A chemical reaction

Michael B

Evidence once again that labels such as "scientific consensus" and "scientific inquiry" are too often used to obscure and deny the fact that genuinely free and truer forms of probative inquiry are, when it comes to certain subjects, simply not desired.

Seeking power, via labeling, via stagecraft, via semiotics in general, is not the same thing as seeking truth, to the extent that truth can be approached. The former typically requires political machinations and duplicity, via labeling and otherwise, the latter demands an internalized integrity and rigor.

Shane Glackin

Oh, for the love of God.

The existence of skeptics is part of the scientific process. It's how it gets off the ground at all. Meanwhile, those of us who are non-scientists - which, contrary to the impression you might get from the presumed authority with which Melanie talks all manner of nonsense on here, doing untold damage - need to go with what is the *overwhelming consensus*.

And yes, you can point to exceptions to the overwhelming consensus. Firstly, that doesn't mean there isn't an overwhelming consensus; and secondly, by pointing to them and shrieking like this, exaggerating their standing, you totally misrepresent the state of scientific opinion you claim to be so exercised about.

I would say "for shame", were it not readily apparent from *every* *single* *word* you have uttered on a scientific topic that you are utterly devoid of the stuff.

Ronnie

It just does not matter whether climate change is man-made or not. It makes not the slightest difference.

As we haggle like pidgeons over a piece of stale bread, the climate is changing and we need to adapt. That is all that matters.

Lift your heads out of that warm, cosy crevice and up into the sunlight.

Richie Craze

Here we go again...

Perhaps another article on evolution next?

No soap dodging tree huggers permitted.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

I'm submitting a business plan wrapped around this phenomenom today.

(Nice timing Melanie. Cheers!)

:)))

Seriously (i am actually submitting a business plan regarding this btw- today!), even though there may be new factual (non-hysterical) data being made more readily available, this premise that we can keep on using resources to the inefficient level we are doing is rather obscene to say the least.

If we can (and we can btw, quite easily) start incorporating sensible power saving systems in many existing industries, then you start to save more cash money to pump back in (except on any level to this scummy inept government) to eventually re-invest in the country's already depleted industrial base.

World saved.

Peter N

Apparently the Met Office comes under the MOD. Consequently, they have turned down several Freedom of Information requests for temperature data and methods of adjusting temperature records on the basis of confidentiality and national security! There is no transparency! It seems that temperatures have been in decline for the last few years but it would endanger our national security if the ordinary people were to find out. Time for some investigative journalism, I'd say.

Mailman

Imagine my amazement as it started to hail yesterday afternoon!

And all this at the height of global warming (tm) and in the middle of summer!

John Thomas

Yes, at some point it will reach a "tipping point", and then AGW will just collapse - and with it, I hope, the kind of politics which has upheld, and used, it (you know the sort I mean) (A propos that, I read - on the net, not the MSM, obviously - that popular support for Obama and his policies is waning, in the US, quite fast). All is not hopeless.

Lizzy

Environmentalism is the religion of the new urban elites, to borrow from an Australian geologist. Trying to convince people that the science on climate change is not definite is like trying to convince the same people that Islamists are full of hate for the West. They shut down and refuse to countenance such a thoughtcrime!

Original Tony

Nice one Melanie!

You see, the world has got used to people in power just ramming things through while everyone else shuts up and bows down. American politics is a bit like the debate on global warming, it's all done in the headlines of magazines and newspapers and just as the current US administration is being rebuffed so are the top dogs in teh science community, who have previoulsy thought they are gods.

Good, people are fighting back in both cases!!

Margaret Gardner

Lets say the odds are 9/10 that climate change is man made. Personally and for the sake of my family I am not prepared to take the 1 in 10 long shot.

Scepticism is great but probability better.

Ed Grove

@Margaret Gardner

"Let's say" you're estimation of 9/10 odds are plucked from the air and meaningless.

