that the climate changes. the bbc might like to be a little more impartial when discussing current knowledge of why it changes

  • alpha2actual

    It is a misconception that the Environmental Movement is benign, well intentioned, and monolithic– it is not. In reality the movement is extremely factionalized and schizophrenic. The legitimate players are the rent seekers, grant chasers, and politicans pandering to a constituency, the Green Lobby.

    The True Believers are the Transnational Progressives, Luddites, Malthusians, Narcissistic Xenophobes, Gaia cultists, Margaret Sanger Eugenics disciples, and Pathological Altruists to name but a few. Review your “Silent Spring” and the attending banning and restrictions on the use of DDT. The carnage visited on the inhabitants of the Sub Sahara, South America, and Asia is unconscionable. Read Erlich’s “Population Bomb” and the Club of Rome literature “carrying capacity” is code for disdain of inhabitants of Third World countries.. Science is intended to drive policy not the other way around. Policy driven Science misallocates capital but more importantly takes lives.

    These modern environmentalists, and I’m including the Global Warming Alarmists, are immoral and inhuman and have racked up a body count that surpasses 100 million and counting, 80% children under five and pregnant women.

  • Chris Golightly

    As usual, taking a very long time to say very little about something rather innocuous.Calm down Pole. Ridley’s article showed nay proved everything is going to be just fine. It was terrific. He has convinced everyone Climate Change is not happening with one piece. It is wind turbines and not really wind MILLS. Windmills were used to mill flour in Holland.

    • Dougie

      Not just in Holland, or even just in The Netherlands.

  • Craig M

    Don’t forget the go to Met Office who had Helen Chivers wax lyrical about how warm it is on the last 10 mins of the Great British Year (excellent until then) before we got the ‘changing seasons’ malarkey completely ignoring UK climate variations from Roman times including screwed up spring and autumn patterns. Yes plebs, Britain didn’t change like ever, everything’s ‘unprecedented’ because we haven’t bothered looking at historical observation because it doesn’t agree with the thermageddon we see only in models which represent reality oh so much. No BBC science output can be trusted when they add on pseudoscience to the last ten minutes and every licence payer should be refunded for the free advertising they give to an unelected climate quango supporting the vast climate ponzi scheme. The BBC support the elitist position, if only the left would remove their heads from dark brown places and actually practice half of what they preach they might get their imperialistic privileged heads round the barbarity and understand their complicity in the wholesale murder they are demanding so they can feel better. But at the current rate I’m sure if they measure ‘denier’ foreheads they might find a predisposition for climate criminality.

  • James McClellan

    EXCELLENT article, thank-you!

  • TheFirstEqual

    Why would the BBC care about accurate science? The climate change agenda involves “economic justice,” not climate science. The Developed World has to give up more and more of its wealth for the Developing World; climate change is merely a pretext for making this happen.

  • fiftysomething

    What were the BBC broadcasting in 1939 regarding the possibility of war? The problem is that the outcome of climate change is not certain. Should they warn of the dangers or just play it down?

    If it does happen, it could be more catastrophic than WWII. Preparing for it won’t kill us but not preparing could. This is where the climate skeptics will always loose the argument.

    • Not preparing for being struck by a giant asteroid could kill us just as easily as the scaremongering fantasies of Al Gore. Why put all the money into climate change? Even if it is real and man made, it’s questionable whether temperatures would increase enough to do much damage. The Earth is nothing if not resilient. And if it is causing damage, the UK’s contribution, however much we increase or cut it, is negligible. Considering all this, wrecking our economy and condemning millions to choose between heating and food seems an extreme answer. And if you absolutely must do those things, can we really not find a more useful source of renewable energy to put all our money into than wind farms?

      • fiftysomething

        I believe that even if the worst predictions on climate change turn out to be accurate, human evolutionary behaviour which puts the local clan or tribe first, will always stifle any global moves to curtail the damage, so it is pointless to try. Just let it play out and accept the consequences for the planet and the human race.

        I agree on wind farms – nuclear energy is the best option and accept the risk.

