Huhne heads for South Africa for UN climate talks (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Chris Huhne to attend Durban climate change conference
6:00am Monday 28th November 2011 in News
By Bethan Phillips, Reporter
Chris Huhne
Eastleigh MP Chris Huhne will travel to South Africa this week to take part in United Nations climate talks.
The Energy Secretary will join counterparts from 194 countries at the summit as they attempt to agree on deals to limit carbon emissions from developed and developing nations.
Campaigners have already lobbied Mr Huhne outside his Eastleigh headquarters ahead of his trip to Durban for the conference which starts tomorrow.
Around a dozen members of the World Development Movement gathered at his constituency office in Leigh Road to protest against the UK supporting the World Bank lending developing countries money to help cope with climate change.
The group argues that the Government should be giving the money as grants through the United Nations instead.
Mr Huhne met the protesters outside his office and was presented with a paper chain of messages of support from Eastleigh residents for the protest.
He said: "I think the broad message that we need to help developing countries with stopping climate change and adapting to the climate change that's already there is a very important one and something I agree with entirely.
"However, I think it would have been better directed to countries that aren't pushing hard for the green climate fund as we are - and we're very proud that we're making progress."
Comments(19)
The Outside Edge
says...
8:06am Mon 28 Nov 11
AndyAndrews wrote:More of our money wasted.
According to weekend press reports Huhne's going to offer Africa £1 billion of UK taxpayers' money over four years to fight climate change, money we really can't afford in the present dismal economic situation his government has done nothing to improve. Thanks a lot. Do us all a favour and stay in Africa...
The climate change debate rumbles on and on,,until the USA signs up to cutting emissions then nothing will change.
Huhne is an ineffective MP and the Governments climate grenda change is ineffective.
Waste of time and money
hulla baloo
says...
8:26am Mon 28 Nov 11
Is he cycling there?
Avery T Decanary
says...
8:37am Mon 28 Nov 11
Do I belive man made CO2 emissions has anything to do with climate change - no. And more and more people are coming to that conclusion. The 'proof' that the IPCC has published is now being shown up to be lies at worst and tissue thin at best. Is there a consensus among scientists - no.
The CO2 con should be shown up as that once and for all, the trouble is, governemnts are to embarressed to admit they have been conned, and universities are getting such big grants from big business and governemnts - they are on the gravy train and they don't want to get off.
The CO2 con should be shown up as that once and for all, the trouble is, governemnts are to embarressed to admit they have been conned, and universities are getting such big grants from big business and governemnts - they are on the gravy train and they don't want to get off.
Avery T Decanary
says...
8:51am Mon 28 Nov 11
This is a copy of a letter sent to Mr Huhne. I do not belive he has responded.
Dear Secretary of State
25 November 2011
We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions.
For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man's influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement.
In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind's influence.
Your faith in the conclusion of Australia's Garnaut Review – that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years – is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government's own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years.
It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) and that larger increases depend upon various feedback mechanisms. There is no convincing evidence, however, to support your assertion that the increase of the level of water vapour in the atmosphere (as a result of doubling of CO2) would (other things being equal) raise global average temperature by around 3°C.
In reality, the magnitude of water vapor feedbacks, positive as well as negative (such as increased cloud cover and precipitation) remains a poorly understood subject. Do you seriously belief that only 'one or two people' (sic) have published research that shows moderate rather than catastrophic warming in the next 100 years?
You do not seem to appreciate the incomplete state of scientific knowledge regarding these extremely complex feedbacks. In reality, most scientists will tell you that we do not know all of them; and that most of those we do know, we understand only rudimentary.
What is more, estimates for climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature have been going down. You and your advisers will no doubt take a look at the latest research findings on this very subject by Schmittner et al. published this week in the journal Science. This is yet another study that corroborates a low estimate of climate sensitivity and concludes that "these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climate change than previously thought."
