• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

The Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 members, submits a devastating assessment of Climategate to the British parliamentary inquiry into the scandal:

Link
 
Oil conglomerate 'secretly funds climate change deniers'
An oil conglomerate has allegedly spent nearly £16.5 million ($25 million) on campaigns to discredit climate change and clean energy policies, according to a new report.
Tom Leonard, in New York
Published: 9:31PM BST 30 Mar 2010

Koch Industries, which is owned and run by two Kansas-based brothers and has substantial oil and chemicals interests, spent the sum between 2005 and 2008 to finance "organisations of the 'climate denial machine'", claims the environmental campaign group Greenpeace.

Despite the relatively small size of the conglomerate, the sum is three times that spent by ExxonMobil, the western world's biggest oil company, in the same period.

A Greenpeace investigation also claimed that between 2006 and 2009, the company and its owners - Charles and David Koch - spent £25.3 million ($37.9 million) on direct lobbying on oil and energy issues.

According to Greenpeace, Koch foundations had provided substantial funding to at least 20 organisations involved in highlighting "Climategate", the controversy surrounding climate scientists that was prompted by emails hacked from the University of East Anglia.

A recent survey found that 73 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening, but only 18 per cent believed strongly it was man-made and harmful.

The brothers share 24th place in Forbes magazine's latest list of the world's richest people, controlling America's second-biggest private company from their base in Wichita.

In all, their more than 20 companies employ 70,000 people in 60 countries and earn $100 billion in annual sales.

The business was founded by the brother's father, Fred, who invented a method of refining petrol from heavy oil but the company, which makes Lycra, is now involved in ranching, mining, paper making and fertiliser production.

Greenpeace, which described Koch as the "financial kingpin of climate change denial and clean energy opposition", supplied a list of 35 organisations and 21 politicians - 17 Republicans and four Democrats - who it claimed received money, either directly or indirectly, from Koch or foundations it had set up.

They include the Cato Institute, a conservative think-tank, and Americans for Prosperity, a free-market campaign group.

"Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming", said the report.

Kert Davis, research director of Greenpeace US, said it was time Koch Industries "came clean and dropped its, behind-the-scenes campaign against action on climate change".

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... niers.html
 
'No malpractice' by climate unit

There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.

This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.

It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online.

The panel said it would be helpful for researchers to work more closely with professional statisticians in future.

This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often "messy" data on climate, the report said.

"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the panel remarked in its conclusions.

The e-mails issue came to light in November last year, when hundreds of messages between CRU scientists and their peers around the world were posted on the internet, along with other documents.

Critics said that the e-mail exchanges revealed an attempt by the researchers involved to manipulate data.

But a recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the e-mails concluded that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive.

And Lord Oxburgh said that he hoped these "resounding affirmations" of the unit's scientific practice would put those suspicions to bed.

He stated: "We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but these people were doing their jobs honestly."

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm

Which should quieten the conspiracists somewhat....

(But if they run true to form, the Climategate emails will probably pop up yet again in a few months, as if Oxburgh had never existed... :roll: )
 
rynner2 said:
'No malpractice' by climate unit

This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.

[/i]
Click to expand...

Lord Oxburgh, chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage association, told the East of England Energy Groups SNS conference that capture and storage of carbon dioxide could be a huge business opportunity.

http://www.environmenteast.org.uk/tag/lord-oxburgh/

This Lord previously made his mark in the oil world is now a fully converted "I know which side the bread is buttered on these days" carbon capture man...this seems to be a strange new use of the term Independant Panel that I was previously unaware of :roll:
 
Good find scunnerluggz . How the heck did Lord O manage to read those emails and conclude there was no foul play at work?
Regardless of the UEA emails there's the ridiculous data collecting standards and the warping of it with averaging adjustments. Climategate isn't over yet.
 
Richard Lindzen seeks new name for climate sceptics
MIT professor says climate sceptics should stop accepting the term 'sceptic' because global warming theory is not 'a plausible proposition'

And so the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change is over for another year. While we lament this loss, let us pause for a short moment on a concluding statement by one of its star speakers.

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT's department of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences, told his attendant fans (watch the video above) that he believes climate sceptics, such as himself, should "stop accepting the term 'sceptic'".

