I've just been listening to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml">Moral Maze</a> on Radio 4 on Climate change. Bjorn Lomborg and George Monbiot among the witnesses.

Listen to Melanie Phillips and weep!

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

Hi Mike

An interesting and entertaining programme.

I have to say that, although I didn't like the abusive part of what Ken Livingstone said last week to another Daily Mail (+Evening Standard) reporter, I very much sympathise with his view that Daily Mail reporters don't deserve respect because they're not 'useful members of society'.

Seriously, though, in a programme that follows a debate format, they have to include at least one wacky/unconvinced person. Just a pity the programme didn't last a bit longer to allow people, including Melanie, time to develop their arguments more fully.

---

__________________________________________________

I've read several times in the Scotsman about the mayor of London making derogatory remarks about people.
Is this the person talked about here?

Les

Les, yes he is the same person, just don't believe all you read in the papers, even respectable ones like The Scotsman. Just look at the mess most (all?) of them made about the cpdn recent Nature article.

mo.v, I've often wished they would have more time on the Moral Maze, it often seems like they are just getting started when it is time to sum up. Also, the choice of witnesses is also not ideal, if Melanie wants to question the climate <i>science</i> then they should have had a real climate scientist. George Monbiot did a good job of sticking up for the science, but he's still just a environmental campaigner and journalist.

Melanie makes several claims:
hocky stick is wrong</b>
This has been covered in great detail by

<b>some scientists still question that CO2 is the cause of any warming that has occurred</b>
George states that there are two. Melanie starts talking about the views of ?

<b>40 scientists in 1990 said climate change is not happening.</b>
I can't find a reference, I've heard it before and its probably true, I wonder how many still believe this. [probably under 7]

<b>1992 scientists made the statement in dozens that the science behind climate change is uncertain.</b>
Again I can't find a reference, I wonder how many still believe this. [probably under 7]

<b>18,000 scientists signed a ? saying that global was not happening.</b>
As George replies this was a complete fraud, a fake scientific paper lead to people signing up, very few of whom seem to be real scientists, let alone <i>climate</i> scientists.

<b>Scientists say there is global warming, because that is how they get funding</b>
Scientists in the US being federally funded also agree about global warming, in spite of the hostility of the White House. This seems to destroy her case.

<b>Professor Richard Lindzen an eminent climate scientist does not believe CO2 is the cause of global warming</b>
He wrote "If changes in greenhouse gas concentration were the only factor involved, it would be straightforward to calculate the resulting temperature change in the atmosphere and at the surface. For example doubling the CO2 concentration would increase the surface temperature by about 1C. The complexity of the climate problem arises from the great number of feedbacks in the climate system. For example raising the temperature of the atmosphere may increase the amount of water vapour - a greenhouse gas - thereby giving an even greater increase in temperature."

He seems to have proposed The Iris hypothesis in which relatively small irises in the tropical atmosphere allow a disproportionate amount of infra-red to escape and so contribute a negative feedback to global warming. See <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/">this</a> review. The latest paper Google Scholar can find on the subject is 2002, when the debate was still in progress.



I wish they had questioned Bjorn Lomborg about his figures, $150M a year cost for Kyoto is often quoted, but I haven't seen a source, it seems questionable to me. Rosie Boycott made a complete mess of asking a question about the rising costs due to delay, which is a shame.

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

On a similar line, Mike, a week ago there was a short interview with a scientist,
Dr Karl, (last name Polish;
I'd have to look at the tape to get it right), who among other things, said that last year Nature did a survey
of 9 years of research papers. All (his words), of the scientists in the papers said that global warming was real.
Has anyone seen this article?

I really should put what Dr Karl said into writing. He was scathing of Crichton and his book.
But eloquently.

Les

Les, yes the study is real it was published in Science. I'll look it up for you.

A discusion about it is in <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80">RealClimate</a>. I can't link to it directly the board removed the href.

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

Just found this on a Google search looking for something else, just a small correction

Bjorn Lomborg about his figures, $150B a year cost for Kyoto

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.