Not enough hours in the day

david gray

hizb ut tahrir.....they will certainly ask you about that.

Frank P

Marcus Brigstock, Ken Clarke ...
Hmmm. Much ad hom I fear, Melanie. Sock it to 'em.

Oliver

Get ready for UEA's climate email gaffe too....

Should be a corker!

Grassmarket

Remember if the UAE climate thing comes up: the key question is not the emails, it is the COMPUTER CODE and the RAW DATA. Can they re-run their own simulations and get the same result? That is precisely what the whole thing is about IMHO - they know full well that they cannot, and desperate to stop the word getting out.

Baron Pipin II

It wouldn’t surprise if the BBC stuffed the audience with a well selected bunch of state maintained multiculturalists and AGW zealots who will lick the fruitcake Brigstock’s every utterance. Take cue from Griffin, it’s better to gain sympathy than to push to win over an audience impervious to rational argument and primed to bark at anyone who puts it forward.

Good luck and all that

Snowman

A useful one liner from today’s Mark Steyn’s ‘in the corner’.

Eine Decliner Nachtmusik [Mark Steyn]

More from the tree-ring circus of Climate Research Unit "peer-reviewed" computer code:

Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline that affects tree-ring density records).

Number7

Grassmarket

Seems the CRU aren't the only ones to be fiddling the data - New Zealand's been at it as well.

Try this link:-

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

Sam ARMSTRONG

I will be watching with amazement! I love it when you go on QT.

Aquarius

You post much more frequently than your co-bloggers, so no apology necessary. PS: to quote Frank P - sock it to 'em, Mel

Keith

Am looking forward to QT now.I hope the questions come up...hizb ut tahrir,Neather,Referenda,AGW data....

Angela

Marcus if-I-just-slag-off-the-Daily-Mail-it-makes-me-funny Brigstocke.

If he’s going to get any more work out of the BBC he’ll be having a pop at Mel and the Mail tonight.

He won’t be getting any work on the basis that he’s a popular comedian so best just to ingratiate himself with the BBC bosses with more PC zealotry.

JW

Good Luck!

:)))))

Diklishnik Darak

"We are all Hizb ut-Tahrir now?" - please no!

Lupus Lungfish

As long as you mention Neather and the clandestine open border policy at least once we'll be happy. Another half million arrived last year whilst over 400,000 chose to up sticks and abandon ship for less crowded lands.

Kathy Rindhoops

good luck Mel

darren

Melanie, I disagree with much of what you say (yup, in a few years' time maybe I'll remember these days and shudder) but I think you're courageous and more or less totally brilliant. I'll be watching tonight with interest. I hope things go okay.

I trust you won't hold back re. Hizb ut-Tahrir. I understand Johann Hari isn't respected much around these parts, but in 2007 he participated in a debate with the loathsome Sajjad Khan on Islam Channel TV, and tore him apart. Stuff like that needs to be done more; the danger which organizations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir pose cannot be understated. So yeh, thank you Melanie, and good luck.

DouglasR

I think this would be appropriate discussion - http://holosys.co.uk/b3ta/2009/bigot_dolls.jpg

M Davidson

Wonder if thisgot mentioned ..a new low in British journalism ..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/25/jane-andrews-press-abuse

Sabina Rose

Bravo Melanie Phillips! (Question Time re Global Warming) You, and that nice man in the audience, deserved to have a huge round of applause for your articulate concise comments; pity you weren't given more time. Marcus Brigstock was pompous and closed-minded, but at least David Davies was willing to look at both sides. Did you see This Week afterward, when Michael Portillo had to slap his forehead at Diane Abbott's silly comments? Anyway, it's so gratifying that at last some intelligent voices are being heard more and more. Can't there be a proper, long and comprehensive television debate arranged so that the public at large, who may not read the better newspapers or listen to Question Time, can be given a different perspective on the matter than that presented by the BBC, which has swallowed this "religion" hook, line and sinker?

Daniel Lionsden

Baron Pipin's words were indeed prophetic. Intelligent remarks by Melanie and David Davis were greeted with ashen silence while ill-informed comments by Brigstock were lapped up.
So a typical BBC handpicked audience.
Thank goodness for This Week straight after.

phil

As usual much good sense from Mel on every subject other than climate change. I am sorry Mel ,we can afford to be wrong and be financially wasteful ,you cannot, it is gambling with our very existence .You are in king Canute country with this subject and does not seem in line with your normal responsible writing ..I wish you would give great consideration to the future generations who will be the ones to suffer if you are heeded and wrong .
It is not easy to write this because I am sure you know I pay great respect to almost all you write ,but I am sorry I think here you are very wrong .

