Climategate

[DuncanONeil]

Ah, but have no doubt...the record lows will be attributed to the "Climate Change" debacle!

That is one of the reasons that the term has been changed. Probably also to get around the inconvenience of the planet cooling.
Of course they also attribute the cooling to Global Warming, saying that; it many be colder here but that is because it is too much warmer elsewhere.

[IAN 2411]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

But Global warming 40 years? What about the threat of an ice age, that was touted inside that 40 years??

I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years, and i watched a two hour Geographic program, and i have no doubt that the Scientists and oceanographers were telelling the truth as they see it. Is it because it goes against the global warming theory, that is getting certain peoples backs up that you cannot get it to sink in. It has taken years of green peace and save the earth organisations to spread the news, and now that everyone has jumped on the band wagon, no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?

Regards ian 2411

[leo9]

Quote:

I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years, and i watched a two hour Geographic program, and i have no doubt that the Scientists and oceanographers were telelling the truth as they see it. Is it because it goes against the global warming theory, that is getting certain peoples backs up that you cannot get it to sink in. It has taken years of green peace and save the earth organisations to spread the news, and now that everyone has jumped on the band wagon, no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?

Scientists make mistakes. Even brilliant scientists make mistakes. Newton believed in alchemy just as sincerely as he believed in gravity. Sir Fred Hoyle, whose theory that new species are created by virusses from space I quoted before, is a noted astronomer with some major contributions to cosmology.

The history of science as popularly taught gives the impression that someone comes up with a theory and that's it, it goes into the textbooks as a Law. They leave out the long process whereby the theory is tested by the rest of the scientific community, its reasoning examined, its predictions tested, before it is accepted by a majority of those who know the subject. There are usually some holdouts. A physicist said "Once we believed that light was waves, now we believe it is particles. The reason we all believe it is particles is that those who believed it was waves have died."

Popular history also leaves out that there are almost always competing theories. When Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Descartes - a mathematician of equal standing - was advancing a theory that gravity was caused by whirlpools in the ether. Scientists didn't choose Newton's theory because they liked his politics (French scientists certainly didn't), but because it made clear predictions which clearly came true. Science is a communal work as well as a work of individual geniuses, and the job of the community is to sort out which genius is right.

Sometimes the test of the predictions takes time. The Theory of Relativity had to wait years for a solar eclipse to test the prediction that gravity bends light rays: when that was shown to be true, most sceptics came around. AGW had to wait decades for enough observations of the slow changes in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature to accumulate to convince the scientific community: and, as ever, there are holdouts. There would be even if the oil industry weren't pouring money their way, that's the nature of science.

As for mini Ice Ages, it's certainly the case that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and that if it fails completely it would have grave consequences for Europe and North America. That is one of the consequences of AGW which has been predicted as a possibility for decades and seems to be coming true. But the fact that AGW may freeze you and me doesn't alter the globe warming up overall. That's why they call it climate change: because the effects will be different in different places.

Have you ever had your car radiator freeze, and so the engine overheats? What would you say to a guy who said "Look, the engine's boiling, that can't be caused by freezing"?

[DuncanONeil]

Popular history also leaves out that there are almost always competing theories. When Newton put forward his theory of gravitation, Descartes - a mathematician of equal standing - was advancing a theory that gravity was caused by whirlpools in the ether. Scientists didn't choose Newton's theory because they liked his politics (French scientists certainly didn't), but because it made clear predictions which clearly came true.
Sometimes the test of the predictions takes time. The Theory of Relativity had to wait years for a solar eclipse to test the prediction that gravity bends light rays: when that was shown to be true, most sceptics came around. AGW had to wait decades for enough observations of the slow changes in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature to accumulate to convince the scientific community:

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

As for mini Ice Ages, it's certainly the case that the Gulf Stream is weakening, and that if it fails completely it would have grave consequences for Europe and North America. That is one of the consequences of AGW which has been predicted as a possibility for decades and seems to be coming true.

Yes is it not interesting that Global Warming can cause us to freeze? They did not change the term to be more accurate, it was because they then can dismiss things like an inconvenient cooling (like the last 12 years). I also find it telling that the AGW crowd prefer to start their little experiment after the completion of the Little Ice Age of the 19th century.
At least you admit that AGW is not a fact in the last sentence

But the fact that AGW may freeze you and me doesn't alter the globe warming up overall. That's why they call it climate change: because the effects will be different in different places.

Again there is the primary reason that the title of this favorite disaster epic has been changed. To deal with the Inconvenient Truth that the planet is not following their game plan.

[/QUOTE]

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;835804]

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.

At least you admit that AGW is not a fact in the last sentence

I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.

[leo9]

[QUOTE=Thorne;835822]

Do you even understand what a "theory" is? A theory is not proven. Were that the case it would not be a theory!