  • I worry less about the bias of the BBC and more about the standard texts for Geography in schools. From Key Stage 3 to A-level studies, every text book is filled with one-sided anthropogenic climate change propaganda, unsupported by any useful evidence, which eventually becomes a complete brainwashing operation corrupting an entire generation of school students.

    It is no good even attempting in the classroom to present the arguments for and against, and allowing the students to make their own minds up. Quoting what it says in the text book is their guarantee of passing the A-level exam, and the textbook keeps telling them how man-made climate change is relevant to every aspect of human and physical geography, in some form or other. Exam questions usually expect them to have the ‘right’ answer to anything involving climate change, and it is not scepticism!

    I have always been keen on letting students make up their own minds on unproven issues. Here there is no chance: we cannot compete with the overwhelming relentless bludgeoning of the textbooks and the exam boards who expect the children to only know one side of the climate change argument. It is outrageous.

  • dogsbody67

    And a couple of weeks ago we had Miliband’s promise to freeze everybody’s
    energy bills. But the BBC completely ignored the fact that it is Ed who is most responsible for the skyrocketing energy prices.when as the minister for energy and climate change he pushed through the Climate Change Act in 2008.

    There’s a great take on the BBC mindset in 1984 and also in a post called: “Trillian Pound Politician” at:

    http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/#!/2013/10/democracy-is-critical.html

  • Alexsandr

    i ask James to listen to Feedback that was on radio 4 yesterday 1630
    the implication was that we should only listen to those academics who believe in man made climate change because the science community says so. Seems academia think the rest of us plebs do not have an opinion worth hearing.

  • Stew Green

    Lying right in front of my face from a big “scientist” a big politician. Only cash would make so brazen? GreenHedgeFunds etc. ? Then 25/10/2013 Feedback brazenly repeating bias NO CORRECTIONS after we carefully explained last weeks bias ..cash there ?
    – Lower minions might be lying for “sake of children”
    -lower down might be genuinely confused , but there a strong sign there are powerful misleading for cash, whilst BRAZENLY shouting “look over there big oil people are funding the skeptics” (a smear never backed up by evidence)

  • Stew Green

    BBC is now so brazen it is really taking the P. Years ago it was little bit of bias, then a bit more, now they think they can get away with anything.
    – Jones & Bolton & producer should be in the libel court.
    – We could do a boycott TV day the day after your licence expires. And then have your partner buy another licence the next day ..therefore denying them of one days money (so not punishing much the depts which are not yet owned by Greenpeace)

  • Terry Collmann

    Yeah! And the Flat Earth debate! And the geocentrism debate! And the creationism debate!

    • Simon

      Agreed! But where as geocentrism, creationism and the flat earth theory have been proved to be false, global warming has yet to be proved true. So you look a bit / lot of a dick.

      • Terry Collmann

        No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with the statement that the increase in global surface temperatures in recent decades is real and is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and cry ‘la la, can’t hear you’, I hope you don’t live in a low-lying area.

        • Simon

          Has the cause and effect been established and proven without doubt? We know the Earth is not flat, we know that creation is via Darwin not Allah or God or whomever and we are aware without doubt that the Earth revolves around the sun. Global warming…….? But you put your fingers in your ears and hug a tree for all the good it will do. Give China a ring and as them about carbon emissions before killing people with green levies in the UK.

          • global city

            when people just repeat the same old ad hominem cliches you know that they don’t actually know too much about the actual subject.

            How many times can you write or state flat earth, darwinism, or cigarette industry BS without checking yourself.

          • Simon

            Ad nauseam. Come back when you learn A level English. Cigarette smoking can cause cancer. Carbon emissions might cause global temperature rise. See the difference?

          • global city

            I’m on your side soft lad…. though I admit my fingers slipped ahead of my brain!

        • global city

          It is you who is just lapping up the propaganda, rather than doing a little bit of digging into the real scientific debate.

          there is a huge debate, the science isn’t settled, unless you mean in the almost certainty that rising CO2 has not had an impact on the climate.

          It was a hypothesis now 25 years old and has shown to be wrong.