Tony Allwright

Well done on QT, Melanie.

In particular, you defended the Iraq war brilliantly, and also were brutal about the global warm-mongering scam. But I couldn't help noticing that Dimbleby, despite his promise to the contrary, did not permit you to answer your critics on global warm-mongering. No doubting on which side of the argument the BBC lay.

Nevertheless, you have to give credit to the BBC for even inviting you, given your stream of anti-BBC rhetoric in this blog.

Lungfish

Marcus Brigstock sounded like a spotty faced first year student at a freshers party. No doubt he treads the well worn boards in University Student Unions up and down the land with his Ben Elton style lefty claptrap but he looked out of his depth on QT.

David

"Intelligent remarks by Melanie and David Davis were greeted with ashen silence"

David Davis didn't agree with Melanie at all, and agreed far more with Brigstocke (Mel-No such thing as Climate change; Davis - It is happening and 80% certainty it's caused by man). No idea what programme you were watching- Davis served Mel her words wrapped up nicely in a proper scentific bundle.

Catherine hinchliffe

As a mere stay-at-home mum, I wish we could hear more from you on the radio about this climate issue. I believe it is a big money making scam. I've never met a poor carbon trader! I wish QT had let you speak for the full hour.

Jeremy

WELL DONE! very brave too swim against the tide and tell the truth on AGW.

LM-S

Watching the faux outrage of Falconer made me want to throw my wine glass at the television. His rudeness in shouting people down and his declaration of astonishment that any right-thinking person could doubt the word of "Toenee" was a sight to behold, and an awful one at that.

Mel, whether you approved of the war or not doesn't bother me, but could you not at least of slapped that pumped up little turkey down? He put me off my cheese course.

Bill Rees

I rarely watch QT nowadays, but did so last night because I wanted to see Melanie on the programme.
I thought Melanie made some excellent points, as I expected, although perhaps looking a little too severe at times in this touchy-feely age. Last nights show also prompts me to ask how on earth the BBC recruits the studio audience for this programme.
Apart from the bloke who made some very pertinent observations on climate change, most of the others have clearly swallowed BBC propaganda hook, line and sinker. How predictable was it that one audience member would try to harangue Melanie by asserting that the Cockermouth floods are due to global warming.
I might as well say that, if I wake up tomorrow with a headache, that will be down to global warming too.

Augustus

Terribly sorry Phil, But I must disagree with you about Melanie's stance on Global Warming. For at least a decade now we have all been told that there is a scientific consensus that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. That there should be no further debate, and that all knowledgeable scientists acknowledge this. Now we know what that consensus
consisted of: The manipulation of facts. It's not only about a scientific fraud. It is also a criminal matter. Dozens of eminent people have set up gangster organizations to procure government funding, i.e.
billions of taxpayers money for climate research. But even that pales besides the fraudulent use
of the AGW theory to blackmail the world economy into submission, by demanding the phasing out of the most efficient and widely available energy resources. Thank goodness
for people like Melanie who are not slavish apologists for this,
perhaps greatest global criminal misdeed of the century.

Kathryn

I knew that Dimbleby wouldn't come back to you with a right to reply, on the question of the floodings, because no doubt you would have told him the answer that the hand selected audience and the BBC agenda don't want to hear - out of date drainage systems, poor flood defences and increased population meaning concrete where flood plains once were.

phil

Augustus
November 27th, 2009 11:37am we do not always agree and that's ok with me ,we are all here to put our thoughts .,on this column I know I will be in the minority but overall I think most people agree with my point that is we should listen to the scientists rather than the conspiracy agenda and in the end we probably will not be around long enough to find out :)Meanwhile I fear for the future generations if we do not prepare for the worst ,with your way I am afraid they may well see the end of this world as we know it and I am not a gambler ,particularly with other peoples lives .

Neil Craig

You did as well as possible. By giving you the first spot Dimbleby was stacking the deck, allowing everybody else to pick at you while you couldn't reply. The BBC's chosen guest, Brigstocke, a comedian & he says climate scientist was particularly egregious in claim to have performed experiment proving Greenland is melting when it clearly isn't.

