« Three Great Lives | Main | Gimmick or Government? »

September 04, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8346d963f69e200e554e1364e8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hockey stick rules :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

muebles

It won't truly have success, I suppose this way. The guy is absolutely fair, and there is no suspicion.

buy propecia

But encouraging people to work until their seventies is great. It's the best way of ensuring we live til our 80s. Idleness is very bad for everyone. Retirement is a killer disease. Work is the best medicine.

Equity Release

'Reverse Mortgages' or Equity Release Schemes as they are called in the UK are becoming more and more popular. When you look at the retirement income provision of most of the population (here in the UK he average fund is supposedly £40,000), it beggars belief how some people even survive given the rising energy costs we are all facing!

Reverse mortgages, I believe, really help certain people out by, clearing off any existing mortgage and potentially paying you an excess over this amount to help maintain a desired lifestyle in retirement. Surely that has to be a good thing for many who are struggling to survive. But then as this interest is rolled up into one giant loan paid off on death - I just hope the people doing it let their kids know! Great post by the way, more information is needed on this controversial area.

Paul Flynn

Thank you David.

the news from America is very encouraging.

David Lee

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, calling on Americans to join him on March 2nd at the Capitol Power Plant in what is expected to be a massive non-violent protest demanding action on global warming.

patrick

paul
The planet is not under threat.
It's only the species on it that are.

PaulFlynn

That's a fair point Huw. I've done some of those jobs. They were bearable only because I managed to detach my mind from my tasks to concentrate on saving the planet. But you are right. To some retirement is a liberation into their satisfying hobbies.

Huw O'Sullivan

Paul for the option to be there for those who want to is a good thing.
For it to become a necessity as it will be is not.

For people who can continue in rewarding careers Paul, both intellectually and financially, that is fine, for people who are doing mind numbing dull and boring work for little reward the prospect of that continuing through their old age until their death must be depressing, to say the very least.

PaulFlynn

Yes Huw, I was gobsmacked too by by David Blunkett's comments on equity releases.

But encouraging people to work until their seventies is great. It's the best way of ensuring we live til our 80s. Idleness is very bad for everyone. Retirement is a killer disease. Work is the best medicine.

Huw O'Sullivan

Gasp in Disbelief

"And - while no government can hope to protect people from the full impact of the global credit crunch or the worldwide spike in commodity prices - I am determined that we should do what we reasonably can to help families and businesses through this difficult period of adjustment. So we will back up our investment commitments with careful interventions designed to provide targeted support for hard-pressed families - such as this week’s home-owners’ support package and the £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers that will start to feed into paypackets later this month."

This seems to be classic Blair style wool pulling but from GB.
The £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers has become part of New Labour's targeted support for hard pressed families and not simply a one year only return of the extra taxes he felt the need to levy on those who could least afford it, when taxes were cut for those who earned more.
So that is how a relatively small budgeting misstep but politically huge error with a wave of the magic wand becomes government support.

Equity Release

We surely, given Paul's comments on equity release, must acknowledge how that wonderful man Blunkett has come out to encourage the elderly to use these schemes.
He apparently does not consider them to be a poor dangerous choice for most pensioners.
It is encouraging how close to the tories those who have led New Labour are.
For the ordinary people, work until you die please, if you wilfully won't or can't then sell everything and please try to die quickly as you can after that so as not to use up all the money, spare these right wing parties from having to actually work out solutions.

PaulFlynn

Frank I am glad to see that Huw and Patrick are taking up your arguments.

The figures I quoted were sourced from the House of Commons Library two years ago. If you have others figures perhaps you will let me know and I will seek an update.

In 1987 I raised with the local drainage board the need to strengthen the sea wall because of the threat of global warming. It was not only Mrs Thatcher. Although they were doubtful in 1987, the drainage board did the work in the early 90s. A substantial area of my constituency is under the level of high tides.

paulflynn

Tonypandy andy, the person you claim I am 'employing' was Chancellor for 10 years. You ask a question, get a full serious reply, then make an asinine comment. No more answers for you.