    • global city

      You forgot about the inter-governmental debate… an obvious fact that so many bible thumpers tend to overlook!

  • allymax bruce

    ‘The Beeb constantly resorts to ‘experts’ whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid’ …. James, you obviously watch Sunday Politics Scotland, Newsnight Scotland, BBC News Scotland, and their racist satellite franchise Channel 4 News! The news in Scotland is ridiculous now; God only knows how the tv presenters can keep a straight face!
    The fact is, it has been shown, for some time now, BBC are just as much a Fifth Column threat & danger to UK/Scotland National Security, as their other Marxist conglomerate cog the MSM. The newspapers up here are horrendous!
    Take away public funding from BBC now; I can’t stand that evil Zionist-Marxist tool of the Bourgeois Brainwashing Corporation!

  • Augustus

    “Climate has always changed and it always will…”

    And therefore it should be the job of the BBC to lend some balance to the claims of present-day climate change doomsayers. Because, despite IPCC’s models of predicted annual temperature rises, they have failed to keep pace with rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere since at least 1998, and it’s pretty safe to assume that if the IPCC’s past claims haven’t come true now, the claims being made in its current assessment report won’t come true either. The IPCC is no more than a political wing of the UN, often producing misleading, distorted scientific reports. Atmospheric CO2 has indeed been rising since mankind started using coal, oil and gas for industrial purposes, but during the Holocene Climate Optimum period (5,000-9,000 years ago), long before humans ever did much more than herd and hunt animals, temperatures were far higher than at present, and when, according to a 2008 survey, the North Pole was completely ice-free and there was large-scale melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

  • In2minds

    “The Beeb constantly resorts to ‘experts’ whose arguments are bigoted, feeble, fatuous, fallacious and stupid”

    But that’s their role!

  • amphibious

    Prof Jones is only a scientist whereas you are… what exactly? A barely literate hack, pen for hire. How do you sleep?

    • AlecM

      Dork….

    • Augustus

      Is there really such a thing as a 100% climate scientist? Or is he/she just a physicist? Many self-proclaimed climate specialists have often graduated in inadequate or irrelevant fields of study, and many have never even followed some study in the natural sciences and can therefore never fully comprehend the underlying matter (Al Gore included). Their judgments, predictions and contributions can only come through their limited capabilities to understand all the necessary scientific matter. Since they possess only inadequate knowledge it will be impossible for them to cover the innumerable mechanisms that contribute to the climate in a proper way in order to interpret a proper assessment with regard to the numerous aspects that must come into play. Therefore they can only interpret perceptions of a group of which they are part, and the gospel of which they have to accept as established fact. And it is this group’s basic dogma only (often political) which they and their funding are duty bound to uphold, from which they must never deviate, and about which it becomes impossible to be scientifically fully objective.

      • global city

        What so many warmists do not realise is just how few people there are at the core of the CAGW mainia. Very few scientists are involved in collating the historic data and establishing the parameters of what CO2 does (a mathematical guestimate) and then create the climate models to predict.

        It hs been proven over and over again that these core aspects of ‘the science’ have been utterly corrupted.

        And yet the freaks still believe in the holy word of the IPCC

        • Augustus

          The Earth is currently in a perfectly natural cooling cycle, and has been for at least the last decade and a half. The climate is very largely determined by far greater natural factors over which mankind has no control. The claim that human carbon dioxide emissions is the contributing factor to climate has been decisively debunked, despite the years of lies emanating from IPCC et al. And during the current cooling cycle, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has actually risen.

    • gfr

      Really?
      .
      You’re going to call Delingpole names because he is the one in a hundred journalists who DON’T believe EXACTLY what you do?
      .
      What a meany !

  • AlecM

    The independent academics are jumping off the fence on this matter.

    All we need now is for more UK academic physicists to accept that the current IPCC heat generation and transfer physics is juvenile nonsense.

    Also, with a little bit of thought, it is easy to prove CO2-AGW is near zero and that the recent AGW, now saturated, was from Asian pollution reducing cloud albedo.

