New names for Speccy debate

The Spectator's global warming debate on 29 March now has two new names on the list of combatants. The sceptic team has added Graham Stringer MP, while Simon Singh will add his voice to the institutional interest side. Let's hope his contribution rises above name-calling this time.

Full details here.

Comments

[Rhoda]

Still the same stupid question though. Both sides could legitimately agree with the proposition.

[Robinson]

No coverage of NASA's climate sat going tits-up then Bish? I imagine the launch polluted the atmosphere quite a lot. Apparently it's now somewhere at the bottom of the Pacific.

[John Shade]

I agree the proposition is loaded, and that alone could be a source of considerable distraction. Are those against the motion to be expected to support 'hysteria' and oppose 'sanity'? Perhaps they will develop a better wording before the debate.

[James P]

Robinson

I notice that one of the intended functions of the satellite was to "measure the amount of solar energy reaching Earth". I wonder if Hansen and Schmidt (both NASA employees) sabotaged it..?

[JEM]

James P - The rocket they used has a history of problems with getting the shroudings and fairings to come off when they're supposed to, this isn't the first time it's happened.

I don't think Hansen or Schmidt would know their way around a rocket anyway, they're yucky things that make lots of CO2 when the back-end catches fire.

[Shub]

I saw your act, it came and went
As flaccid as an ex-president
Your ideas are out of place
It's anarchy with a
friendly face
Rebel, rebel, don't regret
Screw 'em every chance you get

Gone,
Take your packaged rebellion
Move on,
Revolution on your sleeve
...

-Anthrax

[Anoneumouse]

A view through the glory hole

[Robinson]

Haha. Very good.

[simpleseekeraftertruth]

Robinson

NASA's GLORY mission statement;

"Understanding whether the temperature increase and climate changes are by-products of natural events or whether the changes are caused by man-made sources is of primary importance."

So NASA don't think the science is settled - or did they have their conclusions lined up ready?

[Josh]

Anon, something about that cartoon looks strangely familiar

;-)

[Anoneumouse]

Josh, I acknowledge that you are head....um and shoulders above me

[Josh]

Anon, too kind...it's not like I would give you a rocket or anything...

[art johnson]

Any way to access this online for pay? Would love to listen in...

[sHx]

The news is China's National People's Congress is taking climate change seriously:

In addition, the government is promising major initiatives to combat climate change, including energy conservation, forest expansion and green building design.

China will retain a massive reliance on coal but will increase non-fossil fuels to 11.4 per cent of all energy over the next four years and 15 per cent by 2020.

The nation's total energy use will be capped at the equivalent of 4 billion tonnes of coal by 2015. This will be a mandatory limit.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/05/3156054.htm?section=justin

What's worthy of note is that Chinese officials use the phrase "non-fossil fuels" as opposed to "renewables". The difference seems to be that "non-fossil fuels" category would also include hydro-generated power such as the vast amount generated thanks to the Three Gorges Dam, whereas in the West "renewables" mean energy sources like solar and wind. How else could China meet 15 percent of its energy needs by 2020 through wind and solar alone?

Also this from the official (as most media are in China) English-language news agency, Xinhua:

Environment & clean energy

-- Non-fossil fuel to account for 11.4 percent of primary energy consumption;

-- Water consumption per unit of value-added industrial output to be cut by 30 percent;

-- Energy consumption per unit of GDP to be cut by 16 percent;

-- Carbon dioxide emission per unit of GDP to be cut by 17 percent;

-- Forest coverage rate to rise to 21.66 percent and forest stock to increase by 600 million cubic meters;

Never mind the failed Copenhagen meeting, with China also fully on board by its own measures, climate change is a political fact. Expect more news and commentary about it in coming days.

OT - The news was also on TV as this comment was being typed. I noticed that except for military officials all members of the Congress were dressed in business suites. China has come a long way from the days when every members appeared in Chairman Mao attire. Which capitalist wouldn't love these communists as business partners now?

[PFM]

sHx

Would that our enegy policy was as realistic as China's. The possible reason is that their politicians are mainly businessmen and engineers - unlike our lot of w*nk*rs.

[Latimer Alder]

Looking forward to seeing Stringer in action. He is one of the few sane politicians we have on this topic.

[David S]

Latimer, Peter Lilley is another. Should be energy secretary rather than Huhne, who should be left with Climate Change and given no budget, no staff and dare I say "no platform" (M Thatcher/R Ward).

[Frosty]

"glory hole" was almost a beverage moment - I was going with NASAs Morning Glory :)

[Viv Evans]

Graham Stringer ... niiice!!!

Well done whoever got him invited!

[tty]

Dear sHx. "Non-fossil" means nuclear, not hydropower which is of course as renewable as it gets, but which China does not have very much of, Three Gorges notwithstanding.
It's time to come back from cloudcuckooland.