World saved . . . planet doomed 21 November 08

Nice article :-)

I fully agree on your perspectives. I have written a short brief about the danish way of reducing co2 emissions on my blog www.cop15blog.com. Hope it can interest you :-)

Im going to follow your blog

Hello Everyone,

Interesting article, Mark. There seem to be pros and cons of the current economic problems – and the most important positive is that crisis can lead to change. Our main enemy is business as usual. If Obama wanted to get Detroit to change its ways and produce much more green cars, now is a great time.

I used to read Mark’s blog much more than I have done of late – but it did influence me to start up a market research agency to look at getting people to consider how we move to a low carbon economy.

We have started to produce market research reports, and there are free versions available to anyone if you log in. Mark – you ought to as well – to give you some survey data to work with.

Just go to www.haddock-research.com and it should be obvious from there. Let me know any difficulties.

Peter

Interesting article but the current clamber by politians to embrace the green agenda provides a convienient distraction from what might turn out to be the most disasterous collapse of the World economy in history. Rather like bread and circuss’ or the wait for the second coming of Jesus Christ, it gives the masses something to cling onto, to hope for when all around them seems to spiral disasterously out of control. Without labouring the point, as you know Mark, global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have seen a substantial drop since so the need for any action has been proved to be unneccessary but it’s a win-win situation for those in power to not only use the “crisis” to increase their tax revenue but also to divert attention away from the horrendous mistakes they have made over the past decades. I admire your faith in your belief that We all face a climatic disaster and wouldn’t dream of shattering your illusion in the same way I would hold back from telling someone who believes in God that there is no God or afterlife but how long your belief holds only time will tell once the lights start going out due to badly made energy policies and more proof is published showing how the Earths temperature is not increasing. Interesting that you talk of David Camerons commitment to the green cause. When People start losing jobs and all that goes with that start to bite on their lives the sight of Polititians spouting the occasional pious soundbite on how how much We are committed to the cause will ring more and more hollow. Now that the climate change bill has been passed it is out of their hands really which is ironic so they can tell us all that they have to build this or that windfarm or add this or that tax to our fuel bills because the law says so. I suggest that the Darwin awards for the year, say 2020 should go collectively to the UK for the most ingenious method of destroying a nations finances and all that follows once a Nation is bancrupted.

This article is seemingly contradictory in terms of the global action required on AGW. The acknowledgement of the temperature gain is not really relevant as what is matters is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for which James Hansen most recent work has decided that the Arctic sea ice is already under threat and hence that will threaten Greenland once the summer melt is completed of the sea ice. Then once we reach 425 to 475 (450 then) we will have doomed antartica as well and that then means a huge long term global land based iced melt which will rise sea levels significantly and ruin a lot of our industry and ruin around 700 million peoples lives and ruin glaciers in a way that will ruin rivers stable flow and lands grow growing abilities.

What I find somewhat amazing is the plethora of artciles by so called green companies and individuals who seem to lack the pervasive knowledge required of the global economic and energy system. Humans consume 14 TW at present and the IEA forcast a 50% increase to 21 TW come 2030. The recent oil price collapse will just enforce oil, gas and coals position at present as the cost of developing renewable infrastructure will be seen as too expensive until the global recession is over which is around 2011 (another two years lost). Yes Barrack Obama will make a difference but as the world was not doing much to reduce global emissions at this point Mr Obama will make a difference but the idea of 80% emissions reduction byt 2050 is not strategically defined as yet and hence a political idea at present for the USA and Europe. The other interesting thing is that the main producers of CO2 are now China (higher than the USA) and the rest of the world with the USA at 19%, Russia a 5%, Canada and Australia lower, Europe at 12% and this is the big problem. That additional 7 TW is not to be used by the USA and Europe etc but by China, India and the rest of the world so even if we the first world develop sustainables and has large scale efficiency drives for new houses and vehicles and energy sources then we will also have to supply it to the world. Who will pay for that? Where is CCS for coal right now with China building a new coal power plant every week. The political lobbying for coal and oil in the USA senate is mighty and Obama took money from them too I believe. What about the USA car industry borrowing $25 billion and flying around in provate jets to get there and now with the collapse of the price of oil will they build effiiency 60 MPG cars en masse for the american public to embrace or hybrid cars or electric cars etc. The whole thing is strategically inert.

Where is the 4th generation nuclear option to replace coal power if CCS is not deliverd in time. 450 ppmv of CO2 is only 30 years away.

The environmentalists of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth tried in 1991 to convince the US Government of the day and failed as per Jeremy Leggetts story. Their story has not change but where is the change in the real world. We have Obama now so lets hope the strategy is developed but as yet there is not one, no single coherent strategy for low CO2 emissions.

Why do green people always sing optimistically when Canadas heavy sands are being produced, more and more countries are looking to produce fossil fuels. Where does their optimism come from ? Are they looking at their own local blinkerd view of saving a field, putting up a wind turbine or two.

This whole subject is now becomming slightly infuriating for those in the realistic scientific capatalist know.

Most of the green activists are cynical about any future for humanity, or for our planet. They have given up hopes that anything reasonable will be done to solve the environmental crisis.

They degenerate into conspiracy theorists, and generally rejoice when the boat gets into trouble. This is their “Aha, I told you so” moment. You cannot deny them that.

But it is quite unfortunate that the ranks of environmentalists are populated with cynics and not with problem-solvers. We are clearly in trouble, and we need smart people to get us out of this.

Facts are sacred, and logical analysis is the need of the day.

Bad economic weather is a very bad time for the green movement. All the investments in alternative technologies will evaporate. Construction costs rise, making the high capital costs of environmental-friendly technologies all the more daunting. The fact that environmental-friendly technologies (whether public transport, or nuclear power stations, or energy efficiency) have extremely low operating costs, and will be a great investment in the long run goes unheeded by the people who have the money for investment.

It is stupid to rejoice in anything like this. This is the time to get our act together, and steer the boat towards the target.

Hi Steven!

Actually, it’s worse than that – I think you’ll find temperatures peaked in 1981. Oh, hang on – no I mean 1990. Ooops, you were right, 1998. Or maybe it was 2005. Hmmm… It’s a lot colder today than it was on Wednesday, oh no! It’s global cooling again!

If you’re at all interested in why we’re all smiling at your post, try something like:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

Meanwhile, we’ll all go off and try and remember how to spell ‘troll’.

In the UK’s Daily Mail, Thursday Nov. 13 2008 City & Finance section “COMMENT” about the Bank of England’s awareness of the looming economic crisis Ben Laurance commented ”.. to attack King … for being slow to deal with recent events is to abuse .. hindsight. Be honest. We were all caught out.” This is just not true!

We are all caught UP in this economic mess, but were NOT ALL caught OUT. There are still plenty of us around, especially the older generation, who understand the economic wisdom of “Never a borrower nor a lender be”.

The Scots have earned worldwide renown (and even some ridicule) for their financial prudence. It is almost unbelievable that the UK government, influenced so significantly by MP’s born, bred and educated in Scotland, should have presided over and boasted about 10 years of unsustainable British economic growth. Growth based upon relentless and reckless consumer borrowing in order to spend on non-essentials. Borrowing on credit cards for this, followed by further borrowing on different credit cards from other lenders in order to pay back the original loan and its interest imposed at extortion rates by greedy bankers. Added to this was the encouragement given to numerous potential house purchasers to borrow far more than their income could support. Well, pay-back time has come – with a vengeance.

So, what is our government’s solution? It’s simple household economics, isn’t it – BORROW MORE NOW to SPEND MORE NOW. Don’t worry about pay-back yet. Taxpayers money can be saved in some areas, such as bringing back significant numbers of our forces from Iraq. We can expect that to happen before the next election (votes have to be won somehow, don’t they) and it looks as though the Iraqis have already been warned of this if today’s news is to be believed. Of course after the next general election we’ll be invited to pay much higher taxes. Not direct taxes, of course, which would be too obvious. They’ll be more stealth taxes.

One might ask “but hasn’t he already exhausted these?” No, no. one beauty is still available – GREEN TAXES. People are daft enough to spend and spend what they don’t have on what they don’t need. They were daft enough to believe the myth about conquering the “boom and bust economics of the Conservatives”. They’re also daft enough to believe the myth about man-made global warming through burning fossil fuels.