Tonypandy Andy

So you are employing others to write for you now.
No views of your own then ?
How uncharacteristically self-effacing

Carlos

2007 hottest?? Not in the UK where it rained all the time.

Frank Davis

"Frank you've pointed out that 8 out of the last 10 years are the eight hottest years on record"

I didn't actually. I linked to a site that said that 2007 was the eighth hottest in recent history, rather than the second hottest. There are other sites which tell a different story, and have the hottest year in the 1930s, along with half the other hottest years, the rest being in the 1990s.

"Surely you might have thought that too."

I didn't actually. Thanks for pointing it out. She probably did mean that.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that the Hockey Stick is back in the news this week because Michael Mann, it 1998 author, has come out with a New Improved Hockey Stick, this time minus the contentious bristlecone pine temperature proxies. As is normal these days, it went out as a press release so as to grab headlines before anyone could criticize it, so that true AGW believers could rest assured that the planet was hotting up. The new Hockey Stick can be found here:

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0901-temperatures.html

As ever, the worst case current instrumental record has been spliced onto the end as thick red line to give it its characteristic hockey stick shape, obscuring all the lines underneath it. Climate Audit is now busy dismantling it. But Mann has got his headlines, and Paul Flynn has repeated them, so it'll probably be a few weeks or months before we find out what's wrong with the latest New Improved Hockey Stick.

Huw O'Sullivan

Frank you've pointed out that 8 out of the last 10 years are the eight hottest years on record, the records having begun in 1850 and apparently are reassured by the fact that 1998 was the hottest of them and suggest this shows cooling.
Some year to year variation is surely normal, each individual year is likely to be either higher or lower with the occasional exceptional spike upwards or downwards but surely having the 8 hottest years from 157 years of records, occurring in the last ten years could also be taken to show that indeed it is now hotter in general and on average.

I doubt either interpretation proves or does more than mildly suggest anything at all.

For me I will take the advice of the appropriate scientific bodies on this.

I also suspect that Dawn may have been referring to the situation with climate in this country if global warming caused a shift of the gulf stream away from us. Leaving us vulnerable to much harsher winters than we are used to.
Surely you might have thought that too.

Frank Davis

"Our selfishness may well see our childrens children living in Siberian like conditions." - Dawn

Erm.., I thought it was Global Warming that we were supposed to be combatting? Or has the Global Cooling notion become the new orthodoxy already?

"Do you want to live with the knowledge that you did nothing to stop it?"

It would help to know what it is we're trying to stop. We don't even seem to be very sure about that.

And then we'd have to assess whether we actually can stop it, whatever it is we want to stop.

Dawn

Global warming looks like it is happening and it will be followed by an Ice age if it goes too far.

It would benefit Britain to be ahead of the game in developing technologies to combat GW and its consequences.

It will benefit our children and grandchildren and so on if we do so, although I am sure igloos cost less to erect than brick houses.

Our selfishness may well see our childrens children living in Siberian like conditions. Maybe our descendents in the UK could be the world leaders in ski and skidoo manufacturing.

All the above is simplistic yes. Do we actually want that to happen? Are we actually that self-centered and careless of the planet that we have on lease? Do you want to live with the knowledge that you did nothing to stop it? Or is it because you'll be dead by the time most of these consequences come to past that you nay-sayers just don't care?

Are a few extra pennies in you pocket now; that you'll probably spend on fripperies anyway,(how many people actually contribute to Water projects etc.)that crucial to your way of life?

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to spend their money as they want... I'm saying we shouldn't mind investing in the future of our offspring, our genetic legacy if you will.

True we can't offset all the demands the developing world will place on our planet, but this IS a rich country, a country full of creativity and lots and lots of brains. We SHOULD benefit from the opportunity to excel that the challenges of GW presents, and we should have the altruism to try and offset and help others in their efforts to do the same.

