I’ve uploaded a segment from BBC Newsnight broadcasted on September 20th 2006 on climate change denialism. George Monbiot investigates the links between organisations currently spreading misinformation about climate change and those who spread misinformation about tobacco in the nineties.
Paxman then interviews Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and John Mitchell, the Chief Scientist at the UK Meteorological Office and a member of the UN IPCC Working Group 1. I don’t Ebell quite understands that British media, particularly the BBC isn’t as susceptible to libertarian-inspired pseudoscience as US media clearly is. Myron’s argument soon falls apart after Paxman asks him the simple question “Are you a scientist?”
Paxman: Mr Ebell, you are not a scientist. It is clear that many people on your side of the fence are misrepresenting the arguments. You yourself described the government’s chief scientific advisor in this country of “knowing nothing about climate science”. He is at least a scientist. Now, do you see the problem that respectable scientists have with the sort of points made by organizations such as yours?
9 responses so far ↓
1 Deltoid // Oct 1, 2006 at 5:17 pm
BBC Newsnight on Global Warming Denialists
Naadir has posted a couple of videos from BBC Newsnight on global warming denialist. Melanie Philips is revealed to be just as clueless as I suspected….
2 Peter K. Anderson // Oct 1, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Weather pattering is only the expression of the Natural Processes of Turbulence. Demand for ‘belief’ that is diverting from NATURE attention to proffer ‘explanation of Natural events’ is not at all relevant, regardless of WHAT that diversion of attenuation is towards, be it a ‘greenhouse’ rhetorical, or some other source of rhetorical discourse. The WARMING being noticed of the Planetary Surface is OBVIOUSLY linked to Human Population Growth and the Sprawl of Habitat construction associated to such Population (see charts in link ‘**’ below). This is REAL and will not cease until the effects of such Sprawl as well as the construction of this Sprawl are DIRECTLY faced and understood.
The previous 400 years of such Population Growth and Sprawl had its effect (& observations of) such deferred by required developments of Technology to facilitate the Sprawl construction burgeoning Populations needed. The NEXT 100 years is NOT facing such deferment of ‘inputs’ (& observable effects) to the accumulative process that is altering overall Turbulence, with only the RESIDUAL Kinetic Energy displaying its presence as a rise of the SURFACE MEDIAN TEMPERATURE. The OCEAN is following the Land surface in a delayed and muted trend, delay from the [processes of Conduction & Convection whilst the muting is from internal productions of Turbulence within the Ocean surface.
Notice (in slide of Glaciations in link ‘**’) the period already spent within the current ‘Primary Trough’ along with the ‘past patterning’ for the last 1 billion years. This is showing decreasing periods for Primary Trough behaviours with these events in ‘pairings’. The present ‘block’ is near the size the ‘prior event pair’ ‘first element trough’ & is also near the ‘correct size’ for NOW to become a ‘reversion event’ observation as the present warming has such a ‘natural potential’. See also outline ‘Glaciers Reborn’ in link ‘*’ to notice how ‘unnatural additions’ to natural processes of TURBULENCE creation could prevent such an outcome.
The individual ‘blocks’ of these pairings are getting shorter at each ‘repeat’, so from NOW it is very likely Climate could rise to a ’shorter’ Primary Crest that will be will be followed (after a few more Million years) by a slightly ‘longer than the present’ Trough period (of a few more Million years). It is also that the present Primary Trough behavior observed of Climate can readily be expected to begin reversion back to a Primary Crest Behavior is MORE than plausible by observing the chart of Glacial Behaviours seen in outlines within link ‘**’ below.
Pollution, ‘greenhouse labelled’ or otherwise, is not wanted but such pollution is NOT creating UNNATURAL climate alterations. It is certainly ‘very plausible’ for expectations of the overall Climate Oscillation to rise back into the Primary Crest behavior from NOW, this being the ‘position’ Climate held for the ~200,000,000 years prior to this now ~3,000,000 year long ‘Trough’ period.
Humanity does indeed need to adapt, & to move Habitat and become less reliant on fixed infrastructure however this is a requirement garnered from DIRECT attention to NATURE, and the GARDEN environment Humanity does exist within. The ‘Trees’ where left Millions of years ago, ‘Caves’ Humanity left Thousands of years ago… What next should be the question, after the Present ‘Suburbia’ will Humanity need to ‘move to’…it is coming time for a ‘move’ again, as the GARDEN continues to develop so too must Humanity…
Your’s,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlodâ„¢
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
(**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/
3 Naadir Jeewa // Oct 3, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Peter: I wont pretend that I know exactly what you’re talking about, but I will respond to one thing though and that is your final paragraph.
I do not believe a recourse to nature is the correct approach, as it seems to be wrapped up in an European cultural notion of what nature should be.
4 Devon Brooks // Dec 11, 2006 at 6:28 pm
We love your website and posts about global warming. Please check out our blog. http://www.desmogblog.com and feel free to contact via the blog.
5 Nik Adamopoulos // Jan 16, 2007 at 1:40 pm
do a websearch on hartlod and you’ll know what Peter K Anderson is talking about.
6 John Hayes // Oct 24, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I did a fair amount of websearch on Peter K. Anderson. I know what he is about. A room mate once said, “If I can’t dazzle them with brilliance, I’ll baffle them with bulls%#t.”
Peter K. Anderson (if that is his real name) is all about baffling and beguiling the technically ignorant and unsuspecting.
Here is a report from other parties to support the accusation:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-climate-organising/2006-May/0511-ub.html
Here is a link to his blog:
http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
If you visit it notice that there doesn’t appear to be much action on it.
If you visit his “about me” link:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/00299716498634756523
you will notice it doesn’t say much!
His yahoo profile says more but actually doesn’t say anything informative:
http://profiles.yahoo.com/hartlod?warn=1
Yet here is a very scientific sounding reply:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/globalwarming/message/7928
It makes the following statement, “Heat retention is automatic once it is generated, heat is a measure of
intrinsic kinetic energy of atoms/molecules.
Heat cannot escape our biosphere into space, there is insufficient matter in
space to conduct it away, gravity prevents hot molecules/atoms shooting away
enmasse, nor can it enter or boisphere from space as it cannot be
conducted/convected to our atmosphere.”
He states that out planet can not receive of transmit heat due to lack of matter in space to support conduction of convection of heat. Heat is an expression of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is a reflection of the energy level of atoms/molecules. Atoms radiate energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation (one way of describing it) to unload energy which reduces kinetic energy which cools the substance down. We all know that electromagnetic energy can travel through space or else we would not be able to receive light from the sun.
I’m not attacking Peter K. Anderson AKA hartlod as I am providing a warning to others. If you value your time, please, do not waste any time reading anything posted by him. If you need any convincing you can read the following thread of replies to the original article. Pay attention to anything he says - but evaluate it for coherency and accuracy:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_lights_on
I suspect this person to be a plant. Certainly they have their own agenda that includes confusing issues, distorting issues and being deliberately confusing in a number of ways. I don’t know about anyone else but I for one don’t need that.
John Hayes
7 Naadir Jeewa // Nov 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I’m not sure I agree that Peter’s a plant. He is just wrong and usual a standard fare conspiratorial language to get his ideas across.
8 naisioxerloro // Nov 28, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hi.
Good design, who make it?
9 effects of water pollution // Apr 24, 2008 at 9:34 am
[...] the link between their new efforts and previous attempts to muddy the waters on the damaging effectshttp://www.randomvariable.co.uk/blog/2006/10/01/bbc-newsnight-on-exxonmobils-dirty-tactics/Water Pollution - MSN EncartaNotable effects of water pollution include those involved in human [...]
Leave a Comment