Actually, in scientific terms, a theory is an hypothesis which has been shown, through testing and repeatability, to be consistent with observed reality. In other words, it's as close to 'fact' as you can get. The theory of relativity has been shown, through observation and experimentation, to be consistent with reality. The theory of gravity has been shown repeatedly to conform to observed phenomena. In science you don't get much better than a theory.

I've often been struck by the similarities of style between AGW deniers and creationists, but I never expected to see this particular creationist specialty repeated here - "You call it a theory, that means it's not proved, ha ha!"

It is a depressing thought that the most highly educated culture in history, with more universities and more people in study than ever before, might walk cheerfully off a cliff because a majority of its citizens don't know or don't care about the basic principles of scientific method.

I'm not sure that AGW would even qualify as a valid theory, since there seems to be so much scientific controversy over it. At best it may be classified an hypothesis, but I doubt that it has reached the validity of a theory.

The comparison above is apt, because there is as much controversy about it as there is about evolution. Which is to say that the theory of the basic mechanism long ago passed enough empirical tests to satisfy the majority of specialists, but there remains a very large area of argument about exactly how and where that mechanism is being expressed, and there also remains a small group who, for ideological reasons or simple conservatism, can't accept the proofs that convince the rest: and by dishonestly conflating these two groups, it is possible to create the impression for outsiders that scientific opinion is divided.

The UEA's work is a case in point. What they were working on was not the basic principle of climate change, which they and all their peers take as long proved, but the detailed questions of exactly how and where and how fast the changes will happen: so even if every word of their reports were proved to be false, it would only change the details of policy. But the deniers constantly spin it as though the basic theory were being disproved, in the same way that creationists point to the faking of Piltdown Man as if it disproved the entire theory of human evolution.

[DuncanONeil]

"I believe it was me that brought up that theory of the mini ice age in the next 10-20 years"

No! we are talking about the 70s, dear!

[DuncanONeil]

"no one wants to believe there is another theory. If you believe the scientists in the global warming because they are of great inteligence and learning, then why dont you believe the others, are they inferior and just mad?"

There are actually two things going on here. One there is global warming and then there is Global Warming. The first is the temperature of the planet seems to be increasing. The second, well, evil little man is deliberately destroying the planet by his pollution and use of fossil is the primary cause.

As to believing a theory. Those that worship in the church of Global Warming will accept nothing that goes against their patriarchs. Anyone that discounts their patriarchs is simply unable to see the truth as laid down by those august persons. If they will not belive they must be pilloried!

[leo9]

For those who are interested in reality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...afrost-methane

This has been recognised as a theoretical risk for a long time, but nobody knew how soon, if ever, it would develop. The answer seems to be - if these readings aren't a blip - dangerously soon. Depending on how the curves develop, this either means we have less time than we hoped, or that it's already too late.

And for the rest, it's another lie from the vast global conspiracy of geographers, meteorologists, physicists, chemists, and scientists in general trying to drive us into a communist dictatorship.

[steelish]

I hear the end of life as we know it will occur on 12/21/12, so live it up while you can, people!

[leo9]

I hear the end of life as we know it will occur on 12/21/12, so live it up while you can, people!

So far as the economy and my advanced age allows, I do.

But see, this is the other important thing about scientific propositions: testability. There is no way to test a proposition based on prophecy... unless the innumerable previous predictions of the End can be counted as tests of the general principle of fortelling the world's future from An-Cie-Ent Prophecies, in which case it's well and truly exploded.

But a proposition based on a simple mathematical relationship can be tested by seeing whether the curve goes on heading the way it's predicted to. And if it does, you're entitled to extend it into the future with some confidence. Same as the rogue economists who extended the curve of unsupported debt and warned, a couple of years in advance, that the economy was heading for a cliff. If governments had dared to listen to them and do something about it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it was probably politically impossible for anything to be done: both the rich frauds and the suckers who thought they were getting rich would have rebelled. Any government that saw where things were heading probably judged that it was safer to just let things go smash, then nobody would blame them. And that's the method most of them are applying now.

[steelish]

So far as the economy and my advanced age allows, I do.

But see, this is the other important thing about scientific propositions: testability. There is no way to test a proposition based on prophecy... unless the innumerable previous predictions of the End can be counted as tests of the general principle of fortelling the world's future from An-Cie-Ent Prophecies, in which case it's well and truly exploded.

But a proposition based on a simple mathematical relationship can be tested by seeing whether the curve goes on heading the way it's predicted to. And if it does, you're entitled to extend it into the future with some confidence. Same as the rogue economists who extended the curve of unsupported debt and warned, a couple of years in advance, that the economy was heading for a cliff. If governments had dared to listen to them and do something about it, we wouldn't be in this mess.

