Global Warming Con

Daily Mail | Hackers ‘expose global warming con’: Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data

One of the world’s leading climate change research centres has been accused of manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were leaked.

This comes as no real surprise to me. It is something that I have suspected for years now and although people often ask, why would they lie about it? I think that the answer is two fold.

One with Nature

There are those that believe we should revert back to the dark ages, no electricity, no transport, and most importantly no modern luxuries – living simply as nature intended. Apart from the obvious flaws of this plan, the biggest is that we’d starve in our millions, but I think that that part might actually be part of the plan.

The other reason is simply money. Nothing, ever, has seen investment like the Green lobby. With plans announced recently to have Climate Change forming a major part of the school curriculum and grants being given out left, right and centre, it looks as though the Climate industry may well soon surpass the IT industry in Britain.

Children will soon be leaving our education system with degrees in topics such as sustainability, climate modelling, and saving energy. No doubt this will vastly increase the number of 18-24 year olds that are unemployed from 1 in 5, to 1 in 3. Not even the public sector needs that many sustainability officers.

The email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s director.
Read more

The hackers here have clearly shown that the Climate Believers will stop at nothing to ensure that their theory is seen to be correct, whether the evidence backs it or not, and where it does not back their hypothesis, they will simply change it to fit. After all, like the Hadley Centre, they do not share the sources of their information, just in case they are proven wrong, or caught lying.

When the people in charge of the data do not allow it to be inspected, indeed profit from the data backing their theories, then you no longer have scientific data or information, you have propaganda.

Advertisements

29 responses to “Global Warming Con

  1. here in Australia, with several top people in the opposition party being skeptics and a seemingly increasing number of the public smelling “a rat”, the labour government has shifted from using the term “global warming” to using “climate change”.

    Now I must point out that I’m a fervent believer in reducing pollutants and making use of sustainable energies and related new technology. But I also know that climate change HAS always been. Nothing in our world is static.

    I don’t know if we’re having the slightest effect on global warming or indeed if we could do the slightest bit to change it.
    I do believe, though, our western economies could be ruined by letting governments tax us to the hilt in order to fight this demon “climate change”.

    Let’s keep endeavouring to make clever, clean renewable energy sources by all means. There can never be any argument against producing less pollution and preserving our resources to use them more intelligently

    • Thanks for the comment Steve.

      Now I must point out that I’m a fervent believer in reducing pollutants and making use of sustainable energies and related new technology. But I also know that climate change HAS always been. Nothing in our world is static.

      Quite right and I think that is what the environmental nutcases have cashed in on, the fact that most people do care about the environment and in reducing pollution, and then used that to sell us a lie.

      But it now seems Climate Change (or Global Warming) is used as an excuse for everything from recycling (to help combat climate change) through to increasing fuel bills (to help combat climate change).

      I can’t wait for this myth to be exposed so that the money can be put into something useful, like renewalable, clean (and cheap!) energy.

  2. The comments about the twofold reason for the strength of the so-called global warming industry actually contradict each other – how can these supposed conspirators be money-driven if they also want us all (and therefore themselves) to go back to nature and poverty? And while it is true that much money is now going into combating GW, how did this come to be so in the first place, when the vested interests against it included poweful oil companies like Exxon – known to have supported any scientist who denied GW?

    Unless you really believe that the prestigious Royal Society and the New Scientist magazine are part of the GW conspiracy, you should read their list of myths surrounding climate change denial.

    • I don’t really see it as a global conspiracy, more that the zealots have silenced all argument.

      The best analogy would be the Catholic Church. It isn’t a business per se and none of those that work for the Church, from the Pope down would say that they do it for the money, but the Catholic Church sure makes a lot of money and they are also about as likely to deny the existence of God, as the Global Warming industry is to deny man made Global Warming.

      I don’t believe in God, but the Church did start out as a few believers trying to spread what they thought was something that was to the benefit of mankind. But it turned into something different.