  • rtj1211

    At the end of the day, it’s probably an issue of credibility. What would all those war mists do for a salary if they admitted they had been bullshitting for a decade or more??

    I mean, even if you used the journalistic ‘get out’ clause of ‘the top scientists said so’, isn’t the point of being a journalist to get a world scoop by proving that a ‘top scientist’, a ‘President’ or whatnot has been telling fibs, porky pies and trashing opponents right left and centre??

  • Aled Lumley

    You know why they support global warming don’t you? The BBC journalists pension fund is pretty much tied to it, their financial performance and ultimate pension value relies on global warming financial investments. In the same way you’re not allowed to say anything rude or racist on TV, except the BBC will always allow Top Gear to do it, because it makes a staggering amount of international money for the corporation. http://www.thegwpf.org/bbc-pension-fund-big-climate-investors-concerned-about-misinvestment/ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/156703/8bn-BBC-eco-bias

  • glentonjelbert

    I have not seen a single scientific model from deniers. They are happy to stand on the side and pick out what they perceive as difficulties to existing models that do not actually address the central points and somehow think that they are doing science. Even the flat earth society has a disprovable model (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_the_earth_look_like.3F). Maybe deniers should aspire to get up to that level of science?

    • gfr

      You make the mistake of assuming that the “Deniers” are required to meet the same level of proof that the Global Warming “Affirmers” are. That is a logical fallacy.
      .
      It is perfectly reasonable to point out flaws in the “reasoning” of the Affirmers WITHOUT coming up with an alternative model of what is happening (if anything). Indeed, since the Deniers deny that anything unusual is happening, just exactly HOW would they go about proving that? You can’t PROVE a negative.

      • glentonjelbert

        My point is not that deniers need the same level of “proof” (actually rigour would be a better word since science doesn’t prove anything). It’s that their whole argument is based on nothing other than a need to believe that action is not required.

        If you deny that anything unusual is happening (which is one of many denier arguments, some of which contradict that statement (eg “the sun is causing the change”) – the only commonality is that no action is required), then that’s certainly a statement that could be modelled and/or tested. Your assertion is like someone denying that smoking is dangerous, but saying that they don’t need to prove it. Bizarre pseudoscience.

        • gfr

          Your argument would come accross better if you didn’t constantly mistate what the other side is saying.
          .
          Nobody has suggested that the environment doesn’t change – it changes constantly. the question is: “Is change unusual, and is it the result of human activity?”
          .
          The Affirmers say that we are seeing unusual activity as a result of human activity – and they provide computer models as “proof”. But their “proof” doesn’t agree with what we are actually seeing. Based on “proof” that doesn’t PROVE anything we are supposed to completely remake the earth’s economy.
          .
          Forgive me if I think that we need more “proof”.
          .
          I have no idea how one would go about constructing a model that proved that nothing was happening – fortunately there is no need to do any such thing.
          .
          The smoking analogy is a red herring – there is GOOD evidence that smoking is bad for your health – something that is singularly lacking in the global warming debate.

          • glentonjelbert

            Perhaps you need to re-read my post? You say “Nobody has suggested that the environment doesn’t change ” as though I said that you said that. But I didn’t.

            The scientific argument is pretty simple:
            1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
            2. Mankind is putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
            3. The climate change that this is likely to cause will probably be significant and negative.

            This leads to:
            4. We should act to mitigate now rather than adapt to a potentially worse situation latter.

            Which part of this do you think is unconvincing?

          • gfr

            All of it actually:
            .
            1) CO2 is FAR less important than WATER VAPOUR as a greenhouse gas – but the Affirmers ignore water vapour.
            2) Mankind may be putting CO2 into the atmosphere but plants are taking it OUT – and they will do so at a higher rate when there is more of it.
            3) Right now there is precisely ZERO evidence that CO2 has affected climate – for the last fifteen years the earths temperature hasn’t increased while CO2 has increased significantly.
            4) Destroying the economy of the whole earth in order to prevent something that probably ISN’T HAPPENING by doing something that probably WON’T WORK is not a good idea.
            .
            Fortunately India, China and Africa will have none of it – Britain shouldn’t either.

