An inconvenient ruling

Billy Squier

I strongly believe that global warming is real, and that we must do something about it.

At the same time, I also strongly support scientific skepticism and scientific criticism and I'm disgusted by the attempts by global warming advocates to censor everyone who dares disagree with them.

I'm glad that we in the States more zeaously guard about our freedom of speech.

Rob-NY

This is a canard that is accepted by both Presidential candidates in the US. A precious few refuse to drink the hemlock.

Canon Alberic

Rather wonderful Maynard Keynes quote from the same apostate source:

When the facts change I change my mind. What sir do you do?

George Monbiot's frighteningly stalinist denuniciations in todays noticeably hysterical book-burning Guardian of climate change "deniers" (how tasteless an appropriation is that?) gives some indication of how difficult it is going to be to extract our educated classes from this authoritarian pseudo-science. I am always reminded of just how proto "green" the Nazi's were.
Perfect illustration by the way...

Robin

Billy Squier

The issue isn't, of course, about the fact of climate change. We know that the planet has many times in past millennia warmed up and cooled down. When Erik the Viking went to Greenland in 896AD, it was - as the name implies - a green and reasonably pleasant land. Then the ice came back.

The issue is really about the truth or not of the AGW theory. The science doesn't support it, but the pseudo science of the Algorians can't accept hard science.

Alcuin

The only denial I see on this issue comes from Melanie and a few mavericks. Try telling this to the citizens of Tuvalu, as their country slowly disappears beneath the Pacific.

See what a real expert, Wallace Broecker - the "Grandfather of climate science" has to say.

Janet

And didn't the BBC go to town on this yesterday!

They've bought shares in global warming like some did in Northern Rock so any new evidence simply doesn't matter to them.

The BBC is determined not to lose their investment.

Oh dear.

ndm

Melanie Phillips writes:

-- There is now overwhelming evidence that the claim of man-made cuckoo global warming is indeed a swindle - not least the fact that, despite cuckoo the continuing rise in carbon dioxide, the climate has not warmed for the past ten years cuckoo and indeed has even cooled for the past five cuckoo.

Care to provde scientific proof of that statement.

Phillips continues:

-- The economy of the developed world has been distorted with food prices going through the roof, while good people have been vilified, their professional reputations trashed and their careers jeopardised -- all in the cause of a quasi-religious inquisition which it becomes ever clearer has as much basis in actual science as the drowning of witches in the Middle Ages.

This concern about the vilification of individuals is a remarkable piece of chutzpah from a Melanie Phillips whom Johann Hari suggests is a prime actor in the "campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people."

ndm

The following comment applies equally well to any of Melanie Phillips' postings so it may as well be attached to this one.

Frank Kermode has an interesting review of the book "How Fiction Works" by the critic James Wood. Kermode writes:

-- Wood wants to ask some "essential questions": "Is realism real? How do we define a successful metaphor? What is a character?... What is point of view, and how does it work?" He begins with "point of view" and the case, not so special as some think, of the "unreliable narrator." To tell a story from the point of view of somebody who does not understand it, or for other reasons misrepresents it, may seem merely perverse, but unreliability can be a matter of art. Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier and Henry James's What Maisie Knew are celebrated examples, and Wood adds Italo Svevo's Confessions of Zeno to the list. In these instances unreliability is of course intended, and necessary to the novel's design, though it may well happen that events or things not intended to contribute to the narrator's unreliability are misrepresented by accident. With Ford's novel, which contains a good many mistakes, there remains the question as to which of them are intended by the author and which are not. In such cases, the author's errors can of course be attributed to the character. But in fact all narrators, even of the more usual "omniscient" variety, are in some measure unreliable, missing things out, reporting them wrongly.

Given the fictive nature of Melanie Phillips' writing this applies equally well to her writing. Melanie Phillips is nearly always "unreliable, missing things out, [and] reporting them wrongly."

Thinkster (after two glasses of red, but as lucid as ever)

Oh Mel my sweetie, stick to matters Middle Eastern, not Middle Earthen! All that matters is we switch to ClEANER fuels and reduce pollution, after all, it does collect in our lungs, reduce the life expectancy of anyone living near traffic (Fulham, LA, New Delhi etc) and mean one has to wipe the dirt off ones window sill and computer monitor twice weekly...

john doe

If there is global warming, blame it on the cows and all that methane they produce. What is your dairy footprint?

Colin McQuade

The current man made global warming / climate change scam is just the latest (and hopefully, the last) roll of the dice for socialism and the forces of the authoritarian left in the developed world.

One shouldn't be too surprised at the reaction to this program and the subsequent Ofcom ruling. As more and more serious scientists are prepared to stand up for reason, integrity and pragmatism, the proponents of this vile political enterprise will go to almost any lengths to maintain the momentum for social and political change this cynical ploy affords them.

Strange and unpleasant things may well be occurring in relation to climate, but the idea that man made carbon emissions are largely responsible is risible.

Joe Camel

The warm-mongers bite the dust? Only on a small scale so far. Good for Channel 4, anyway.

Verity

Billy Squier - " strongly believe that global warming is real, and that we must do something about it."

Then I suggest we send you up to the sun with a giant hosepipe, because that is where all the heat and light in our universe come from.

Rob NY - And the Leaders of both major parties in Britain. I am absolutely baffled that they could buy into this gross, manipulative meme and can only surmise that some of their advisors are in on the scam.

Joe Camel

"It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

"There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

"Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases."

-- from an article by Phil Chapman in The Australian, 23 April 2008. I haven't managed to retrieve the URL, sorry.

Matthew Blott

@ Colin McQuade

I realise in the world you inhabit everything is the fault of socialism but could you please qualify your remarks and explain what this "global warming scam" has to do with the teachings of Karl Marx? Or were you just ranting nonsense?

Number 6

Thinkster: you're missing the point; no-one is arguing that reducing pollution levels isn't desirable. What I object to are the hysterical assertions of the climate change lobby that every time I get in my car and turn on the ignition a polar bear dies.
Bill Squier: with respect I think that the idea that "something must be done" almost inevitably turns out to be dangerous and damaging.

Herbert Thornton

Joe - I think this is the URL -

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5013480,00.html

anglicus

Here you go Joe;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

FatBigot

The absolutism of the AGW doommongers might be born of the fact that they got in first.

Where there is no obvious sign of a problem, someone who argues that there is a problem sets the ball rolling. His analysis becomes the basis of future argument. This will be interpreted by those who like the message he sends as the truth and, because that message is as much political as scientific, the rolling ball gathers momentum - the theory is out there, people are supporting it, doubters are still doing their research; the theory becomes the accepted position, the orthodoxy.

It takes time to build a clear case against a theory, especially a theory that is based not on observable facts but on computer models. You have to evaluate the data put into the model and examine the way the model is programmed.

While those evaluations and examinations are taking place time is moving on. Time helps to cement the theory by reason of nothing more than the absence of a fully researched case against it. But time also allows us to compare what is really happening in the world to what the theory says should be happening.

If the theory is correct, events will match it's predictions and the researchers will not find a sound basis on which to undermine it.

The stage we have reached now is that the climate has not behaved as the computer models said it should, there is evidence that the data fed into the models were not accurate and the models themselves did not give due weight to various factors other than carbon dioxide which affect the climate.

Still more worrying for the doomsayers is that the steps we are told we have to take would cause enormous damage to the industrial and economic structures which have provided us with comfortable lives.

And all the while India and China are determined to continue with their plans for industrialisation with the aim of providing their citizens with the material comforts we take for granted. We can all abandon our cars, planes and central heating and it will not make a jot of difference because China and India are bringing new coal-fired power stations on line each week.

The science of the AGW theory is unravelling, the practical consequences of it are wholly unattractive and anything we do would be pointless because of India and China.

Interesting times.

CK

Verity - "Then I suggest we send you up to the sun with a giant hosepipe, because that is where all the heat and light in our universe come from."

Actually darling, while the sun may provide heat and light for our solar system, to suggest that it heats and lights the entire universe is just a bit cackhanded.

As is your arguement.

Canadian Mike

Alcuin, I'm sorry you have bought into this hoax. One day you will understand that you have been duped. Don't worry about the poor Tuvaluvians, they will be ok. Check this site out.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1

Terry

ndm -"There is now overwhelming evidence that the claim of man-made cuckoo global warming is indeed a swindle - not least the fact that, despite cuckoo the continuing rise in carbon dioxide, the climate has not warmed for the past ten years cuckoo and indeed has even cooled for the past five cuckoo.

Care to provde scientific proof of that statement."

1. All four agencies which measure world temperature show no increase for the past decade, indeed some cooling in the last 2 or 3 years - don't take it from me, just do the research;

2. 31,000 US scientists signed a petition to the effect of Melanie's assertion very recently, over 9,000 of them PhDs. I have heard well regarded scienists in Australia conclude exactly as Melanie asserted;

3. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased for 50 years but has no correlation whatsoever to climate volatility during that period;

4. Past climate changes showed warming of Earth prior to increases in carbon content in the atmosphere;

5. Major innacuracies (or maybe just lies) were noted during litigation in the UK by a High Court Judge concerning Al Bore's work of fiction. One can only speculate on why al got an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize (?!! please.....!) for telling a number of significant untruths which were convenient to his false proposition.

From what I've read there are very probably more bona fide scientists who deny the man made (and often any other kind of) climate change than those who grab the research money and the political plaudits and trot out the party line.

Byron in Wahroonga

**care to provde scientific proof of that statement**

Here you go, NDM:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/as_i_was_saying_on_insiders_this_morning/

Byron in Wahroonga

***try telling this to the citizens of Tuvalu, as their country slowly disappears beneath the Pacific***

Tuvalu is not disappearing, Alcuin. The earth is cooling and ocean heights are lower. See the graphs on this page:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf

It's time for you to cancel your Guardian subscription, and go in search of some facts.

Mark Pollock

Alcuin, The sea level around Tuvalu is not rising. The island is sinking due to tectonic subduction. It is either dishonest or ignorant to use this as an example of AGW.

Ron Kilmartin

Man did not cause global warming. God did. The pagan liberalss cannot this fact of nature

Hereford

Billy, Do what? You might as well put on your Knute hat and order the tide not to come in. The answer is adaptation not prevention. Anyway, as Nigel Lawson says, if the climate Nazis are right about global warming, it will be of net benefit to North Western Europe through improving climate, improved growing rates and periods for crops etc.

Colin McQuade

Someone called Matthew Bolt said...

"I realise in the world you inhabit everything is the fault of socialism but could you please qualify your remarks and explain what this "global warming scam" has to do with the teachings of Karl Marx? Or were you just ranting nonsense?"

The opportunities this new ideology affords for the control, manipulation, subjugation, taxation, re-education and criminalisation of the population are virtually endless and as such are not lost on those govern us.

As for ranting nonsense, I doubt that you have any idea of the world I inhabit, but it's interesting that that you still felt able to try to describe it in a pejorative fashion. I certainly don't think that everything in my world is the fault of socialism, although I do think that the agreeable place that my world undoubtedly is, would be a much nicer place without its malign, degenerative influence.

Robin

Alcuin,

The old Tuvalu story. Mmm.. try reading this to start with (there's masses elsewhere):

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1

Spencer de Vere

Melanie,

Here in Australia, ABC TV reported that the Ofcom ruling criticized The Great Global Warming Swindle. See below the comments from LATELINE:

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Britain’s broadcasting watchdog has criticised a contentious documentary on climate change.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was screened on the ABC, challenges the theory of human-triggered climate change. The British regulator Ofcom found the program was unfair to some scientists, contained factual errors, and didnt include a range of views.

Yes, just like in the UK, the mad Left and MMGW hysterics have control of our government-funded broadcaster.

John Archer

Absolutely right Melanie, hear hear!! They should definitely NOT be allowed to get away with it. Their credibility will sink without trace along with the rotten hulk of MMGW.

marwan

I suspect the carbon emissions scam gained purchase due to mass cultural displacement. Far easier to get into a lather about wholly absurd notions of "planetary meltdown" than to confront the real issue of the declaration of war by islamic fascism aginst the civilised world.