Further comments on the global warming issue are available in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1

Please can we get an open debate going here, properly addressing the arguments of sceptics like myself. I have tried repeatedly to get Jonathan Porritt, Chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, and other environmentalists to start an open debate on this issue on the Forum for the Future Web-site without so much as receiving a response. For some reason they are all afraid to have the well-founded sceptical science debated. I wonder why!!

Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Climate Change Agnostic

Why thanks Mark for that deeply considered comment of yours. Were it not for the name attached to your post I might have laboured under the impression that you, yourself, were indeed a troll . Incidentally you misspelt the word troll. The OED describes the word troll as ” a pseudo-environmentalist labouring under the delusion that He alone is the voice of the climate chaos aversion”. As you are aware there are plenty of those about. As for pointing out the maximum temperature records I do wish you would make your mind up. You’ve presented us with plenty of random dates but can’t seem to make up your mind which one to choose. I suggest that if you choose to use ad hominum methods to attack then be careful you do not make yourself look foolish when the tables are turned.

Can I just clarify that the ‘Mark’ above is not me? This implies no criticism, nor endorsement. Thanks…

Peter i am with you totally about the economics, this government has encouraged borrowers and lenders to spend wildly that which they did not have and could never hope to have. However on global warming I think you are wrong. If the world is not warming why are the polar ice caps melting and the galciers disappearing? The science seems fairly simple there don’t you think?

The economics of the day are not the issue with climate change its the perspective that humanity has researched obtaining energy from fossil fuels and knows how to cost effectively dig it up, drill for it and build stations and devices to use it efficiently and if you have the money extravaganetly. Fossil fuels fueled capatalism and has allowed science to come of age. We have improved yields of crops but oil derived inorganic fertilisers, preparing the soil and transport them globally for mass consumption. The entire state of the energy system is fossil fuels. The only other presently used alternative is nuclear fission which was used to create weapon fuel.

How does humanity change its energy matrix whilst propelling capatalist materialist standards forward under the banner of progress and political will?

Humanity at present has economically poweful countries and companies who are prepared to invest 10% in renewables and 90% in more fossil fuel presently. We need a massive change in scientific research, strategic planning, financial and political means to change this scientifically.

Renewables presently make up little of our global energy consumption and even if they are researched and invested in if they are viable and successfully ordained they will still compete with CCS when it is developed and other fossil fuel operations.

Its a dangerous time but Barrack Obama aside who is looking to bring the USA into the fray with CO2 emissions the USA is not the largest world consumer of fossil fuels, neither is the EU. Worrying.

Carl (Johnson), I make the assumption that you were responding to my post. Regarding global warming, the science is anything but simple and the propaganda is outrageous. I do not deny that warming may have been occurring in some locations around the globe over recent decades, although this is debatable. You have missed a very important point in my post. I refer to MANMADE global warming, which I reject as being at all significant. The basis for this opinion is covered fully in my paper which is accessible on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site as quoted in my post. I am pleased that you have started the debate going, but feel that you, like many others, are merely accepting the environmentalist propaganda without doing sufficient research to help you develop a valid opinion based upon climate science. I offer the following to hopefully stimulate further substantive debate and proper understanding of the issue.

GLOBAL WARMING MYTH EXPOSED The political myth that significant manmade global warming results from the use of fossil fuels has at last been laid to rest by detailed scientific analysis. During the last two years scientists have independently approached the issue of global climate change from three quite different viewpoints. Each approach shows that the burning of fossil fuels has negligible effect upon the global climate. Contrary to the propaganda foisted upon us by politicians, environmentalists and the media to support their own causes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is not responsible for any significant global climate change.

The politically orientated “Summaries for Policy Makers” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provide the basis for the global warming propaganda upon which vested interest groups depend. These SPMs are distorted misrepresentations of the scientific reports provided by the the IPCC’s Working Group 1, “The Scientific Basis”. These scientific reports (but NOT the SPMs) acknowledge the uncertainties surrounding their climate projections, but more importantly, they virtually ignore any scientific findings since 2005.

The latest science proving that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations through the burning of fossil fuels does NOT significantly warm the globe was undertaken in 2007 and 2008. Three groups independently analysed climate change with regard to the: - impact of changing CO2 concentration, considering not only radiation but also conduction of heat (ignored by the IPCC), by Dr. John Nicol, - effects of water vapour and clouds (ignored by the IPCC as a feedback) by Dr. Roy Spencer, - chaotic nature of the global climate, by Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, et al. The conclusion of each of these independent analyses is that climate change is driven by factors other than atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Their finding were presented as a challenge to several scientific supporters of the IPCC’s political position on man-made climate change. They were invited to prove that the recent research is flawed and refute the arguments of Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. No response has been forthcoming. Following that the same challenge was sent to the Chairman of the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission and to each of the commissioners. There has been no response. The challenge was then sent to the UK’s “Forum for the Future”, with no response. They were then invited to initiate an open debate on the latest science and again chose not to respond. Letters were even sent to 15 editors of English newspapers with no response. These findings have been summarised in a paper ” Politicization of Climate Change & CO2”. Abstract “Vested interest groups are abusing the issue of climate change to further their own causes. Climate scientists cannot predict climate and computer models have significant limitations. Model projections are flawed and the models cannot as yet be validated. The IPCC summaries for policy makers are merely a political interpretation of the IPCC’s scientific reports. These reports do not take into consideration recent research showing that increasing atmospheric CO2 content has negligible affect on global climate. The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world’s most deprived communities.”

This paper was offered to the Forum for the Future and the Sustainable Development Commission for posting on their INTERNET blogs to initiate open debate. Both of these environmentalist organisations are strong supporters of the man-made climate change theory, yet neither responded to the offer. The reason for this is that the supporters of manmade global warming through the burning of fossil fuels can provide no scientific evidence refuting the latest scientific research of Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. . Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC scientific reviewer, author of “The Greenhouse Delusion” booklet and one of 100 scientists who signed an open letter to the Director General of the United Nations challenging the IPCC’s political position has reviewed this paper and made it available on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 No-one is prepared or able to enter into worthwhile scientific debate challenging the conclusions in this paper. IT IS SETTLED. BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING. Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Climate Change Agnostic

Steven, I’m honoured that you replied! Now I’m getting confused. I know words mean what we use them to mean – descriptive not proscriptive – I did actually used to work for a company that made dictionaries, but here’s the definition I had in mind:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response¹ or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

That’s from Wikipedia. Is yours really from the OED? And I misspelt ‘troll’ as ‘troll’?.. This is getting a little too post-modern for me right here, let’s move on…

I was quoting years from NASA GISTEMP data set, and to fill in some background, 1981 was really hot, hotter than 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and so in the early 80s it looked like it was a peak, but then 1990 was hotter again, and indeed hotter than 91-94, so then that was the peak. Then 98 was, for a variety of reasons phenomenally hot, hotter than 99, 00, 01, 02 (just), 03 and 04. You see the pattern? Now 98 was a peak and it we were in a cooling trend, which is where you started us off. 2005 was even hotter than 98 in that data set (though some others got them really close) and so 05 was another peak as 06 and 07 were cooler.

Honestly I’m not trying to take the p*ss, it’s just that if you look at individual points in a data set you can show almost anything. (The daft extreme is something like the “It’s colder today than it was yesterday!” quip.) What you need to do is look at averages, either running averages or averages for the previous 8 years (longer is better but slower to respond to trends.) Really, read the realclimate article, they’re professionals.

I would suggest taking none of those dates on its own: look at the trend of the averages. If you do they climb pretty consistently. When we get another El Niño year it will quite possibly be hotter than 98.

My name really is Mark, though I am not Mark Lynas (sorry Mark, the curse of having a common name, I should’ve thought of that possible confusion.)

Ah Dr Vincent Gray, a coal chemist retired. Says it all about the propaganda and the zero peer reviewed science Pete Ridley of which they, the skeptics have none.

The science of climate change proves no warming is laughable and lamentable as for instance the skeptics always refer to the climate models but the climate scientists always refer to the paleoclimatic data as being foremost and the climate models being useful.

Utter tosh your post I am afriad.

Pete (Best) Thanks for your response. A debate at last. It is to be hoped that this debate will be open and CONSTRUCTIVE by supporters of both sides of the argument. One point though, please would you read my comments and paper a bit more carefully before responding, otherwise you may get the wrong end of the stick. I repeat my last line for clarity. BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING. Note the word SIGNIFICANT!

