Got a response from Assembly any UKIP pointers?

sean43 · 27-03-2007, 04:26 PM

Here is the reply from the Enronmental Minister for the Assembly.

Got my reply today from the Environment Minister for the Assembly.

Dear Sean

Thank you for your e-mail of 26 March about making a copy of An Inconvenient Truth available to schools and colleges in Wales. The Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside has asked me to reply on his behalf.

The intention in making the DVD available to schools and colleges is to provide a resource to stimulate discussion of the issue of climate change, and our response to it, linked to curriculum subjects. The DVD will be accompanied by supporting material to help make those links and to suggest other sources of information. Longer term, we will be considering what additional material might be helpful including, for example, other documentaries.

I am aware of the content of the documentary that you refer to, but the position it presented does not represent the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and used a number of outdated datasets. We therefore do not plan to send it to schools and colleges in Wales.

In terms of the science of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a key role to play. The IPCC involves hundreds of scientists from a range of disciplines providing an authoritative assessment of all the scientific and technical aspects of climate change.

The IPCC recently published the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which made clear statements about the evidence for climate change, its attribution to human activity and likely future trends. The position it presents has been subject to lengthy and rigorous scientific debate and that analysis forms the basis for the Assembly Government, UK Government, EU and international action on climate change.

A copy of the report is available at - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG...oved_05Feb.pdf. The full Working Group report will be available on the IPCC website in May. You may also find the presentation on the Working Group 1 Report, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/WMEF_FINAL.ppt, of interest. It illustrates some of the key issues in the report, including the relative contributions of natural and anthropogenic sources to the observed warming.

Yours sincerely

Claire Bennett
Environment: Protection and Quality

I was going to reply asap but anyone got any pointers I should add?
Very Happy

harryaldridge · 27-03-2007, 04:37 PM

Well there are many points you could take up here but perhaps the most crucial is that schools should be encouraging students to question and analyse, not brainwash kids. No matter whether the evidence is overwhelming or not, students should be able to make up their own minds after their own research. Schools should seek to provide material that stimulates both sides of the debate. Just because the IPCC has produced the "world consensus" view of the science, it does not mean people should stop asking questions.

Maybe you should suggest that if there policy is indeed to push the 'consensus view' that they look at banning television documentaries with dissenting views or perhaps impartial news programmes should face the axe. Or maybe ban political perties from expressing a different view. This approach would show up the stupidity of their position by taking their policy to its extreme conclusion.

devilskitchen · 28-03-2007, 11:58 AM

You might also want to point out that the IPCC line is not without its own contentions. For instance, the Mann et al. "hockey-stick" temperature graph has been utterly discredited, whilst still being the basis for much of the IPCC's work.

You might also like to point out that the latest IPCC report (which has not actually been released: only the summary for policymakers, to which Ms Bennett refers) has throttled back the amount of harm that they calculated. As such, Al Gore's film does, in fact, rely on outmoded datasets itself.

Perhaps Ms Bennett would like to quote precisely what makes Al Gore qualified to speak on climate change: is he a scientist? What are his qualifications?

The answer to these questions is that, no, he is not a scientist and he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever. So our government would like to encourage our children to accept as fact what is merely an unvalidated theory espoused by someone with no qualifications to assess the core data or comment on that theory.

Perhaps you'd also like to ask Ms Bennett, since she seems to know so much about it, why -- if it is man causing primary warming -- we are seeing evidence of global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton?

Perhaps she'd also like to take a look at Junk Science. She might also like to write to the Danish Space Centre, whose research (released at the near end of last year) on the warming effect of clouds and the influence of cosmic rays in the formation of clouds was used in the Swindle film, and tell them that they are using an outmoded dataset.

Then you might ask Ms Bennett what her qualifications are to assess the content of Gore's film or, indeed, any other. I fail to see any BSc or other scientific letters after her name.

There's so much wrong with what she assumes that I want to throttle her.

stathan · 28-03-2007, 01:01 PM

You might also like to ask Ms Bennett if she considers that Mr Gore has a vested commercial interest in propagating the CO2 emmission global warming theories, given that he recently demanded £85,000 and 3 first class return tickets after being invited to talk at a global warming seminar in the South East of England.

It could well be argued on this basis that the Assembly are actually actively promoting a foreign commercial enterprise without even giving a balanced argument against these theories by those not driven by cash returns for their input.

