Posted by ReverendJasonGraves on Thursday, 15 March 2007 21:05:49

"
£10,000 for communication
"


How much is an internet connection again?


Cheese and bread, BT (etc) must rubbing their greedy little 'telephone- handsets' together.

Video conferencing, internet connections and working from a pre-agreed local abode. Saving the environment, taxes etc etc... opening up the avenues of simple direct dialogue.

Posted by Mikegracia on Thursday, 15 March 2007 21:24:22

Hmm i have seen Al Gore's DVD, and his book.

I don't suppose anyone knows if he is planning on doing any talks in the UK anytime soon is he?

- I had heard people say he talking in a monotone voice, and was boring... but i have to say that he does not come accross as at all like that in his DVD... held my attention throughout anywayz !

Posted by BunboHue on Thursday, 15 March 2007 21:56:51

Dave, how do you get time to write all these blogs with your busy schedule?

Posted by BrianTomkinson on Thursday, 15 March 2007 22:49:14

Presumably Al Gore would not have been as "authoritative, engaging and utterly convincing" if he had spoken to you by video link fom the USA and not contributed to burning more carbon? Don't suppose, either, that you got round to asking him why his domestic energy consumption is reported to be 20 times that of the average home in the USA and what he is going to do to reduce it. Did you ask if, as is reported, Al still buys carbon offsets from Generation Investment Management LLC, a tax-exempt organisation, who's chairman and founding partner is one Al Gore? Since you were clearly swept off your feet by an Oscar winner, the thought of even mentioning any of the questions from the many, who challenge his views on climate change, would not have entered your mind.Your posting has confirmed that you have a closed mind on this subject.

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:54:36

David Cameron says "He was authoritative, engaging and utterly convincing" Yes, he is, or was, a politician :) LoL

 

Comment edited by canvas on Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:54:53

Posted by ThatcherLoyalist on Friday, 16 March 2007 01:18:28

I wonder if he explained how his obsession with the environment lost him vital support in middle America, costing him West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, and ultimately the electoral college in 2000 (if he'd only won West Virginia, Florida wouldnt have mattered). Did he offer any ideas on how you could avoid the same mistake, in alienating middle England? Your latest policy announcement on taxing flights suggests you could use some advice on that.

Posted by CharlesG on Friday, 16 March 2007 11:04:12

David,
Oh dear, it sounds like you have fallen for that first-class hypocrite, the Goracle. I’m sure he was convincing. Remember he was a politician, not a climate scientist. That’s probably why was so convincing. Any chance you could consult a bit wider on the climate change issue before being convinced? Green taxes for all then.

Posted by jonjii on Friday, 16 March 2007 12:41:03

Dear David,
I am hugely concerned by this whole Al Gore/climate change/green issues business.

I have heard very clear concise and convincing arguments from well respected tenured professors and scientists stating that a lot of this isn't so. In fact the most logical explanation they claim is that climate change is strongly related to sun activity.

I am sitting on the fence but getting more and more sceptical.. I don't think that CO2 emissions are a good idea and cutting down is probably a good idea but the hysteria that is being whipped up seems to have become politicized rather than convincing.

Furthermore I have not seen anyone even try to address the sceptics arguments... they just brush them aside and vilify the sceptics as heretics.

I heard Lembit Opik making wild claims on Question Time last night about "White house funded" research and "95% of scientists and climateologists" These are false and/or unsubstatiated. It should further be noted that many of the current fashionable mob are being sponsored the other way as well so who should one trust.?

I am quite impressed by the statements of Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday on the same program. I recommend you get a precis of what he said and take it to heart. He isn't your biggest fan and expresses the growing concern I detect from many of your would be supporters about this and many other issues.

Furthermore I have read that a sizeable number of the Paris 2500 wished to dis-associate themselves from the report but this was not allowed as they had been sponsored. So who is funding whom or what research?.

Furthermore #2. Natural sources such as Volcanos plus man made sources such as Chinese and re-opening South African power stations are spewing ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the whole time. Europes 20% reduction is going to be more than exceeded before we even get there.

I would like to see a real debate on these issues rather than the cheap trick of ganging up on the dissenters.

John Grave

ps AL Gore doesn't practise what he preaches so I and many others are not at all impressed by him nor the claims he made in his Oscar winning movie which is full of claims which are flawed and otherwise not conclusive.

Posted by providor on Friday, 16 March 2007 14:03:28

David> "Furthermore I have not seen anyone even try to address the sceptics arguments..."

Then you need to visit this website:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

It lists all the common sceptic arguments, and expalins in detail, with references, what is wrong with them. Then at the end of each topic there is a discussion forum where the sceptics can (and do) dissect, question and attempt to rebut these explanations. Required reading for anybody that wants to develop a balanced view of this issue, but don't bother if, like some who post here, your mind is already made up and you think you know all there is to know.

There is also plenty of good stuff at http://www.realclimate.org/ and http://climatedenial.org/ - both of these, incidentally give detailed reasons to disbelieve the conclusions of "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

> "Furthermore I have read that a sizeable number of the Paris 2500 wished to dis-associate themselves from the report ..."

Does anyone have a link to a site that goes into detail about this issue - i.e. just how many dissented, who they are and why they dissented?

 

Comment edited by providor on Friday, 16 March 2007 14:09:38

Posted by Henry2 on Friday, 16 March 2007 15:28:05

Global warming is natural and is followed by global cooling which is followed by global warming. Al Gore says it and so do the "sceptics". It is just a fact that several cycles of global warming and cooling happened long before we were around, never mind when we started to exploit fossil fuels.

So let us get planning for the inevitable! We are in a warming phase and sea levels will rise. Evacuate London (joke).

Posted by Graham on Friday, 16 March 2007 19:23:32

jonjii

> Furthermore I have not seen anyone even try to address the sceptics arguments... they just brush them aside and vilify the sceptics as heretics.

Really? I suggest you look at the following articles from The Independant, especially in the light of the dubious documentary broadcast by Channel 4 "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

(Incidentally: "Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.")

* * * * *

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

* * * * *

And:

* * * * *

Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4

[...]

"When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. This seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown.

[...]

In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening.

Channel 4 now says they were making a film in a series of "polemics". There is nothing in the communication we had that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value - a great error.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece

* * * * *

My only hope is that the criticism of Channel 4's debacle will actually succeed in bringing the flaws in the sceptics arguments to greater prominence as more people will get to see them!

Posted by Madelaine on Friday, 16 March 2007 20:00:38

I thought that Al Gore's movie focused far too much on him as a person than the actual issue. It just left me wondering whether he has taken up this issue as a political tool rather than as something he cares deeply about.

Posted by jonjii on Friday, 16 March 2007 21:30:15

To Providor and Graham,
Thank you for the pointers.. my mind IS NOT made up but having glanced at the websites listed rather than studied them I am still unsure.

Certainly these websites/arguments/points of view hide their lights under bushells and in any event if what these say is true why aren't the David Camerons/Lembit Opiks/Clare Shorts of this world arguing the point rather than just ignoring or vilifying the counter arguments. And why is Peter Hitchens still so sceptical?

My point is still valid. Until there is a public open debate which highlights both arguments the current situation is leaving many confused and unsure of who to believe.

Providor.. I read that reference about Paris 2500 dissenters on a website somewhere but I can't find it at this stage. If I come across it again I will post it for you, Again it was stated and no names or numbers were listed that is why I say that I heard rather than it is a fact.

By the way.. What gave the Paris 2500 their credibility? Who were all these people? what Tenures did they all hold? and most imoportantly WHO WAS PAYING FOR THEM?