Chico M

OR... lets say the odds are 0/10 that climate change is man made.
Oh, and what happened to 'Global Warming'?

shockwaver

ms. gardner
what many of us have been asking for is a debate. the real deniers are those who have suppressed discussion with shrill and most often bogus claims. as a member and fellow of the APS i am appalled at the unprofessional way in which they have conducted themselves.
you can read what i think about this at:
http://www.conservativecabbie.com/american-politics/cap-the-demise-of-science-based-policy-development/
where you will see that my main concern is that science has been co-opted by activists that have a political objective.

Interglacial John

margaret gardner writes... "Scepticism is great but probability better." personally i prefer to make my decisions based on science and logic, not the herd. in this case science and logic dictates we should do nothing.

Ray

Don't worry, Margaret Gardner, the odds on man-made global warmings being true are a good deal less than 9/10. Therefore, you and your family can carry on flying abroad for your holidays for a while longer.

boxermk

The chance that humans can change, and furthermore, regulate, the climate, over the power of the Sun and the cosmos is far, far less than 1/10. More like 1 in 1000000000000000000000, if that.

There are so many more disastrous scenarios for you to get hysterical about that is based in far more science, if environmental hysteria is your thing.

And if you are willing to destroy your economy and have every aspect of your life regulated for climate computer models that have no relation to real science, then it is clear who actually does cares about science and people and the environment, and who does not.

Brian O'Connor

Margaret Gardner wrote (July 31st, 2009 12:59pm)

Lets say the odds are 9/10 that climate change is man made. Personally and for the sake of my family I am not prepared to take the 1 in 10 long shot.

What if the consequences aren't as bad as advertised and the cure is worse (read some of Bjorn Lomborg's work)?

Scepticism is great but probability better.

Except that the probabilities are unknown and cannot be calculated, the opinions of somne Climate Change experts not withstanding (see Aliens Cause Global Warming, a speech delivered at Cal Tech by Michael Crichton).

If you read Aliens, you will also learn of the devastating cost in human lives of following consensus science, after the falsity of the consensus had been exposed (the consensus remained, in spite of dispositive evidence that it was wrong).

Science is produced by scientists, and scientists are people, like everyone else. Some are more resistant to peer pressure and the need for approval than others; some are greedy, some less so; some are as honest as they can be, some are less so; some are blinded by ideology, some are not so.

Tim Mirsa

Margaret Gardner
July 31st, 2009 12:59pm

You say: "Lets say the odds are 9/10 that climate change is man made. Personally and for the sake of my family I am not prepared to take the 1 in 10 long shot."

Ok, well lets say the odds are 0/10 that climate change is man made. Personally and for the sake of my family I am not prepared to commit futile economic suicide for the sake of "climate correctness".

You say: "Scepticism is great but probability better."

Quite. I suggest you ask a 14 year old maths student to explain probability to you, Margaret. Being an ecomentalist because it makes you feel better about yourself is one thing. Scientific scepticism is altogether more honourable, moral and rational. In fact scepticism is not only desirable in science, it's essential to the scientific method.

logdon

Course to the BBC, our 'impartial national publicly funded broadcaster' this is heresy of the highest order.

Ethical Man and all the other unwatchable stuff presented as fact.

Last night aired another, I think, on windfarms, with no editorial ballance or counter.

Just bland and blank statements of their 'truth'.

Yet, who will rid us of these meddlesome leftard jobsworths?

Not musher Cammo that's for sure.

Verity's Husky's talking to each other, 'I had that Dave Cameron in the back of my sled the other day', was the funniest. I still laugh at the image.

And a far more meaningful bon mot than all the other pseudo manipulated science these bastards are saddling us with.

Pretty soon this will escalate energy bills and will be too expensive for the poor.

What then? Let the old buggers all die of hypothermia?

Cheaper than a trip to Switzerland I guess.

Alan O'Reilly

Climate is always changing. We don't live in static environment, like a precisely controlled greenhouse, always the same temperature, humidity, light intensity etc. 'Climate change' is a truism that cannot be denied, unlike 'global warming,' which is a definite assertion requiring objective proof before it can be taken as valid.

No doubt that's why the term 'global warming' has fallen out of favour.

The 'climate change' truism is similar to the provocative public statement made, I believe, some decades ago in Britain, namely that 'Half of all British school children are below average.' Apparently it sparked considerable debate amongst the general public.

The truth is, of course, that the other half of all British school children are above average.

Climate will always change, one way or the other but at the moment it's a good stick to beat populations with and rob them of yet more tax money.

Lady Astor's son in law

BBC admits the propaganda isn't working:
"Contrary to popular belief, the majority of teens are not particularly worried about the environment. There is a small minority of youngsters who are active in attempting to help the environment, but with homework, school, friendships and often a job, teens often do not have time to help the environment. Teens may also see that the gradually-worsening environment can have benefits (global warming brings warmer weather) at this current time, but often do not consider the future risks of not attempting to save it".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8149967.stm

Brian O'Connor

Alan O'Reilly wrote (July 31st, 2009 6:17pm)

'Climate change' is a truism that cannot be denied, unlike 'global warming,' which is a definite assertion requiring objective proof before it can be taken as valid.

Precisely.

How do you falsify the hypothesis that "climate changes," except by demonstrating that climate does not change? Can anyone point to a period of geologic history — say 1000 years or so — in which climate did NOT change?

GW, of course, seems to have leveled off over the past decade (or actually gone into reverse . . .) in spite of ever increasing amounts of CO2 from the likes of India and China. That falsifies the GW-is-caused-by-human-produced-CO2 hypothesis, and with it the rationale to take draconian steps to curb CO2 emissions.

So the nomenclature has been "adjusted" from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to accommodate the inconvenient truth of non-warming, and thus resurrect the rationale for the draconian measures that the radical environmentalists are so determined to enact.

C. Gee

Shane Glackin:
You are not putting your faith in an "overwhelming" consensus of scientists. You are putting your faith in the media's assertion that there is an overwhelming consensus. You are giving non-scientists a bad name.

Please do stop being overwhelmed by a fictitious consensus, and start reading what the underwhelmed scientists have to say about AGW, before government starts to tax your breathing.

Brian O'Connor

Shane Glackin wrote (July 31st, 2009 2:06am):

Meanwhile, those of us who are non-scientists - which, contrary to the impression you might get from the presumed authority with which Melanie talks all manner of nonsense on here, doing untold damage - need to go with what is the *overwhelming consensus* . . . by pointing to them (skeptics . . . ed) and shrieking like this, exaggerating their standing, you totally misrepresent the state of scientific opinion you claim to be so exercised about.

Why? Are you suggesting that scientific truth is subject to the democratic process?

If so, I would urge you — as I have others — to read the speech Aliens Cause Global Warming by Michael Crichton at Cal Tech in 2003.

In it, you'll find several shocking examples of scientific consensus chugging destructively along in spite of dispositive evidence that the consensus is dead wrong. The cost in human lives of such consensual intransigence has been appalling.

"Scientific consensus" is not infallible. Indeed, far from it. "Consensus" is the refuge that one occupies when one is unsure. It has no part in determining what truth is.

In passing, keep in mind that science is performed by scientists, and scientists are humans. As humans, they are subject to the same weaknesses, fears, ambitions, need for peer approval and foibles as other humans.

Please also keep in mind that "all we know" about climate is fundamentally different than "all that can be known" about climate.

Brian O'Connor

Ronnie wrote (July 31st, 2009 7:31am)

As we haggle like pidgeons over a piece of stale bread, the climate is changing and we need to adapt. That is all that matters.

What did you have in mind?

Anthony Fornos

"Lets say the odds are 9/10 that climate change is man made."[br]Let's not; that is the crux of the problem. I am not willing to throw humanity back to the stone age to assuage the arbitrary assumptions of neurotics.

Brian O'Connor

In another comment, I remarked that "all we know" isn't necessarily "all there is to be known."

Now Luboš Motl, my favorite physicist and string theorist, has a nifty post confirming the effects of solar activity on Earth's temperature.

Key paragraph:

Each Forbush decrease can therefore warm up the Earth by the same temperature change as the effect of all carbon dioxide emitted by the mankind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. While you might think that such an effect is temporary and lasts a few weeks only, it is important to notice that similar variations in the solar activity, the solar magnetic field, and the galactic cosmic rays take place at many different conceivable frequencies, so there are almost certainly many effects whose impact on the temperature - through the clouds - is at least equal to the whole effect of man-made carbon dioxide.

David Revelman

The global warming myth is the political intelligence test of the twenty-first century. The intelligence test of the twentieth century was collectivist political systems; like Communism and socialism, including National Socialism, and many people failed that test. The same fools are lining up to fail the global warming test.

Hesperado

Melanie Phillips:

I notice that your bolded statements are also links. However, for one bolded statement, there was no link. It was in the first sentence of the last paragraph:

"A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.’ "

If you have a link for this, I would appreciate it if you could post it here or email it to me. Thanks.

Hesperado

Shane Glackin,

1) What is the precise definition of an "overwhelming consensus"?

2) When a consensus on an issue that has impacts on public spending is so politically charged there are overwhelming (to use your word) pressures put on the skeptics of that consensus, then it is up to the journalists to try to rectify that situation and relieve that pressure.

DaveP

In a dynamic universe, climate is always changing, due to forces that are beyond our control, such as orbital dynamics and solar nucleo- thermodynamics. All we can do is to adapt. Fortunately climate changes so gradually that we do not even have to make a conscious effort to adapt. Adaptation occurs quite naturally as part of making a living, raising crops etc.

As I noted here and elsewhere - the attempt to hold the climate of the planet to the present mean, whatever that is, assumes that the present climate is the very best of all, and that we have the means to hold it there. This is hubris of planetary proportions, and will not end well. The tragedy is that it is ordinary wage earners who will have to pay for all this idiocy. Politicians, and those who are intent on making a quick buck, will do very well.

DaveP

I keep hoping that "Global warming" does take place and thus reduce my heating bills, though I will lose out paying the "Global warming" tax. But now we are in the worst possible situation - a cooling climate leading to increased use of heating fuels, and then hit by a "global warming" tax on the increased fuel bill. A DOUBLE WHAMMMY if ever there was one.

Derek Baitey

Melanie is absolutely right.

We've already been bullied by a so-called "consensus" of leftie, BBC-worshipping jobsworths into giving up polystyrene, CFCs and asbestos because of a so-called "consensus".

Half the world's scientists claimed that the depletion of the ozone layer was due to deodorants - the other half put it down to methane produced by cows! They fought among themselves, no one true reason was discovered, yet we're all supposed to change our lifestyles?

I prefer to use logic, which dictates that where there is ever skeptism coming from at least a handful of scientists on any one issue, I will ignore what the left-wing media claims is the "consensus" and live accordingly, without recourse to new religions such as 'Environmentalism' and 'Keep Britain Tidy'.

Cigarette, anyone?

kiran

Peter N offers the most useful comment in his closing line: "Time for some investigative journalism...".
Journalistic investigation into the AGW consensus is seriously lacking. Blustering opinion, on the other hand, is never in short supply in the blogosphere.

Polly Gamma

If you really want something to worry about check out the activity records of magma flow under Yellowstone Park.

Sergey

One fact about which general public is not aware: there are two climate sciences, the one called paleoclimatology, and the one more known due media hype - computer modelling of the present climate system. These two sciences about climate differ in their basic assumptions, methods and subjects. Paleoclimatologists operate on a time scale of millenium, use geologic record as their primary data and reconstruct ancient climate from these empirical data. Mathematics is used only as a secondary method, since full-scale athmosphere and ocean circulation can not be modelled for distant past. Neo-climatologists ignore all these data, since their models can not be projected to distant past. The subject of paleoclimatology is natural variability, including Milankovich cycles with periods of 100 000 and 40000 years, caused by variations of Earth orbital parametres, variations of solar output, etc. So there is no consensus at all: all premisses of paleoclimatology are rejected by neo-climatologists, and vice versa.

Andrew P

Hesperado wrote (August 1st, 2009 8:05am):

Melanie Phillips:
... "A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.’ "

If you have a link for this, I would appreciate it if you could post it here or email it to me. Thanks."

Here's the link:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Do a search on the Oregon petition also, and visit www.wattsupwiththat.com for more anthropogenic global b*ll*cks enlightenment.

Ronnie

Polly Gamma.

Excellent point.

Ronnie

Brian O'Connor.

I simply think that we should concentrate on understanding and dealing with the likely impact of the change we see in our climate now and in the future.

Obviously those who think the problem is man-made will say that controlling or undoing the detrimental things we have done will be part of the solution.

I tend to think that we are beyond having any impact on the way the climate will change in future. I think the earth is a dynamic entity and while we may (or may not) have contributed to changes that are now observable, it really makes little difference at the end of the day.

We do see fundamental changes in weather patterns that are symptoms of deeper movements. Arguing about whether those 'chimneys over there' did it or not is rather pointless now.

Brian O'Connor

Ronnie wrote (August 3rd, 2009 6:52am)

I simply think that we should concentrate on understanding and dealing with the likely impact of the change we see in our climate now and in the future.[ . . . ]

The problem is that opinions differ about what the "likely impact" would be.

Do you believe the catastrophists (Gore, Hansen and their followers) or the realists (Lindzen, McIntyre and Watts and their followers)?

How you "deal with" climate change depends on which side you come down on. If you're a catastrophist, you want to take steps that would have a huge impact on peoples lives before anything happened.

If you're a realist, you would not. You'd adjust as necessary, when and if problems arise.

burgess

Shane Glackin,

What is the basis for your belief in an *overwhelming consensus* in the scientific community on this issue?

Ronnie

Brian Connor.

I'm having immense difficulty saying 'catastrophists'. However, it is possible that all the smaller realities will merge to become a catastrophy, but we may only recognise them one at a time. I therefore view both view points as complimentary and not mutually exclusive, in the longer term.

My point is that I believe it is more useful to consider the likely impact, of whatever magnitude, rather than bicker over whose fault it is.

Brian O'Connor

Ronnie wrote (August 3rd, 2009 9:17pm)

I'm having immense difficulty saying 'catastrophists'. However, it is possible that all the smaller realities will merge to become a catastrophy, but we may only recognise them one at a time. I therefore view both view points as complimentary and not mutually exclusive, in the longer term.

My point is that I believe it is more useful to consider the likely impact, of whatever magnitude, rather than bicker over whose fault it is.

And my point is that "likely impact" is unknown. One can build a case for any of several "likely impacts" — some positive and some negative — or no impact at all. Which "likely impact" do you favor?

Still, if all you're advocating is thoughtful consideration — as opposed to action — then I'm pleased that you will enjoy the benefits of a zen-based life.

And who's talking about fault? If AGW isn't a happening thing, how could there be fault?

Emil Cipolla

Who are we to believe - PhD's or Al Gore and the European bureaucrats and politicians??

Climate Change (and cyclical global warming / freezing) have occurred for thousands of years, and has numerous causes. Society should efficiently use its resources, but not rush into adapting 'solutions' that are not based upon science or are economically impractical.

The IPCC models are are based upon questionable assumptions, and incomplete and imprecise data.

Ronnie

Sorry, Brian Connor, you seem to labour under the misapprehension that I am, in some way, responsible for global emergency planning.

My only other comment is that you appear to be arguing in several different directions at the same time.

Brian O'Connor

Ronnie wrote (August 5th, 2009 9:57am)

Sorry, Brian Connor, you seem to labour under the misapprehension that I am, in some way, responsible for global emergency planning.

No . . . I've merely pointed out (or tried to . . .) that to say (and I quote): "My point is that I believe it is more useful to consider the likely impact, of whatever magnitude " is without meaning unless we know what the "likely impact" is.

I've also tried, in vain, to point out that the "likely impact" differs depending on who's viewpoint you believe.