David davis' repositioning as saying it is happening but may not be catastrophic was interesting.

What we really ned is a traditional formal TV debate on the subject - 3+ speakers a side & up to 2 hours. Such a format is traditional simply because it works, but it doesn't allow broadcasters to control the outcome which may be why all UK broadcasters have repeatedly refused to do it - on any subject.

Wilhelm

Phil

In the 17th century the river Thames froze up, people could skate on it. The industrial revolution hadnt happened. Damlier Benz hadnt invented the car.

Explain that ?

Helen

My, didn’t David Dimbleby cut you straight off as soon as you mentioned the BBC’s role in relation to propagating the global warming religion (not quite an impartial chairman given his position at the BBC)?

I thought you were going to mention that scientist David Bellamy, who used to be on the BBC all the time but then got dropped as soon as he said he didn’t believe in global warming, just before you got cut off by Dimbleby.

That proves the point you were making about the BBC’s unfair bias and promotion of this lunacy.

It makes it easier to rig the debate if the only people who get invited on to the BBC who don’t believe in global warming are not scientists. This means the zealots can say: ‘ah, but you’re not a scientist - you don’t count’.

The global warming zealots can’t say that to people like David Bellamy. So the best way to deal with scientists like him (there are plenty of them) is to just exile them off the airwaves altogether - that helps to make the debate nice and one-sided.

These global warming zealots do like to fight dirty.

Here, then, is a selection of views from one of the scientists whose views mean they don’t get to go on the BBC when the subject of global warming arises:

BBC shunned me for denying climate change

"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.

The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.

At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.

I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.

That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/69623/BBC-shunned-me-for-denying-climate-change

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/73486/David-Bellamy-Global-warming-is-nonsense-

Wilhelm

''I am afraid they may well see the end of this world as we know it .''

Whoa there Phil, arent you being a little bit er, um extreme, you know, over the top ?

Bill

Saw you on QT last night Melanie. Well done for your brave but ultimately futile attempt to point out the totalitarian ideology behind the 'climate change' agenda. Had to laugh at the contribution of Marcus Brigstocke, replete with stories of his trips to the Arctic and consultations with various environmental bodies. He is as much an expert on 'climate change' as he is a comedian.

Wilhelm

David Dimbles and his lordship Falconer were a couple of pompous bores and windbags.

Although Marcus Brigstock's tedious anecdote about Greenland was amusing. It cured my insomnia.

phil

Neil Craig
November 27th, 2009 1:56pm

Neil that is a good idea as it will give the public some information and insight but in the end we are in the hands of the scientists and hopefully not the butcher ,baker and candlestick maker and dare I say even those who do nothing ,we can see here how we the general public wish to say our piece as they did on QT last night ,I used to live in a balanced and thoughtful country and now every tom dick and harry is an expert and is able to enjoy a dig at authority but it has become like the Roman amphitheatre although in this case it is we who suffer for the foolishness of others .Even here do you not find it strange that so many posters never address the remarks of others ?,just bash on with their own regardless -Maybe this is the price we have to pay for equality.

Mel is usually a breath of fresh air on so many subjects but this time I fear the consequences of her persuasion .If her argument wins and she is wrong what will you say to your grandchildren ?

phil

Wilhelm
November 27th, 2009 2:20pm

Phil

In the 17th century the river Thames froze up, people could skate on it. The industrial revolution hadnt happened. Damlier Benz hadnt invented the car.

Explain that ? --Wilhelm when I was a kid we used to have slides in the playground ,not any more and as you say the Thames used to freeze ,not any more ,so are you not proving my point?you are as confusing as ever .I think I can accept your advice on yodelling ,but leave the jokes to me .

goy Zionist

unlike darren I agree with all you say. thanks for the voice

phil

Helen that was quite a mouthful,can you tell us what are your qualifications to give advice on this most important topic ?It seems to me that you can find lots of quotes ,so can I tell you hitler said he would not invade Russia ,Gordon Brown said our economy was in good health, and just for Wilhelm who likes boxing:),Miguel Cotto said he was going to KO Manny Paqiauo ,I will not bore you with more ,but I will tell you none of those promises were kept ,so I am unable to see the value of all that research and all the time it took me to read it .Of course apologies if you are an expert and qualified on the subject of GW.