Your faith in the integrity of the IPCC process is no less ill-advised. There have been three reports on the IPCC – by the InterAcademy Council in 2010; the recent book by Donna Laframboise; and the report by Professor Ross McKitrick published recently by the GWPF (a copy of which is attached). You and your advisers need to study all three as they all identify a common set shortcomings in the IPCC's scientific approach and its working methods.
The IPCC seeks to present itself as embodying the independent, impartial advice of the world's best scientists in the field. All three reports reveal serious flaws in this claim – its lack of transparency in how the so-called experts are chosen, its resistance to views challenging its orthodoxy, its lack of proper governance to deal with conflicts of interest, its excessive use of non-peer reviewed (grey literature), and its infiltration by activists from environmental pressure groups.
We are surprised that you have been so slow to recognise that the IPCC, which has influenced a great deal of UK policy, no longer carries the credibility necessary to persuade society of the massive changes it is advocating. It should be drastically reformed or wound up and replaced.
We note that you appear to be denying the charge on unilateralism in UK policy. This is curious as you and your predecessors were keen to boast that the Climate Change Act made Britain a world leader in decarbonisation. And you personally have been urging the EU to adopt even more ambitious targets, fortunately unsuccessfully.
Admittedly, you limit your claim that Britain has not adopted unilateral policies to "until 2020," but even this ceiling is at odds with the introduction of the carbon floor price which you wish to introduce in the next couple of years. This scheme most certainly is a unilateral folly which is already having a devastating effect on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries – which, of course, are also concerned about what is planned for after 2020.
In reality, the UK stands alone as the only country in the world to impose long-term legally binding CO2 emissions targets. No other country in the world is willing to inflict such unilateral burden on its business sector and economy.
Even within the EU Commission major concerns about its unilateral targets have begun to surface. The EU is now seriously considering to discontinue its unilateral decarbonisation in the absence of a global agreement.
Whether you like it or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has pledged that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral decarbonisation targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe. We trust that his promise to abandon the path of green unilateralism will be followed, sooner rather than later, by a less extreme and more pragmatic policy.
Lord Lawson
Lord Turnbull
Dear Secretary of State
25 November 2011
We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions.
For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man's influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement.
In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind's influence.
Your faith in the conclusion of Australia's Garnaut Review – that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years – is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government's own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years.
It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) and that larger increases depend upon various feedback mechanisms. There is no convincing evidence, however, to support your assertion that the increase of the level of water vapour in the atmosphere (as a result of doubling of CO2) would (other things being equal) raise global average temperature by around 3°C.
In reality, the magnitude of water vapor feedbacks, positive as well as negative (such as increased cloud cover and precipitation) remains a poorly understood subject. Do you seriously belief that only 'one or two people' (sic) have published research that shows moderate rather than catastrophic warming in the next 100 years?
You do not seem to appreciate the incomplete state of scientific knowledge regarding these extremely complex feedbacks. In reality, most scientists will tell you that we do not know all of them; and that most of those we do know, we understand only rudimentary.
What is more, estimates for climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature have been going down. You and your advisers will no doubt take a look at the latest research findings on this very subject by Schmittner et al. published this week in the journal Science. This is yet another study that corroborates a low estimate of climate sensitivity and concludes that "these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climate change than previously thought."
Your faith in the integrity of the IPCC process is no less ill-advised. There have been three reports on the IPCC – by the InterAcademy Council in 2010; the recent book by Donna Laframboise; and the report by Professor Ross McKitrick published recently by the GWPF (a copy of which is attached). You and your advisers need to study all three as they all identify a common set shortcomings in the IPCC's scientific approach and its working methods.
The IPCC seeks to present itself as embodying the independent, impartial advice of the world's best scientists in the field. All three reports reveal serious flaws in this claim – its lack of transparency in how the so-called experts are chosen, its resistance to views challenging its orthodoxy, its lack of proper governance to deal with conflicts of interest, its excessive use of non-peer reviewed (grey literature), and its infiltration by activists from environmental pressure groups.