My only other comment is that you appear to be arguing in several different directions at the same time.

I don't think so, but feel free to disagree.

While you're pondering what I wrote and why you can't understand it, please take a moment to enlighten us on what the "likely impact" you've invoked several times is.

Steve

Oh where oh where is our King Canute!

Ronnie

You are very tenacious, Brian Connor. Don't you read anything?

Melting polar sea ice, melting sheet ice on Greenland, melting glaciers at high altitude, rising sea levels threatening low-lying regions and island groups, increased sea temperatures creating more extreme weather patterns, stronger and longer Caribbean hurricane season, much longer and more violent storm season in the west of Scotland (try it!), melting tundra in Siberia releasing gazillions of tons more carbon into the atmosphere...

Brian O'Connor

Ronnie (August 7th, 2009 1:00pm)

You are very tenacious, Brian Connor. Don't you read anything?

Well, I try!

Melting polar sea ice, melting sheet ice on Greenland, melting glaciers at high altitude, rising sea levels threatening low-lying regions and island groups, increased sea temperatures creating more extreme weather patterns, stronger and longer Caribbean hurricane season, much longer and more violent storm season in the west of Scotland (try it!), melting tundra in Siberia releasing gazillions of tons more carbon into the atmosphere...

Though I could offer sources which refute or provide counter examples to each of your points (sea ice melting has declined dramatically; the leveling or declining global temperature for the past decade (satellite); increased ice accumulation in the Antarctic; glacial advance in Argentina; 1920s massive melting of arctic icecap [before Global Warming], plus its subsequent replenishment; no changes in weather patterns, including strength and frequency of hurricanes; growing Greenland icecap; etc.), I'll refrain for the time being and merely ask you this: what point are you trying to make?

Are you suggesting that the chemists and physicists Mel noted above are all rubes?

And are you familiar with the discrepancy between approaches outlined by Sergey above (Paleoclimatology versus computer modeling)?

Ronnie

OK, Brian Connor, thank you for being much clearer on where you are coming from.

The problem you are having with me is that I'm not very inerested in arguing with you. I am quite happy to accept that you have more scientific evidence behind you than I do. I certainly do not think that any scientist is a rube (whatever that is) and I have no interest in discrediting anyone's research or informed opinion in this matter.

If I have a point it is that I travel a lot, I grew up in an agricultural environment, I talk to lots of people, my life-long best friend helps build NASA's satellite-bourne laser measuring devices (for artic ice measurement). And none of the long term observable feedback I get is good.

However, as I've said, your evidence and your desire to argue about it is far stronger than mine. So the field is yours.

Peter N

Whatever 'consensus' there has been, it seems that it is breaking down. I was sent this:

"More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo
religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to
“strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a
“convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists,
meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to
natural cycles.”

Full Text of Translated Letter By 60 plus German Scientists:

Open Letter – Climate Change
Bundeskanzleramt
Frau Bundeskanzerlin Dr. Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Strabe 1
10557 Berlin

Peter N

Melting polar sea ice has been mentioned. Is it?

Consider this: http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/arctic-sea-ice-scam/#more-611

And I understand that the Antarctic ice is thicker now than at any time on record.

Olav H Dahlsveen

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Global Warming on Trial?
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial, according to an LA Times article.

Trying to fend off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, the Chamber of Commerce is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hold a public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.
According to the LA Times, the hearing would have witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge, who would rule whether humans are dangerously warming the planet.
The EPA says that a hearing would be a waste of time and that Global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."
The chamber will tell the EPA in a filing Tuesday that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."
Categories: Courts

I found the above article somewhere on the "NET" yesterday and I think it will be interresting to see what the result will be. Will all the people at the IPCC clear their desks and congregate down at the labour exchange?

Andrew T

To anyone who is still a warmist please consider the following:

1] Britains climate was warmer when the Romans invaded
- so much that the Lime trees were a common forest tree in central & southern England + the Romans made wine here

2] In the 12 century Greenland was green

3] Other bodies in the solar system have been warming up

4] less than 4% of CO2 is man made