17/11/2011 Newsnight

Tonight, armed insurrection in Syria, how close is the country to

outright civil war? President Assad's opponents have

weapons and man power, but are they anything like strong enough to

bring him down. One of the few journalists to operate undercover

in Syria, examines who the Free Syria Army are.

Nearly 200 are arrested as The Oxford Murders Wall Street group

march on New York, what will the movement change? We will hear from

a supporter in New York a former Goldman Sachs banker. After the

insults, accusations and the crass interventions of the FIFA chief. We

examine whether English football really does have a problem with

racism. I had a letter from Crystal Palace, it said we don't want any

black people here, stay away but "N", we have a bullet for you.

Scientists can work out which events are caused by global warming,

and how it could all end up in the courts.

Is Syria on the brink of civil war? After months of Government

oppression, the fightback has started in ernest. The Free Syrian

Army is taking on as an opposition force and means business, and

crucially is able to use military force against President Assad's

forces. Nobody knows about the group, who funds it, who are the

members, and will it be able to overthrow the dictator whose

dynasty has clung on to power in this state for decades. Sue Lloyd-

Roberts is one of the few journalists who has worked

undercover in the country, here is her report.

It had been business as usual in Syria today, demonstrations taking

place throughout the country, the army opening fire, and an ever-

increasing death toll. After the last bloody few days, the number of

dead is now greater than the 3,500 announced by the United Nations

last week. In Homs, the so-called capital of

the revolution, tanks and heavy weapons have continued to bombard

civilian areas. And many have been killed, even after, angry

condemnation from Syria's neighbours and beyond. Since I

reported from Homs four weeks ago, where I was able to mingle freely

with the demonstrators, the situation has deteriorated

dramatically. With the recent new international condemnation, people

are beginning to talk about the beginning of the end of the

Government of Bashar al-Assad. But if that is the case, how will the

regime be toppled? What will take its place? The nature of the

protest has been altered by a now defiant and widespread armed

resistance. The newly formed Free Syrian Army, claim to number

between 10,000-15,000, they post their defections and alleged

victories on YouTube. The odd tank seized from the regular army, and

in their boldest move yet, yesterday an attack on an army

intelligence base near Damascus. They are getting weapons smuggled

in from Lebanon. I put to their leader that daily defections is one

thing, but military experts say they can't make a real impact,

until they get a tank division come over to their side. TRANSLATION:

until now we have only been small groups of defectors from army units,

there hasn't been anything bigger, as you say, because we do not have

a secure area where we can keep tanks. If we had a buffer zone, we

would see defections on a bigger scale. REPORTER: What legitimacy do

you have, the regime would say you are a rebel trait rouse army?

TRANSLATION: It is far as the Syrian people are concerned, the

Syrian regime is the illegitimate one, we earned our legitimacy from

the street and demonstrations. In all demonstrations now you can see

people support the Free Syrian Army. The demonstrations appear to be

increasing in number around the country and they are becoming

bolder and more inclusive. Today we see many more women, students and

children joining the protest. The regime has always claimed that the

big cities, like Damascus, have not so far joined in, in big numbers.

When I spoke to a local opposition leader in Damascus today, she

denied this. Many areas inside Damascus witnessed huge

demonstrations. Many people filled in the places. Every day there is

daily protests in all these areas. Opposition leaders also claim that

the protest is uniting sectarian divisions in Syria. It is not just

the Sunni majority rebelling against President Assad's Alawites

elite. But they say Christians, and Kurds, all want to see the fall of

the regime. That says one Marionite Christian, living in neighbouring

Lebanon, is too simplified a story, there have been sectarian killings

by opposition groups, which bode ill for the future. We are also

witnessing some elements of civil war. You know Sue, and I think you

know we have witnessed many sectarian killings in Syria in the

last few weeks, civilians being killed. Both the regime and the

armed insurgency have carried out executions of civilians. So the

reality is we are seeing the beginning, but yet, if Syria

plunges into a prolonged conflict, there is a, I think, a likelihood,

that this particular armed conflict could take on sectarian and tribal

conotations, and basically spread into neighbouring countries. The

reason why millions of Syrians in Damascus and the areas have not

joined the protests so fashion they fear the morning after, they fear

Syria could go the Iraq and Lebanon way. I'm not the only one saying no

so. Millions of Syrians fear this political struggle could escalate

into all-out civil war. The Free Syrian Army is appealing to the

United Nations for more weapons, and a no-fly zone so they can

operate in it. How long do they give the dictator? TRANSLATION:

give it months, the army is struggling economically, and

soldiers are exhausted after eight months on the streets. That comes

from an army pleading for weapons for what they say could be a quick

solution to a problem that is beginning to frighten the outside

world. The word from the street, and from those living in

neighbouring countries, is that there is no immediate end in sight.

The reality is, I think, now, my take and I hope I am wrong, is that

Syria has reached a point of no return. Joining me now are two

Syrian opposition representatives, speaking for the Syrian National

Council, the leading coalition of Syrian opposition groups, joining

me from Paris, and a founding member of Building The Syrian State,

a separate opposition group. I want to start with you, why do

you remain outside what is seen by many as the best chance that Syria

has now of comprehensively overthrowing the regime? What do

you mean we are still outside? do you remain outside, you know,

the main Syrian National Council, which is seen as the body for doing

that? I think the Syrian opposition map is far more spread and complex

than just one single body in coalition. They are an important

player but not the only player. There are far more important ones

on the ground, inside Syria, those who are playing on the battleground.

These are the groups I support and I work with. I think they have a

better chance to evaluate where the balance of the forces is, and reach

the situation from inside. I respect their views. Their means

are more coming from inside. The solutions they put forward are

coming from inside Syria. We want it to be supported from the outside.

We are happy to work with the SNC, we don't necessarily have to join,

we can work on common plans. Why does the whole Syrian opposition

have to go under one umbrella. does it have to? Go under

unumbrelia, other places have been overthrown without coalitions.

that right you can have disparate groups and separate groups, you

don't need to be a unified opposition at this point? I think

it is a bit unfair to expect that there would be 100% of the

opposition standing together. However, I think the case in Syria

is different from Egypt and Tunisia, because of the complexties of

Syrian society, but also of the regional environment. For that

reason there is much anxiety inside the country and much anxiety among

neighbours, that things could go the wrong way, if the regime were

to go. I think the regime is today, the main responsible for the

direction that the issues, that the situation is taking on the ground,

and if we are speaking of risks of civil war, this is the

responsibility, this has been actively encouraged by the regime.

But we need an opposition, I think this is why we are working on

unifying ranks. We need an opposition that presents the

country, the people, those who are frightened, as well as the outside,

with an alternative. An alternative that says all of these political

groups have come together around one objective. This objective is

the overthrowing of the regime. get to that objective, sorry, is it

necessary to have armed force s that the only way you will do this?

Obviously I think what is happening on the ground is the absence of a

political plan, put forward by a strong, powerful, unified

opposition. This is what needs to be actively done, and this is what

is currently under way. The unification of ranks between the

main groups of the opposition, coming out with one joint objective,

but not only an objective, but also a road map. How to go about doing

that what are the concrete steps to take. What is the way forward for

the end of this regime. Understanding that this common

objective is what the street wants, is what the revolution, forces on

the ground, people on the ground are asking for the end of this

regime, the end of President Bashar al-Assad himself. The objectives

are clearly the same. What about the Free Syrian Army, what position

would they play in this? I can't determine their position.

asking this in the studio? I don't think I can determine their

position. I mean, you know, the army won't listen to me, won't

listen probably to other politicians. They have their own

tools, and means. We are trying to argue for a political process.

