91热爆

Hey simon

any chance you could cover the police beating three suspects in Philidelphia, It is on your website so its a story you are allowed to cover and it would be a perfect lead in to explaining that US and the UK are now police states.

as i understand the cops have not been charged with anything and your story told us that we should not rush to judgement.

you are having a laugh, you did watch the same video. Call it what it is, its the police running wild, allowed to beat who they wish without recrimination.

Wendy has been hung out to dry by Gordon.
One of them will now have no option but to resign. Salmond has just been on Channel
Four News pointing out that under Holyrood standing orders Labour cannot in fact move a referendum bill given that the (SNP-led) Government has already intimated its own intention to introduce such a bill in the current session (in 2010). Implementation of Labour's call for an immediate ballot would therefore require UK legislation -
and it is clear that Brown is agin that?!

Last night on Newsnight Scotland (not quite yet available on 91热爆 iPlayer - but no doubt
the interview with Gordon Brewer and Wendy Alexander will be posted up soon?)
Alexander claimed to have spoken with Brown by phone last evening and also that she had his backing for this referendum ....

But that claim has now unravelled it would seem and I guess she's got to go ............?

what about Burma ?! up to 100,000 could be dead! I hate it how journalists misuse their incredibly powerful position in deciding what are the important stories to discuss - as in this case, where the lives of the Burmese victims are dismissed as being almost worthless (indirectly)

Well, I joined Jeremy just after 10.30 but he seemed to be haranguing a Government minister about how evil all the foreigners working at airports are and how they must all be expelled or at least interned. Some of them are criminals, you know, and you can't be too careful. After all, who cares about their jobs or their rights? They're FOREIGN.

I may turn off for a bit until he stops channeling the Daily Express.

RE airport security, what rubbish that minister has just spouted! OK perhaps those working airside walk through a metal detector frame and show content of pockets .. I guess thats what he means by same security screening as passengers ... but then they get to the work place where they have to open packets of something so they have scissors or they need to clean so they have litre bottles of chemicals or they need to put up shelves and have screwdrivers or ....... etc. etc.

Is the minister honestly saying there are no metal implements or big bottles airside? The govt needs to sort this out.

I am terribly disappointed with Newsnight for this appalling broadcast. The tone of the entire segment was xenophobic and fear-mongering.

The airport checks check everyone: foreigners and British people. BUT they only check domestic criminal records. That is to say, whether a Brit or a Pakistani, if you commit a crime in Thailand, it won't appear on the records checked by the Airports authority.

This distinction was not made.

Instead, Paxman choose to lay into the airports authority for allowing foreigners to work at the airports. The comments made by David Davis were equally xenophobic and unfair. If foreign checks are to be made, they ought to be made for both locals and foreigners. This is especially so of the airport/travel industry. I have worked in this industry for two years, and I know that many people from many locals, speaking many languages, have colored pasts and diverse backgrounds. They could have committed crimes elsewhere... whether they were British or foreign.

In any case, do we really need another 'fair and balanced voice' fear-mongering against convicted criminals? If someone has served their time, don't they deserve the ability to work towards a bright future? The 91热爆 ought to be more responsible and egalitarian, and not choose to point the finger of fear at foreigners and former criminals.

I am very disappointed.

Paxman's questioning of Fitzpatrick was dull and predictable. The same sneering incredulous tone. It was not foreign criminals who were responsible for the 7/7 bombings. 91热爆 grown people without criminal records. Actually I'm quite happy with airport security and I bet Paxman will still fly by plane even though he would have us all believe that foreign terrorists have become baggage handlers.

If the government spokesman thinks that the daily screening is sufficient for foreigners (whose criminal records aren't checked) working at airports, then what is the purpose of the criminal records check for UK staff?

Either the daily screening is not sufficient on its own or the criminal record check is a needless waste of time and money.

sheb1, yes awful numbers of death but I suspect no new pics from Burma, no reporter on site yet, and the story issued high on 91热爆1 ten oclock.

oooh, and the story is being covered now at 2258. so your post, and my reply (almost) too premature

I am so disappointed with tonight's Newsnight.

Was it really such a big shock that it is not possible to check the locally-held criminal records of people from all over the world?

Jeremy Paxman summed it up perfectly when he asked what his guest was going to do about the loophole: what exactly can be done? Short of establishing a worldwide criminal records database, should we remove all the foreigners currently working 'airside'? Would this not be massively discriminatory and an infringement of the Human Rights Act?

I can not see the point of scare-mongering with a sensationalist 'discovery' like this, when there is little that can be done in the short term.