      I don’t believe that they Royal Society is wilfully deceiving the public, just like I don’t believe the Church are, they are just sticking to their beliefs and the accepted wisdom. Just like they did when Darwin first published his theory. They were wrong then and are now. Even Phil Jones the former head of the Climate Research Unit admitted that there have been two recent episodes of global warming that they cannot account for, and that they also cannot explain the Medieval Warming period. I am not a scientist, but ignoring contrary evidence, and basing your conclusions on something that cannot be explained nor proven, does not strike me as very scientific nor impartial. The fact that the Met Office has predicted higher global temperatures than have actually occurred in nine out of the last ten years, demonstrates that the science is flawed. CO2 emissions have increased, ergo Global Warming should have increased at the same rate, but it hasn’t, it has slowed. And when the Head of the Met Office comes out with something like this:

      Professor Chris Folland from the Met Office said a re-analysis of weather science might even show that the actual temperature measurements have under-recorded recent warming – making the Met Office forecast even more accurate than it appears.

      It shows just how blinkered the ‘scientists’ have become and will find any excuse to justify their beliefs.

      The Global Warming lobby may have started off as a crusade for the benefit of mankind, but once people started getting paid for their opinions, work and solutions and others started making a lot of money from it, it became something else.

      You think that Exxon really wanted to stop the Global Warming lobby? Maybe at first, but I am sure that later they cottoned onto the fact that it was the best thing for them. In 1998 Brent Crude Oil was priced at $15 a barrel. By 2000 it was $35, it is now $77 a barrel. Despite Global Warming, oil consumption is on the rise. They are sitting on a commodity that is not only getting rarer, but one that they can charge whatever they wish for, and still claim that they are doing it for our benefit.

      Incidentally, Exxon made half a trillion dollars last year, Global Warming certainly isn’t hurting their business, nor any other oil company (7/10 of global companies with the highest income each year are oil companies).

      The same can be said for energy companies, another industry that one would expect to suffer because of Global Warming, yet British Gas made 50% more profit this year, than last.

      These companies helpfully tell us how to cut our energy consumption to help combat global warming, kind of like your milkman giving you advice on using less milk. But again they can then charge whatever they wish for energy and state that they are doing so to combat global warming, for our own good.

      Just like successive Government raising the price of cigarettes, does anyone really believe that raising the prices will cut down the number of smokers? No, it is just a way of getting more taxes, but by seeming to be justified and for our own good.

      Again this is just like the Green/Guilt taxes, the Government is likewise unlikely to go against Global Warming, they now have a tax that they can increase at will, for our own good.

  3. hi Charlie – the point I was trying to make about say Exxon was that there were strong vested interests, in the USA especially, for many years against the GW hypothesis, and the Bush Administration refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. If even the Bush gang eventually changed their minds – having actually seen the glaciers melting – it surely says something for the arguments in favour of GW. Yes of course the oil companies are now diversifying into non-polluting energy technologies; this is what one would expect, and again shows they have given up on a hopeless cause.

    The so-called climategate incident certainly shows that scientists are human and are no doubt motivated by ego as well as the thirst for knowledge, but – emphatically – they are not credibly to be compared with organizations like the Catholic Church which are based on looking back to an authority (the Bible or past papal pronouncements) for their answers. The claim that these emails somehow discredit the whole GW case is ludicrous, given that (we agree) there are many many researchers in the field.

    • Thanks again Peter. I tend to write comments when I can’t sleep, so I may have missed your point, or gone off on a tangent!

      As I said though, the whole thing is based on flawed science and accepted wisdom, wisdom that has never actually been proven.

      The glaciers you mention are a case in point:

      The Himalayan Glaciers will disappear by 2035

      This claim was accepted and quoted often for years. But you don’t have to be a scientist to see the faulty logic here. The Gangotri glacier is 26km, and losing 17m a year. Well by my maths that means that it will disappear in 153 years, not 25. Yet despite the obvious flaws, this was peddled world wide. This is the same erroneous science and hyperbole that is used often to justify man made climate change.