But it was probably politically impossible for anything to be done: both the rich frauds and the suckers who thought they were getting rich would have rebelled. Any government that saw where things were heading probably judged that it was safer to just let things go smash, then nobody would blame them. And that's the method most of them are applying now.

You do realize I was being facetious, right?

[leo9]

You do realize I was being facetious, right?

Yeah, but I already had worked out that essay on testability, with end-times prophecies as my example, so when you gave me the cue it seemed a shame not to use it.

[denuseri]

So all this el nino stuff has really been the earth working up to a really big fart?

lol

Sorry I had to go there.

I dont know how much of a problem its really going to be. There is no such thing as an endless cycle anyway when it comes to climatology. We also dont know how much methane is trapped in the crust, or in the sea floor (large methane emmissions have occured in the past from there as well periodically).

It is certianly something to look at. (IE keep an eye on)

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

[leo9]

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

This is true. Like the bad debt crisis, we've kept an unsustainable system going for a long time by borrowing more and more, and it's when things go wrong at once that the juggling act gets impossible.

[DuncanONeil]

It appears now the the prime arbiter of Global Warming data admits that the data does not exist!
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, says the data used to create his assessment of Global Warming is lost!
Further, he states that there has not been a single case of Global Warming since 1995.

Wonder what that is going to do for the Goreites?

[leo9]

It appears now the the prime arbiter of Global Warming data admits that the data does not exist!
Phil Jones, University of East Anglia, says the data used to create his assessment of Global Warming is lost!
Further, he states that there has not been a single case of Global Warming since 1995.

Whilst I do take your point that noting the source of these amazing things you tell us would reduce the entertertainment value of the news for you, you cannot expect us to take these pronouncements seriously if you can only reference them by saying you heard it somewhere and you guess they got it from AP.

There is no need to spoil your viewing pleasure by taking notes: that's one of the many things Google is for. Just trace the news item you heard, copy and paste the link, and your comments might actually carry some weight, if it turned out that the item really said what you quote.

[DuncanONeil]

From an interview with the BBC!
I find you immediate reaction suggesting the report is made up insulting!

Further revelations by Phil Jones;

• Warming in the 20th century is not unique,
• There were two other recent periods,
  • between 1860 and the 1880s
  • in the forties
• The planet has been cooling since 2002
• The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is now
• Jones admits there is no consensus among climate scientists

So before I can use anything I have heard or read I have go back a research it all over again?

Whilst I do take your point that noting the source of these amazing things you tell us would reduce the entertertainment value of the news for you, you cannot expect us to take these pronouncements seriously if you can only reference them by saying you heard it somewhere and you guess they got it from AP.

There is no need to spoil your viewing pleasure by taking notes: that's one of the many things Google is for. Just trace the news item you heard, copy and paste the link, and your comments might actually carry some weight, if it turned out that the item really said what you quote.

[DuncanONeil]

Our main threat however isnt in the climate alone (which may or may not be within our power to fiddle with as of yet), its our massive unchecked population growth coupled with massive unrenewable rescource aquisition coming to a peak at a bad point for us survival wise which would be much harder at both signifigantly warmer or colder temperatures.

I take it you missed the comment that the entire population of the planet could live within the borders of the state of Texas and be no more crowded that the island of Manhattan?

[Thorne]

I take it you missed the comment that the entire population of the planet could live within the borders of the state of Texas and be no more crowded that the island of Manhattan?

Space isn't the issue. Food is. And farm land. Regardless of how packed people get, you still have to get them the food from the farms. So that means oil, as well.

[DuncanONeil]

Space isn't the issue. Food is. And farm land. Regardless of how packed people get, you still have to get them the food from the farms. So that means oil, as well.

Since we would not need so many roads to get people around to large numbers of various place, why not turn much of that infrastructure into vacuum tubes for the transport of commodities. How much farm land is there if everyone is living in Texas?

[steelish]

lol

[denuseri]

And this would reduce the ammount of unrenewable rescources they are consuming how?

[DuncanONeil]

And this would reduce the ammount of unrenewable rescources they are consuming how?

Well many people would have less far to get anywhere. The ugly wind farms that people do not like in their backyard won't be even close. The whole state of Nebraska and the Benelux can be solar collectors. Huge portions of land can be used for farming, thereby removing significant amounts of CO2. The rest can go forest doing the same thing.

But that was not why I said what I said. It was related to your comment that sounded a light like a reference to the "population bomb".

In addition the vast majority of the worlds population is regulating itself!

[denuseri]

Well many people would have less far to get anywhere. The ugly wind farms that people do not like in their backyard won't be even close. The whole state of Nebraska and the Benelux can be solar collectors. Huge portions of land can be used for farming, thereby removing significant amounts of CO2. The rest can go forest doing the same thing.

