Blogged response (toThe Times on-line) by Maxadolf to illegal, premium phone lines operated by the BBC inter alia.

This country is riddled with corruption among the media, politicians and industry. Organizations conspire with telecommunication companies to impose on us non-geographic, premium phone numbers with contrived delays to maximise revenue ( see, for example, SAYNOTO0870.COM site). Despite myriad representations to the Government by the public against whom the theft is perpetrated, nothing is ever done to stop the practice. The matter of Brenda's alleged conduct to the request to remove her coronet pales into insignificance to the blatant misrepresentation of facts by Ch4's "An Inconvenient Truth" that portayed anthropogenic CO2 production as insignificant compared with that produced by volcanic action, implying that man's input to global warming was insignificant, when, in fact, the very reverse is true. Why was no action ever taken against Ch4 and the factually deviant producer of this mischievious programme? Polemic is one thing, downright lies perpetrated by the media is another!

Maxadolf, Epsom, UK  

Maxadolf,

A strongly worded post that hopefully will get noticed.

I see you live in Epsom.  I live not far away (at least in time terms) just south of Dorking.

Do you fancy meeting up for a drink or further discussion at some point?

Hi NGMsGHOST,

I know Dorking quite well.  Just name the pub and time.   Or how about the pub at the foot of Box Hill on the A24, behind where the bikers hang out at weekends?  A Monday or Tuesday at any time would suit me.   I should have been able to recall the name of the pub as it cost me a couple of grand about 20 years ago when my daughter got married and held the reception there!

Maxadolf

Quote:

pales into insignificance to the blatant misrepresentation of facts by Ch4's "An Inconvenient Truth" that portayed anthropogenic CO2 production as insignificant compared with that produced by volcanic action, implying that man's input to global warming was insignificant, when, in fact, the very reverse is true. Why was no action ever taken against Ch4 and the factually deviant producer of this mischievious programme? Polemic is one thing, downright lies perpetrated by the media is another!

You pronounce on what is the truth and what are lies. I expect you are not a scientist but even if you were the scientific community is also divided on the proportions of the contributing factors to global warming.  The C4 programme represented one view which, regretfully, is swamped by what has become the politically correct opinion, also embraced by various ecowarrior and extremist organisations who preach that global warming is entirely to do with CO2 emissions for which our wicked capitalist society is mainly responsible.  They advocate that we should beat our chests, repent and stop flying.

It is interesting to note that this particular bandwagon is being driven by the UK and the fervour for the cause is lacking in other countries, first and third world included.

Your post seems to champion the suppression of free speach.

To lompos:

As a matter fact I am scientist having a first-class-honours in chemistry and a PhD.  Your observations and comments question your objectivity, let alone a grasp of the issues surrounding global warming.  You may note that at no time did I indicate suppport for Al Gore whose credibilty as a campaigner on global warming is questionable given the commercial interests that he has with carbon trading.  I am very much in favour of free speech but contemptuous of media programmes purporting to state facts when they are the very opposite  -  e.g.  anthropogenic versus natural CO2 emissions, a fundamental and erroneous issue that is capable of quantification and has been so been done by professional scientists, but which was deliberately misrepresented in the Ch4 programme.  The wrong statement implicitly accepts that man's carbon-dioxide generating activities will have no effect on global warming. As I said before, polemical debate is one thing, lies behind an obvious alternate agenda is another and totally unacceptable in any informed society.

If you are a scientist yourself, then try applying scientific method and seek out facts from fiction.  And by all means continue to express an informed view.

Maxadolf

Quote:

Why was no action ever taken against Ch4 and the factually deviant producer of this mischievious programme? Polemic is one thing, downright lies perpetrated by the media is another!

To Maxadolf

suggest your read this (US Senate) about intolerance and the lack of respect for the views of others:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf

Climate change is no longer an exclusively scientific issue, it has become a political one.  Also, as featured in the C4 programme, more and more people are involved in and earn their living from the climate change industry and because their careers are at stake many try to stifle the views of anybody who expresses scepticism.  

lompos wrote on Jul 27^th, 2007 at 6:43pm:

Climate change is no longer an exclusively scientific issue, it has become a political one.  Also, as featured in the C4 programme, more and more people are involved in and earn their living from the climate change industry and because their careers are at stake many try to stifle the views of anybody who expresses scepticism.