His reasoning? Because it affords too much legitimacy to the implausible theory of global warming:

"One suggestion I'd make is that we stop accepting the term 'sceptic'. As far as I can tell, scepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition." [Applause.] For 20 years – more than 20 years unfortunately, 22 by now, since '88 – of repetition, escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, I would suggest the failure to prove the case of 20 years makes the case even less plausible, as does the evidence of Climategate and other instances of what are essentially [inaudible, but it sounds like "overt cheating"]. In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in global average temperature model, I'm quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon, though in several thousand years, we may return to an ice age."

So, if climate sceptics don't now want to be known as "sceptics", what should they be called instead? We know "denier" is off-limits, even though - judging by Lindzen's own framing, at least - denial seems to be a fairly legitimate description. So, what else? "Climate contrarian" seems to be growing in popularity, as does "climate agnostic".

But it strikes me that trying to find one handy, catch-all moniker is where we are going wrong here. Of course, there are as many varieties of sceptics as there are those who accept what the vast majority of climatologists are telling us.

There are those who deny, those who are sceptical, those who enjoy being contrarians, and those who are merely agnostic. What cluster term should be used to describe all these flavourings collectively? Maybe we'll just have to resort to what Prince did back in the 1990s? Something along the lines of "Global Union Formerly Known As Sceptics"? I'm just not convinced the acronym "Gufkas" will catch on, though. 8)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... e-sceptics
 
Well, unlike Moon-hoaxes, which is something in which I can be anyone's dupe, this is sort of my area. I'm a scientist (well, a doctor), and my ex-husband has been involved in the climate debate for the past twenty seven years (and no, he isn't paid by Shell, or Exxon, he just bumbles along on his teaching salary).

Anyway, I'd like to try and put across what I see as the situation at the moment. If it's a bit long, bear with me.

The scientific issue here isn't 'is global warming happening' (all serious scientists on either side accept it is), or even 'does CO2 contribute to the greenhouse effect?' (most accept it does). The issue is

1. Is the recent warming natural or man-made, or a combination of both? and

2. are the effects going to be bad, good or neutral?

These are the core issues being debated by scientists at the moment. And contrary to a lot of what is said in the media, there is really no consensus on anything. The data is complicated, and a lot of the conclusions are based, not on observation, but on computer models, which have shown to have a high rate of inaccuracy and which can end up obscuring and confusing more than enlightening.

So, the situation is fluid, complex, confused and still in need of a great deal of study.

The trouble is a small but vociferous group of pro-AGW (man-made warming) scientists (Mann, Jones, Monbiot et al), have elected to cut through the usual process of debate and study within the scientific community and make a case direct to the non-scientific community, via the press. In order to do this they simplified what were highly complex issues into a series of soundbites and concepts they thought would be more accessible to lay people. Their intentions were probably quite laudable, but the result was desperately unfortunate. The grey and grainy realities of the debate were transformed into stark black and whites. The fact that there is a consenus in the scientific community that global warming is real was transformed, by lazy and/or hysterical journalists into a consensus that man-made global warming is real. A rather big difference.

There is no consensus that man-made warming is real. And no consensus that even if it is real it will catastrophic, or even bad. The scientific jury is still out on all of that.

But instead of acknowledging this, and engaging in open scientific debate, Mann, Jones, Monbiot et al have elected to use media spin, and to take a lot of journalists, who have no idea how much they are being misled, on the journey with them. They have quite deliberately fostered continued misunderstanding, because (presumably) they believe ends justify means. Climategate has shown the extent to which they were prepared to do this (and the suggestion that they did not behave unethically is simply absurd, even Monbiot, one of Jones’ strongest supporters, called for him to resign after the disclosures).

Of course this doesn't mean they have lost the argument, but it does mean they're attempt to spin things into the illusion the argument is over has been shown for what it is.

The best I can do is urge everyone to read up the data themselves. If you just flick over the headlines and spun soundbites you’ll just be misinformed by both sides.




This is a good source of articles and info covering both sides.
http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/
 
Thank you, Alice, for a clear summary, which crystallises a lot of the fears I've been feeling about the way the debate is presented.

I'm not a "sceptic" or a "denier", I'm just an intelligent human being who who like to hear directly from scientists what they think is happening. I don't need my science lessons via the likes of Al Gore, who, with the best will in the world, is a dimwit.
 
Third inquiry into 'Climategate' clears scientists of dishonesty
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... 35_pf.html
FRANK McDONALD Environment Editor

Thu, Jul 08, 2010

THE THIRD inquiry into ‘Climategate’ has again cleared scientists at the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of dishonesty in the presentation of data on global warming, but called on them to be more open with the public.