And, three stories in, we finally get around to Burma.

The minister said it is OK for foreign nationals to work airside without a criminal record check due to being screened when entering the area then why isn't OK for British citizens to just be screened and not have to obtain a criminal record check. Surely the same rule should apply to everyone. If it is alright for foreigners not to have it then why for British.

What is it about being a politician that prevents you from answering a straight question at all? If Jim Fitzpatrick was in business he would have been fired from every position he ever held for being unable to differentiate the truth from lies, unable to answer a question and for being unable to make a decision without having to rely on someone else to do it for him.
When will this shambolic lying Government give us what we all want and get out of office? Gordon Brown is waiting for another review before he will make any decision on Scottish devolution, the minister in charge of airports cannot make a decision about implementing their own legislation without having a report from a senior Civil Servant, and when they do make a decision like removing the 10% tax rate, they change their minds because they finally realise what they have done. Gordon Brown shafted the pensions industry when he first took the office of Chancellor in 1997, and we will all have to pay for this raid on pension schemes now and into the future. When will the public wake up and realise that the money has run out, that it has been frittered away on employing more and more public sector employees who do not add to the GDP of the UK, and that large businesses are being driven away by increasing corporate taxes that are not in line with our European competitors?
Hanging onto office is an abuse of the democratic process, and quite frankly I am fed up of being run by renegade Scots who think that they know better than the rest of the inhabitants of the UK.

RE Airport Security surely if the some security staff guarding the `safe` zone could be foreigners with a criminal record, which makes the reassurance of the minister slightly worrying that we can rely on security screening.

How did Paxman allow Miliband to get away with his assertion that 鈥渨e have never had鈥� the double whammy or rising oil prices and rising food prices at the same time? It鈥檚 clearly untrue.

Similarly, why on earth wasn鈥檛 Miliband challenged when he said he didn鈥檛 attend all Cabinet meetings so couldn鈥檛 say whether a Scottish independence vote had been discussed at Cabinet. Is it too much to expect Cabinet Ministers to read the minutes of Cabinet meetings? We do, after all, have a system of collective responsibility, so 鈥� whether or not a Cabinet Minister is involved in the determination of a policy 鈥� every Cabinet Member has to defence every Cabinet decision.

The story regarding the lack of criminal record checks on foreign airside workers - was excellent. A terrific piece of journalism. I sat open mouthed at the aviation minister's failure to grasp the concept of airside workers who had NOT had their criminal records checked being "safe". So if a polish al queda convicted terroist was loading his baggage [a] he wouldn't know [b] his record would never have been checked. What of convicted UK terrorists retending to be foreign nationals - so they avoid having their criminal records checked? This is such a huge story and I dearly hope newsnight will use its links to number 10 and ensure the PM knows workers who have not had their criminal records checked at all are working airside.

Secondly as a citizen of the UK with the worlds 2nd most powerful military (yes we spend more than china or russia on uk armed forces) why in the hell aren't we sending humanitarian planes and choppers into burma? Because the junta are afraid of a revolution or rather liberation by force. So what. As I write in my nice warm home 100,999+ human beings are alone, dying, staving and homeless. We have the might to repell any attack on our forces. Why can't we send in our air force with tonnes of aid irrespetive of protocol. Lets arge about legality after we saved 100,000 lives. Maybe if we ead the way the huge US fleet in the region will be forced to come to our aid, morally and literally.

Finally I have to make a point on biofuels. We know (tesla cmotor cars) that we can manufacture cars, lorries, vans with zero emissions that are 100% electric i.e. require no biofuels. They require only a plug socket to recharge overnight. Do you think BP Esso Exon et al waht you to be able to refuel by plugging your car into a socket? Of course not. They want you to visit a station where they can sell you a liquid fuel. Do you think car manufacturers want to sell you an electric car with less moving parts and greater reliability? no it breaks down less often. My point? We're tinkering around the edges and our politicians are (out of fear and inability to take risk) suggesting tired minor adjusments. Ban new fossil fuel vehicles within 3 years. Ban biofuels (which are a result of petrol and car company lobbying for the above reasons).

/i'm tired of endless moderation when radical action is needed.

/i'm tired of risk adverse politicians.

Airport security has been a farce for years, and even more farcical post 9/11.

I am an airline pilot at a major UK airport and I have to go through the criminal records check to work out of a UK airport. Foreign pilots flying in and out from overseas have to have no such check.

I have to remove my shoes, my belt, my jacket and get 'frisked' by some over zealous security worker following a flawed policy.