Precisely so lompos.

If the case on climate change was as overwhelming as is made out then those who want to save us from doom would not have much to fear from the odd sceptical view. But instead of this the climate changeists are more like fundamentalist Islamics who cannot tolerate any form of contradiction of their ways and who seek to reinforce this by the political equivalent of an Islamic threatening to bomb, kill and wipe out anyone who dares challenge the legitimacy and righteousness of their crazed ideas.  As you say most of these so called scientists are also often desperate to jump on the gravy train of government funding available for these projects and the odd possible professorships, CBE or knighthood etc that may go with it.

A city centre congestion charge for instance is not really all about saving the planet but is about left wing councils raising more revenue for more unnecessary other hare brained mainly anti motor card projects and is also about the notion of forcing most who travel in cars to slum it and travel with the masses as much as possible and thus about old fashioned communist uniformity.  Of course where their scheme is illogical is in allowing those with plenty of money to still travel by car regardless but then they are at odds with their need to grab as much money as possible by any means for other loony politically correct schemes like dedicated bus lanes for buses that only travel at an average 5mph not due to congestion but due to the ludicrous frequency of bus stops on most urban bus routes.  Also all those beautiful Green cycle areas at traffic lihts that are never needed as most hardcore active cyclists consider they are exempt from traffic lights, due to their absence of a number plate and their lack of a need for a cyclists driving licence that could be taken away from them, and cycle straight through them when Red.

I would imagine that the Chinese for instance have a large number of undercover climate change activists in Europe and the USA dedicated to slowing down western economic development and use of oil and movement in the car by the west so that they can continue to forge ahead with economic growth and leave the Western nations as a new form of 3rd world state in 50 or 100 years time.

Cue suitably astounded response by Maxadolf.

Yes, but don't forget NGM'sG that the left-wing proponents only want to to force the middle and lower-class professionals down into the gutter to travel with the proletariat; whilst they as the Pigs enjoy the high life of seclusion and wealth with gas-gusseling limousines , just like the farmers used to do. This is the problem with no-brainers, and as you say the other rich classes will still be able to keep up with the Pigs, even if the Pigs continue to change the commandments on the barn wall every night, as they are doing!

The reality is in any case that for every global warming theory supporting scientist there is more than one non-supporting scientist. The reality is that we have always had long-term climatic cycles in the history of the world. The current one is no exception, and is not man-made in totality. As oil particularly is now a declining global resource mans' contribution with fossil fuels will also decline. On the other hand for any who still believe that there is a creator God, they like a certain CofE Bishop who has stated his views recently, may conclude that He is not too happy about the decadence, depravity and corruption in the current world, particularly of those like Ofcom and so is wreaking His vengeance on the Western world currently, although evidently not as severely as He did in the days of Noah?

Surely the reality is that a few demented scientists have come up with the idea of "global warming", because they wanted to try and make a name for themselves, and because they are so inexperienced that they have not lived long enough yet to learn sufficient history or to discover for themselves that we do have pronounced long-term climatic cycles in the world which are natural and well recorded; the politicians have latched onto this idea; the senior politicians certainly could not have worked it out for themselves, since as senior politicians of course the primary attribute for the job is to be sub-compos mentis, so one of their unelected advisers or consultants has suggested to them that there is a glorious taxation opportunity here if they latch onto the error of these demented minority scientists, because it is the best political opportunity since income tax to wrench yet even more taxes out of the struggling masses, on the basis that: " we do not want to increase taxation, and we would not tax you more; these will only be temporary additional taxes which we will levy, but we have to do this for the sake of the planet. We promise that when the planet has been saved that we will abolish these additional taxes just as we kept our promise with income tax and our stated need of it for the duration of the Napoleonic wars only!!!!!"

