BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On 29/06/10 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 28/06/10 09:15, Hugh Newbury wrote:
On 28/06/10 08:41, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 21/06/10 09:12, Hugh Newbury wrote:
On 15/06/10 10:42, Hugh Newbury wrote:
Next Monday 21 June @ 8.30pm. 'Tom Heap ... consults some of the
world's
leading scientists on both sides of the argument ... '

We'll see what happens.


They've changed it. Now it's about BP's oil spill.


On tonight at 2030:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/fr...00/8758352.stm



Thanks for that, Graham. I hadn't noticed.


Well, what a waste of half-an-hour. Lowered the dumbing-down bar yet again.



I agree. The only thing worth saying, IMHO, is that there are a dozen
different worldwide reasons for changes in the climate , and no one
knows how they all interact at any one moment or over whatever time.

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 29, 7:16*am, Hugh Newbury wrote:
On 29/06/10 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:

Well, what a waste of half-an-hour. Lowered the dumbing-down bar yet again.

I agree. The only thing worth saying, IMHO, is that there are a dozen
different worldwide reasons for changes in the climate , and no one
knows how they all interact at any one moment or over whatever time.


That's what the sceptics want you to think! They can't prove AGW is
not happening, but by casting doubt on the science they can postpone
any action which would curb their profits, and/or introduce
international treaties, which they regard as World Government - for
them Washington and Brussels are bad enough.

With that broadcast, the BBC played right into the scepticsr hands by
fielding two sceptics: Lomborg and Christie against the two scientists
Mann and Watson, making it seem to be an even debate. Not that Lomborg
is even a climate scientist. He is a professor of political statistics
i.e a lying liar :-)

Anyone who missed it can see it again at http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm

Cheers, Alastair.

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On 29/06/10 08:51, Alastair wrote:
On Jun 29, 7:16 am, Hugh wrote:
On 29/06/10 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:

Well, what a waste of half-an-hour. Lowered the dumbing-down bar yet again.

I agree. The only thing worth saying, IMHO, is that there are a dozen
different worldwide reasons for changes in the climate , and no one
knows how they all interact at any one moment or over whatever time.


That's what the sceptics want you to think! They can't prove AGW is
not happening, but by casting doubt on the science they can postpone
any action which would curb their profits, and/or introduce
international treaties, which they regard as World Government - for
them Washington and Brussels are bad enough.

With that broadcast, the BBC played right into the scepticsr hands by
fielding two sceptics: Lomborg and Christie against the two scientists
Mann and Watson, making it seem to be an even debate. Not that Lomborg
is even a climate scientist. He is a professor of political statistics
i.e a lying liar :-)

Hi, Alastair. I was trying to say that the current trends are influenced
by events over millennia and over a few months and at all times in
between. Of course global warming is happening, and much (?most) of it
down to human activity. But other influences are at work too.

But thanks for keeping me on the right track!

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 29, 9:08*am, Hugh Newbury wrote:
On 29/06/10 08:51, Alastair wrote:



On Jun 29, 7:16 am, Hugh *wrote:
On 29/06/10 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:

Well, what a waste of half-an-hour. Lowered the dumbing-down bar yet again.

I agree. The only thing worth saying, IMHO, is that there are a dozen
different worldwide reasons for changes in the climate , and no one
knows how they all interact at any one moment or over whatever time.

That's what the sceptics want you to think! They can't prove AGW is
not happening, but by casting doubt on the science they can postpone
any action which would curb their profits, and/or introduce
international treaties, which they regard as World Government - for
them *Washington and Brussels are bad enough.

With that broadcast, the BBC played right into the scepticsr hands by
fielding two sceptics: Lomborg and Christie against the two scientists
Mann and Watson, making it seem to be an even debate. Not that Lomborg
is even a climate scientist. He is a professor of political statistics
i.e a lying liar :-)

Hi, Alastair. I was trying to say that the current trends are influenced
by events over millennia and over a few months and at all times in
between. Of course global warming is happening, and much (?most) of it
down to human activity. But other influences are at work too.

But thanks for keeping me on the right track!

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

Hugh,

It wasn't really aimed at you. It was just that your post gave me the
excuse I wanted to rant against the BBC for playing the sceptics game
while pretending to be objective. For the BBCit is a matter of never
let the truth get in the way of a good story. But then without a good
story no-one would watch :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 29, 10:52*am, Alastair wrote:
On Jun 29, 9:08*am, Hugh Newbury wrote:





On 29/06/10 08:51, Alastair wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:16 am, Hugh *wrote:
On 29/06/10 07:36, Graham P Davis wrote:

Well, what a waste of half-an-hour. Lowered the dumbing-down bar yet again.