But that was not why I said what I said. It was related to your comment that sounded a light like a reference to the "population bomb".

In addition the vast majority of the worlds population is regulating itself!

Is it? Just becuase Europe and the United States have negative/ homeostatic natural birth rates thanks primaraly to people waiting until later in life to have children and abortion (imigration not withstanding), does not mean the Worlds population is dropping. In fact if anything its still growing. To further the problem, new industrialized nations are emerging like China and India, with imense populations. Just imagine the drain in rescources a single country 5+ times the size of the USA and Europe combined (the two most rescource consuming areas of the world at present btw using as much as 60% of the worlds rescources at present all by themselves) will bring to the world when it gets going.

Couple that with the fact that peak oil aquisition and production was all ready reached back in the early 80's and we have a serious problem looming on the horizon.

And this is without even getting on how fast fresh water soruces will dimminish. Look at how fast lake mead allready continues to drop every year.

As for moving the entire world population to the state of texas...smh, lets attempt to be somewhat realistic here shall we.

I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say. The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase. But any doofus with a computer or access to one can look and see for themselves how the numbers are starting to stack up conserning the loss of our glaciers through the world. Something is warming up the planet, which in some ways can be a good thing, the only problem is we dont know exactly whats doing it yet, nor do we know how hot its going to get, or when it will plateue and or stop, or swing back to cooler temperatures.

[leo9]

I am totally against the liberal left democratic parties position that "global warming/ pc climate change" is our fault per say.

You do realise that you have to add NASA and the Pentagon to the list of liberal lefty organisations that believe in AGW?

The data doesnt completely support us alone being the cuase.

That depends whose data you use, climatologists' or Big Oil's.

Basically there are two possible scenarios. (Three if you count the one that says nothing is changing, and all the stuff about melting icecaps, rising temperatures etc, is a fraud by the international communist conspiracy who've suborned all the meteorologists, naturalists and geographers in the world.)

Either the world is warming for simple physically explicable reasons which are theoretically controlable, so we could survive if we have the guts to do what's necessary.

Or the world is warming for some mysterious reason (which by a strange coincidence began when we started burning vast amounts of fossil fuels and wiping out forests) which nobody can explain or do anything about, and we might as well live it up, drive our SUVs and turn up the heating, because we're doomed anyway.

Even if the science didn't convince me, I am not a natural fatalist. We may not be able to save ourselves, but I'll always want to go down trying.

[denuseri]

None of the above Leo, it is not an eaither or situation.

I am not in the "it isn't happening" camp.

I am in the "it is happening but the reason why is more complicated than just human population growth and industrialization" camp.

Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause. The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.

Do we as a species effect the enviroment around us?, of course we do, we have been since before we had language. Are we the sole perpetrators of global warming? No I do not believe we are alone responsibile, I believe our own contributions are just part of a much larger climatic / solar cycle.

Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.

The planet has been both much much warmer and colder at different times during our time upon it and we survived those times with little to no technological inovations at our disposal but we also had a far far exponentialy smaller population back then.

The small changes our climate is making currently if continued along current trends in and of themselves isnt such a big deal alltogether until you add in our ever increasing populations rescouce demands vs the dwindeling unrenewable rescource supply, and when you factor that in then we are going to be in a very very bad pickle soon enough.

But then even if the climate stops changing along current trends, we are still going to have a problem if we dont change sooner rather than later.

[leo9]

Not all of the data supports the theory of human advancement as being the SOLE cause.

Climate cycles are on a downward trend and should be cooling the planet. The sunspot cycle is likewise in a phase that should be giving us less droughts and blizzards, not more. What other causes did you have in mind?

The main reason such scare tactics are imployed is an attempt to motivate people into supporting a change in how we do things and changing how we do things is not somthing that I am against at all. In fact I am all for it. Lets just not make up a reason for that change when we allready have a perfectly good one that makes better sence as it is.
...
Should we still change how we use rescources and take care of our enviroment? Of course we should, after all, unless we feel like going to other planets , we are stuck here on this one together.

Population pressure and oil exhaustion are already a problem, but to be brutal, we in the rich nations have so far managed pretty successfully to make them someone else's problem. Attempts to convince the majority of Euopeans and North Americans that the rest of the world's troubles are our reponsibility as well have met a blank stare.

But we can't pay the weather or the sea to go somewhere else. So this is a problem we can't dodge, we either solve it or suffer along with the poorest.

The fact that the solutions to it will, if sensibly applied, also help with the other problems is a bonus.

[steelish]

Oh my

[steelish]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes


The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.


My conclusion...even the top scientists cannot agree, therefore why can't we take a step back and finish the investigation before spending trillions more on a project that will have profound effect on the country and our children's future?