Comments on: Enjoy Outgoing Greenpeace Head’s Interview Struggle

By: admin

admin — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:25:13 +0000

Yes – I remember that paper using a Hadley-coupled model – C02 was quadrupled and held steady until all the ice melted. But even this assumes a high climate sensitivity to CO2, which CRN doesn’t agree with.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:40:17 +0000

“Of course, CRN knows that it would take millennia to melt Greenland, even if warming continues.”

This is actually a bit of an understatement. If you raise CO2 to FOUR TIMES THE BACKGROUND INSTANEOUSLY-then maintain that concentration THE ENTIRE TIME, Greenland will still have ice after almost 1800 years. That’s not even a realistic scenario, and it assumes that the warming of CO2 is correct in models, which is by now pretty much certainly erroneous.

Do we even have the fossil fuels necessary to do that? I think not! Will we even be burning them in a thousand years? I KNOW not.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:49:25 +0000

Many thanks – nice to receive a comment from India! I haven’t watched HARDtalk before. All I can say is that Sackur did a very good job in this interview.

By: Prashant

Prashant — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:32:46 +0000

I saw that episode here in India, on BBC World. HARDTALK is one of my favorite shows, but even Stephen Sackur has slipped up in earlier interviews he has done on this issue.
He interviewed Al Gore soon after he won the Nobel Prize last year, along with the UN’s IPCC. At one point in the interview, he asked Gore what he thought of Bjorn Lomborg and his views. Lomborg is a scientist who believes in man-made global warming, but has criticized alarmist tactics of Gore and others. Al Gore got very angry and asked Sackur why the BBC/ other media were giving space to such a person!!

If a person who fought an election to be the leader of the democratic world cannot even brook criticism from someone who agrees with his broad point of view, then there is something really wrong here. After all isn’t one of the tenets of democracy: “I do not agree with your point of view but I will defend to death your right to express it”? I would have pinned Gore down on precisely that fact – should climate scientists stop studying an opposing premise just because of one Oscar and a Nobel?

Sadly, Sackur tamely moved on to the next question.