          • Augustus

            Even some grant-funded global warmists have begun to realise that for the sake of scientific integrity it is best to tell the truth about where the evidence leads. A study was conducted last year led by the University of Colorado Boulder which looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning. They concluded (Nature, August 2012) that “Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them”, and that “The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon “sinks” that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth’s climate.”

            So, there are now even people in the settled science of anthropogenic global warming itself who are discovering for themselves that the argument is not about global warming not happening (even on a probable increasing marginal ppm scale), but about the claim that higher CO2 leads inexorably to dangerous climate change.

          • glentonjelbert

            1. The scientists don’t ignore water vapour. It’s an important positive feedback. This again picks at the edges of the argument. CO2 is the thing we’re changing, and which stays in the atmosphere. Also old and tired and well discussed if you cared about the truth (e.g. http://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm)

            2. The old and tired CO2 has a short residence time (http://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm). Increase in CO2 since industrial age is approximately equal to human emissions. Other arguments are just details. Augustus says that we’re only soaking up 50% now. That’s great, but it’s not actually the end of the climate change because, er, 50% is still going into the atmosphere. You say that “they will do so at a higher rate when there is more of it”. Great! This comes from…? Oh, it’s just a statement of belief to continue to justify inaction. Essenhigh made a similar argument, but the same journal has now published a paper overturning it (http://skepticalscience.com/ResidenceTimeEssenhigh.html)

            3. You presumably mean that earth’s mean surface temperature hasn’t increased. So despite decreased solar activity, we’ve stayed level at the highest temperatures on record, and other temperatures (eg ocean) are showing increased temperature and you’re trying to use that as a cause for celebration? Any argument that says we don’t need action will do.

            4. Destroying the economy of the earth? Another unsupported claim to justify inaction. The main difference between the economic models that say we should act vs those that say we shouldn’t is the discount rate. Implied in this is the relative importance of people now vs people in 50-100 years time.

            It’s interesting (though expected) that you question all of the arguments. You’d only need to win one. The trouble is that if you argue only one, you’ll lose, so you fall back to another. It’s like trying to hold a slippery eel. Like I said in my second post. What you know is that the conclusion you’re going to draw is “we don’t need to do anything”. After that, anything that supports that belief will be remembered, but not investigated too closely. If you do investigate it and discover it wanting, you’ll simply shift to some other argument.

            Is there any possible discovery that will cause you to change your mind?

          • gfr

            “It’s interesting (though expected) that you question all of the arguments. You’d only need to win one”
            .
            Actually I’ve won them all:
            .
            1) and 2) http://www.differencesmag.org/need-2-know/what-shade-of-green-r-u/430.html
            .
            3) http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
            .
            4) http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike132.htm
            .
            Is there any possible discovery that will cause you to change your mind?

          • glentonjelbert

            So just to clarify:
            -are scientists ignorant of these arguments or hiding them?
            -are these the best arguments you have?
            -which one would you be willing to stake your belief on? Choose the best, most convincing argument for discussion.

            For me, I’d change my mind as soon as you can convince the scientists of your view point on any of the four arguments.

          • global city

            You do realise what the ‘sceptical science’ website is about, don’t you?

          • glentonjelbert

            “Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation”

          • global city

            No. It does the same job for the climate hysterics that Comical Ali did for the Baath party in Iraq.

          • glentonjelbert

            A unique and refreshing perspective. So Comical Ali makes frequent references to peer reviewed journal papers? An emotive and pointless simile. But keep plugging away with these sort of sound bites if you need it to continue your belief that, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, no action should be done. Whatever you do, don’t engage in the science.

            Glenton Jelbert
            +1-949-370-5568

            ——– Original message ——–

          • global city

            That is just such a smug response.

            The irony is that, having just accepted the ‘science’ for years by the IPCC and the great agitators, I DID go and look at the science, in order to put some meat onto the bones of my work in the field of urban regeneration. There was a lot of stuff in the sector then about smart Growth and walkable communities, etc that I could promote better, if I understood the science of ‘CAGW’ a little better.