We are surprised that you have been so slow to recognise that the IPCC, which has influenced a great deal of UK policy, no longer carries the credibility necessary to persuade society of the massive changes it is advocating. It should be drastically reformed or wound up and replaced.
We note that you appear to be denying the charge on unilateralism in UK policy. This is curious as you and your predecessors were keen to boast that the Climate Change Act made Britain a world leader in decarbonisation. And you personally have been urging the EU to adopt even more ambitious targets, fortunately unsuccessfully.
Admittedly, you limit your claim that Britain has not adopted unilateral policies to "until 2020," but even this ceiling is at odds with the introduction of the carbon floor price which you wish to introduce in the next couple of years. This scheme most certainly is a unilateral folly which is already having a devastating effect on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries – which, of course, are also concerned about what is planned for after 2020.
In reality, the UK stands alone as the only country in the world to impose long-term legally binding CO2 emissions targets. No other country in the world is willing to inflict such unilateral burden on its business sector and economy.
Even within the EU Commission major concerns about its unilateral targets have begun to surface. The EU is now seriously considering to discontinue its unilateral decarbonisation in the absence of a global agreement.
Whether you like it or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has pledged that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral decarbonisation targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe. We trust that his promise to abandon the path of green unilateralism will be followed, sooner rather than later, by a less extreme and more pragmatic policy.
Lord Lawson
Lord Turnbull
freefinker
says...
10:10am Mon 28 Nov 11
.. ah, yes. Let’s have a look.
LORD LAWSON, politician, ex Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scientific qualifications - zero. On 23 November 2009 Lord Lawson announced the launch of a new think tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
LORD TURNBULL, ex civil servant and cabinet secretary. Scientific qualifications - zero. A trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which in 2011 issued a report under Turnball's name which suggested that that world may have stopped warming.
GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION - Citing privacy concerns, GWPF declined to reveal the sources of funding. In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners, but it is well funded by money from secret donors.
Hum! Now who would the sensible man in the street believe?
The choice seems to be either this mob of secretly funded non-scientists, or, the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists, from the many diverse disciplines that make up the IGPC, who all think these two old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
LORD LAWSON, politician, ex Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scientific qualifications - zero. On 23 November 2009 Lord Lawson announced the launch of a new think tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
LORD TURNBULL, ex civil servant and cabinet secretary. Scientific qualifications - zero. A trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which in 2011 issued a report under Turnball's name which suggested that that world may have stopped warming.
GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION - Citing privacy concerns, GWPF declined to reveal the sources of funding. In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners, but it is well funded by money from secret donors.
Hum! Now who would the sensible man in the street believe?
The choice seems to be either this mob of secretly funded non-scientists, or, the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists, from the many diverse disciplines that make up the IGPC, who all think these two old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
sallyrdn
says...
11:49am Mon 28 Nov 11
Would it not be more eco friendly to conference call these summits? I believe that is possible in this day and age. Obviously it would not be so much fun for the delegates who would miss out on the gourmet dinners and general high living assocaited with these shindigs. But if they are really commited to climate change (whatever is causing it) surely they could make that secrifice? Oh sorry this is politicians we are talking about no chance!!
Avery T Decanary
says...
1:36pm Mon 28 Nov 11
Ah, the usual argument from warmists, no facts just name calling. I would rather believe Lawson, who like Chris Huhne is not a scientist but takes notice of science, than Huhne who uses the increasingly tarnished IPCC who have pumped billions into their phoney scince which is unravelling by the day.
Climate changes - we all know that, but it's nothing to do with CO2, which is a trace gas and without which all life in the planet would die.
Climate changes - we all know that, but it's nothing to do with CO2, which is a trace gas and without which all life in the planet would die.
freefinker
says...
3:26pm Mon 28 Nov 11
Avery T Decanary wrote:Oh, sorry, its facts you want is it?