Why must the UK be the country that leaves everything till the last minute, then suffer as we pull out all the stops to make things right?

Now is not the time to fiddle, now is the time to pull our socks up and get working on the solutions. After all, it would be a shame to see all the landscaping and restoration of Wales' mining areas that the EU paid for and is bearing beautiful fruit buried under new Glaciers.

The above is simplistic I know but it's what it boils down to. The point is do we care enough to not take the very big risk of it coming to pass. Is fashionable nay-saying and hippy-bashing really worth it? I don't think so anyway.

Frank Davis

2007 second warmest?

Or eighth warmest? And cooler than most previous years.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2007. The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001."

patrick

2007 SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD
Northern Hemisphere Temperature Highest Ever

Frances C. Moore

With the record for 2007 now complete, it is clear that temperatures around the world are continuing their upward climb. The global average in 2007 was 14.73 degrees Celsius (58.5 degrees Fahrenheit)—the second warmest year on record, only 0.03 degrees Celsius behind the 2005 maximum. January 2007 was the hottest January ever measured, a full 0.23 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous record. August was also a record for that month and September was the second warmest September recorded.

patrick

RTS
"Even if the doom-mongering of the most voracious environmentalists are true global warming represents a change in environment we know the world can handle - humanity, being the most adaptive species the planet has even seen will adapt."

The planet has survived at least Four major Ice Ages and the same number of Interglacial periods so yes we can be fairly confident that the planet wil cope with climate change.
As for humanity being adaptive, we know from archaeological records that our ancestors colonised modern day Britain several times and several times were driven out by climate. Yes we are adaptive but if the current predictions for 50-100 years time are true then Millions of people will have nowhere to escape.Stable countries will become unstable.Adaption can and has taken place over Thousands of years but if your entire habitat is submerged or if you can't grow anything you die.
Another point is that deniers keep asking about precise highest/lowest temperature figures.
Surely it's the Year average temps we should be talking about.
If the World is not getting warmer please someone answer this.

1- Why are studied Animal and plant species moving North at 6KM per decade?

2- Why are the above colonising higher altitudes at about the same amount?

3- Why are the above breeding and/or blooming earlier than ever on record?

Fredrik Eich

Paul,
"The realization that the drugs laws do not work is spreading"
I hope so. The first step towards a sensible public health drugs policy is the firm understanding that the "war on drugs" will never be won – that people will always take drugs. British intervention in Afghanistan will stumble on poppy fields unless care is taken. If the Taliban could not eradicate poppy production, and they tried, what hope for the British army? The complete legalization of all recreational drugs is the only way to take this profitable business out of the hands of school children and back in to the adult world.

west2

Here are the conclusions from - Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (2008) by Roger A. Pielke Sr. (Senior Research Scientist, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University)

1 Human Caused Global Warming is a Subset of Human Caused Climate Change (The Term Global Warming ≠ The Term Climate Change)

2 Significant Climate Change Can Occur Without a Change in the Global Average Surface Temperature

3 Carbon is an Incomplete Metric to Characterize the Human Role within the Climate System –the IPCC Approach is Actually on Energy Policy Not on an Inclusive Assessment for Effective Climate Policy

4 The Use of an Annual Global Average Temperature Change (e.g., +2C) Provides No Value In Characterizing Regional Climate Change.
-----------------------------------------
Just in the short exchange on this blog (on Wales) we seem to have seen what he concluded in 2 & 4.

Dr Pielke jnr sees that the climate is influenced by a large number of factors and suggests that concentrating on CO2 as a measure is not helpful.

Reducing CO2 may not produce any meaningful reduction in temp let alone any affect on climate. Carbon taxes may not have the meaningful benefits hoped for. We get nothing for something. No wonder people are skeptical.