            A funny things happened though. I found out that there isn’t so much science at all, but! What I did find was tons of politics and corruption of the scientific method!

            Where I DID find genuine, serious scientific research and substantiated conclusions, was amongst those flat Earthers and other silly ‘denier’ scientists.

            Quite incredible really.

            If you are content to still accept the outpourings of the groups and processes that have been caught manipulating data to support their agenda then feel free, but don’t try to take the piss out of those who decided to investigate it all a little deeper than what the Guardian tells you.

    • global city

      It is not an issue of model making. There is a real world knowledge of the impact CO2 has in the atmosphere. It has always been known that a doubling of CO2 concentrations would lead to just under 1 degree of warming.

      What has changed is the warping of science to include all those positive feedbacks (that don’t actually exist…real science). This is why the models have failed to project accurately what has actually happened, whereas the pre ‘warmist’ understanding is shown to have been correct all along.

      The science is correct, it is just that you have been accepting the scaence!

      • glentonjelbert

        Okay. So is this something you are willing to stake your belief on? Can you give me a reference to the most convincing of the research that demonstrates your main contentions.

        Glenton Jelbert
        +1-949-370-5568

        ——– Original message ——–

        • global city

          O.K.

          just this week this turned up and gets to the heart of the matter in a number of vital ways.

          http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/28/the-ipcc-looking-95-foolish/

          I have linked you to the blog site of the investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, as she highlights both the science abuse, the ‘counter science’ (i.e. the stuff that concludes no CAGW, etc) and the politics.

          Donna was the main person who unraveled the politicised structures of the IPCC, so if you are genuinely interested in looking into the issue, her site is a good place to start.

          If the science and the scientific method at the very heart of the whole movement has been corrupted then you have to start asking some questions.

          If the IPCC are shown to manipulate the sources and the material they source then again, you have to ask questions.

          95% of what we think we know about what is happening to the climate comes from the IPCC summary reports for policy makers and even they get manipulated to such an extent what the summary says differs substantially from the more in depth reports.

          It is not just the hockey shtick which turns out to have been adulterated science.

          I found the shenanigans quite shocking….. and there really is much more honest stuff out there.

          the UN, governments and activist scientists at the heart of things have creates a mess and a scandal.

          • glentonjelbert

            Thanks. So just to be sure that I understand you correctly. The reason you do not accept the scientific consensus view is the troposphere data do not appear to show any warming, while the models do, and therefore the models are junk and the climate scientists are either hiding or ignorant of these facts. Is that a fair summary of your view?

            So you rely on (1) troposphere temperatures are not rising as they should, and (2) model uncertainties are sufficient cause to discard the science and not do anything about it.

            Is that a reasonable summary of the argument you find most convincing?

          • global city

            Oh, please!

            That is just one amongst a whole patchwork of stats and data that shows how real world climate differs from the models projections. As I said, ‘just this one from just this week’.

            I also explained why I linked you to that particular site, because it is chock full of further links to absolutely solid, researched and peer reviewed work that counters or places doubt on a whole raft of CAGW shibboleths.

            I also suggested tht you concentrate on three main areas, as this is easy to do.

            The flaws in the ‘consensus’ science that is emerging. In actual fact most of it has been available for donkeys years, but has been pushed aside by the maina.

            The counter science itself. Solid work, trustworthy scientists, eminent bodies, etc. It is out there if you look for it. The issue is do you WANT to look?

            The corruption, bad science and bad intent. The politics and the aggression, the bad practice and the propaganda.

            All of the above has been used in combination, often through the nexus of the IPCC, which is rank with bad practice and chock full of non scientists (as it’s name DOES suggest).

            To begin to get a handle on some of this serious issue you can use the links and resources listed on Donna’s site… which is why I sent you to her site as opposed to some other. If you google that graph you will see it is all over the internet now…but, Donna’s work is based on good principles and superb links.

          • glentonjelbert

            In other words, if I do find that the troposphere argument is completely flawed, you’ll just find some other argument.

            How well would you say you understand the scientific response to arguments like the one you linked to?