However, I would like to follow up on what was argued. I totally agree,

we need a road map to unite around. You promised studies, papers, two

months on, we haven't seen one single political paper issued by

the SNC, if there was something to unite around we could have united

around it. You promised a road map, we haven't heard back from you,

personally we sent e-mails we haven't heard yes and no, how with

can we unite when you don't respond to a discussion about a unified

plan. In the Libyan scenario, there was a clear forward case, there was

a military action, everyone got around that. There isn't a clear

way forward. That is a pretty strong allegation for the Syrian

National Council, that you don't have a game plan or way forward,

and you are not even responding to the kind of communication channels

open to you? The plan was put to me personally and I, as the Syrian

National Council, can cannot respond personally, it has no value

if I put forward a plan. A plan was put forward about three weeks ago

now. A programme and a vision of how to go about the transition

phase and the building of new institutions. There is a vision,

and there is a plan that was put out, and we may not have seen that,

if I can send it to her I will, after we finish this programme.

Just to say this programme was put forward, it obviously take as bit

longer than a small and coherent political group that came together

in Syria, the council is a coalition, do not forget that. The

coalition is all the political forces are there, the Islamists,

the secular, liberals and left- wingers, all of this needs time,

and that vision has now, is now on the table. Thank you very much.

They call themselves the 99 per cent, the protestors who have taken

to call street and attempted to march on the New York Stock

Exchange, calling for an end to the inequality that is seeing bankers,

the 1%, flourish at the expense of the rest of the population. They

have brought the skrisism of rich and poor and say it is getting

wider. Today dozens of Occupy Wall Street were arrested at a rally to

mark two months of demonstrations. The rally comes on the same day,

coincidently, that Northern Rock, the first bank to be nationalised

in Britain, was sold at a loss to the taxpayer of at least �400

million. Our economics editor is with me now. How are we to make

sense of the deal? The deal has to be understood in the context of

what happened on nationalisation. They split Northern Rock into and

good and bad bank. We have a graphic to explain it. The good

bank was sold today, this is the bit that is still trading and has

branches and looks for customers to Virgin Money. For about �1. ...well

it was told for �850 million and another �850 million for details.

The money the Government put into the bank was �1.4 billion, we can

say it is nearly a �400 million loss. The bad bank shows you where

the challenge is. There is about �45 billion of mortgages, these are

mortgages in some way distressed or not great, they didn't want to put

them in a good bit. That is propped up with �20 billion worth of UK

tax-payers' money, that in the last six months we know about to July

had rising arrears, rising danger of default among the mortgage

holders. One can't imagine it has got any better in the last six

months. We will only know what happens to our �20 billion when we

see what happens to the financial crisis. That, as we know, is not

over. It is funny, isn't it, each time we are asked to look ahead, is

there any sense in your mind that this marks the end of what was

started in 2007? We both covered that day, that Northern Rock went

bust, if you remember the people in the queues. Think about it, they

had seven years of rising house prices, they had four years of

rising stock markets, and that sounds like a reasonably long time

to get into the mind set of what can go wrong. We have now had four

years since Northern Rock went bust, we have had four unrelenting years

of crisis, what we know from every headline we see is it is not over.

We are expecting further trouble in the European banks, we are

expecting trouble in the European sovereign debt market. We are

expecting, there is a danger, let's not say expecting, there is a

danger that the world will stagnate, or parts of it go once again into

recession. This forms the context of what we are now seeing, which is

not queues of happyish but resigned people outside busted banks, but

what we are about to see. Which is, just coincidently, a whole bunch of

iconic images of protest that happened today that I think are

becoming the signature tune of 2011. If these were images from some

forlorn revolution, in some snaul small forgotten state, they would

be striking enough. But this was Portland Oregon today, and this

downtown Los Angeles, and on Wall Street, where the US protest

movement began, anger. Move, move! The Oxford Murders Wall Street

protestors marched on Wall Street, blocked the financial district, and

clashed with the police. A few on- looking bankers unimpressed. The

Twittersphere exploded, peoples per second dropping news, views and

accusations, too fast to follow. To an audience across the world, the

message behind it all, defiant. They can take the park, they can

arrest people, but they can't arrest an idea. But what is the

idea? The protestors have refused to engage with the game of

political programmes and demands. They have focused on grievances

against banks, against inequality, against the 1%. Now, those in power

are listening. This, the Senate Majority Leader. We know all that

has been said about the 1 how well they have been doing. -- 1%, how

well they are doing. The percentage in wealth in America for them has

gone up 300%. In Britain it is less spectacular, but what the

protestors at St Paul's share with counterparts in New York, is a

refusal to articulate political programmes and demands. A refusal

to confront power on power's terms. Tonight the Cathedral authorities

resumed court action to evict the protest, after a two-week legal

truce broke down. The scenes in Athens tonight, the anniversary of

the revolution that overthrew the military junta in 1973, had, for

some, echos of 1973. This in Madrid, where on the eve of an election,

tens of thousands of students marches against education cuts.

These are becoming the symbolic images of 2011. If we thought it

had begun in Tunis, and ended in Tripoli, we thought wrong.

Joining me now from New York is the journalist and activist, Laurie

Penny, she was out on the streets today, with The Oxford Murders

protestors. Joining me in the studio was Richard Sharp, a former

partner at Goldman Sachs, one of four City figures recruited last

year by George Osborne to consult on options for reducing the public

deficit. Richard Sharp, you visited both these movements, you must be

pretty impressed with how they have managed to influence mainstream

politics now, aren't you? Well, I was actually disappointed with the

demonstrations themselves, in some way. Because there is a generation

which does have to care deeply about their future, which is being

damaged by the activities of the last 15 years, of Governments and

commerce. It has left a legacy of debt and problems that they are

experiencing, in seeking employment, and facing a future where they will

have to repay the debts associated with expenditure, for which they

got no benefit. What are you saying, they are doing the right thing

protesting, surely? I thought the demonstrations certainly in New

York was, for my mind, at that time, this is only ten days ago, was

chaotic and glass sid. It was a tourist - glass sid, it was a

tourist spectacle more than protesters. The points made were

trivial, there are substantive points but they were not made when

I was there. What do you make of that, a demonstration that was

chaotic and flaccid? That may have been the scene a dau days ago, but

after the eviction of Occupy Wall Street on Tuesday nationwide. The

energy has been galvanised again, there were thousands on the streets

today. A lot of angry chanting. Banks got bailed out, we got sold

out. I saw people on the streets being violently arrested, a lot of

anger. There was certainly energy, and not only broad and sweeping

ideas for social change, not unified ideas, certainly, but there

was also a wonderful moment which I hope someone has captured on camera,

where people sat down in the middle of one of the occupied streets and

started sharing stories. One woman saying her home had been

repossessed, and another public school teacher saying all her

students' parents were unemployed. Students, families, workers,

everyone coming together to share their stories. This is really what

the day has been about, partly. I want to make it clear it wasn't

just scenes of violence and of police brutality on the streets.

There was also a lot of hope. A lot of joyful defiance, which I think

is one of the very important things. What do you make of the fact, then,

that despite this joyful defiance, as you put it, broadly there is

less public sympathy for you as the protests go on. People are losing

faith in you, and finding the demonstrations annoying? 35% of the

American public still support The Oxford Murders Wall Street movement,

and The Oxford Murders movement. I find it rather disheartening that

after about a year of -- the Occupy movement, and find it rather

disheartening that you, as a journalist, find it nothing more

than an annoyance, this is more than a generation trying to turn

around and refigure politics, after having been told all their lives

that there is nothing to do to confront capitalism. Broadly, they

have managed to bring wealth inequality to the top of the agenda,

they have properly spooked President Obama, they have made

David Cameron take a very strong stance on bankers' bonuses here.

Angela Merkel's talking about the Tobin tax. It doesn't sound that

chaotic when you look at how the politicians around the world are

responding? Look, we're facing a global economic crisis, that some

leading Central Bankers have called unprecedented. What is remarkable

is that you have these tiny pockets of people, where it hasn't gathered

more momentum, given some of the real pep pep pri vaigs associated

with unemployment d deprivation associated with unemployment and

the crisis. What would you like to see them doing? There are multiple

problems. First of all, the leadership is distributed and not

apparent at all. They have damaged their cause by making the cleaning

up of the park, and the behaviour that has taken place a bigger story

than their objectives. What they have talked about is what they are

against, but not what they are for Let's put that to Laurie Penny,

what would you like to see changed, in terms of concrete policies, what

are you for? I can't speak for The Oxford Murders movement as a whole.

I'm just -- the Occupy movement as a whole. I'm just an individual

associated with the movement. A lot of the movement is for change. In

Wall Street, for example, many of the people down on the streets are

people who spent a lot of their young lives voting and working for

the Obama campaign, these were people promised change at the hands

of left-wing politicians, or centre left politicians, and now they are

seeing that change is something you have to stand up and take for

yourselves. Because politicians, at the moment, they don't see that

they are going to deliver it. does that mean, does that mean they

want a change to the change Obama promise, they are anti-Obama, or

anti-capitalism, what does it mean in defining, tangible terms? Well,

there are some people down there, for example, who want to see a

return of the certain acts there are some people who want to impose

a very limited tax on the wealthy. Some people are asking for

revolutionary change, some people are asking just for a little bit

oflyway, little leeway, and asking that we don't have to pay for the

financial recklessness of the superrich. I don't think that is a

big thing to ask. One of the reasons you are not hearing an

answer, is because this is, in some sense, in a positive way, a -- an

argument of the left. The real problem they have is the target

should be socialism, in other words, it should be Governments that spent

money they didn't have, that...That Is absolute nonsense, excuse me,

that is absolute nonsense. We have a massive deficit across the world

because of a financial crisis that occurred three years ago and was

building up for many years, it was not overspending, we don't have

debt because of the public sector, we don't have debt because we spent

too much on public services. We have debt because the superrich and

the banks were allowed to run rampent with public money that

didn't really exist creating bad debts, this is basic check

economics. Both of you, the debts of Government are Government debts.

What we're talking about is politicians, in seeking popularity,

spending money that they didn't have. Part of that debt is bailing

out the banks during the crisis? The debts of Government are

Government debts. Having false accounting themselves from the

Government. Let's just hear Richard's point. We have seen that

right across Europe. The scale of the debt that the Governments

occurred -- incurred to gain popularity did two things, a stock

of debt the Governments have to repay which they are afraid they

can't. Secondly, this is most important, it damaged the private

sector at a time when we have global competition. Germany has no

problem right now. Germany has full employment. You said they bought

the popularity, that was what their debt was spent on. The debt was

spent, surely, partly, on saving the financial sector from complete

collapse in the Liamman years? -- Lehman years? That is part of it,

but what you had was an irresponsible politicians,

responsible for the debt, Ed Milliband, talking about the need

for responsible capitalism. The Governments have to face up to

their irresponsibility. This is complete non-sen, you are talking

in a local context about a financial crisis that is global. I

can't believe a former banker is sitting here and telling me,

peddling out this Tory line that this is the Labour Government's

problem. I'm no fan of the Labour Government. Greece, Portugal,

Ireland, Spain, France Italy. is nonsense. This is no way to talk

about a financial crisis. The banks are kidding themselves if they

think we are fooled. Silvio Berlusconi may be gone, but

his buffoons gaffe-laden spirit would seem to live on in the form

of FIFA head, Sepp Blatter, his latest salvo, that racism on the

football pitch could be settled by a good-natureed handshake, has been

met with ridicule and calls for his resignation, tonight even from

David Cameron. His words have once again re-opened the debate on

racism in football. As two English players phase accusations of racism

towards fellow players. We ask tonight if the game, while being

mull national and multirationale, does it still have a problem. How

racist is football, in England the game isn't what it was. For that we

should all be grateful. There is no doubt football has changed since

the noxious 1970s and 1980. Football Association has agreed to

investigate charges that racialist groups are using the terraces of

some league clubs as a recruiting ground. Back then English crowds

delighted in jeering black players, and the banter carried a vicious

edge. Here we are in the dwindling days of 2011 and England's captain

is captured on camera, now all over the Internet, oh aye what's that

then parently calling an opponenting an "f-ing black ". John

Terry denies racism, he says the words he used were "I never called

you an F-ing black and all the rest", he says the denying was

hidden by a colleague walking in front of the lens.

Mark Bright is a former player who says he's shocked by the

allegations against John Terry, because football has been

transformed in the last 20 years. But racism still rears up in

certain contexts. It is still there, it is still there. It has been

suppressed, I think, the social networking sites now are, the boys

are on that, the black guys, they say things, it is racist abuse that

comes back, not abuse, not banter, racist abuse, from Stan Collymore,

Rio Ferdinand, and others, the police are investigating those

things. That may say more about internet trolls than football.

Racists have had to move on-line, because they have largely lost the

forum of the English football crowd. What happened? The stereotype of

the unintelligent and lazy black footballer was undermined bit

performances on the pitch, by outstanding players like John

Barnes, and others, I think also football took a very strong,

hardline stand against racism. It was policed by the stew wards, the

fans took ownership of it to a certain extent. Over time, this

particular approach reaped dividends. Iconic figures within

football stood up and said this is an absurd ideology, something we

hate and disagree with. Slowly and surely the culture within football

has changed. The situation today is far superior, unimagineably so to

what it was 20 or 30 years ago. sophistication heralded by foreign

imports, has just introduced a new problem. Luis Suarez, a brilliant

arrival from Euro-guy, has been charged with the FA for racially

abusing a Patrice Evra, he says he called him Nig rito, but says in

Spanish it is a term of endearment. The FA, who struggle with the

offside trap, must determine linguistic nuance and intent. Sepp

Blatter is apparently blind to such subtlies, his comment that racism

taunts should be finished with post match handshakes. He says he's

misunderstood. Rio Ferdinand, brother of the one of the victims

John Barnes fought the good fight, winning major victories in the

1980s, his talent and charm killed off racism in the Liverpool crowd,

and shamed others. It was Barnes, who disDanefully backhealed a

banana. I was playing for Liverpool against Everton, that is an iconic

image, obviously from a negative point of view. I had experienced it

years before, at West Ham, Millwall, because it wasn't a high-profile

incident nothing was made of it. Any black player in the 1980s,

would have been through that. Bright, knows about the bad old

days. I had a letter, they don't want any black Bs here, and there

is a bullet for you. I kept the letter, and I thought look at the

attitude of the people it is out there. You didn't go to Everton?

didn't go to Everton for because of the letter, but going there as the

first black player, it wasn't successful for enough for me to go.

For all the allegations and the mess of Mr Blatter, times have

changed. Watch this from 1984. John Barnes was a star at Cup Finalists

Watford. Because # No woman no cry. Michael Barrymore on a BBC preview,

played his own tribute, blacked up. No trouble? # One love

# Let's get together # And feel all right

I'm feeling fine. Back then we supposedly all fell about

laughinger or not? The tactics all done. We have tack ti, what I do if

the Everton player comes towards me, hello, me Watford, then me go, we

take the ball and we go like this. Peter Marshall with that report.

This November, they tell us, is on track for being the warmest on

record for some 350 years. Chance to become the stuff of cliche,

every time the weather does something odd, we point to climate

change as the explanation. How realistic is that. Tomorrow the

UN's Panel on Climate Change is expected to claim it believes man

made emissions are making storms, floods and droubgts more likely.

Scientists believe they are getting better at working out the effects

of climate change, and some can pinpoint which freak weather events

are caused by global warming and which ones aren't.

It is one of the hottest topics in climate science. Can humans be

deemed to blame for extreme weather events. Such as last year's heat

wave in Russia, or the floods that have hit the UK in recent decades.

And whenever we hear news of people who have lost their lives, or their

homes, after a disastrous weather event, a flood, hurricane or fires

from heat wave, it is the question that sooner or later everyone asks,

was it climate change or not? As London basks in a glorious mild

autumn. November looks to be one of the warmest on record. It is not

extreme weather event, but it is unusual. What-to-what extent can we

pin this on human-induced climate change. We have had a unique record

in the UK, that goes back to the 17th century. We can see there has

been a general warming of a degree Celsius. We can relay that to the

increasing odds of something like a mild autumn. When we do that we can

make the inference that it looks likely that there is an increased

chance of having a very mild autumn. Heatwaves like Europe's in 2003,

and Russia last year, have increased since 1950. They are now

expected to occur once every 20 years, rather than once a century.

Scientists are increasingly confident these are made more

likely by human-induced climate change. Extreme rainfall and floods,

like those in the UK, in recent decades and drougts in the Tropics

and sub tropics, have become more common since the 50s and 70s. On

both, local land shape and conditions, make it less clear cut

for scientists to link these to human activities. Storms are the

most difficult to attribute directly to people. They involve

complicated wind patterns. So, is it time to call in the lawyers?

Some feel there is potential here for legal action against energy

companies over damage caused by extreme weather. There is

litigation in the states. It has had a checkered history. My own

view is that in this country and Europe, it is not a realistic

prospect in the short-term future, but if we get a failure to have

international regulation, and if there is a continued large scale

emission by groups of companies in the knowledge of the likely

consequence, I think it is very possible in the medium or long-term.

The scientific debate over the Russian fires, shows how views on

the impact of human activities can differ. One paper, from a America,

concluded that the record-breaking temperatures were due mainly to

natural vairability, a stationary high pressure system. But in

October, a second study, from Germany, concluded there is an 80%

chance that the heatwave would not have occurred without human-induced

climate change. Some scientists think it is the interplay between

the two where the real answers are. The IPCC report is expected to say

nor for the next decade or two there will be uncertainty. The

effects we will be all having is small compared with natural

variability. If we carry on as we are, as the century progresses, it

is thought the human effects will be easier to spot. Because of our

understanding in terms of how the general climate system is changing,

we can start to develop reliable results about how our risk to

extreme climate change has changed, even before the signal has emerged

so clearly that it is utterly indisputable. Some scientists are

unhappy the -- with the approach. Different models produce different

results. It focuses on the meteorological hazarz, the heatwave

or extreme rainfall, rather than on the damages. For example, lives

lost, or costs in pounds. Such critics fear that if at tribbuegs

like this goes ahead, funding -- at tribbuegs goes ahead, funding won't

be at the core. This suggests we should increase the funding side of

things, but societies across the world are being exposed to human

and natural occuring extreme weather events. Because of that it

would create a problem, It would only fund the human-induced part of

extreme weather events. These scientists asked why bother trying

to disenhangle human effects from natural varietyability, better,

they say, to put -- vair ability, better, they say, to making sure

that people everywhere can adapt to surviving the extreme coming their

way. Our guests are with us. Professor Allen, are you able to

say with more clarity, whether extreme weather events are caused

by climate change, would you allocate resources as a result of

what you know? The crucial point to understand, when we talk about

extreme weather caused by climate changement we are not seeing

weather events that simply could not have happened without climate

change. A good analogy is given by this dice, if I role the dice here,

and I get a five, I role it again, and I get a, it is not working, it

never works live. That is fantastic. This is a loaded dice, not working

to its potential. It is coming up sixes. Let's leave that. We are

trying to, what we're doing is qantfying how much the weather --

quantifying how much weather is occurring. You saw a sequence in

the dice, it is the way it works with the weather. It is not that

easy, but we are seeing that the weather dice being loaded towards

certain events happening. Do you think your climate science is more

accurate than the rolling of the dice you have just had, that is

fundamental, isn't it? The point we're saying is we are starting to

learn how to do this. It is not that we know exactly how to do it

for every weather event in the world. What we can say is for

certain weather veepbts, the obvious ones, we can say how the

odds on the weather events have changed. That is what the new

science of probableistic attribution is all about. That

becomes crucial, doesn't it, if you are starting to see the science

help to prove that certain extreme weather conditions are as a result

of man made climate change, you have to act on that? That is where

the problem lies. I'm all for looking at the human system. When

Myles and his friend say this could help the adaptation of resources

around the world, that is when I get particularly worried. What he's

doing is not understanding the nature of the adaptation process,

by trying to suggest that we have what we might call tough luck

weather, and human weather, and these are separate catagories, we

need to adapt the human cause weather, but not the tough luck

weather, that is failing to understand adaptation is actually

the same whether human caused or not. You are saying the science

isn't up to it, bluntly? I'm saying it is far too premature to be

trailing this as a way of informing adaptation decisions around the

world today. What is needed is investment in daiptation to improve

the adaptive xapsity of those communities most at -- capacity of

those communities at risk. You are not there yet? We're not there for

every weather event. But, if you are living in an African village

and being affected by storms, it is obviously making sense to invest in

defences against those storms. But, nobody is suggesting that whether

or not those storms are caused and the risk of storms is increased by

the human causes, and you need to put up defences against them, but

it is highly interesting who pays the bill. We have given resources

to poor countries, not very many, to help them deal with the

unfortunate consequences of bad weather. You are prepared to go to

Governments on the strength of what you know at this point, and say

they should be giving more money because of X or Y? We are not

saying. That we are saying people deserve to know. If certain weather

events are being made more likely by human influence on climate, it

changes the nature of the question. We used to give money to help

people affected by bad weather as a matter of son shepbs, however if it

is our actions making the weather worse, it is not a matter of

conscience, it is a matter of justice. That has to be right, if

we know something, if we are using the science, there is a political

responsibility that comes with that? He's promoting this as way of

introducing evidence-based policy into adaptation. Actually we have

very, very well assessed evidence that we know whether extremes cause

the greatest damage, the greatest loss of life, the greatest dangers

to those people who have least capacity to adapt to those weather

risks. That is very clear and unequivocal evidence. That is what

should be driving our adaptation policy, our adaptation funding, not

a scientific methodology, that is still emergent, biased towards

those weather extremes happening in the high latitudes rather than the

Tropics where it is needed. Thank you very much for coming in.

Before we go let me take you there the front pages of tomorrow's

papers. The Independent has a global look at the economic prots

That's all from Newsnight and the team tonight, from all of us here,

Reasonable weekend coming up. Wet for some, sunny for others. Quite a

lot of variety across the UK. On Friday's chart the best of the

sunshine will be across England and Wales. Certainly through mid-

afternoon, it should feel very pleasant through the heart of

northern England, there will be a breeze, but not too strong.

Temperatures up in the mid-teens, yet again, it should not feel like

the middle of November. Fine for most of central and southern

England, even across the south west. Starting off cloudy, damp, things

will perk up through the afternoon. With some sunshine around. It will

be blustery towards western coasts and hills. The same can be said for

Wales. Dampness to start the day, but brings cheering up by the

afternoon. Brightness for Belfast. Most of northern staying cloudy

with the threat of rain across more western areas. For Scotland, parts

of the southern Highlands, a lot of rain. Inbetween, calt bout and

north-east of the Highlands it should be dryer and brighter. To

the weekend a lot of dry weather, this is for more northern parts of

UK, the threat is from rain in Belfast. Further south, largely dry,

the cloud will come and go, in any sunshine it will feel pleasant.

Temperatures nudging into the low to mid-teens. This is Saturday's