Interesting “coincidence” re BBC false accusation and the “BBC 28”.

[CliveH]

Apologies again for those bored with my Climate Change rants. Here’s another one.

 

I posted elsewhere that the BBC spent a hell of a lot of License fee £’s on 6 Barristers to stop a FOI request from identifying the 28 so called Climate Experts that sat down and decided that the BBC’s legally required impartiality on reporting here could be side-stepped because the significance of Catastrophic Climate Change was so great that anyone that had an opposing view should not be given air-time.

 

Hence why David Bellamy for one dropped off the bottom of our screens. The BBC for a long long time has stated that the 28 were Climate Experts and so the decision to become biased was "sound".

 

Whilst the BBC won the court case – it turns out that the info was there all along – no body had looked in the right place. The list is amazing:-

 

 

• In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting

• The BBC has been in court blocking FOI attempts to get the list of the 28 attendees, but it’s just been discovered on the wayback machine

• It turns out that only 3 were current scientists (all alarmists). The rest were activists or journalists

• The BBC sent four representatives: Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, George Enwistle. All have since risen to power.

 

Amazingly, those are also the exact four who have thus far resigned this week over the false paedophilia accusations against Lord McAlpine.

 

The full list is here

 

http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/

 

Amazing stuff!

 

[nowtelse2do]

Why apologise Clive? Certain minority group's have now got so much power and influence that it is them that are leading this country and other countries into the downward spiral cesspit that we are now descending into.

That is a brilliant piece of journalism, and I hope that those responsible are brought to book. Heaven knows how much this irresponsible group of tow-rags has cost us 'the public'. All these green taxes that have been lumbered on us should now cease immediately.

 

As you say. Amazing stuff.

 

Dave

 

 

[CliveH]

Thank you Dave - appreciated.

 

I suppose I am aware that as someone who got a so-so degree in a science subject many many years ago and therefore has old school "standards" of what is acceptable in science that I risk boring the pants of people as an old fart pontificating about how this and that would not be allowed in my day.

 

And it would not

 

Climate Science is all about predictions using computer models. So far "Mother Nature" has done hell of a job showing that these predictions are wrong.

 

When you think back to how over the last decade the BBC has rammed down our throats the advocacy that we are all going to hell on a CO2 handcart - stating that CO2 is a poison - when in fact it is an essential part of life and that plants need CO2 to convert to Oxygen (O2) and for they themselves to convert to plant material via Photosynthesis - I for one realised that the so called science was spin. It was a lie. An untruth.

 

Yes of course we have to look after our planet better than we have - but the fact is that CO2 levels have been higher in the past and higher CO2 levels means more productive agriculture.

 

It doe not mean higher temperatures - as the "mother nature" so ably demonstrates for the last 10 to 15 years!

 

So where does this leave the BBC?

 

It leaves it caught spending millions of Licence fee payers money on Barristers to stop those same Licence Fee payers from being told who the BBC took advice from when management decided to throw the rule book out the window and ignore the BBC's legal requirement for impartiality and instead become part of an advocacy group that has feathered its own nest and manipulated the truth to within a mm of its life.

 

The question here is in many ways as big as the other two scandals perpetrated by the BBC.

 

I object in principle to an organisation that seeks to flout FoI law by saying it is a privileged organisation when the reality is that it is funded by a tax that we HAVE to pay, or else we can get sent to prison.

 

The management of the BBC is frankly taking the piss

 

And I am fed up with it.

 

I believe we deserve better.

[Dave225]

Ahem, Clive, you make nice points but the data is wrong. Plants do not convert CO2 to oxygen. they convert CO2 to sugars. Where the oxygen comes from is basically a chemical reaction using water. So there is no link between plants making oxygen from nasty CO2. By the way CO2 is a poison, if you do not believe it try breathing it. However, I fully agree that the climate change maniacs have decided a certain hypothesis and woe betide anyone who disagrees. As you correctly say Mother Nature can outdo us any day in either making things good, or bad. Just ask New York. climate has changed throughout the centuries. A thousand years ago Vikings were farming on Greenland and England was growing vines. In the 15th century (if my numbers are right) the Thames was frozen solid as the UK had a mini ice age. Just imagine how that would affect the rush hour traffic these days.