Ah, the usual argument from warmists, no facts just name calling. I would rather believe Lawson, who like Chris Huhne is not a scientist but takes notice of science, than Huhne who uses the increasingly tarnished IPCC who have pumped billions into their phoney scince which is unravelling by the day.
Climate changes - we all know that, but it's nothing to do with CO2, which is a trace gas and without which all life in the planet would die.
I must say that is very, very unusual for the science-denying conspiracy theorists who spout the nonsense you have already posted.
Fact - atmospheric CO2 1958 315ppm.
Fact - atmospheric CO2 2008 385ppm.
Main reason = Homo sapiens.
Simple chemistry = atmospheric warming.
Grow up and start to read proper science instead of conspiracy theorists websites and petrochemical industry propaganda.
The 'science' of the conspiracy theorists is extremely selective, prejudiced, often faulty and usually unable to stand up to serious scrutiny. Amongst climate scientists there certainly is debate about AGW – but only to the extent of how much of the warming this planet IS EXPERIENCING is due to Homo sapiens and how much is natural variation. The overwhelming consensus is that it is us causing almost all the observed warming.
There is a HUGE amount of peer-reviewed data to back up this conclusion. You are perfectly entitled to challenge the scientific consensus. But first you need to explain why atmospheric CO2 levels have been consistently rising since 1958 if it is not due to our activities - and then demonstrate with sound science how you reach the conclusion that the global temperature increase that has been RECORDED since then is unrelated to this fact.
Oh and don’t come out with the usual the ‘planet warms, CO2 increase follows’, unless you can find a peer-reviewed explanation for the absolutely stunning coincidence that since the beginning of the Holocene (circa 10,000 years ago) CO2 concentrations have been fairly consistent at between 275 and 285 ppm, but start their inexorable rise to the current 390ppm at the very same time as the Industrial Revolution begins – i.e. when Homo sapiens starts to exploit fossil fuels on an ever increasing scale.
forest hump
says...
7:26pm Mon 28 Nov 11
freefinker wrote:@
.. ah, yes. Let’s have a look. LORD LAWSON, politician, ex Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scientific qualifications - zero. On 23 November 2009 Lord Lawson announced the launch of a new think tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees. LORD TURNBULL, ex civil servant and cabinet secretary. Scientific qualifications - zero. A trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which in 2011 issued a report under Turnball's name which suggested that that world may have stopped warming. GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION - Citing privacy concerns, GWPF declined to reveal the sources of funding. In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners, but it is well funded by money from secret donors. Hum! Now who would the sensible man in the street believe? The choice seems to be either this mob of secretly funded non-scientists, or, the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists, from the many diverse disciplines that make up the IGPC, who all think these two old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
"old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about" look in the mirror...QED
freefinker
says...
8:18pm Mon 28 Nov 11
forest hump wrote:.. lol, good one. Et tu?
freefinker wrote:@
.. ah, yes. Let’s have a look. LORD LAWSON, politician, ex Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scientific qualifications - zero. On 23 November 2009 Lord Lawson announced the launch of a new think tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees. LORD TURNBULL, ex civil servant and cabinet secretary. Scientific qualifications - zero. A trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which in 2011 issued a report under Turnball's name which suggested that that world may have stopped warming. GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION - Citing privacy concerns, GWPF declined to reveal the sources of funding. In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners, but it is well funded by money from secret donors. Hum! Now who would the sensible man in the street believe? The choice seems to be either this mob of secretly funded non-scientists, or, the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists, from the many diverse disciplines that make up the IGPC, who all think these two old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.
"old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about" look in the mirror...QED
I thought you'd be posting.
And I do admit to recycling some of my words from our last encounter.
But honestly, statements such as ..
'Climate changes .. it's nothing to do with CO2, which is a trace gas and without which all life in the planet would die'
.. does not show the intellect of this poster in good light, I hope you will agree. We may not see eye to eye, but at least we do battle on equal terms.
Sold the bike yet?
Maine Lobster
says...
8:22pm Mon 28 Nov 11
The Outside Edge wrote:Agree totally, Outside Edge. This latest climate change conference is just another jolly for politicians and their entourage. The nations who are polluting most are China and India, supposedly the world's two most booming economies and forecast to continue to do so.
AndyAndrews wrote:More of our money wasted.
According to weekend press reports Huhne's going to offer Africa £1 billion of UK taxpayers' money over four years to fight climate change, money we really can't afford in the present dismal economic situation his government has done nothing to improve. Thanks a lot. Do us all a favour and stay in Africa...
The climate change debate rumbles on and on,,until the USA signs up to cutting emissions then nothing will change.
Huhne is an ineffective MP and the Governments climate grenda change is ineffective.
Waste of time and money
These countries are taking over a massive proportion of world manufacturing because the have an almost endless supply of dirt cheap labour that undercuts any western nation and have undermined countless other western economies. Let them use all their new wealth to deal with their pollution problems. We have problems enough of our own.
forest hump
says...
8:39pm Mon 28 Nov 11
freefinker wrote:Agree with Co2 levels rising...not convinced on AGW. Let's leave it there! Few derisory offers for the well tuned machine....none of which took into account the fine condition of the 4 speed Sturmey-Archer transmission with built-in dynamo! Heathens! Take care wise-one :)
forest hump wrote:.. lol, good one. Et tu? I thought you'd be posting. And I do admit to recycling some of my words from our last encounter. But honestly, statements such as .. 'Climate changes .. it's nothing to do with CO2, which is a trace gas and without which all life in the planet would die' .. does not show the intellect of this poster in good light, I hope you will agree. We may not see eye to eye, but at least we do battle on equal terms. Sold the bike yet?freefinker wrote: .. ah, yes. Let’s have a look. LORD LAWSON, politician, ex Chancellor of the Exchequer. Scientific qualifications - zero. On 23 November 2009 Lord Lawson announced the launch of a new think tank called the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which he is Chairman of the Board of Trustees. LORD TURNBULL, ex civil servant and cabinet secretary. Scientific qualifications - zero. A trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which in 2011 issued a report under Turnball's name which suggested that that world may have stopped warming. GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION - Citing privacy concerns, GWPF declined to reveal the sources of funding. In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income up to the end of July 2010 came from membership fees. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners, but it is well funded by money from secret donors. Hum! Now who would the sensible man in the street believe? The choice seems to be either this mob of secretly funded non-scientists, or, the vast majority of the world’s leading scientists, from the many diverse disciplines that make up the IGPC, who all think these two old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about.@ "old duffers don’t have the slightest idea what they are talking about" look in the mirror...QED
geoff51
says...
9:10pm Mon 28 Nov 11
I see that idiot Huhne is off to S africa to talk to another load of idiots about a non existant problem.
How much longer are we going to fund this rubbish with money we havent got and as for giving Africa our money my blood boils.
Tell Huhne to stay at home and sort out our nuclear future for energy, and stop building useless windmills.
How much longer are we going to fund this rubbish with money we havent got and as for giving Africa our money my blood boils.
Tell Huhne to stay at home and sort out our nuclear future for energy, and stop building useless windmills.
freefinker
says...
9:19pm Mon 28 Nov 11
geoff51 wrote:.. there, feel better now?
I see that idiot Huhne is off to S africa to talk to another load of idiots about a non existant problem.
How much longer are we going to fund this rubbish with money we havent got and as for giving Africa our money my blood boils.
Tell Huhne to stay at home and sort out our nuclear future for energy, and stop building useless windmills.
Can't say I agree with your 'science', but my blood boils too at these useless talking shops that achieve absolutely sod all.
geoff51
says...
10:59pm Mon 28 Nov 11
freefinker wrote:In that case why do you keep posting such disproved twaddle on them then?
geoff51 wrote:.. there, feel better now?
I see that idiot Huhne is off to S africa to talk to another load of idiots about a non existant problem.