            You’re statement ‘just this one from just this week’ is cleverly crafted, because it suggested this huge body of growing knowledge. It ignored the 1000s of peer-reviewed papers published in climate science the other way, and is ironic because Donna published it yesterday, but Roy published it in June, and the data is supposedly from last year. Not exactly a fresh development.

            Particularly when it turns out that 1992 was when Roy first published the data from the Troposphere which seemed to be flat, based on his model for correcting for satellite position and time of day. It turned out to be an interesting piece of the science, and further refining occurred over the subsequent decade or so, eventually showed the flaw in his 1992 paper, and revealing that correct troposphere measurements are in good alignment with the model, as found by 3 separate groups. The 1992 paper didn’t create any deniers anyway, because it turns out that there are plenty of other, independent indicators, so this just became a technical detail in the scientific discourse.

            It’s a sign of desperation that these rehashed, technicalities are so central to your “belief”. None of them addresses the central points which I discussed earlier. It’s known as muddying the waters.

            And thanks for the links. I have read their writings many times. It feels like deja vu half the time. The question is: did you know the scientific response? If not, do you really have a valid opinion?

  • Marketthinker

    ‘The fact that the amount of Co2 has rocketed up… is a fact’ And so is the fact that for the last 17 years the temperature has failed to do what the models predict. Just exactly who is in denial here?

  • Augustus

    Since the 1980s climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. Industrial carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), they said, would result in runaway global warming with disastrous consequences for the biosphere. By 2100, they were claiming, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would double, causing the average temperature on Earth to increase by anything up to 5 degrees C, and in the polar region by more than 12 degrees C. But just a decade earlier these very same climatologists had predicted that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame has always fallen upon sinful human beings and their civilization, allegedly so hostile and alien to the planet. But atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 and other trace greenhouse gases. They are, however, often consistent with the changes in Sun’s activity, which run in cycles of 11-year and 90-year durations. This has been known since 1982, when it was noted that in the period 1000 to 1950, the air temperature closely followed the cyclic activity of our diurnal star. Data from 1865 to 1985, published in 1991, exhibited an astonishing correspondence between the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere and the 11-year cycles of the sunspot appearances, which are a measure of Sun’s activity. However, in 1997, it suddenly became apparent that the decisive impact on climate change fluctuations comes not from the Sun, but rather from cosmic radiation. This came as a great surprise because the energy brought to the Earth by cosmic radiation is many times smaller than that from solar radiation. The secret lies in the clouds: The impact of clouds on climate and temperature is more than a hundred times stronger than that of carbon dioxide. Even if the CO2 concentration in the air were doubled its greenhouse effect would be cancelled by a mere 1 percent rise in cloudiness: The reason is simply that greater cloudiness means a larger deflection of the solar radiation reaching the surface of our planet. Cosmic rays ionize air molecules, transforming them into condensation nuclei for water vapour where the ice crystals, from which the clouds are created, are formed. Without the greenhouse effect, caused by absorption by some atmospheric gases of the solar radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth, the average near-surface air temperature would be –18 degrees C, and not +15 degrees C, as it is now. The most important among these ‘greenhouse gases’ is water vapour, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases the most important is CO2, which contributes only about 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect. The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may only be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent.

    The climate is constantly changing. Alternate cycles of long cold periods and much shorter interglacial warm periods have occurred throughout time. In ancient times the CO2 concentration in the air was significantly higher than today, with no dramatic impact on the temperature. Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a few hundred years it was warmer than it is now, no great flooding occurred. And oceanic levels have been rising for some hundreds or thousands of years.

    • global city

      That’s just the point. our economy, our civilisation, our very existence is the new hyper-original sin… and we must be punished!

  • Doug Palmer

    It is Delingpole that is stupid, rude, fatuous, crabby, bigoted, ignorant, petulant, feeble, fallacious, dishonest and misleading. If you want to know why I stopped reading your publication, this is precisely the sort of guff that I can do without

    • global city

      How can you read anything whilst your head is so deeply buried in the sand?

      • bjedwards

        sand? I thought that was his ass

  • lukelea

    What do you call someone who thinks CO2 caused global warming will be catastrophic and there is something we can do if we act right away to head off the catastrophe?

    How about someone who believes global warming will probably be a good thing on balance and there isn’t much we can do to prevent it anyway?

    Which of these two opinions is supported by the preponderance of the evidence?

  • FenlandBuddha

    Fact 1 – human beings are putting CO2 into the atmosphere, measurably increasing the levels
    Fact 2 – CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    Fact 3 – energy cannot be created or destroyed
    Therefore man made global warming is fact, unless the laws of physics don’t apply to Earth for some reason.

    • global city

      The whole hypothesis hangs on the calculation of the efficacy of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      Because the known efficacy of CO2 does not produce scary results they have added fictitious things to the data and the models, they adulterated the historic weather records in all sorts of ways.

      It is basically GIGO

      And yet that determines the global response to CAGW.

    • SirTabby

      Pretty please dear, do not appeal to the laws of physics (or logic for that matter) of which you clearly know or understand nothing.

      For instance, from your (correct) statement that energy cannot be created it apparently follows that … there can be NO warming! Since temperature is the measure of the thermal energy in the system.

      Shot yourself in some appendage dear?

      • FenlandBuddha

        If you are going to try to patronise someone it would help if you knew something about the subject and didn’t make a fool of yourself.
        I’d call it a schoolboy error but I can’t imagine any GCSE level schoolboy making that howler.
        The Earth climate is not a closed system. Stand outside and turn to the sun. That warmth you feel on your face? That’s part of the energy hitting the Earth. Some will rebound into space and other energy will be kept in the atmosphere. The amount that is kept depends on the level of greenhouse gasses. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Levels of CO2 are going up. Therefore more energy is being retaine. Therefore the Earth is warming up – unless the laws of physics don’t apply to Earth or the enregy is leaking away is some invisible way

        • bjedwards

          dig deeper, buffoon

  • Tom M

    Delingpole, I’m on your side but I’ve just read your article and if anything was created to make me turn off the subject this could be it.
    Could you just get to the point a bit quicker please without several meaningless paragraphs that contributed nothing to your points (which I agree with).
    You have a tendancy to waffle or not get to the point .

    Next time you’re on AQ or QT try finding some ways of putting your (my) case across fluently unlike the last time.

  • EnemyoftheState

    Because the BBC is a BUNCH OF BLOODY COMMUNISTS – and uneducated idiots too plus some Common Purpose for good luck. You can trust the BBC in the same way you could trust Jimmy Saville to baby sit your children.

  • bjedwards

    Had he been quizzed on his specialist subjects — drosophila and snails — I expect he would have been absolutely first-rate.

    ————————–

    Don’t think I can agree with that James. Past performance predicts future behavior, so I expect his work in his chosen field to be equally lacking in scientific rigor and academic honesty.

  • JerseyCurmudgeon

    In other words, why can’t the BBC just be nice and turn off its bullshit filter?

  • Angus2100

    James Delingpole needs to realise that it’s the editor’s responsibility to keep errors of fact from publication. Kudos to the BBC for doing their job.

  • dog

    what is the point of this absurd character assassination?

  • Voodude

    Here we have some ocean, near the Kamchatka Peninsula, and off of Japan. The ARGO floats have told us that this area of the ocean is WARMING.

    http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2013-10/14_Global_averages.pdf

    NASA’s new satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, has shown us images of carbon dioxide…

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/first-images-from-nasa-oco-2-satelite/

    It appears as if the warming ocean is emitting carbon dioxide. Look for Australia and New Zealand… look at the ARGO data, note the warming of the oceans around Australia. Then, look at the Orbiting Carbon Observatory… see the orange, indicating the higher CO2?

    I’d post the pictures, but this site doesn’t have the new Disqus!

  • Inaba-kun

    Oh go away you foul mouthed obnoxious little troll. The BBC should not give equal weight to the opinions of climate change deniers because their options are worthless sewage. They’re not based in facts, they run completely counter to all the evidence. They’re the sole preserve of tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.

Close