The controversy over melting of Himalayan glaciers is not about the melting of ice, which is visibly evident and will have consequences, but rather how long it will take. Another 25 years or 125 years? Nobody is likely to offer a date by which all glaciers will have melted unless they know how rapidly temperatures will rise.

As Professor Hunt points out, the controversy does focus attention on IPCC findings and that is surely welcome by most scientists and the general public. All science, not just climate science, should be the subject of peer review and public scrutiny.

That does not alter the basic science associated with concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming.

If commentators such as Professor Plimer and Lord Monckton, who are dismissive of that science, expect their views to be taken seriously, they must show that the science is wrong and why it is wrong and support their position with empirical evidence. The same goes for Dr Pachauri and the IPCC. An even higher level of academic rigour applies to them and they know it.

Nothing is more important than to have public confidence in the findings of a global scientific body and the conclusions of individual scientists. They are responsible for ensuring that their findings are peer-reviewed and accurate and then stand up to public scrutiny.

Dr. Pachauri has failed in this regard and he should consider whether the structure of the IPCC is the most appropriate, how it could be improved - and his own position in that organisation

Actually Pilmer and Mockton have to do no such thing. The pro-climate change 'scientists' should be engaged in trying to falsify their theories as per standard scientific method. They have failed to do this. The fact they've been caught out isn't falsification, it's just embarrassing and creates media fall out for all.

Those who do not believe that man is causing global warming will forever look for holes in the IPCC doctrine.
Some of the scientists who were involved in the very first report were dissolusioned that the IPCC was set up to prove that humans were causing global warming. (Vincent Gray, Tim Ball, S. Fred Singer, Larry Gould, Kenneth Haalpaala et al.) The mission was not to find out if man's pollutions were affecting the planet.
While I cannot, for sure, identify the original assertion that carbon dioxide is the main culprit, I am totally convinced that, as I was taught in school sixty years ago and as is taught in schools today, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
So why does the temperature fluctuate? Surely, that is the question to ask, not, how do we get rid of CO2.
If there is proof that the climate is warming more than it ever has done before, there has to be a reason other than carbon dioxide.
Polar bears still live despite higher temperatures during the medieval warm period. More people die of cold than die of heat.
As an enthusiastic student of the TV series, Yes Minister, I am mindful that experts will produce the result that their masters want. By only employing scientists who have to justify their generous salaries, Sir Humphrey Appleby obtains the results that he wants.
Why else would Michael Mann ignore the Medieval Warm Period as well as the Little Ice Age in his 'Hockey Stick" graph?
Is no one else interested in finding out why the planet's temperature is always fluctuating?

Thanks from me , a great and concise contribution .

I would have gotton lost trying to Analise the type of People who get involved in (Political) Science where Truth has a number of complexions depending on expediency and (Political)Influence .

One such situation is currently being played out in our Federal Parliament right now , Where an "Emperor" an RTD (Responsible Truth Denier)is volubly arguing his innocence regarding the death by electrocution of four men . (See Garret on Kerry O'Brien Feb.11)
If we are prepared to redefine the Truth then Garret could be found not to be culpable of course Garrett wouldn't be culpable it he could provide a certificate from an Electrician verifying the safety and integrity of the electrics previous to the installation but apparently he didn't proscribe inspections .
Of course Garret wouldn't know about Rats ,Mice and Possums that chew and strip insulation off wiring , armature sparkies who wire in a nice new fancy light for Mum are another hazard , twist wires together insulate with tape from Department Stores the s--t tape peels off in the heat and bingo we have another dead man . We could be extra generous and ask Garrett if he would allow armatures to do work on Car Brakes or replace lights on cars , to inspect Pool Fencing to inspect Pool Sanitation etc ect .
Garrett suffers from the "Greens Malaise" Quite happy to Pontificate on everything but never never admit anything an example of this is the Fires ; 147 people dead again Garrett and his Mates are culpable they are "Deniers" here they don't believe in cleaning up the Eucalyptus Forest Floors , this used to be called "Back Burning" it reduces the Temperature of the wild fire in summer heat wave conditions and as a result the eucalyptus oil is not evaporated out of the leaf canopy and the Eucalyptus Oil Gas Explosions seen on Black Saturday don't happen but don't ask Garrett about this you will do no better than Kerry O'Brien on the other Dead Men .