To lompos:

Unfortunately  -  and this is typified in the link to the Harvard row  - the arguments about what man's responses should be in the face of global warming are generating more heat than light.   Facts are getting blurred with opinions and the whole debate is degenerating into a confusing mess.   My issue with your comment is a very simple one based on a misrepresentation of a crucial fact by the C4 producer (Durkin) in his programme about the causes of global-warming.  For your information I have copied and pasted data on anthropogenic vs volcanic CO2 generation, including the primary references.  


                                                    "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

If you accept these data then you will see that a basic assumption stated as an unchallenged fact in the Durkin programme   -  namely that human activities generate far less than volcanic sources  -  is so wide of the mark that the programme has discredited itself in any serious debate on global warming, simply because it conveys the misleading message that man's activities to limit pollution  by CO2 will have a negligible effect.

Other issues, such as those repeated in NGMsGHOST's missive, I have no quarrel with as they are opinions and make no attempt to distort the facts.  And even if the misrepresentation by the C4 programme were fact, then in my opinion there is a moral imperative backed by sound health arguments that man should look to ways of reducing any kind of pollution.  But that is another, albeit related debate.

Finally, you state that the anthropogenic arguments appear to be confined to the UK.  About a week ago, there was a direct rebuttal of the Durkin programme in Australia (transcript available via The Guardian newspaper).   The debate is hotting up in the USA, understandably because of the disproportionately high, per-capita level of pollution.    Unless the large and ever-growing Asian/Chinese are prepared to make their contributions then whatever the UK does will be insignificant.

Maxadolf  

To lompos:

To save you the trouble of hunting down a summary of the Australian rebuttal of the Channel4 programme, here it is:




To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk


New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming
· Study undermines climate sceptics' arguments · Correlations 'inconsistent' with temperature rise
James Randerson, science correspondent
Wednesday July 11 2007
The Guardian


It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.

But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.

The solar hypothesis was championed publicly in March by the controversial Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The programme has been heavily criticised for distorting scientific data to fit the sceptic argument and Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at MIT who featured in the programme, later said that he was "totally misled" by the film makers and that his comments were "completely misrepresented".

The new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming.

"The temperature record is simply not consistent with any of the solar forcings that people are talking about," said lead author Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire.

"They changed direction in 1985, the climate did not ... [the temperature] increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up."

Global temperatures are going up by 0.2 degrees per decade and the top 10 warmest years on record have happened in the past 12 years.

One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet.

So if the sun's magnetic field is high, there should be a fall-off in cosmic rays, fewer clouds and more warming. But Prof Lockwood's data, published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, shows the sun's magnetic field has declined since 1985, even as the world heats up.

James Hansen, a Nasa climate scientist who was once gagged by the Bush administration for speaking out on global warming, said the issue of whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago. "The reason [this paper] has value is that the proponents of the notion that the sun determines everything come up with various half-baked suggestions that the sun can somehow cause an indirect forcing that is not included in the measurements of radiation coming from the sun," he said. "These half-baked notions are usually supported by empirical correlations of climate with some solar index in the past. Thus, by showing that these correlations are not consistent with recent climate change, the half-baked notions can be dispensed with."

Prof Lockwood said the study was "another nail" in the coffin of the notion that solar activity is responsible for global warming.

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a proponent of the solar hypothesis, has tried to rescue the idea by invoking a time lag between changes in the sun and its effect on the Earth's climate. But Prof Lockwood dismissed this as "disingenuous".

"Nobody has invoked that kind of lag before. It's only been invoked now as a way out," he said. Even if the lag were 50 years then he believes we would begin to see the rise in global temperatures slowing down.

Even though there is almost no argument among scientific circles about the role of human activities as the main driver of climate change, a recent poll suggested that the public still believes there is significant scientific uncertainty. Despite the efforts of government and campaigns such as Live Earth to educate the public, the Ipsos Mori poll of over 2,031 people, released this month, found 56% of people thought there was an active scientific debate into the causes of global warming.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific academy, said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

Channel 4 and Martin Durkin, producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, declined to comment.




Maxadolf