@Poirot,

Interesting to see you Joan of Arc like carrying the standard for scientific consensus.

I seem to recall you lampooning the green revolution which *scientific consensus* holds as a well motivated attempt to improve the plight of the underdeveloped world – though now much undercut by continued population growth – as a dastardly conspiracy on the part of capitalist robber barons to exploit the poor.

It seems you only treat *scientific consensus* as a friend of convenience.

SPQR,

When man takes a science-based initiative and runs with it underlining profit as his primary motive - at the same time ignoring the fundamental fragility of soil and groundwater systems, when he exhausts these systems because he has no truck with sustainable progress - then he makes a mockery of his scientific prowess.

"That" has always been my argument concerning the "Green Revolution".

Poirot said;
frauds and charlatans out for monetary gain or in cahoots with various organisations for control.

That is exactly what has been said of skeptics, just a few posts back
where someone made a crack about tobacco companies.

However everyone is going on about the warming but the IPCC has still
not corrected their computer model.
Until they do, the whole discussion is redundant and we should be
worrying about a much more serious problem.

Bazz,

I don't quite get the parallel you are drawing.

There was a concerted effort by vested interests to delegitimise the medical and scientific community's conclusions regarding the harmful effects of smoking....somewhat akin to what is now taking place in regard to conclusions about climate by climate scientists.

In both instances, those with a economic interest in the status quo are the ones funding and pushing the "skepticism".

Poirot, the same sort of things that were said about scientists
complying with their funder's policies was said about the skeptics.
There are hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the IPCC's
findings and policies.
It is no good the likes of you and me pretending that it is not like that.
All we can do is ask awkward questions like mine about the amount of
fossil fuel input to the computer models when someone like Upsalla's
Global Energy Systems Group challenges the IPCC's computer model.

Until the IPCC says they don't know what they are talking about and
shows where the Upsalla data is wrong then I will have my doubts.
Other people have other doubts but this particular one is very
significant because governments are spending $trillions on the computer output.
GIGO !

Dear Bazz,

You keep banging on about the University of Uppsalla's (note the two 'p's') Global Energy Systems Group arguing that the gloomy IPCC predictions of climate change are exaggerated simply because the world’s oil resources will reach its peak within the next 20 years or so.

Firstly it should be noted that the group was formally called the Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group and just like any group they have their own barrow to push which is fine.

But am I going to dismiss solid climate modelling on the basis of a 'peak oil' scenario? Not when decade long contracts are being signed for our northern coal and gas reserves which will ultimately quadruple our energy exports over the years to come.

People still cast doubt over computer modelling but the so called father of global warming Hansen's predictions have been right on the money. These models have been refined dramatically since then.

Professor Higg's modelling from 50 years ago predicted the Higgs Boson. Seems he got that one right too.

Global warming is far too important to dismiss on a whim which is what you seem to want to do.