      If these scientists cannot even handle basic arithmetic, should we really be placing our entire future in their hands?

      When this was eventually challenged the scientists responsible for the claim (yes just one), said:

      The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0gBJqeDFb

      Again a case of ‘Global Warming is real, so it is OK to lie to make things happen!’

      Those emails were not one person’s ego, but a systemic problem within that institution (Jones is just the fall guy) and within the whole Global Warming Community.

      As I have mentioned elsewhere, I used to be a believer, quite a fervent one. But then I started asking questions, and getting no answers other than ‘Because it is.’ The more you dig up about climate change the more you uncover the shocking inconsistencies, the cover ups, and the unsound science and various hypothesis accepted as fact.

      The simple fact is that man made global warming has never been proven and almost all of the ‘science’ and accepted fact is based on computer models, bias computer models. Despite the fact that many Climate Change scientists will admit that they don’t have all the facts, don’t understand the climate and can only really guess as to how it works, we are still basing policy around their views.

    • …like the Catholic Church which are based on looking back to an authority (the Bible or past papal pronouncements) for their answers.

      I think you find that that statement is far more accurate that you realise, just look at the glaciers! Claims and theories by scientists are often repeated as facts by other scientists within the Global Warming community, as if from a bible.

  4. hi Charlie – you will always be able to find faults with any theory – eg evolution is still under attack from creationists – but that does not mean that it is not substantially correct. Ultimately this is a practical issue of great importance, given that if the pessimists are correct, countries in the Pacific and elsewhere will literally disappear under the waves. Climate change mitigation is a form of insurance – none of us likes pay up for insurance but we do. Look at this way – if the pessimists are wrong, then we have simply paid more taxes than we needed to; if they are right, we have saved many many lives. And even if you’re not too bothered about faraway third world folks, imagine what will happen as they face the prospect of disaster – more and more forced immigration to countries like the US and UK.

    • hi Charlie – you will always be able to find faults with any theory – eg evolution is still under attack from creationists – but that does not mean that it is not substantially correct.

      True, but more than 50% of the population believe the theory of evolution to be correct, not so with Global Warming. Also, I went to a religious school and no-one, not even the priests, claimed the theory of evolution was wrong (or that dinosaurs didn’t exist etc), it seems to be a recent phenomena.

      My problem with the theory is not that it is a theory, but that it is presented as fact. Whilst the Government hands out millions to ‘counter’ global warming, which in itself an impossibility, and research global warming, nothing is given to those who seek to disprove the theory.

      given that if the pessimists are correct, countries in the Pacific and elsewhere will literally disappear under the waves.

      But this is what really annoys me. Global Warming has been going on for decades. I remember in the 80s when the movement started gaining momentum, hearing about these Pacific Islands that would disappear within decades, and being told that action was urgent. Nearly 30 years on, not one single Pacific Island has been lost. No cities have seen drastic rises in sea levels. Nothing has happened, despite the fact that we have done nothing to prevent global warming, except spend money.

      if the pessimists are wrong, then we have simply paid more taxes than we needed to; if they are right, we have saved many many lives.

      Have we? 12,000 more pensioners died this winter than last, why? Because they could not afford to heat their homes due to sky high prices and the logic that we have to pay more to help cut back on climate change. Yet we are apparently doing it to save many lives at some point in the future in some distant land?

      It isn’t insurance, it’s a protection racket. I have nothing against protecting the environment, protecting endangered species and habitats, cutting back on pollutants and ensuring that third world countries have a greater prospect of a better life. What I don’t agree with is being held to ransom by the man who wears a ‘The End is Nigh‘ sandwich board everyday.

      Even Phil Jones has admitted that statistically, there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years. The warming period that started in 1975 is over.

      For me the whole theory is flawed, apart from the Medieval Warming Period, there have been at least two other warm periods since 1850, and there have been other warm periods. The Romans for instance had vineyards all over Britain. Climate Change is a natural cycle, and there is nothing we can do about it and it is arrogant of us to think that we can affect it.

