Peter king tries to write off everything as a conspiracy yet fails to address the facts.Fact 1.C.Monckton found several hidden references to a world Govt in the Copenhagen treaty which Rudd was about to sign.The carbon taxes were going to finance it.Fact 2.The climategate emails reveal not only that they tried to hide the decline but also a whole culture of coverup,lies and nepotism.

Do you think Peter King that you would be able to have a vote in this New World Order? George Herbert Walker Bush raised the spectre of this evloving back in the early nineties.They have been working on this concept for a long time.With the collapse of the US $ they want world currency owned by the these Global Reserve Banks and they have alluded to this.Open your eyes.

This SMH journo sums it up without the typical tabloid spin:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/warmings-icy-debate-20100212-nxky.html

The recent IPCC kerfuffle will have served a good purpose if they build more robust systems and procedures for AR5. This is critical if they are to ensure the efficacy and veracity of scientific research and concomitant conclusions. It is clear that most climate ‘sceptics’ and critics of the IPCC have not, and do not, bother to ‘fact check’ themselves – some even distort and misrepresent the science, unintentionally or otherwise. However, that in no way absolves the IPCC from their responsibilities, lest they themselves be called hypocrites.

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that a lot of ‘joe 6-packs’ (thanks Sarah Palin) just don’t understand the science and don’t know what to believe in anymore – they are baffled, confused and are just so over it. Moreover, they certainly don’t want to believe that they are collectively contributing in any significant way to an ecological and environmentally impoverished future world.

So yes, I agree with Graham when he says ‘the great moral challenge just leaves people in the cold’ – it’s much easier to stick your head down a hole, and point your butt to the sky. Intense lobbying (engendering fear and doubt) by powerful ideologues to maintain the status quo is having a huge impact on adapting to climate change, and living in a more sustainable way.

For those who are genuinely interested in the problems we are facing now, try;

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1920168,00.html

or

http://climateofourfuture.org/tipping-flickering-and-squealing-herald-change/

______

Atman & Co

It appears you are salivating at a particular piece of journalese in a UK tabloid – the Daily Mail.
And the spittle being spat has spawned more spits and spats across the planet.

Perhaps you could open your mind here;

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/growthgate/

Or enrol in Stats 101 at your nearest U3A.

_______

Arjay,

In your own words, what do you think “hide the decline” means?

qanda.They had to hide the decline in rising temps since 1995 even with expodential increases in CO2.The issue is not climate change,but what factors are causing it.CO2 does retain heat but by only a small fraction of what is claimed.

Arjay, it was a little worse than that, mate.

They found that the last 20+ years of their proxy [tree ring] record, aproaching 2000, had shown falling temperatures, rather than the rising temperatures their fiddled actual records were showing. This was the decline they wanted to hide.

This stood to destroy their plan to remove the medieval warm period, & the little ice age from history. They were using these proxies to eliminate those proofs that modern temperatures are not unusual.

Poetic really, isn't it qanda, that they were caught on their own lie. Hooked on a tree ring. Rather than go back to real science, they wanted to hide the fact. This, more than most of the Emails, shows just how far they were prepared to go, with their lies, & cheating, to push their con.

Graham,
There was a 3% swing from labor to coalition. Was it only one way or was there any swing from coalition to labor?

Arjay, Hasbeen - caught out by qanda. The "decline" was a decline in proxy data that did not correlate with actual instrumental measurements. Two points. First, there was clearly some factor unaccounted for in converting that set of proxy data, whereas many other proxy data did not show this problem. The motivation for adjusting or "hiding" was to remove an obvious anomaly, not to get the answer they wanted (which you conspiracy theorists will not believe for a second of course). Second, this concerns a only tiny part of the total data set that documents global warming over recent decades. It does not concern the total data set, which continues to show clear warming on the decadal scale.

Arjay, Atman - you demonstrate why we need professional scientists who know not to take local or short-term evidence and assume it applies to the whole world. The northern jet stream has been doing bigger than normal meanders, and they have brought arctic air into mid latitudes in some places - and mid-latitude air into the Arctic, in other places. The cold regions happened to be population centers - Eastern US, Europe, China. Intervening regions, like Alaska and Western US, were warmer than usual. This - finally - has been picked up by the media because of the winter olympics. Washington, London and Beijing each thinks it's the capital of the universe, so they squealed that the world was freezing.

Arjay - "The reality is this,the world has not warmed in the last 10 yrs even with a 26% increase by man made CO2." How many times do we have to explain - CO2 is not the only influence on climate, especially in the short term. There was an El Nino in 1998, and it was hotter than the trend, as expected. As the 2007-8 La Nina developed, climate scientists explained this would keep the world cooler than the trend, but this should not be misinterpreted as the end of global warming. Did you lot listen? Oh no.

Atman, why do we not debate you so much? Because you are so ill-informed.