I have tried hard but without success to find anything in your post to convince me that my statement is incorrect. You made meaningless statements such as “skeptics always refer to the climate models” and “climate scientists always refer to the paleoclimatic data”, but these add nothing worthwhile to the debate.

As you appear to be convinced of your argument, are you prepared or able to accept my challenge to provide scientific evidence to refute the findings of the scientists in my paper, i.e. Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. Detailed scientific analysis of your own or someone else refuting the findings of these three is acceptable. That way we can have a peer review on the Web. Dr. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama) makes his research available to anyone in that way, as he develops it, e.g. you can see his latest report at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Having done a lot of research on the issue at numerous sites on the INTERNET, one thing that I find very frustrating is the enormous amount of worthless insults hurled between antagonists. Your contributions “Utter tosh your post I am afriad” and “Ah Dr Vincent Gray, a coal chemist retired” are prime examples of this. I suppose that in your view all the other 99 scientists who wrote to the Director General of the United Nations in December 2007 have similar base level credentials. What are yours by the way? Have you been involved in reviewing the IPCC’s scientific reports, as Dr. Gray has, or in any published scientific research? Perhaps not, but if I’m mistaken then please correct me and provide me with references to your work!

Enough of this, it does nothing to aid constructive debate about climate science and I hope that any debate permitted by Mark on his blog does not degenerate in this way. There are valid arguments on both sides and the climate experts are nowhere near developing a solid scientific theory of the global climate upon which to model and predict future climates. Open and constructive debate is essential.

Meanwhile, I refer you to my paper ” POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php

Challenge it by all means, but please resist the temptation to simply ridicule.

The science of earth science is all that matters and the paleoclimatic record is what convinces climate scientists of the issue of AGW along with the theory of GHG’s causing the warming which is physics and chemistry and hence correct and peer reviewed and borne out by the models and records.

What has caused the twentieth century warming 0.8C. It aint the Sun in any significant way, the GCR demonstrates that and hence it is GHG theory due to humans belting out these 28 billion tonnes per annum since 1750.

Demonstarte to me that it is not GHG theory that is responisble for the majority of the warming Pete Ridley? The skeptics never have an alternative theory of the present warming, or the warming present in the Arctic.

Pete (Best), I assume that your contributions of 26th “the climate scientists always refer to the paleoclimatic data” and of 28th “the paleoclimatic record” refers to ice core and other data offered by palaeontologists, geologists and other “ologists” about past global climate change. I have found no reference to this in the Fourth Assessment Reports of IPCC Working Group 1 “The Physical Science Basis” so please Pete would you give me the appropriate reference. Correct me if I am wrong, but you may have picked this up from “Six Degrees: Our Future in a Hotter Planet”, by Mark (Lynas). I have not read Mark’s booklet but understand from a Times article in 2007 that, of climate change papers that he had researched, “Some of the most interesting came from palaeoclimate studies .. ”.

The “palaeoclimatic record” indicates that global temperatures have fluctuated significantly during the ice ages of the Quarternary period. Quoting from “Prehistoric Past Revealed” by Dr. Douglas Palmer, of Cambridge University). “The ‘toings and froings’ of the glaciers and ice sheets of the Quarternary Ice Ages had a devastating effect upon the polar realms of North Aerica and Asia, Antarctica, New Zealand, Tasmania, and southernmost tip of South America”. The Quarternary Period goes back 1.8M years, long before man started burning significant amounts of fossil fuels. I have never denied that climate change occurs, but I am not convinced that our use of fossil fuels causes significant global warming. You still have not provided one scrap of evidence that it does. I have provided references to recent scientific research that shows to the contrary. You are obviously totally converted to the manmade global warming cause, so, take up the challenge if you are capable. Prove that the evidence I refer to is flawed.

Pete, you also say on 26th ” Says it all about the propaganda”, well let me give you an example of the ease with which fact and opinion can be merged to support a particular point of view.

If the Times is to be believed (and who believes everything that’s printed, unless it is peer reviewed, of course) Mark said in his chapter on “One Degree of Warming” that “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert”. The implication is clear, returning to a climate one degree warmer than now “requires no great feat of imagination”. What is missing is that twelve thousand years ago the melt-down of the last ice age was beginning. “The continental interior of .. North America .. had vast cold deserts with little or no rain and consequently no vegetation.”. (from “Prehistoric Past Revealed” again). It requires “no great feat of imagination” to appreciate that it would take thousands of years (no time at all in geological terms) to convert these deserts to the “American agricultural heartland around Nebraska” that we enjoy today. Of course, one degree of warming from the present “agricultural heartland ” status is a totally different scenario, impossible to compare with the conditions pertaining six thousand years ago.

Following your comment “Dr Vincent Gray, a coal chemist retired” I did a quick INTERNET search to try to find any peer-reviewed climate science submissions authored by any Pete Best. I found nothing at all, scientific or otherwise. Only one Pete Best contribution was fond, on the Daily Telegraph’s “New forum to channel debate on climate change” in 2007. It reads: QUOTE. A forum for informed discussion I hear you say? Well from the detracting comments from many DT reader over “its just another tax” and climate change is another government money raiser I can see where a lot of peoples priorities lie and it is not with the environment. As global warming is well global, I am doubtful that anything significant on the scale required to mitigate its effects will be done for at least another 20 years abd by that time we will be heading for that dereaded 2 C of warming in record time. The technologies to mitigate climate change are in their infancy, sure people can lag their houses and other such green measures but it will not be enough due to population growth, and additional energy demand. Prepare for a warming world, 550 ppm here we come unfortunately. Posted by Pete Best on May 4, 2007 8:47 AM” UNQUOTE. This sounds to me like the same Pete Best. I did appreciate the following comment from another contributor, though: QUOTE. We “Deniers” are asking for an open debate, discussing facts, sanely, instead of getting a load of abuse just because we do not agree with YOUR view. “You know when you have won the arguement when your opponent hits you”(For hits read “can only reply with abuse”) Posted by Mick Wood on May 4, 2007 12:33 PM UNQUOTE

On the basis of your previous submissions, both here and on the Telegraph blog, it appears that you are presently unable to make any constructive contribution to the debate on whether or not our use of fossil fuels causes significant global warming.

Is there anyone out there who is prepared to participate in REASONED, CONSTRUCTIVE OPEN-MINDED debate from a position of at least some understanding of the very important issue of alleged manmade global climate change? I appreciate that this blog is not the place to present detailed scientific arguments, but abstracts and conclusions of these would seem to be appropriate, with clear reference to the source documents. I understand that the Climate Science Coalition and other manmade global warming sceptics are eager to open full debate on the issue so I am sure that they would be happy to publish papers presenting both sides of the argument.

Pete (Best), In your post of 28th you say “The science of earth science is all that matters”. I doubt whether any of the “earth scientists” themselves would agree with you there. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say because you don’t say things very clearly.

Even if, as you claim, the THEORY of greenhouse gases “is physics and chemistry” this does not automatically make the theory correct. A theory needs to be PROVEN and nothing has yet proven that our burning of fossil fuels is causing significant global warming. I say all of this in my paper, which you obviously haven’t read, just as I have pointed out that the computer models are not yet validated.

You declare that “The skeptics never have an alternative theory of the present warming, or the warming present in the Arctic”. Here are just a couple of references to the arguments of sceptical scientists: 1. Dr. Richard S Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated to the House of Commons (available at http://www.parliament.uk/index.cfm) “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them” and “I cannot stress this enough—we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future”. 2 Dr. David Legates, Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, Newark, gave evidence to a US federal court in a case involving Friends of the Earth, (available at http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm) Dr. Legates challenges the evidence for the 0.6°C rise in the 20th century. He claims that the proximity of temperature gauges to cities has artificially elevated reported temperatures. He also points to natural variability as an important factor, citing a 2004 study that suggested solar variability may have contributed up to 0.25°C of the recent warming. Of course, the converts to the manmade global warming religion will say of each of these high-calibre but sceptical scientists “He’s in the pay of the energy industry”.