I DO NOT WANT TO BE POSTING ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE I ADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING BUT EQUALLY I am fed up of reading so many insulting remarks to those scientists who do believe in GW from so many who know nothing either .It is utterly irresponsible

M. Rowley

Well done Mel for speaking up for those of us who do not subscribe uncritically to the AGW rhetoric. The QT audidence was as ever packed with leftist metropolitan types - so a fair hearing for you was never on the cards.

No doubt when QT pitches up at Wootton Bassett in a couple of weeks, the BBC will seek to represent the town by bussing in apologists for the Taleban and Al Qaeda.

paul leach

On the subject of AGW, I choose to believe the opinion of the brilliant independent maverick scientist James Lovelock, because from his books lectures and broadcasts, I have concluded he has humanity, honesty and integrity.
He puts it very simply: the oceans are a perfect planetary thermometer; ice melts and seas expand when they warm. The sea levels are rising! Unless you believe that these sea level data are also being falsified, then that part of AGW must be correct.
If AGW is a conspiracy, what is the motive? Who benefits if industrial output shrinks, there is less flying, oil production is constrained- the pressure is all the other way isn’t it? We may be discomfited when green zealots impugn our lifestyles, we don’t want to believe we could be doing something” bad”, but the probability is that AGW theory is more or less right.
So is it more or is it less? Going back to James Lovelock, (who hates equally wind generators and sanctimony) he says it’s more, that the IPCC has badly underestimated the rate of climate change.
One last thing. Cataclysms CAN happen can’t they? There really once were dinosaurs weren’t there?

john east

I admired your courage in criticising the new warmist religion on QT, but I was quite alarmed at the reaction of the audience to your heretic statements.

Their reaction of astonishment, shock, and anger that anyone would dare criticise their new cult says a lot about the sort of person who is allowed into the QT audience. When you consider that perhaps none of them had any scientific credentials in this area, and probably have never done any background research into climate science, their complete absence of scepticism and blind acceptance of what the media and tax grabbing politicians feed them does not bode well for the future.

At least David Davies on the panel showed a little scepticism, along with Michael Portillo on the following programme, so perhaps all is not yet lost.

St Bruno

I’ve noticed that there is a creeping change of wording lately, or have I missed it before. There is Global Warming and there is ‘man-made global warming’ I wonder which one is going to put up my Council Tax this year?
There was a bit by/about David Bellamy and GW in one of the papers last weekend can’t remember which paper. I couldn’t understand why he said that there was no need to turn on the radiators but put on another pullover, in my book that makes him pompously unreal or just taking the piss, I bet he puts his on in his house and warms his tootsies by the Aga.

James Murphy

Phil, you say, 'I DO NOT WANT TO BE POSTING ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE I ADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING...' - that being the case, why, then, do you so confidently assert the truth of MMGW? Surely a tragi-comically obvious case of someone believing what they want to believe, regardless of the facts - the veracity of which they self-confessedly know nothing! Lord almighty, get a grip man! Your grandchildren are safe! The End of the World is Not Nigh - it never has been - nor will it be any time soon - say, the next 4 or five billion years until the sun gets bored with us all and implodes. - Then you'll see some global warming! PS - you say 'trust the scientists' - Ugh? Surely that's the point of so-called ClimateGate? They've just proved that they're neither trustworthy nor scientific! Come on Phil, where's that estimably rigorous logic you apply in your insightful quotes on the Middle-East tragedy?

Jane

David Bellamy is a scientist, phil, they're his words - not Helen's.

Tell us all what qualifications you have over and above David Bellamy.

Wilhelm

Phil me old son

You missed my point entirely as usual, the sun comes up, the sun goes down, the tide goes out, the tide comes in.

Mankind has got nothing to do with it.

Gareth

It was good to hear some sanity on Question Time. They should have spent much longer on global warming; I suspect they knew Melanie would win the argument.

Suffolkbor

It is going to be very interesting if the climate cools back to even 1960,s levels which were a very cold decade in the British Isles with sharp Winters and very poor Summers.

I recall reading an old edition of National Geographic some years ago highlighting the fact that the growing season in North Western Europe decreased considerably during that decade.

The moving of goalposts has already been initiated with the term "Climate Change " and other suffixes are already being sounded out such as "Chaos "and "Disruption" and no doubt something along the lines of "Manmade Climate Flux "
are ready and waiting to make an appearance just to give this monumental con it,s phoney credence .

It is impossible for Mankind to retune the global weather patterns even if it were both proven and desirable .

If we were that clever as a species we would have found a way cure all cancers , be able to halt the ageing process and at the risk of sounding blasphemous ,
be able to turn water into wine .

The staggering arrogance of man ,
the mighty flea.

Wilhelm

''I DO NOT WANT TO BE POSTING ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE I ADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING .''

Quote of the century.

Augustus

OK, the hypothesis that 6 billion largely industrially active people on this planet exert some influence on the climate is an entirely reasonable debating point. But on the other hand, we know from plenty of evidence that swings in global temperature can happen on timescales of a century. That fact is well established. No one actually contests that CO2 levels have increased significantly due to industrialization, and that they have increased due to human activity. But now we have gained a further insight. We now know that climate science cannot be trusted, and so we have lost our bearings in the Global Warming debate. If we can't trust the data, and we can't trust the scientists, what
are we still able to know and trust? So, while there has probably been Global Warming in the 1900s, we don't know how much, and we certainly don't know how much has been caused by human activity. Yet, the proponents of the theory are in a hurry to push through a treaty in Copenhagen. And it is with that they show their true colours. If they were truly interested in scientific accuracy they would want to go back to the drawing board. But they don't, of course. their true goal is global governance. Such a treaty that subjects industry to such CO2 bureaucracy
is just what they need to significantly reduce individual freedom, whilst creating a new layer of governance. In this brave new world democracy has been reduced to a side show. The true power will now reside with global institutions which will govern by international treaties. and this international elite will appoint
each other to positions of power in these institutions. We are, therefore, embarking upon an era of a new balance of power. An era where the international elite holds all the cards, devoid of democratic checks and balances. This is not just an elitist coup d'etat,
it is a veritable coup de monde.

Ewok

Oh Mel,

I read what’s happening in America and Australia over climategate and I could weep with happiness.

Britain is the worst with everything: worse with the belief in global warming phooey, worse with sucking up to terrorists, worse with its ability to destroy its education system, yet somehow people like you hang in there fighting against all the odds and withstanding the screeds of abuse you get, and then it happens.

But elsewhere the avalanche is happening. The cavalry bugle sounds in America. Gerald Warner writes:

‘For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.’

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/

James Delingpole observes Australia’s backlash against the ghastly Kevin Rudd's foolish global warming taxes

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

There’s more on James Delingpole’s blog (he’s Luke Skywalker to our Obi Wan Melonie):
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

It took the education establishment 20 years before in the shape of Ed Balls they took up Mel’s call to reinstate the system of teaching children to read using synthetic phonics.

And now the one they call ’Mad Mel’ is proved right again - sneering Question Time audience notwithstanding. It won’t happen in sad, pathetic Britain, but in countries without a BBC to control the population's views there is a fightback.

Help us Obi Wan Melonie - you’re our only hope.

KEVIN RYDER

Congratulations Melanie on your performance on Question Time. Once again you were the voice of reason amongst the wishy-washy do-gooders.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Ros

Obi Wan Melonie! Wonderful.

Augustus: Spot on.

I've been the climate sceptic for years now. The problem is that no one wants to disbelieve what they read in the papers and hear on the radio. To go against the grain takes guts. I knew the whole thing was a con when my local council sent out the Gore trivia to every household - in multiple copies. What a waste of resources that was. I threw them into the bin with the rest of the 'recycling' that I knew would be dumped into a landfill in China...

phil

James Murphy
November 27th, 2009 6:29pm The point I am trying to make is I along with most of the posters have no knowledge on this subject other than what we read in the media .I absolutely agree we should have more debate amongst those with scientific training,but for this subject to be driven by hysteria from from others that like to air their own thoughts is utterly irresponsible and highly dangerous .

Jane
November 27th, 2009 7:19pm NONE !! and you will not find any opinions from me either.

phil

Wilhelm
November 27th, 2009 7:26pm

Phil me old son
"
You missed my point entirely as usual, the sun comes up, the sun goes down, the tide goes out, the tide comes in.

Mankind has got nothing to do with it."

Wilhelm when did you find that out ? your knowledge is improving rapidly and whilst I am at it may I thank you for continuing to make me famous when you publish my quotes ,at times I feel like Aristotle ,sadly it soon fades when I realise who is doing it .Next time you write can you find a good joke ,you know like I do sometimes ,it does help to lighten things up a bit ,but PLEASE not one of your own .

Nick

David Bellamy is a botanist. I'm a biochemist. Both of us have PhDs. Both of us have many years of postdoctoral research experience, and the peer-reviewed publication record associated thereof.

Neither of us are 'qualified' to speak about AGW since we're not climatologists, nor geophysicists, nor atmospheric chemists.

Our opinions therefore are worthless, right?

I'd like to open out this discussion a little to the other non-expert commentators here. Here is an infra-red absorption spectrum of a triatomic molecule. Please interpret this for me, and discuss the salient features.

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif

phil

Nick
November 28th, 2009 10:42am looks like the journey of a sperm cell cut off in its prime ,or possibly a seat at chelsea with the other half crossed out due to being unaffordable .Am I close ? bookies are offering odds that I am would have a better chance than my interpretation of climate change :)

Wilhelm

In September the liebour junta outlawed the old fashioned light bulb, you know the one that gives off a reasonable amount of light and replaced it with a enviromental friendly light bulb which is 20 watts.

Thanks a bunch. I might as well buy some candles.

Terry

Melanie you were splendid - amazing how people just don't want to listen, and the lady who blamed the Cockermouth flooding on global warming, well...it takes courage to keep speaking the truth when no one wants to listen so well done as usual

Dan

Please do feel free to take as much time off as you like. The less of your ignorant anti-scientific vitriol there is in the world, the better.

phil

Wilhelm and for your eyes only-- I know you like the boxing reports so to bring these discussions back to reality I can tell you that last night Thomas Macdonagh was robbed by the judges in a bout against the worst British light middle weight champion I have ever seen ,Mr Anthony Small ,a lovely chap but one who should stick to dancing and hat designing .I readily admit when I do not know about a subject as you have pointed out but in this case I really do ,so I hope this is ok with you and will bring you a little pleasure whilst you sit miserably in your candlelit room .:)

Adam B.

Dan, "anti-scientific"? So those scientists who do not subscrice to MMGW are also "anti-scientific"?

logdon

Lets face it QT is always a white knuckle ride for anyone who doesn't toe the knucklehead kneejerk PC line whether it be climate, immigration or Islam.

It was always going to be a foregone conclusion and Melanie rose above it all with gracious aplomb.

I actually thought Davis with a practiced politicians eye for the audience did quite well, nuancing yet not giving in to the ludicrous Brigstocke.

As for Portillo, is it me or is he becoming a bit of a wise old elder statesman?

Augustus

In Amsterdam there are still historical records of the towboats used on the canals during the 'golden age' of commerce. What these show is that between 1650 and 1710 these
boats were unable to be used during long cold winter months because of the frozen canals. People skated on them instead, as is shown in many old paintings of the period. This mini ice age was entirely due to
the sun's inactivity, i.e. no explosive sun bursts. Apparently
the sun's activity follows a cyclical pattern which usually last about eleven years. When it's active the world heats up, when it's inactive, as at present, the world cools down. Isn't it possible that this phenomenon is a more important factor driving global warming than any amount of CO2 emissions? I wish we had a group of climatologists who would tell us once and for all if that is the case. But it would need to be people who are not funded by the gravy train of carbon politics.

Wilhelm

''at times I feel like Aristotle.''

When some one goes insane its usually Napoleon.

Jeremy

They are having this big Climate Conference in Copenhagen. All the leaders and campaigners will arrive by plane and millions of tax payers cash will be wasted on just plane hotair, where the chance of any serious action being taken is almost zilch !

Dixon

"Wilhelm
November 28th, 2009 2:59pm
In September the liebour junta outlawed the old fashioned light bulb, you know the one that gives off a reasonable amount of light and replaced it with a enviromental friendly light bulb which is 20 watts.

Thanks a bunch. I might as well buy some candles."

If its any consolation, there are retailers and distributors who understand the law well enough to realise that the bulbs can be imported and sold on the presumption that they are not for domestic use. i have bought £50 worth of 100watt, opalescent, incandescent lightbulbs, from NEW STOCK, from a resepectable, large, department store, SINCE the ban
came into effect. They just dont ask me what they are for. They are doing a roaring trade in them. We can hope the utilisation of this loophole in one of the most ridiculous and evil laws of all time fast catches on.

The "green" alternatives contain mercury, thousands of tonnes of which are consequently heading for landfill, if cracked, they will poison you. They emit light in a part of the spectrum that destroys retinal nerves. They flicker enough to trigger seizures. They are a heinous product and the ban only serves the manufacturers aqnd the EU legislators who have been fed bribes by those manufacturers. Its as simple as that.

