Rstuart & examiner,
I have to support spindoc in this.
The CRU is so tightly connected to the IPCC that it looks to me that
they have had undue influence. They appear to have had a deliberate
policy of denigrating those that have different opinions.
The whole thing now smells to high heaven and no matter what
confidence has been lost.

Programmers are now taking apart the programs and data and this one
has an explanation of what was meant by the decline. It was not as
many presumed the decline since 1998.
See this url; http://tinyurl.com/y9p4xn4

Tony Abbot says he can meet the percentage required by the government
for $50 billion instead of Kevin's $120 billion.
They are both having themselves on; by that time we will be well into
oil decline and gas won't be that far behind.
There just won't be the money available.
It will all be going into alternative transport energy.
Coal to Liquid plants will be coming on line and UGTL will also be
big business.

Examinator,
You are a joke. You now claim I misrepresented you.
Take a look at your first post on this thread, on Wednesday 2nd Dec.

"If it was passed today, which it wont be, it wouldn't be presented for assent untill after Copenhagen, anyway".

They are your words and blatantly incorrect. The Bill could have easily be given assent before the end of the week.

You simply lie to bolster your contentions.

Bazz: "The CRU is so tightly connected to the IPCC that it looks to me that they have had undue influence. They appear to have had a deliberate policy of denigrating those that have different opinions. The whole thing now smells to high heaven and no matter what confidence has been lost."

Bazz, the only thing you could possibly have cause to loose confidence in is the IPCC reports. Oddly the reports were the one thing that weren't in spindoc's list. Unlike the IPCC reports, the scientific process is far too robust to be corrupted by such a small number of individuals, but it was that spindoc was targeting.

As for your link: you are allowing yourself to be seduced by spin. What is more is it old spin, dressed up in CRU leak clothing in an attempt to make it look fresh. Why do we know that? Because 95% of the data the CRU used was publicly available. And as your link points out, it is old data. The likes of Stephen McIntyre have already pulled it apart with a find tooth comb suggesting alternate interpretations - and in some cases forced corrections. That was the entire basis of the hockey stick controversy. But if the Wikipedia summation on the state of play of the hockey stick and is accurate, the majority of practising climate scientists think McIntyre got it wrong and CRU was right.

I think the most telling parts of your link wasn't the data or logic presented, but quotes like:

"a UN investigation into the matter, which will no doubt be no less corrupt than those being investigated"

"co-conspirators move to Copenhagen for tomorrow’s UN climate meeting"

So it is another tribal vent from the American right, it seems. I strongly doubt his main interest in rights and wrongs of climate science. If you want anything like impartial commentary on the state of play, look elsewhere.

This may be of some interest to people:

The Five Stages of Innovation:

1) People deny that the innovation is required.

2) People deny that the innovation will be
effective.

3) People deny that the innovation is important.

4) People deny that the innovation will justify
the effort required to adopt it.

5) People accept and adopt the innovation, enjoy
its benefits, atribute it to people other than
the innovator, and deny the existence
of stages 1-4.

True, Foxy.

Another thing you can add to the list is that because skeptics can be so trenchant, they force innovators to redouble their efforts to prove the skeptics wrong. If the innovators are good enough that is!

The skeptics act as a filter to get rid of the wannabe and dodgy innovators as well. So skeptics still serve a useful purpose in the societal ecosystem.

Dear RobP,

I was referring to the naysaying way in
which traditionalists greet any sort of
innovation.

A good response to any sceptics is:
"We have to figure out how to get it done
or someone else will."