Pete, I gather from your comments in this and the Telegraph blog that your concern is purely and simply our pollution of and damage to the environment and I do not disagree with you on this. I do NOT agree that producing CO2 (and up to twice as much H2O) from burning fossil fuels and “belting out these 28 billion tonnes per annum since 1750” is causing significant damage to the global environment, although there may well be some local effects. Both water (by far the most significant greenhouse gas) and CO2 (a minor GHG) are vital to life on this planet. Incidentally, that 28 Gt/yr figure of yours is NOT “since 1750”. The measured figure for 2000 was 6.8Gt. The 28Gt/yr is from one of the implausible IPCC scenarios for 2100. The same scenario uses a global population 2.5 times that measured for 2000 and coal production of 10 times that of 2000.

Many years ago when debating the increasing wealth and changing living standards that I and my contemporaries had experienced since the second world war, I commented that standards of living had not necessarily improved, but our level of wastage had certainly risen considerably. I still believe this. Let me make clear that I abhor waste and detest unnecessary damage to the environment, however, in my book, human well-being comes first. It appears to me that those of us with more money than needed to exist, i.e. the majority of the developed world, are being awfully smug. We are effectively telling many more millions worldwide who can barely feed and cloth themselves and families that they should make further sacrifices in support of our own suspect opinions about human impact upon global climate. These opinions are not based upon proven fact but are instead based upon the opinions of some climate “experts”, massaged by politicians and environmentalists to arrive at a desired consensus. Opinion is opinion, regardless of its source, and is often flawed. Only proven facts are irrefutable. Consensus, especially political concensus, often has little basis in fact, but is driven by vested interest.

The consensus at one time was that the earth is flat. Some of earth’s inhabitants still hold that opinion. Scientific and political consensus in the 17th century was dominated by religious dogma. “Expert” opinion of the time was that the earth was the centre of the universe, with all solar bodies orbiting it. Poor old Galileo dared to provide evidence that in fact the sun is the centre of the solar system and was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. During the early years of the second world war expert medical opinion was that heart surgery was impossible. Thank goodness a lone military surgeon proved that “expert” opinion was wrong. What did that great Conservative politician Margaret Thatcher say about concensus after she had inherited another economic mess from a Labour government ”.. consensus .. is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects”.

Pete, I really don’t think that you and I will make any constructive progress in continuing our debate. You have your fixed environmentalist views that will probably only change when the next ice age starts (around 2020?). I can only be persuaded by logical argument based upon proven fact. When I was much younger I used to invite Jehovah’s Witnesses in for a chat, hoping to convert them from their superstitious dogma to evidence-based agnosticism. Despite hours of debate, neither side changed its opinions, although I have since then realised that religion of any kind is comforting for many people, if not for myself. Let us at this point agree to disagree about my belief that: BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING.

Best regards, Pete Ridley,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Tells is all about your three scientists of climate worth and even the credible seems slightly incredible.

The science of climate change is scientifically fine and the warming is correctly found to be attributed to excess GHG and land use changes and not the Sun or some other enigmatic propoganda source of information.

Maybe you can tell me exactly why you find the science incorrect and what source of warming you have found to contradict the offically peer reviewed scientifically factual one?

Mark (Lynas) your header to this blog included Jonathan Porritt’s recent statement “I’m nervous, .. Climate change is still tough for politicians to sell. This all feels very much like one of those periodic crunch moments for the sustainability agenda.” I now understand why Jonathan refused to take up my challenge to get involved in open debate on the issue of manmade global warming. The sustainability bandwagon is rocky enough as it is! Jonathan, like yourself, wrote a booklet which included misleading statements about manmade climate change. If only one misleading statement is identified in any publication then the whole becomes suspect. Let me comment on the Times Supplement article based upon your “Six Degrees .. ”, then briefly on Jonathan’s “Playing Safe: Science and the Environment”. I make the assumption that what was reported in the Times is actually what you said or implied in your book. If the Times misrepresented what you said in your booklet then please forgive me, but it still demonstrates how the media distort facts.

“SIX DEGREES .. ” “Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now .. Nebraska was desert”. Nabraska’s status today is a totally different scenario, impossible to compare with the conditions pertaining six thousand years ago (see my posting of 28th November paragraph 4 for detailed justification of my comment). “Without knowing how much fossil fuel will be burnt, the best science can offer is a range of plausible ‘scenarios’” This is wrong. Science did NOT offer the scenarios. These scenarios were imposed upon the scientists by the politically orientated IPCC. Several are IM-plausible, e.g. Scenario A2 used a figure for CO2 emissions in 2100 of 7 times the measured figure for 2000. A global population in 2100 at 2.5 times that measured for 2000 and coal production in 2100 at 10 times that of 2000 was used in that same scenario. I don’t call these “reasonable or probable” (from The Concise Oxford Dictionary)! The IPCC itself admitted that “there is no objective way to assign likelihood to any of the scenarios.” (from “Climate Change Mitigation”) “They (the scenarios) vary so widely that the IPCC .. was able to suggest only that global average temperatures by the end of the 21st century will have risen between 1.4 and 5.8C above the average for 1990 .. last month pushed up to 6.4C ..” The IPCC has never claimed that temperatures WILL have risen and has acknowledged that “No judgement is offered .. as to the preference for any of the scenarios .. neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations” (from “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios”).

“PLAYING SAFE: .. ” “We know that levels of carbon dioxide … are likely to reach 560 ppm .. by 2040”. We know nothing of the sort. All that the IPCC has been able to do is assign a range of highly uncertain concentration levels to the scenarios in accordance with levels produced by different carbon cycle models. The IPCC’s comments above about the deficiencies of their scenarios apply here also. Jonathan repeatedly claims that “we know” when in fact we only have opinions. Perhaps you’ll allow me to post more comments on Jonathan’s booklet and other sustainability arguments in a future contribution.

The clear purpose of the Times Supplement, these booklets and that of “The Politics of the Real World” from The Real World Coalition (organisations associated with Jonathan’s cause) is to merge fact with opinion (and even fantasy) to scare people. The popular media are full of this kind of scare-mongering propaganda about global warming.

Many of these aspects of political and environmentalist propaganda are exposed in more detail in Dr. Vincent Gray’s booklet “The Greenhouse Delusion” and at numerous INTERNET sites, including that of the Climate Science Coalition.

Regards, Pete Ridley

I’ve just watched Newsnight on BBC2 and My God it was just like watching a Monty Python sketch. Two utter ecoloons and a rep from the energy industry going head to head talking about how we will lead the World showing how the UK will lower its CO2 emissions. Were it not costing us all an arm and a leg to pay for this madness I would have felt sorry for Monbiot and the head of the climate change dept. whatever his name is. But alas it will not only cost us an arm and a leg but will lead to the downfall of a once great economy that even Adolph was unable to kill. “Nein, jus leeve ze ecofoolz to bankrupt Eengerland”. He would have been proud of them. Reading through some of the comments in this section of the blog I am really filled with despair. The pro global warming lobby really believe what they have to say when it comes to climate change. I have studied the evidence in detail and still find no proof of any such warming but still others do. It’s rather like talking to a middle aged man who still belongs to the Socialist Workers Party. Gawd help us all.

I read with interest, Mr Peter Ridley’s comments regarding the current economic crisis. (dated 23 November)...I too cannot understand why the government is trying to encourage already cash-strapped consumers to spend more and more. Isn’t that the last thing that they should be doing? For those who are already up to their necks in debt, wouldn’t further debt push them over the edge? How may frantic people could be considering suicide at this very moment due to threats of repossession, redundancy, or just trying to make ends meet? I was brought up believing that we should only buy what we can afford. It is true that when my peers were travelling around the world, buying expensive luxury items, I can say that I often felt envious. I am so relieved now that I didn’t get sucked into believing that it was okay to take borrowing to the max and worry about paying later. I am thankful that I can sleep at night. I, as a member of the general public, think Mr Ridley writes a lot of sense…and regarding his comments on man-made global warming, why are people reluctant to take up his challenge?

Mark (Lynas) your header to this blog commented that David Cameron seemed “scarcely to mention climate change any more” and alarmed environmental groups wrote an open letter to party leaders. It is anticipated that in a couple of years time a Conservative government will have taken control of the country’s economy (ruined again by years of Labour mismanagement). Rather than pay attention to alarmist environmentalists it (and all green supporters) would be well advised to pay more attention to the open letter sent by the 100 sceptical scientists to the UN Secretary General. I again refer to my paper “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2” on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php.

I was astounded to see your comment on the passing of Climate Change Bill in September. I have had a keen interest in manmade climate change and the associated politics since reading the Times Supplement on your “Six Degrees ..” yet I had absolutely NO idea that this bill was being debated even, let alone had been passed. In Nov. 2006 the BBC reported that “Government officials said it hoped the announcement of the proposed legislation in the Queen’s Speech would stimulate a debate among the public and within Parliament about the contents of the bill”. Since then I have seen nothing specific from the bill being debated by the general public. I have asked friends and associates (from window cleaners to chartered accountants) what they knew about its passage through the commons – nothing! As one commented “They’ve kept that one well hidden”. I have searched the Internet and found virtually nothing that would be seen by the general public and no significant coverage has been given to it in the popular media.

The politicians certainly took an opportunity to attract green votes and used “a good time to bury bad news” about the myth of manmade global warming behind the reality of global economic catastrophe. Government shenanigans following September 2001 spring to mind. The “surge of interest in green measures to address the crisis” is purely political. The general public has little concern about the mythical manmade global warming crisis, being presently largely concerned with the genuine global economic crisis. Let us pray that this act is repealed in 2010 by a Conservative government. I will offer comments on what this bill (act?) is committing us to in a future submission.

Taking up your points about the cost of “Developing a green economy”. You quote that “the incremental cost of completely greening the world’s energy system is certainly less than that ($700bn) per annum”. Also, “climate and economic solutions can support rather than compete with each other”. OWCH! The cost of solving the economic crisis alone will drive our country close to bankruptcy. We tax payers will be paying for this government’s economic mess for decades to come. If in addition we are forced by the politicians to over-indulge in the premature development of expensive renewable energy rather than exploit the relatively cheap fossil fuel resources that are available we will face twice the tax pain.

“Investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency, green buildings and public transport will bring huge job-creation and enterprise opportunities” reminds me of the situation during the early seventies. Britain was booming, the pound strong, people had money to waste, until it all went bust (admittedly under a Conservative government, but that was Heath, wasn’t it and it was he who took us into that other mess, the EEC), then came Labour and its job creation. Creating unnecessary jobs purely to revive the economy helps nobody in the long term. It took Maggie to sort it all out, then came Tony and Gordon, but ENOUGH OF THIS FRIVOLITY.

Premature investment in expensive renewable energy programs will further stretch the economies of the developed world, already in melt-down according to the media. It will seriously hamper the developed world’s ability to reduce the deprivation experienced by millions of individuals worldwide. If Oxfam’s estimated need “for this from the UK is about £1.6bn annually” and “would once have seemed like an INCONCEIVABLY large bill” then it will be IMPOSSIBLE for decades hereafter if money is wasted on the precipitate development of renewable energy sources. From the viewpoint of manmade global warming the “carbon market” is a pointless economic confidence trick. It is purely a mechanism for the rich to make more money. You do mention Mr. Al Gore, another rich politician from a privileged background. I’ll offer future comments on Mr. Gore and on the misrepresentations in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”. A few of these were recognised by a London High Court judge, but Viscount Monckton of Brenchley identifies ”..35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist ..”.

You make reference to Ban Ki-moon and his political associates the president of Indonesia, the prime ministers of Poland and Denmark, Barack Obama and to The United Nations Environment Programme which aims to help policymakers “recognise environmental investment’s contributions to .. poverty reduction”. This United Nations and the privileged politicians choose to ignore the concerns expressed in the open letter from the 100 sceptical scientists. That open letter concludes “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems”. That’s politicians for you!

Your header includes Cameron Hepburn’s statement “dematerialisation of the economy is feasible in a thermodynamic sense”. Political and environmentalist propaganda is full of statements like this, attempting to give a semblance of scientific credibility to their arguments. In my paper I say of propaganda “It is very easy .. to merge chosen bits of scientifically identified knowledge with our own opinions in order to present a persuasive argument supporting our preferred point of view” but Hepburn’s leaves me cold. As a Chartered Engineer, I have absolutely no idea what thermodynamics (the science of relations between heat and other forms of energy) has to do with economics (the wealth and resources of any community). Mark, you obviously understand the connection, so please can you enlighten me.

The ecological economist Herman Daly should try telling the world’s deprived millions that they should aim for “qualitative development”, not “quantitative growth”. These millions (who can barely feed themselves and families) will ask him to explain why he has “focused too much on the economy’s circulatory system” and neglected their digestive tract. This is “the ultimate question politicians, environmentalists and economists will have to focus on answering ..” if our human crisis is to be resolved in this century.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Pete, I will consider the argument won then.

As for your most recent posting you cannot believe anything the media states on global warming with literal truth but their is a lot of opinion out there on the subject, you have plenty of it obviosuly.

The Government’s waste of UK taxpayers’ hard-earned money trying to do the impossible (control the global climate) has started in earnest.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is established and on 1st December “urged the Government to commit unilaterally to reducing emissions of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the UK by at least 34% in 2020 relative to 1990 levels .. increased to 42% relative to 1990 once a global deal to reduce emissions is achieved. .. meeting these targets is necessary to contain the threat of climate change. .. the CCC’s first report sets out .. the proposed level of the first three carbon budgets covering the periods 2008-12, 2013-17 and 2018-22. The .. budgets can be met by using existing technologies, and by .. : - Moving away from using fossil fuels - using energy more efficiently in our homes .. office buildings .. industry, through better insulation, ..more energy efficient appliances and .. reducing waste by turning lights off, shutting down computers and using air conditioning less; - reducing transport emissions, developing electric cars, improving the carbon efficiency of engines, developing use of sustainable bio-fuels, better journey planning and more use of public transport. - purchasing offset credits .. These significant reductions can be achieved without harming the UK’s economy and at a cost less than 1% of GDP in 2020. In other words, an economy that might grow by 30% in the period to 2020, would instead grow by 29%. The CCC advises that this is a price worth paying … “

The economy is more likely to shrink in the period to 2020 that grow and how often do these projections fall short, e.g. the 2012 Olympics, the 2000 Millenium Dome.

It’s too easy for politicians to dispose of our taxpayers money on unnecessary projects, but you’d think they’d wait until after the present economic crisis ends!

Mark (Lynas), the debate here about the fundamental climate science behind the pro’s and con’s of Manmade Global Warming has much in common with what could be expected in a debate between the Pope and Osama Bin Laden about their fundamental religious opinions. Devotees on both sides have entrenched beliefs and refuse to be persuaded even to consider the possibility that the other’s arguments might have some validity. Others will listen to all arguments, accept facts and make a reasoned assessment of opinions, however the vast majority couldn’t care less because the have more important things to concern themselves with.

I must thank you for allowing all of my opinions to be published on your blog despite the fact that mine would appear to be totally opposed to your own. Carl Johnson dropped out of the debate after only one submission and I think it is a shame that only Pete Best and I have engaged in significant debate, even though we have made no progress. Pete and I have exchanged more than 3000 words yet neither of us has changed his opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and Pete and I should share the opinion that his and my debate is over without agreement being reached Pete still believes that “THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS SCIENTIFICALLY FINE AND THE WARMING IS CORRECTLY FOUND TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO EXCESS GHG AND LAND USE CHANGES”. I still believe that “IT IS SETTLED. BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING”.

I have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get others involved by challenging the arguments of supporters of the manmade global warming cause, particularly yourself and Jonathan Porritt. Jonathan won’t even respond to my E-mails, let alone take up my challenge to enter into debate and refute the sceptical science exposing the flaws in the theory of significant manmade global warming that both of you staunchly support. A debate on Jonathan’s blog under “Globalism and Regionalism” in September involving several individuals on both sides of the argument suddenly dried up after my final posting. This concluded that “The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world’s most deprived communities”.

You steadfastly refuse to respond to my criticism of your position as outlined in your booklet “Six Degrees .. ” or in the header of your blog.

Why is it that you, Jonathan and other supporters of the argument that our burning of fossil fuels causes significant global climate change refuse to disprove the evidence that I reference in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2”. This presents the scientific evidence showing that the burning of fossil fuels has no significant effect upon the global climate.

