The author is typical of how some psychologists think. They thrive on hypotheses and spin ( and in some cases are influenced by sex appeal, viz. " I find Al Gore breathtakingly attractive") . Consequently, like the AGW believers, she erroneously accepts the AGW hypothesis as science.

Thanks to "the failings of intellectual rigour, distortion of facts, and outright deception" on the part of those who peddle climate change dogma and the alarmist projections of unvalidated climate models as science, the AGW believers have been conned into accepting that the science is settled, or "the science is in" as the author puts it.

Then she sums up Margaret Thatcher : "But whether she recanted or not, the solidity of her original scientific argument remains irrefutable."

The author fails to appreciate that Thatcher in her last book, "Statecraft" , voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about AGW that have since become familiar to us. She questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the AGW scare, from the conviction that CO2 is the main driver, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She recognised the futility of costly and economically damaging schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. Thatcher converted to the view of those, who on scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology.

I have seen many woman attracted to men who have committed gross crimes. Making up lies and playing on the gullible might not be a gross crime but it might be the same gene at play in Lyns crush on Al.

As noted by Raycom, Thatcher subsequently regretted her role in initiating the global warming campaign:

'In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

'She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.'

Christopher Booker.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

So there is hope for alarmists yet.

Al Gore is a conman and liar.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HADP3vym-HI See his words here." I took the initiative in creating the internet." He is also very delusional.

Al Gore is a Goldman Sachs boy who promoted their new derivative called the ETS fed by our carbon taxes.

This article is fatuous rubbish and the author is just attention seeking.
I am greatly amused by Prof Flannery whose first prediction was of no rain in Brisbane then after that there were massive floods. Chris now predicts what happened last week and attributes it to GW.
If it were not such a waste of our money it would be funny.