 

What the Beeb would like is to see everyone walking around pushing handcarts while they in their lofty posiitons, drive past. It is an organisation I used to admire but now have little faith in. Reith's priciples of 'educate and entertain' have now dropped to 'push out garbage'and do not dare to question us. No wonder the Beeb and the Labour Party got on so well.

[colin]

Dave225 - 2012-11-14 7:43 PM

 

By the way CO2 is a poison, if you do not believe it try breathing it.

 

CO2 is not a poison, it's an asphyxiant, CO is a poison.

[nowtelse2do]

Well that put me to rights. I always thought that plants took in the bad stuff and release the good stuff.

 

So we can cut the rainforests down after all. That would upset the greens.

 

Dave

[CliveH]

Colin is correct Dave CO2 is not a poison - The alarmists have for some time curried the confusion between Carbon dioxide and Carbon Monoxide.

 

You would asphyxiate in a room full of CO2 because of a lack of Oxygen not because the CO2 is a poison.

 

By the same token you would die of a lack of Oxygen in a room full of water (H2O) not because the water is a poison.

 

As for what plants do with CO2 - they do convert it to O2 (oxygen) by way of photosynthesis.

 

The chemical reaction is:-

 

6CO2 + 6H2O (+ light energy) C6H12O6 + 6O2.

 

So via photosynthesis the plants convert CO2 to carbohydrates (C6H12O6 = plant material) and release Oxygen.

 

What is even more interesting is that the Heamoglobin in our red blood sells that transports the O2 from our lungs to our muscles etc where we need it to fuel the back conversion of the Carbohydrates to water and CO2 and releasing the energy (that we use to live!) is almost identical to the Chlorophyll the plants use to store the energy in the carbohydrates.

 

In our Heamoglobin – which is a very complex molecule – at the centre of it is an Iron atom. That is why if you lack iron you are anemic. If you removed that Iron atom and replaced it with a Magnesium atom – you would convert the heamoglobin to chlorophyll.

 

Which to my mind has always underlined just how similar all life is on the planet.

 

It also underlines just how silly the Alarmists are when they try to make out that CO2 is a poison! Our Haemoglobin transports the CO2 from our muscles back to the lungs where we exhale it and the plants then reconvert it back to vegetable matter again - It is pretty basic biology and it is called the "Carbon Cycle".

 

The reason why Carbon MONOXIDE (CO) is a poison and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not is because CO2 loosely binds to the Haemoglobin to get a piggy back ride from the muscles to the lungs where it jumps off. But Carbon Monoxide (CO) binds irreversibly with the Haemoglobin so that it cannot transport Oxygen or CO2.

 

Without CO2 and the plants to convert it to Carbohydrates we would be a hell of a lot worse off than if we managed to increase the level of CO2 a tad.

 

And please note guys – the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% - or to put it another way it is less than half of a tenth of one percent. It is a trace gas. A very important one for life on this planet - but is NEVER a poison.

 

In earths history, CO2 levels have been a lot higher and vegetation was more lush. Commercial greenhouse owners artificially increase CO2 levels to increase the crop.

 

In Submarines, submariners breath levels of CO2 far far higher than we have on the ground – and nobody dies of this higher level of CO2.

 

The Alarmist hype re CO2 is a scam – the BBC coverage of Catastrophic Global Warming is skewed and was perpetrated by some trendy lefties who saw that by demonizing CO2 they may be able to put fear into the population. For what reason it is still unclear. That question still need answering.

 

The BBC deliberately side-stepped its requirement of balance reporting and went for full blown advocacy of an ideal that was deeply flawed.

 

CO2 is not a poison – it is an essential part of photosynthesis. Without which we WOULD be in serious trouble!!

 

 

[Dave225]

colin - 2012-11-14 8:22 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-11-14 7:43 PM

 

By the way CO2 is a poison, if you do not believe it try breathing it.

 

CO2 is not a poison, it's an asphyxiant, CO is a poison.

 

So it kills you one way or the other. My dictionary lists a poison as anything taken into the the body causing injury or death. Breathing usually means taking in a gas. Whether that means lack of oxygen in my mind is irrelevant. Death is still the end result. Which word you use is unimportant. I would still like to see you survive in a room containing only CO2 shouting that 'it is not poisonous, so that is ok'.

