Ringwraith

And China have an aircraft carrier now.... with a few more under construction. And they launched the first module of their own space station into space yesterday.... And erm.... sorry for my previous rants on this thread :-} And they can shoot down orbiting satellites, although much more of that and it will seriously hinder their lunar / space station ambitions!

Conspiracy Theory Global Warming with Jesse Ventura http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOYwur6T6tc Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138 CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made: ** EXPRESS NEWS: 100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL** 1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. 11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago 12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds 13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”. 14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions 15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity” 16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. 17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood. 18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control 19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. 20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates 21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. 22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades 23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries 24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder 25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research 26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles 27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. 28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population 29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago 30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles 31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming 32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures 33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere 34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere 35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything 36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes 37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases” 38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC 39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally 40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms 41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful 42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical 43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests 44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years 45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations 47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all. 48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change 49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions. 50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report. 51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required. 52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates” 53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans. 54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot 55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting. 57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.” 58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country. 59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines. 60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years. 62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. 63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural. 64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn. 65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive. 66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. 68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events. 69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly. 70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.” 71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure. 72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead. 74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions. 75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes. 76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years. 77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism. 78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years. 79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun). 80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns. 81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data. 82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year. 83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. 84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes. 85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change. 86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water. 87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times. 88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. 89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life. 90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. 91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. 92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). 93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen. 94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal. 95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic. 96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. 96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. 97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon. 98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.” 99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” 100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...iar-wedges.html Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Gore cancels climate conference event Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/d...nce-copenhagen/

Here’s more on Holdren’s book ‘Ecoscience’ (Holdren is now Obama’s Director of Science and Technology Policy, in case you haven’t heard of him) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21...ulation-growth/ "The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe. The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people." As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates. Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile." Oh and look at this "To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty." But don’t worry because "Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said. As Slim points out above, we must understand that such ideas have to be aired and considered – before being dismissed (of course)!

Stifle free thinking! Keep digging Slimy, you total nutcase! No I don't think ideas like nuking France and forced sterilization should be aired and considered as a means to control overpopulation - as you have advocated. Most sane people would know that such ideas are so crazy there is no reason to dicuss them before rejecting them, but you crack on pal.

This is typical of your approach. Holdren didn't say that at all. It's lifted from a 1977 textbook that he co-authored with two other people. In it, they talk about overpopulation and float possible ways it might be dealt with, the same way we might discuss nuking france as a solution to population control here, and then dismiss it. You understand that ideas have to be aired and considered, right? His response pretty much sums the whole thing up quite well: "Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake." The other author said: "We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" Typical of my approach? Did I write the article, did I co-author Ecoscience? Nuking France and forced sterilization to control overpopulation are things that need to be aired and considered are they! Only you could defend eugenics Slimy.

Holdren could well be involved in Climategate, so he would say that wouldn't he? http://www.examiner.com/x-20909-Columbia-I...ategate-scandal Sounds like a really nice guy huh?

At the point where people have started arguing in circles with no clear end in sight. I think it's interesting that in a post which highlights the outlandish nature of your claims, the only thing you choose to reply to is a bland and pointless semantic question. You strike me as someone who only holds an opinion because it was given to him. You must have missed the other part of my reply then, you strike me as someone who can't read.

Woosh! No, I saw what he did there, I was referring to what Dr_Dave said here What point, Page 16 of a thread or what? Don't you feel guilty about your whoosh post Slimy, you just burnt through some more fossil fuels typing that out, shouldn't you be off flagellating yourself with some organically grown birch twigs or something?

What point is this then Dr_Dave? I think it's fair to say that any government will impose taxes on people wherever and whenever they can, especially if they have a good story to back themselves up with. I think it's also fair to say that western governments are increasingly intruding on peoples lives, hell Slimy's even offered to become the car monitor for the Island. Climate change has always occured, glaciers have always grown and receded, and yes it looks as though some of the climate scientists have been lying, twisting, leaning on journal editors, dumping data etc., etc and now there will be an inquiry into that to find out exactly what's been going on. Perhaps you should be out planting trees all day long instead of posting on a local forum if you're that concerend about AGW?

Yes, why not. How about all car trips under 1 mile are wasted? I'm happy to give an opinion here rather than deride others you see. Taxes? What taxes, specifically? What green taxes exist today? Hydrocarbons have more tax and duty than practically anything else, why, if the only objective is to raise taxes, would the government want us to reduce hydrocarbon consumption? As for the cash injected into the banks, yep, I agree, it's mental that we should be investing into our future and not bailing out the dickheads of the past. But that was an unexpected occurance, not something that was budgetted and planned for. Homeowners are given grants to install insulation, solar panels and wind turbines. I've got kerbside recycling. I think general advocacy is important, and I enjoy it. I'm not patient, popular or charismatic enough for politics! Besides, it's boring as fek. You're not prepared to engage the politicians but are prepared to don your facist cap and tell people when and where they can drive their cars, just about sums you up eh Slimy! Wait and see on the taxes, see what comes out of Copenhagen. The bail out cash did include money for green energy, it could have been more though. My point was that if governments are so convcinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they just print more money for green energy. I mean what's a financial collapse compared to 'climate chaos'? Again if the issue is so pressing why aren't all homes just given the cash to cut their energy loss?

And who's going to define 'wasted trips' - you? Taxes! Governments aorund the world have just injected billions if not trillions into their economies via 'bail out' packages, if they are so convinced and concerned about AGW why didn't they use more of that cash for green technologies? Why didn't they give all homeowners rebates to install insulation, solar panels, wind turbines etc, etc? Action like that would have helped wouldn't it, and would have stimulated manufacturing and they could have clawed some of it back through sales / company tax. You seem extremely passionate about these issues, but apart from bleat on the net about it what have you done locally? Why don't you lobby Tynwald for Island wide kerbside recycling, or whatever else it is you want? Surely that would be a better use of your time wouldn't it? If you're so convinced you can prove what it is you believe in it should be very easy for you, and if you're successful, I'm sure you'll get a great deal of satisfaction and sense of fulfillment from it. Who knows, as the details of the inquiry have not yet been decided upon who can say how far reaching it will be?

Oh yes, I remember now, you just want to tax people by the mile don't you. That quote is pure scaremongering. And yes I'll wait for the inquiry results, and see just how far they go. You cannot say that they won't spread to other AGW theory institutions because they may well do just that.

I thought you were all for ideas like that, myabe not quite as drastic as that though. I'll wait for the results of the various inquiries before forming an opinion on the AGW theory, maybe you should too.

What do you think about comment 10 by 'danny bee' from your link Slimy, would you agree with it? I hate to say this, but the world needs to stop all car and plane transport right NOW, for a one year test run. To see if we can survive without these co2 machines……the UN should declare a global emergency NOW and ask all member nations to stop all vehicular and plane traffic NOW. For a one year period, and then get together and see what the results are. We are in a major major emergency, and most media are worring about Paris Hilton and Becks. Who cares? Barry Bonds and A-Rod, not important. The Planet is in DIRE DIRE straights….

Really Slimy, so 'Urgh' is a term of endearment for you is it? I'll say it again, I'll post what I like on the subject whether you like it or not.

Sorry Vinnie, it just seemed appropriate after your 'poor me' - we're just all poor, honest, scientists guv' crybaby story.

For a start people may not have seen it, and might want to read it. And as I've said before I'll post what I want on the subject, no matter how much you don't like it, or bitch about it, here's another one for you - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...nravelling-now/

Urgh, Mockton again. What does that add to the discussion Ringy? Why don't you just read it Slimy, and then maybe you can refute it? 'Urgh', doesn't really do it does it, and certainly doesn't 'add to the discussion' as you put it. But then that's your usual argument against something you don't like isn't it?

CLIMATEGATE: CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED! COLD FACTS ABOUT THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AFTER THE CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...e%20Scandal.pdf

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/...enews/CRUupdate

I guess any inquiry should be an independent public inquiry, run by someone whom both camps trust and respect, and who would be suitably qualified to judge the material involved, would that be fair? As for peer review improvements I guess work should continue in removing bias from the process, in whatever form it may take.

I would hope that any inquiry would be truly independent, and would answer any questions of the CRU scientists raised recently. If that then led to a wider inquiry that too would be welcome. I'm not really that concerned what you think of my posting style either, I'll post what I want as long as I don't break the board rules.