YO!...SPINDOC....you said:

//The big end of town, so vilified by the warmers is now the main financial beneficiary, along with extra taxes for governments//

Please.. use "ALLEGED" warmers :)

The accuracy of the term 'warmers' is in inverse proportion to how much money the accusers stand to make if they can get the law changed.

Hasbeen
Post-grad physics is basic enough, thanks. Seeing you suggest that there is nothing scientific about that “manifesto”, perhaps then we should ignore Roy Spencer’s work on clouds – he is well cited in it. Any constructive comment to make about Briggs’ article?

rpg
So, you are an engineer! Congratulations, you can “prove” 1 + 1 = 2
You can’t “prove” the Sun will be there tomorrow.

Moving on: where did I say “facts can’t change”?

It appears you are confusing “facts” with assumptions (or premises). If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck – the weight of evidence would suggest it probably is a duck. The “fact” that a duck is a duck is a duck, does not mean I have the assumptions (or premises) about ducks correct. Assumptions can change – it’s got something to do with the ‘scientific method’ – you may have heard of it when you did engineering.

Next - I do not know of any scientist who has said “that the sun had zero influence on our climate”. Can you provide a link to the scientist/s who said that? I would like to verify your assertions myself, if you don’t mind.

Finally, your talk of entrapment just sounds a tad too paranoid, imho.

579
Rpg does have a valid point – I would say you are verging on eco-extremism. Ok, he is of the other extreme (metaphorically speaking of course) but that does not mean you are ‘right’ and he is ‘wrong’ (or vice versa) – it just means that if ‘we’ are to live in a future world together, ‘we’ have to sort out our differences. That’s what they are trying to do in Cancun. If the attitude/behaviour of you two is typical, I am not optimistic.

579: "My being wrong won't hurt anyone, your being wrong will be devastating."

On the contrary, your being wrong: a) will cause billions of dollars that could be spent on rational programs to benefit people and the planet to be spent instead on spurious 'research' into and unnecessary 'solutions' for a non-existent problem; b) will cause -- is already causing -- a massive drop in credibility and public trust for climate scientist, which will extend naturally to cover science in general.

There are plenty of people who already regard science and reason as the enemy. By persisting in massive, futile public spending in the name of 'science' you simply provide them with a bigger and better target.

Jon J
Some say (me included) Roy Spencer (remember him, the subject of Brigg's article?) does some excellent work/research from UAH on clouds and 'negative feedback' - I hasten to add this work/research is not as robust as some would think.

So, I'm trying to get my head around your comment about spending public money in the name of 'science'. Are you saying public funding for Spencer's work/research (to make it robust) should be stopped?

I would say funding 'climate science' is critical and needs increased funding. Who knows, there might be someone out there that could knock AGW for six. That in itself will save trillions and trillions.

Also, how do you know the "problem is non-existent"?

Bad luck 579, that 2010 did not qualify as the hottest year, but at least it has a chance to be the coldest year.

Of course, the usual frauds will announce in the new year that 2011 will be the hottest year ever. They have announced each new year as the hottest year ever, for the last twelve years.

They know that a lie only needs to be repeated often enough, to cause people to believe it.

The fraudulent presentation of global temperatures has had a few glitches, not least the climategate emails which gave the game away and made people aware of the fraud.

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann
“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt

The lack of impartiality of these scientists is disgraceful.

Here is Phil Jones:” I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline”

He not only wishes to pretend there is global warming, he wants to hide global cooling.

If you are a scientist dependent on backing from the IPCC for funding, it is no use telling the truth about climate. The IPCC demand global warming.

They have all sorts of methods of misrepresenting warming as AGW, and a vital reason to do so.

The IPCC was established to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change.

There has yet to be established any basis to assert that human activities have any but a negligible effect on climate change. The IPCC no longer has any reason to exist.

Leo Lane is partly correct.

2010 looks like the third hottest year on record,
not the hottest. I can't see how it could possibly
be the coldest year:

"A United Nations weather agency report found 2010
is almost certain to rank as one of the hottest three
years on record, while the past 10 years are the warmest
period since climate data began in 1850."

http://www.tinyurl.com.au/yzi

I'm sure somebody's explained to Leo that there is no
evidence for long term planetary cooling, so one wonders
why he engages in his own version of "fraudulent presentation
of global temperatures".