We are in complete agreement on this one Nightwind.

a) I'm old enough to have lived through the 1950's which had far greater "Extreems" of winter and summer. It was unusual NOT to get snow in Jan-March but things didn't grind to a halt, you just dug in and carried on. It wasn't always idyllic in summer, summer holidays at the coast could be cold, miserable and wet!
There were years when Hose-Pipe Bans were brought in but that's the nature of the UK geography, the water (of which you probably had enough of during the winter) just doesn't get to the places it's needed to be stored.

b) Today - We've had a "so called" Heat Wave. I've nearly taken a wooly sweater off! e

We are in complete agreement on this one Nightwind.

a) I'm old enough to have lived through the 1950's which had far greater "Extreems" of winter and summer. It was unusual NOT to get snow in Jan-March but things didn't grind to a halt, you just dug in and carried on. It wasn't always idyllic in summer, summer holidays at the coast could be cold, miserable and wet!
There were years when Hose-Pipe Bans were brought in but that's the nature of the UK geography, the water (of which you probably had enough of during the winter) just doesn't get to the places it's needed to be stored.

b) Today We've had a so called "Heat Wave" it's lasted a couple of weeks and everyone starts up on the "Global Warming" whilst I'm thinking "Shall I take my woolly jumper off" . It's rained for a couple of days and people are now moaning, the summer didn't last long did it?

c) Tomorrow - Well FACT, I might not be alive tomorrow, 100 years ago I wouldn't have been alive for 20 years or more!
Do I care what the weather is going to be like in another 40 years (that would make me 100+), ERRRRRM I don't think so!
Yes I have researched (I never take things on face value) the theories and counter-theories and concluded that, They are all talking (nearly swore)mere conjecture being backed up by numbers that don't add up, or choose to ignore the data that doesn't fit their particular theory.

d) The Future- well - Che Sera Sera!

I thought the only way we'd get an admission of wrongness from a dying scientist, but Melanie Phillips seems the only one to report Mike Hulme as long ago as 2007 who as joint head of East Anglia's climate unit, who basically supply the IPCC with little elsewhere. I'd said it's impossible both to measure the effect of 30% extra CO2 in the whole atmosphere or pin a single event on it.
He said it himself. This statement simply admitted nothing was more important than the policy and the truth and science now had to come second. The media besides Ms Phillips serially ignored it, but if publicised a number of waverers and maybe even the odd believer may drop off the system. From her article:

"Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science…The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow."

Indeed! Facts first, conclusions afterwards is the very basis of scientific inquiry. But not any more, it seems, where the religion of global warming is concerned. Here the facts have to fit the theory. Hulme goes on:

"Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

So the basis of all policy and rhetoric is er, policy and rhetoric. Besides CO2 increasing and working on paper as a greenhouse gas in a closed system (unlike the atmosphere) and temperatures slowly rising as they have since the ice age, that is it. The Guardian published the original quote as a pro-warming piece and apparently all their readers are so blinded that they simply agreed, yes, the world needs bringing closer to nature so we'll bring it down and sod the facts

Blimey Satguru
That must be the most retarded post I have ever read.
Scientists need to stick to science and stay out of politics!
And politicians need to stick to politics and stay out of science!

Science is finding the truth!
Politics is cooking with lies!

I think Nightwind needs to remmeber that we allow flaming the post, but not the poster, and even though that's what was trying to be conveyed in your post, I think you crossed the line.

Agreed MrW

In this Forum, You state your opinions, you can state them as hard as you like.
BUT
Expect someone else to disagree vehemently, that is their prerogative.

The whole object of the Forum is to debate issues from both sides, please respect an alternative viewpoint, ponder and then reply ON TOPIC.

Now on Topic,
SatG & NightWind, I think you nearly have it, the findings so far are so inconclusive that there is no reason for either scientists or politicians to be making major statements.

You can take any scientific "Fact" and bend it to your way of thinking and get people to agree with you.
1. Trains will never catch on, they go so fast, people will suffocate.
2. Space Travel is a figment of the imagination!
This is the most telling in my view
3. If I take away the water pump, and the people drink the beer, Cholera will stop in this area!

Well one proved to be right!

He proved his point! Nothing has been proven about Global Warming, the scientists have their theories and it's an easy target for politicians to jump on the bandwagon.

IF (and it's big IF) it results in more efficient energy production methods then I'm all for it. We've had Horse, Steam, Petrol/Gas, Diesel, Nuclear etc but according to the "experts" they all have failings.

I think it was a communication glitch there Mark, my utter nonsense was a quote from Mike Hulme, not satguru, and Nightwind was reacting to that. My reaction to it was exactly the same as should every decent person in the world. The unit who supply the IPCC with most of their data put politics above both science and truth, I always suspected it and now he's actually admitted it.

What really disappoints me is the handful of people who read it when it was published in 2007 didn't react the same way or we wouldn't all be facing curbs on our freedom and taxes never seen before on that basis. I'm sure when Nightwind replies he can confirm that as well.

Thanks SatG
No Offence taken here - But the Forum Rules are you can disagree vehemently with opinions but you must respect the poster who posted it and only attack the Opinion not the Poster.

I'm sure your right about Nightwind, and the wording may have been innapropriate as it accused you and not the source.

Absolutely- it's one thing saying a statement is b----s, and another about the person who said it. It's an easy rule to follow and stops it turning nasty for no reason.

I was refering to the original poster/writer of that c**p
not satguru.
I think the line drawn here is a little too restrictive, like a noose it will choke this place.
I get the feeling of an 1950's upper class english tea party and I am just a crude colonial interloper!
very proper!

Apologies for the misunderstanding, but we still stand by the rules. Every other forum I've been a part of has the same criteria, and we are only too happy to entertain lively debate, provided it doesn't get personal.

Nightwind - As the old saying goes "I may not agree with your sentiments or opinions, bit I'll defend your right to express them"

Let's put that to bed and get back on topic which despite the hiatus we are all basically in agreement! In SatG's words the Theory of "Global Warming" is unproven B*****s but is a likely vote winner, along with "Concern for the Environment" (but nothing specific that I will have to do something about!)

Science, which let's face it is a long-winded process with an aim to PROVE something, almost inevitably begins reports with "The evidence so far indicates that..........". In Law that would be a leading statement to a Jury.
The defence would be "The evidence so far indicates that.......... BUT .........."

And Global Warming is subject to that big BUT!

I think everybody could calm down a bit if they stopped referring to it as Global Warming (a misnomer picked up by the media and flogged to death) and instead discussed Climate Change - a totally different proposition

No no a thousand times no! You've been had- George W decided to abbreviate the term to try and soften the impact. The official phrase is "Climate change due to global warming". Climate changes naturally, the term is totally meaningless out of context of global warming.

Despite it being impossible to pin it on man or not the Met. Office said there is definitely global warming, if it wasn't there'd be nothing to tax us for or some people (not me) to worry about.

In fact if you see the Nigel Lawson summary of the IPCC report the impact they predict (including many benefits) from global warming (ie a range of 0.7'C existing right up to 6') is negligible. Their figures say we weill be 8 times better off in 100 years with the hottest possible scenario as opposed to 9 times if it didn't happen at all and stayed as it is now.

So if it wasn't warming then there'd be no issue- the climate will only be capable of producing more of the same but in different places and degrees, as the full IPCC report describes. But no warming equals no news.

The data I have been collecting for over 2 decades shows warming from early 70's to 98 (regular 30 year cycle of warming then cooling) and since 98 a cooling trend.
Other research shows that the time available for an interglacial period (10,500 - 11,500 years)is up! we are currently at 11,600 years so there is no time for a dalton minimum or a maunder or younger dryas. The interglacial window is passing( has passed 1998).
We have at least 20 years more of cooling before any kind of let up!
I dont like global warming and neither do I like global cooling and I consider warming to be preferable (more co2 plant food, more warm growing areas, more evaporation so more rain ) but my research says otherwise.