  5. hi Charlie – I don’t think its fair to blame pensioner poverty on global warming spending; we are a rich country which can afford to preserve both its climate and its pensioners by simply adopting a more socially responsible policy of equitable taxation, instead of letting the rich stay rich. You somewhat glibly call what I call insurance a protection racket; obviously, despite what you said earlier, you do regard the climate change industry as a conspiracy of some sort (so I ask you again, how come things got to be like this if there was no persuasive scientific evidence?). I do however agree with some of what you say, having myself been around since the talk about global warming started in the 1970s – I fear it may be a question of crying wolf (“the end is nigh” as you put it). But in fact some of the chickens are coming home to roost – surely even you do not deny, presumably, that glaciers are melting. I know that it may be not as fast as some scientists claim, but it is the FACT not the SPEED or EXTENT of change that I would stress to you – the inundation and desertification may come later rather than earlier, but they will come if nothing is done. I do not in fact think that anything will be done; we need a socialistic world government that would simply prohibit fat cats, including politicians going off to expensive climate change conferences, from jetsetting and buggering up the Earth for us and our descendants.

    • (so I ask you again, how come things got to be like this if there was no persuasive scientific evidence?)

      Like many things it appeared to be based on sound logic and there is no real way of proving or disproving the theories. In the 80s protecting the environment and saving the planet had never been so popular, all it took were a few loud voices, and a lot of people wanting to believe.

      Monckton has a point. This all started because of deforestation. It was claimed then that continued destruction of the rainforest would cause more CO2 to be trapped into the atmosphere. One (and again, it was just one initially) scientist theorised that such an event could lead to the planet getting warmer. This was then seized on by the Save The Rainforest supporters and others as it was seen as more important and more likely to sway people than merely saving trees or far off species. The rest, as they say, is history.

      Momentum was added when it became clear that the rainforests were no longer in need of saving, forest management and responsible logging had pretty much made the cause redundant, so as Monckton said, it gave the supporters and donors without a cause, a cause. These people are a very, very vocal minority and effectively pushed all research in one direction.

      Dissenting voices have been threatened, ridiculed, suffered cuts in funding refused grants etc etc. Questioning these sorts of hardline people is never popular.

      The science isn’t very sound, and people are starting to really question it. Even the Met Office has announced that it is reviewing 150 years of data. Apparently their data will be peer reviewed by an independent body, which begs the question, why wasn’t it already?

      You also mentioned that the poor around the world will suffer, but a recent study by Stanford University doesn’t quite agree with the hype. Besides which, telling the developing world that they cannot use the cheap and plentiful resources that we have used for decades, instead they have to skip to the untried, less efficient and far, far more expensive renewable sources of energy in one generation, is going to do far, far more damage to their economies. 

      …surely even you do not deny, presumably, that glaciers are melting. I know that it may be not as fast as some scientists claim, but it is the FACT not the SPEED or EXTENT of change that I would stress to you

      This is another misrepresentation. Yes they are melting, but that is what glaciers do. They also move, which makes me wonder how these measurements are made.

      Glaciers are only formed, grow or remain the same size when there is more snow falling than melting, and having gone through a warmer than average period at the end of the 20th century it stands to reason that many probably melted more than usual. But they have melted worse than this before, thousands of years ago, pushing the sea level up by 50milimetres a year for 200 years. Today the sea level is apparently rising by about 3mm a year. Hardly a concern and hardly proof of it being man made. We are entering a cooling period, so most glaciers will probably be topped up again. But again, I believe that the glaciers melting has been greatly exaggerated.

      including politicians going off to expensive climate change conferences, from jetsetting

      That’s the kind of hypocrisy that annoys me. They claim to believe and want us to change, yet like many others (Al Gore) they have no intention of altering their privileged lifestyle.

  6. im with you charlie on this one.

  7. hi Jake – I would like to know why you are with Charlie on this one, given that it is actually an issue affecting millions of people. Peter

  8. I was wondering if either of you have heard Lord Monckton speak about this subject? Deciphering the truth about “global warming” is about as hard to do as any major political agenda. It is nearly impossible and in reality both sides are either trying to make money or keep money they already have. I think Stevecro above stated the situation best. I used to believe in Global Warming, and if it is true, which is doubtful, it’s a shame they lost so many believers like myself because of selfishly and incessently lying.

  9. Jake – I see he thinks the global warming theory is there because the left needs a new rallying point. I don’t think this is the case, or that most climate change scientists are especially political. Though I am more left than right on some other issues, I do not see this bias as connected with this issue – the whole point is that we will all (left/right, black/white) be affected by rising sea levels and so on if the pessimists are correct. It is a pity that it has become politicised, as the patriotic right should be at least as concerned about conserving our natural heritage as the left. One problem, which I think you imply, is that it is indeed hard to understand the science. This is why, as a non-scientist, I would (within reason) give the scientific consensus the benefit of the doubt.

  10. The only ice we have to worry abour is the ice on land and that is not shrinking at all. In fact, in the past 9 years there has been global cooling. Left or right this issue has economic incentives that will always drive “scientific consensus.” It’s just a business and any climate change probably isn’t man-made. Methane has more of an effect than co2 emissions but the media hypes the co2 shit up so they can sell hybrid cars and windmills and even yes, advance the leftist political agenda.

  11. Stanford University study – yes, I can see this may well be true (for that matter, on a personal level I am all for global warming as I like the sunshine!) But inundation at least must surely be negative for all affected. Phil Jones remark – this was apparently not what he said, but was interpreted by the Daily Mail to mean what it wanted it to mean. I cannot attempt to relay to you what he said, but I got this information from the Skeptical Science site (which of course you may not believe, but I suppose I do). What bothers me about all this is that, while the net and blogs like this one are great (we can chew things over, disagree etc without coming to blows) and we all have a right to our own opinion, the GW thing is not really moral/political in the usual sense – it is arcane physics and statistics, which is why – to repeat myself – I would leave it to the scientists rather than rely on the Mail for information, given its own take on what sells newspapers.

    • Hi Peter, thanks again for commenting.

      Phil Jones remark – this was apparently not what he said, but was interpreted by the Daily Mail to mean what it wanted it to mean.

      Well he’s been saying that a lot lately, especially regarding the emails ‘they were taken out of context..’ etc etc. The man never seems to say what he means, either when asked in person, in emails, responding the Freedom Of Information requests or when publishing scientific ‘fact’.

      I would leave it to the scientists rather than rely on the Mail for information, given its own take on what sells newspapers.

      But this is the misconception. The science is based on dodgy foundations. There are only three data sets on which the whole Global Warming science is built on. One was collected, collated and owned by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science, which is directed by James Hansen (the man responsible for the man made Global Warming hypothesis); the other was held at the CRU, of which Phil Jones was the head; the final set is from the National Climatic Data Center.

      This information has been jealously guarded for years, Phil Jones even details in his emails how to avoid Freedom of Information requests so that no one else can get their hands on it. A fact that only now is the Information Commissioner treating as illegal, despite numerous complaints over the years.

      Even the Science and Technology Committee has slammed Phil Jones saying:

      ‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

      But once again this is something that the scientific community have been letting the Global Warming activists get away with for years. The science has not been peer reviewed by anyone other than like minded activists, who by their own admission, massage the figures to make them fit.

      Phil Jones even claimed that it was not standard practice to release data and computer models for verification!

      So the scientists that you believe may know more about it than you, have been just as mislead as the rest of us by the theories and guesswork of a few Global Warming Champions.

      I am not claiming that I know more about the climate, or science than these professors and scientists, what I am saying is that even I know bad science when I see it. One of the fundamental principles of science is that findings MUST be replicable, how can we even pretend that the science behind it is accurate, when the data sets have been kept secret for so long? I assume that the reason that Phil Jones didn’t want them coming out, is because he, and people like him, have been massaging them for years.

  12. science was once influenced by the catholic church i have no doubt it is just influenced by different people today. anything with economic incentive works this way.

  13. Hi Charlie – hope you are well, and I am really enjoying this exchange, which makes me realize how ignorant most of us are on this supposedly crucial topic (I am planning to make my own idiot’s guide to the subject! – as there is too much partisanship/sloganising on both sides of the argument). I can’t respond yet to your most recent arguments, but will do so in time. Going back a bit, about the glaciers, you are no doubt correct to point out that they retreated substantially in the distant past – but we humans were not around then, and in fact what seems a relatively small increase in sea level may well be disastrous in somewhere like Bangladesh, where far too many people already live in a flood-plain. The false prediction about Himalayan glacier disappearance by 2035 apparently is now accepted even by the IPCC as false, and the pro-GW lot (like poor Phil Jones, who apparently contemplated suicide after the email leak) certainly need to improve their public relations skills; maybe you are doing them (and all of us) a favour in the long run by pointing out flaws in their arguments.

    • Hi Peter, thanks for commenting again.

      Going back a bit, about the glaciers, you are no doubt correct to point out that they retreated substantially in the distant past – but we humans were not around then,

      But isn’t that the point? We weren’t around then, ergo we were not responsible. So other than a guilty conscience, what makes us think we are responsible now?

      a relatively small increase in sea level may well be disastrous in somewhere like Bangladesh

      Very true, but how is high taxation and forcing ‘environmental’ changes, Kyoto agreements etc etc, going to help them either short or long term? It won’t change the flooding, should it happen, or not happen. Mankind is no more responsible for the rise in sea level, than we are for the recent earthquakes in Chile.

      The false prediction about Himalayan glacier disappearance by 2035 apparently is now accepted even by the IPCC as false

      Yes, and like the quote that the Amazon rainforest is facing imminent destruction, it was bandied around for years without any form of fact checking, peer review or basic scientific procedures. Yet the latter claim is still on the IPCC website, despite being accepting as totally inaccurate.

      This kind of thing is the problem, this Thermageddon, the wilder and wilder predictions based on a flawed theory. It isn’t just flaws in their arguments, but in their scientific methods and in their logic.

  14. The new Met Office study: this must be welcome, tho’ it is somehat pathetic that it seems to have been triggered by a criminal hacking exercise which in fact showed not much more than that scientists are human. If 99% of the population rejected man-made global warming on the ground that one or two scientists had slightly skewed data (which is anyway debatable), or that it has been – in the UK – a fairly cold winter, this means nothing!! This is not a popularity contest, or even one of logic, but an empirical matter of arcane science and statistics – which is nevertheless of vital importance to the human race.

  15. and what action is to be taken, peter? if this is the case, that is.

    obviously, global warming or not, we should try to regulate pollution in the air and other areas for even more obvious reasons, and i’d love to find a cheap fuel to save on gas money. if the powers that be, including scientists and engineers, truly wanted cheap and efficient sources of energy we would’ve converted to electricity or tried to find a new power source. liberals and the modern conservative (in other words liberals that like low taxes, in other words rich people who aren’t actually conservative) alike just don’t care.
    there are some people who want to make money off of oil. and even more people who want to make money off of “global warming.” soon when we don’t warm it will be “climate change.” whatever. we already should be responsible but niether side is and nobody gives a shit except to profit off a global scare scam.

  16. Charlie – answering a couple more of your points. You say that higher taxes won’t help the Bangladeshis as we have no more influence on sea level than on earthquakes – well this is the whole point, and I think it is likely that we can avoid sea-level increases. I said that we were not around when the glaciers retreated in the past, and no GW scientist doubts the reality of natural climate change, it is rather that the changes happening now are better explained by increased carbon dioxide from fossil fuels; solar radiation is not increasing, the other planets are not warming, and no climate change sceptic actually has a coherent alternative explanation – in fact they all say different contradictory things. We should not be pushed by various exaggerated claims into rejecting the whole thing.

    • Hi Peter.

      …well this is the whole point, and I think it is likely that we can avoid sea-level increases.

      …it is rather that the changes happening now are better explained by increased carbon dioxide from fossil fuels;

      But there is no evidence for this, it is guess work. During the Medieval Warming period I am sure many notable and high ranking officials proffered God’s will/anger as an explanation for the inexplicable warming, it didn’t make them right. Nor does what appears to be a sound theory today, make it anything other than guesswork.

      No one, and I cannot stress this enough, no one has actually proven that carbon dioxide, man made or otherwise, causes the planet to heat up; when you factor in the Medieval Warming Period and other, non man made but major climatic changes, then it is clear that this kind of warming has happened before, and will again. Indeed even Phil Jones admitted that the Medieval Warming Period was hotter than today, all without CO2.

      It is not ‘better explained’ by fossil fuels, fossil fuels are a convenient scapegoat for those that have an anti Globalisation/Capitalism agenda. Besides whilst CO2 emissions have increased in the past 15 years, the average global temperature has not. Again if A causes B, a rise in A should cause a rise in B. This hasn’t happened.

      …solar radiation is not increasing, the other planets are not warming

      Not true, we have just come out of a very active period of solar radiation, this is why many sceptics now believe it is going to get a lot cooler.

      We should not be pushed by various exaggerated claims into rejecting the whole thing.

      But you’re prepared to be pushed into accepting the whole thing by various exaggerated claims? You seem to think that the whole scientific community is in agreement over Global Warming, but it isn’t. There are some very worried people at the IPCC at the moment. You see, the data has never been checked over, never been peer reviewed, no one has actually took the time to study the data sets and see if they reach the same conclusions. Mostly because those holding the data sets have refused to let others, other than a select few, view them.

      Things are changing now, but there are already big problems. The Russian Meteorological Society recently complained when they managed to get their hands on the data sets, that the data that they had given the CRU has been altered and cherry picked and that 40% of the temperatures for Russia were missing, making Russia appear warmer than it was!

      Add to that the fact that the computer models have also never been peer reviewed, or re-run or tested, and the whole theory falls flat. I don’t think that there has ever been a scientific theory that has been so widely accepted, despite never being proven, having no evidence to back it up, and never having been reviewed by the scientific community.

  17. Hi Charlie – well no, it is not the exaggerated claims which make me take climate change seriously, it is the fact that 97% of scientists in that area accept it, and to repeat, it is not whether change is rapid but whether it is real that matters. Mediaeval Warm Period – this has always been known about, but it was not global – unlike the modern temperature increases. My analogy with insurance: I don’t think your answer (saying it was a protection racket) was reasonable – who has the power to enforce such a racket? If you were selling me car insurance for accidental damage, the fact that I had not had an accident for three years and that therefore the chance of having one in the next year was only one in three and so not worth paying for even though I could afford it, would not be especially reasonable. We can afford to pay for climate change, and so even if it were less than 50% probability, it would be worth paying for. I think what has happened is that some climate change proponents have been too concerned to attract attention; their claims have sometimes backfired, giving the other side (with the media leading the charge) some easy victories. To claim that the fact that Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 (I have a hunch the original digits were transposed, and that 2350 was intended) somehow disproves the threat to them is like saying that falsely predicting someone’s death in the next year means that they will live forever.

    • …it is the fact that 97% of scientists in that area accept it,

      Based on the work, which they haven’t verified, of perhaps 2% of that 97%, doesn’t that worry you? Looking at it objectively, would you accept that for anything else?

      …and to repeat, it is not whether change is rapid but whether it is real that matters.

      Tell that to the Third World, who are constantly being told to change their power usage to more renewal energy, or else and not to eat so much meat, as meat = heat. Even though the very idea that us all eating vegetables instead of meat to save energy is illogical.

      Besides, you are confusing the question, it isn’t about speed of the change, or even that the change is real but the real question, which still 30 years after the theory was proposed has never been proven, is whether it is man made. If it is not, then no amount of reducing CO2 is going to do anything. Incidentally, that volcano which erupted in Iceland probably pumped out the equivalent of Britain’s annual CO2 output (or around a quarter of Europe’s), so even if Britain released no carbon dioxide for a year, it would make no difference to thermageddon, which really sums up how pointless CO2 reduction is.

      Mediaeval Warm Period – this has always been known about, but it was not global – unlike the modern temperature increases.

      That’s not true, if it were warmer in the North Atlantic and Europe than it is today, and they had the same warm period in China, New Zealand, Africa, Antarctica, Japan and at the same time, I would say that is pretty global. Obviously data is scarce for some places during that period (the Pacific, Australia and South America) and some data suggests it may have been cooler in some areas, however it snowed in Baghdad and Buenos Aires for the first time in almost a century in 2007/8, yet we are still getting warmer, apparently.

      My analogy with insurance:…

      But the analogy doesn’t match, sooner or later you are going to hit someone, or someone is going to hit you, regardless of how carefully you drive; there are 26 million cars on the road in the UK.

      It is more akin to taking out insurance specifically against a lightning strike on your person. Lightning is very real, it is out there striking all over the world at any given time, but in reality 99.9% of us would be able live out our lives without ever cashing in on that insurance. It is an insurance based on a possibility. About 60 people in the UK are struck by lightning each year, would you take the risk of being one of those 60, or cough up for insurance, just to be safe? And by insurance I meant a very expensive patented lightning retardant outfit, to be worn at all times.

      It is precisely like a protection racket, playing on the fears of the gullible, force feeding them propaganda adverts, which are increasingly banned for their inaccuracy! As for who enforces it, primarily the Government, but also third party companies with carbon trading schemes. Remember, those adverts for the Department of the Environment and Climate Change, the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust (Act on CO2) do not come cheap, millions is spent each year on this kind of propaganda.

      We can afford to pay for climate change, and so even if it were less than 50% probability, it would be worth paying for.

      I disagree. We can’t even afford to pay for the NHS, which is worth paying for, let alone a lightning retardant suit for every man woman and child in the UK, just in case. And what about countries like China, India, Kenya etc, they really cannot afford it, yet we are forcing our theories onto them and forcing them to push through changes that are not in any way beneficial.

      Better safe than sorry only applies when there is a realistic chance of being sorry.

      To claim that the fact that Himalayan glaciers will not disappear by 2035 (I have a hunch the original digits were transposed, and that 2350 was intended) somehow disproves the threat to them

      I am not saying that the threat has been disproven, on the contrary, it has never been proven. As for the mistake, if that were the case he would have corrected himself, he has even admitted that he did it to put pressure on politicians, it was no innocent mistake. The fact that you seem intent to believe ‘an honest mistake’ despite the fact the lone scientist responsible for this theory has confessed to his lies and motive, is troubling. You make it sound more like faith, than science.

      You’re an intelligent man, surely you realise that if one or two ‘scientists’ can manipulate data or grossly exaggerate claims merely push their own moral agenda, many more could too?

      The questions the pro-GW community should be asking is exactly why did Global Warming become Climate Change, if not to cover every eventuality? If CO2 is rising each year, why hasn’t the average global temperature risen for 15 years? And why have none of the predictions made in the mid-1990s come anywhere near to becoming reality?

    • Peter, I’ve been meaning to mention this for a while, the man responsible for virtually the whole tree hugging environmental movement, Professor James Lovelock. The man on whose theory the film Avatar is based, also agrees about those lining their own pockets with thermageddon. He said on the today programme:

      Prof Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.

      Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to “fudge the data”.

      He also says that trying to save the planet ‘is a lot of nonsense’.

      I’d have to agree with everything he says, not too sure about the Gaia theory however, but he is certainly someone who seems to understand the ‘arcane’ physics and climate data.

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s