Cheryl,
A little bit of 'a' and a little bit of 'b' is as always true.

in any worthwhile debate both pro and con need to prove their assertions.

Assorted geologist types aided and abetted by media entertainment magicians including their supporters put up alternatives/objections but get very precious when their evidence is subjected to the same scrutiny they proffer. Usually this takes the form of absurd conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, 'shoot the messenger', particularly when their idols or pet theories are threatened. i.e. their reaction to Plimer's deeply flawed book , or Monckton's even less admirable credibility because of his selectivity or data, hyperbole and outrageous character slander/libels, see Media Watch. Regardless of media watch's presumed standing this case has facts.
The abiding question is why do these get traction.

a. the scientists don't explain very well they leave much up to the media who focus on conflict....it sells.
No one has noted the two recent papers that cast doubt on the geologist's key base assumptions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100211163129.htm
simply because it's too hard to make it sexy.

b. the IPPC system is incomplete rather than flawed per se.
Yes it needs to adopt a more public friendly approach.

c. Scientists need to explain the limitations and boundaries of scientific process. May believe that the scientists paper release (fabricate) scientific research to of set denialist claims. The idea that the papers are often long term research escapes them.

d finally the media need to lift their game emphasis on objectivity not selling papers via conflict.

I am with ShazBaz001 - one of the better articles on the IPCC and AGW.

Cheryl: "The pro-climate change 'scientists' should be engaged in trying to falsify their theories as per standard scientific method. They have failed to do this."

Dead wrong. The scientific community are following their usual methods. The only reason the current theories aren't falsified is because no one knows how to. That might be it is because they are correct.

You are confusing the IPCC with science. The IPCC is an effort by politicians to force the climate science to yield an oracle like truth. A truth they can act upon, and use to cover their arse if it all goes wrong. The problem is, outside of mathematics there is no absolute scientific truth. They are asking the impossible.

I suspect most people know that. The IPCC job is to extract a consensus from the climate scientists about what is most likely to happen. This isn't science. It is a political exercise. And if the IPCC has indeed managed to fairly represent that consensus, it has done a remarkable job. Remarkable because currently that consensus is damaging to a rich and powerful part of our society who are doing their absolute damnedest to undermine it.

If the only things they got wrong in 4,000 pages was the rate of melting of glaciers on one mountain range, and the effect of deforestation of one forest that it will be amazing. So amazing I have trouble believing it.

Assuming consensus painted by the IPCC is correct, that still leaves the problem of whether the currently favoured hypothesis of climate science are right or wrong. Unfortunately given the complexity of the science, that answer can only come from the climate scientists themselves. That makes many people very uncomfortable, including me. I am not used to being in that position.

One thing I am sure of is phoenix94's solution of relying on what he was taught 30 years ago and insisting the science hasn't changed over intervening 3 decades is obviously wrong. Give it up old boy.

Mike Hulme seems more concerned with people losing faith in Science and Scientists than anything else. He is still a avid supporter of the AGW hypothesis as far as I can discern.

Its interesting to watch the entire "the debate is over" crowd start to demand a more scrutiny of their OWN side of the debate as if they were not part of it at all.

Pachauri, who is not even a scientist, was never taken to task about his lack of qualifications by eminent Scientists. The Himalayan mistake was known before publication but the IPCC refused to remove it saying it was better to alarm people than correct it. Now there are many more mistakes being found in the same report.

So many eminent Scientists who said "the debate is over" didn't even check their facts. That's why we have no faith in Science, Mike, because none of you could find a single error.

By the way, guess where the Himalayan error came from? Well, the IPCC used an article from a Rock Climbing Magazine reporting anecdotal statements made by rock climbers in the area about ice cover.

So much for Peer reviewed literature!

No loyalty among the AGW conmen it seems. Mike must think that he can get East Anglia off the hook, by deflecting all the blame to their partners in crime, the IPCC.

He must be hoping everyone will forget the Freedom of information rorts, the data tampering, & the review ripoffs & all the other stuff.

We all know the system. Admit a minor blemish, & the rest will go away.

Good try mate, but you'll run out of white wash, & deodoriser, before you get this garbage hidden.

rstuart,

The IPCC's role "is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy... They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage”

I don't see anything about extracting a consensus. It is doing so that has attracted criticism.

You then strangely say "if the IPCC has indeed managed to fairly represent that consensus..." How can you "represent" a consensus that you just said was itself only a political exercise of extraction. You contradict yourself.

You then refer to some unidentified "rich and powerful part of our society who are doing their absolute damnedest to undermine it." I am neither rich nor powerful. Al Gore certainly is. At a recent juvenile climate "party" I went to, Tim Costello challenged the idea that warmers were all leftie green conspiracists by pointing to the fact that the event was sponsored by the National Australia Bank. Rich and powerful? Make up your mind.

YOu say "If the only things they got wrong in 4,000 pages was the rate of melting of glaciers on one mountain range, and the effect of deforestation of one forest that it will be amazing".

It wasn't, but as pointed out, what is worse is the knowing inclusion of errors and non-reviewed literature (or radio interview opinions as the case may be).

As for your attack on phoenix94, science may have changed over recent decades, but he is right that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is you who is wrong.

Go home.

PS.Good piece by Matt Ridley in the current Spectator on the global warming meltdown. It's amazing to see in their rear guard action, warmers conceding things that skeptics were once sought to be charged with crimes against humanity for saying.

whitmus: "I don't see anything about extracting a consensus."

True. But since they aren't going to write down what every person who has an opinion on the matter says, how else do you suggest they "reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage" as required by their charter?

whitmus: "How can you "represent" a consensus that you just said was itself only a political exercise of extraction."

Perhaps I used the word extraction loosely. I used it to mean "yield an agreement", as found in definition of consensus in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making : "Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement."

whitmus: "At a recent juvenile climate "party" I went to ... Rich and powerful? Make up your mind."

My mind is made up, whitmus. Why would you think I agree with your juvenile climate party?

whitmus: "knowing inclusion of errors and non-reviewed literature"

Depends on your definition of "knowing" I guess. Obviously the person who wrote it knew. But apparently sceptics such Dr. Vincent Gray and Fred Singer who reviewed the IPCC report let it stand. Are you saying they "knowingly" allowed its inclusion? Probably not. So how many of the 2500 odd expert reviewers had to know before it became "knowingly"? Do you have a clue how many knew? Again, probably not. Is this word "knowingly" some good looking adjective you found on a web site, which you decided to re-cycle without thinking too deeply about what it might mean?

whitmus: "he is right that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is you who is wrong."

A google search for pollutant yields this as the first definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant :

"A pollutant is a waste material that pollutes air, water or soil. Three factors determine the severity of a pollutant: its chemical nature, the concentration and the persistence. .. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (e.g. carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans)."

Obviously by that definition phoenix94 is wrong. CO2 is a fund pollutant.

There is no accurate glacial melt data on the whole of the Himalayas. They have yet to be studied that why the 2030 prediction is garbage . Indian scientists have now decided to study both east and west Himalayas, to rework the past work done in the east and for the first time find out facts about the west Himalayas. That may take 5 years to find out the answers at least because Indian Science is not what you obviously think it is cracked up to be. For example It does not have the credibility of the US Academy of Sciences reports on climate issues.

