While you blokes are discussing global warming, I thought you may be interested to see a quote made on March 20 2000

"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent."

Note the institute from which the quote came.

Some people wonder as to why there are sceptics

>> Why should we gamble the world's future on such, as you say, fallible science?

because it's not that fallible, and because you have no better choice.

bushbasher,of course we have a choice, the choice not to make stupid decisions.

qanda,
How dare I what?
Perhaps I missed something?
do tell I'm always interested to learn.
____________________

Curmudeon

Like Mark Twain said "Rumours of my (his) death are greatly exaggerated"

I stand corrected I appologise to OLOers and Fred for saying he's dead. HE's NOT DEAD.

I clearly misread the parent site for his SEP site -> NIPCC site -> (Heartland.org a right wing US free trade site) for his opus maxima an 800 page document now a few years old, for which he was paid around $100k.

I quote from John Florio (a contemporary of Shakespeare) "He who lies down with dogs will rise with fleas.

QandA "Amicus Who would you have conduct the inquiries (there are a few going on as you would know) and would you accept the outcome? Really, this is not a trick question."

It has to be people who are not in any way involved with the group being investigated. When you bring in such people as old boys from the same organisation, an editor who was clearly biased in the supposed "peer review" process - it is obviously a set up, and though they will get the result they want, they will not change public perceptions and indeed will reinforce the perception that they are rotten, and not to be trusted.

Bring in physicists, chemists, engineers, people from different areas who have nothing to gain or lose from the result, and who can be trusted not to bring pre-conceived beliefs - difficult, but that's the problem the AGW hysterics have created, it's now their problem of appearance, and theirs now to solve.

Playing politics with inquiries may seem a good way to guard your university's or institute's reputation from the barbarians, but remember those barbarians pay for the research and also are expected to pay for the solutions to the supposed problems identified.

Don't treat your audience or the general public like idiots, even if they are, you have no right to do so. They will turn on you, and your supporters and in the long run you are the losers, not the public.

examinator "I stand corrected I appologise to OLOers and Fred for saying he's dead. HE's NOT DEAD.", yes, that's the kind of sloppy work we've come to expect from AGW hysterics, good to see you're true to form and consistent.

This thread and one similar, are focused on the issue of “what and if” the IPCC should become. IMHO it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it goes or stays changes or remains the same. This is because the IPCC can never again have any political influence. By that I mean that no administration can possibly pass legislation based upon IPCC assessments, ever!

In the short term the IPCC and lead authors/institutions have gone into self preservation mode. A few have started internal “investigations” which will conclude no wrong doing.

The pro AGW public and media will crank up the alarmism science (already happening) and try to breathe life into the cause.

Politicians will stall and obfuscate as they try to balance personal credibility and political survival against the level of public awareness and sentiment.

In the medium term the serious business is being played out in the US. The two most comprehensive catalogues of criticism against the IPCC are currently the US Senate Minority Report and the Peabody Energy petition to the EPA.

We should not make the mistake of underestimating the awesome power and reach of the US constitution or its legal system, particularly if some of Uncle Sam’s taxpayers think they have been duped.

The EPA’s “sources” will be tested in US courts so it matters not what the various internal IPCC/CRU investigations conclude.

We may see class action and we may see States/Industries looking for a “Mr. Deep Pockets” (look out Al). Some may seek redress for financial gains made from falsehoods or compensation for similar costs.

In the longer term, the EU will be left with the only Carbon Trading Scheme but nobody with whom to trade. The carbon pricing will drop to levels that cannot sustain private investment in renewable energy. “Tin Rattling” NGO’s and conservation groups will decline in numbers as their shopping centre and on-line revenues dry up. AGW as we know it will mutate into much more localized environmental action that does not require the “Carbon Satan of AGW” to drive it