Conducted by Sir Muir Russell, a retired British civil servant, the inquiry found that their “honesty and rigour” were “not in doubt” and there was “no evidence” of behaviour that would undermine assessments by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But the Russell report, commissioned by the UEA and published yesterday, said: “We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA.”

The Climategate controversy erupted last November after still unknown hackers broke into the CRU’s computer database and retrieved numerous e-mails between the unit’s director, Dr Phil Jones, his colleagues and others in the wider scientific community.

Circulated like a virus on the internet by climate change sceptics and deniers, the most infamous of these e-mails referred to Dr Jones using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the rate of global warming; this, more than anything else, undermined the CRU’s scientific credibility.

The Russell report rejected that conclusion, but said the CRU graph – which appeared on the front cover of the World Meteorological Organisation’s 1999 report on climate change – was “misleading” because it didn’t explain how the underlying data had been derived.

In the run-up to last December’s Copenhagen climate summit, it provided very welcome and seemingly damning material for sceptics to argue their case that there was no real basis for the “theory” of man-made climate change, due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels.

Announcing his findings, Sir Muir said: “Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said”. And he made it clear that “we have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments” of a warming climate.

His report criticised the CRU scientists for being “defensive” and the UEA for being “unhelpful” in responding to requests under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act.

The fact that many of these requests were being made by sceptics looking for ammunition probably accounted for their reticence about releasing it.

However, the scientists were cleared of accusations that they had subverted peer review processes and censored the findings of rivals by keeping them out of scientific journals, as most of the data at the heart of the controversy was available to any “competent” researcher, the inquiry found.

The report said there was also a need “for alternative viewpoints to be recognised in policy presentations, with a robust assessment of their validity, and for the challenges to be rooted in science rather than rhetoric”.
Click to expand...
 
The Guardian previewed a short film from the, '10:10', environmentalist group today and walked right into a hornet's nest of controversy, with one of the most idiotic and enormous own goals of all time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film

Apparently, it's called, 'There will be blood'. :shock:

Richard Curtis wrote the script. Smug twat.

Note how the climate skeptics have jumped on the film as proof that anthropogenic climate change is a lie.
 
It's absolutely staggering that someone saw fit to produce this. It looks like the kind of thing Alex Jones would put together to back up his slanderous claims about the the motivations of AGW proponents. :(
 
:_omg: I cannot believe that nobody at any point questioned the wisdom of this. I mean, blowing people up! Did no one think that might have some kind of resonance in the world at present?! Richard Curtis is a prime example of what might be called a "champaigner". Presumably the "celebs" involved will be giving up their massive, power consuming houses, private jets, holidays and wasteful lifestyles and donating all their extra cash to renewable energy programmes then...? Oh, thought not.

I see there is now an apology of sorts from "10:10" on the Grauniad page.

As Ted Maul said - staggering :headbutt:
 
I think I was the last person to comment on that video before it was made private. And then when it was put up on someone else's account I was promptly ganged up on by people who suggested I had a 'sense of humour bypass'.

Now, I consider myself to have a well rounded, dry sense of humour, but didn't find that funny in the slightest. But more to the point, I just don't see the point or sense behind it. The vast majority of people are completely confused about climate change. Why not show some well backed up evidence, and then they can make it as hard hitting as they want, instead of juvenile, counter-productive gash.

Blow up Richard Curtis, then I might have been listening...

Btw, good post AngelAlice, I'll look through those articles when I've got the time.
 
I've seen far too many horror films (and Battle Royale) to be offended by the content, yet...

vardogr said:
But more to the point, I just don't see the point or sense behind it.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of stumped here too!
 
I found it quite confusing and couldn't quite work out what point they were trying to make. Which means that it's a big failure.
 
Surely point they were trying to make was that anyone disareeing with the status quo will be shot down in flames, so to speak, a bit crass I admit but that was the intention.
 
Ronson8 said:
Surely point they were trying to make was that anyone disareeing with the status quo will be shot down in flames, so to speak, a bit crass I admit but that was the intention.
Click to expand...
It relies on everybody who sees it already being in on the joke and insufferably smug, t'boot. A bit like 'The Vicar of Dibley'.

When I first saw it, I knew exactly how the theatre audience in, 'The Producers', were supposed to be feeling, when they saw the first half of, 'Springtime for Hitler'.