I repeat to you all again the challenge that I have issued repeatedly on this and other blogs, by E-mail and in my paper. PROVE WITH DETAILED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE ARGUMENTS REFERENCED IN MY PAPER ARE FLAWED. Refusal to take up the challenge IN FULL and simply repeating political and environmentalist propaganda, can be understood to mean only one thing THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

This whole issue around the claim that “global warming is a result of our burning fossil fuels”has me unconvinced if looked at from a scientific point of view. What is always true is that “anything is true if one believes it!”

Politicians know this only too well and have since time immemorial spent their time convincing the ignorant to believe! which they do very well, mainly to the detriment of all.

The real issue is not warming or cooling – it is simply the way that we trash and destroy the planet, and the way in which nature reacts to our continual abuse.

No civilization can last forever and nature has always found a way of balancing matters out. Maybe it is our turn to become another event in the mystical ways of nature – just to become another passing civilization embedded in the history of this amazing and beautiful planet of ours.

I am only a geologist, awestruck by the power of our universe and our little earth. “I have always wondered how beautiful and splendid this planet must have been until we arrived – what seriously stupid creatures we are to have done what we have done and now all we can do is complain! Do not be afraid – nature will take care of this splendid planet and all of us as well – and there are no theories, or other ideological nonsensical political postures that will prevent that – “Usually it is those who have everything that actually have nothing” -because they would’nt know the true value of anything if it bit them in the rear!

I know they do not care what they leave behind – I hope they enjoy their stay is all!

Pete Ridley, you explain to us the means by which the noted global warming temperature rise, the shrinking of glaciers, the warming of the Arctic etc is occuring by your scientific assessment and state your sources.

AGW is a noted scientific fact so prove it is false. I can not see why any of us should try and prove to you that CO2, methane, and other noted GHG levels have increased in the earths atmosphere and hence are irradiating heat.

In my contributions on 02 and 03 December I referred to the Climate Change Bill/Act and the associated waste of UK taxpayers’ money by this Labour government in an attempt to attract the environmentalist vote at the next election. I have already commented on the impacts on taxpayers of actions recommended to government by its Climate Change Committee and would now like to look at the key provisions of the Act itself. Before doing that, I think it is worthwhile repeating extracts from comments of the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker following the Bill’s 3rd reading, when he reported on “what is potentially the most expensive single piece of legislation ever put through Parliament” (expensive for the taxpayers, of course, not the Government).

TELEGRAPH QUOTE: As MPs droned on about the need to fight global warming, Peter Lilley drew .. attention to the fact that .. It was London’s first October snowfall for 70 years, and similarly unseasonal snow was carpeting a wide swathe of Britain. In all that .. debate, only two MPs questioned the need for such a Bill .. The sole MP who tried to raise the matter of the cost of the Bill – which could run to trillions of pounds if all its measures were implemented – was Mr Lilley. He was ruled out of order .. the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible. Yet as we enter the worst recession for decades, our MPs while away their time prattling .. about the need to fight global warming.

.. One of the few specific policy commitments made by would-be president Obama is that he will support last year’s ruling .. that the US Environmental Protection Agency should treat CO2 as a “pollutant” .. The gas that no plant can survive without, and hence all higher forms of life depend on, would be regulated as if it were as dangerous as arsenic or sulphuric acid. .. Obama also supports .. the .. “carbon trading” scheme, costed at hundreds of billions of dollars. It seems the global warming scare may soon become as crippling to the world’s richest economy as anything our own politicians are hell-bent on imposing here. Yet last week ..nearly 180 places in the US, from Alaska to Alabama, have just recorded their coldest October temperatures or heaviest October snowfalls on record ..

Declining global temperatures continue to make a mockery of those computer model projections on which the whole global warming scare is based. .. has there ever in history been such a collective flight from reality? UNQUOTE (For full comments, reference should be made to telegraph.co.uk “Climate Change Bill makes chilling reading” dated 01/11/2008).

CLIMATE CHANGE ACT 2008 – KEY PROVISIONS extracted from the Department of Climate Change and Energy (DEFRA) web-site 01/12/2008.

DEFRA QUOTE: Two key aims underpinning the Act: - to .. help the transition towards a low carbon economy in the UK; - to demonstrate strong UK leadership internationally, .. taking our share of responsibility for reducing global emissions in the context of .. post-2012 global agreement ..

Key Provisions - Legally binding targets: Green house gas emission reductions .. of at least 80% by 2050, and reductions in CO2 emissions of at least 26% by 2020, against a 1990 baseline.. - A carbon budgeting system which caps emissions .. The first three carbon budgets will run from 2008-12, 2013-17 and 2018-22,.. - creation of the Committee on Climate Change, .. - Government will include international aviation and shipping emissions in the Act or explain why not by 31 December 2012. . Committee on Climate Change .. to advise the Government on the consequences of including emissions from international aviation and shipping in the Bill’s targets and budgets.. - Committee on Climate Change .. to advise on .. action at domestic, European and international level, for each carbon budget.

- introduce domestic emissions trading schemes .. ; measures on biofuels; powers to introduce pilot financial incentive schemes in England for household waste; .. a minimum charge for single-use carrier bags .. - Government to require public bodies and statutory undertakers to carry out .. risk assessment and make plans to address those risks. - Government to issue guidance .. on the way companies .. report their greenhouse gas emissions, and to review the contribution reporting could make to emissions reductions by 1st December 2010. Requirement also that the Government must, by 6th April 2012, use powers under the Companies Act to mandate reporting, or explain to Parliament why it has not done so.

Reference should be made to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/legislation/index.htm for full details.

This Labour government, an organisation that makes no productive contribution to our economic well-being, is committing us individuals to economy-destroying taxation and companies (the very organisations that make a positive contribution to our economic well-being) unnecessary, unproductive and costly activity.

Note the references to 2012, i.e. THE PAIN ONCE AGAIN CONVENIENTLY POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION.

In yesterday’s Queen’s Speech the government announced another blatant attempt to attract further votes, just as it has done with the Climate Change Act. This time it is targeting the “middle England” vote, traditionally Conservative when Labour is seen to have once again failed to deliver on its promises. Today’s popular press reports on the “Mortgage Safety Net For Middle Classes” who have mortgages below £400,000. Once again this Labour government is encouraging people effectively to borrow more money now (of course, to be paid back later, but don’t worry about that) with the risk of repayment default being underwritten by the taxpayer. Once again, the pain of this extended borrowing is postponed until – you guessed it – after the next election! Perhaps it is time for us to take a lesson from the citizens of Thailand and demonstrate this Government out of office right now.

By the way, Catherine (Short – may I call you Catherine) thanks for the comments, but please call me Pete.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic

Dear Pete Ridley, Christopher Booker is a known denialist and is not likely to agree with any climate change bill regardless and as he is writing for a right wing newspaper his articles contain no truth or facts, just right wing opinion of the paranoid and neurotic.

Go read the Guardian and get the balanced view on global warming and our huge requirements to deal with it, after all fossil fuels are approaching peak levels anyway and hence will cause us economic harm at some point soon enough, within 10 years.

Peter (Nel), thanks for the comments. I agree with much of what you say in your post on December 4th, 2008, but would like to respond to two of your comments. Being “only a geologist” you quite possibly have as much knowledge of climate science as does any other ‘ologists, almost certainly more than the majority of environmentalists and certainly more than most of the politicians who are pontificating on the subject.

Whilst there are many ways in which “we trash and destroy the planet”, there are many ways in which humans have improved the environment from the point of view of our own existence on it. This is not only regarding the very comfortable local environments that many individuals in the developed world enjoy. Our beautiful English countryside and that of other countries we love to visit is to a fair extent due to humans changing the environment ever since we started walking the planet. I for one would not wish to set the clock back at all.

What I do wish is that our hard-earned taxes were spent on reducing what damage that we do to the planet while at the same time help the worlds deprived millions to improve their lot, first economically then environmentally. That would be far better than the taxes being wasted by this (or any) government on totally fruitless projects such as trying to control the global climate. Nature alone controls that.

More and more we see this desperate Labour government introducing worthless scheme after worthless scheme that merely waste taxpayers money. Why? – because it is panicking over how it is going to attract enough votes to scrape into power at the next election. The first major panic action may well have been late this summer when ” .. ‘Labour were 20 points behind in the opinion polls and desperate times call for desperate measures’ says an old Labour MP ..” ... The “desperate measure” is here referring to the recall of Mr. Mandelson, described as ”.. the svengali of spin ..”, who was “Twice sacked from government – once for failing to declare a dodgy loan .. on his mortgage application ..” (NB: all quotes in this and the next two paragraphs have been extracted from “The Most Powerful Man In Britain?” by Quentin Letts in The Daily Mail of 4th December. I do not usually find Mr. Letts contributions in the Daily Mail worth reading, but I recommend this one).

In yesterday’s Queen’s Speech the government announced another blatant attempt to attract further votes, just as it has done with the Climate Change Act. Today’s Daily Mail lead report (Mortgage Safety Net For Middle Classes) covers another panic measure by this collapsing Labour Government. This time it is targeting the middle-England vote, traditionally Conservative when Labour is seen once again to have failed to deliver on its promises. Another bail-out funded by the tax-payer is to be offered, this time to those who have recklessly over-stretched themselves with mortgage loans as much as £400,000. Mr. Mandelson has brought together his personal experience of loans, morgages and Government spin to present another poorly camouflaged vote-catcher. Once again this Labour government is encouraging people effectively to borrow more money now (of course, to be paid back later, but don’t worry about that now) with the risk of repayment default being underwritten by the taxpayer. Once again, the pain for both the borrower and the taxpayer of this extended borrowing is postponed until – you guessed it – after the next election!

The Climate Change Act is another political confidence trick to both attract the votes of placated environmentalists and to justify the sustained milking of taxpayers. The environmental meaninglessness of Parliament’s 2008 commitment to almost stop our use of fossil fuels by 2050 will be clear to everyone by 2020 when the next ice-age gets underway. Perhaps it is time for us to take a lesson from the citizens of Thailand and demonstrate this Government out of office right now, rather than wait to vote them out at the next election.

Mark (Lynas), , I have a note that you talk about “now £300 Billion does not seem so difficult” (please correct me if I am mistaken about the source of the quote). This is suggesting that if we can do it to save the world’s economy, why can’t wee do the same for the environment? The difference is that the economy is on the verge of collapse. The environment is not!

We do KNOW that the economy is heading for disaster. We do NOT know that the environment is on a similar course. If we don’t save the world economy from collapse then we will set civilisation back hundreds of years. Perhaps some privileged members of society would love to go back to a time when most people new their place in society, did not question what their “superiors” told them and did as they were told. I doubt if many who, as rural and domestic employees, have experience of what things were like 80 years ago would want those days back.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm

Dear readers, my sincere apologies for regurgitating some of my submission of yesterday. Regards, Pete Ridley

Mark (Lynas), here are a few more observations on the global environment, global warming, global economy, and UK media distortion.

Governments of the developed world should not be wasting enormous amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned money in chasing after expensive, damaging and (in the case of nuclear) potentially dangerous renewable energy sources. Rather they should be encouraging further research into the economic exploitation of the enormous fossil fuel resources that remain untapped worldwide. Coal and methane deposits abound under the ground and the oceans in sufficient quantities to power the global economy for decades to come. Energy companies are financing research and development needed to enable the economical extraction these, but for selfish reasons and only paying enough attention to damage to the environment to keep activists and politicians quiet. Governments should be putting taxpayers’ money into supporting this research and development (not that of renewable sources) for the benefit of humans without causing unacceptable levels of environmental change.

Use of fossil fuels does not dictate that significant environmentally damaging emissions result. Natural gas is about 85% methane, which when fully burnt (oxidised) produces (by volume) 2 parts water vapour and one part carbon dioxide. Coal is about 80% carbon, which when fully burnt produces only carbon dioxide. Coal gas is about 4% methane, 45% hydrogen and 5% carbon monoxide. When fully burnt, hydrogen and carbon monoxide produce only water vapour. Both of these combustion products are essential life-supporting gases. Any remaining minor amounts of unwanted products of the combustion of natural gas, coal or coal gas could be captured and rendered harmless to humans or the environment.

The burning of natural gas to heat homes, cook food, generate electricity and even power motor cars has NOT unacceptably damaged the environment. There is every reason to anticipate that suitable utilisation processes can be developed at significantly less cost than developing renewable sources. For almost 50 years the UK economy has benefited enormously from the exploitation of North Sea natural gas deposits. Without the use of this fossil fuel resource UK taxpayers would be much poorer and the economy would be in an even more perilous state than it now is.

On 5th December the media reported on one hopefully good outcome of the current economic crisis, the start by Honda of the possible demise of that totally unproductive and environmentally polluting human activity, Formula 1 car racing.

Another report, this time illustrating the media distortions involving global warming, was in regard to money that is to be invested in training scientists and engineers to tackle the problems Britain faces in the future. The report claimed that Professor Dave Delpy, Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) had stated that use of the £250M donation by the Government (taxpayers hard-earned money, not the government’s) would concentrate upon climate change and energy. Prof Delpy did not say this. What he actually said was that it would be spent on a range of subjects, including climate change and energy. The EPSRC said they will tackle subjects as diverse as managing scarce water resources, keeping the UK’s aerospace industry competitive and developing artificial organs for patients, all much more worthy causes than trying unnecessarily to do the impossible, control the global climate.

Mark, I note that you and your associated environmentalist activists have still not responded to my challenge on this last issue. You are all giving us the impression of acknowledging that BURNING FOSSIL FUELS CAUSES NO SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING. If you reject the evidence that I have referenced in my paper then you really ought to say so (and substantiate your position with the detailed science that I have unsuccessfully challenged you all to provide).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm Sceptic

Mark (Lynas), here are some corrections/additions which I should have made before sending my submission earlier today. Apologies to all of my readers – there are just so many opinions that I want to throw into the “melting pot” of this debate to hopefully inspire substantial reaction. At my age its so easy to get confused (no sarcastic comment please!).

ADDITIONS In Para. 1 middle, after “Coal and methane deposits abound under the ground and the oceans in sufficient quantities to power the global economy for decades to come.” ADD “Coal in particular is readily available to some major developing economies.”

In Para. 3, after “Without the use of this fossil fuel resource UK taxpayers would be much poorer and the economy would be in an even more perilous state than it now is.” ADD ” One truth in the evangelical booklet “Politics of the Real World” from the The Real World Coalition is “the engine of modern economies .. fossil fuels”. Long life and health to the engine!”

CORRECTION Replace Para. 2 with “Use of fossil fuels does not dictate that significant environmentally damaging emissions will result. Natural gas is about 15% ethane, butane and propane but 85% methane, which when fully burnt (oxidised) produces (by volume) 2 parts water vapour and one part carbon dioxide. Coal is about 90% carbon, which when fully burnt produces only carbon dioxide. Coal gas is about 40% methane, 45% hydrogen and 5% carbon monoxide. When fully burnt, hydrogen and carbon monoxide produce only water vapour. Both of these combustion products are essential life-supporting gases. Any remaining minor amounts of unwanted products of the combustion of natural gas, coal or coal gas could be captured and rendered harmless to humans or the environment. Then there is coal tar, the processing of which makes a vital contribution to the modern global economy.”

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm Sceptic

Mr Ridley, your comments in your repeat postings are somewhat inaccurate and slightly inflamed by ignorance it would seem. Cold weather is not climate regardless of what you are saying. The weather is random and as we have only had a small amount of global warming it will not rule out cold weather when we are having a winter, where the sun shines for little time at a very shallow angle.

Your posts are nothin short of hyped scaremongering of a kind due to your limited understanding of the problem. For example the endlessness of fossil fuels is limited and the end is in sight for oil, which being the most important fossil fuel requires us to demand replacement technologies to come online and be developed at this time. Gas is also limited in its future and reserves and coals horizon is much further away but we need sequestration technology in order to keep its energy source flowing.

The worlds 30 billion barrel per annum oil useage is going to limit us in the near future as the world will want more too and hence we must develop new and carbon free alternatives which if we want to keep our modern progressive capatalist world going we need to invest in now.

Here’s a chance to spread the word. I got this from from 350.org. They want us to comment on their YouTube video so it will get enough comments to be promoted by YouTube:

“I need your help with an experiment. Can you take 2 minutes watch an animation and help take over YouTube? A little background: starting a week ago, a few members of the international 350.org team have converged for the annual UN Climate Conference. It’s a little crazy here—over 9,000 people representing 190 countries have gathered to negotiate our collective future. Things are changing by the hour, and there’s both bad news and good news to report.”