Will preventing me from taking my nail-clippers airside and proving that my shoes don't have explosives in them, or that I am not concealing a knife in my belt make my aircraft and the travelling public any safer? What would I do with my knife/nailclippers/shoe bombs/101ml of liquid etc? Use them to fight to take control of the aircraft and fly it into a building?! I ALREADY HAVE CONTROL OF THE AEROPLANE.

I am deemed suitable and trusted by my employer and have a provable background and employment history plus years of training and re qualification behind me. What do the security staff have? Especially those from outside the UK with NO VERIFIABLE history? Who is checking the checkers? The policy is flawed on the grounds of security. You may call it racism and an infringement of someone's rights, but yet again the British Mugs pander to the human rights lobby and say that we need to employ a few foreign terrorists at our airports to prove we are sympathetic to their human rights! What about the rights of every honest passenger and worker to go about their lawful business in a safe environment? That's what the Public 'assume' occurs and the Minister spouts is happening, but he knows full well that Paxman was right.....

When it comes to aviation EVERY passenger assumes the airline is safe, they assume the security checks are robust and the pain in the proverbial that they have to go through in order to fly is justified. Sadly, they are being hoodwinked on a number of these points.

The current legislation has been one knee jerk reaction after another since 9/11. Eventually the terrorists will win because we will eventually have an edict that states that on the grounds of more secure flying, all flying is cancelled....

Just can't believe that Fitzpatrick didn't get it, how can he condone practices that contravene his own policies and our safety.
Oh, forgot - he's a labour minister.

Nothing less than sheer brilliance tonight by Jeremy! From the Jim Fitzpatrick interview on the shambles of terrorists/criminals working in airports to Jamie Rubin on Hillary Clinton, to the David Milliband interview....does he want to be PM? Well...give it a few more months ;-) Priceless!

Airport security: i am still trying to lift my jaw from the floor with this report. And there's me happily accepting the delays of the search. Those who are in charge at airport security whom are only a whisker away from giving us the latex glove probe seem to know what they are doing, so you would think, with rules given to them from our... er Government... meanwhile jihad Joe is working in baggage ...but still the Guardian readership comes out to play, defending the incompetence of it all "jee whizz! is Jeremy a racist or what!... having a go at foreigners, how dare he".....no no NO...Paxman was just staggered like the rest of us with this story. Its up there with the 10p tax fiasco, but if you are inflicted with some 'arrested development disorder' and find yourself defending this ridiculas airport personnel security checks debacle...well you've never seen the golf course for the flags have yer...Enoch will be spinning in his grave, so he will "


The Philly police treatment

Can Boris Johnson please invite the boys from the Philadelphia police dept to show the English Police how its done. I always end up frustrated when i watch those car chase programmes, where the police chase the usual suspects around our streets at extraordinary risk to themselves and the general public with Copter in pursuit. And when these miscreants are caught; we discover their long unchecked criminal history..but are nearly always let off with a caution, or some Playstation or other..
Don't you just want to see the police kick seven shades out of these people,..cut out the middle man i say..radical policing methods i agree but rest assured the good people of Philly will sleep peacefully tonight Knowing their police force are on patrol tonight looking for crack invested drunk drivers who won't pull over with driving licence at the ready when requested. "pull over!.. PULL OVER!...BANG!!!

" my boys a good boy, he ain't dis-erv-in a beating like that from the pooh-lease, he only sells drugs so he can enjoy his hobby...of gun collecting"....yeah, save it.

What comes next from this story? yeah the long protracted court case and the burning of a city with riots on our screens. I think we've been here before.

Airport air-side criminals. Not touched upon by the dithering minister, (whose record needle seemed to have stuck), was that passenger property is also at risk. Remember the 'Thiefrow' name given in the past. I am incedulous that when we percieve the threat to be from foreign nationals, we inflict the expense of screening our own nationals. How many of our home-grown terror suspects had criminal records?

About lack of adequate checks on airport staff in the UK - I work at a regional French university and last year we were contacted by a British recruitment agency checking that one of their job applicants (a non EU national) had really been enrolled at our university in 2002-03 as she claimed. The only evidence that could be found was that she had sat one exam in the entire academic year. Despite my protests this was accepted as "proof" that she had spent the whole year at our institution.

The most interesting thing is that Criminal records checks were brought in in 2003.

"Since 2003, staff have been checked against UK criminal records."-Newsnight website.