 

I do not dispute we need CO2 as we need many things. It is when the balance gets out of hand that things go wrong. We have had many years where they have claimed that greenhouses gases are destroying the planet, and probably right to an extent, but I could opine that the main source of CO2 is people and that there are bluntly far too many of 'em on planet earth all exhaling. Sooner or later it has an effect. Than add on the fact that every numpty on the planet wants a car and you can see the result. Getting a small portion of the world to cut back while the major portion is expanding production of these things is not going to be an answer.

[CliveH]

I understand where you are coming from Dave but a poison kills by doing something to the body that harms it.

 

CO2 or water (H20) does not kill that way - an excess of water or CO2 kills by excluding oxygen. A plastic bag over the head would do the same thing - exclude oxygen - but the plastic bag would not be a poison - it would be a method of asphyxiation - as indeed would a room full of 100% CO2 or 100% H2O.

 

In contrast it only takes a small amount of, say cyanide or arsenic to kill you. But you can swim in water (H2O) and live in far far higher concentrations of CO2 than is normal for us on the planets surface with no ill effects at all.

 

CO - Carbon Monoxide is very different - it binds irreversibly to the haemoglobin so that the body cannot transport oxygen. That is what makes it a true poison. The Alarmists would have us believe that CO2 is the same as CO - it is not. That is a lie.

 

As I say the level of CO2 currently is about 0.039% and yes it has gone up. and the computor models predicted 20 years ago that by now the ice caps would have melted, Al Gore stated in his film that sea levels were going to rise 20 foot and that temperatures would be far higher today and that there would be "Climate Change Migrants" wandering the world trying to find somewhere cool.

 

Instead we are still all bitching about the weather and even the Met Office has had to admit that no warming has been seen for the last 15 years.

 

Meanwhile evidence is mounting that what temperature increase has been noted is due mainly to badly sited temperature and weather data collection sites. The may have been out in the sticks 40, 50 years ago but now some are surrounded by buildings such that they are subject to the Urban Heat Island effect.

 

The Climate "scientists" ignored this inconvenient truth - but you only have to watch a TV weather report to know that they tell you that the countryside is cooler at night than the towns and cities.

 

Some really badly sited weather stations have even been placed next to the exhaust from a buildings air conditioning units! - Or placed on black asphalt.

 

The whole "science" of Climate Change is frankly - by the standards of other scientific disciplines - a total crock of $hit.

 

It is unravelling now thank goodness but the opportunity cost of focussing on such a false ideology has been enormous.

 

 

[colin]

Dave225 - 2012-11-15 4:42 PM

 

colin - 2012-11-14 8:22 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-11-14 7:43 PM

 

By the way CO2 is a poison, if you do not believe it try breathing it.

 

CO2 is not a poison, it's an asphyxiant, CO is a poison.

 

So it kills you one way or the other. My dictionary lists a poison as anything taken into the the body causing injury or death. Breathing usually means taking in a gas. Whether that means lack of oxygen in my mind is irrelevant. Death is still the end result. Which word you use is unimportant. I would still like to see you survive in a room containing only CO2 shouting that 'it is not poisonous, so that is ok'.

 

I do not dispute we need CO2 as we need many things. It is when the balance gets out of hand that things go wrong. We have had many years where they have claimed that greenhouses gases are destroying the planet, and probably right to an extent, but I could opine that the main source of CO2 is people and that there are bluntly far too many of 'em on planet earth all exhaling. Sooner or later it has an effect. Than add on the fact that every numpty on the planet wants a car and you can see the result. Getting a small portion of the world to cut back while the major portion is expanding production of these things is not going to be an answer.

 

When your in a hole STOP DIGGING *-)

[teflon2]

Just to put in my halfpennyworth my mother as a mild athmatic was told that if she suffered an attack and had no inhaler handy to rebreath into a paper bag to inhale a higher volume of C.O2 which would kickstart normal breathing and it works. John :-D

[Dave225]

colin - 2012-11-15 6:53 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-11-15 4:42 PM

 

colin - 2012-11-14 8:22 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-11-14 7:43 PM

 

By the way CO2 is a poison, if you do not believe it try breathing it.

 

CO2 is not a poison, it's an asphyxiant, CO is a poison.

