Mark I think you should focus your prodigious intellect on something like curing Cancer. Your ability to sweep away a whole scientific field with a simple wave of your opinion, curing cancer should be a doddle. It would also be a fine legacy for a man such as yourself. We could build statues to your magnificent with relevant epitaph like “He swept away all be that was before him and gave us his opinion” or “he did science his bugga the rest of them, they are wrong”.

Doomsayers have been around perhaps since the time that humans learnt to talk.

The end of the world is Nigh.

Even christianity preached the apocalypse.

Reminds me of the Bali farce, where the AGW myth was supported by Ban Kimoon’s carefully drafted speech to 12,000 media personnel, who were wined dined and lied to. Scientists who wished to tell the truth were excluded. Monckton gained access but was constrained from addressing any groups, and on one occasion was assaulted.

An extract of the Ban Kimoon presentation:

“unless we act, there will be serious consequences: rising sea levels; more frequent and less predictable floods and severe droughts; famine around the world, particularly in Africa and Central Asia; and the loss of up to a third of our plant and animal species”

Sea levels did not rise, floods and droughts became no more frequent and no less predictable, famine occurs as usual, and unless the rules of evolution change, plant and animal species will continue to become extinct.

Fortunately, we did not act, and the Copenhagen farce was hopefully the swansong of the AGW nonsense.

We are now aware that global warming comes about through natural cycles, as described by Mark, and human emissions have no measureable effect.

The annual prediction of “world’s hottest year yet”, is laughable, but there are sinister overtones.

Mark Lawson here.
Kenny - you flatteringly over-estimate the effect of my piece. I deliberately said nothing whatever about climate theory, as such. I stuck to what is known and widely accepted. Temperatures will fall over the next year or so, because of the el Nino effect. This is indisputable and its all I really said about future climate. But we can also say that the groups who made the "hottest year" forecast should have been much more cautious in making it, and ask ourselves why, despite all the past failures in seasonal forecasts, they were not more cautious.
If curing cancer were a matter of making obvious statements based on widely accepted propositions then I guess it would have been done long ago.

Excellent piece Mark, and also the reply. And I strongly recommend Mark's book to all of you. Correct predictions are the basis of all science, including so-called climate science. The failure of its predictions will be the end of it sooner than later.

Is the book also full of obvious statements based on widely accepted propositions?