Energy efficiency will NEVER reduce energy consumption for the simple reason that it saves the consumer money which they then spend on other energy consuming goods and services. Its pretty much axiomatic.

phil

Wilhelm
November 28th, 2009 10:29pm

no -Van Gogh --------- did you like the boxing story ?

Mr. Kiwano Thomas

This environmental green nutters who believe political correctness and all that mostly lefty anti religion and G*d are crazy and I think they need to see therapist, some of them don't wash their clothes because they think the washing machines are environment unfriendly and they could create global warming, Get a grip smelliest!

phil

Mr. Kiwano Thomas
November 29th, 2009 12:57pm --you ok?:)--- I did my washing today and said my prayers and I am not green either -definitely do not smell but crazy ?who knows :)-Well it is Sunday and we cannot be serious all the time.

Dixon

Wilhelm, and others oppressed by the "green" semi-light-tubes. You have another option. Just install "industrial" type halogen lamps. They by no means look out of place if carefully located and, being so powerful, do not need to be in the central part of a room but can be put in a corner to "bounce" light off the ceiling. In sizes of 300, 500 and 1000 watts they put any other lighting to shame. I have a 300 watt one fitted above where I am sat now. Although I rarely use it as, like I have said, I still have the old 100 watt bulbs coming in ( as well as a store of about 400 of them in the kitchen ).

If people do this, collectively, well the greens will regret the introduction of "their" bulbs, our energy expenditure on lighting will of course increase by anywhere between three-fold or ten times even. I can think of no better form of silent protest.

Fergus Pickering

Dan, how dare you speak of the divine Melanie in that fashion. Back to your laboratory you unspeakable cad and stick a bunsen burner up your bottom.

Wilhelm

''no -Van Gogh , did you like the boxing story ?''

Nurse, nurse, the patient is babbling.

VAT69

Fergus. No mention of iron filings or sulphuric acid? Fancy letting Dan the Orifice Man get off so lightly.

Olgordo

Dimbleby is a rude, pompous whatsit. To paraphrase one of William Gladstone's comments on Benjamin Disraeli, he (Dimbleby)is intoxicated with the illusion of his own importance.

I don't generally watch QT because I can't stand the sight of him ! I only watched on this occasion because of Melanie's presence on the panel, and I anticipated the manner in which she was treated and in which her contibution was received.

Angela

Nick, November 28th, 2009 10:42am: "David Bellamy is a botanist. I'm a biochemist. Both of us have PhDs. Both of us have many years of postdoctoral research experience, and the peer-reviewed publication record associated thereof.

"Neither of us are 'qualified' to speak about AGW since we're not climatologists, nor geophysicists, nor atmospheric chemists.

"Our opinions therefore are worthless, right?"

Oh, so the only scientists qualified to comment on global warming are... drum roll... global warming scientists.

How very party pris. How very convenient.

Phil Jones and Co can be judge and jury of themselves - who are we to question them when they "hide the decline"?

If that's the rule you want to apply, Nick, I'm a taxpayer and I'd like to sit as judge and jury on where my taxes go and how high they are: can I stop being taxed on carbon and stop giving my taxes to government global warming programmes?

Thought not.

Jackie

Thank you andy t. I am also struck by the similarities between the climate debate and that on evolution/creation. Evolutionists are STILL looking for the "missing link." Perhaps it's in the same place as the lost data.
I am often reminded of the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Dan

Adam B - firstly, who are these scientists and can you give references to peer-reviewed journals? I would have to read their papers to know how scientific they are. Phillips herself is being anti-scientific; you can't use /selected/ pieces of science, based on some political agenda, as a weapon against the /whole/ of science (or the scientific concensus) - if you attack the science then of course you are also attacking the science of those whose research you are using to make the attack! Obviously science must have some debate, but there IS a concensus amongst scientists, and the debate now is over the details of how to tackle climate change (NB not necessarily just global warming, but change in general), not about the reality or not of AGW.

Fergus/VAT69 - it is fairly easy for me to speak about Ms. Phillips like that, and I believe I have as much right to speak here as you, although I can see the moderators might remove my comments. Either that or I am the only reasonable person here... Also there are no bunsen burners, iron filings or sulphuric acid in my lab; there are computers with internet connections though...

Try these links:
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf
(The Royal Society, fairly reputable IMHO)

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus/