Yesterday I went to listen to Sir Nicholas Stern at the Examination Schools. Of the many topics he could have been asked to discuss, climate change was the one he finally settled on. He made a very succinct presentation of his findings in the Report, and with the benefit of four months outside scrutiny, also made a considered defence against the criticisms he has faced since last November. (Herein we get all technical) He talked about the probability distributions the team used is assessing how certain levels of carbon in the atmosphere translate to temperature changes.

At 450 ppm CO2e, just above te current level, there is a 50% chance of temperatures increasing by more than 1.5°C, while at 550 ppm CO2e, there is a 50% chance of temperatures increasing by more than 3°C. Both predictions had a 95% confidence band of about 5°C. The distributions they used are by no means the most conservative, but are similarly not the most outlandish. Also, his assumptions close, and possibly slightly more conservative than the most recent IPCC report predictions. (That wasn't too bad, was it?)

Basically, I was impressed and left feeling the doubters are the ones that need to prove themselves now.

Plus, he discussed the reasons people may not want to act: 1. don't believe the science; 2. believe we will be able to adapt when it happens; 3. don't care about the future. These, he said, were 1. absurd 2. reckless and 3. unethical. Plus, he did manage to get one little dig in: he said there are many top scientists who aren't convinced climate change is a man-made phenomena. Nigel Lawson, for example.

Watched a Chris Rock DVD today (Bigger and Blacker). I really love Chris Rock shows. For a start the audiences he has (predominantly black) make each show seem like an event: jumping up and shouting approval and applauding and literally rolling in the aisles. Its more like a healing than a standup gig. Add to that the fact that Chris Rock is a very talented comedian, and one of the best social critics that isn't dead. He courts controversy (almost daring the audience to disagree with him), but not in the way that's only purpose is to see how far you can go. He, moreso than any other "Blacks guys are like this, but white guys are doing this" comics of the 1990s, is the heir to Richard Pryor. There's a point of view and an honesty and an inelligence that stands out a lot more than the actual material and style.

I still need to track down Bring the Pain. "Black people and niggas" is still one of my top five standup routines. Check it.

Went to see some modern art at a suitably titled gallery last Friday. The main exhibit is by a abstract artist called Callum Innes. I liked looking at his paintings, which he achieves by repeated painting and paint removal. The Exposed series especially are very striking when together, as one kind of evoles into the next.

I'd probably go and have another wander around in the next week or so, and then the artist himself is coming to discuss his work on March 8th. I'd like to know more about his paintings than just what they look like, but without reading some critic who uses the phrases like "representing isolation of the self".

Amongst the many things I like to do during my day, trawling through the BBC News page for something to be annoyed at ranks pretty high. I especially like the Have Your Say page as a good starting point for any prospective bout of humanity-doubt.

"I'm not a racist/homophobe/cello player but its about time the silent majority stood up to these brown folk/perverts/bassoon players and said enough is enough and it's time that we returned to the good old fashioned values of segregation/public floggings/string quartets." And why is it the "silent majority" are always about so quiet as to resemble, in fact, a regular-volumed minority? How do they manage that? Do they have to meet up to practice it?

Sometimes, however, you manage to find so many reasons to want a species-change within the main pages. I am aware the Stern report is in all likelihood the very worst case scenario. I sleep easier at night someone is making the worse case scenario public knowledge. That way, we can decide whether the very worst thing possible is something we all want to risk.

That said, how is it possible that anyone can still express doubts about who it was what did all that planet burnin'? And how is the argument that the costs right now may be too high to pay a good one? Are we to expect a discount later on, maybe when we've found an a second planet in the country that needs a bit of work? That would be like a Chancellor who just threw money to people in the streets because the costs of cutting back now outweight the three year recession that will follow? Oh wait, he did that too.

My favourite part of all of this is the reminder to the world that Tories are no longer relevant. The only way to make yourself a relevant conservative is to be a Conservative For Change. It's over. It's time to go home.