Al Gore is also not a climatologist.

I am off the view that money always seems to come ahead of looking after the environment.

For environment read "anything" when it comes to Politicians etc.

Having said that though, today's local paper headlines the local council refusing this years pay rises, to help keep costs down...... Now I am skeptical / cynical.

He is not a skeptic either.

So your point is what exactly?

Ahhhh yes, my memory is slipping. I looked it up, and it was indeed young Mandy.....

I don't have a point, I am trying to work out what your point is, you say that "many of the sceptics seem to be economists or people with a vested interest in making vasts amounts of money". I would say the opposite and pointed to Al Gore as an example. Then you say "Al Gore is also not a climatologist". So what is your point? Whatever it is you are wrong.

I don’t think all of the IPCC data is incorrect or wrong.

The problem is the crucial “scary” bits – the headline grabbing, 30 second prime time news grab stuff – is pure emotive rubbish.

This stuff was included to grab the attention of politicians and frighten the public. It worked for a while.

People have known it was rubbish right from the beginning. Some of it defied science. The sea cannot rise at the rates they predicted. The glaciers cannot disappear at the rate they suggest. The world cannot warm at the rate they claim.

When respected scientists questioned these headline grabbing claims they were slammed down as fools. (Even late last year the head of the IPCC was saying that the Indian Glacier Research unit was using “Voodoo Science” when it challenged IPCC claims).

This unreasonable attitude has backfired. The doubters went back and did the real research. The courted the press, and they bided their time.

Now the whole IPCC credibility is shot to smithereens. The British government is investigating the Climate Research Unit. There is legal action being instigated over their refusal to follow FOI procedures. The head of CRU has been stood down.

The head of IPCC is facing demands for resignation.

They get no sympathy from me.

They aren’t scientists, they are snake oil salesmen.

In that case, I don't see any need to respond to you.

At this juncture it is worth reading a bit about the head of the IPCC and his financial irregularities:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ng-income.html

this guy is a mechanical engineer, with a PhD in Economics. He has never studied climatology.

This is the guy who said the Geological Survey of India were using “voodoo Science” when it disputed his data.

Time to go Mr Pachauri....

Latest news is that the head of IPCC (Mr Pachauri – who is an economist not climatologist) KNEW about the glacier lies before Copenhagen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7009081.ece

Only last week he was telling the worlds press that he only knew a few days ago...

I assume he didn’t want to spoil the fun of everyone telling each other that the world was about to end.

This is the same guy who has been given several millions based upon the this same glacier doomsday prediction, so he probably didn’t want to rock his gravy train either.

He was a Mechanic on the Indian Raliways before he became an Economist.

“Toot Toot, all aboard the Bulldust Special”

I guess he will be back fixing trains before long.

It's worth remembering that the glacier issue is actually irrelevant. It has nothing to do - except peripherally - with whether overall climate is warming or cooling - it's an effect, that's all.

I agree to a large extent Wol, as I said elsewhere, its one of the pure emotive rubbish, headline grabbing, 30 second prime time news items intended to scare and frighten the general public.

However, it was used to push the argument for reallocation of global funds to the third world, on the grounds that the glaciers provided water to millions of people. This was one of the key points raised at Copenhagen during the third world aid talks.

Pachauri knew during these discussions in Copenhagen that the facts were wrong, and yet he kept his mouth shut. Is that acceptable?

I really don’t think so. He had discredited the global warming movement, and science as a whole.

It is interesting to note that he is an economist, a breed of people who in my experience (having studied it) deal in wild theories with little regard to reality.

One by one the emotive 30 second prime time headlines are being shot to pieces. All that the IPCC are left with is complex theories that cannot be proved with current data.

I will say once again that I am open minded on the subject of global warming, and upon the subject of AGW, however so far i have failed to see a single jot of evidence to suggest that the theory is manifesting itself in practice.

We agree. (!)

It should, in the same vein, be noted that Lord Moncton is a classicist and journalist, and Christopher Booker is a historian and journalist (to mention two very influential sceptics.)

I can see this running and running until the planet boils/freezes*

* Choose whichever tickles your fancy.

Agreed on Monkton and Booker.

There is a slight difference. Two actually.

Firstly:
Both are self funded. Kevin Rudd didn’t give Monkton $1 Million of our tax money last year. He gave it to Dr Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI organisation.
Yep – the same Pachauri who didn’t bother telling Kevin that the data on glaciers was wrong.

Secondly:
Monkton and Booker are not head of a global UN think tank and publicity team who have the ears, attention and funding of world leaders.

The IPCC are the nearest thing I have ever seen to a one party global government. They are accountable oto no one, they listen to no one, and they continue ith their agenda irrespective of events or evidence.

Monkton and Booker are the Solzhenitsyn’s of the 21C.

And like Solzhenitsyn they are out of the gulag of criticism and ridicule, and writing about how the one party IPCC are fooling all of us.