Craig. Is this a topic which you would ever change your mind on?

I would change my mind on anything given physical evidence I was wrong. But the physical evidence of man's historic interrelation with forests and fossil fuels appears irrefutable. So any argument we should just keep on polluting is not going to wash with me.

Craig, it is nice to see a sensible post on this topic.

There is surely a need to separate the 'man made' argument (which may well be deeply flawed) from the fact that we don't actually want to live in a dustbin of our own making.

Regardless of the science, should we not aspire to hand a better planet to our children?

If the sceptics are right then we should guard against this being just another excuse to find new and exciting ways to part us from our money while they expand airports and suggest a 60% increase in air travel is just fine.

The messages are mixed and confused but even if they were not then we are surely reaping what we sow. Trust in government has been eroded to an awful extent by illegal wars (and associated lies), the demand that we "trust the scientists" when that only applies when the scientist says what the minister wants... (Prof Nutt, anyone?), the manipulation of statistics accross the board, the banking crisis after a declaration of an end to boom and bust.

The situation is desperate simply because of the lies of politicians over the course of at least 30 years.

If Mr Brown told me the sun would rise tomorrow then I would feel compelled to check - and until that is not the case then, quite frankly, they are pissing in the wind expecting to take the public with them on the Global Warming argument.

And that is a tragedy as our children deserve better regardless.

of course we should try and stop polluting. It might also be a good idea to reduce co2 output, but how much effort we put in to that goal is where the argument lies.

If MMGW is an insignificant portion of a naturally occurring warming trend, then spending trillions of dollars on reducing co2 output at the cost of lower living standards and lower food production would be a very stupid thing to do.

How can we judge? By open scientific debate, not doctoring data and perverting the usual course of scientific discourse.

I am slightly suspicious of anything that is strongly backed by powerful lobbies(especially when one of those lobbyists is a Tory non-dom billionaire's son).
Having said that,I agree with your article.But I totally disagree with any carbon tax the government may wish to slap on us,given that they are spending 25 billion on Trident,which goes totally against the environment and which nobody wants,anyway.

Copenhagen is not about "pollution", everyone can agree on that point.
Copenhagen is about using the arrogant assumption that we can alter the planets climate as a cover for a global government body with tax raising powers that can force countries to do their bidding on any subject with a tenuous environmental link (pretty much everything). This language is in the draft treaty, read it.

PS. Name one peer reviewed scientific paper with empirical evidence that co2 causes major warming in the atmosphere. Good luck with that.

Paul

I have no idea if it causes warming in the atmosphere. But it plainly does something in the atmosphere, we have destroyed a vast percentage of the organisms that recycle it, and it seems to me prudent to keep that amosphere as close as possible to the one that caused us to evolve.

Paul, are you prepared to explain your children that your lack of support was due to non existent peer reviews of scientific facts that stare us in the face?
Even the most uneducated plod trodder who has no understanding of science, but worked all his life in the fields has felt the changes that were caused by our irresponsible and vast polluting.

people who have children will feel different to those who do not, their responsibilities make for a more urgent concern than those who want to carry on having their cake.
I have given up flying and haven't owned a car since 1989, a good year fro giving up smoking ,walls and driving cars in a chaotic system that is full of 'individuals' all wanting to aspire to their motoring dreams.

We have had the chance and knowledge to reduce our impact for many decades, but shunned it, called the proponents all sorts of names under the sun, now its dawning on us all that something is array, now, that we are forced to change, we don't like it up us, regardless of the islands disappearing under the sea, regardless of Bangladesh's millions soon to be made homeless in need for a country to take them in.
I welcome the end of using bricks and mortar, high energy processes must be revaluated and change adopted, fast. Sea defences will need precautionary investment and coupled with green energy schemes, but it is a permissive duty only, no Government has ever had any 'duty' to undertake sea defences and look after our homes, well not until this year when the Government in a fit of pre election fever, gave a few millions to those who are to loose their homes, but nothing to alleviate the rising tides.
What would it mean to take the emphasis out of fighting each other and concentrating on helping each other for a change. I know that its going to be pants for the arms dealers and likes of BAE, they can start building sea current generators or build dykes for all I care, the best thing they'd ever did.
Copenhagen should have happened onlin, not as a jolly, some 35 accredited BBC journo's attend to. They should have talked this over long before it came to the final decision, why this fuelling about when we have the technology to do different? Thing is its never been done on that scale and not everyone has the terchnical knowhow to press a button when its their turn. Further, there would be less excuse for dangerous liasions away from home, eh, eh.

best project to start this year is desertec, have a google its fantastic and I cannot understand why we are obliging criminal oligarchs for their oil and gas, schmooze the french to build us ten nuclear power stations, when alternative energies are staring us in the face, all around our coastline, the largest capacity for alternative energies in Europe.
How could this Government not be part of desertec? a question that ought to be asked continuously.

"But the physical evidence of man's historic interrelation with forests and fossil fuels appears irrefutable."

What, you mean like clearing jungle to grow palm oil plantations and other bio-fuel crops so that the oil companies can meet their 'green' quotas? All for no reason as these quotas are based on bogus science and are simply cynical greenwashing.

CO2 is not a pollutant, at its present and foreseeable levels - its well below the level for optimal plant growth. The amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny. CO2 levels have been rising slowly and steadily but not correlated with rapid industrialisation. There are plenty of real pollutants out there on which to wage war.

Climategate clearly shows that this man-made global warming scare has been an exercise in 'Post-Normal Science' and that is no science at all.

Its not about climate or pollution its about duping a large part of the democratic world into giving up freedoms and taxes in order to create another step towards a world government.

The "I don't trust the government - they are only trying to con us into paying more taxes" line is absurd on its face, given that governments have been reluctantly dragged into accepting climate change exists, and would far prefer token measures than anything that might make voters unhappy (increasing taxes, fuel costs, and most of all, slowing the economy).

It is not a coincidence that the loudest of these "sceptics" just happen to be funded by multinationals with huge interests in keeping fuel consumption up, public transport down, and basically getting us to live in a highly expensive and inefficient way. As the old saying goes, you're not going to get a man to see a point when his pay-cheque depends on _not_ seeing that point.

The media is chiefly to blame - we accept scientific consensus on all important areas of life (how to keep planes in the air, how to stop reactors from melting down etc.), yet the science of climate change apparently all comes down to "opinion". The media insists that as there are two points of view, the truth has to be between those points somewhere.

So you have evidence based science, peer reviewed conclusions and a massive consensus that climate change is real, and must be urgently addressed on one hand. On the other, there are "sceptics" who - naturally - have no time at all for the precautionary principle. So as long as this "debate" keeps going, it's Business As Usual.

James G Watt, Reagan's interior minister, utterly rejected any concern for the environment on the grounds that the Baby Jesus would return at any moment and make all things new again, so what was the point? And of course, those who think the world is 4000 years old, that astronomy is a hoax, that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs and they might be raptured up to heaven at any moment have an equally valid view, which can sit besides that of thousands of peer reviewed climatologists in this exciting "debate".

What do these "sceptics" say? That there is no climate change. And even if there is, it's nothing to do with us. And if it is to do with us, we can't do anything about it. And even if we could, maybe global warming is no bad thing. Just keep talking, misinforming and "debating" while nothing at all is done, except carry of Business As Usual. We are doomed.

As i see it what these politicians will be driving for is for a certain subset of the population to suffer cutbacks and restrictions in fossil fuel use while privileged others can continue as before. i.e. China and other 'developing' nations and the establishment and their ilk; did you know the dignitaries arrived at the summit in hundreds of limos and multiple private planes?

What global warming? For the past few years mean global temperatures have been steadily falling. There is clearly something deeply flawed in the hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect". No wonder those scientists at the UEA had to falsify the data to keep their grants.

The sceptics do not deny climate change, but they believe it is mostly due to natural cycles in solar activity. Historical evidence of climate change found in tree rings and polar ice seem to confirm this.

Global cooling is a far greater threat to mankind than warming because crop yields fall dramatically. Back in the eighteenth century the astronomer Herschel first noted the relationship between sunspot activity and the price of bread.

Maybe it's to do with CO2. The "icebox effect" perhaps.

The elephant in the room is population. It's impossible to listen to politicians and civil servants arguing the increasingly elaborate issues of global warming dogma, without realising how many of those issues would go away if we had a reasonable human population.

With a moderate population level, most of the problems disappear - or at the very least become fairly easily manageable. With uncontrolled population growth - which we have at present (and have always had) it doesn't matter how much we deny ourselves - it will just make room for the next few billion people to be crowbarred in.

Of course someone will pipe up to say, "That's not constructive! We already have the given population, and we have to start from where we are today!" That's true, but it's also true that ignoring the nature of the problem for political reasons is not the best approach to solving it.

Regrettably, it doesn't seem at all likely that most of today's governments will be able to influence their national population levels at all. The Chinese have done so with outstanding success, and all they have got for it has been wall-to-wall abuse and chatter about human rights. I very much doubt if even our pseudo-democratic regimes would be able to stand a fraction of the hatred that they would incur by asking people to control their desires for large families.

Nevertheless, in today's situation two children should be the maximum for every family. (And no cheating - such as starting a new family and having yet more children).

Good article. There are already many economics essays on how to accurately cost externalities and develop a realistic pricing structure for such goods. This cap and trade thing though is contemptable, mendacious, illiterate bollox.

The excellent EU blogger details how the Corus closure is utter shite

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html

And all because Lord Mandleson has a photo of Gordon Brown in a nappy - unbelievable and yet so tragically mundane.

Readers might like to check out http://www.realclimate.org/ for views from some actual climate scientists, and some debunking of the regular distortions that prevent meaningful discussion on this issue.

I'm puzzled that MJ thinks that global temperatures are falling. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm "This decade warmest on record" according to the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization.

Do yourself a favour and read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ and then ponder on how much you trust the people in Copenhagen to do right by you.

A separate point on the conspiracy theory that scientists are all in it together to keep their research grants:

1) Getting scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats; it's an astonishingly implausible scenario in the first place.

2) You can apply this argument to any and all research, i.e. you are essentially claiming that anyone who is a specialist in any topic cannot be trusted

3) Any scientist who managed to disprove man-made global warming would almost certainly win a Nobel prize. The pressure to conform is not the only pressure.

There's an interesting view on global warning: that, just as the body heats up to better defend itself against a viral attack, so, as an organism, might the planet be heating to defend itself against us, as we behave like pathogens toward our host.

"As humans become an increasing menace, can the Earth try to defend itself? Absolutely, and in several ways. Number one is climate change, also known as global warming. When a disease organism infects a human being, for example, one of the defense mechanisms our body deploys is the elevation of its own temperature. This rise in temperature not only inhibits the growth of the infecting pathogen, but also greatly enhances the disease fighting capability within the body. Global warming may be the Earth's way of inducing a fever - as a reaction to human pollution of the atmosphere and human over-consumption of fossil fuels."

http://weblife.org/humanure/chapter1.html

David: the clue is in the convenient use of "decade" as the reference period. Global temperatures peaked in 1998-2002, since when there has been mild year-on-year cooling. Because the earlier peak was quite high, it still enables a statistician to proclaim it the warmest decade, while obscuring the trend of the latter half of that decade.

A useful and balanced article that also goes into the thorny issue of how temperatures are measured can be found here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

I was a tree hugger when it wasn't fashionable, but recently I've found myself placed in the sceptic camp for very unscientific reasons. One being the degree of abuse dished out from such as the Guardian website. There is a sad predictability to any discussion on the issue, it is impossible to raise doubts, concerns, or differences of opinion without being subject to abuse, to the point where some people begin to engage in violent fantasies.

The environmental camp disturbs me, self righteous, intolerant, and blind to anything that runs counter to their world view, proclaiming ever more dramatic scenarios, blithely forgetting past predictions that proved false. Convinced they are right about everything, yet in my experience often reluctant to make any inconvenient changes themselves. A simple, if trite example, I live in Tokyo, we do not have air conditioning at home by choice, I have yet to hear of another foreigner here who makes that sacrifice, yet I hear many preach global warming at great length.

Craig. Now that we've established your mind is open to change on evidence then a debate may be fruitful.

I'm an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) sceptic - so you know where I'm coming from.

First off you are confusing CO2 with pollution. CO2 isn't a pollutant. If you believe it is, then please provide toxicity data. You won't find any. You might find a risk factor of burning yourself on or being squashed by a big block of cardice, but you won't find any meaningful toxicity data, and CO2 isn't a pollutant because liar Obama pushes for legislation to label it so.

I'm certainly not going to say we should keep on polluting. I abhor pollution. Sadly pro-AGW's rarely talk about pollution, allowing CO2 to take the limelight. I'm certainly not going to say we shouldn't preserve our forests, neither am I going to say we shouldn't be a lot more wise in our use of finite fossil fuels.

So please, don't be like so many pro-AGW'ers and erecting straw men and/or putting words into the mouth of sceptics.

A rational debate is needed.

The earth shows many signs of working in a dynamic equilibrium, and that equilibrium, exhibits in many cases, the property of a buffer system. That is, additions or subtractions can be made which perturb the equilibrium. After the equilibrium shifts to restore the equilibrium - the effect is the change applied to the system has little or no effect. Think: shock absorber.

The buffering effect of the vast oceans and plant life seems as valid a focal point - if not a better one than the simple model you described. These two elements provide the mechanism by which the buffer operates (and the equilibrium adjusts). You also neglected the most powerful physical body within about 4 light years i.e. the sun from your model.

Re: buffer: If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere (as there probably is - something like 330 parts per million these days +/-) then the increased CO2 can be taken up by plant growth at a greater rate than if air concentration was low. The same goes for the oceans. Le Chatelier’s principle describes that phenomenon. In physics electromagnet coils show a similar effect.

Yes, I do believe we have cut down HUGE numbers of trees - especially in the tropic regions, but the boreal forests (also huge yet nearly always ignored – not as trendy as virgin tropical forest) plus other plant life lumped in with the oceans could well provide a substantial buffering effect.

Remember also CO2 levels were apparently much higher in the past than they were today. The Medieval warm period and the Holocene maximum. Those elevated levels of CO2 reduced over time. The CO2 was neither made by man nor was it cut by cap and trade. The Polar bears seemed to have survived those two events.

Re: Cap and trade. does anyone seriously think this (or ANY) such system won't be at the mercy of the already rich and powerful nations to maintain that relative status.

As for data. Although the subject is very 'dry', I really advise you to read the excellent wattsupwiththat website. at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ They and others suggest the temperature has declined over the last 9 years. It is said the statistically adjusted data producing the now infamous 'hockey stick' graph was manipulated. It is said you can run the simulation yourself and feed random data into it and low and behold... it's hockey time!

I don't have any data and I wouldn't have the time to assess it myself even if I did. I am dealing with second hand stuff here - as you are too. But it seems to me that the pro-AGW is not just so unproven that at the moment, but that it doesn't hold water.

And the worst of all outcomes is if the baseless CO2 scare causes a shift to Nuclear energy. That is what must be avoided at all costs.

I very much believe (even though past failures riddled with corruption have made the idea untrendy) that we should be using hydrocarbons to help manufacture sustainable energy generation projects for societies use, not necessarily commercial industry. I quite like some ideas mentioned in the venus project http://www.thevenusproject.com/

If the reality is that AGW is wrong and it benefits of the oil companies then I really regret that, but I'm not going to fool my own intuition here just so that it will be bad against the oil companies.

I'm of the opinion any AGW is swamped and undetectable by the sun, ocean and remaining plant life.

cheers.

There's a good examination of the content and significance of the material hacked from Hadley at tinyurl.com/yzzxvyt

Some detailed analysis of some of the code is here www.jgc.org/blog/ concluding:
"The 'very artificial correction' flap looks like much ado about nothing to me " and "this looks OK to me and not like a conspiracy."

This confirms my own impression on a quick read through, however there remains a strong impression that the code and the databases are, or at one time were, a dog's breakfast. Pity, but then I never believed that the climate scientists could win this argument anyway. How do you build an ark for a doomed planet?

@ ingo.
Didn't Bangladesh flood before industrialisation? There simply isn't unambiguous data to show CO2 causes global warming. In fact if you look aback at the history of the earth whenever a time line shows a peak of maximum CO2 something caused that peak to end and consume CO2. And it must be said again lets worry about the REAL pollutants. Nuclear waste, sewage, pharmaceuticals, chemical waste, oil spillage, CO2 is the least of our worries.

@ glenn
"governments have been reluctantly dragged into accepting climate change exists" - so it's not because we haven't been tenderised into accepting them?
2) they haven't fully worked out

When your living in mud huts, 3 guesses what the elite
a) in a mud hut also
b) ploughing the fields with oxen
c) 35,000ft up at Mach 2 sipping champagne celebrating the fact that the easily exploited oil reserves have somehow been preserved for their exclusive use.

Don't get me wrong. I really sincerely applaud every change/struggle anyone have made in the cause of environmentalism, but lets just this once have the elite setting the example for the rest of us to follow.

The inaccuracies of the common tales about “climate change” are deliberate and yet another source of bamboozling obfuscation of the facts that affects everyone.

1- considering that “fossil fuel” is a misnomer and a redundant term that is allowed to persists, further adding to the current confusion. This notion of “rock oil” (petroleum), explained away as the result of “fossils turning to oil, which are then used as fuel”, clearly pointing to the abundance of life and a very busy planet sustaining a massive population of all manner of animals living and thriving, and their subsequent deaths, that eventually has produced so much oil, that is used in the manner that it has been for the last century, and by the looks of it for the foreseeable future, as the only serious alternative for energy needs of human societies.

2- The forwarded point in “one”; fly in the face of the Malthusian misfits whose fear of a healthy competition drives these to issue a culling order among the population of the competitors, so that these weakling misfit Malthusian operators, can have an easier ride with the left over scant population and or find the need for the intensity of the competition is abated.

3- So far in human history we find that humanity has been postulating; “earth is flat”, and; “earth is the centre of the universe”, as well as the countless other assertions and assumptions, born out of the valour of ignorance, which yields a particularly weird and boundless strain of arrogance, which is then tapped into by the usual brigades of snake oil salesmen.

To believe that “climate change” is caused by humanity is an absurd and somewhat arrogant notion that is promoted and established as a “known fact” (alongside the rest of the known facts) which is in aid of introduction of a new layer of taxation, evidently the more precious the resources and expensive commodities will result in the lesser use of the resource and commodities, which in turn will ensure the abundant availability of the resources, and or commodities for those whom can afford these, whilst discouraging others whom cannot afford these by doing without the concerned resources and commodities.

Hence as ever the scam artists setting up the rules and regulations to favour these, whilst depriving the rest of the herd (masses) from using such precious resources and commodities. Furthermore, the atonement for the sins of humanity, leaves the charlatans and expense scroungers, holding onto their retainers from the scam artists whom funded the rise of these to their positions of the aldermen, and law givers.

Hence, fact that the extortionate prices charged for energy, for heating and lighting, and the inordinate costs of these basic necessities are then overshadowed by the guilt of “climate change”, hence the ever richer energy companies, and ever more cold and miserable herd (masses).

Thinking about the “climate change”, other than the wind mill technology (very visible, very expensive and very useless), what else has been forwarded as the alternative other than yea olde abstinence? Therefore whilst the herd are to abstain from using energy, the brigade of the snake oil salesmen and their sponsors jet around the globe to meet, and greet and come up with new methods of depriving the herd from the fruits of their labour, through trumped up and hitherto unknown taxes. The opening pitch of a “five percent tax” has already been floated, however as yet there remains the application of this tax that is as yet undisclosed.

The above position, shall be the accepted wisdom in ten years hence, however up until then, the taxes are collected, and the developing world is held back, and the oil spigots are manned by the imperialists, whose sole preoccupation of trying to stay ahead of the pack of the great unwashed compels these Malthusian operatives to resort to evermore evil methods and path of greater destruction.

MJ: "the clue is in the convenient use of "decade" as the reference period. Global temperatures peaked in 1998-2002, since when there has been mild year-on-year cooling."

If you'd read the linked article you'd know 2009 was the fifth warmest year since records began 160 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

As global temperatures will always vary over the short term (El Nino, La Nina, varying Earth-Sun distances) looking at multi-year averages is the only way to discern long term changes. The Met Office's graph is pretty clear.

@ amk

what data is the BBC using amk ???

amk: that article appears to be part of the rearguard firefighting offensive to take the heat off the CRU revelations. It draws on newly-released data from the CRU (sure I've heard of them someplace) the Met Office (Prop: the MOD) and NASA (Never A Straight Answer).

One of the most interesting things about the article I linked to by Dr. David Evans is that he shows how changes in the methods of collecting data over the past few years have resulted in changes in findings, which can then be cherry-picked.

It's not partisan, he doesn't take sides, but he does provide some useful background info to help the layman negotiate the statistical minefield. Highly recommended. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

lwtc247, its not the rising CO2 lecvels I am worried about but the vast amounts of methane hydrates and land locked methane that is/and will continue to escape, lifetime of methane in the athmosphere, middle and upper layers due to its weight, is 7 years.
methane is the much greater greenhouse gas, some 30 times greater than CO2.

These changes according to the british Antarctic survey are proof enough of our impact and a rise to 2deg. above that before the industrial age will be an indicator of our impact.

Another indicator are the southern thermohaline conveyor belt that shifts tand exchanges cold and warmer waters around the Antarctic. At depth of a 1000 feet it has slowed down considerably, pointing to an intervall change or a failure of the system, meaning that the upper watrer layers must slowly increase in temperature, they do.

Then there is our own Gulf stream, it as well has slowed down indicating the vast amounts of non saline glacial meltwaters that have added to the volume of water in the North Atlantic, the warmer water do not sink anymore as it is the salinity that makes them sink, again an interuption in the system due to increase temperatures.

Should you not like the data set of the CRU or the met office, which has one of the most accurate temperature records available, there are other sets of data who have arrived at the same point, ignorance of the problem at this vital point in time, even if precaution is something that abhors people, cannot be afforded, hence the shrill noises from the green perspectives.

I also find the Guardian rott, its good for a fart or two and be off.

NWO paranoid fantasies are silly. Politicians do not voluntarily give up their own power to a higher body, in secret or otherwise. They are particularly silly when applied to NASA, whose scientists (e.g. Hansen) were strongly disagreeing with the denialist oil men Bushies.

The CRU emails do not provide evidence that the CRU falsified data.

I have a post stuck in moderation: all the world's most prestigious scientific bodies endorse AGW theory. To accuse them of all being part of a conspiracy is utterly insane.

"What global warming? For the past few years mean global temperatures have been steadily falling."
What's your source for this? Are you relying on sources you are also disparaging?

A review of the scientific consensus:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

I can identify with most of that. The big BIG problem with Copenhagen though is its HIDDEN agenda. So far as Western elites and their banksters are concerned, carbon trading is THE next big thing; but it is a gigantic scam at least as big as soft (ie unrepayable) loans to underdeveloped countries ever was - which is saying something - and it will do virtually nothing to reduce overall CO2 emmissions. What it will do, per the now expiring 'soft-loans' regime, is continue to secure compliant governments in resource-rich areas and the effective sequestration of those resources by the West. Carbon trading (if the underdeveloped world are stupid enough to sign up to Copenhagen) is likely to produce even worse results for them. Those with the technology (The West) will ensure that those without remain without - and pay dearly for the privilage.

I give you a prediction: The West will move heaven and earth for wholesale adoption the carbon-trading protocols whilst making sweet noises with little binding committment on the rest.

"The CRU emails do not provide evidence that the CRU falsified data"

Errr..

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"

"What's your source for this?"

The key is to stick with a single raw data source. Once that source gets moderated, adjusted and, worst of all, combined with other sources (as per quote above) we are done for. Anyone can prove anything.

Also it's a bit silly to be providing data for 2009 when the year isn't over yet...

MJ: This is what P Jones actually published in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

"tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature
measurements averaged over the same areas ... During the second half of the
twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer
temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively
fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to
temperature changes is not known" I.e. Jones has published in Nature what you
think he was trying to cover up.

Wikipedia lists scientific bodies on AGW theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The Joint science academies' statements are particularly important.

One Planet - One experiment

"The key is to stick with a single raw data source."

There is no single raw data source. No body has thermometers world wide.

And you haven't named yours yet. Do you know what it is?

The Argo ocean network is probably the best. It has thermometers world wide!

amk: "NWO paranoid fantasies are silly."

You are the only one here to mention NWO. Is that The New World Order that Gordon Brown keeps harping-on about?

amk:"Politicians do not voluntarily give up their own power to a higher body, in secret or otherwise."

Really? Explain the EU to me then.

Argo is new, so of limited use for historic temperatures.

The following article is hosted by NASA, so in undoubtedly part of the Knights Carbonic conspiracy (it says the oceans are still warming, and how earlier indications it may be cooling were found incorrect by checking other sources):

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

Duncan:

From Paul above:

"Copenhagen is about using the arrogant assumption that we can alter the planets climate as a cover for a global government body with tax raising powers that can force countries to do their bidding on any subject with a tenuous environmental link"

Sounds like NWO paranoid fantasy crap to me.

"Really? Explain the EU to me then."

OK.

The most important EU bodies are the various councils of ministers, i.e. the members of the governments of the member states. The other important body, the commission, consists of appointed lackies of the governments of the member states such as Mandelson. When Blair said the EU should be based on the member state, he meant it should be based on people like him (and not you or me), and it is.

An actual EU federation created by the national governments with directly elected governing bodies would be an example of politicians voluntarily giving up their power. An actual EU federation isn't going to happen because that is not what politicians do.

And I hope no-one thinks the EU has a President now.
http://www.barder.com/2156

"This is what P Jones actually published in Nature"

I'm more interested in what 'Mike' actually published in the same organ and why it was a trick.

"Jones has published in Nature what you
think he was trying to cover up"

Sounds a bit barmy. My reading of it was that he was trying to hide a trend of cooling. I may be wrong. Any ideas?

I think we are in a bull market (no pun intended) in hysteria .. perhaps a natural follow on to a bull market in stocks (ending 2000) and more recently, real estate.

A blogger that I read observes we are in a period of large group regression http://bit.ly/2yCwIp

"Argo is new, so of limited use for historic temperatures"

But damned good for current and future readings. I feel these are of some interest.

Whatever happens in terms of global warming will make very little difference to the earth, which will recover in a few tens of, or at most a hundred, thousand years once we are gone - a blink in geological time.

Part of the problem is that we homo sapiens have an inflated idea of our own importance. We also cannot readily comprehend geological time, especially what a miniscule percentage the lifetime of the planet we have been part of the animal kingdom.

We have been around for a very short time - recognisable art perhaps 50,000 years or so, written language 6,000 years. The "dinosaurs" were around for TENS OF MILLIONS of years.

So don't worry about the planet, after we are gone all will revert to the path it took before, even the nuclear waste and plastics will decay eventually...

"why it was a trick."

A "trick" is a clever technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

People like me use "hack" the same way, which could also be misunderstood.

"My reading of it was that he was trying to hide a trend of cooling. I may be wrong."

The "decline" in question was the decline of tree ring data post 1960. Tree rings can be used as a proxy for directly measured temperatures, but the correlation breaks for some reason after around 1960. See this, starting four paras above the graphs at the bottom:

http://www.calgaryliberal.com/2009/12/06/climategate/

Who cares if carbon dioxide is deemed a pollutant or not? The important fact is that human activity is increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration rapidly and that a doubling in concentration will, all other things being equal, raise global temperature by about one degree Celcius. In fact, all other things are unlikely to be equal, which is what much of the technical argument is about: are feedbacks positive or negative? If they are positive as most climate models assume, we’d probably have noticed by now. Moreover, empirical evidence is accumulating to suggest that they are negative. So Monbiot’s nightmare of a world on fire is, barring divine intervention, unlikely to come to pass anytime soon.

Nevertheless, Craig is correct that human activity is impacting the planet in many ways on a huge scale. We are, in effect, engaged in a mindless exercise in what is known technically as planet formation. We need to hold back until we have a better idea of what we are doing. That means curbing rapidly growing carbon emissions.

Carbon dioxide emissions can most efficiently be limited by a carbon tax, or so most economists seem to believe. Such a tax can be revenue neutral: pay more for gas, pay less income tax (as if any government would be so reasonable). And the tax would not likely need to be as heavy as many assume. The recent rise in oil prices caused a noticeable reduction in car use in America, and has prompted a huge effort to bring fuel efficient automobiles to the North American market. In fact, the opportunities for increased energy efficiency throughout much of the economy are vast. With adequate insulation a house can be heated with a hair-dryer. A bicycle with a quarter-horse-power electric drive can propel a commuter through urban traffic as fast as a 300 horse-power car. In fact, the need for energy efficiency could initiate an industrial renaissance throughout the west, provided governments do employ fear of climate change to impose clumsy top-down measures of social and economic control.

Relevant bit of above Youtuve clip is at 3:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg#t=3m20s

"My reading of it was that he was trying to hide a trend of cooling. I may be wrong."

You are wrong. Up until about 1930 temperatures calculated from tree rings agreed well with actual observed values. After that date the real temperature (which was rising) began to depart from the tree ring value (which was falling), and the discrepancy was increasing, becoming very marked after 1960. Note that true temperature was *rising* - no doubt, no ambiguity.

Obviously this failure in recent times for tree ring proxies adequately to approximate real temperatures – ‘the decline’ - is of considerable interest. CRU is certainly not concealing this – it is a matter of such concern that Ian Harris of CRU submitted a paper to the Royal Society entitled ‘Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?’ It’s not a decline in real temperature that is being discussed, but the decline in the temperature derived from tree ring measurements, a decline that we know to be an error.

You can get all this at the web site of John Graham Cumming (link in my last post), an expert and unbiased analysis of the code and data released, which includes (perhaps more to your palate) considerable objective criticism. His conclusion is that it looks like a highly unprofessional mess, but so far not an attempt at fraud.

Admittedly, if the mess as half as bad as it seems then the CRU material is inadmissible as evidence in the debate. If a geek with no background in climate science can unpick it in minutes then their credibility as a source is hopelessly compromised.

Vronsky: thanks for that, though I'm not sure why they're so bothered about current tree ring data when methods for accurately measuring current temperatures are available. Does it cast doubt on the reliability of tree ring data for historical purposes? I would have thought tree rings reflect not only climate but other things too, such as soil fertility.

And while I accept amk's suggestion that "trick" might in context simply mean "technique", it's less easy to explain away "hide". Why is he so keen to hide tree ring anomalies? Why is a scientist keen to hide anything?

I've had a thought on my earlier EU post:

National governments move national powers to the EU, which is mostly themselves anyway. However they are moving power not just from themselves as national governments but also from national parliaments.

As the bit of the EU that isn't member state government controlled (the EU parliament) is much less powerful than the national parliaments (e.g. it can't propose legislation), the politicians of the national governments may actually be increasing their personal power by strengthening the EU. Bastards.

'Course, I may be wrong.

Craig,

One of the main reasons the debate about climate change is becoming so sectarian and violent, is that now we are moving towards the thorny issue of who is going to pay for the 'solutions' required.

At core this is question about the distribution of wealth on a global scale. Are the rich countries willing to 'pay' poor countries not to pollute and follow in their development footsteps? I think the answer is clearly negative. The rich will won't pay, they'ed prefer the burden to fall on the poor, because the poor have less power to defend their interests.

On a very fundamental level we face a kind of terrible dilemma. Do we really believe that this small planet has enough environmental 'reserves' that are available for China, India, Brazil, Indonisia ect. to progress and develope and consume, to a standard that is comparable to that of Western Europe, to say nothing of the United States?
Do we have the almost magically ability with our extraordinary technology to 'manufacture' or 'conjure' extra planets full of untapped resources for their developement along the lines we have followed over the last couple of centuries?

Even a rough, back of envelope calculation, which one doesn't have to be a genius to understand, seems to indicate that we'd need an extra four planet earth's if everybody is going to enjoy Western-style prosperity. How is this possible, except in the realm of science fiction?

You have young and beautiful son. What kind of world will he inhabit if we continue down this insane path based on the economic paradigm of limitless growth on a planet with finite resources? Our current economic system is blatantly unrealistic in its fundamental, core, assumptions; and our economic theories and practices are wilfully obscuring the harsh and difficult challenges we face as a civilization.

Being blunt, Copenhagen is a sham. The rich countries, led by US, UK, and the host Denmark, are attempting to give the impression that they are serious about climate change, which they are not, and that they support an equitable and just distribution of the costs. Such a response is simply outside the political and economic structure of the system the developed countries have built over the last couple of centuries. Exploitation, waste, and the destruction of nature, are built into the very dna of our way of life, which over the longterm, is really a way of death, and not just for all the other species we are subjecting to genocide on an almost unimaginable scale. Are we supposed to believe that the mass instinction of species is a myth as well?

Many of the comments relating to your remarks, are shockingly uninformed and display a lack of knowledge about not just the complexities of climate science, but the very nature and methods employed in science. In fact their certainty seems in inverse proportion to their understanding of the issues, and complexity involved.

I find this enormously frustrating, because where does one start? How far back does one have to go with basic education about how one thinks properly? This of course sounds incredibly elitist, which I suppose it is. Why do people insist on pontificating about subjects they know so little about? Is it a plea for attention or something else?

The point about climate science is that it's a very young area of study. It's really in its infancy, and therefore there are going to be a lot of mistakes, conflicts, and discussion involved as one tries to get a handel on the subject. There is always going to be differences between, theory, models,and observations of reality. A model is a model, not the physical world.

What is disturbing is that increasingly the models are being substituted by empirical observations that support the dire predictions of the computer models. In fact in a number of areas the models used by the IPPC are way too conservative and have been superceded by what one can now measure out in the real world.

The weather and climate are highly complex subjects, however, it's a fundamental mistake to overstate how stabile our climate really is. It's far, far, more 'fragile' than most people realise, and how 'easy' it is to destablize it. For example, here's a crude analogy, a gallon of white paint appears stabil, as long as one doesn't disturbe it. It doesn't take much black paint to do that, and start the process of turning it grey, polluting it. So something that appeared stabil, can, relatively easily, be changed beyond recognition, by a small change.

Our planet's eco-system is extremely complex, but because we are so small compared to the physical size of the biosphere, we have strong tendency to misunderstand how unique and finely balanced it is. We have already destroyed and damaged huge areas of our planet. This isn't theory. This is patently observable. The examples are myriad. The theory that we can simply continue to ravage the biosphere without any consequences coming back to bite us, is absurd. One could mention fish stocks here as an important example. We have changed the world and we are still doing it, and the rate and scale of the damage is increasing. There will be a price to pay for this process, regardless of what the economic dogma says.

This story broke about six weeks before the 'climategate emails':

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

"....This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby...."

The issue within isn't so much whether GW is man made or not, it's the obfuscation involved in achieving the desired outcome.
Peer reviewed?: it seems it was not.

Quick question: If a University was to seek funding for research into 'GW' and another into 'torture' which one would get the funding more easily?

Another question: If a University was to seek funding for research into 'GW' and another into a viable, eco-friendly alternative to the internal combustion engine, which one would get the funding more easily?

People, even scientists, are allowed to think and express themselves like normal people, using the same kind of language people use in everyday life.

That's what these e-mails represent. It's people thinking aloud and throwing ideas around.

That scientists use language in 'non-scientific' fashion when speaking 'privately' with each other, shouldn't surprise anyone. We use language differently in different contexts. This doesn't mean one is lying in one context, or telling the truth in another.

And isn't it telling that of the thousands of pages of documents published, how little 'usuable' material has been revealed? It's the same few sentences, taken out of context, that are repeated over and over again.

What strikes me is how this amazing idea, the 'ultimate conspiracy theory' that thousands of climate scientists are involved in global, left-wing, hoax, to undermine our western way of life, is taken seriously by so many people.

It's not as if there is really much controversy surrounding the science of climate change, at least not among climate scientists. There is a concensus. What's also interesting is that most of the sceptics, are not professionally qualified climate scientists, and come from all sorts of other areas of study. Like Lomborg, who is an economist by profession. Also it's a fact that many of them are financed by energy companies. So it's not surprising, given the ultra-competative nature of the academic world, that there is close to contempt and disdain, when 'amateurs' stray onto the turf of other scientists.

At the risk of repeating myself, most of the commentary here is quite simply beside the point. The real point at issue being 'What is Copenhagen REALLY all about?' All the climate change gurus and wannabes working themselves into a frenzy are quite simply missing the point and making themselves unwitting dupes - Some things just never change eh?

You do not need to be a climate scientist, or know diddly-squat about the subject to see - clear as crystal - that Copenhagen has nothing whatever to do with addressing the issue (or non-issue as the case may be) of AGW and its derivatives (that word again) seriously; and everything to do with imposing a centralised Western Controlled (not to say NWO) bureaucracy charged with policing a trade in esoteric, manufactured derivatives of 'carbon production'. A trade that is likely to dwarf ALL other trade in sheer volume and which thus has the potential for the Banksters and their masters to exercise control over what's left of the earth's natural resources (and uppity countries with ideas above their station) the like of which The British Empire at its zenith could only dream about.

Also, apropos my earlier comment and not by nature inclined to wallow in an 'I-told-you-so' halo, it seems the US/UK/NATO axis are indeed trying to rail-road the developing countries in exactly the fashion I mentioned:

http://tinyurl.com/yldymcs

Who would have thought, some developing countries are crying foul, they fear that they have been stitched up by a consensus worked out by the danish host which favours the western strategy and our approach of 'selling low carbon technology'
Point is, if we really want all countries to cut down and create low carbon economies at an equal rate, we all have to have the means. Flogging some old tatt we regard as not sufficient anymore to the developiong countries, the old colonial way of making a buck, even if its called 'recycling', will not be good enough, the developing countries will need the same technology to provide an equally acceptable result.

We want to have our cake and eat as usual, selling off crap whilst installing the most advanced technologies for ourselves, enabling us to carry on to pollute.
Those who got us into this corner and who have funded the scinetific denial base, have the money to do different, but they rather want to cary on until we are coughing and spluttering, as long as they can flog us oil and gas and cars and and, they will carry on.

Unless they see the need for change and spend more money on alternatives and means to lower carbon , than they get fossile fuels out of the ground, they need curtailing and jostling and badgering, something not everyone might agree with.
And I mean by any way possible, a good starter would be to repeal the free trade laws for all carbon rich technologies and products, until the pips squeak, nationalisation is another ultimate tool of persuasion.

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

Ingo I wouldnt worry about most land being flooded it seems that there has been gross lies about the effect it will have.
Sea levels havent been rising and Bangladesh should be safe for a long time yet.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml

The President of the Maldives recently held a Cabinet meeting underwater, saying his islands may be submerged. In an open letter, taken from the climate change supplement in the latest issue of the The Spectator, Nils-Axel Mörner assures him his country is safe:

Dear Mr President,

You are obviously very concerned about the effect that sea level rises may have on the Maldives. Your Cabinet has been photographed meeting underwater, and you have even declared that ‘we are going to die’ if the climate change summit in Copenhagen fails. I am now writing with what I hope will be some good news. The scientific side of the situation is quite different to that which you imagine. You are, in fact, not going to die.

Before I continue, I should perhaps state my credentials. I have been a sea-level specialist for 40 years. I launched most of its new theories in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I solved the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time; the rotation of the earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans’ masses — and so on. Last year, I was awarded a prize from Algarve university for my ‘irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change’.

We both know that the 1,200 islands of the Maldives are all low-lying with the highest point only some 2.5m (8ft) above sea level. Hence, your nation is vulnerable to extreme storms, tsunamis — and, of course, any possible sea level rise.

The IPCC vision is a rise that by the year 2100 may amount to between 30cm and 50cm. This is based on model calculations. Our figure is a 5cm rise, plus or minus 15cm. In a newspaper article, you have suggested that sea levels may rise by between one and eight metres. Those figures, however, do not concur with the physics and known rates of ice melting. So those figures must be dismissed as impossible.

I have been on no fewer than six different field expeditions to the Maldives. We worked in the lagoon, we drilled in the sea, we drilled in lakes, we looked at the shore morphology — many different environments. We have always found the same thing: a total stability for the last 30 years, preceded by a 20cm drop in sea level in the 1970s.

We have presented a detailed documentation of the sea level changes in the Maldives over the past 4,000 years. The record of the last 500 years may be of special interest to the situation of your islanders. It shows:

The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change.

I recently visited Bangladesh, a country cursed by floods. In the Sundarban delta, I documented very strong coastal erosion despite zero changes in sea level. So, even here, there is no global sea level rise going on today — just as in the Maldives, in Tuvalu and in Vanuatu, to mention a few famous sites claimed already to be in the process of becoming flooded.

By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively.

So why the scare-mongering? Could it be because there is money involved? If you inhabit a tiny island and can convince the world that its very existence is under threat because of the polluting policies of the West, the industrialised nations will certainly respond. The money is likely to flow in more quickly than the ocean will rise.

This is the fourth time I have written to you. Unfortunately, I think there is a problem with your email service because so far I have not received an acknowledgement. For this reason, I have decided to write this open letter in the pages of The Spectator.

So, Mr President, you and your ministers in the Maldives really don’t need to worry about a future life beneath the waves. You should pass on this message to the people of the Maldives. It is high time to release them from this terrible psychological burden.

Yours,
Nils-Axel Mörner

A former lead reviewer for the IPCC, Nils-Axel Mörner was head of Geodynamics at Stockholm University until his retirement in 2005.

Just for reference, a link to the World Meteorological Organization press release:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

Including the following graph of the global surface temperature trend, from three Global datasets: NOAA (NCDC Dataset) , NASA (GISS dataset) and combined Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UK) (HadCRUT3 dataset)

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/NewImage.PNG

@ Writerman.

So because only a little of the leaked info is 'useable' by sceptics, therefore the issue of AGW is a non-issue? Is tht what one of your points? It certainly seems to be.

Secondly. How on warmed-earth can "hide the decline" mean anything other than it's face value? And the code that apparently if you feed random data into it generates a hocky stick?
Lastly how can plots and all that they entailed be dismissed so whimsically by you?

As for the consensus, You've heard of the Oregon petition right? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

tinyurl.com/ykt69cl - Ron Paul website says, it was signed by 31478 scientists quote: "3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences."

tinyurl.com/ylptv5z headlines with: "400 Prominent Scientists Confirm That Anthropogenic Global Warming Is a Hoax"

Where is your list of scientists that you say form the consensus?

I can't imagine that none of those scientists don’t have a vested interest in saying so, but the counter argument is just as valid as the few pro-AGW'ers and those in the IPCC.

You are being very silly conjuring up a straw man conspiracy saying "thousands of climate scientists are involved in global, left-wing, hoax, to undermine our western way of life". Such a construct can be used to 'prove' there is never a conspiracy - c.f. Enron auditors.

"it's a fact that many of them are financed by energy companies." - Could you supply documentation to back up that claim?

Easy to understand presentation by Lord Monckton
http://vimeo.com/8023097

Wow, Lwtc247, you caught me out, damn it! Everything I wrote was pure fabrication, just off the top of my head. How could I have been so silly, so foolish, to imagine I could get away with it, and on site like this, of all places?

Thanks for that snippet woobus, I am glad that the spectator is read in the maledives, all is well then.

Ecpet that the british antartic survey reporting this month, has upped the anti slightly and is talking of a sea level increase of not 2mm, but 3mm/annum.

here in the east of England were the sinkage of the landmass is some 0.7mm/annum this will increase the sea levels by something between 80-100 cm in the first 100 years of this millenium.

Copenhagens agenda is concerned with those who scream loudest and are at the heart of the process, it is yet to find a fair formula to involve all developing nations, otherwise they would not scream to be 'let in'.

it seems to me that carbon low economies will be advanced according to who goes ahead, not a reversal of the industrialisation process, hence the reluctance of some western antions who have left it too long. the fattest of us have to jump through the most hoops first and they don't like it.
As for Ron Paul, the oregon petition et all, millions believed that Adolf was the next best thing to dunking biscuits, people thought that Einsteins equation was final and all explaining, today its taken apart, so, I'd rather act with a precautionary mind, than oppose and argue until its too late.

If it is wrong in principle, we will find out in future and I have no qualms to saying sorry and/or eat humble pie.

I also believe that we represent a cancerous growth on the earth surface, as yet, it can be lanced at a certain rate and with precision, to use nuclear weapons to do it would be futile, although some are contemplating such option, otherwise they would not modernise trident , a weapon system without a future.

# ingo.

If GW is happening independently of mans activities, say for point of argument the Sun was primarily responsible for climate change, then there isn't anything we can do about the methyl hydrates – they are at the mercy of the Sun’s heat. All we could do is collect them and burn them turning them into less harmful CO2.

But if AGW is a reality, then the danger of methyl hydrates doesn’t make much sense because history apparently shows in the past (e.g. medieval warm period, MWP) that earths temperatures were significantly higher than they are today. I find it very hard to believe that the supposed /vast/ quantities of trapped methane that could have formed from the MWP (about 1000 years ago) to today. That seems very counter intuitive to what I'd call earth science in that the earth was laying the seeds for it's own doom in just 1 millenium. And on top of that you’d have to ask, why was there no methyl hydrates formed before the MWP and why they didn’t cause a disaster previously.

The medieval warm period is rarely discussed by pro-AGW’ers esp. as a standard and model of what is likely should AGW ever be beyond the realm of uncertainty.

@ writerman.

Not sure what you're talking about, but it seems like an avoidance of discussion to me. If you could just address the points I made like supplying a link to the documentation, that would be better. cheers.

"A separate point on the conspiracy theory that scientists are all in it together to keep their research grants:
1) Getting scientists to agree on anything is like herding cats; it's an astonishingly implausible scenario in the first place."

"What strikes me is how this amazing idea, the 'ultimate conspiracy theory' that thousands of climate scientists are involved in global, left-wing, hoax, to undermine our western way of life, is taken seriously by so many people."

I think a lot of people have a rather naive idea of what noble creatures scientists are.

Here's an example (from WUWT) of how scientists are coerced by the control of funding:-
{ Paul Vaughan (07:53:54) :

norris hall (05:10:11) “[...] it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important. Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists [...] all agreed to promote bogus science. [...] Pretty hard to do without being discovered.”

Actually not so hard.

Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.}

"Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW"

Very true. Ditto reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. They're going to run out sooner rather than later irrespective of whether temperatures are rising, falling or staying the same. An alternative to the internal combustion engine anyone? Worth spending billions in research grants, surely.

There's phrase that springs to mind, about not being able to see the wood for the trees, or should that be leaves?

How much detail should one go into on site like this? What level of 'proof' does one need to supply? How much time have we got?

Anyway, in my rough estimation, I think for every 'climate expert' that questions the scientific evidence for climate change being man made, there are about a hundred who are part of the consensus among climate scientists that global warming is a reality, and that human activity is responsible.

For example, Lomborg, who is surely the most famous and influential critic of the global warming scenario, isn't a qualified climate scientist at all, though listening to him one wouldn't realize it. He's a slippery character. He is lavishly funded by the right-wing Danish government and has received funding from the energy industry as well. Another Dane, Fensmark, famous for his bizarre theory about sunspots, isn't a climate scientist either, he's an astro-physisist, if I remember correctly.

These are merely two examples, and what to they 'prove'. Not a lot. Though they do indicate the presence of a pattern. It is really quite difficult to find professionally qualified climate scientists who actually question the basis of the consensus, that global warming is real, and a problem, and human activity is pushing it along.

Recently I read two books on the subject of who is financing and supporting the critics of human induced global warming. The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan, and Climate Change Cover-up by Hoggan and Littlemore.

In a nutshell both books a filled with information about the financing of critics of climate change by the fossil fuel industry, and the systematic attempt to manipulate and influence public opinion. There are myriad, concrete examples in these two books, and lists galore for those who love lists.

To imply, or state, that there isn't a strong, really an overwhelming concensus among climate scientists, is simply not true. One can dream up reasons for why this consensus exists, and one is free to do so, but that doesn't alter the fact that the consensus exists.

There is no comparable body of qualified climate scientists on the other side, only a handful of scientists with more or less 'exotic' theories that, frankly, don't stand up to scrutiny.

Finally, the figures, given for the number of scientists who have expressed misgivings about the science behide global warming are misleading, without going into too much detail, non climate scientists aren't really the first people one would go to for information or analysis of the data relating to global warming, one would go to 'experts' wouldn't one? Also the way in which the number of scientists critical of aspects of the global warming debate is suspect in itself. Which seems par for the course.

Those who are critical of the science surrounding global warming are primarily motivated by a political agenda, not science, and that political/economic agenda is based on their adherence to the limitless growth paradigm, so beloved by neo-classical economists and neo-conservatives in general.

Any scientist wanting to really "make it big" would prove that global warming was a myth, and in any case nothing to do with human activity, get that proof peer reviewed and publish it. The oil/ coal/ etc. companies would fall over themselves to give such a scientist very large amounts of money. After all, Exxon-Mobile have paid for the hacking of these emails, over which the Saudis et al are squealing with delight.

Forget global warming research grants - the Real Money is in denying climate change.

How odd that this has not occurred to any of these unscrupulous, lying, result-faking scientists!

"Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one."

"If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1

@ writerman.

"Fensmark, famous for his bizarre theory about sunspots, isn't a climate scientist either, he's an astro-physisist, " - Is this the reason why pro-AGW'ers are loathe to talk about the influence of the Sun, because not being astrophysicist?

You know, It's about time I put my book budget to good use. I quite fancy buying those books. As you already have them, let me ask you for a couple of page numbers that I can quickly look up afterwards to see the damning evidence. Shouldn't take up too much of your time.

"To imply, or state, that there isn't a strong, really an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists, is simply not true." The 3,803 scientists, 3,803 of whom have specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences, in amongst the 31478 scientists who disagree with AGW does rather suggest no consensus for AGW. In no way can it show there is a pro-AGW consensus especially when you still haven’t provided a count to validate you claim,

Let me ask you again. What is the tally of pro-AGW scientists and how many of them have ‘specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences’? To say there is a consensus you must have some grasp of the numbers

"non climate scientists aren't really the first people one would go to for information or analysis of the data relating to global warming" - Who is going to these people 'first' for information or analysis of the data relating to global warming. I doubt very much that you have much scientific training yourself if you imagine one scientist doesn't know how to statistically process raw data in a an unbiased way to reveal trends.

Data processing requires no specific climate science knowledge.

"Those who are critical of the science surrounding global warming are primarily motivated by a political agenda" - I must be the exception then having none of those traits you suggest.

Hide the decline,
Plots to trashing scientists who hold a different opinion,
computer code that outputs hockey sticks,
no consensus due to 31478 scientists.
No count of pro-AGW'ers

All points still not addressed.

schkwe-e-r-r-i-o-u-w

That's the sound around the hot countries of the world of the old HFCs being released into the air because the old equipment will now be replaced with new HCFC equipment. Thus, the problems of ozone depletion are accelerating with change. Here you have to buy a fancy £1,000 refrigerant charging machine. Everywhere else you just discharge the gas with an old fridge compressor on a flying lead.

In other words the gonks in Copenhagen will have no impact on climate change. But they will have a huge impact on the vast, looming industry of heat pumps running on lovely green or horrible nuclear electricity, that are going to replace fossil fuel as a heat source for buildings. A nice little stove that burns waste wood will do a millionth part of the global warming that all these signed sealed and delivered treaties will do. And carbon trading of human-allocated carbon quotas is as much Interest as money interest is Interest. In the same way that bankers' bonuses come out of our monthly mortgage payments, the carbon quotas allow rich countries to increase pollution , rather than restrict it. If you see what I mean.

lwtc247.

You do take this kind of thing rather personally, don't you? I have absolutely no intention of being bullied by you, or bowing to your demands. Do the work yourself. And no, I won't be providing you with page numbers. I think it's better that you buy the books I mentioned yourself and read them carefully, rather than just plucking out a couple of pages, examining them out of context, which is, of course what is being done with the famous e-mails.

This kind of technique is typical of a certain style of debating, which I loathe. It's very much like a trial situation, but instead of getting at the truth, one does the opposite, one obscures the truth, by focusing on tiny details which aren't really relevant. It's destructive, which I suppose is the whole point, to divert attention from the whole picture by concentrating on unemportant details. Like pressing ones nose up against a giant mural on a wall, one loses perspective.

You know as well as I do that the vast, overwhelming, majority of climate scientists support the science around global warming, and only a handful are sceptics, why do you insist that this isn't so? You are obsessive about me answering your questions to your satisfaction, but that's difficult, if not impossible, because fundamentally I think they are based on a form of gross misrepresentation, and a lack of understanding of the nature of scientific equiry.

.

@ writerman

"You do take this kind of thing rather personally, don't you?" Actually I was hoping for a worthy scientific discussion on the matter. I think anyone examining what I’ve previously written will agree that I haven't taken it down to the personal level.

I'm not bullying or demanding anything. What a nonsense to suggest so. You aren’t able to engage in discussion of the points I raised or supply proof of your claims for reasons even someone of limited intelligence can conclude.

I wonder what "hide the decline" /in context/ actually means?

I wonder what kind of confidence it is that doesn't allow for your sense of reason to activate when computer code used by the CRU generates hockey stick graphs when random data is fed into it.

I wonder how you consider something numberless/unmeasured to be a consensus.

"You are obsessive about me answering your questions to your satisfaction," yet another example of how your losing the argument - more attempts at smearing the questioner.

Starting to address the points whether to my satisfaction or not would be a worthy fisr step but alas I think it's evident that such a think isn't going to happen.

Oh dear.

If in your last attempt at a smear, you really believe that I'd suffer from as you say a "gross misrepresentation, and a lack of understanding of the nature of scientific equiry" then discussion of the points I raised will be validated (or contradicted) as the discussion proceeds. What better place to start than the fundamental science of mathematics and how the property of a consensus is measured.

At the moment, we have 31,478 scientists who have registered a sceptical opinion. A not unreasonable value necessary for a consensus would require at the very least 31,479 scientists registered with an opinion in favour of AGW.

So, lets start with that.

After I'd like to discuss the computer code.

I look forward to your reply in the falvour of your usually respectible and worthy contributions on this site.

lwtc247: I have to say, your style with writerman (who I do not know, and with whom I have never communicated) is that of an inquisitor, with the default position (should he fail to meet with your satisfaction) being of course that your position is correct. You are framing this "debate" as one in which writerman is challenging a conventional wisdom held by yourself... a very old tactic.

With all due respect, yours is the lazy style of sitting back and demanding more and more proof, all the while assuming a background snickering that your opponent just isn't in your league. Your answering of very partial quotations, taking segments of sentences utterly out of context, smacks of intellectual dishonesty. The most recent example is not a one-off. You've selectively quoted an incomplete sentence and answered a straw-man - even when the original post is immediately above your reply! So it's kind of hard to take your concerns at the integrity of quotes (hand-picked words from tens of thousands of emails) terribly seriously.

References produced just in this thread - never mind doing independent checking - would explain to all but the most stubborn fool _exactly_ what the emails' meaning and intent was. Yet still you are so concerned, only wishing to get at the truth, and press on with the matter of these terribly troubling questions about what "hide the decline" might possibly mean. Such deep concern for The Truth is inspiring indeed.

Did you look at the troubling e-mail remarks in full context? Of course not! That isn't your game at all. You are not interested in any truth, or you would have found it yourself. Did you follow up with any research whatsoever on the subjects you raised yourself? Absolutely not. Much better to throw around doubt.

I wonder if you are paid to further this "debate". That's where the money is - in climate change denial - after all. Are you sponsored by, or have an interest in, those who promote fossil fuels?

I am openminded on this issue, but would tend to agree with Craig. I have seen the climate in southern England change before my eyes since 1995. It just seems a bit fast to me. My father is in his late 70's and has been in the area all of his life. He says the same thing. That's nothing conclusive I know, but still. All the skeptics are heavily influenced by the fact that we are going to be ripped off over this by some insane organisation and I don't really blame them. When I was growing up in the 80's it was always the big governemnts, especially the U.S., denying manmade climate change! Now the elite scum probably figured out it really is best they do a 'little something', as climate change can hurt them economically, and get more rich of us too. Cue the cynicism...

Hullo Craig,

I have trouble reconciling the following -

Non-Media Truth
-The climate changes. It always has and always will.
-Previous climate changes could not possibly have been caused by humans.

Media Truth
-The climate is changing! There has never been anything like this before!
-Current climate change could not possibly have been caused by anything but humans.

It's poor of me I know but I view this as an insult to my intelligence. And to add um, injury to insult, for me to even say so somehow means I am pro-pollution or anti-environment or something.

That aside those CRU 'emails' (they were much more than that) are barely the tip of the iceberg (ha ha) when it comes to the odour-of-rat science behind this world-saving tax regime. Hmm... I wonder why they don't call ever call it that in the media? Because it sounds too stupid for its own good?

For the record I am an organic bircher muesli-eating hippy who several years ago was a true believer in global warming (sorry 'climate change') and then turned when the inconsistencies, lies, and the obviousness of the cui bono perpetrators became to big to ignore.

**test**

** test again (sorry about this) **

@lwtc

On the Oregon Petition, Wiki is informative: the article supporting the petition was forged to appear to emanate from the National Academy of Sciences, even giving a date of publication and a bogus volume number. In so far as it was scientific, it was based on superseded and invalid satellite data, and considerable latitude seems to have been allowed in the use of the word 'scientist' to describe its signatories.

""it's a fact that many of them are financed by energy companies." - Could you supply documentation to back up that claim?"

Here's a list of companies spending more than $100,000 on anti-AGW campaigning:

Chevron ($6,485,000), Exxon Mobil ($4,657,000), BP America ($4,270,000), ConocoPhillips ($3,300,000), American Petroleum Institute ($2,120,000), Marathon Oil Corporation ($2,110,000), Peabody Investments Corp ($1,110,000), Bituminous Coal Operators Association ($980,000), Shell Oil Company ($950,000), Arch Coal Inc ($940,000), Williams Companies ($920,000), Flint Hills Resources ($820,000),Occidental Petroleum Corporation ($794,000), National Mining Association ($770,000), American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity ($714,000), Devon Energy ($695,000), Sunoco ($585,000), Independent Petroleum Association of America ($434,000), Murphy Oil USA Inc ($430,000), Peabody Energy ($420,000), Rio Tinto Services Inc ($394,000), America's Natural Gas Alliance ($300,000), Interstate Natural Gas Association of America ($290,000), El Paso Corporation ($261,000), Spectra Energy ($279,000), National Propane Gas Association ($242,000), National Petrochemical & Refiners Association ($240,000), Nexen Inc ($230,000), Denbury Resources ($200,000), Nisource Inc ($180,000), Petroleum Marketers Association of America ($170,000), Valero Energy Corporation ($160,000), Bituminous Coal Operators Association ($131,000), Natural Gas Supply Association ($114,000), Tesoro Companies ($119,000).

C'mon now, think hard - what have they got in common?

Just for the record. Something about the fanfair surrounding the 'Oregon Petition' and its impressive tally of 31,000 'scientists' who are apparently critical of the validity of the current scientific concensus relating to climate change, jogged my memory last night. I knew I'd heard about it before, but I'd trashed it, and moved on. Then, last night, it all started to come back to me, the reason I'd trashed it.

The Oregon Petition is basically a fraud. Which sounds harsh, but let's not beat around the bush. The impressive sounding number of 31,000 scientists is highly, grostesquely, misleading. If one thinks the climate e-mails are cause for concern and 'proof' of some conspiracy to hoodwink the public, then one should have a field-day with the Oregon Petition! This thing has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It's a disgrace. It's highly controversial, to say the least.

Once again it's difficult to know where to begin with it. First, the vast majority of the scientists who apparently signed the petition, aren't climate scientists, but they are entitled to their opinion. As far as I
can find out, only around 200 of the 31,000 names are qualified in the field of climate science.

Many of the names are clearly fakes, as are the academic qualifications they pretend to have. Virtually no one takes this petition seriously, as it simply doesn't stand up to even superficial scrutiny or examination. To produce the Oregon Petition, of all things, as some kind of 'proof' that a counter-consensus exists, consisting of 'real scientists' who reject the basic tenets relating to climate change, is absurd.

@ glenn

I'm not in the least bit interested in personalising the matter. I'd rather discuss the issues at hand.

I'm looking for a persuasive scientific arguement here stronger than that of what has been observed over the last couple of weeks.

If you could persuade me based on the science I feel no disgrace in changing my mind. Afterall, what's the point in searching for the truth if when one stumbles upon it, your not prepared to accept it.

@ writerman

The consensus issue still isn't settled. How many climate scientists are pro-AGW? Do you actually know? Be honest.

But there isn't a 'consensus issue', that the point. The vast majority of climate scientists agree, a tiny, tiny, minority do not. Nobody seriously disagrees with this widly known fact. What they disagree about it is not, how many, but why, and are they right, or fools, or duped, or what's their hidden political agenda.

I don't know exactly how many climate scientists are pro-AGW, and it isn't even important. Who cares if it's 95% or 90%? What's important is that there is a consensus which has been established, and there is no counter-consensus among climate scientists. There is no real debate about the fundamentals of climate change either, but obviously there will be debate about particular details within the framework.

I fail to see what you gain from repeatedly questioning and denying that a consensus exists among the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, when this simply isn't true. One can disagree with the conclusions of the general consensus, it's methodology, models, premises, standards... but one cannot honestly pretend that there isn't a consensus which is actually becoming stronger as emperical data, and observations in the real world, increasingly support the developing theory, and the models.

I fail to see what your motive is for continually denying what is patently obvious and non-controversial.

For you, what would 'settle' the consensus issue? Am I supposed to provide the names, addresses, academic qualifications, and a list of articles relating to climate change, from all climate scientists who are pro-AGW? What would that prove exactly? And would you even be satisfied then? I don't believe you would, to be honest.

"The consensus issue still isn't settled. How many climate scientists are pro-AGW? Do you actually know? Be honest"

Lwtc24/7
Q. How many of the scientist that you speak of work for the companies mentioned in Vronisky's post?
A. Probably most of them.

There will always be a difficulty in scientists providing 100% evidence humans increase in CO2 emissions has lead to global warming beacuse the scale of the subject matter is so huge and wide ranging. We account for around 8% of CO2 built up in the atmosphere the rest being made up naturally but even this is too much and it is increasing. But to verify this 100% is very difficult. That is why there will always be people like you questioning the detail and use that as a basis for disputing AGW. However, there is a large amount of evidence that has been collected over 200 years that lead many scientists, hundreds or thousands of them, to believe that AGW is to blame. Most of the scientific evidence that anti AGW scientist use is pockets over the last 25 years escpecially the cooling of the last decade but most of their evidence is based on just disputing details of existing evidence on AGW.
If you want to still argue over details then that is fine but the general debate has moved on from anti and pro AGW. It is now with the politicians to decide what to do because unfortunately scientists don't make those decisions they just collect data and make informed conclusions based on the evidence.

"The consensus issue still isn't settled. How many climate scientists are pro-AGW? Do you actually know? Be honest"

Lwtc24/7
Q. How many of the scientist that you speak of work for the companies mentioned in Vronisky's post?
A. Probably most of them.

There will always be a difficulty in scientists providing 100% evidence humans increase in CO2 emissions has lead to global warming beacuse the scale of the subject matter is so huge and wide ranging. We account for around 8% of CO2 built up in the atmosphere the rest being made up naturally but even this is too much and it is increasing. But to verify this 100% is very difficult. That is why there will always be people like you questioning the detail and use that as a basis for disputing AGW. However, there is a large amount of evidence that has been collected over 200 years that lead many scientists, hundreds or thousands of them, to believe that AGW is to blame. Most of the scientific evidence that anti AGW scientist use is pockets over the last 25 years escpecially the cooling of the last decade but most of their evidence is based on just disputing details of existing evidence on AGW.
If you want to still argue over details then that is fine but the general debate has moved on from anti and pro AGW. It is now with the politicians to decide what to do because unfortunately scientists don't make those decisions they just collect data and make informed conclusions based on the evidence.

"But the argument seems to me unanswerable that mankind should seek to minimise its effect on the environment"

Er - it seems to me unanswerable that this is rubbish. Without mankind Britain would be & in earlier years was, solid & impenetrable forest with only the hilltops habitable. London was marshland. Would it really be better if it still was like that. Is the role of gardener not preferable to absentee lanndlord.

On the particular case of alleged catastrophic warming - at the height of the medieval warming period it was 2 degrees warmer than now; during the Climate Optimum (5,000-9,000 BC) it was up to 4 degrees - both were very comfortable & looked back on fondly. The entire scare story is a government funded eco-fascist fraud because, in the words of Mencken ""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The issue of consensus is largely irrelevant. Science is not democratic. The truth is the truth even if only one person speaks it and the rest disagree. Nor does it matter who funds whom.

Hopefully disagreements over the science will cool over the coming years, along with temperatures. From what I can gather there has been a mild and steady increase in temperatures since the "Little Ice Age" of 16th-18th centuries. However, this trend (of less than 2 degrees over 200 years) is made up of regular and predictable oscillations, ie:
1882 - 1910 Cooling
1910 - 1944 Warming
1944 - 1975 Cooling
1975 - 2001 Warming
If the pattern continues we are set for mild cooling until 2025 approx.

The timing of recent concerns about global warming has been unfortunate because they have come at a time of predictable rising temperatures. The IPCC thinks temperatures will continue to rise (the "hockey stick"), while the sceptics think they will start to fall modestly, while maintaining the overall (but slight) upward drift seen since the end of the Little Ice Age.

Over the next few years the evidence of who is right should be plain to see.

In the meantime, let's cut fossil fuel use and pollution. But global carbon taxes? Stitching up the developing nations? Forget it.

@ writerman

That Big oil pays some anti-AGW'ers is pretty much assured. But ones predictions about who funds _green research_ or who buys green tech patents of green technology is rather predictable too.

You're a CEO of Big Oil. What would you do?

Re: Oregon petition, there is probably a few M. Mouse's and D. Duck's on it. No prizes however for who would do such a thing.

I have no idea as to the % of real signatories to it. However it has importance in that there exists a list of signatories that can be verified. Those Ducks and Mice could be crossed off at the end a tally of bona fide signatories is the result.

As far as I know there isn't one for the pro-AGW camp.

Strange tht now consensus transpires wout to be a non-issue when a word count reveals thrse posters as being the first four to mention it:

1) glenn at December 8, 2009 12:24 PM
2) amk at December 8, 2009 4:54 PM
(whose whole post involved 'the consensus'.
then
3) writerman at December 9, 2009 7:16 AM
followed by
4) ingo at December 9, 2009 9:58 AM

Then comes me to challenging it.

As for pouring scorn on those scientists who are not climate scientists, consider this... how many here are physical scientists? and of them how many are climate scientists. These posters are allowed to have strong views on the issue and demonstrably believe they can comprehend the scientific aspects of AGW. Shouldn't that grace doesn't seen to be reciprocated to those who signed the OP as well as your ordinary man on the street?

Well I've not seen anything convincing about the consensus issue, so as must happen in any debate of value there should be a little give and take, so ok. lets assume there is a consensus.

Now...
Lets look at the computer code that is said to generate hockey sticks when random data is plugged into it.

If that is true, and from what I read of it, it sure seems so, then doesn't that mean it's baseless and can be ignored?

Lwtc24/7

You should look further into the evidence collected by climate scientists and stop trying to go against the grain just because it is different. There is no conspiricy here no matter how much you wish there to be.
The evidence against anthropogenic global warming is poor but not completely unfounded. However, most scientists and engineers that study climate change, including myself, are of the opinion that AGW is largely to blame and cutting back CO2 emissions is the best solution to the problem. They are not 100% but nobody will ever be
and even if, 20 years down the line, their research is proved wrong and we were worrying about nothing would that not be better than dismissing it until it is too late? Also in the future fossil fuels are going to run out anyway so maybe it is better to adopt to more sustainable sources before now before it is too late? Just a few points to consider.

@ MJ fair point about the truth is the truth, but how does that work? ... A lucky scientist stumbles upon it (or a talented scientists works towards it). He publishes and others read it. They use their own critical faculties to assess it and then decide upon it. One would hope his training would help his see the facts independently of his own bias. Therefore if the truth was indeed found, then most scientists who suport it should (if purely the science is considered) give a good indication of whether the truth has been uncovered or not.

As for funding, vronksy, writerman and so forth do have a point. There's a general understanding that He who pays the pipler calls the tune. It's a legitimate cause for concern.

To be honest, I don't believe we'll seriously address the issue of global warming in time to avert catastrophe.

If the scientific consensus is correct, and we are heading for a steep rise in longterm temperatures, if we don't take drastic remedial action to cut CO2 emissions, then we're in trouble, big trouble.

I think it'll take a miracle to stop us going over the 2 degree maximum most scientists believe is the maximum. I think we are on course for three or four degrees, or even six, by the end of the century.

Why am I so pesismistic? Because I don't believe we have 'mechanisms' in our political/economic system that can instigate the changes in our lifestyle within the necessary timeframe. It is going to be touch and go. My great fear, mostly because I have so many kids, is that by the time people rise up in open revolt, it'll be too late and the climate changes will be unstoppable. I reckon we've got, at the maximum, a decade to alter the way we live, and start the redistribution of wealth and power.

Finally, even though a couple of degrees increase in average temperatures doesn't really sound a great deal, or even three or four degrees seem all that threatening, it is important to realize that this rise won't be evenly distributed. At the arctic extremes the increase will be substantially higher, by three or four times the average, or worse. At least that's what the models are showing, and the measurments at the moment support the models, which is disturbing.

cheers chris.

Scientists /want/ to be different? I've seen 'different' scientists but none who want to be different. And I certainly don't wish there to be any conspiracies. But that they happen and that theey merit studying isn't not comparable.

Similarly I don't accept the earth will go beyond a point of no return with regards to CO2. Radioactive waste yes, CO2 no.

I don't accept the arguement that it's better to do something 'just in case'.
Daily, more than 1 billion people feel hungry. The money should be spent there and mega corporations like the oil companies should pay a hell of a lot more towards that.

"how does that work?"

By becoming demonstrable to all. An obvious example is Einstein's General Theory, which most scientists didn't accept (or understand) until the eclipse proved it.

Admittedly it may not be quite so simple with climatolgy, which is not a pure science but a hybrid drawing on several disciplines.

Point taken about funding, but even then the truth will out eventually. When scientists are paid to come up with predetermined results the science is likely to be bad. By the same token however we must not baulk from those odd occasions when the desired results just happen also to be true.

Now we have talked a lot of who said what and how much still needs further scientific perusal.
I would like to swing this debate to one of Europes most exciting projects this century, called Desertec.
This is a conglomerate of different private interests that are coordinating internationally and cooperating with Magreb countries on developing a Concentrated Solar Network.
I am very excited about this 400Billion push to harness the sun.s energy and transmit it to the world.
We do not need french nuclear power or Russian gas/oil from dubious oligarchs. It will provide enough resources for the producing countries and make our energy supplies sustainable for the next 3.5 billion years.

Siemens who just bought out Solel, an Israely solar power company is involved and so is Munich Re, the insures in the know.
What do others think of the lack of british profile in this venture? Is it again a case of limping behind?

Ingo

I think that Britain will probably not want to be too heavily involved in renewable energy that is produced outside it's own boudaries. I also don't think that they would want to get too involved in solar energy produced in the same countries that they currently buy oil from. The other problem with this is that trying to get a competitive price after all the effort needed to tranfer it over to europe I think makes it only useful for Spain Italy and South of France.
Britain has more reliable and cheaper renewable resources at home such as Tidal, Wave, Wind, Hydro and even solar in the South of England. So Desertec, as interesting as it is, seems a bit difficult and expensive for the UK. However, I maybe proven wrong.

Ingo

I think that Britain will probably not want to be too heavily involved in renewable energy that is produced outside it's own boudaries. I also don't think that they would want to get too involved in solar energy produced in the same countries that they currently buy oil from. The other problem with this is that trying to get a competitive price after all the effort needed to transfer it over to europe I think makes it only useful for Spain Italy and South of France.
Britain has more reliable and cheaper renewable resources at home such as Tidal, Wave, Wind, Hydro and even solar in the South of England. So Desertec, as interesting as it is, seems a bit difficult and expensive for the UK. However, I maybe proven wrong.

Chris, I see your point about the emerging alternative energy producers currently held up at every stage of their projects by some jobs worth or Government lackey who is in bed with french nuclear power pushers.
I would think that there is space for everyone and that it would be great to have a reliable sustainable source to fall back on, rather than leaving a 10.000 year legacy to our kids.

It is notable that the only large projects in britain are undertaken by large companies or enteties like the Crown estate, whilst communities who could equally undertake such projects if they are together with it, are lambasted by onshore planning authorities.
For example SOUTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL, soonto be abolished for an all Norfolk county council, is the least greenest council in Britain, the most obstructive to change and full of jobsworth.
here is a list of those who ahve signed up to Desertec, I for one support it before any Russian srewball or french EDF consortium.
http://www.desertec.org/en/foundation/members/

Lwtc24/7

I think you were missing my point and I don't know what you are talking about refering to "different" scientists??? I certainly didn't mention that. What I was trying to say was that the evidence against AGW is farily poor and relies mainly on disputing evidence that supports AGW not on their own theories. That is why they are not being taken seriously and the debate has moved on.
Also I understand that in third world countries many people are starving. But you should also notice that many of these countries have governments with money who allow their people to starve while living a lavish lifestyle, Zimbabwe and Sudan for example.
Also if you looked at my point regarding the end of fossil fuels the "just in case" work turns into forward planning. We'll have to find alternatives at some point why put off the inevitable?
Finally why do you worry more about radioactive waste destroying that planet than CO2? Where is the evidence on that theory? It seems a bit of a wild fantasy to me.

I'm all for renewable energy too. But I can almost guarntee the tech will become owned by Big oil by hook or by crook (most likely by crook!)

I heard a tale that in some parts of Africa it was illegal to collect rainwater (the water companies would lose out). What's the likelyhood that harvesting solar energy on a individual basis (to the exclusion of an energy proder company) would go the same way?

Ingo

Council are starting to get their arses in gear with renewable energy but they need to be pushed more by the government. They have too much power over energy projects and too little knowledge. Also there are many people who like the idea of renewable energy but "not in their back garden."
I think that the Desertec idea is great and Spain is one of the countires that are really harnessing solar energy but Britain should concentrate on wave and Tidal. There is a company in Australia called Biopower Systems that have developed some pretty cool tidal and wave designs that don't require barrages. We should be developing this type of energy as we have massive potential for it.
Here is the website:
http://www.biopowersystems.com/biostream.php

Lwtc24/7

It is really down to the government of that country to decide who owns the renewable energy and they should put regulations on that. Most companies, not just exclusevly Oil, want to increase profit and monopolise their industry but it's down to the government to allow them to do this.
There are so many bad things that some African Leaders have done to their own people, from outlawing talking about Aids to promoting poor formula milk over breastfeeding to mothers with babies. It is no suprise that the water collectin ban is happening.

On the point of harvesting solar energy on and individual basis i think that this can be a problem if they are producing much wasted energy. Hooking the panels up to a national grid and getting a rebate is something that would be beneficial and not waste energy but know doubt that would be exploited in third world countries.

lwtc seems to be running this thread. Click on his link and look at his site - and look at the sites he links to. He's unworried about AGW, because Baby Jesus (or the dinosaurs) will be right back to save us. So stop worrying and turn up the thermostat - Jesus loves you, and obviously the globe cannot warm when we have a god so co-o-o-o-o-ol.

I'm only guessing now, but I think Baby Jesus might have shares in Conoco.

"The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us." (Judges 9:8)

Oil is god.

Fascinating discussion. As regards to the CRU leaks, the emails are only a small part of the overwhelming evidence of scientific fraud. The emails merely paint a picture, which by themselves may be insufficient to prove fraud in a criminal case, even though there are blatant requests to delete information requested under Freedom of Information Law - which is almost certainly illegal.

The actual computer code itself though is far more damning, and shows clear evidence (which incidentally is well documented in the code) to generate a pre-determined outcome.

On Anthony Watts website http://wattsupwiththat.com/ there are multiple examples of even the actual code itself being analysed line by line to clearly demonstrate this.

The evidence of cherry-picking of data is absolutely overwhelming.

The hide the decline, was actually about omitting tree-ring data that demonstrated a fall in temperature, because it was known by everyone that temperatures had actually risen. They kept the earlier tree-ring data that showed temperatures were rising, and then substituted actual temperature records to produce the hockey stick.

But if the decision was made to discard the most recent tree-ring data because it showed a decline, why was the earlier data assumed to be correct? The logic is quite plain to see. Cherry pick data to "prove" Global Warming.

To anyone not trained in science, the reaction is probably so what!!??

But to anyone trained in physical science and maths, such behaviour is just completely and utterley totally outrageous and criminal. It brings science itself into disrepute. Its totally disreputable. Its totally unacceptable. I read comments from real scientists, and I can see their restrained fury in every single word they write.

You simply do not do that. If real scientists and engineers behaved in such a manner, bridges would fall down, in fact absolutely everything would collapse.

The entire World has been lied to by these Bullies and Criminals.

The objective has been clearly stated by such influential people as Maurice Strong who you may never have heard of. The objective is to crash Western Civilisation.

Western Civilisation is totally dependent on high density, reliable, continuous energy supply. If you don't rebuild power stations - or if you replace them with windmills, absolutely EVERYTHING in CITIES will Fail. Most people in the West live in Cities.

There will be No Water, No Sewage, No Money, No Jobs, No Food, No Transportation. People in Cities Will Die a Most Horrible Death without ENERGY.

That is The Agenda. Massive Depopulation. The Big Cull.

Just Switch Off The Energy - Pull The Plug and Die.

And I agree Exponential Population Growth is a Very Serious Problem. There are however far more Graceful Ways to Resolve it, Than Mass Genocide.

Now you May think I am talking Nonsense. Just Check out Your History Books - and The Mass Slaughter in The Last Century. That was Just Millions. This time it Will Be BILLIONS...

Unless We Stop This Insanity.

Its nothing to do with Liberal Left Wing Values of the People Defending it. They've been conned and lied to just like everyone else.

Tony

ingo,

Desertec which I looked into a couple of years ago is a Club of Rome project and in theory sounds wonderful.

In practice, it is a massive diversionary project that would be completely useless at supplying usable quantities of energy to Europe.

Solar energy obviously has uses in hot dry sunny countries, but even if you had the most enormous solar power stations,there is no way to efficiently transport that energy vast distances.

Any energy produced in such way should be used locally for example - desalianting sea water for irrigation - or if sufficient energy could be produced - for high energy intensive industry.

It would be great if a solar power station could reproduce itself from its own energy in the desert. After all most of the content of a solar power station is glass which is made out of sand.

If such a thing is viable, then why hasn't it already been done. Yes I know about Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, but all of them have been built using conventional energy.

Any power plant worth having must produce more energy over its lifetime, than all the energy inputs to build and operate it - otherwise it is an energy sink.

I have yet to see any conclusive proof that any solar power plant is not any energy sink, and the same is true of windmills.

I would like to see windmills reproduce themelves as well. If they can't they are a waste of time, and a mere diversion.

By reproducing themselves, I mean that all the energy required in all stages of design, mining, refining, manufacturing, operating, maintenance and distribution comes from the windmill - to make another one.

I don't think its possible. I believe all solar power is dependent on input from conventional energy.

If you get out less out than you put in, then you are wasting energy and should't have bothered because you have gained nothing. You have an energy sink.

Fortunately oil is not about to run out, though I think it may be turned off.

Whilst I agree with almost everything that lwtc247 has posted today, I do not agree with his views on Nuclear Power, particularly the latest Thorium Based technology, which can in theory be used to turn useless nuclear weapons material safely and cleanly into enormous amounts of cheap electricity. We have to get rid of nuclear missiles, and this is by far the most sensible way of doing so.

Tony

"If real scientists and engineers behaved in such a manner, bridges would fall down, in fact absolutely everything would collapse."

Tony

That is not necessarily true, for example an engineer could work out the figures for building a bridge and then beef them up to make sure it will work sufficiently even though the lesser figure would be enough.
I think that you are blowing this out of proportion because although they fudged figures there is still a huge amount of evidence that has not been fudged and supports the general consensus regarding global warming.

Also your comments about windmills and solar panels are a bit odd. In theory you could easily make a wind turbine out of wood, which is a sustainable material, and use the electricity from the existing wind turbine to power the tools to make it and then power the electric transporter to take it to site. this could be repeated again and again but they may not last as long so it would probably require more effort and would be less efficient.
The solar energy can be transported easily from Africa by using underwater cable routes and several large transformers which would boost the energy to europe. These transformers could be powered by tidal or wave so it can work but it would need be done at a non competitive rate which is probably why not many people are going for it at present. However, in the future when prices go up it maybe viable. But the energy would be coming from the same countries that we get our oil from at present. This dependance on the Middle East is what most countries are trying to move away from with renewable energy.

I agree. Pollution is the issue.
Dispose of the warming certainty by viewing commentary provided by Dr. John v. Kampen ( my.opera.com/nepmak2000/blog ) on videos on YouTube by professor emeritus Ian Plimer - Earth Sciences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo
That's the first of 3 he posted Dec 3 and referenced by me Dec 4 with further information.
Water pollution is my main bugaboo...though corporate farming and pesticides are linked.The index is at my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/ under Collections Forwarded to Blogger
You will find information from a rancher/blogger and a retired Ohio farmer/blogger regarding multiple threats to food and water and included in information which covers Monsanto Terminator seeds, destruction of Iraq's agriculture, mass suicides by farmers in India and Africa..and much more.

Oops. The farmer/rancher commentaries were back in mid August on the main blog just before notes on Current TV's water news group 15 Aug.
Environment and Sickening Practices 14 Aug and 'Green Acres'
Do watch the infomercial Home. It's 1hr 33min and I found it excellent.
And in light of Dr. Plimer's report I find myself questioning whether the Uranium articles are accurate...but have no updates to debunk them.

why would it not be a good thing for the Middle East to benefit from solar panels? or even 'useless'?

we can run a geo-thermal pipeline down from iceland.

Very detailed analysis of the scientists who signed a petition objecting to the American Physical Society's position on global warming. Highly recommended as an insight in the players and their methods.

http://tinyurl.com/ygwgcfg

(it's a PDF)

"Readers might like to check out http://www.realclimate.org/ for views from some actual climate scientists, and some debunking of the regular distortions that prevent meaningful discussion on this issue."

They're welcome to do so, but should be aware that it's owned by Al Gore's press officer, Arlie Schardt (Environmental Media Services). Something to keep in mind when considering said 'debunking'.

I read EMS has campaigned for marine stewardship, against deregulation of GM technology, against Bovine growth Hormone additives...
they don't sound too bad to me.

The "Union of Concerned Scientists", campaign against nuclear power, against military research, for scientific integrity, agricultural and energy reform, and action on global warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Check em out and clear your heads'

Two of my posts never got through the spam filter.

Here's a 2009 statement from the most important national science academies:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

And here's a 2009 statement from a collection of American scientific organisations:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

factcheck.org on "climategate":
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Neither CO2 levels nor solar output correlates well with climate over geological time. However, combine them both and you do get a good correlation.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2005.11.031
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
(A good series, that)

So no grovelling apologies from the eco-liars who said McIntyre & co were getting money, nor any evidence that there was the remotest trace of truth in anything they said then. How expected.

oh grovel grovel, everything they said was true, its all a lie );

Honestly, I think you have been spun Neil. And if you havent been, and the great majority of the thousands of scientists who have put professional effort into researching this phenomenon, have all one way or an other, sold out... good luck buddy.

Craig. Is this a topic which you would ever change your mind on?

Gooey Ducks grow to about two pounds in four or five years.
[url=http://www.gooey-duck.com/]geoduck[/url]

Hi everyone. I've never quite believed that one chance is all I get. Help me! Need information about: Zithromax azithromycin side effects. I found only this - what does azithromycin. Azithromycin, can you eventually occur the mouth on the air, recently if you need just ignore an o2 week. Azithromycin, several inappropriate brand should be compared for three symptoms, at which practice the damage should be known. Thank :mad: Archer from Finland.

MRCbENz