I am getting bored with this, but Matt Ridley, one of the most respected commentators on sustainability and climate issues, wrote a long and learned piece in the Times of April 5 in which he carefully mapped out why the response to supposed climate change was hugely disproportionate because the tenets of the creed did not stand up to scientific scrutiny. He SPECIFICALLY said this about rising sea levels:
The…paper appeared in the Journal of Coastal Research (salute the web, in passing, for its extraordinary capacity for giving us access to such sources) and it concludes: “Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in US tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are . . . one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 [millimetres per year squared] accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by [three recent mathematical models].”
To translate: sea level is rising more slowly than expected, and the rise is slowing down rather than speeding up. Sea level rise is the greatest potential threat to civilisation posed by climate change because so many of us live near the coast. Yet, at a foot a century and slowing, it is a slight nosebleed. So are most of the other symptoms of climate change, such as Arctic sea ice retreat, in terms of their impact. The rate of increase of temperature (0.6C in 50 years) is not on track to do net harm (which most experts say is 2C) by the end of this century.
I quote this is full because it is directly relevant. RICHARD BLACK MUST HAVE SEEN THIS. But completely undaunted by such inconvenient facts (note that Ridley’s are based on measurements, not models), Mr Black has today filed this pile of sensationalist gutter-press tut warning that massive sea-level rises are imminent. As usual, he worships at the altar of the IPCC (ignoring, too, this very recent post by Donna Laframbois – in future the IPCC should be known as Pachauri’s political poodle); as usual, his alarmist claptrap is based purely on modelling; and as usual, he does not deign to quote anybody who opposes these grant-guzzling buffoons.
The reason I am bored is that such utter bull-necked, crass, mis-reporting is simply beyond belief. I continue to churn out these observations because one day, one day soon, I hope and pray, he and the rest of the alarmist goons at the BBC will be held to account for the poison they are spreading.
The BBC will continue to pump out propaganda like because all government departments do, and the BBC is a government department in all but name.
I don’t believe that the likes of Harrabin will ever be persuaded of their erroneous understanding. In a civilised world, there would be mechanisms to remove these people from their positions of influence. In a more atavistic society, they would, rightly, be culled, because that is the only certain way to stop their malignant influence.
Apologies, Black. But it applies to Harrabin too.
Good news here (for a change)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/
In the spirit of watertight oversight (at least when it comes to opening up for review or comment), Mr. Black appears to have retreated to his broadcast only bunker again, when his ‘considered’ nuclear outing was again found a tad wanting.
You say Ridley is a ‘respected commentator’.
I thought he was chiefly known for the fact that he was the Chairman of Northern Rock at the time of its collapse? He oversaw the first run on a British Bank in nearly a century, very nearly destroying the British economy in the process.
Apart from yourself, who do you think has any respect for him?
That is what is known as kicking the man, not the ball.
He was Chairman – and probably a fool to have taken the job – but he was not executively in control, others at Northern Rock pursued the growth-at-any-cost strategy.
Meanwhile – any arguments against the case he puts on the stupidity of climate change policies ? Have you a single clue of Ridley’s wider background on “green” issues ?
‘I hope and pray, he and the rest of the alarmist goons at the BBC will be held to account for the poison they are spreading.’
Don’t hold your breath, no one from the establishment is held to account anymore, be that the BBC, MP’s, Councils etc.
How about holding Ridley to account for his involvement in bringing the country to its knees?
Or do I detect a certain amount of ‘bias’ in hiding away his crimes whilst calling him a ‘most respected commentator’?
Seriously, if Fred the Shred was to start writing articles for the Times as to why everyone else was wrong and guilty of covering stuff up, would you be calling him a ‘most respected commentator’?
If there was any justice then both Ridley and Fred Goodwin would be behind bars for their activities now; instead of pulling down fabulous pensions and pontificating in the Times.
Incidentally you seem, to be criticising Black for reporting on a piece of peer reviewed science.
You dismiss this as ‘sensationalist gutter press tut’.
He names his source, and reports on it accurately. You can go check for yourself as I did.
Perhaps your articles would benefit from a bit more research, and from accurately reporting on your sources.
Unlike Matt Ridley, it would appear that Roderik Van der Waal si an actual scientist; unlike Ridley, Van der Wall wasn’t responsibile for a major banking collapse. Here check for yourself:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~wal/
All future climate predictions are based on computer models with the exception of the prediction that the climate has entered a cooling phase, which uses the speed of the centre of the sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system, which determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits of the Planets which can be predicted with overwhelming confidence. Ten year predictions from computer models from peer reviewed science made ten years ago show that peer reviewed science using computer models is worse than ‘sensationalist gutter press tut’, in fact its Bullshit.