 

So it kills you one way or the other. My dictionary lists a poison as anything taken into the the body causing injury or death. Breathing usually means taking in a gas. Whether that means lack of oxygen in my mind is irrelevant. Death is still the end result. Which word you use is unimportant. I would still like to see you survive in a room containing only CO2 shouting that 'it is not poisonous, so that is ok'.

 

I do not dispute we need CO2 as we need many things. It is when the balance gets out of hand that things go wrong. We have had many years where they have claimed that greenhouses gases are destroying the planet, and probably right to an extent, but I could opine that the main source of CO2 is people and that there are bluntly far too many of 'em on planet earth all exhaling. Sooner or later it has an effect. Than add on the fact that every numpty on the planet wants a car and you can see the result. Getting a small portion of the world to cut back while the major portion is expanding production of these things is not going to be an answer.

 

When your in a hole STOP DIGGING *-)

 

Why? If it is good enough for the Eurocrats then it is good enough for me. Think I will still stick to air.

[Dave225]

Dave225 - 2012-11-15 8:26 PM

 

colin - 2012-11-15 6:53 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-11-15 4:42 PM

 

colin - 2012-11-14 8:22 PM

 

Dave225 - 2012-11-14 7:43 PM

 

By the way CO2 is a poison, if you do not believe it try breathing it.

 

CO2 is not a poison, it's an asphyxiant, CO is a poison.

 

So it kills you one way or the other. My dictionary lists a poison as anything taken into the the body causing injury or death. Breathing usually means taking in a gas. Whether that means lack of oxygen in my mind is irrelevant. Death is still the end result. Which word you use is unimportant. I would still like to see you survive in a room containing only CO2 shouting that 'it is not poisonous, so that is ok'.

 

I do not dispute we need CO2 as we need many things. It is when the balance gets out of hand that things go wrong. We have had many years where they have claimed that greenhouses gases are destroying the planet, and probably right to an extent, but I could opine that the main source of CO2 is people and that there are bluntly far too many of 'em on planet earth all exhaling. Sooner or later it has an effect. Than add on the fact that every numpty on the planet wants a car and you can see the result. Getting a small portion of the world to cut back while the major portion is expanding production of these things is not going to be an answer.

 

When your in a hole STOP DIGGING *-)

 

Why? If it is good enough for the Eurocrats then it is good enough for me. Think I will still stick to air.

 

I also offer this

 

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4695252_carbon-dioxide-poisoning-kill-human_.html

[CliveH]

Hi Dave

 

My only comment is that you do not need a room full of water to drown. You can drown in a puddle. But that still dose not make water a poison.

 

Similarly an excess of CO2 is not a good thing - but the main point is that CO2 is a natural part of our respiration. Talk to an Anaesthetist and they will tell you that without some CO2 in our bodies we stop breathing. The measurement of pCO2 is important - too low and we don't breath.

 

In fact healthy people tend to have higher pCO2 levels because their respiration rate is higher.

 

This sets out the basics:-

 

"The fathers of respiratory physiology and the authors of the first medical textbooks on respiration definitely had a more objective view on the properties of CO2 (Haldane & Priestley, 1935; Henderson 1940). Later, the dangerous and unwise practice of indiscriminate use of pure (100%) oxygen became a norm in emergency care. However, since the 1990’s many respiratory professionals regained sanity. As a result, hundreds of clinical studies have been published in relation to permissive hypercapnia. (The term “permissive hypercapnia” defines a ventilatory strategy used for acute respiratory failure in which the lungs are ventilated with a low-inspiratory volume and pressure.) Permissive hypercarbia is currently used for:

- preterm infants (Miller & Carlo, 2007)

- neonates (Toms & Ambalavanan, 2004; Varughese et al, 2002)

- pediatric acute lung injury (Rotta & Steinhorn, 2006)

- prevention of lung injuries (Lafgey et al, 2004)

- ARDS or acute respiratory distress syndrome (Lewandowski, 1996; Hickling & Joyce, 1995) and some other situations."

 

In other words pure Oxygen is dangerous - but I doubt anyone would state that Oxygen is a poison - but in excess it will kill you via Oxygen Narcosis. Where someone needs help with their breathing as outlined above, they increase the CO2 levels to stimulate breathing.

 

 

[CliveH]

Booker in the Telegraph has an interesting article on how the BBC abdicated its responsibility for impartiality via that "seminar".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBCs-dirty-little-secret-lands-it-in-a-new-scandal.html

 

 

[Syd]

 

From an idiot

 

Ok then, wether CO.2 is a poison or an irritant at what percentages of CO2 to oxygen does it become a poison or an irritant and what percentage of CO2 to oxygen is there in the air that we breathe.

 

Answer this and we will then have some idea just how dangerous our polution levels are won't we.

 

One point more, do we know what these percentages have been over the past century

[CliveH]

Syd – idiot? - you certainly are not - you are just asking the same questions I did several years ago when i first started thinking past the dogma!

 

The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is as I have already stated – it is 0.039% - Argon an inert trace gas is about 2.5 times that concentration.

 

Or put another way CO2 is less than half of one tenth of one percent.

 

In contrast Oxygen is about 21% and the rest is Nitrogen and trace gases.

 

So roughly – taken from an old science textbook:=-

 

78% nitrogen 21% oxygen 0.97% argon 0.04% carbon dioxide

 

Nobody doubts that CO2 levels have increased – and nobody doubts that some of this increase is man made. After all – we cannot expect to burn all that fuel and not have an effect. But do not forget that all animal life breathes out CO2 and Volcanoes in particular inject huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

But the main point is that CO2 levels have been higher in the past and all that gave us was more lush vegetation.

 

As for the percentage it becomes dangerous then that is about 5%

 

http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

 

So that means that current levels would need to increase 128 TIMES (!) the current level. And with all the Industrial revolution, air transport, 4x4 use and central heating keeping us all cosy, over the last 150 years the level has only gone up by about 20% - from c.0.0325% to 0.039%.

 

The problem is, as I have said in a previous post, that what temperature increase has been seen has been seen from weather stations that have been badly sited or have had urban sprawl grow up around them. There is considerable disquiet that this known problem with the basic data has been “spun” by those whose grant monies depend on the Alarmist hype continuing.

 

The other issue that is more illuminating is that every Computer Model used assumes a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour. Water Vapour is a a far more effective Greenhouse gas per se. And so all models assume that as the CO2 levels rise this causes a runaway greenhouse effect by way of it releasing more water vapour into the atmosphere.

 

However, actual satellite data shows that there is no positive feedback. What feedback there is, is negative. The exact mechanism is not clear but the simplest explanation is that with more water vapour in the atmosphere, more water droplets form, and these in turn form into clouds, and these clouds act as heat shields against the suns rays so that there is actually a self balancing feedback loop that the Computer models ignore.

 

It is thought that this is the reason why temperatures have not actually risen over the last 15 years.

 

As I am what I would call an “old fashioned environmentalist” I despair that so much time money and effort has been wasted on a deeply flawed concept.

 

And when our UK energy bills are circa 25% higher because of a tariff applied to them to pay for subsidies paid to the already wealthy so that they can build windfarms on their land at no cost to them – I wonder just how far this flawed “science” is going to be allowed to go before someone says “Hang on a mo….! – why haven’t the extremist predictions come true over the last 15 years?”

 

If I had to make a prediction, mine would be that the Alarmists have about another four to five years and in that time they have to show uncontrollable Global Warming or their predictions will be seen to be akin to Horoscopes and binned as one of the biggest scams ever.

 

In these last few years – we will, I suspect, see ever more strident and angry rhetoric from those on the Climate Change Bandwagon as they try to force through their agenda.

 

Thankfully, a whistleblower in the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit released a huge chunk of emails in 2009 and this became the ClimateGate debacle which frankly, the Alarmists never recovered from.

 

The latest “Gate” – 28Gate re how some of those with an agenda fooled the BBC is still bouncing around and rumor has it that there are people in Government who are very p*ssed indeed at how biased the advice has been.

 

The Coalition (of which I am not a fan!!) now openly talks about the “Climate Taliban” when dealing with those of a swively eyed rabid green agenda.

 

Which is a shame because we need to treat the planet better. And that to me needs to be via good solid environmental science – not some crackpot idea that CO2 is a poison when without it we could not breathe and plants could not photosynthesise carbohydrates.