If this issue is so important. Why wasn't it introduced after Lockerbie? Where a 747 exploded over this country. I believe David Davies's party was in power then. Crashing into buildings was also considered a possibilty before 2001. But then it was thought to be Nuclear power stations that would be targets. Terrorism has been around for a very long time.

A CRB check is useless if the criminal or terrorist has never been caught. it would only stop less competent criminals. Do they have criminal records everywhere?

I have noticed a disturbing bias Where 91热爆 Journalists seem to be actively favouring the Conservative party. Why? What do they stand for apart from scaring people and tax cuts? please Stop pandering to Tory Emails. Is this serious News or 'Points of View'?

Still we hear news of the Clinton Obama struggle which is of little interest to most people.
What happened to the news that Stuart Wheeler has won a Judicial Revue in his case to force the Government to give the people of THIS COUNTRY a referendum on whether the Treaty of Lisbon should be ratified?

Is there a(nother) problem with the posting system?

I can't post, and what I see on screen seems to vary minute by minute, too.

I've tried a new Username and password on another PC, and rather oddly it seems to have defaulted to the one I usually use, so I can only presume my IP address is being picked up... and rejected.

I know from the new TV commercials 'you know where I live', but this is all a bit spooky, as well as getting as frustrating as the 502 errors.

PS
Well done Jeremy for giving the minister a hard time on airport security.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Not at all well done Jeremy for failing to challenge Miliband with the view of numerous posters to the blog earlier in the day that the basic science of global warming is highly suspect. Or even making mention of Newsnight's own very careful report from the previous day (currently highlighted on the 91热爆 News front page) that climate models, on which the whole of GW alarmism is based, and without which there would be no rational basis at all for the proposals that the Foreign Secretary is making, are lacking in some crucial ways.

There is a really crucial discussion to be had with ministers on this - and it doesn't have to be endless. What counts is that the very experts at the IPCC who tell us that global warming is a world crisis of epic proportions also tell us that their models do not even manage to model clouds in a way that corresponds to what an ordinary person (in Britain anyway!) sees in the skies every day. Let alone produce something as commonplace (and important in generating more extreme weather events) as a single thunderstorm. Now either these lacks in the models just don't matter - in other words, they can still give a reliable idea of the global mean temperature in 50 or 100 years - or they matter greatly, making all predictions null and void.

Asking the right kind of question about this would have to include an honest appraisal of the ability of the minister - and the interviewer, come to that - to assess what is a really basic question of scientific method. Either these models are worth trusting or they are not. You don't have to be a climate scientist to take a intelligent view on that - but it is helpful to have a decent grounding in science itself.

A good example of a first-rank scientist who is quite sure that the models are inadequate to support alarmism is veteran physicist Freeman Dyson. But would Miliband, with his Marxist father, who would no doubt immediately be able to wax lyrical on a post-war political star like Aneurin Bevan, even know the name of Dyson? Or his friend and co-worker Richard Feynman? These are greats that make the current crop of political scientists (the ambiguity is deliberate) second-rate if that. But, to their evident dismay, Dyson lives on, has taken a close look at the global warming models and is convinced that they are worthless in predicting doom - or anything else come to that.

And would Jeremy have heard of Dyson? That's another important point.

It's not difficult to bring these kinds of question in. You won't resolve the issue then and there but it's not difficult to let the viewer know what the issues are. The only problem is that the process may be a trifle embarrassing, on both sides.

Another simple way to address the issue would be (as I suggested in the blog) to ask Miliband why he publicly declared, just after Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle came out in March last year, that he was not even going to bother to watch it. Now that's a man who's convinced in the rightness of his scientific view. He is no doubt relying there on the advice of government 'experts'. But, given this, it is worth asking which books that present a sceptical case those experts have advised the minister to read. I assume none. But there are one or two outstanding books that should be read by anyone aiming to set policy in these areas. If the experts are trying to suppress such material they are not acting in the spirit of science. The agendas they are pushing need not detain us here. They have departed from the always sceptical and disputative nature of true science.

Bringing just this to the light would be a major public service. But, despite all these criticisms, well done again for Harrabin's report on the gaps in the models. More from the questioning ediitorial mind where that came from, please.

rdrake98,

I have correspondence from the former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government (Dave King) who cheerfully admitted that there was no evidence for the theory of Man-made Global Warming. The letter was received through my local MP Dr Lynne Jones.

The Government knows this yet is committed to its rhetoric about low carbon economies. As Miliband stated last night, there is no intention of serious policy decisions designed to tackle this. But it is a useful tax-raising device.