Stephen Wilde

I think readers may find interesting a series of articles recently published by me at CO2sceptics.com

Trefor Jones

Correct Melanie! However, how long will it take our so called leaders to realise that the real problem is world wide poverty and a yawning energy gap. The distorted reporting on the Channel 4 decision (by the BBC in particular whose newsroom seems to be populated by media studies wonks) and the constant blaming of "global warming" as against the more accurate natural climate change has become a dangerous and hegemonic orthodoxy. The prognosis from many sources are that we may well get colder in the next decade. Presumably the pharisees of global warming will have conveniently forgotten everything by then.

Barry Larking

I have been visiting Lapland regularly since 1976. This spring (June) was the dullest and coldest since my first trip; we had a snow storm on 16th June.

The most compelling argument against carbon emissions as the sole cause of global temperature increase has been provided by more recent scientific investigations of the Sun's cyclical behaviour, much of it innovative and advanced. BBC TV's 'The Sky at Night' is a good source of information about this research; yet even the simplified reports provided of the findings takes time to present, discuss and hypothesise and, as numerous posts to this site demonstrate, patient analysis of observable fact are not what people want to hear. The desire to administer a verbal kicking are too pressing to be resisted. Just how socialism or religion comes into the frame I do not know.

There has been a bandwagon in progress and the media have dramatised this by use of charts, special effects, highly selective quotation and some pointless studio conversations which owe less to science than they do to Mr Jerry Springer.

Twenty five years ago there was a similar question to global warming in the headlines on the subject of 'Acid Rain', as the acidification of rain by sulphur emissions was termed. As presented the facts were horrifying and it seemed as though the effects of this phenomena would turn soon rivers and lakes into vinegar, killing all aquatic life. Governments sat up at the news and large sums of money were spent on studying the issue. Then we heard no more. Today the subject seems as dead as disco. What happened? Partly, we became bored by it, and secondly the predictions were over blown. Lakes and rivers did not turn into vinegar and fish did not die, at least not from acid precipitation. But an even greater reason was the money ran out. Fashion plays a great part in shaping all human activity, something few serious minded people like to hear, not least scientists.

Mike

May I suggest that part of the problem is that there is too much reliance on computer modelling and not enough on collecting field data. When assessing change in temperature of the Earth we need to ensure sufficient points on the Earths surface have been monitored for a sufficient length of time. After all the temperature in Earth's outer atmosphere to depths of miles below sea level need to be recorded. In addition, ice cores need to be sampled to determine past temperature and CO2 levels. Field work is expensive and time consuming; it is much easier to undertake compter modelling. Within many of the sciences there seems to a decrease given to undertaking comphrehensive, accurate and precise field work.Most if not all of the commentators are not trained scientists. This who do have a scientific training J Lovelock, D Bellamy and "The Sceptical Environmetalist " have a much more open minded approach to the issue. There may be changes to the Earth's climate of which rainfall could be the most serious. If the climate changed so that winters were drier and summers wetter , even the the annual rainfall stayed the same, there could be a decrease in water available. It was the dry winters in England in the period of 1994-1997 which caused most of the problems. It is drought which has the greatest impact in reducing crop yields.

Hereford

Not that I am into Conspiracy theories or anything. But a sort of imagination exercise...

What if the agenda behind MMCC is not about climate at all, but about reducing/eradicating the West's reliance on Oil. Which as it happens seems to only exist in significant quantities underneath countries where rabid, totalitarian,barbaric and regressive cultures and governments are in power.

Now you've got my vote for cutting carbon emissions. I dream of the day we can stick a single finger, preferably of the left hand, up to the Saudis and say... "Keep your oil and rot you 14th century thugs."

Just a thought from an avowed MMCC sceptic.

Thinkster (the morning after)

Number 6: OK, but on the subject of polar bears (and other lifeforms effected by our presence), PCBs (a biproduct of plastic - made from oil of course) do effect their sexual reproduction. Worth researching, as it may effect us too at some point.

EC

We are back to faith and man-made religion again. The parasitical clergy of this pernicious cult being an alliance of the holy self-interested. The pedlars of junk science enabled by credulous or lazy journalists, delusional eco-mentalists and unscrupulous politicans who want to appear "worthy" whilst raising higher taxes.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the unheatable!

EC

We are back to faith and man-made religion again. The parasitical clergy of this pernicious cult being an alliance of the holy self-interested. The pedlars of junk science enabled by credulous or lazy journalists, delusional eco-mentalists and unscrupulous politicans who want to appear "worthy" whilst raising higher taxes.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the unheatable!

john mcdonald

At university "earth science" and like subjects were a joke - they were attracted to quasi - Marxist types and such they all have a vested interest in this big lie.

Yair Esrubilsky

We should all support this canard/conspiracy/whatever you want to call it (even though we know it is bunk and don't believe it) because it is spurring a move away from dependence on oil in everything we do. That is good because our oil comes from gangsters (russia) and brutal regimes (Iran, Saudi Arabia, pretty much anyone else with reserves of any importance) which we are bank rolling as we go about our lives. That leads to aggressive behaviour (see Georgia, Ukraine, Czech Rep, etc, etc.) and terrorism on unheard of scale (see Wahabism).
Yes short term the adjustment is painful, particularily because of the impact on food prices - but this adjustment is sending a powerful pricing message (together with the happy coincidence of high oil prices) that is beginning to pour billions in investment in alternatives.
If it takes a swindle to get this going - so be it.

Ian C

Thinkster, glad your head is clearer this morning! and working more rationally. The point is the costs being imposed on us all as a result of the MMGW madness of the past 10 + years. Look at the cost of windpower v carbon sources - its something like 4 times, along with enormous environmental damage. And so on.
Philip Stott's site is full of such gems. I became aware of him from Melanie a couple of years past and he is very amusing.

michael

Great new pic!

We have printed it off, enlarged it and are now using it as a darts board. Thanks!

Kristin

"I strongly believe that global warming is real, and that we must do something about it."--Billy Squier

Like what? Not breathe?

The fact is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and it is not a "greenhouse gas." It is a natural component of the atmosphere, without which we would die. Plants would not grow or thrive, therefore we'd have no food. CO2 is also essential for water production in the atmosphere...now, the average person can live for a month at least with no food. Without water, you won't last a week.

And yet the Algorians want to halt emissions in its tracks...but we should know by now that messing with Mother Nature is inviting disaster. So let's stop with the hysteria over a non-event, shall we, and get back to some common sense?

Kristin

Mike: "May I suggest that part of the problem is that there is too much reliance on computer modelling and not enough on collecting field data."

Mike, I agree with everything you said. I'd just like to add that the field data itself needs to be of good quality; i.e., not measurements taken from a station at an airport on the tarmac, or in an urban jungle, where temperatures are increased upwards of 50% over true temperature.

Models can be useful for projections, but for making long-term predictions they are unreliable. What we're finding is that the climate operates on a negative feedback mechanism, not a positive one (which is, of course, what IPCC has been expounding for years). Not to mention that climate science is in its infancy, and therefore poorly understood. We don't even know what all the variables are...how can we possibly program a computer with any degree of accuracy?

abc

ndm is an interesting case. He/she has discovered that global warming is somehow related to the plight of the Palestinian? people?. That is a new one. ndm should now somehow involve the israelis as the cause

barry schwarz

No substance whatsoever in this article. No examination of the complaints. No detailing of the findings, no reference to the board's general deference to the mainstream view of global warming, or that two scientists appearing therein, and the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were misrepresented. The documentary is misleading all right. Chanel 4 is delighted that it hasn't breached a particular broadcasting law. This is indeed a technicality. The science presented in the docco was flagrantly distorted, and opinions given by unqualified 'experts'.

Phillips upholds the tradition by citing the opinions of David Evans, a computer programmer with no qualifications whatsoever in climate science. One of the many complaints submitted to the broadcasting regulator was that the the qualifications of the 'experts' had been exaggerated and even completely invented. Melanie Phillips has picked up the dead ball and started the run again. At least she doesn't distort the science as the documentary did so egregiously. Because she doesn't even make the attempt, just makes broad and specious claims in obvious ignorance.

In fact, both Evans and Phillips seem to be ignorant of what science is. To whit;

"In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved."

Proof is a function of mathematics. Science theories are complex models of reality. Science theories are valid or invalid, useful or not useful. No science theory is ever 'proved', not Newton's, not Einstein's, and yet we make use of them every day. Indeed Popper advises that a theory must be falsifiable.

If that last sentence is difficult to understand, then you need to learn more about the process of science. Melanie Phillips, I am speaking to you.

The points covered by David Evans are hardly novel. The approximately 800 year lag of CO2 to temperature in the geological past during glacial transitions has been known about for at least 18 years and forms part of the understanding of how climate works. This knowledge has been discussed at length in the IPCC reports. Evans appears to have come late to the party.

The 'evidence' behind global warming theory is empirical - which means that it is so well-validated in the laboratory that it is irrevocable. Add more CO2 to a volume of atmosphere and less infrared radiation is able to pass through that atmosphere. CO2 traps energy (heat). The processes in the atmosphere are more complex, and while certain aspects are uncertain (same with all the famous theories), there is ample evidence - many different strands - that industrial greenhouse gas emissions are causing the globe to warm over time. Evans has the temerity to rubbish 150 years worth of deep, painstaking investigation by calling the qualified conclusions 'assertions', when that is exactly his own sin. How witlessly ironic.

Anyone genuinely interested in the science of climate should look elsewhere than this article. But then, most people are far more interested in the politics of the issue than the science, which is complex, broad, and has received more attention by scientists since its positing, most likely, than any other theory over a similar period.

Ignorance can be cured by curiosity. I do not know if there is a cure for a lack of curiosity. A simple cure for ignorance on the subject of climate science would be to forget this vapid article. If your bent is to refute the mainstream view of climate change, forget polemics like this (and The Great Global Warming Swindle) and read some real science on the matter. There are a good many legitimate criticisms and uncertainties, none of which appear in this deplorably ill-informed, splashily drivelsome opinion piece.

M Willis

"We must not let them get away with it."

Very true. But of course they will, and for years to come, as long as the bulk of the media is complicit in this fallacy.

This will only end when the media decide en-masse that it's time to debunk the myth of MMGW...something I can't see happening soon, as it still makes a great story.

Of course, the greater tragedy is that so many great minds and so much time, money and attention has been given to this, at the expense of the real ecological crises - continuing deforestation, Chinese pollution, and the increasing rate of extinctions.

Clive

Micael said "

Great new pic!

We have printed it off, enlarged it and are now using it as a darts board. Thanks!"

What? You printed it off & then enlarged it. Don't know how you did that? Any normal person would have enlarged it before printing it. Or do you still use a photocopier? Ha ha.

Says an awful lot about your mindset, rational & ability to garner new technology. Idiot!

Hysteria

Barry Schwarz - interesting and well argued rebuttal -

BUT - you "assert" the gainsayers are not scientists and are following a political thread. Maybe - but how do you explain the increasing volume of science based opposition? As has been quoted by numerous posters?

Mike P

Global Warming: I INVENTED the problem so I could SELL you the solution.

Do something, even if it's wrong!

M. Shelef

There is even a bigger scam than global warming afoot, avidly embraced
and promoted by clueless politicians of all stripes: the "Hydrogen Economy".
Trofim Lysenko was a minnow when it came to scientific charlatanism.

Bill Andersen

Bravo! Melanie, you've identified the central issue -- We must not forget. We should all make an effort to note those salient in selling AGW and record their written and verbal statements so that their inevitable attempts at Orwellian revision will fail, and they will lose their credibility, funding and hopefully their jobs.

Robin

Barry Schwarz's comment is neither a rebuttal or well-argued. It's a just variation on the same old tired theme "we're right and you're wrong."

You can almost assume the unspoken use of the word "concensus" in support of the AGW theory. As can be demonstrated, consensus thinking is not science (which certainly is to do with proof). One of the most obvious examples of consensus nonsense is the view held about Plate Tectonics 60/70 years ago.

It was consensus at the start of the Eighteenth century that poo-pooed the idea that high infant mortality was caused by infection. But a handful of brave, true scientists (sceptics, if you like) proved the science of infection which led to a rapid decline in infant mortality by 1900.

Algorian pseudo-science is al;l about supposition and very little about science.

btw, go here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3328

for a detailed examination of the OfCom ruling. Take little notice of what the Beeb.

Dave

Hysteria: Well surely the point is if we're going to have useful debate you need to do more than just assert there is a growing "volume". You need articles, references... hard scientific fact.
Are you sure you are not just confusing the usual workings of science with Mel's usually cheery picking approach to the evidence that fits her world view?
If polemic were science she'd be on the podium in Oslo by name.
Fortunately, it isn't

Still, climate change, MMR... has she ever said anything about the safety of mobile phones? I'd be intregued to know what she thinks

Verity

Barry Schwartz writes: "Chanel 4 is delighted that it hasn't breached a particular broadcasting law."

Is this a previously unreported predecessor to Chanel No 5?

Byron in Wahroonga

***Phillips upholds the tradition by citing the opinions of David Evans, a computer programmer with no qualifications whatsoever in climate science***

Yeah, right.

I note you GW boosters never complaint about Al Gore's lack of scientific qualifications. I can smell the desperation in your bluster from here, Barry.

Byron in Wahroonga

***Phillips upholds the tradition by citing the opinions of David Evans, a computer programmer with no qualifications whatsoever in climate science***

Here's Evans' qualifications:

'......I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector....'

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

I'd say Evans is very well qualified to talk about the global warming scam, Barry. What authority do you have, to dispute his findings?

Frank Lee

Sorry to swerve off on a tangent, but it pains me to see that even Melanie Phillips and her editors do not understand the basics of punctuation. In the opening sentence of this piece, the title "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is clearly a restrictive or defining appositive renaming the word documentary. Because the appositive is restrictive, it should NOT be set off by a comma. As an American, I often find it painful to read British newspapers because of the shoddy editing. It is equally painful to read the blogs of Andrew Sullivan and other expat Brits living in North America for the same reason. I don't know Ms. Phillips's educational background, but almost always the offending writer--like Sullivan or Clive Davis (an absolute incompetent when it comes to punctuation)--is a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge. Imagine if writers from America's most elite universities stubbornly refused to master the basics of punctuation: Britons would have a field day ridiculing us. If nothing else, didn't anyone over there read "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves"? My eighteen-year-old students have a stronger grip on comma usage than does the average British author or editor. It's just weird.

barry schwarz

Hello Hysteria,

Quote: "you "assert" the gainsayers are not scientists and are following a political thread. Maybe - but how do you explain the increasing volume of science based opposition? As has been quoted by numerous posters?"

The phrase 'science based opposition' is itself political. Science progresses from, among other things, a healthy resistance or challenge to consensus, not on taking a politics-like stand against it. Scientists make their reputations on improving the state of science by exposing holes in theories and filling the breach with more useful analysis.

In other words, science is an accumulative quest for understanding. 'Oppositional' science is not science but polemics. The chief defense given by Chanel 4 was that their show was a polemic - that is, one sided argumentativeness. Ofcom assumed that the viewers would be aware that the science of climate change was largely settled, and that the views in GGWS would not cause harm. It ruled that a review of the reliability of the presentation was not within its purview. Thus, the conclusion that GGWS did not 'materially mislead viewers such to cause harm or offence' does not touch on the strength of the case put forward, but rather on its capacity to do damage. That's fine with me. Ofcom need not step outside the bounds of its remit just to underline the shortcomings of an argumentative presentation. What I take issue with is the above article attempting to splice that ruling into a legitimate appraisal of the science.

As I said above, there is legitimate controversy on some aspects of climate change. Clouds are little understood. The cause of the Pacific Decadal Oscillations is not known. Projections of regional changes are less certain than global. Further study may one day reduce or overturn what is at the moment a very robust consensus. The science is ongoing. It is extremely rare that a single paper will overturn a a well-established theory. More likely it is amended in increments. Einstein's conception of reality (absolute space time) overturned Newton's (absolute space) - but the difference in application to gravity was minimal. Einstein's theories may plot the trajectory of a planet more accurately than Newton's, but we could still send a man to the moon with telemetry based on Newton's math.

The purpose of science is to increase knowledge, not rubbish it with selective argument - which is exactly what GGWS did. That is what a polemic is - taking a stand against something and arguing as vigorously as possible, often rhetorically. Einstein incorporated Newton's theories and extended them. Quantum physics have overturned Einstein's conception of reality (spacetime not absolute). Superstring theory may be the next evolution in physics (or it may be a dead end). Along the way, a great many papers and studies have fallen by the wayside.

I've digressed here for a reason (and I'd rather not make a list of assertions, but this forum is not the place for a longer post) - to indicate how science develops. A single paper on the activity of the sun will not overturn centuries of observation and analysis. A single paper on cloud formation will not dispatch the theory of anthropological global warming. These papers may amend understanding in an additive way. The GGWS purports to overturn the AGW theory with a series of single studies on various matters and by implying, falsely, that they are definitive. The above article continues this method more speciously.

Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered here. The GGWS is self-confessedly a polemic. The above article is just an opinion piece. But the politicisation of the science, which is so attractive to some of the respondents here, is something that I feel passionately about.

If this were a different forum, I would happily discuss the relative merits of new studies. But I feel obliged to limit my replies (my posts are already too long) to encouraging readers to investigate properly, and to resist swallowing political diatribes and technical rulings that buttress their opinions. There are real controversies and legitimate questions. It takes patience to recognize what the real ones are, and understanding to put them in a valid context. The body of 'opposition' may seem to be growing, but what is actually happening is that the voice of opposition is becoming louder. There have always been studies challenging aspects of any theory, it's just that the public and political debate on climate change has unusually emphasised the relevance and reliability of such outliers. It's as if the world has suddenly discovered uncertainty in science, and biased advocates have made use of that uncertainty by magnifying it in attempt to diminish a robust theory.

To return to the article, Melanie Phillips neglected to mention that the GGWS was found to have distorted the views of two scientists and misrepresented the findings of mainstream science. It is a propaganda piece. It also broke three broadcasting rules. These omissions are indicative of Phillip's probity. As to the science in the piece, I recommend examining the complaints (some of which I don't agree with) - for anyone genuinely interested in the matter.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/TOCp1.htm

Good wishes to you, Hysteria, from Sydney,

barry.

Robin

Frank Lee

You are pulling our leg, aren't you?

To say "Ms. Phillips's" demonstrates very clearly an inadequate knowledge of the correct use of the apostrophe.

Perhaps it's a consequence of the rather odd English that Americans sometimes use.

Byron in Wahroonga

***it pains me to see that even Melanie Phillips and her editors do not understand the basics of punctuation***

Frank, a quick question- do you commonly wear suspenders and a bowtie?

Tony Norriss

I don't disagree that the GGWS is a polemic and obviously has its flaws. However, I think it is fair enough to take this approach given the similar sort of tactics used by the alarmists on the other side of the debate.

For instance, pictures of polar bears on ice flows when it turns out in fact the ice flows are only a few hundred metres off shore. How about Hansen "cooking" the nasa temperature history with biased adjustments so it better fits his models as articles on this site have pointed out. What about all the inconsistencies in Al Gores "Inconvenient Truth.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ann

Frank, Lynn Truss' book contains serious mistakes.

Ann

"From what I've read there are very probably more bona fide scientists who deny the man made (and often any other kind of) climate change than those who grab the research money and the political plaudits and trot out the party line"

Care to provide the raw data from which you draw this amazing statistical conclusion?

patricia

Crickey - I never though I would agree with Ann about MP being out of wack.

Melanie - you are not Ann after all...

Robin

This is a useful read about Wunsch's complaint & his position:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3334

Ted O'Brien

People are busy building the world's biggest business on the back of this scam. Do not expect it to go away soon.

Robin

Ann,

Try here for a list of scientists:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Olly

"if the world’s ice is melting year by year at an unprecedented and otherwise inexplicable rate (in itself untrue) a warming climate demonstrably cannot be the cause".

Extraordinary - on a par with her other well known insight that the atmosphere "mostly consists of water vapour". What is most striking about this kind of language is the combination of total certainty and utter ignorance. Would Mel care to venture what else might be causing heavy ice melts in the Artic? Ice fairies carrying it off into space?

Tim Carpenter LPUK

AFIACT Al Gore's "A Convenient Lie" is still being pushed out to our schools.

barry schwarz

Hi Tony,

Quote: "I don't disagree that the GGWS is a polemic and obviously has its flaws. However, I think it is fair enough to take this approach given the similar sort of tactics used by the alarmists on the other side of the debate."

I agree.

Gore's film was also propagandistic, but at least he didn't mess with the science.

So ignore the polemics. If you're interested in getting a handle on it, and you want some decent commentary, I recommend realclimate for the mainstream view, and Pielke's climate science for criticism of it. Balanced reading from high quality sources.

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://climatesci.org/

James Murphy

So, Barry Schwarzer, if, even by your own definition - (implicit in your recommendation of two opposing websites on the issue) - the GW scientific jury is still out: what exactly are you moaning about in that somewhat pompous, injured scientific tone of yours? You seem to suggest that the layman or woman, being impossibly scientifically illiterate, should have no opinion on the matter, and thus should rather defer to, and rely on, an elite comprising, no doubt, only individuals such as your good self. But this is the point: the GW debate has already been high-jacked by an increasingly jackbooted elite resulting in the effective silencing of all opposition. - Has, for example, any news programme rediffused by the Marxist British Broadcasting Company even mentioned the dissenting scientists who attended the recent Manhattan Conference? No, exactly. For this and many other reasons, we on this site have acquired a profound distrust of the 'scientific' elites in which you, Barry, are happy to put such faith. Whether you like it or not, we simply don't trust them not to have their own political agenda. Moreoever, if the protests on this blog are tinged with a degree of intellectual bitterness, you will have to accept that this comes from years of frustration at having had their voices forcibly silenced.

John Philips

"Desperate stuff from desperate people"

So says Mel, and she quotes Dr David Evans recent 'conversion'. Evans is an electrical engineer and IT specialist who developed software for the AGO. The Australian piece is very bit as reliable on the science as one of Mel's rambles e.g.

"NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling."

Which wrong in every respect ... http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

His point 4 is actually referred by The Royal Society as 'Misleading argument No 3'
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6231

Hmmmm. Who to believe?

Dave

Anne: After previous slightly grumpy disagreements I'd just like to say I do agree with you this time.

There's one really interesting thing about the science of climate change. For one of the first times since the Victorian age the amateur scientist really can make a contribution. (Well, apart from the study of insects)
And indeed many interested parties have. The data is all out there, go throw yourselves into it.

Except you, Mel. Maybe take an A Level or two in Maths and Physics first.

robzrob

Bless you, Mr Schwarz.

Tony Norriss

Hi Barry,

I think you will find that science has been misused on the alarmist side as well.

For instance, it is very difficult not to draw the conclusion that Hansen has biased corrections to temperature data to favour global warming theory. The hockey stick is another example of cherry picking in that it focuses on the last thousand years and conveniently omitting the medieval warm period. If this had been included the current warming would not look anything like as abnormal or alarming.

Another thing that really annoys me is the logical error that alarmists by painting a false dichotomy. According to alaramists you are either in the camp of the scientific consensus or you are one of the few deniers. This is rubbish from a scientific point of view. As you will be aware, there is many shades of grey in scientific opinion. Even amongst those who support the idea of AGW there will be those who vary considerably in their opinions on the likely effects and need for action. It is impossible to dichotomise in the way that alarmists seem to try to do.

Richard

My sentiments exactly!

Gregster

Exactly correct Melanie, good stuff.

Pete Hoskin

Ann: we had to pull one of your comments. It went beyond what we can permit on the site, and could have landed us in hot water.

logdon

I wonder what the idiots who were salivating about how hot it was last year think now? That is the level this debate has sunk to. As Melanie says this is the new religion of the left. Imagine if we'd been hoodwinked in this manner when they were predicting a global Ice Age?

abc

It seems to me that the comments column on this excellent site is being taken over by a welloiled propaganda machine that repeats many of the inverted arguments so often seen on the BBC and other outlets in the Middle east. The problem is that we need to take part in a reasoned discussions based on real historic and other provable facts and not be goaded into exchanges of invective as that achieves absolutely nothing.

barry schwarz

Hi Tony,

Quote: The hockey stick is another example of cherry picking in that it focuses on the last thousand years and conveniently omitting the medieval warm period.

"Conveniently". The language of politics again!

As such, it is difficult to understand what, exactly, your criticism is. Are you referring to data before 1000 AD being left out, or that the warmth itself has been omitted?

If the former, there are also 2000 year reconstructions, published by Mann as well as other paleoclimate groups. The contention remains the same. The warmth of the late 20th century is likely warmer than at any other period in the last 2000 years.

Did you notice the qualification in that statement?

As far as I have observed, this portion of the debate became politicised by opponents to the IPCC.

The study in question is Mann et al 1998 (and 1999).

The controversy over that study centers on the use of proxy data - dendrochronology. I don't think this is the right forum to thrash that out, but are you aware that the 'hockey stick' shape is consistent among 11 other studies, using different proxies and different methodologies over a similar period?

And the way I see it, Mann et al's 1998 study, entitled "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations", was cautious in its conclusions. Mann didn't go about trumpeting certainty on the conclusions. Neither did the IPCC. They gave an estimate. The conclusion of Mann et al was that more study was needed. Politics interfered and created a straw man. Scientists appeared at Senate hearings, where the language of uncertainty and likelihood met the clod-handed language of proof and politics.

The hockey stick controversy is often cited, but not so often well-understood.

Quote: If this had been included the current warming would not look anything like as abnormal or alarming.

As the peak of the MWP is generally considered to be around 1000 AD, what you'd see if the period was globally as warm as today is a stretched out U shape, the 'arms' as high as each other on each end of the graph/time series.

If you examine the 2000 year constructions, and assuming global temperatures were as high in the MWP, you would see that the temps rose more gradually than currently.

But that's just from eyeballing the graph, which is not very good science. Next thing I'd do, if I were interested, is check the individual studies and find out the best estimates on temporal resolution.

Quote: Another thing that really annoys me is the logical error that alarmists by painting a false dichotomy. According to alaramists you are either in the camp of the scientific consensus or you are one of the few deniers.

I define a 'denier' this way - someone who begins with the conclusion ("I don't like this global warming stuff") and then finds anything they can to support their conclusion.

In the semi-popular literature (blogs and forums), a self-described 'rational skeptic' will promote various studies against the mainstream theory, including any that are CONTRADICTORY to any they previously cited, and not accounting for the discrepancy.

On one day they will argue that the IPCC exaggerates the coming warming. On another they will advise we're heading into global cooling. The next day they will argue that warming is a good thing for plants. Towards the weekend they will argue that there's nothing we can do about CO2 emissions anyway, or that economic Armageddon will be upon us if we try to curtail them.

This person is a denier. They have a grab bag of rhetorical tricks. They are not interested in understanding the overall state of the science. They are interested in promoting an agenda and trawling for supporting data on the web.

I agree that this happens of both 'sides' of the debate. I also agree that, scientifically speaking, this is a false dichotomy. We are speaking of a political debate here, aren't we?

If governments of the world formed a coalition to tax the public in order to prevent and find a cure for HIV and AIDS, the small minority of medical experts who think that HIV does not cause AIDS would suddenly find their voices amplified and replicated all over the web by people who haven't the foggiest idea about the science behind their claims.

This model forms the major part of the debate on climate science in the semi-popular literature.

Tony, you write of alarmists and propagandists and of bias.

Fair enough. The world is full of it. It seems to me that this is what most people are fixated on - the public drama. Getting to grips with the state of the science - measuring the weight of studies - requires a lot of patience and is not nearly as exciting.

The above article is politics. We can't do science on this thread. It is utterly hijacked by political commentary. Someone actually wrote 'bootstrap' and 'Marxist' just above.

The politics must always, perforce, devolve to the science in a reasoned discussion. That's where my interest lies. Perhaps I'll see you and other interested parties in such fora. If there is a place you visit dedicated to examining the science in a balanced way, post a link and I'll check it out.

Good wishes.

Joy

Barry:
Your statement although very long, is almost content free. Your misrepresentation of the hockey stick controversy and the subsequent "reproductions" from the 11 other studies have now been comically named "The Hockey Team." The studies are not mutually independent, and in fact they use the same data and methodology to reach their wrong conclusion. The MWP is an unrefutable global phenomenon as shown by numerous scientific studies from round the world. The hockey stick graph was rendered by use of poor proxy data. That is to say that in particular bristle cone pines are a poor proxy for temperature. Dendochronology is an inexact discipline, Trees change their growth rings due to changes in soil content and precipitation as well as local sunlight. For further information on this subject please read Steve and Ross's detailed scientific breakdown of exactly what went wrong with the hockey stick. For a list of hundreds of studies into the MWP please look at the MWP project. The Idsos have been engaged for some time now in gathering data from numerous studies from round the world that support the phenomenon of a global MWP. Indeed the IPCC have even dropped the "hockey stick" from their most recent report. An independent review of the "hockey stick" graph found no errors with Steven MacIntyre and Ross McKitrick's review. They confirmed the fact that if one fed in random red noise into the algorhythm that produced the "hockey stick", it would in fact mine for and produce a "hockey stick". So Barry I could take you up on any of your political remarks and mudslinging of "deniers" but this will simply not do. You insult the intellegence of all the posters of this blog if you consider that they cannot see through your feeble excuse for a scientific argument.

Alexandrovich

"So Barry I could take you up on any of your political remarks and mudslinging of "deniers" but this will simply not do."

I don't suppose it will. However Joy, you could at least try.

barry schwarz

Quote: Your statement although very long, is almost content free.

Aye, there was a fair bit of political discourse - I explained what I think a 'denier' is.

Quote: So Barry I could take you up on any of your political remarks and mudslinging of "deniers" but this will simply not do.

I slung no mud. I gave a definition. If you think that definition includes anyone skeptical of AGW theory, you've not read properly. I 'slung mud' at 'alarmists', too, if I get the gist of your rhetoric.

Quote: You insult the intellegence of all the posters of this blog if you consider that they cannot see through your feeble excuse for a scientific argument.

You imply that I am trying to hoodwink people? That I do not think they are intelligent enough to see through my 'game'?

For a complaint that my post is almost content free, these are inauspicious comments. But let us examine the content in your own post.

Quote: Your misrepresentation of the hockey stick controversy and the subsequent "reproductions" from the 11 other studies have now been comically named "The Hockey Team."

Content = a comic group name has been given to a collection of scientific papers/authors..

Quote: The studies are not mutually independent

Not mutually independent. Correct.

Quote: and in fact they use the same data and methodology to reach their wrong conclusion.

There are a range of proxy data used. Dendrochronology features in many of the studies, but this is not the only proxy data used, and different tree-ring series are employed. There is some overlap of proxy data amongst the studies, and some of them use completely independent data. The calculation methodologies are NOT the same (see link below *).

Furthermore, their conclusions are qualified, so I don't know how they can be flatly described as "wrong". I think this terminology says more about the author than the science.

Quote: The MWP is an unrefutable global phenomenon as shown by numerous scientific studies from round the world.

Some studies find that there was a warm period in the southern hemisphere 100 to several hundred years after the peak of the northern hemispheric MWP. If the 'MWP Project' you refer to is that undertaken by the AGW skeptical website, you probably already know this.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

I note the cautious language you employ - 'unrefutable'. That would mean that the science is 100% certain on this, right?

I cannot speak to the accuracy of the CO2 website. The language they use does not reflect the caution in some of the papers I'm familiar with, and their use of terms like 'alarmists' does not give confidence regarding their neutrality.

It may be that the MWP was a global phenomenon occurring at the same time at all latitudes. Are you yourself involved in studying paleoclimate? Have you read broadly on the matter? Or have you been more selective with your sources? Is your absolute certainty based on a balanced reading of this issue?

Quote: The hockey stick graph was rendered by use of poor proxy data. That is to say that in particular bristle cone pines are a poor proxy for temperature.

Proxy data of any type is inexact. Do you mean to imply there's a nice set of proxy data available that maps perfectly the temperatures of the past millennium/millennia?

Quote: Dendochronology is an inexact discipline, Trees change their growth rings due to changes in soil content and precipitation as well as local sunlight.

That's right.

Quote: For further information on this subject please read Steve and Ross's detailed scientific breakdown of exactly what went wrong with the hockey stick.

I have read McIntyre and McKitrick's papers. Some of their early methodologies were flawed (as they themselves agreed), and their later work is contested both by Mann et al and by independent reviewers. The math was not disputed in their later work, but their reading of the implications were. M&M have found some support as well.

* http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/1001/2006/cpd-2-1001-2006-print.pdf

A feature of this review of paleoclimate studies (and which includes a section on the M&M criticism) is that the reviewers point out shortcomings in the various reconstructions.

Here again, we see a key difference in mindset made evident by the type of language used. Scientific studies on paleoclimate unanimously qualify the results as to the degree of certainty, self-reference shortcomings, and almost universally posit the necessity for further study. Criticism of such studies reframe the qualified conclusions, characterising the 'debate' as being between two opposing factions, when in reality, the criticism of paleo studies is ongoing WITHIN the field.

Quote: An independent review of the "hockey stick" graph found no errors with Steven MacIntyre and Ross McKitrick's review. They confirmed the fact that if one fed in random red noise into the algorhythm that produced the "hockey stick", it would in fact mine for and produce a "hockey stick".

There have been several reviews of M&M's papers. Others found serious flaws in their methods and their inferences. Why do you single out one (unnamed)?

To encourage a more balanced approach, I offer these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/how-red-are-my-proxies/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-ii/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

Do not make the mistake that I consider them definitive. I am still curious. How about you?

barry schwarz

Forgot to add - I supplied the links for content. If you are interested in drilling down on this thread, I will endeavour to follow you at greater length.

Robin

Barry,

At the end of your latest post (long, but very thin on content) you put some links.

The first link is from Wikipedia. As John McEnroe might have said: "you cannot be serious".

I would place little reliance on what I read in Wikipedia - especially on this topic.

You then have links to www.realclimate.org.

And you expect us to take you seriously?

barry schwarz

You seriously reject any reply to M&M from Mann? You must know more about it than I do.

What is wrong with Mann's (et al) responses to M&M? Can you explain that to me, please? I'm pretty familiar with the back and forth, so maybe take it from M&M 2005. And for anyone interested in reading, it would be good to have links from both sides of the debate. I've already given some for the IPCC/Mann view. Perhaps you could link the actual studies by M&M and a thread from climate audit. Here's the Mann et al 1998 study. This is the more recent version, with references to corrected errors as pointed out by MCIntyre and McKitrick.

http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%20temp%20patterns.pdf

The Lavish Carbon Footprint.

Number 6
July 23rd, 2008 12:01am
Thinkster: you're missing the point; no-one is arguing that reducing pollution levels isn't desirable.

I am. "Pollution levels" are not on the scale of London fogs 120 years ago.

Other countries, like the lovely Brazil, will have to take care of their own. Likewise, Antigua.

Adam

Well I read this David Evans - "no conclusive" evidence, according to him, is enough to accuse ALL THE OTHER scientists of "scamming" the public. I would be able to see his point if the other scientists stood to profit from it in the same way companies do by saying the opposite. Conclusive or not - I would rather follow my onw logic in this case - would anybody go and sit next to a car exhaust and breath the co2 or on top of a factory's chimney with all that co2 coming out of it? You know some people commit suicide by turning their car exhaust inward and closind the windows of their cars. NOW - the earth's atmosphere is let say - the planet's air helmet. And we are releasing tons and tons of this crap into it.

I don't need any friggin scientist to tell me it's dangerous. And I could only laugh at that idiot that says that it isn't dangerous.

Why don't you keep your car running in your living room, keep the windows closed and see what happens?!

gopalan

there could be a global warming, but it is not clear how much is caused by humans, and of the human- caused, how much can be changed safely without endangering civilization as we know it. hence, it is too premature to try to reduce the economy on the basis of this perceived danger. and china will be very happy to see the west put shackles on itself.