Seriously. :shock:
 
Congressman says God will save us from climate change
A Republican congressman who believes that global warming is not a threat because God has promised not to destroy the Earth has put himself forward as chairman of a powerful committee that deals with energy policy and its effect on the environment.
By Alex Spillius, Washington 4:54PM GMT 10 Nov 2010

John Shimkus, an evangelical Christian representing Illinois, quoted the Bible in a congressional hearing last year on a proposed "cap and trade" legislation designed to limit carbon emissions.

Reading from God's post-Flood promise to Noah in Genesis 8:21, he said: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done."

Mr Shimkus added: "I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for his creation.
"The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect."

He spoke before a theologian and leaders of the Lutheran church who had been invited to testify as witnesses. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives but has been blocked in the Senate.

Following the Republicans dramatic success in last week's midterm elections, every committee in the House will shift from Democratic to Republican leadership in January.

Mr Shimkus, who has served in Congress since 1997, is seeking the leadership of the Energy and Commerce committee, which has a wide-ranging portfolio covering energy policy, environmental initiatives and public health.

In a letter circulated to fellow Republicans, who will vote for committee heads, he said his previous status as a minority member of the committee made him "uniquely qualified among a group of talented contenders" for the top job.

"I believe I have the credentials within the committee to bring fairness, without protests from the other side of the aisle, in its operation," he wrote.

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hange.html

So that's all right, then... :roll:
 
No doubt if it doesn't get better, then we just aren't godly enough. And if it does, then it's God's will, not any policy implemented by man.

Can't lose, really.
 
On tonight:

Storyville: Meet the Climate Sceptics

Next on:Today, 22:00 on BBC Four

Synopsis
Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them.

Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don't fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?

The film features Britain's pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v
 
Long article:

Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson
World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson has been described as a 'force-of-nature intellect'. He's also one of the world's foremost climate change sceptics. In this email exchange, our science editor, Steve Connor, asks the Princeton scholar why he's one of the few true intellectuals to be so dismissive of the global-warming consensus
Friday, 25 February 2011

From: Steve Connor
To: Freeman Dyson

You are one of the most famous living scientists, credited as a visionary who has reshaped scientific thinking. Some have called you the "heir to Einstein", yet you are also a "climate sceptic" who questions the consensus on global warming and its link with carbon dioxide emissions. Could we start by finding where we agree? I take it you accept for instance that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the planet (1); that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen since direct measurements began several decades ago (2); and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past 800,000 years (3), if you take longer records into account, such as ice-core data.

Would you also accept that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of burning fossil fuels and that global temperatures have been rising for the past 50 years at least, and possibly for longer (4)? Computer models have shown that the increase in global temperatures can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (5). Climate scientists say there is no other reasonable explanation for the warming they insist is happening (6), which is why we need to consider doing something about it (7). What part of this do you accept and what do you reject?

From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor

First of all, please cut out the mention of Einstein. To compare me to Einstein is silly and annoying.

Answers to your questions are: yes (1), yes (2), yes (3), maybe (4), no (5), no (6), no (7).

There are six good reasons for saying no to the last three assertions. First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.

That will do for the first set of questions. Now it is your turn.

From: Steve Connor
To: Freeman Dyson

So you accept that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that warms the planet, that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have been rising since direct measurements began several decades ago, and that CO2 is almost certainly higher now than for at least the past 800,000 years. You think it "maybe" right that CO2 levels have been increasing as a result of fossil fuel burning but you don't accept that global temperatures have been rising nor that the increase in carbon dioxide has anything to do with that supposed trend. And finally, you have little or no faith in the computer models of the climate.

As a physicist you must be aware of the calculations of estimated increases in global average temperatures due to the positive radiative forcing of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the heat "captured" by CO2. The mainstream estimate suggests that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would increase global average temperatures by about 3C. If you accept that CO2 levels have never been higher, but not that global average temperatures have increased, where has the extra trapped heat gone to? Can we deal with this before we go on?

From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor

No thank-you! The whole point of this discussion is that I am interested in a far wider range of questions, while you are trying to keep us talking about narrow technical questions that I consider unimportant.

You ask me where the extra trapped heat has gone, but I do not agree with the models that say the extra trapped heat exists. I cannot answer your question because I disagree with your assumptions.