I would suggest that after the shambles of Roger Harrabin's craven response to an environmental nutcase who believed in an "emerging truth", his article on climate models is an attempt to gain some credibility. Unfortunately, Roger still demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what climate models actually are or what they mean. Nor does he report actually what the IPCC says.

As the IPCC reports consistently describes, climate models do NOT forecast climate change. Predicting doesn't occur so why misrepresent the IPCC? The IPCC uses a specific term for climate model's output and that word is "scenario". The reason why they use the term "scenario" is because the models cannot predict reality as the divergence between the models and reality occurs almost immediately when attempting to forecast. Regional models last slightly longer before they too collapse.

Many of the inputs into a climate model are themselves models. For example, the 3.7w/m2 (Ramanathan) radiative forcing which the IPCC climate models assume that CO2 responses to is based on a one-shell model of the atmosphere. There is no evidence that this figure is correct and there is considerable doubt as to the simplistic one-shell model as a representation of the Earth's atmosphere. Nor is the Earth a black-body which only absorbs energy.

Then there the notion that greenhouse gases respond independently of the climate system. Ferenc M. Miskolczi writing in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Vol. 111, No. 1, January鈥揗arch 2007, pp. 1鈥�40, argues that greenhouse theories have considerably over-estimated the effect of greenhouse gases and changes to concentration are regulated by water vapour.

Instead of a serious discussion of the issues, Newsnight feeds its viewers junk and misrepresentations. Whatever happened to having journalistic pride?

rdrake98 (Comment 27) wrote about a scientist called Freeman Dyson and doubted anyone had heard of him. As it happens I have.

Dyson does agree with the general theory of anthropogenic global warming, and has written:
`One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.`
Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science And Society. 2007.

As the commentator says (and as Roger Harrabin also highlighted in his report a few nights ago) Dyson also mistrusts climate models saying: `The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.`

Dyson thinks that the answer to the CO2 problem lies in land management, essentially by planting an enormous number of more trees to soak up any surplus CO2. Other than that he thinks any money is better spent on alleviating poverty, combating infectious diseases, and improving public education and public health across the world.

The ability of greenhouse gasses to absorb and retain radiated heat from the earth (the physics and chemistry) is well known. Any argument is over how much the atmosphere will warm and what the projected likely impacts may be (and why the IPCC use confidence levels in their report).

There may be a point to Dyson鈥檚 view as to how money is best spent; any alternative technology has yet to emerge, though I believe they will eventually be developed, and it鈥檚 in our interest to continue research and development into them; if for no other reason than that oil industry figures I鈥檝e seen indicate they expect severe depletion of reserves in the second half of this century; (coal should last another 200-400 yrs) so it may be best to plan ahead if at all possible. As for energy conservation, better house building methods etc. I can鈥檛 really see an objection. And I think much more should be done by means of incentives and tax breaks to encourage innovation and changes in behaviour. More carrots and less stick perhaps?

PS: Dyson is a classic lateral thinker and maverick. During the second world war when bomber command was taking major losses during the night bombing of Germany, Dyson suggested taking the gun turrets OFF the Lancaster bombers; his thinking was that a Lancaster without turrets could fly much faster and be much more maneuverable. Bomber command took the view that their crews would be happier if they could fire back at the night fighters.

Re: BigJohnLish (#28). It would be good to have a real name to refer to there. Mine is Richard Drake.

Thank you for making a number of excellent points. Especially that IPCC-type models depend on other models, which are very likely to be much too simplistic in the first place. My hunch is that Ferenc M. Miskolczi of Hungary is right: the most important greenhouse gas, water vapour, comes to the rescue. The world is not as unstable as warmist activists claim, but gracefully corrects for our (and now the Chinese and Indian) enthusiasm for pumping extra C02 into the atmosphere in the 20th and 21st centuries - all to achieve the many wondrous benefits of that increasing misnomer, western civilisation.

But my main point stands: that the state of the science is that we don't have a clue whether the earth will warm or cool - or even, as you imply, whether regional differences may not turn out to be much more important to the 'person on the ground' than one dubious, synthetic mean.

I got back into the debate yesterday in response to seeing the Harrabin report on climate models:

/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/tuesday_6_may_2008.html

then realised that Newsnight was seeking carbon questions for Miliband that very day, so had a bash at that:

/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/david_miliband_on_newsnight.html

And it is in dealing with the likes of Harrabin, Miliband and "Dave King" - is that leader of the Dave King Five or brother of Merv King at the Bank of England? - that I detect a slight difference of emphasis between us.