The question is will this new Indian research ibe reliable. I have been taking an India environment Journal for three years and the corruption reported by government agencies across the whole environment scene is a disaster. The story about the Indian scientists stuffing up was due to the fact that the whole of the Himalayas have never been studied just the western half. As a UK scientist pointed out . A New scientist editorial also suggests that the IPPC gets its act together .

Of course there are problems with the lastt IPPC report but that should l be fixed in the next report .

Alan Parker

The most amount of snow in Washington DC on record.

Divine intervention?

Record snowfall in Texas. Maybe we will now experience the mini ice age the 'scientists' predicted in the 70s.

Garrett's Environmental Jihad kills more Aussies than J Howard's war in Afghanistan. SHAME.

Still waiting for the left to REGULATE science. Their answer for just about anything.

Who else has started eating more eggs now that 'science' has decided they are good for you?

Australians who work outside have the lowest levels of skin cancer according to recent 'scientific' reports.

Anyone with a smidgen of crystalline intelligence could smell the stench of the AGW rat which emanated from the cauldron of the UN, the left, Malcolm Turnbull, the Greens, Populist Kevin, the unbiased media we are so blessed with along with the propensity of self righteous species haters to change the world.

The same crowd that espouses using other peoples money to loan to people who have a 'right' to own a home but can not pay the mortgage also truly believe the science of AGW is in, because they saw it on Hollywood's cinema screen, hallelujah brother. They also believe that saddling every American with a $45,000 + debt is an intelligent strategy. After all, the Enlightened Ones can save the world from financial and environmental collapse simultaneously and still have enough energy to deride those who believe all those fables in the Bible.

Does hubris create snow storms?

My regard for the IPCC is not recoverable , they really are dishonest Hippies ; the best thing they can do is pack up their Bongo Drums and bugger off .

We should all write letters to the Gates Foundation or the Carnegie Foundation encouraging them to investigate AGW these foundations have turned "Peer Review" into an art form .

Whatever happens Government and Government Finances will need to be isolated from any new Panel Charged with investigating Climate Change ; this will attract "Real" and "Honest" People rather than the Hippies and Dishonesty Distributors we saw operating in the Current IPCC . Fear & Panic are not the tools of Men of Integrity .
The people of the IPCC were like Snails they left behind themselves a trail of ill will that featured words like "Deniers" and "Skeptics" the right to Inquire and Conclude are cherished Rights embellished by our Constitutional Democracy .
We need to advocate for Change to our Constitution if our Governments can pass our finances to Faceless People Beyond our constitution .
Cap & Trade is a Hoax , it forces People who are Dishonest to be honest how sad is that and once these people get their digits around our cash ? Some people might think I have fallen off my Beast ; let me ask , What Countries do all the Work and Finance the United Nations? Are you sure about giving your Money our Money to the Hoard of Despots that Memberise the UN but never contribute , I use the UN of course as an Example because it will be the same presence that infects the UN . Cap & Trade is for the Fairies .

Everyone is entitled to his view but not to his facts (Senantor Daniel Moynihan).

Contrary to allegations, the IPCC reports offer MINIMUM projections of climate change, already superseded by faster ice melt rates and sea level rises (Rahmstorf et al. 2007).

Given thousands of pages of the IPCC report, errors are inevitable. Compared to these errors, the systematic fabrication of climate "data" by many who would like to call themselves "sceptics" is the real issue requiring investigation.

Inherently climate change forecasts constitute best estimates only and can not expected to be accurate in terms of time. Total or advanced melt of Himalayan glaciers may take place before, at or after 2035. At the current rate of greenhouse gas forcings, i.e. CO2 rise of ~2 ppm/year, early melt of large parts of the cryosphere is possible. The same goes for the demise of large parts of the Amazon.

The attacks against Pauchari, like earlier attacks against Al Gore, James Hansen and other climate scientists and environmentalists, are typical of the methods of those who would play the man rather than the ball, diverting attention from the looming climate change tragedy.

Attempts to sabotage Cophenhagen meeting and attack climate scientists can not hide the tragic reality, beyond reasonable doubt, of the melting cryosphere and of runaway climate change
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=989
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/26/nature-dynamic-thinning-of-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-glacier/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32985250/ns/us_news-environment/
Arctic sea ice cover(1870 - 2009):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png
Averaged sea level change:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
Mapped localised sea level change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/ssh_trend_map1.gif
Atmospheric CO2 levels (from about 1960):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Longer term CO2 levels:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/CarbonDioxideGraphic11.jpg

While the bickering at the IPCC is no different from any other scientific institution, the political weight that has been put on their shoulders, and the import of their work means that they cannot operate just like any other scientific institution.

They must be like Caesar's wife "above reproach" in that their level of transparency and professionalism must present all the information in a raw format (errors can be expected) and thoroughly checked reports (no errors).

Their lack of transparency has cast doubt on the science and their conclusions. While I believe their science, their credibility is now seriously damaged, and will be ignored by those not enamored, or those working against the global effort.

A different body needs to be set up with clear rules without the political baggage.

For the benefit of Andy!

--“Given thousands of pages of the IPCC report, errors are inevitable."
HOGWASH!
The IPCC has --traded-- on the claim that its research/findings are thoroughly peer reviewed. [ Lie No.1]

And apparently well before GlacierrGate became known in the West , the Indian academy of science ( or equivalent) had rejected its Himalayan Glacier findings ---yet I don’t recall it ever being reported. And all the while we were being told that the ALL the science bodies of the world were right behind the IPCC. [ Lie No.2]

I note, with a great deal of amusement that pro –AGW bodies like, NewScientist magazine ( perhaps to cover their own backsides!) are now calling for answers as to why such claims were published –but I note. with even more amusement and cynicism ,that such claims were there, open to all –including NewScientist, for a long time and no one raised a whimper, until the little boy cried out “the king has no clothes’ ---I mean surely they knew –or was it that they swallowed without thought whatever the IPCC prints !

--“The attacks against Pauchari, like earlier attacks against Al Gore, James Hansen and other climate scientists and environmentalists, are typical of the methods of those who would play the man rather than the ball"
HOGWASH
From where I sit the bulk of ridicule/personal attacks/put downs are coming from those who believe in AGW ,and being directed at those who question or doubt.

Even writing a book on climate change had Pilmer accused of profiteering and what not. Now I hear,that Pauchari has made it known to all and sundry, that he is writing a ‘erotic novel’ –I am waiting for those same AGWers to make similar attacks on him!

PS knowing how things seem to work, he'll probably get awarded the Booker!

Dear Cowboy Joe,
L encourage you to keep believing in the God of the bible as he gives us Hope. I had a major stroke 4 years ago and the stroke specialist told me thay I would have another stroke and die.
Very strong powerfull words But praise be to God nothing is impossible with God. My last blood tests all came back excelent. Impossible with man but possible with God for he is the God of the impossible. The Lord who healeth thee. Without God man is without hope, lost on the sea of iniquity, up the creek without a paddle. The world will never see God only those who believe and who finish the race so keep running twords the goal not made made by man but by God.
Richie 10

I have an old email from Lindsay Tanner, said something to the effect that people who deliver insults have weak arguments. The other day he referred to L Monckton as a Thatcher relic along with some other derisive comments.

Ageism? Bigotry (due to Lord M affluence? -- or simply that Mr Tanner was unable to cross intellectual swords with the old pommy?

I would think that most senior citizens would cherish having the cognitive agility that Lord Monckton demonstrates.

Isn't democracy messy? Wouldn't it be much better if we allowed emotion to rule. The science is in!

Ask yourself how often the science is in, then out, then in, then out. The stimulus legislation has to be passed now, and then take 5 years to spend it. I guess it makes sense to some.

There was a point when I was thinking that we could use a financial collapse just to focus our collective thoughts onto the major problems that could be solved by leadership, government and some common goals. But I would rather not work until I am 70.

BTW, anyone see the Chosen One Obama mispronounce 'corps' three times in a recent speech? Since this did not gel with the left / progressive narrative of journalism it received little attention. I think we would all agree if Palin or Bush had done the same the media would have been excoriating. Or will some one "please explain"?

The media is the biggest cause of AGW.

Dear CowBoy Joe , the only explanation for "excoriating" in the Dictionary (GOOGLE) refers to a very lacerated "Freckle" , surely you don't mean to imply the press would do anything like that !!

News Flash for Andy1 and friends - Jones the Climategate man has just come out of hiding and has come clean and admitted there has been no significant warming in 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0fV8RT7UK

They all seem to have gone strangely quiet, atman.

Probably busy twisting their brains to come up with something like this:

Phil Jones is just one man...
Just because he says it's not statistically significant doesn't mean it's not happening.
Just because the science isn't settled doesn't mean the science isn't settled....
Ad hom abuse...
"Who's influenced him? Money must have changed hands in a dark underground carpark in an envelope marked "Vested Interests"."
etc...

whitmus: "Probably busy twisting their brains"

I can't speak for the others whitums, but my first reaction was to look for what Phil Jones actually said. You can find it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Unlike the Daily Mail, I didn't see a "Climategate U-turn". Nor did I see a "scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995". In fact he said their had been warning. He was quite precise about it actually: there has been 0.12C per decade warming.

Looked like your UK Tabloid press reporting to me. They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

It seems to me that science is all we have.
Therefore we have to establish a new interface between science and
politics.

The IPCC was that body and the fact that I used past tense without
thinking about it says it all.
It seems that it has boiled down to a simple point.
Monkton says that the sensitivity is less than what the IPCC says.
He also says that the actual temperature has not risen as high as the
IPCC projections, and that the IPCC has lowered their projections.

If those statements are correct then that should settle things for a
further period surely.
I see that Prof Jones agrees that temperatures are not rising at present.
That should give an opportunity to establish a new interface organisation.

I don’t see a U Turn either rstuart however, the CRU and the IPCC have two choices and both are excuses for admitting they got it wrong. Excuse one is “incompetence” and excuse number two is “malicious intent”. Professor Jones and his supporting network of “Jesuits” have elected for “incompetence” probably because it is easier to defend.

In the real world, those with the “authority” are held accountable and responsible. Our politicians and investors have, according to HSBC, invested some $74 billion in the past ten years as a result of this “scientific consensus”. Many in the developed world are also faced with equally crippling legislation.

I cannot imagine any commercial entity admitting to mistakes as a fraction of such magnitude, without being immediately abandoned by all stakeholders and charged.

Whatever happened to being responsible and accountable?

Hi All,

RE: the pros and cons of global warming; or whether humans are responsibile, etc.

Whether we are, is just an argument to allow academic and scientific humans to pontificate why we are not be responsibile. In the meantime allow the continuing to waste resources that do not belong to them but belong to the future.

As a good farmer, we should be managing the resources in a way that does not waste them and hopefully leaves the earth in a better condition than when we took over.

In Australia, we have seen the culpible waste of water resources by governments wanting an expansion of our population and the development of industry, etc., regardless of its sustainability.

As farm land Australia is limited by a fragile and limited fertility of the soil. There comes a time when the addition of irrigation with its artifical fertilisers will result in the breaking down of the soil structure, salting, breaking don the envirionment and ecology of our country and ultimately forming deserts.

We have lost something like 80-90% of our forests, causing soil erosoion with our clear felling.

I understand the need for timber for building and construction but we need to accept the responsibility of replacing this resource as quickly as we mine it.

It is our water catchment area and once it disappears then we will go on a down hill track of lacking water.

The same will happen over our mineral resources. The constant mining will reduce this resource and create deserts or infertile areas.

Industry has been greedy and careless in its manufacturing processes. It is not interested in reducing its pollution, only short term gains. Stop bleating and work on these problems. We will do more to save the planet than anything else.

Trees provide shelter, protect our crops from pests, preserved our water levels and acted as a water attraction device to bring water to the areas. My comments are an over simplification but you will understand what I am trying to get at.

profau - whether or not man is causing the climate to change more than it is does on its own has no link to whether we do or do not want to pollute or chop down trees - why on earth do you try to link AGW to environmentalism - as if to say - AGW believers are good citizens who nurture the mother earth also known as gaia and non believers are clearly polluting monsters who would willingly chop down trees and destroy the earth and this cause water shortages .. is that our point?

What a load of codswhallop.

I can be an environmentalist and nurture water resources and als be skeptical of AGW.

It's a weak argument similar to trying to cluster skeptics with apocalytic genocide denial - all you do is irritate people whose motives you don't understand. Clearly you don't and many like you don't which is why their next attack is to accuse skeptics of having no jobs and being in the pay of fossil fuel indistries to attack the wonderful eco types whose only concern is the health of the planet.

Well I also care about the health of the planet and am an AGW skeptic - the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Prof Jones also said that the recent warming period (which stopped in 1995 he also confirmed)is NOT UNIQUE.

It has happened twice before in the last 150 years.

If the politics of AGW relied solely on the science the political response would not be continuing largely unabated. The politicians saw AGW as a prime opportunity to enact legislation that would redistribute wealth and hand more control to the central governments.

An that's the truth comrade Turnbull. Huh? Wall-street donated the bulk (@90%)of their campaign contributions to the Democrats. Stockbrokers know where the money trail leads -- to the pot-o-gold at the end of the Green Rainbow.

Deniers, believers and profiteers.

So in the 2800 page AR4 document one or perhaps two mistakes have been found. I'm underwhelmed.

Are Himalayan glaciers in serious retreat? Yes. Is the same mistake repeated elsewhere in discussion of Himalayan glaciers the same document? No. Are the Himalayan glaciers actually in serious retreat? Yes. The mistakes about the proportion of the Netherlands below sea level and subject to flooding and inundation as evidence of something sinister are even less impressive. Are these mistakes all through the underlying source scientific papers that the IPCC draws upon? No. It's not trust in the IPCC or the world's scientific agencies studying climate that ought to be seriously questioned; the foundations of climate change denialism are thinner than summer arctic sea ice.

If this is the best evidence denialism has for the IPCC reports being untrustworthy they are clutching at straws and are unable to show anything fundamentally wrong with climate science. We should abandon all efforts to reduce emissions and bet the future our planet on this basis? The arguments are so weak as to be dead - yet they still walk. Voodoo science indeed. If this issue weren't so important it would be laughable.

I get the impression that some posters attach links they haven’t themselves analysed. Apparently they’re hoping others will only have time/inclination to read their two byte summaries.

Like this link from a poster who shall remain nameless [ far be it for me to name & shame ]:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
And, here’s his executive summary: “ I didn't see a ‘Climategate U-turn’. Nor did I see a ‘scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995’. In fact he said their had been warning. He was quite precise about it actually: there has been 0.12C per decade warming”

I thought to myself, “there’s something very Emronish about that summary”, so I read the link.And found Prof Phil Jones (director Climatic Research Unit, University East Anglia & IPCC proxy) ‘fessing-up to the following:

1) “The warming rates for all 4 periods [1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998/1975-2009] are … not statistically significantly different”
[CO2 is the (IPCC designated) driver, and there would have been a significant difference in the level of CO2 with it increasing towards the latter years, yet there is NO significant difference ?]

2) “FROM 1995 TO THE PRESENT THERE HAS BEEN NO STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING [capitalised for those who “didn’t see it” the first time]. 1995 -2009 experienced a heating of 0.12c , but 2002-2009 experienced a cooling of 0.12c –he describes 0.12c +/- as not significant.

3) The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) is real –but the full extent and temperate is still unknown --- if shown to have affected both Northern & Southern hemispheres and had temperatures comparable with today it would undermine AGW [this runs counter to the preaching’s of some local AGW acolytes who say the MWP never happened!]

4) “I don’t believe the vast majority of scientists think [‘the debate on climate change is over’ ] This is not my view”

Sounds nothing like that anonymous posters executive summary –but I’ll grant him, it doesn’t sound like a U Turn, either.
No …it’s more like stalling on a hill and rolling backwards

So to paraphrase Ken. Prof Jones firstly mounts scientifically thick arguments and then rebuts his own position with a thin argument. What a logical position!

Jones has also confirmed that his data can not be relied upon to be accurate and believes it has probably been skewed by urban heat. Information that is obviously in the thin category. Now if a computer model which has been fed Prof Jones' suspect data spits out an AGW scenario this would be thick evidence of a minor part of the decline in Polar Bears since top predators only eat seals. Do seals have thin skins?

Or is it vice versa Ken? Does the egg or the CO@ comes first?

Green Logic in action.

I notice that a scientist's honesty - a period of 15 years not being long enough to get a statistically significant climate trend - is of course misread as 'not warming' despite the obvious that all the temperature records actually show warming over that period. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the last decade! Once more when a scientist takes the time and effort to explain, someone grabs a phrase that sounds like what they want to hear and that becomes the whole story. Of course it's warming over statistically significant periods like 30years and efforts to find trends in periods too short to seriously count don't count.

This is rather like those who think some news stories about cold weather in parts of the world through January amount to global cooling. Have they checked how much of the world was warmer than average through January? No. Is it much more of the world than showed cooler than average? Yes. Actually January was globally the warmest January in the 30 plus years of the RSS satellite record. Is there a clear warming trend in that record? Yes. Do other temperature records show a clear warming trend? Yes. All do, over periods of 30yrs and over much shorter periods.

It's not climate scientists who have a poor record with selecting facts and making supposed scientific conclusions out of them.

Ken,

First— terms:
You use the word ‘scientists’ as if the only scientists, were on the pro-AGW side.
There are as many scientists on the anti-AGW side --- regardless of what qanda & others pretend.

Next—time frames :
You claim honest Phil declares the “period of 15 years not being long enough to get a statistically significant climate trend”

Now while it’s true that Phil bemoans : “1860-1880 [as] only 21 years”
And in talking of 1995 to 2009, he says: “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods”
No where in this interview does he say, what you imply he says: “ I cant make a call because the time frame it is too short”

And in fact, if you knew your IPCC catechism, you’d know the IPCC has been making calls on such short frames for a while – just so long as the findings suit their preferred scenario!

No, the reason Phil was nervous is here :
Questioner “ Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming ?
Phil Jone’s Answer “Yes, but only just.”
Translation: there has been NO changes that would indicate global warming over that period

Background:
In any study/experiment you need to set parameters . One adopted by Phil & Co was that changes in temperature of less than .12C +/- will be deemed insignificant –inadmissible.
Why?
Here’s a secret -- natural systems are NOT static .
Temperatures swing first this way, then that way.
A swing of .12c+ is within the parameters of ‘noise’ --especially if it’s followed by a .12c swing in the opposite direction.

Now Phil clearly doesn’t like having to ‘fess-up to this, note his little quip “but only just’.
And a few others on OLO don’t want to see it either .
But there’s no escaping it!
Using the measures Phil and his team set –THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1995!

The Obama administration campaigned upon 'transparent government'

This bloke made repeated attempts to obtain data sets from NASA.

Garbage in Garbage out

I thought this PJTV Video: " Climategate 2.0 - The NASA Files: It’s The Data, Not The Globe, That’s Cooked (Part 1)" was interesting and hope you do too.

http://www.pjtv.com/v/3102