How much longer are we going to fund this rubbish with money we havent got and as for giving Africa our money my blood boils.
Tell Huhne to stay at home and sort out our nuclear future for energy, and stop building useless windmills.
Can't say I agree with your 'science', but my blood boils too at these useless talking shops that achieve absolutely sod all.
freefinker
says...
11:56pm Mon 28 Nov 11
geoff51 wrote:Don't get me wrong.
freefinker wrote:In that case why do you keep posting such disproved twaddle on them then?
geoff51 wrote:.. there, feel better now?
I see that idiot Huhne is off to S africa to talk to another load of idiots about a non existant problem.
How much longer are we going to fund this rubbish with money we havent got and as for giving Africa our money my blood boils.
Tell Huhne to stay at home and sort out our nuclear future for energy, and stop building useless windmills.
Can't say I agree with your 'science', but my blood boils too at these useless talking shops that achieve absolutely sod all.
We disagree fundamentally on the science as I think the IPCC have it absolutely right.
What I hate is all these politicians who talk the talk but don't take the action that's urgently needed. It's a good jolly abroad for a few weeks, they agree to do nothing and come back home and lie to us.
Meanwhile Rome burns.
Avery T Decanary
says...
11:21am Tue 29 Nov 11
freefinker wrote:What a pity that you still feel it necessary to throw personal insults. Typical of the Warmists.
Avery T Decanary wrote: Ah, the usual argument from warmists, no facts just name calling. I would rather believe Lawson, who like Chris Huhne is not a scientist but takes notice of science, than Huhne who uses the increasingly tarnished IPCC who have pumped billions into their phoney scince which is unravelling by the day. Climate changes - we all know that, but it's nothing to do with CO2, which is a trace gas and without which all life in the planet would die.Oh, sorry, its facts you want is it? I must say that is very, very unusual for the science-denying conspiracy theorists who spout the nonsense you have already posted. Fact - atmospheric CO2 1958 315ppm. Fact - atmospheric CO2 2008 385ppm. Main reason = Homo sapiens. Simple chemistry = atmospheric warming. Grow up and start to read proper science instead of conspiracy theorists websites and petrochemical industry propaganda. The 'science' of the conspiracy theorists is extremely selective, prejudiced, often faulty and usually unable to stand up to serious scrutiny. Amongst climate scientists there certainly is debate about AGW – but only to the extent of how much of the warming this planet IS EXPERIENCING is due to Homo sapiens and how much is natural variation. The overwhelming consensus is that it is us causing almost all the observed warming. There is a HUGE amount of peer-reviewed data to back up this conclusion. You are perfectly entitled to challenge the scientific consensus. But first you need to explain why atmospheric CO2 levels have been consistently rising since 1958 if it is not due to our activities - and then demonstrate with sound science how you reach the conclusion that the global temperature increase that has been RECORDED since then is unrelated to this fact. Oh and don’t come out with the usual the ‘planet warms, CO2 increase follows’, unless you can find a peer-reviewed explanation for the absolutely stunning coincidence that since the beginning of the Holocene (circa 10,000 years ago) CO2 concentrations have been fairly consistent at between 275 and 285 ppm, but start their inexorable rise to the current 390ppm at the very same time as the Industrial Revolution begins – i.e. when Homo sapiens starts to exploit fossil fuels on an ever increasing scale.
Facts: How is it that the sharp cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was in the face of the rapid growth of CO2.
Similarly (to the present) rise in temperature from 1920 to 1940 in the absence of rapid CO2 growth. In addition the average mean temperature has dropped over the last 15 years yet CO2 levels have risen. Another difficulty with accepting the temperature rise at face value is the evidence that the start of the use of thermometers in about 1850 comes at the same time as the emergence from the coldest period in 8,000 years.
The rate of warming from 1980 to 1998 has been seen before, and for many parts of the Earth such temperature changes are recurrent, such as when the Atlantic and Pacific and ENSO (el Niño) oscillations change state, causing immediate massive changes in ocean environments of fish, corals, and marine mammals. Corals were very expansive when the Earth was warmer and CO2 much higher, yet the IPCC say that corals are in grave danger, even now, due to the high temperatures and acidification of the ocean caused by CO2. There is no evidence.
It known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent (3%) of the total amount and that the total is very small - there is 23.6 times more argon (0.009) in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.00038). The Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009 publication of work by Wolfgang Knorr. It is not clear (not proven) whether CO2 levels rising has an effect on temperature rising.
Global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. If this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible and unrealistic.
Avery T Decanary
says...
3:16pm Tue 29 Nov 11
Individual temperature records commonly used by climatologists and paleoclimatologists show that the past 1,000 years have been marked by periodic warm and cold periods, not by a uniform climate trend. The recent warming trend since about 1850 appears to be the continuation of the warming following the Little Ice Age, rather than a sudden upsurge after a long period of relatively uniform temperatures. The detailed temperature record since 1850 shows a temperature decline between 1940 and 1970, which flies in the face of the explanation that a continuous exponential increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming. And the simultaneous record of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in ice cores indicates that carbon dioxide concentration changes after temperature changes, not before, indicating that carbon dioxide is the result, not the cause, of global warming.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising - yes. Temperatures since 1998 have stabilised and are showing signs of falling. In the past 100 years (1910–2010), there was generally a significant correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration, but the two cooling periods, 1940–1975 and 1998–2009, also saw a significant increase in CO2 concentrations. The relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration for every 30-year period since 1850 (12 years for the last period) show there were three periods with a positive relationship, one with a negative relationship, and two without significant correlations. (Source Wang) The Earth has cooled 0.74°F since Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. (Many sources including Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist.)
The IPCC has often said words to the effect "We don't know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans". What a way to build a theory. Multiple factors contribute to climate change, including greenhouse gas concentrations, solar activity, aerosols, deviations in the Earth’s orbit, and variations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Of these factors, greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions are known to be caused mainly by human activities, whereas factors such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions are regarded as natural factors. (Source: Fang J Y, Wang S P, et al.)
Water vapour constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. The IPCC ignores the powerful effects of water vapour in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately). Water vapour is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations however these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about that, even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. (Source: US Department of Energy.)
In 2007 more than 100 prominent scientists wrote to Ban Ki Moon calling on him to recognise that it is not possible to stop climate change.
And earlier this year more than 900 peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptic arguments were published.
In 2008, 32,000 American Scientists wrote to the US government rejecting not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. That’s consensus.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising - yes. Temperatures since 1998 have stabilised and are showing signs of falling. In the past 100 years (1910–2010), there was generally a significant correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration, but the two cooling periods, 1940–1975 and 1998–2009, also saw a significant increase in CO2 concentrations. The relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration for every 30-year period since 1850 (12 years for the last period) show there were three periods with a positive relationship, one with a negative relationship, and two without significant correlations. (Source Wang) The Earth has cooled 0.74°F since Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. (Many sources including Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist.)
The IPCC has often said words to the effect "We don't know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans". What a way to build a theory. Multiple factors contribute to climate change, including greenhouse gas concentrations, solar activity, aerosols, deviations in the Earth’s orbit, and variations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Of these factors, greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions are known to be caused mainly by human activities, whereas factors such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions are regarded as natural factors. (Source: Fang J Y, Wang S P, et al.)
Water vapour constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. The IPCC ignores the powerful effects of water vapour in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately). Water vapour is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations however these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about that, even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. (Source: US Department of Energy.)
In 2007 more than 100 prominent scientists wrote to Ban Ki Moon calling on him to recognise that it is not possible to stop climate change.
And earlier this year more than 900 peer-reviewed papers supporting the sceptic arguments were published.
In 2008, 32,000 American Scientists wrote to the US government rejecting not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. That’s consensus.
AndyAndrews says...
7:11am Mon 28 Nov 11