SponPlague · 28-03-2007, 02:46 PM

This turned up on Auntie a while back:

Quote:

85. At 12:57 PM on 19 Oct 2006, John Finn wrote:
It’s no good – enough is enough. I can’t listen to any more drivel on ‘climate change’ from programmes like Newsnight. It was bad enough when they were simply urging the government or somebody or other to act, like some latter day King Canute, to “stop”, “tackle” or “combat” Climate Change. More recently though, we’ve been fed regular slots featuring some imbecile called “ethical man” and his crackpot wife, but Tuesday night really plumbed the depths. I am referring to the ‘debate’ between some token presence from the aviation industry and what appeared - from the level of his argument- to be a particularly bolshie 10 year old. It was chaired by Jeremy Paxman who’s clearly getting madder by the day. None of the three participants had the faintest idea what they were talking about. At some point. Paxman asked what must be the stupidest question ever which went something like “Why should millions of Africans die just because ‘we’ want to travel abroad on holiday?” What!!. Where on earth does this come from? I can only assume from some study with the usual plethora of ‘could bes’, ‘may bes’ and ‘up tos’. There is actually good reason to believe that Africa would, for reasons I’ll go into later, be one of the least affected regions in the world in the event of CO2-enhanced global warming. But first, for the benefit of the 10 year old, here is a brief background to the “Science”.

The earth warms due to the incoming solar radiation it receives from the Sun. It cools by convection, evaporation and by emitting Infra-Red (outgoing Long Wave) radiation from the earth’s surface. If the earth receives more radiation than it gets rid of – it warms up. If it gets rid of more than it receives - it cools down. Over the long term the Incoming is broadly equal to the Outgoing, implying that the earth’s mean temperature is more or less stable though there are millions of factors which, over hugely different time-scales, can disturb this state.

THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT “

Without the so-called greenhouse effect the earth would absorb and emit energy at a mean temperature of –18 degrees C. This is 33 degrees C lower than the current mean global temperature of around 15 degrees C. To put this in perspective, global temperatures during the last Ice Age were around 5 or 6 degrees lower than they are to-day. In other words. the greenhouse effect is absolutely essential for the continuation of human life. So how does it work?

The earth’s atmosphere includes a number of gases – i.e. the ‘greenhouse’ gases – which warm the atmosphere by absorbing some (around 73%) of the IR radiation which is emitted from the earth’s surface. The most abundant and dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour though, because it’s individual molecules are short-lived in the atmosphere, many scientists refer to water vapour as a feedback. Other greenhouse gases include Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane plus smaller quantities of N2O, Ozone ..etc. It might seem reasonable, therefore, to think that any increase in CO2 concentrations could cause the earth to warm. But there are a couple of key questions here, i.e. does it and more importantly by how much. It might be useful here to use an analogy (not mine thanks Richard C.) to illustrate a crucial point. Imagine you are shining a torch. Now cover the torch beam with a sheet of paper. The paper will absorb some of the light and reduce the brightness of the beam. Keep covering the beam with sheets of paper until the light can no longer be seen. At this point covering the torch will have no further effect. All the light will have been absorbed (to the naked eye, at least). Now back to the CO2 increase. As we have previously implied CO2, as a greenhouse gas, can absorb IR radiation – but not all IR radiation. CO2 only absorbs in a narrow band about a peak absorption wavelength of 15 microns (wavenumber : 667 per cm). If we look at plots of the earth’s radiance emission and GHG absorption, it’s quite clear that the CO2 absorption band is already at (or very close to) ‘saturation’ point. That is, all the IR radiation which can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed by the existing GH gases in the atmosphere or to refer back to our analogy we’ve already covered the torch with enough sheets of paper to prevent any light shining through.

When atmospheric CO2 concentrations were at pre-industrial levels (around 280 ppm), in the first 100m of the atmosphere (See Dr Jack Barrett’s paper at http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf), the earth’s emitted radiance was apportioned as follows;

72.9% was absorbed by GH gases; 22.5% escaped through the IR window (i.e. that region which is outside the GH gas absorption bands); leaving a remaining 4.6% for absorption in the next layer.

Doubling CO2 concentrations (to 560 ppm) alters the ratio as follows:

73.4% absorbed by GH gases; 22.5% escapes through the IR window (i.e. that region which is outside the GH gas absorption bands); leaving a remaining 4.1% for absorption in the next layer.

This is an increase of 0.5% absorption of total radiance (in the lower 100m). Bearing in mind that 73% absorption equates to a temperature increase of 33 deg C it’s hard to see how doubling CO2 can possibly result in an increase of any more than a few tenths of a degree.