What all this would suggest is that more effort is put into looking at what human activity influences climate at a regional level. This could mean that there are things you can do locally in Wales that would have an effect, rather than blame everything on 'Global Warming'.

Far from being Global Warming 'deniers', many skeptics are concerned that the obsession with CO2 is misplaced.

west
----

PaulFlynn

Thanks for the contributions on this thread. (Almost) all of them made worthwhile contributions. Unfortunately the volume of comments are making it near impossible to answer them all adequately. The site has about 1,000 hits a day and it is becomining a victim of its success. It's pleasure to see the deabtes that take place in this section which I, and others, have found to be informative.

In the past I have tried to answer all direct questions. While all sensible contributions are welcome, only a selection of replies can be made.

My first responsibilities to my constituents. They are first in the queue. Please do not be discouraged from sending in comments. But the time for replies from me is not unlimited.

PaulFlynn

Tonypandy Andy, the answer to your qusetion comes from someone who knows rather more about this than I do:-

"But while never complacent about our economic prospects, I am also cautiously optimistic about the long-term resilience and underlying strengths of the British economy.
Because at root our economy today is better placed to weather any global economic storm than it was in the 1970s, 80s or early 90s.
First, Bank of England independence has given us low interest rates founded on sound macroeconomic management and so despite increases in the prices of food and fuel - and I understand the impact this is having on families and businesses - the sound framework for monetary policy which we have established means inflation remains far below the double-digit levels we saw in the earlier decades. And this will help ensure that interest rates remain similarly low by historical standards.
Second, the most flexible labour market in Europe means that even though unemployment has risen in recent months, employment remains close to record highs - and wage pressures are subdued, led by our own responsible decisions on public sector pay. And with the investment in the New Deal and our latest welfare reforms there is more support than ever before to help people back into work and to fill the 600,000 vacancies still in our economy. And a balanced approach to migration allows businesses to benefit from the specific skills that economic migrants can bring to our country and improves the responsiveness of our labour market to fluctuating demand.
Third - the underlying financial strength of British business reflects its improved efficiency - driven by your hard work in achieving the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. Britain remains a magnet for overseas investment and our export performance is improving, with our manufacturing productivity growth strong.
Fourth, low debt. The significant debt repayments we made since 1997 mean we have cut public debt as a share of national income from 43 per cent in 1997 to today’s 37.3 per cent. This means that, unlike in earlier economic slowdowns, we can sustain our ongoing commitment to investment in fixed capital infrastructure - up 58 per cent in real terms in the last decade. In 1997 we invested £144.5 billion. Today it is £229 billion. Even after inflation a 58 per cent rise.
And - while no government can hope to protect people from the full impact of the global credit crunch or the worldwide spike in commodity prices - I am determined that we should do what we reasonably can to help families and businesses through this difficult period of adjustment. So we will back up our investment commitments with careful interventions designed to provide targeted support for hard-pressed families - such as this week’s home-owners’ support package and the £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers that will start to feed into paypackets later this month.
Fifth – we are making all the long term decisions, difficult as they are, to boost our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. And the 2002 Enterprise Act has given us one of the most robust, independent competition regimes anywhere in the world. The support for British enterprise - strengthened over the last decade with the launch of Enterprise Capital Funds, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee and administrative burden reduction targets. Britain today has four and a half million businesses - more than ever before. And the OECD says Britain has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any OECD country."

Frank Davis

"Carlos's video is profoundly unconvincing. An extreme right wing politicain reading a speech, he appears not to understand, in broken English. So what?"

Who was that? I can't watch YouTube with my slow modem. Vaclav Klaus, I bet.

People seem to forget that Global Warming is part of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, who signed up Sir Crispin Tickell as her science advisor. So Global Warming is really a vast right wing conspiracy.

http://tinyurl.com/69yjdo

"Thatcher, who got her degree in chemistry in 1947 from Oxford and went on to work as a research chemist before becoming a tax lawyer and, eventually, a politician, gave her first documented speech mentioning climate change at the United Kingdom’s national academy of science, the Royal Society."