From: Steve Connor
To: Freeman Dyson

Sorry you feel that way, I hope we can get back on track. I was only trying to find out where your problem lies with respect to the scientific consensus on global warming. As you know these models are used by large, prestigious science organisations such as Nasa, NOAA and the Met Office, which use them to make pretty accurate predictions about the weather every day. The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming. There is a scientific consensus that CO2 emissions are having a discernible influence on the global climate and I was attempting to find out more precisely why you part company from this consensus.

You have written eloquently about the need for heretics in science who question the accepted dogma. There are a number of notable instances in science where heretics have indeed been proven to be right (Alfred Wegener and continental drift) but many more, less notable examples where they have been shown to be wrong and, in time, will be forgotten (remember Peter Duesberg or Andrew Wakefield?). So it was in the light of your heretical stance on climate science that I'd like to know why we should believe a few lone heretics – albeit eminent ones such as yourself – rather than the vast body of scientists who have a plethora of published work to back up their claims? It's an important question because it's about who we, the public, should believe on scientific matters and why?

From: Freeman Dyson
To: Steve Connor

When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener. It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.

Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.

I am glad we are now talking about more general issues and not about technical details. I do not pretend to be an expert about the details.

etc...
 
Wow, I had no idea he was still alive.
He raises some good points (and may well be right).

Apparently, his solution to CO2 is for everybody to plant trees. Mind you, the only way for it to work is if everybody got involved and planted a LOT of trees. Getting that many people to cooperate would be a tad difficult...
 
had a thought

ok imagine if it was discovered that a pole shift was imminent and said shift was going to disturb weather patterns possibly permanently
how would you dress it up and keep the popualtion calm (not lose control)

climate change i would say


as if the climate did change and no reason was given people would start to question what they were being told and start looking for themselves

looking at the past the climate has always changed and probably always will with or without our help

the whole subject is politically driven,in politics is usually about who is the most acomplished liar lol
 
Ok,
so exactly how does electromagnetism affect weather and climate? Eh?

[waits with popcorn]

A
 
Well...a magnetic field could affect the direction of flow or aggregation of ionised particles, which may determine where a storm or rainfall may occur...maybe?
 
TinFinger_ said:
had a thought

imagine if it was discovered that a pole shift was imminent and said shift was going to disturb weather patterns possibly permanently
how would you dress it up and keep the popualtion calm (not lose control)

climate change i would say
Click to expand...

Other way around - it would make much more sense to use a pole shift (i.e. a natural phenomenon) as a cover for climate change to stop people from assigning blame and taking action.
Only problem is there's no way a pole shift would change weather patterns.
 
Lord Lawson's 'misleading' climate claims challenged by scientific adviser
Tory peer accused of using 'meaningless' comparisons to try to make his argument against the need to tackle global warming
Daniel Boffey , policy editor The Observer, Sunday 27 March 2011

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has been privately accused by the government's chief scientific adviser of making "incorrect" and "misleading" claims in his book on climate change.

The charge against Lawson, the country's most prominent global-warming sceptic, was made during an extraordinary and at times fractious exchange of letters between the men following a meeting over coffee at the Lords.

Sir John Beddington wrote to Lawson to tell him that his book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, had made "a number of points related to the underlying science of climate change that are incorrect or presented in a misleading way". An appendix to his letter accused Lawson of making "meaningless" comparisons to prove his thesis.

In response, Lawson wrote back to accuse Beddington of attempting to "trump" his arguments without evidence or quantification. He also confessed to being baffled by Beddington's criticisms, adding that the government adviser had committed a "gross misuse of language" in claiming that the Earth has warmed "dramatically" in the past 150 years.

Lawson, who is chairman of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, is the most prominent critic of the government's policies on climate change. While not denying that there is evidence of a change in the climate, he has announced himself unconvinced that it has been caused by greenhouse gases.

Lawson is set to represent the climate sceptics at a debate hosted by the Spectator magazine, entitled "The Global Warming Hysteria Is Over: Time for a Return to Sanity".

But Christian Hunt of the website Carbon Brief, who, along with investigations website Spinwatch, uncovered the letters, said they showed Lawson did not have a grasp of the science: "It is worrying that a prominent figure like Lord Lawson is seen as a credible commentator on this issue, when his understanding of appears so flawed."

"His climate-sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation claims a charitable aim 'to advance the public understanding of global warming', but they seem to spend most of their time casting doubt upon well-established science."

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ic-adviser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top