I can well imagine some of the better informed readers will be pointing out that the reported rise of 0.6 degrees in the past century is already more than a “few tenths of a degree”. Others might want to draw attention to the much larger increases being forecast by IPCC modellers. If I have tine and can be bothered I’ll deal with both these issues (failing that I’ll respond if I’m specifically asked), but I did promise a comment on Africa, so here goes

The atmosphere in the tropics, including Africa, consists of high concentrations of water vapour – the dominant greenhouse gas. The absorption bands of water vapour overlap those of carbon dioxide. Hence the addition of CO2 will not have the same impact as it might in other parts of the world. Also – radiation energy and therefore wavelength varies as a function of the temperature of the emitting body. Basically the higher the temperature – the shorter the wavelength of the emitted radiation. Peak CO2 absorption wavelengths occur at colder temperatures, i.e. in the extreme latitudes towards the poles. In a nutshell CO2 should, theoretically, be most effective in the cold dry regions of the Arctic and the Antarctic. Ah - I hear you cry – isn’t this exactly what’s happening. Well - Yes and No. The Arctic has certainly warmed in the past 30 years, but it has only just reached the temperatures it reached in the 1940s. Check GISS station data for confirmation. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has actually cooled over the past 3 decades. Forget what you hear about Antarctic warming. This only refers to the Antarctic Peninsula – a small finger of land which juts out into the Southern Ocean. The climate of the Antarctic Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in ocean circulation. The large mass of the Antarctic interior shows a definite steady cooling trend.

Right that’s all for now. But for any interested ‘layperson’ it ’s worth reading the following

Two papers by Richard Lindzen (Professor of Atmospheric Physics at MIT)

‘Global Warming: The nature and Origin of the Alleged Scientific Consensus’ and the more recent ‘Understanding Common Climate Claims’ .

Also this highly readable and hugely significant paper by Ross McKitrick

‘What is the Hockey Stick debate about’

You’ll find all 3 on the web.

devilskitchen · 28-03-2007, 06:24 PM

Yup, that's pretty conprehensive: any idea of where I might find the hyperlink, Spon?

sean43 · 29-03-2007, 11:08 AM

Sent out the email detailing all of these arguments, including that it is illegal and no reply! Considering I sent the first email at 5pm Monday and had a reply 8.34 am Tuesday isnt giving me much hope actually.

SponPlague · 29-03-2007, 01:12 PM

Try http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Re...ate_Claims.pdf and

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166

Clippo · 29-03-2007, 08:25 PM

This seems to be a duplicate thread - it is already being discussed in Environment and Energy.

I may make further comment there but I can't promise - there's a finite number of times one can show that the comments of Devilskitchen, Sponplague and so many GW skeptics are completely at odds with the scientific truth, the same truths which the consensus of scientists and worldwide governments. including the Welsh Assembly and probably most 'average' people believe.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink !

Britannist · 29-03-2007, 08:33 PM

If there has been global warming it is clear that most of it is not due to humans.

As the excellent Channel Four programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" programme said recently - most carbon emissions around the world come from:

1. Oceans
2. Volcanoes
3. Animals

It is also absurd to keep closing down coal-fired power stations here in the UK in order to meet some EU Directive when China builds a new one - twice the size - every week.

This whole alleged Global Warming issue is being used by politicians - most of them europhiles - as an excuse to try to raise taxes.

27-03-2007, 04:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
sean43 Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 161	Got a response from Assembly any UKIP pointers? Here is the reply from the Enronmental Minister for the Assembly. Got my reply today from the Environment Minister for the Assembly. Dear Sean Thank you for your e-mail of 26 March about making a copy of An Inconvenient Truth available to schools and colleges in Wales. The Minister for Environment, Planning and Countryside has asked me to reply on his behalf. The intention in making the DVD available to schools and colleges is to provide a resource to stimulate discussion of the issue of climate change, and our response to it, linked to curriculum subjects. The DVD will be accompanied by supporting material to help make those links and to suggest other sources of information. Longer term, we will be considering what additional material might be helpful including, for example, other documentaries. I am aware of the content of the documentary that you refer to, but the position it presented does not represent the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and used a number of outdated datasets. We therefore do not plan to send it to schools and colleges in Wales. In terms of the science of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a key role to play. The IPCC involves hundreds of scientists from a range of disciplines providing an authoritative assessment of all the scientific and technical aspects of climate change. The IPCC recently published the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which made clear statements about the evidence for climate change, its attribution to human activity and likely future trends. The position it presents has been subject to lengthy and rigorous scientific debate and that analysis forms the basis for the Assembly Government, UK Government, EU and international action on climate change. A copy of the report is available at - http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG...oved_05Feb.pdf. The full Working Group report will be available on the IPCC website in May. You may also find the presentation on the Working Group 1 Report, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/WMEF_FINAL.ppt, of interest. It illustrates some of the key issues in the report, including the relative contributions of natural and anthropogenic sources to the observed warming. Yours sincerely Claire Bennett Environment: Protection and Quality I was going to reply asap but anyone got any pointers I should add? Very Happy

28-03-2007, 11:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
devilskitchen Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: London Posts: 419	You might also want to point out that the IPCC line is not without its own contentions. For instance, the Mann et al. "hockey-stick" temperature graph has been utterly discredited, whilst still being the basis for much of the IPCC's work. You might also like to point out that the latest IPCC report (which has not actually been released: only the summary for policymakers, to which Ms Bennett refers) has throttled back the amount of harm that they calculated. As such, Al Gore's film does, in fact, rely on outmoded datasets itself. Perhaps Ms Bennett would like to quote precisely what makes Al Gore qualified to speak on climate change: is he a scientist? What are his qualifications? The answer to these questions is that, no, he is not a scientist and he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever. So our government would like to encourage our children to accept as fact what is merely an unvalidated theory espoused by someone with no qualifications to assess the core data or comment on that theory. Perhaps you'd also like to ask Ms Bennett, since she seems to know so much about it, why -- if it is man causing primary warming -- we are seeing evidence of global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton? Perhaps she'd also like to take a look at Junk Science. She might also like to write to the Danish Space Centre, whose research (released at the near end of last year) on the warming effect of clouds and the influence of cosmic rays in the formation of clouds was used in the Swindle film, and tell them that they are using an outmoded dataset. Then you might ask Ms Bennett what her qualifications are to assess the content of Gore's film or, indeed, any other. I fail to see any BSc or other scientific letters after her name. There's so much wrong with what she assumes that I want to throttle her. __________________ Unio Europaea delenda est

28-03-2007, 06:24 PM	#6 (permalink)
devilskitchen Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: London Posts: 419	Yup, that's pretty conprehensive: any idea of where I might find the hyperlink, Spon? __________________ Unio Europaea delenda est

29-03-2007, 08:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 23,176	Politicians using alleged global warming as excuse to tax If there has been global warming it is clear that most of it is not due to humans. As the excellent Channel Four programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" programme said recently - most carbon emissions around the world come from: 1. Oceans 2. Volcanoes 3. Animals It is also absurd to keep closing down coal-fired power stations here in the UK in order to meet some EU Directive when China builds a new one - twice the size - every week. This whole alleged Global Warming issue is being used by politicians - most of them europhiles - as an excuse to try to raise taxes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-03-2007, 04:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
harryaldridge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Sussex Posts: 1,912	Well there are many points you could take up here but perhaps the most crucial is that schools should be encouraging students to question and analyse, not brainwash kids. No matter whether the evidence is overwhelming or not, students should be able to make up their own minds after their own research. Schools should seek to provide material that stimulates both sides of the debate. Just because the IPCC has produced the "world consensus" view of the science, it does not mean people should stop asking questions. Maybe you should suggest that if there policy is indeed to push the 'consensus view' that they look at banning television documentaries with dissenting views or perhaps impartial news programmes should face the axe. Or maybe ban political perties from expressing a different view. This approach would show up the stupidity of their position by taking their policy to its extreme conclusion.

28-03-2007, 01:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
stathan Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 423	You might also like to ask Ms Bennett if she considers that Mr Gore has a vested commercial interest in propagating the CO2 emmission global warming theories, given that he recently demanded £85,000 and 3 first class return tickets after being invited to talk at a global warming seminar in the South East of England. It could well be argued on this basis that the Assembly are actually actively promoting a foreign commercial enterprise without even giving a balanced argument against these theories by those not driven by cash returns for their input.

29-03-2007, 11:08 AM	#7 (permalink)
sean43 Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 161	Sent out the email detailing all of these arguments, including that it is illegal and no reply! Considering I sent the first email at 5pm Monday and had a reply 8.34 am Tuesday isnt giving me much hope actually.

29-03-2007, 01:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,401	Try http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Re...ate_Claims.pdf and http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166

29-03-2007, 08:25 PM	#9 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,441	This seems to be a duplicate thread - it is already being discussed in Environment and Energy. I may make further comment there but I can't promise - there's a finite number of times one can show that the comments of Devilskitchen, Sponplague and so many GW skeptics are completely at odds with the scientific truth, the same truths which the consensus of scientists and worldwide governments. including the Welsh Assembly and probably most 'average' people believe. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink !