Terse

Life is too short to read all that - and definitely too short to read the shite that the Express publishes. (Have they managed to put Al Gore in the frame for Diana's death yet?)

Not a criticism of climate change - just a warning that no one should ever trust a politician! CLICK

A detailed response: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...in-new-clothes/ It's interesting stuff, I think alternative theories from respected figures like this are worth taking seriously and investigating, and there are groups that are attempting to validate this work. Even if the theories are correct, which isn't conclusive, it doesn't deny there's warming it's just challenging the source. Atmospheric carbon reduction is still a worthy goal even if he's correct. Thanks for a considered reply, Slim. I can't help feeling that public support for reducing carbon emissions would be much improved if the doomsday scenario was a little less pronounced, and alternative theories were at least given reasonable consideration rather than simply being rejected out of hand. Just my personal opinion.

One of the 'Minority'

But which member of the G8, the Commonwealth and the Kyoto group of industrialised countries has jumped off? Which country was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%? For those who aren't sure, have a guess before you CLICK HERE.

I have never made any such suggestion. Your research methods are clearly suspect!

My view (I don't really liked being lumped in with Ringwraith or, for that matter, anyone else). As a lay person who has little understanding of science (and even less desire to learn about a discipline that I consider far inferior to the arts), I see a large group of accomplished and well-regarded scientists telling the great unwashed that desparate days are ahead. They insist that, unless we mend our ways (sorry if that sounds a bit biblical, but science has become a new religion to some), our planet - or at least our species - will be doomed. I also find (having trawled the Internet with an open mind rather than a somewhat touching faith in what is being preached), that there is at least an equally large group of accomplished and well-regarded scientists telling the great unwashed that it's all a load of bollocks - that it's all (or mostly all) down to the forces of the universe and the cycles of nature. In between, I find another group of scientists who say that it's not as bad as the first lot claim, but considerately worse than the second view. I find the accusation of obscurantism quite offensive, either whether its meant as 'opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge' or a 'deliberate obscurity or evasion of clarity.' Indeed, the other definition I found - 'A policy of withholding information from the public' actually seems more easily applicable to people in East Anglia. I should also be honest enough to add that I frequently find the patronising attitude of some members of the scientific community does little to make me care about their findings or their warnings - its as if we're all supposed to ignore the fact that scientific and technological progress is exactly what's brought us to the present state of affairs.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (N.B. that it is an incomplete list) Science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. The greatest scientists in history are great because they broke with the consensus.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Ah! I see. Science is not as exact as Arts.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but that is a question that I would certainly wish to ask. The only research I've undertaken has been in the field of history - where preservation of original data is considered paramount.

TIMES LINK Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said Is this carelessness? Or is this simply the arrogance of scientists who, having examined data, cannot conceive that anyone else might wish to do so? Whatever the answer, the fact is that public confidence in the scientific institutions is bound to be reduced by such things.

For a simplified version of what Climategate is all about click HERE There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand. The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports. This may be 'only' an opinion piece, but it puts the whole scandal into layman's terms.

It's time the scientists made an effort to understand that the opposition is by no means all political. The ordinary man in the street has become sick of listening to voices of authority - churches, then politicians and now scientists - telling him that he is responsible for all the world's ills. Like the early church they use terminology that most people don't understand, often with a lofty air of superiority that turns people away from listening. We are not scientists! We do not want to be scientists! If there is a problem, explain it to us in simple terms that we can understand and then tell us what the governments, the industries and the scientists themselves - who are the truly culpable ones - are going to do about sorting it out. Because, quite simply, the more they preach the less we'll listen. If they can't understand that then their much-vaunted intelligence is a myth.

Don't forget the logo

Resurrected thread to invite comments on CLIMATEGATE

2012 - saw it tonight. Special effects & graphics 8/10 Acting 4/10 Storyline 1/10 Ending -5/10 Product placement 560/10

Dump Truck

Britain used to be an Empire with an Emperor at the top... Then it became a Kingdom with a King at the top.... Now it's a country.

If you think Muslims sometimes take a blinkered view of things, just read THIS ...and weep.

Super advert starring