Nobody is arguing that the world is gradually warming. We know for a fact through archeological data that the climate was much warmer in the AD 800-1100 period than it is today. Greenland didn't have glaciers, and the Vikings farmed wheat there. You cannot do that today. Then the weather cooled down and the world entered a period known as the Little Ice Age. The Thames froze regularly.

Currently the world is warming because it is still "recovering" from the Little Ice Age. We have not yet reached warmth of a thousand years ago. There is no reason to presume that we shouldn't. And it's all completely natural, something that the nature-skeptics at the IPCC don't seem to be able to get into their thick skulls.

Monckton is that you?

Another thing that is worth remembering:

If the IPCC is wrong then reducing CO2 will not reduce global temperatures.

If it is even possible to get all countries to act together before fossil fuels run out anyway.

If we actually achieve a reduction in carbon emissions.

Then we'll have a world that is still getting warmer, and we won't have spent a single dollar preparing for it.

We are wasting a considerable amount of time and effort in a futile attempt to stop global warming, when we should be spending that time and money preparing for it. This, to me, is the biggest danger of the IPCC scam.

Al Gore got one for exactly that.

He missed out on one for inventing the internet......

Some shocking figures from a BBC survey on global warming were given on SBS tonight.

The climategate, glaciergate and assorted scandals, plus a particularly cold winter have reduced AGW support by a substantial amount.

If i could make some predictions:

Governments will now distance themselves from the mess – no one wants an election promise related to something a minority support.

The IPCC will be quietly forgotten, or pushed aside.

Newer much reduced claims will emerge (global warming on a much slower scale)

Countries like China and India will announce that there is no conclusive evidence of AGW.

A sudden “new” threat will occur, that just happens to support the dreams social economists and anti industrialists.

And all the pinko's, greenies, lefties, Kruddites and Wongies will lap it up!

Oh is Chris Monckton hiding on here? I have a stack of questions to ask him! I'll let him do it one at a time . . . here goes . . .

#1 - can you please explain why you are using the hemlock data for CO2 emissions instead of the Ice-core CO2 data?

I'd go so far as to say that most if not all of those will come to pass.

I think we should have a nice oil supply threat. It's much more manageable and means everyone can wag fingers specifically at other countries.

slapphead: >>The climategate, glaciergate and assorted scandals, plus a particularly cold winter have reduced AGW support by a substantial amount.
<<

...and if next summer is warmer than average this will, of course, prove a *warming* climate <g>.

Sadly, human nature says you are right.....


However, tonights news says "a blizzard battered the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States on Saturday, quickly dumping large amounts of snow that piled up on roadways and toppled trees onto apartment buildings and cars. Officials urged people to huddle at home for the weekend, out of the way of crews trying to keep up with a storm that forecasters said could be the biggest for Washington, DC, in modern history."

Yes, talk of peak oil was only 3 years ago.

I remember talking about it to guys in the oil business, and they couldn’t believe the bulldust that was being published – not just by the press, but by economists and research bodies.

I was told there are vast as yet untapped reserves . But if a fright over supply drives up the price the oil companies aren’t going to be the ones bursting any bubbles.

I remember my grandfather saying “I feel I have been lied to all of my life” (he was talking about big business and government – he fought in WW1, went through the depression etc).

I think I know what he meant. Only now it seems to be everyone telling porkies...



Edit – I remember standing in the Letrobe valley in 1985 and being told that the lignite in that single valley could supply the entire worlds energy requirements for 500 years. Now people starve because we plant biofuels instead of crops. And the lignite still sits in the valley.

if this bloke's opinion is not to be trusted because he's not a career climatologist then why should we pay any attention to Lord Monckton, who has virtually no scientific training or qualifications at all?

sounds like you fell for a bit of hype there - Latrobe valley resources could more likely meet local power station needs for 500 years, not the entire world.

and yes I suppose you could say that some lignite is just sitting there - but overall the brown coal in the valley is still being mined at a rate of more than 60 million tonnes per year.

http://www.australianminesatlas.gov....wn_coal_09.jsp

That would make sense. An economist working with climate scientists about the best way to use resources in order to ensure that the economy doesn't fail. No wonder the IPCC has such a reputation of being very conservative. If they removed the money men then they would probably make us cut carbon by the up to 90% some alarmists demand should have been done by last year.

Funny, one of my economics lecturers at uni specialised in fish and the worked with scientists on the best way of conserving the very depleted fish stocks we have in the world so that industry would survive and the people who relied on fish as their protein source could still be fed.

An economist. Who would have thought it!!!