I agree. The only thing worth saying, IMHO, is that there are a dozen
different worldwide reasons for changes in the climate , and no one
knows how they all interact at any one moment or over whatever time.

That's what the sceptics want you to think! They can't prove AGW is
not happening, but by casting doubt on the science they can postpone
any action which would curb their profits, and/or introduce
international treaties, which they regard as World Government - for
them *Washington and Brussels are bad enough.

With that broadcast, the BBC played right into the scepticsr hands by
fielding two sceptics: Lomborg and Christie against the two scientists
Mann and Watson, making it seem to be an even debate. Not that Lomborg
is even a climate scientist. He is a professor of political statistics
i.e a lying liar :-)

Hi, Alastair. I was trying to say that the current trends are influenced
by events over millennia and over a few months and at all times in
between. Of course global warming is happening, and much (?most) of it
down to human activity. But other influences are at work too.

But thanks for keeping me on the right track!

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

Hugh,

It wasn't really aimed at you. It was just that your post gave me the
excuse I wanted to rant against the BBC for playing the sceptics game
while pretending to be objective. For the BBCit is a matter of never
let the truth get in the way of a good story. *But then without a good
story no-one would watch :-(

Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Beeb were of course striving to be entertaining in a prime time
slot at 8.30.
Measuring the CO2 from the pet dog's breath. What fun!
There was not much science. A few pictures of extreme weather as usual
and a hint of more to come.

Len Wood
Wembury

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 29, 8:51*am, Alastair wrote:

Anyone who missed it can see it again at...

Nice one.

Do you mean anyone that saw it coming can see it again....

BTW which Blue Peter presenter presented it?

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 29, 6:38*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 29, 8:51*am, Alastair wrote:



Anyone who missed it can see it again at...

Nice one.

Do you mean anyone that saw it coming can see it again....

BTW which Blue Peter presenter presented it?

If anyone is interested in more "meaty" science then there is this
presentation from CERN about cosmic rays and clouds.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

Cheers, Alastair.

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 30, 12:13*am, Alastair wrote:

If anyone is interested in more "meaty" science then there is this
presentation from CERN about cosmic rays and clouds.http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

CERN Colloquium Abstract

The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is
that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases,
with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance
and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the
climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the
Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming -
and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood.

Before I rush in where climatologists fear to tread....

Do volcanoes add or subtract to the glow balls biz?

I find it hard to believe that the phenomenal output from volcanoes is
dwarfed by the modern age of reason. After all, the previous idocrazy
burned humungous amounts of coal in very inefficient machinery. Every
home was lit and warmed by hydrogen deficient fuels too. Even the gas
fuels were produced from coal.

BBC's Panorama on climate change etc.
 

On Jun 30, 6:09*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:13*am, Alastair wrote:



If anyone is interested in more "meaty" science then there is this
presentation from CERN about cosmic rays and clouds.http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

CERN Colloquium Abstract

The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is
that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases,
with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance
and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the
climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the
Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming -
and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood.

Before I rush in where climatologists fear to tread....

Do volcanoes add or subtract to the glow balls biz?

All volcanoes are different. Some emit carbon dioxide which is a
greenhouse gas, but that is washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Some
emit sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere where it is not washed out
quickly, and it reflects the sunlight away cooling the planet. Most
emit both but not into the stratosphere. Some Icelandic volcanoes emit
Fluorine which is a deadly poison.

I find it hard to believe that the phenomenal output from volcanoes is
dwarfed by the modern age of reason. After all, the previous idocrazy
burned humungous amounts of coal in very inefficient machinery. Every
home was lit and warmed by hydrogen deficient fuels too. Even the gas
fuels were produced from coal.

In the past heat was produced from charcoal which is produced from
wood, and whale oil was used for lighting.

We, individually, burn much more fuels than the Victorians did.
Moreover there are many more of us burning these fuels. We in Britain
may have all had gas street lights but that was not true in India and
China. They too have now have electric street lights and flashy
commercial displays just like us now. It is not just the growth in
individual use of fossil fuels, it is compounded by the growth in
population.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere at present is live-able with, but
the danger is what will happen if the burning of fossil fuels
continues to grow.

Cheers, Alastair.