"The year was 1988, almost a decade into her 11-year reign as prime minister. She told the scientists that three changes in atmospheric chemistry—greenhouse gases, the ozone hole and acid emissions from power plants—warranted not just good science to resolve uncertainties, but also government action to diminish pollution and promote sustainable development."


“Even though this kind of action may cost a lot, I believe it to be money well and necessarily spent because the health of the economy and the health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other,” she said.


Frank Davis

"You ask for evidence Farnk Davies. It's there for all to see,"

I asked for the sea level and air temperature rise in Newport over the past 100 years. I got neither. You have provided instead the mean temperature in Wales over the past 3 years, and extreme water levels (flooding) in one place over the past 18 months. And you seriously expect me to believe that this is proof of a long term trend?

"The more eminent the scientist, the more
terrified they are of global threats. Within a decade or two we will hit several tipping points that could push us into irreversible change. It’s not conjecture."

So why, if it is not conjecture, do you write "could" push us into irreversible change rather than "will"? And why are you appealing to authority by citing the "eminence" of scientists, and the "great reputation" of the New Scientist? It's not eminence and reputation that matters, but facts and reason.

Forecasts of global warming are based upon computer simulation models which attempt to predict climate over the long term. These are already wildly wrong, because the earth's temperature right now has fallen below the range of rising temperatures predicted. And this shouldn't be a surprise. For while some of the physics of climate is well understood, other parts - like cloud formation - are not well understood. Climate science is a very young science. So all sorts of assumptions and fudge factors necessarily go into constructing these models. And while with much of science it is possible to carry out many experiments to test hypotheses and models (e.g. the gas laws), with climate this isn't possible, because we've only got one climate.

The plain and perfectly obvious truth is that these simulation models are of a highly speculative nature. Their results are as likely to be wrong as they are right. Of course they should be taken into consideration. But they shouldn't be credulously and unquestioningly believed.

As for the "better safe than sorry" argument, well what if the earth is cooling instead of warming? There are a number of scientists (e.g. Svensmark) who argue that the earth's climate is controlled more by solar activity than by CO2, and that the sun is now entering a period of reduced activity (there are currently no sunspots on the sun) which corresponds to the "little ice age" of the 18th century, when there were very few sunspots as well.

In addition, we enjoy our current climate thanks to being in one of the relatively brief interglacial periods in the last few million years. In the view of some people, we are now overdue to return to an ice age.

And, since the temperature peak of 1998, earth temperature has not risen further, and has fallen over the past year.

I'm not saying that these scientists are right and the global warming scientists are wrong. Instead I'm saying that we shouldn't be putting all our eggs in one basket. It would be tragic if we took steps to avert global warming only to fall foul of global cooling. And global cooling is a far worse prospect that that of warming.

I personally don't believe that global warming is just a money-making racket. I think that the scientists involved genuinely believe their own predictions. It would be an odd sort of scientist who didn't. But I really don't believe that their science, or their simulation models, or even their raw data, is sufficiently accurate to merit doing very much about it - and I'm glad that most governments aren't.

RTS

There are many MANY good reasons why we should conserve power, limit pollution and use our resources wisely - global warming isn't one of them.

Even if the doom-mongering of the most voracious environmentalists are true global warming represents a change in environment we know the world can handle - humanity, being the most adaptive species the planet has even seen will adapt.

Over fishing, destruction of natural habitats, the depletion of vital resources and unchecked pollution will, long term, have far more devastating results on humanity.

Focusing on CO2, which isn't even technically a pollutant, is diverting attention from more important environmental damage. Indeed, it's arguable that it's accelerating other types of damage. For example, a move from pure petrol/diesel power in cars to hybrid systems would increase the global demand for nickel (the production of which is a dirty process).

