Sunday, 6 December 2009
Livingstone lies to London
Dear Mr Livingstone. I listened to your comments on climate change today, 5/12 and what you told London was either blatant propaganda and untrue or you are genuinely oblivious to the facts of the matter. Either way Londoners were being misled.
1) There is no 'denial', as you imply, that climate changes and you know full well the debate is only whether or not mankind and in particular, CO2 is the cause. Fact is, if it were not for massive climate change, mankind would not be here at all. For 99% of the planet's life it has been far too hostile for us and will return to that no matter what we do. Question: Who says the planet, how we like it, is its natural or moderate state and how it is supposed to be?
2)You said you know no recognised or eminent scientists who disagree with AGW/ACC. What about the 30,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition, 9000 Phds? Isn't London entitled to hear about them? Oh of course you don't think so because you think it is OK for people like UEA/CRU, to continue to refuse to disclose its science measurements that tend to disprove ACC from people too; especially other scientists. And no this was not a one off email as you told London, it was a series from several CRU people all reacting to fair applications for answers, eventually via FOI, for their methods and a conspiracy (there is no other word) to deny access by destroying the information and indeed emails too. Some were about how to avoid FOI as well. I have read them all and they should be read in the context of the questions being asked of them chronologically. Now do tell London about that if you are really a straight chap.
2) Lawson et al. He doesn't need to be a scientist to read science. Scientists write papers for people like me and Lord Blaby to read. He does and so do I. But why not tell London that Nicholas Stern, one of the prime movers of ACC, is an economists, not a scientist either and that none of those were scientists who wrote the IPCC summary which is being referred to and caused even IPCC scientists to object to it. But, unlike Lawson, these are telling the rest of us to take the hair shirt but resent any queries about it.
3) Floods: Throughout living history there have been floods and major weather events. London has always had loads of rain. The old American image is of a foggy rainy London. All that has changed is that modern media gets every smattering of news to us instantly instead of a 2 minute newsreel clip in black and white a week later.
But it is what is at stake here that is crucial. If the claim is wrong, how many people will we kill from the economic costs of this nonsense for no good reason? The pretense is that taking action will not cost anything so we should do it. Throwing away untold billions into the Climate Change Industry will mean less hospitals, medicine, A&E, heat, warmth and so people will die for certain if all this is nonsense. Our Grandkids will struggle to eat and keep warm. Is that what you want? So our side says there are too many faults in these model based theories to start killing people yet. When the authors,(CRU) refuse point blank to produce their evidence and conspire to bury it and wipe it out, as they have done, then yes that should be a worry to 'a man of the people' like you shouldn't it?
And CO2, a natural life giving gas which at 380 ppm is still at the low end? The planet was at its most vibrant and lushest when it was at about 1500 ppm.