On Sep 7, 1:57*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

I thought Lilley's stance was ridiculous, slavishly sticking to the
IPCC report.

It was rather funny that he couldn't even remember whether it was IPC,
IPPC or ICP but then insisted he knew more science than Peter Wadhams.

The only sensible thing he raised was the issue of subsidies for
things like wind farms.

I was hoping that he was going to demonstrate in what ways the Stern
Report was wrong instead he just went into an incoherent ramble about
why we can't do anything about AGW and should not try. There is a real
limit to what we can sensibly do to ameliorate climate change but he
didn't address that issue at all.

The one good thing that did come out of it was that Lilley looked
absolutely ridiculous just like the right wing dinosaur he is.

And he concedes that climate change is happening it is just that his
position is "eat drink and be merry because .... the kids can pick up
the tab tomorrow". You can substitute a more alarmist ending to taste.

I can't say I was impressed with the Green Party leader either.
She would have us all living as hair shirted subsistence farming
troglodytes given half a chance.

You want it both ways.

Paxman was content to fold his arms and let the parties fly at each
other. Once he had netted the MP he was on safe ground. Of course the
MP should have known it wasn't going to be about what he was informed
it was going to be about.

Not that I know anything about the IPCC report.

I gather he was well informed on that.
But it is just statistics whoever is saying whatever.
We don't know why the ice is melting.

With low pressure systems and a flood of river water on the surface
any ice would soon melt. The currents tend to take it towards North
America where it tends to drain (preferentially) via the Davis
Straight.