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