You see, while I wouldn't deny that a politician like Miliband may be eager to tap into another, more benevolent-sounding way to raise taxes, I also take into account his desire not to lose elections, if it turns out that the underlying science is a scam (to use the technical term).

Now if the government's erstwhile chief scientist David King "cheerfully admitted that there was no evidence for the theory of Man-made Global Warming" then I urge you to publish that letter forthwith. Indeed, when I suggested possible questions for Miliband yesterday I was totally unaware of that "smoking gun". That is dynamite.

I also take issue with the sentence "there is no intention of serious policy decisions designed to tackle this". Maybe not to tackle what is in fact a non-existent or at least unprovable problem. But what about the encouragement of biofuels and the terrible impact of that on world food prices, already bringing misery - and political instability - in many of the poorest countries. If pushing biofuels isn't a serious policy decision then I don't know what is. We're not talking warmism as a wacky theory that will never do real harm, but one that has already done grave harm. It has to stop, and soon. It only will when the likes of Miliband realise just how great a vote loser it is going to be for them.

And my old friend Roger from Gospel Oak days is, at least in his recent report, helping with that. Perhaps I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt there. But somebody, somewhere, is going to cry foul on this one. Maybe even Paxman. I wouldn't put it past him, given the right kind of encouragement.

James Rubin's claim last night that the results of Tuesday's primaries weren't unexpected is silliness: surprised people on every tv channel covering them confirmed it. His claim that HRC gained ground in Indiana and came from behind is dubious. See:



Furthermore his claim that HRC still has some traction in gaining the nomination on the grounds that more of Obama's supporters will vote for her than hers for him is a further promulgation of the insidious and inaccurate premise that white people won't vote for Obama. He's ahead in the popular vote, that could not have happened unless an awful lot of white people, and predominantly white states, had voted for him. More states, more delegates, more of the popular vote - he could give HRC the Florida and Michigan delegates and STILL be ahead.

Hillary Clinton had unparalleled advantages going into this election. Name recognition, political machine, a huge fundraising advantage, popular former President spouse, she was 20 POINTS AHEAD in the polls. It was effectively hers to lose. She lost it.

24. At 10:34 am on 08 May 2008, JunkkMaleToo wrote:

My mistake, and apologies, but I believe there may be a character limit on posts. If it is mentioned it is not obvious. Neither is the fail reason, if indeed there is one.

I just had a lot of questions for Mr. Miliband. Shame they didn't get posted in time.

'He's also agreed to continue answering your questions online tomorrow so please do give us your thoughts.'

When and where is this taking place, please?

I'm seeking another bite at the cherry given the slight misunderstanding of SheffTim (#29) on the point I was making about Freeman Dyson (#27). But first, hats off (rather than further brickbats) to Jeremy Paxman for taking on so many themes of importance in one show and handling them so well. The amusing interview with Rubin (#31) being just one of those. And over at

/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/prospects_for_thursday_8_may.html

'Flipside' has some warm words of praise for the very section I chose to criticize:


Very much enjoyed the interview with David Miliband last night. What was excellent about it was the number of specific cross-cutting questions which were put to him on climate change and food security. Some of these have never been given a proper airing in the public domain, so Newsnight is again leading the debate! You cannot conceivably talk about the resource crunch without talking about the price of petrol. The question on whether Northern nations will be obliged to grant people from the South asylum was particularly interesting.


In fact I agree with most of that. Miliband deserved to be wrong-footed by the question about asylum for the victims of global warming. His reaction shows he probably doesn't in his hearts of hearts believe the warmist propaganda. Well done Paxo for that.

But the question only makes sense IF we are to blame for bad things happening to 'them' in the future because of 'our' carbon emissions now (conveniently ignoring of course every other country that is contributing). And that is the fundamental point at issue, according to many intelligent people on this blog and elsewhere. And remember Frank Luntz's hilarious investigation for Newsnight of the views of ordinary UK voters on climate change back in September:



The bottom line: nobody believes this stuff enough to make real sacrifices. But, sadly, that's not the end of the problem. We are well capable, through a mixture of hypocrisy and the genuine, if misguided, desire of our political class to 'do something', of causing havoc for other, defenseless people in the 'bottom billion', as the biofuels mess shows all too clearly. So the theory really does matter.

Let me come back to old Freeman Dyson in my next (and probably last) post.

Richard,

Sir David King signed the letter as Dave King. Who am I to disagree with his preferred term of address?

Anyhow, Dave was answering some specific questions which I raised through my local MP. He confirmed that there was no evidence for anthropogenic global warming. He also expressed a level of faith in the models which I found curious. He did give me a contact within the Hadley Centre but alas, as soon as I asked a difficult question, the silence was deafening.