Brown's banning of incandescent bulbs will mean that landfills will, within the next few years, start to fill up with their mercury laden alternatives (even if 90% of people dispose of them correctly we're still talking about a lot of mercury winding up in the ground and eventually in the water table).
More mercury in the water table versus CO2? I know which I'd rather deal with.

west2

Paul Flynn Wrote:
"In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years"

The world today (2008) is cooler than in 1998. The hottest year on record in the US was 1934. (Adjusted from 1998). This is just the last 10yrs. Do you have evidence that contradicts this?

Paul also stated:
"Mean temperatures have risen by 1°C rise in
Wales over the past three years compared with the 1960-1990 period"

Do you have a source for this?

The met office show that the anomaly (Aug 2008) is 0.5C (from 1960-1990 average). Also of interest is that this is a result of a slightly higher Min Temperature and a decreased Max temperature.

This would suggest that the daytime is sightly cooler in Wales and the nightime is slightly warmer than in the past. This seems like quite a good thing as it would mean that less fuel is required in the evenings to keep warm.

The GW trend is up. Though this does seem to have stalled. There is some evidence (sunspot activity) that indicates a possible furture cooling.

The other issue is AGW. How much we humans contribute, whether this is having a great effect and whether we can control the climate by limiting CO2. This is theory and supported by some computer models.

I have asked about the plateau and possible cooling in the 21st Centuary. Was this predicted by the models and why is it happening?

The AGW theory suggests increases in CO2 mean increase in Temp. Since we have increased CO2 output since 2000 why haven't we reached a 'tipping point' or even seen any GW?

west
----

PaulFlynn

You are wrong Carlos.

Of course some scientists have prostituted their skills to fill their wallets. But the world best scientists are loyal to disciplines of scientific inquiry and truth.

The myths of politicised science exist only in the minds of gullible conspiracy therorists.

Carlos

Actually the speech was about politicised science in general, Global warming as the most prominent.

PaulFlynn

You ask for evidence Frank Davies. It's there for all to see,

The more eminent the scientist, the more
terrified they are of global threats. Within a decade or two we will hit several tipping points that could push us into irreversible change. It’s not conjecture. The evidence is building now in Wales. Two years ago, I wrote,

"Villages in the Conway Valley that expect significant
flooding once every 20 years have had 3 in the past 18
months. Mean temperatures have risen by 1°C rise in
Wales over the past three years compared with the 1960-1990 period. Major tidal surges in the Bristol channel at Newport have historically been once each century. Now, they arrive every 5 years."

These are powerful local examples.

John

Julian Critchley recently exposed the hypocrisy in the inner corridors of power around Prohibition. We all know the the Prohibition of illegal drugs casues more damage than the drugs themselves.
As Joseph McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City and San Jose put it: "The drug war cannot stand the light of day. It will collapse as quickly as the Vietnam war, as soon as people find out what's really going on." Tragically and despicably, the government's commitment to populist posturing means that the collapse will come far too late for many.
I read a report about a Cardiff man who was caught grwoing cannabis his defence was
"“I’m fighting for the right to exist, no more than that.
“I’m not interfering with anyone’s existence at all, I keep myself to myself and live quietly and peacefully.
“It’s irrational discrimination to be allowed to produce alcohol without interference, yet I’m here before you trying hard to make a case for my liberty"

THe judges response was "“We cannot live in a society where everyone is free to say: ’My view is that the law is irrational’.

Did I miss something there surely we have that right or maybe that is another right we have lost.
I know that as juror it is my right to say the drug laws are worng and if I ever get called for jury service on a case such as this I would use that right to give a not guilty plea to this non violent citizen hurting noone.