Site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOAtbWHWJqk I’ve also added link on my name :)

Mark (Lynas), You suggested in your booklet “Six Degrees – ..” that there is a risk of global catastrophy (even the extinction of most life on earth) from the enormous amount of fossil fuel stored in the oceans. You say that: ”.. beneath the oceans, another monster stirred – the same that would bring a devastating end to the Palaeocene, and that still lies in wait today. Methane Hydrate. .. a small disturbance drives a gas saturated parcel of water upwards. .. as it surges upwards, reaching explosive force, it drags surrounding water up with it. .. hundreds of metres into the air as the released gas blasts into the atmosphere. .. Even in air-methane concentrations as low as 5% .. the mixture could ignite .. sending fireballs tearing across the sky .. Scientists calculate that they could destroy terrestrial life almost entirely. .. a large explosion could release energy ..100,000 times more than the world’s entire stockpile of nuclear weapons”.

Terrifying isn’t it! (by the way, you made another misrepresentation here. More correctly, “In methane-air concentrations between 5-15% .. the mixture could ignite”. No ignition should take place below or above these limits. Doesn’t sound so bad now, does it?)

To remove that risk of extinction we need to get those dangerous fossil fuel hydrates extracted and processed as quickly and safely as possible for use by the global economy. The energy companies are working on it. There’s money to be made, for decades. Estimates of reserves of methane hydrate range from twice to ten times the combined global reserves of oil and natural gas. The sooner we divert taxpayers’ money from developing renewables into developing the technology for extracting this fossil fuel the better. Risk-averse environmentalists must surely support this.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warm

Dear readers, is there anyone out there who can make a CONSTRUCTIVE contribution to the main point of my involvement in this debate, which is that THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE. This part of the debate has been rather one-sided so far. I’m still waiting for any supporter of the theory of manmade global warming to provide evidence that refutes the arguments in my paper “Politicization of CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” which can be seen at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1 on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site.

Manmade global warming sceptics like myself are frequently referred to as “deniers” by evangelical environmentalist (e.g. see the Mark Lynas blog “The global warming deniers 04 July 08”). We “deniers” have tried unsuccessfully recently to get “priests” of the manmade global warming religion (e.g. Al Gore) to engage with them in honest, constructive and open public debate of both sides of the argument. Since becoming actively involved a couple of months ago in openly debating this issue I, as a “denier”, have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to get honest, constructive and open debate going with “priests” such as Jonathan Porritt, his fellow members of the “Sustainable Development Commission and Mark Lynas. I have also emphasised repeatedly my preference that abuse should be avoided.

On 15th Oct. I posted a contribution to what was up to then a vigorous open debate between “believers” and “deniers” on Jonathan Porritt’s blog entitled “Globalism and Regionalism” which now has 29 comments posted. I posted another on 17th inviting “a bit more honesty and open-mindedness in these debates instead of mere scare-mongering” then my (and the debate’s) final one on 28th. My first two posts provided the debate with some of the detailed arguments in my paper “Politicization of CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” with an abstract from it. Only one other posting, a “denial”, was made before the debate stalled. Nobody has challenged my “denialist” arguments on the blog.

On 23rd Nov. I joined the debate on this blog, asking ” Please can we get an open debate going here, properly addressing the arguments of sceptics like myself”. I repeated similar requests on 24th, 27th and 28th, then on 30th Nov. I responded to one “believer” with “I really don’t think that you and I will make any constructive progress in continuing our debate. You have your fixed .. views .. I can only be persuaded by logical argument based upon proven fact”. On 1st Dec. I commented to Mark that “I now understand why Jonathan refused to take up my challenge to get involved in open debate on the issue of manmade global warming”. On 4nd Dec. I commented to Mark that “Jonathan won’t even respond to my E-mails. You steadfastly refuse to respond to my criticism of your position.”

I asked myself why it is that Mark, Jonathan and other leading “believers” refuse to disprove the evidence that .. THE BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON THE GLOBAL CLIMATE.” Then I remembered Mark’s one and only contribution to the debate on his blog other than his initial opinions and the supporting quotes from other like-minded environmentalists. On 24th Nov. he said “Can I just clarify that the ‘Mark’ above is not me? This implies no criticism, nor endorsement. Thanks…”. The significant words are ” no criticism, nor endorsement” – SO, NO “DENIER” CAN EXPECT ANY DEBATE WITH MARK!!

As the “denier” Dr. Vincent Gray told me ” Your experience is all too familiar. They will never debate the issues because they know they will lose”. This could be interpreted as suggesting that all of the leading “believers” are cowards with only unsubstantiated propaganda to offer.

So I next asked myself why Mark would invite comments from his readers? I read in the Times Supplement’s article on his booklet “Six Degrees – …” that took him a full year’s intensive research before he was able to start writing it. Perhaps the sole purpose of his blog is to encourage others to carry out on his behalf the detailed research involved in preparing his next booklet? I suggest the title “Manmade Global Warming – the Truth”. I look forward to seeing it. Hopefully he will be offering complementary copies to major contributors.

Let me make a couple of generalisations which are not applicable to every situation, but are to many. Those of us who refuse to face challenges are fearful of loosing. Those who refuse to take risks or explore are fearful of the unknown. Most of us have enormous respect for anyone who has a go despite their fears, whether the outcome is success or failure. A topical example of this is the frighting activities that participants in “I’m a Celebrity … ” undertake. Conversely, we have little respect for those who make no effort to overcome their fear.

Talking of fear and risk of danger brings to mind the Precautionary Principle (is fear of slight risk of danger the “Over-precautionary Principle”?). Jonathan Porritt expressed his opinions about risk and the Precautionary Principle in his booklet “Playing Safe: .. Science and the Environment” Here are extracts from a couple of his opinions, along with some comments of my own.

“A scientists ‘don’t know’ is the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach ink blot. Some will hear a cheerful, reassuring message, others will listen to the same words and hear the threat of catastrophe”. Scientists do not KNOW that the burning of fossil fuels causes significant global warming. In the above quote, for “Some” read “deniers” and for “others” read “deniers”.

“But a definitive cause-and-effect linkage remains elusive ..” and “Plucking a figure out of the air statistically to capture .. risk is just bad science .” These opinions apply emphatically to: 1) the claimed link between the alleged GLOBAL temperature rise and the alleged GLOBAL carbon dioxide concentration in the air (a CORRELATION does NOT dictate a DEPENDENCY) and 2) the IPCC’s claim that the probabilities they attach to their climate projections are good science just because they are plucked out of the air by scientists (a claim accepted by “believers” as sound science but recognised by “deniers” as no science at all).

Regards, Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic

OOOOPs – another typo. Please forgive.

“A scientists ‘don’t know’ is the verbal equivalent of a Rorschach ink blot. Some will hear a cheerful, reassuring message, others will listen to the same words and hear the threat of catastrophe”. Scientists do not KNOW that the burning of fossil fuels causes significant global warming. In the above quote, for “Some” read “deniers” and for “others” read “believers”.

Note: the last word is “believers”, not “deniers”

Regards, Pete R (Denier)

Tony Ridley, I’m afraid you’re chasing a lost cause on this or any other forum where the majority view is one where most believe in ACC (which has now replaced AGW). How can you argue with those who believe that the sun has virtually no effect on the Worlds’ climate. Pointless task really mate, I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Why is this debate on manmade climate change making no progress? I believe it is for the same reason that many debates between vociferous participants (especially where some have closed minds or lack self-discipline) stall – it has no structure! Mark (Lynas) has assumed the role of chairman but is exercising no control over the debating process. A chairman (ooops! – chairperson to be PC) normally does not get involved in the debate itself (and Mark is certainly adhering to that principle) but should ensure that submissions from participants are constructive and to the point. Involvement there is vital to effective debate.

Mark, may I suggest that you consider providing a separate blog for each category of topic being discussed here. I see four main ones “Climate Science”, “Politics”, “The Economy” and “Environmentalist Propaganda” but there may be more. Environmentalism is deeply involved in all three and I’ve taken a look at other blogs you have on your site (and many others elsewhere) and see similar problems.

In the absence of such a structure being provided I will try, where possi