I don't hold the 91热爆 in high regard as to the quality of its journalism. This means that my comments are prone to being sarcastic. Roger Harrabin has a track record of promoting a warmist agenda. His apologist stance towards Al Gore in the wake of the High Court judgement over force-feeding Gore's film to schoolchildren on Newsnight and other 91热爆 mediums still rankles with me. Having seen the judgement, Roger and his colleagues failed to report it accurately.

Roger is at least more open-minded than some of his colleagues (Richard Black springs to mind) but there does appear to be a default position towards environmental rhetoric. I welcome that Roger put forward some of the uncertainties of climate models but that he failed to grasp the context of the debate frustrates me.

Believe me Richard, I take poor policy decisions very seriously. I doubt that the Government does though. Why has the UK Government promoted policies which see a transfer of wealth and resources from the poor to the rich whilst knowing the ineffectualness of these policies in tackling the presumed threat of climate change?

What's worse is that they have failed to develop a wider consensus for policy decisions. An example, a national policy to properly insulated housing for free would dramatically reduce the number of deaths of the elderly due to winter. Instead, we have the Winter Fuel Allowance which doesn't resolve the basic problem of poor housing stock. Such a policy would also reduce the UK's energy consumption which is better for our energy security as we're less dependent on foreign supplies of energy. It would also reduce the cost of living for people.

This is a simple example of how developing a wider consensus around policy would generate wider support rather than forcing a hypothetical problem which exists in some undefined future. Yet our politicians don't do this. How can I take them seriously when they refuse to themselves.

John (presumably, #34):

Thank you for a tremendous statement in a number of areas. The points about more honest, informed debate leading to much needed consensus on areas like better housing rather than winter fuel are very well made. The silence from the Hadley Centre was I'm sure a disgrace. But thank you for what you evidently did to ask the necessary and searching questions. In the end the truth will out, simple as that, and you will have done your part.

I must have seen hundreds if not thousands of references to Sir David King and never before seen him called Dave. That must have made you feel very special! More seriously, as I said before, why don't you publish the letter? It's a stark statement of the reality of the situation, as you report it: no evidence at all to support AGW, just these wonderful, gee-whizz computer models.

Everything comes back to the models. And they don't know how to produce a single moment of real-world cloud cover, that's all - and a whole host of other crucial things. The edifice of hysteria built on them must rank as one of the most ridiculous intellectual non-achievements mankind has ever managed, on a par with eugenics or blood letting. Look where those dead-ends got us. At least in a less technological age the damage could be limited. But take eugenics and add a populist leader like Hitler using the hi-tech of the day and the world - particularly the handicapped, Jews, Gypsies and Slavs - had a disastrous problem.

But there is hope. You single out Richard Black on the very day he reports that great tits are adapting to current warming, no problem at all:



I say we should follow those great tits!

SheffTim (#29):

You overstate my case and miss the point. I didn't say that nobody would have heard of Freeman Dyson; I wondered if David Miliband would know much about him. And that's important, for the following reason.

Our Foreign Secretary, who comes across to me as a bright and good-natured sort, will I assume be aware of names of current scientists like Sir David (Dave) King, Sir John Houghton, the Met Office man who led the IPCC technical crew for many years, and perhaps James Hansen in the US, who kicked off the whole warming shebang in 1980s (shortly after the new ice age alarmism was sadly curtailed by a small change of direction of the data). Just like Miliband knows names like Boris and Ken, Brown and Cameron.

But my point of comparison was I think well chosen. What if somebody was to say, about a political matter: "This is something that Nye Bevan, or Keir Hardie, would never have agreed with." Depending on who said that, obviously, those are the kind of names that do still have some resonance in the labour movement, because of their past achievements.

But if you haven't even heard of Freeman Dyson, let alone are deeply aware of his contribution to 20th century science, including his work with the legendary Richard Feynman, the man can too easily be written off as a eccentric has-been by the place-men of politicised science kicking around Whitehall in your own generation.

Many details in science have of course moved on during Dyson's life. But as Einstein once said, only two things have no limit, the universe and human stupidity - and he wasn't sure about the universe.

It is possible for the human race to depart from true science, as eugenics shows. We need wise heads like Freeman Dyson to flag when it may be starting to happen. In one National Post article last year (which is worth googling for) he speaks engagingly from early experience about how models can flatter to deceive, as learned from another giant of 20th century physics, Enrico Fermi.

If you don't like taking lessons on global warming from a old physicist, try a slightly younger meteorologist, Henk Tennekes, whose story was also told in the National Post last year. Professor Tennekes was removed from his post as head of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute because of his deviant views - the sort of disgraceful persecution of 'heretics' Freeman Dyson has spoken against so strongly. One day the integrity and quality of such people will be seen by all. And the world will be free to concentrate on the very real problems we have, not least ensuring lasting security and growth for the bottom billion, no longer distracted by this expensive chimera.

FREE THE MILIBAND ANSWERS!


'He's also agreed to continue answering your questions online tomorrow so please do give us your thoughts.'

WE DID. THAT WAS 7th. WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS?

Don't make me angry - you wouldn't like ignoring me when I'm angry.

A reply to Richard Drake. #36 My last bite of this cherry if I may.

Richard, I am probably older than you think I am. I also know of Henk Tennekes and I prefer to read the original articles than ones filtered through the prism of a political columnist in the National Post.
Because of his specialism in turbulance Tennekes is deeply sceptical (he describes himself as `Proteststant`) of the ability of climate models. Also of what he sees as human hubris in assuming that we can predict or manage such a complex system such as the earth. He does not disbelieve the general theory of anthropogenic global warming but does raise the possibility that important feedbacks may have been missed and threshold crossings cannot be adequately predicted.

In 1990 Tennekes wrote in the magazine Weather: `The constraints imposed by the planetary ecosystem require continuous adjustment and permanent adaptation. Predictive skills are of secondary importance.` His overall view as to our response is that we should concentrate on how best to adapt to any climate change. In this he shares a common viewpoint with Dyson, Ronald Brunner and Roger Pielke Jr.
Personally I doubt that emissions targets will (or can) be fully met, so adaptation would seem to be a sensible course of action.

It鈥檚 noticeable that the National Post didn鈥檛 include the following paragraph from the same article by Tennekes that it selectively quotes from:
`Climate skeptics also face a sociological problem. They agree only in their protest against the prevailing dogma. Some base their protest on various versions of the neo-conservative paradigm. Bjorn Lomborg, for example, ignores the many efforts of the environmental movement that have contributed to improving conditions in the industrialized world. Speaking scientifically, I submit he has overlooked a crucial social feedback mechanism.
Other skeptics use other paradigms. Roger Pielke Jr. bases his work on the vulnerability paradigm, a choice very appealing to me. Lots of outsiders in the climate business employ a supremacy of physics paradigm, attacking one or more of the physical details of the climate problem, and hoping that they can prevail by proving the climate orthodoxy wrong. In my view, their conceptual mistake is that the physics of complex systems does not provide opportunities for settling the climate debate that way.`

I certainly do not consider Richard Feynman an `eccentric has-been`, nor would most others. His contribution to the Challenger disaster inquiry is well known and the subject of a film to be released later this year; made by the same director that made `The Right Stuff`. Feynman was a polymath and his Nobel Prize for quantum electrodynamics speaks for itself.

I鈥檓 sure Newsnight will return to the climate issue again.
Tim Dennell
PS. 91热爆: why do apostrophes turn into question marks in this blog?

Tim, once again, none of what I wrote was about what you know but what David Miliband knows. I'm glad you acknowledge the greatness of Feynman, of course.

37. At 09:55 am on 09 May 2008, barriesingleton wrote:
FREE THE MILIBAND ANSWERS!

Barrie, that could almost be deemed pestering.

Ironic as the hot topic for today (Friday 9) is in part what does, or does not get shared on the 91热爆's airwaves and/or pages.

Thing is, like a few other instances, there is what is said... or promised... and what happens.

Imagine if a Government Minister decided the best reaction to gentle probing on a previous statement was simply to remain mute. What a Hoon... I mean hoot!

Or FaceBook didn't leap not only to correct an error but keep all in the loop as it was being done.

Of course, what can also happen is a FoB (Friend of Beeb) is promptly dispatched to tell us all to cut 'em some slack/stop being beastly/take our custom elsewhere (oh..) or get snitty and infer different rules of time, space, veracity, etc apply when doing to as being done.

Good question though... where are the promised replies? Even a small explanation. Or is all this soooo last night?

I'm not angry, just saddened. Angry is when I dig out my licence fee and wonder what my options are if the service I get falls short of all that has been promised.

ps: Sheff Tim: don't hold your breath on an answer. I'm still waiting on some following requests to feedback on the new blog system in April. Apparently, what was really required was 'glowing accolades'. FWIW, do you have a Mac? Mine seemed to do the same, but has stopped now.