Tories will 'definitely' scrap Heathrow's third runway

The Conservative Party, like all political parties, is only interested in attracting votes. If talking in their conference and including in there manifesto about (but not actually) scrapping Heathrow’s third runway attracts environmentalist votes then so be it. Don’t forget that the Labour 2005 manifesto said QUOTE: The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe ...We will put it to the British people in a referendum .. UNQUOTE. All that the Conservatives would need to do would be to start calling the third runway something different, such as “an aircraft marshalling strip” and they could do just as Labour did and deny the promise of a referendum on it. Our political elite know full-well that the UK must have that additional capacity at Heathrow and the Third Runway will happen. The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis that our use of fossil fuels is causing significant global climate change is scientifically flawed. Environmentalists are wasting their time trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It won’t happen, despite all of the propaganda being pushed by organisations like the UN, Greenpeace, Al Gores money-making machine, etc. Mark Lynas is a staunch supporter of The Hypothesis. At the head of his blogs non-scientist Mark proudly displays “Six Degrees”, the start of the title of his booklet “Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet”. Previously I have highlighted distortions and errors in Mark’s propaganda booklet (see his “World Saved .. “ blog 1st, 7th 14th, 21st December 2008 – Note 8 - and his “The global warming deniers” blog 8th December – Note 9). This piece of science fiction was awarded the 21st Royal Society Prize for Science Books. It does not say much for the scientific peer review process - which is much-heralded by supporters of The Hypothesis – that a book by a non-scientist which included so many distortions of fact could be awarded such a prestigious prize. It raises questions about the areas of expertise in which the panel of Royal Society judges specialise, so let’s take a look at each member (Note 1). Professor Jonathon Ashmore FRS, Department of Physiology, University College London (chair): QUOTE: My research looks at the physiology of the normal cochlea. My work has highlighted the fact that normal hearing depends on what I call the “biological hearing aid”. UNQUOTE (Note 2). Dr Brian Cox, Royal Society University Research Fellow, University of Manchester and CERN QUOTE: I'm a Royal Society University Research Fellow based in the Particle Physics group at the University of Manchester, where I hold a chair in Particle Physics. I work on the ATLAS experiment at CERN in Geneva. My main research interest is the FP420 R&D project, aimed at upgrading ATLAS and CMS with forward proton detectors 420m away from the interaction points. In the past, I worked at the H1 experiment at DESY in Hamburg, and the D0 experiment at the Tevatron at Fermilab, Chicago. UNQUOTE (Note 3). Ffion Hague, author, (wife of politician William Hague?) of whom, just after the award to Mark, it is reported QUOTE: Remove my name from anti-wind farm letter to Morgan, says Ffion Hague; 50 backing campaigners' plea to Assembly to preserve Welsh land.(News) UNQUOTE (Note 4). Fiona Macrae, science correspondent, The Daily Mail QUOTE: She studied medical microbiology at Edinburgh University before training in journalism in Cardiff. After spending three & a half years covering general news at the News & Star in Carlisle, she moved to London, where she joined the Daily Mail. UNQUOTE (Note 5). Professor Iain Stewart, School of Earth, Ocean and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth QUOTE: studied geology and earth science .. graduated .. 1986 .. obtained .. doctorate .. 1990 .. on research into earthquakes .. teaching geology at the West London Institute of Higher Education .. then Brunel University .. for 12 years .. before moving .. to develop a new career as a science broadcaster .. now combines television appearances with work as a Professor ... His main research interests are in the broad area of Earth hazards and natural disasters, particularly .. past major earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in the Mediterranean region. Stewart also specializes in geology's effect on culture and religion throughout the history of the world. He appears .. as a scientific commentator UNQUOTE (Note 6). So, out of 5 judges there was only one scientist who can be considered to be involved in researching anything to do with climate processes and drivers, but he appears to spend much of his time in media activities! As well as overlooking the distortions in Mark’s booklet that I have previously identified, the fundamental issue that has not been considered by these judges would appear to be whether or not The Hypothesis behind the scare of a six degree increase in global temperatures is valid. This hypothesis underpins all of the UN-inspired propaganda that our use of fossil fuels is going to cause catastrophic climate change, but is The Hypothesis valid? Recent analysis (Note 7) shows that our use of fossil fuels will cause no more than about 2 degrees of warming even if we cause present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase by a factor of 8 times above the level in 1750. It is claimed that up to now we have increase this concentration from about 300 to about 400 ppm. As Roger Taguchi, the author of that analysis says QUOTE: No, I do not agree with the IPCC’s numbers, because (1) their estimate of the sum of all feedbacks is too large, by a factor of 5 to 10 (depending on whether the solar constant change results in zero or 0.1 degree C temperature change from 1750 to today) and (2) the IPCC report’s prediction of a 6 degree rise on quadrupling CO2 from 300 ppm to 1200 ppm shows a lack of physical understanding, by assuming equal temperature increases on each doubling of CO2. As I have repeatedly stated, each doubling produces exactly half of the previous doubling (for a proof, see Appendix 2 of my long blog article). ... It is possible that my original proof is unknown in the literature, and therefore cannot be found by googling or looking through textbooks. I figured out the geometric proof myself to justify the physical intuition I had about the nature of “saturation” and “diminishing returns”. In order to decide between various hand-waving arguments and recommendations, ideally we examine available numbers. If we subtract the 0.7 degree overall rise in temperature since 1750 from my predicted 1.8 degree increase for a quadupling of CO2 from 300 ppm to 1200 ppm (assuming 0.1 degree increase due to solar output change from 1750 to today), we get 1.1 degrees. If we subtract 0.7 degrees from the IPCC’s wrong prediction of 6 degrees, we get 5.3 degrees, almost 5 times mine. I say that since we have survived a 0.7 degree increase that has already occurred, we ought not to worry about a 1.1 degree increase that would be produced by increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 1200 ppm, a difference of 800 ppm, when there has been an increase of only 100 ppm in the change from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. So I definitely do not agree with the IPCC’s recommendations regarding control of human-produced CO2. UNQUOTE. The paper is available from Roger in Wordperfect. Anyone able to refute what Roger Taguchi says? I won’t hold my breath. NOTES: 1) see http://www.popularscience.co.uk/royalsoc2008.htm 2) see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ear/research/ashmore 3) see http://www.apolloschildren.com/brian/ 4) see http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-180562337.html 5) see http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/148 6) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Stewart 7) see http://www.mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/ 8) see http://www.marklynas.org/2008/11/21/world-saved-planet-doomed 9) see http://www.marklynas.org/2008/7/4/the-global-warming-deniers Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Your comment "I'm not going to debate whether climate change is anthropogenic or not," toes the Greenpeace policy line of refusing to debate The (significant global climate change) Hypothesis. Why? Because it knows that there is no sound scientific evedence supporting it. Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic