Comments on: The BBC puts Al Gore’s “Hero of the Planet” on the hot seat. Yes, we said the BBC.

By: Tom Roe

Tom Roe — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:26:13 +0000

Thank you for the BBC/Jones link. Professor Jones conciliatory tone in the piece is completely at odds with his tone in the emails. “better organized” really doesn’t explain away his written declaration that he would destroy the raw data rather than release it. The emails document clearly his decades long effort to control or spin the peer review publishing process in his field. In other words his saying he could have done things a little better is a begruding admission of nothing much. Nothing unfortunate should be wished on this man other than the public and professional exposure and censure which he has earned by his own actions. It cannot be forgotten or forgiven that he conspired with others to subvert science itself and the reputations of those with whom he disagreed. Letting him off the hook with a “I could have done better” is too ambiguous an outcome.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:04:21 +0000

OK, we need to cool it a bit.
Phil Jones, head of CRU and the man in the hot seat of ClimateGate has publically stated on the BBC today that
” there is little statistical significance of global warming over the last 15 years” ( not his exact words but check for yourself)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

He has also made some important points about the Medieval Warm Period, which for the geekier amongst us is a significant deviation from the official party line that the current warmth is “unprecedented”.

So I agree with Ian above. I do not know anyone who does not agree that we need to pollute less and lead a more sustainable lifestyle. However, I do know a lot of people who have doubts about the link between CO2 and warming. These people are not scum, from my experience, but intelligent and inquisitive folk who can take a rational view to problems.

The Climategate scandal has exposed a number of flaws in the climate science area, many of them come down to straightforward business pratices that were not being adhered to. There was, however, a much bigger problem in the hijacking, in my opinion, of young minds by politicians ( mentioing no names Mr G). This is the true tragedy of Climategate.

I am not “proving”, “disproving” or claiming that there was a “conspiracy theory” These are all pointless epithets for what is a very complex and uncertain future.

The balance we need to make is that, is CO2 the only problem we need to address? I think not., Most people probably agree. i.e we need to not deforest, we need to use less plastic etc. These are not directly related to CO2

If we pursue a global policy that is solely based on CO2, then I don’t think this will give us a long term solution, and we will end up not investing in other sustainable technologies that may give more benefit (e.g Hydrogen powered cars)

I think we need to be less polarised and focus on the bigger picture.

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:40:49 +0000

Wow…any got a tranquiliser gun?

Rhino-boy needs to be brought down!

No one here is arguing that real work shouldn’t be done to protect the environment.

I think the major contention here is that trying to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere is a pointless waste of money that COULD otherwise be spent on REAL environmental endeavours that will have a meaningful impact on the world we live in.

Pure and simple….spend money on real environmental issues ( yes, the ones you mention in your shrill attack, and more) not trying to remove a harmless, non-pollutant from the atmosphere.

So, in essence, despite your pointed attack on the “Scum” here being “heartless” and “hoping for tragedies”, we are not that much different to you.

Have a nice life.

By: you are scum

you are scum — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:12:56 +0000

So you guys are the ones that want tragedies so that can shut up, not coz you changed your opinion or heart if you have one but because it’d be pointless. And put global warming aside, what about pollution, deforestation etc etc…? Are you going to tell me the earth is able to fix right away everything men screws up. I dont understand you ppl, even if Global Warming is not an issue which is just not true, but say it isnt. We cannot sustain ourselves with this kind of energy, it is 1 FINITE, 2 POLLUTES and 3 we have to IMPORT it. Can someone in this forum PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE answer to these three points and do not ignore me. PLEASE !!!

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:00:27 +0000

Good interview, but I think we need to tighten up on the language a bit.

e.g: Watson “There is irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing”

This is a tautology. The climate has changed and will continue to change throughout history.

We need someone to say “There is irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing due to CO2 emissions”, and then show us that proof in a transparent and repeatable way.

This is obviously not going to happen due to the complexities of climate science, so we would all get along a lot better by explaining this to the public and providing some risk analysis and probabilities. The public I feel are more intelligent than the establishment think, and they deserve to be treated with more respect.

By: Romeral

Romeral — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:46:37 +0000

Here is a link to a blog discussing the BBC being investigated

http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com/2010/02/investigation-launched-re-bbc-global.html

Enjoy

By: Ian Mc Vindicated

Ian Mc Vindicated — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:41:20 +0000

My thoughts exactly. Also, in a court of law, anyone who is caught in a lie, has their entire testimony thrown out as bogus. The IPCC report which is supposedly held to the highest degree ( sic ) of peer review ( haha ..wink wink ) cannot be trusted regardles of how many times the repeat the same phrase ” the science behind the AGW is solid ” ……yeah right….says who??
I don’t believe them they have lost major credability .

By: Romeral

Romeral — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:35:01 +0000

Regarding the IPCC report. Some AGW supporters claim that just because IPCC report has a few error in it, the report is “solid science”.
For the sake of argument only: Your child or partner is seriously ill. The doctor prepares a report indicating what is wrong and what the cure is. You go for a second opinion. The second doctor finds at least 3-4 major errors in the diagnosis/treatment. Question: Would you trust the REST of that report ? Of course NOT. Any one who says yes is a liar.
So why would anyone trust the rest of the IPCC report ?

By: Romeral

Romeral — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:22:11 +0000

Not surprised on BBC’s turn . A few days ago there was an article floating on the Internet: the BBC is being investigated , their employee Pension Found heavily invested in companies invested in Global Warming. Perhaps some MSM in the USA should also be investigated where their interest is. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

By: Climategate2009

Climategate2009 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:19:50 +0000

Hard to believe this appeared on the BBC, even more amazing that they left the clip up long enough for us to snag it. Notice that Neil is repeating word for word the research done by Dr. North.

Thank you for featuring this video and please feel free to use any of our work in the future. We have added a link to your excellent blog.