John

The global warming debate is a waste of time. What is true is that we are using up the worlds finite resources at an unprecedented rate. We are destroying habitat and species at an unprecedented rate.We have more people on this plant than ever before competing for ever diminishing sources of water, food and land.
Our countryside is slowly being destroyed and being replaced by shopping Malls and houses.
We will look back at the last 100 years with horror in how we have sqaundered a once only bonanza in the planets resources.
THis is the real threat affecting us all. We need Politicians to grasp the nettle of Population and the huge waste of food that we feed to animals in order to feed ourselves..The food value of meat is a tenth of the value of the grain we feed the animals with.
If the population was encouraged to have one child per couple it would halve in 40 years we then have a chance of saving our once beautiful and pristine planet While we argue about Global warming I feel we are missing the bigger picture.

Tonypandy Andy

A propos of nothing you've said, is Britain better placed than most countries to withstand the current economic turbulence, and if so why is this so ?

Huw O'Sullivan

It's a little hard to tell if Frank is suggesting that disastrous global warming will not happen because it has not actually happened within the last 100 years or if he is urging the government, through Paul, to take far more drastic action now.

Of course you would probably have to do a study, put forward proposals and draw up plans if you were to consider a barrage or anything else that might help prevent flooding.

It is my understanding that a two year feasibility study for a barrage on the Severn was launched in 2007 and the terms of reference were announced on 22 January 2008.

So maybe the course of action you have suggested will actually come into being Frank, let's hope it is done, fast enough to be useful.

After all it would be terrible if scoffers and gainsayers fussing and protesting in the teeth of the scientific evidence had managed to prevent us taking action in time.

To think that their utter conviction that it's all some scam to part them from some of their money might lead to devastation in Wales, the rest of the island, our neighbours and the rest of the world.

Can we be sure that as the threat only exists in the future and right now is the present that there really is no urgency?

Can we really believe that just because what we have done up until now has not brought about actual global catastrophe that as we do more and more of it will not accumulate and make the future different from the past.

What do scientists know anyway?
Talk to one and you'll find they even admit that they cannot be 100% certain of anything, never mind the bare minimum 110% that many require.

But I think and perhaps Frank agrees that it would be dreadful if those people have through their staunch resistance to the apparent reality of the threat, managed to delay preventative and/or protective measures until it is too late.

Are those who urge drastic action on the environment now the Winston Churchill's of this issue, are those who urge the softly, softly, slowly reaching watered down agreements approach the Neville Chamberlain's

Are the gainsayers, the scoffers the ones who say more of the same, more again and much more and damn the begrudgers the Oswald Mosleys.

The funny thing is, those who are concerned about this possibility would much rather be wrong and have those who opposed them,
mock and pillory them and be able to say they were right all along and global warming wasn't happening,
than be right about climate change and have nothing they can do but say "told you so"
as countries disappear under the waves.

Frank Davis

"The crucial point is that our modern civilization has been built on the basis of the prevailing climate and sea levels. As these change, it will cause major problems."

It certainly will. I take it that plans are well advanced to either build a Dutch-style dike around Newport, or to evacuate its citizens up into the Black Mountains. And I suppose the relevant experts know that, since the Severn estuary is a tidal river generating the highest tides in Britain, sea level rises due to global warming will be much higher there than anywhere else.

Frank Davis

So how far has the sea level risen in Newport over the past 100 years with all this global warming, Paul? One metre? 10 metres? It looks a bit more than that in your cartoon.

And how far has the temperature risen over the same period? One degree? 10 degrees? Are a lot of people suffering from heat stroke and sunburn these days?

I imagine it must be positively tropical by now, with mangrove swamps and crocodiles infesting the river Usk, and herds of wildebeest and kudu and leopards roaming inland.

paulflynn

Carlos's video is profoundly unconvincing. An extreme right wing politicain reading a speech, he appears not to understand, in broken English. So what?

The test of Cameron's courage is now. He was fine as a backbencher. The Tory policy now is not progressive under Cameron.

Read my blog and search the archives. You will note that I have condemned the policies all three main parties.

Alan Thrower

So Cameron is more brave than Blair then. Perhaps you should consider crossing the house before it's too late. ;-)

Carlos

I suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odgk1zywkJA

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment