http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

David Whitehouse was BBC Science Correspondent 1988

Wrong I’m afraid It was in 1998 that the treaty was signed by the US - Clinton and his vice-President Gore signed the treaty but did not put it to the senate to be ratified because as Al Gore said at the time - unless the developing nations agree to emmision cuts the US would not do so. Isn’t it strange that this is convenetly forgotten by the media.

By the way CO2 is not now or ever been a polutent. People may also like to know that the IPCC summary for policy makers - is not written by scientists but by politicians and beaurocrats - the science is “done” later to fit in with the summary. Its like writing a conclusion to a scientific experiment before you actually start experimenting.

Reply: Yes - the Senate was against the Treaty on the Democrat as well as the republican side.

I am against the US behaviour (e.g. Nat West 3) also.

So thanks god the EU is now a big political power in the world and does something against the climate change.
But without the USA, Kanada, Australia, Russia, it doesn’t work.

So I’m looking forward to the upcoming US-administration, (3 of the candidates said, they want to do anything!) and then we never have the problem with this retarded Bush.

Greets from Germany, EU!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Now, I’m not endorsing this - I haven’t time to watch every video posted - but the chap is entertaining, committed and provocative.

The kids in his science class are privileged!

I am pro recycling because it makes sense.

I am getting tired of the way the BBC always manages to mention climate change in many of their reports on the news and in new nature programmes.
I strongly believe that the government funded research achieves the results they want as they are paying the piper. I believe the same is true of the BBC. They are funded via the government and therefore the government calls the tune, a not so veiled threat was made following the Dr Kelly incident in relation to the future of their funding if they didn’t play ball.
I struggle to understand the rationale behind cutting down rain forests to plant rape seed for bio diesel.
I fail to understand how the fact that stable temperatures since 1998 shows climate change. I fail to understand why the ice caps on Mars are also melting at the same rate as our own on Earth, but then again, I am not funded by government so I can think independantly and make up my own mind.

It seems to me both the BBC and the government have adopted the tactic that, if they say climate change as a result of man’s activities is real often enough it will be accepted as fact.

I lived in East London during the late 50s and early 60s, the air was thick with pollution from industry, town gas manufacture and coal fires. In fact the air was similar to that in developing industrial countries of today. Why did we not have “carbon problems” then?

It makes sense to be greener but let’s have a reality check here, I support John’s view; incentives not penalties as poorer people will suffer.

I feel it is likely to be too late to stop the pro climate change lobby as so many people have become financially reliant on the industries that have grown up in it’s wake.

It seems we have a culture in this country that gives too much influence to small single issue groups that shout loud often to the detriment of the silent majority.

On the other hand I have a nasty feeling that the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion might be correct. Maybe greenhouse gases and global warming do threaten the planet. Maybe ‘technology’ might not magically provide the answer. Maybe we should be doing everything we could be doing - right now - to sort this out.

I don’t know - and have no way of knowing - which way to go on this. But I do get an uneasy feeling that Mr Redwood is playing a political game here. He’s starting from the position that he’s anti-BBC, pro-USA and anti-EU and then searching for an approach which fits with these predispositions.

Maybe, just maybe, whether you’re anti-BBC or pro-USA hasn’t got anything to do with the actual problem here. But, arrrrggggggg!, I don’t know. Maybe all those scientists who think that, on the whole, we’re doomed are really just saying so that that they can increase their research funding and continue to live the pampered lifestyles to which they’ve become so accustomed. Maybe the politicians are just saying whatever they think they need to say to win votes. I wish I knew how to tell which of these - or any other possibilities - is correct!

Reply: No, I do not start from prejudice pro the USA and anti the EU. If I have a prejudice it is against big government and its freedom curshing ways wherever I find them. Nor am I always against the BBC, but I do feel the need to help correct systematic pro EU/pro big government bias in BBC current afafirs when I detect it.

Our over consumption as a nation is a problem, but I’m not convinced that the climate change devotees are tackling it in the right way. I certainly think that we need to examine our lifestyles and make changes where we can, but carbon offsetting and carbon trading scheemes are just passing the buck (probably in a damaging way as they skew the economy of the nation to which the buck has been passed).

It smacks of the smug town dwellers telling their country cousins to use public transport more, huh!

And of course the main reason cited by EU enthusiasts for championing green issues is that they say it will affect crop yield in developing countries. Maybe they should consider scrapping the CAP if that is the real reason but of course the BBC would never air that.

Reply: Amen to reform of the CAP - that would be the best way for the EU to help poor countries. You are right to ask about how the science is funded. I remember hearing Al Gore, when asked a difficult question by a climate change sceptic, telling him that his side was bound to lose because it was a few million pounds “cottage industry” up against the billions of climate change science, funded by governments.

Pauline Buffham raises an interesting point. Would Al Gore and his cronies like to go somewhere less exotic?

Since it would disprove media claims about “consensus” you will never see any media mention of the Oregon Petition in the media but 19,000 scientists have signed it and it said:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Reply: Please see my previous blog about climate scepticism. I am today talking about what you should do if you believe CO2 is a problem as the governments of the world do think it is.

Beijing,as I know from personal experience has terrible pollution problems…some natural, some man made. Perhaps the conference should have been held there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Peter - it isn’t CO2 which is demonised. It is the collapse in our economy that it will indirectly cause. It’s all very well you saying you’re prepared to lose your standard of living by continuing to emit CO2 in large quantities, but I’m not prepared to lose mine. Have a look at the Stern Review, and at the CBI’s climate change report, for information about the negative economic consequenes of climate change.

This whole demonisation of CO2 is a nonsense.