Thursday
Feb172011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Spectator debate
Feb 17, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other Spotted on the Spectator website:
On Tuesday 29 March, The Spectator is hosting a debate on the motion 'The global warming hysteria is over. Time for a return to sanity'.
SPEAKING FOR THE MOTION are Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman, Global Warming Policy Foundation and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Foundation.
SPEAKING AGAINST THE MOTION are Professor Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, Oxford University and Simon Singh, Science Writer.
Details here.
Reader Comments (60)
@ Paul
"This is getting really nasty now........"
In a way we could welcome this. It just proves that they have run out of logical arguements.
Latimer
Its a bit of a desert up at the top of Exhibition Road other that the student bars in IC, and its 40 years since I was there. I'd go for the Ennismore Arms, towards Harrods. If you want a decent meal, try something unusual- the Ognisko Polish Club (used to be called Polish Hearth) but need to dress reasonably no trainers etc.
Pharos:
Unfortunately, the Ennismore Arms has closed. I'd suggest the The Hoop and Toy at the other end of Exhibition Road - near S Kensington tube station.
Sorry about that. The lecturers used to have grace and favour flats all over there. Guess they're too PC now. Sad.
To Latimer Alder
I'd be happy to join you at the pub for a few.
Semd me a mail and we can arrange to meet. My address is maynardpg@willis.com
We always used to go to the Queen's Arms in Queen's Gate Mews after Proms at the Royal Albert Hall. Not quite sure of the directions, we just used to follow the Brass section.
Have a great evening.
Had more of a look at Palmer; both the video of the Isaac Newton Lecture and the Guardian piece he authored.
Summarizing the Lecture, Climate Modeling is the way forward - huge (almost unbounded) uncertainties exist - Further (large) financial Investment in Human Resources and Computing 'umph' is required to tackle the problem (Modeling problem that is). I won't dwell on the 'Climate Scientists chasing the cash' meme, but it did strike a cord here. To his credit, no 'alarmist' claims- could best be described as a 'moderate'.
The Guardian Article.
"Climate change uncertainty is no reason for inaction, since we can't rule out risk"
The use of double negatives in climate change circles is quite endemic. Why not re phrase this as
"Climate change uncertainty is a reason for action, since we can't rule out risk"
If that is what you mean, then why not say it- make your case!
Needless to say, no case is made in the remainder of the article, just a reference to Feynman (always good to have him on your side) and by way of a metaphor, likening it having fire insurance for your home - If the cost of the premium entailed going back to the 'energy' lifestyle we enjoyed in 1910 - some of us might like a little more time to think about it.
I'm curious about what other uncertainties are no reason for inaction in Palmers mind;
Near Earth Objects?
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/
Gamma-Ray Burst Causing Mass Extinction?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090403-gamma-ray-extinction.html
Mega Tsunami's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami.shtml
"It will surge across the entire Atlantic in a matter of hours, engulfing the whole US east coast, sweeping away everything in its path up to 20km inland. Boston would be hit first, followed by New York, then all the way down the coast to Miami and the Caribbean!"
These are intended to be anecdotal (for fun), but by Palmer's reasoning each of these 'End of World' scenario's is a possibility and therefore 'inaction' is 'not' acceptable.
Lobby for your new computer Tim, then tell us with some degree of certainty whether you think it is, or is not, a problem. A 'don't know', but can't rule it out, doesn't really cut it.
Folks, please remember this is going to be a debate. It's about the better rhetoric not the truth.
Lawson unfortunately is not a great debater.
Against Lord Lawson and Benny Peiser, the Warmists haven't even the ghost of a chance.
I see that Graham Stringer MP and Professor Sir David King have been added to the 'for' and 'against' sides.