Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.
In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.
His words were refected in a New Scientist editorial that also argued that climate scientists should "welcome in the outside world" for more scrutiny.
Prof Beddington also said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.
''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.
“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.
“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”
His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The IPCC was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.
It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.
As a result Prof Phil Jones, the director of the University’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to IPCC reports, has been forced to stand down while he is investigated.
Urging scientists to release their data to their critics, Prof Beddington added: ''I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.
“There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
The New Scientist editorial said that the IPCC has done 'Herculean' work in assessing the risk of climate change and the recent revelations do not undermine the conclustion that man made global warming is happening.
But the process needs to be reviewed so that the public had more access to research and reports come out more frequently.
Lord Stern of Brentford, has previously said that climate change sceptics that pedal “muddled and unscientific” thinking could stop the world from tackling global warming.
Prof Beddington insisted that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction:
But he said the false claim in the IPCC's 2007 report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.
“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,” he said.
“We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there.
“If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, 'there's a level of uncertainty about that'.”
Prof Beddington also said that large-scale climate modelling using computers resulted in ''quite substantial uncertainties'' that should be communicated.
''It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,” he told The Times.
“But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”
Last week Nasa scientists reported that the past decade was the warmest on record, proving that global warming had continued “unabated”.
Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, found average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1880, when records began.
This is a man reading a script, that is only doing what he is told. Please does he really think we are that stupid..... Hmmmm maybe he does!
Death to the NWO.
I watched this arrogant pom on TV a few days ago, before the Senate rejected the ETS bill. He said their might be a few sceptics talking in the 'bar rooms maybe'.
Try 28 million entries for 'climategate' on Google mister Lord whatever you are!
This guy MUST be linked to the future proposed carbon trade, being an ex-World Bank guy, and I would be gobsmacked if he is not tied in with Al Gore's carbon trading outfit. I believe the only World Bank accredited one.
And the insults! To say that sceptics of scientific theory are muddled and confused. I am a geologist (therefore a scientist, I think) and a sceptic on CO2 climate change since first year university in 1983.
Let's do what we can to prise these leaches off our freedom!
Ian Stuart thinks the consquences of action to reduce CO2 are 'largely monetary'. Not so. The actions proposed will severely restrict economic growth, and in much of the world this is still a life-or-death matter. In poor countries economic growth means people not having to see their children die of malnutrition or preventable diseases.
One of the most dishonest tactics of the alarmists is to present the cost of CO2 reduction solely in terms of money, while claiming that inaction will cost lives. In truth, restricting economic growth will cost very many lives - quite possibly more than any conceivable effects of warming.
This guy is a living illustration of the equation
ARROGANCE = IGNORANCE
independently of whether or not global warming is mand made, what happened in the CRU is a major breakdown of all basic rules of good science.
Science is NEVER based on cosnsensus but on the reproductibility of experience.
This is a typical reaction by a person who would not change his lifestyle, such as stopping travelling by air and car, but expect all of us nobody's to pay through the nose for domestic fuel, not have holidays or car journeys and live in the dark. He certainly has a vested interest in keeping this farce going. He was the person employed by the gov in 2006 to write a 600 page review supporting man made climate change, he was paid extremely hansomely for this load of twaddle. Oh and he does sell carbon credits!!
Climate Change is a theory that wasnt supported by field data.. So they helped it along.. End of story.
This is a typical reaction by a person who would not change his lifestyle, such as stopping travelling by air and car, but expect all of us nobody's to pay through the nose for domestic fuel, not have holidays or car journeys and live in the dark. He certainly has a vested interest in keeping this farce going. He was the person employed by the gov in 2006 to write a 600 page review supporting man made climate change, he was paid extremely hansomely for this load of twaddle.
I've never read such an arrogant lot of nonsense. Has this man never heard of the internet where the true debate is raging.How dare he dismiss the sceptics as confused. The scientific arguments against man made CO2 driven climate change are extremely lucid and convincing.If you want muddled, go to the UEA CRU where you'll also find deliberate criminal manipulation and destruction of data and suppression of anyone who disagrees.
"This evidence that is overwhelming is from all kinds of sources that has built up over 200 years,"
You mean like the surface temperature data from New Zealand?
Moron.
I stopped reading this article as soon as it sighted statements from the "former head of the world bank "
Enough said i think ... what a bunch of scam artists .
"This evidence that is overwhelming is from all kinds of sources that has built up over 200 years,"
You mean like the surface temperature data from New Zealand?
Moron.
What happened here??? Did this clown just crawl out of a hollow log ?
surely it is Lord Stern who is 'muddled and confused' when he, like so many label sceptics as climate change deniers. I personally do not know any sceptics who are climate change deniers. Every sceptic knows that the climate is changing (always has and always will). what we all disagree with is the belief that the planet is warming and that CO2 emissions by humans are affecting the climate.
In TIME magazine, Page 10, December 7, 2009, Doris Wakeland of Silver City, N.M. wrote: "We made a huge mistake in 2000. Al Gore is the closest thing we have to a 21st century Prophet"....
I think the world is getting fed up with all this claptrap. Are the likes of Stern and Gore going to be held accountable WHEN this is finally accepted as one huge fraud or will they just be given another job that they know sweet FA about?
Why do the deniers get so excited? Stern, who was Chief Economist at the World Bank (the same post that Stiglitz and Summers occupied), is anything but a fool. He is absolutely correct in pointing out that the preponderance of evidence (besides the "adjusted" data) support the global warming thesis. It is also worth pointing out that if action is taken and the global warming thesis is wrong the consequences are largely monetary. If no action is taken the consequences for our childrens' children could be catastrophic.
Just remember that this clown is an economist for heaven's sake. He's not a scientist! Economists are allowed, expected even, to put forward ludicrous ideas with either no, or at best, spurious "evidence" in support. No rigorous testing or peer reviews for them. Even the most callow student's idea is equal to that of his tutor and must be recognised as such. When such a man turns politician anybody taking the slightest notice is, by defintion, nuts!
Just ignore him - publish verifiable truths and he will be compelled to B off!
I have to say that Lord Stern has not even had the nous to associate any warming (or not) with the large ball of fire in the sky that gives life to all on earth. The AGW alarmists have utterly discounted the effect of the sun... without which none of us would survive. The sun has cold periods and hot periods: sunspot minimums and maximums.
I believe, though I may be wrong, that Britain was formed by receding glaciation. ie: a warm period following a cold period.
This whole debate is insane - more insane is that is being allowed to inform "trans-global" policy.
The world may be warming: witness the retreat of glaciers....... from places like the uk!!! The contours of our country were formed by the retreat of glaciers.
Aah... it's a load of political crap designed to subjugate us. And no-one does that better than the Labour party (Green party follows closely)
And as for Australia failing to pass its cap and trade bill ... big deal. How would making big polluters pay to keep polluting do anything to stop it? Where's the incentive? As long as they can pay for credits they'll do it. Much cheaper than having to come up with a complete new approach ... something that would actually help, say reforestation, solar power, and better public transport to encourage cars off the road.
There won't be a deal out of Copenhagen, even if there wasn't the leak. It doesn't even have anything to do with global warming issues. It has to do with consultants being out of work if everyone gets on one side of the fence or the other and agrees to any uniform and settled policy.
They used to call it "sandbagging," now it's called chaos-meistering. It all comes down to money.
Pockets get fat. Bodies get fat. Then brains get fat. That's modern AGW physics.
Hey Al Gore and CRU: I want my global warming. It was 34 degrees and snowed for 5 hours today in Dallas-Fort Worth.
The search engines seem to be part of it. As I understand it, they can be “paid” to move your search entry to the start of the search when you search for things like “climategate” or “global climate hoax”. I’m sure that paying them off is a pricey way to try to control public opinion but it is pretty clear that George Soros and his ilk are playing for keeps to rob us of what little liberty we have left.
I suggest you read the titles clearly because some of the warming propaganda is entitled in such a way that you might think it is providing the information you want but giving you a drawn out article that repeats the warming mantra.
At the end of the day it is all about integrity, and I have seen very, very little integrity evident here. First the CRU gang is exposed for the unethical thugs that they are, then their database and crappy fortran code is shown to be a very poor representation of “climate science” and lastly, to cover up for their sloppiness they subvert the peer review process so there is no one who can call them on it. First evidence of poor ethics.
Secondly, the mainstream media, sensing that their mantra has been seen through, and that their control of this issue is slipping away from them pulls out all of the stops to obfuscate the entire issue. Out come the “journalists” repeating the mantra “settled science” “settled science”. Second evidence of poor or non-existant ethics.
Lastly, our esteemed political leadership ignore the topic or hide behind their clueless spokesmen. “ahem, it is all settled science and copenhagen should go ahead”. Last and biggest evidence of poor ethics.
Thank goodness there are people with backbones down under that can serve is a good example of people protecting their liberty from the sleazy political opportunists that are seeking to make us all “world citizens”
When Lord Stern speaks it is the equvalent of sitting through Hamlet being acted out by a bunch of Chavs. Utterly unconvincing and, in the words of Timothy Dalton in Hot Fuzz...utter Tosh.
The arrogance of Stern beggars belief. He admitted to knowing little about the AGW issue when he did his report and say's he has met all the top scientists....err no...all the top "patsies".
The worlds top scientist in this field is Prof Richard Lintzen and Stern would'nt last five minutes with him.
As regards sceptic's "muddled thinking" try this.
In order for the climate models to be correct there has to be hotspots in the Troposhere over the Equator at an altitude of approx 6 miles.
Satellites can find no trace and neither can weather balloons.
Not to muddled to understand is it?
Lord Stern?
A complete and utter Banker if you ask me.
"People have the right to speak up but if they are muddled and confused," says the good Lord Stern. And so the good Lord Stern has the right to speak up I agree. It always amazes me that, after the drubbing we Yanks gave you all over there for exactly this sort of snooty condescension, you still allow people to prance around with the title "Lord" in front of their names as if it means anything at all. In this case, apparently, it entitles the title holder to feel like THE Lord Himself, in telling us all how hot the climate is going to get and what he will do to us if we do not heed his trumpet call. Sorry, but I do not believe this particular Lord, what's-his-name Stern, and in fact I do not trust that the climate is in fact the issue at all for him. A colossal power grab is, however, and I hope enough of us say to he and his Copenhagen jet-setters, as we Yanks said to the very same types in 1776, "no taxation without representation."
It has been admitted by the CRU that their data are not the original raw values, but have been altered to include adjustments such as for the location in which the readings were taken. In other words, the CRU's dataset is in doubt.
Yet the AGW supporters say that the two American datasets match the CRU's, as if to suggest that this validates and authenticates the CRU's data.
What? Surely if the American datasets match the CRU's dataset, then they too be in doubt.
In future encyclopoedia entries, there will be two entries under The Stern Gang. When the body count is totted up it will be the present one which has a much higher one to its credit. 'Lord' Stern should be required personally to visit every African country to tell them that they are never going to get a reliable electricity supply because he is going to stop them burning the only realistic fuel, namely, coal.
Perhaps Lord Stern would like to explain to us sceptics (many more in numbers than he is willing/prepared to believe) how the Romans grew vineyards north of Birmingham. Global warming? CO2 emissions from chariots? Perhaps the treehuggers could spend some time to get their heads out of the sand and face reality as opposed to green dreams.
I am fully aware of the greenhouse effect. Are you aware it is logarithmic so cannot be responsible for most of the warming? Why are all the chearleaders for this nonsense not climate scientists? Is it because nobody that understands the arguments wants to explain to a baying crowd the scientific basis for re-allocating 10 trillion dollars of their money on your pet projects?
@gnck: but you're taking a few examples. you'll always get odd ones, just like you'll get people who'll die in their 90s after smoking for 70 years. (therefore smoking's harmless!)
if you look at the central england temperature record instead (for example) you'll see a dramatic increase over the last 100 years.
and then of course there's phil jones and ipcc who're looking at the total picture: on average temperature has increased. on average smoking knocks off 20 years of life expectancy. how lucky do you feel?
The essential question is what has happened to the temperature in areas for which there are detailed temperature measurements going back more than 100 years? This then bypasses any “corrections’ applied by computer programs which have been suggested to be completely inaccurate, and so can give us an insight into what has happened over this time period.
If the following website is accurate: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
then it shows the actual measured temperatures in Darwin, Wellington and Christchurch, and the closest rural stations to San Francisco (Davis) and Seattle (Snoqualmie) as examples. There is clearly no evidence of any significant temperature change over more than 100 years in these sites for which there are raw temperature data available in the public domain.
I would therefore welcome an explanation from Lord Stern or any of the climatologists as to why we should believe that temperatures are increasing when the evidence from raw temperature measurements from these widely varying sites in both the northern and southern hemispheres shows no change over a period of more than 100 years. It seems to me that the debate is lacking any suggestion of scientific analysis based on real data. I would welcome the proponents for each side providing us, the public who will be expected to provide the funds through additional taxation, with the relevant raw data which can then be analysed by competent statisticians who belong to neither camp.
Re;- Mark Allen @1354
Having read your lengthy defence of like minded people,I offer the following.
Many are going to Copenhagen shortly to 'persuade 'world governments to spend squillions of their taxpayers money on the basis of evidence they themselves have been caught fiddling.
They now have a credibility gap
Don't mess with Mother Nature. She always wins. There are only two things you can believe in - politics and religion - not global warming.The common factor is simply MONEY.If there was no oil in Iraq we wouldn't bother. If there was no money in global warming we wouldn't bother.
Don't mess with Mother Nature. She always wins. There are only two things you can believe in - politics and religion - not global warming.The common factor is simply MONEY.If there was no oil in Iraq we wouldn't bother. If there was no money in global warming we wouldn't bother.
yeah, climate change is really a fraud. anyone can see that with the, now public, e-mails. it's just like cigarettes and cancer. there are about 35,000 lung-cancer caused by smoking in uk and 9,500,000 smokers (see http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/index.htm) : that's 0.4% risk of getting it... smoking's harmless!?! of course no cancer researcher would publish this kind of 'evidence', and would also likely advise colleagues against it. (and that anybody would get lung cancer from second hand smoke is just nonsense.)
it would be really interesting to know how much - and by whom - the hackers got for breaking into the e-mail system. now there's the real conspiracy.
"Lord Stern" - "The former World Bank economist" - "Brentford (UK)"
Three strikes and you're out, you elitist phony.
9 degrees my foot - it's clear at this point you guys just make these numbers up. And no, not you or anyone else is going to "save the planet" - that's an secular conceit of infinite magnitude.
Lord Stern has got it spot on here. "Unfortunately people who are confused are capable of causing confusion."
Your telling me m'lud! A bit like someone with a Bachelor of ARTS degree and a PhD in Economics pontificating about Scientific matters. That sort of "confused" person is bound to be "capable of causing confusion". So why don't u just SHUT UP!
"Re;-Frank @ 1620 yesterday.
There are thousands Frank.
All paid,provided for,and platinum plated pensioned by the public purse,parleying into existence further such 'posts'while protected by proffessors (sic) of rotational medicine."
So would you deny all funding on climate sciences and remove research posts?
Climate scientists earn no more then any other research field. In fact if your after wealth and your a scientist your much better off working for oil, mining and pharmaceutical companies. This pursuit of wealth that is hammered by sceptics is nonsense.
It is clearly a subject that needs more research and understanding and is hugely complex.
I guess however that due to the angry voices on this comments page that you are all experienced climatologists and know what you are talking about?
I also guess that the changes that are hoped to be brought in to combat climate change are really bad in your opinion?
No oil, localised power grids, increased efficiency, funding and resources to preserve rain forests.
Yes these are all really bad things and need to be shouted about! dam scientists trying to do good things! you should leave it to businesses and banks because they give us nice easy lives with our xboxes and our flat screens! Wake up!
Who cares if your blog can disprove climate change, albeit with very sketchy scientific practice,Kyoto and Bali and now Copenhagen has the potential to create huge changes to our infrastructure that could create a more efficient and fairer existence.
It will be worth it just to remove our dependency on oil.
The unelected, unqualified Sterm should remember that in a democracy the democratic majority rules.
The democratic majority in Britain rejects Stern's arguments. That's an undeniable fact, given every recent poll, including today's Science Museum poll.
If Stern and others like him (such as Ed Milliband) continue to blatantly defy the will of the democratic majority in Britain, they risk political and social consequences far greater and more immediate than anything predicted by climate models.
If you are "muddled" and want a good explanation of global warming, Professor David McKay's book "Energy - without the hot air" is a good place to start. It's available to read online at http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_2.shtml Chapter 1, page 5 is where he sets out the climate change issues. You can get a "climate sceptic" view by googling a scientist called Richard Lindzen. However, some of you will be shocked to find that scintists who are "sceptics" agree that rising CO2 levels have led to temperature increases (this is basic physics, so no scientist disputes this) and that human activities (burning fossil fuels, deforestatiuon etc.) are the cause of the recent rise. Where they are sceptical is on the predicted impacts of this human-induced climate change. Serious scientists who argue against what they see as climate change "panic", claim that the rise in temperature will not be as bad as the current predictions. The bottom line is that we have to distinguish between the measurements that show that human-induced climate change IS happening and the model predictions that project what MIGHT happen in the future. Then make up your mind who to believe.
And I thought that ignorant, self-absorbed oligarchs were the sole property of the US Congress!
It's too bad for you Brits that Lorn Stern's brain is apparently trapped in amber (or elsewhere) -- the same trapping that has occurred with most of the thought associated with the AGW movement.
I'm absolutely convinced that your Lord Stern would make an acceptable substitute for any of America's high priests and priestesses in the Democrat party. Our "leaders" Obama, Reid and Pelosi are afficted with what I'm sure the ancient Romans called 'caput capitis sursum rectum iri.'
And it seems that your Lord Stern has a case of this malady -- he's somehow gotten his head wedged somewhere in a place on his anatomy that is quite dark.
And he apparently LOVES the view!!
All this 200 years of scientific data is it the same data that warned of a new ice age back in the 1970s?
If it is then it appears that the scientists are the muddled and confused ones.
All this 200 years of scientific data is it the same data that warned of a new ice age back in the 1970s?
If it is then it appears that the scientists are the muddled and confused ones.
Keep lying or tell the truth, either way sheeple will be coming for all you liars, so get ready...
How can you trust this idiot. He's an Economist looking to raise tax revenue for a bankrupt country.
We are so desperate these thieves are looking at any way to rip us off.
The sooner we all realise and get rid of these conmen the better.
What truth on so called global warming can be gleaned from Economists who have no qualification to comment on these findings.
Stick to what you know Lord Stern and keep bean counting. Keep your Ill informed ideals to yourself.
"We are in very warm period in history and the last decade has been the hottest we've seen"
Actually no it wasn't. The 1930s were hotter than the last decade.
Moreover given that we are emerging from the Little Ice Age (LIA) circa 1750, then the climate is bound to warm up.
The one critical argument that none of the warmists can argue with is that of the MWP (Mediaeval Warming Period), when temperatures were much warmer than they are now. Seeing that there wasn't a great deal of industrialisation at that time, how do they explain the warming phenomena then? It sure as hell wasn't CO2 was it!
I think it is you, Lord Stern who is "muddled and confused" First it was "Global Warming" and now its "Climate Change"
The climate has always changed and always will, and the sooner people like you recognise and understand that nature is master and that there is NOTHING puny homo sapiens can do about it the better.
Dear Lord Stern,
"The University of East Anglia data is just one part of" a group of fraudulent research groups.
The fraud is not local, it's global.
It's "fundamentally wrong" to believe that the "evidence that has built up over the last 200 years" is not tainted.
Science is about truth and transparency. Respect that and consider what unfolds from the CLIMATE-GATE scandal before applying your "spin".
I have a PhD in an applied-science discipline and had been shocked during last few years while noticing the lack of transparency of IPCC-related research institutions;
i.e. not allowing independent validation of their data and climate modelling source code.
These AGW-supporting fraudsters have made science go backwards and has made many people in science furious.
Are you furious at the fraud ?
Or, is it difficult to accept that the AGW theory is flawed (or not adequate) ?
Is it inconvenient for you to revise your thinking about this matter ?
Climate change sceptics that pedal 'muddled and unscientific' thinking could stop the world from tackling global warming, Lord Stern of Brentford has warned.
Surely to 'pedal' is to do with using pedals? So ON YOUR BIKE Lord Stern, you peddler of muddled and unscientific half-truths!
"Professor" Phil Jones is now standing down and going to spend more time with his family until the dust settles.
The cracks in the Global Warming Dam are beginning to open.
This sort of alarmist, pseudo-scientific babble from the economist, Nicholas Stern, merely represents a frantic and pathetic last-minute attempt to slap a little Polyfilla in the holes that are appearing.
More hogwash from the Minisry of Myth & Majic. These people really do think we are complete idiots!
To quote Lord Stern "We are in very warm period in history and the last decade has been the hottest we've seen". Can you provide the statistics for this and what decade are you comparing with? I was under the impression we've been in a cooling period since 1998...
If you can’t prove it with evidence just lie and pray the masses will believe you.
Re;-Frank @ 1620 yesterday.
A man with a vested interest!
What a masterpiece of understatement!
There are thousands Frank.
All paid,provided for,and platinum plated pensioned by the public purse,parleying into existence further such 'posts'while protected by proffessors of rotational medicine.
The whole thing looks like a large,ever expanding perpetual daisy chain.
Lord Stern is obviously an adherent of Bernays. Probably under orders from the tavistock house "groupthink/doublethink" apparats.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16330
This link will explain very well why science has become politicised to the point where its spokespersons are deeply dishonest non-scientists who have hijacked the scientific community for its on purposes.
One World Government. This is clearly the real agenda of Copenhagen, and can be seen in the draft treaty, where the words government and global are used unequivocably.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28001
The thing to remember is that this is the end game. For that reason we are seeing and experiencing fear-mongering and wars and shock after shock that is being deliberately promulgated so to distract and divide the people of the world. The means as ever is of course the MSM. A certain irony that I write this here. The world is being steadily reordered by a group of shadowy bankers and financiers known as Sabbatian Frankists, with the assistance of bought and paid for, as well as blackmailed, national leaders and politicians and powerful figures from the establishments. Many people are saying "the world has gone mad". Well yes that is the point. To distract and disorientate us all, so to remove proper resistance to what is being done in front of our eyes. These criminals are temporarily afraid. This is why it has been necessary to damage nations by the forced ruination of their cultures by the assault and damage of uncontrolled immigration. This is not conspiracy theory, it is now, it is happening, and is very, very, evident.
The way they have proved the link between man and global warming is by saying we cant explain it so it must be the influence of man. Using that logic and looking at the high incidence of tissue use corresponding to people with colds. we cannot see any other way to explain the common cold except that it is caused by tissues.
So far there is no scientific proof that has not been tampered or manipulated that has been repeated by people outside of the cabal used to muddy the waters in the first instance.
Release all your source data, (not the data you have already adjusted to fit your theory), methods and let others prove conclusions instead of starting with a conclusion and adjusting the data and peer review methods to fit your conclusion.
Lord Stern have you met Lord Christopher Monckton??
Please google him and educate your self.
Will someome please explain how a tax will change the climate and provide a full accounting so we can see who is making the money !!
Why do we need a deal? From this very site:
Lord Lawson then notes that the IPCC predicts that, at this level of temperature rise, global food production will actually increase. He takes the IPCC's gloomiest prediction of the economic effects of global warming over the same period. By its own figures, the difference between what would happen with global warming and without it amounts to this: in a hundred years' time, people in the developed world would be "only 2.6 times better off than they are today, instead of 2.7 times, and their contemporaries in the developing world would be "only" 8.5 times as well off as people in the developing world are today, instead of 9.5 times better off".
That's good! I think you'll find that's the idea Lord Stern - you poor muddled man!
I am one of those unfortunate people who are confused and capable of causing confusion. Why did he refuse to comment on the University of East Anglia scandal itself? Not exactly what you would expect if the evidence is so overwhelming and he is anxious to clear up any misunderstandings.
Lord Stern, if the evidence is overwhelming why not just publish it? Oh, I am sorry – it’s been destroyed.
So what are we left with, theoretical computer modelling to suit a political idea.
The confusion is not with the uninformed, the confusion is with those that are looking for a reason to create World Government in their own likeness. The only people that are muddled are those that have taken the political imperative of the need to create fear so as to force their form of leadership on the people.
I am not a follower of any trend just because a gaggle of self appointed twits on the taxpayer gravy-train says so, however, I am more than willing to look at any serious evidence and take note of it.
"Muddled" best describes the IPCC consensus, they will have to work harder before they ask me to implement their 'solution'.
I am, as yet, skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet some very intelligent friends who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"
I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.
I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.
I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.
I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.
And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.
My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.
Because if this bout isn't anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.
So, before I give my support to anything, trust must be restored, I demand that the Hadley Centre and the CRU publicly release the entire unadjusted temperature series, including the results of the CORRAL project.
Be very careful where you go and where you click.. I came across a article claiming this is all nothing and copou-hagen will go forward and was foolish ehough to click on the comment field.. BAM it shut me down for 10 minutes.. Thank god for restore and my admin being seperate.. be careful
Just in case Lord Stern was worried about us,I am a "real scientist", I am a practising geophysicist and I am not confused nor am I muddled. I firmly believe that the evidence supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is flawed. I also wish people would stop calling a build up in CO2 "pollution".
Lord Stern claims, "The degree of scepticism among real scientists is very small as a proportion of the people working in these areas", this is because they are taking the skeptics outside and shooting them in the name of AGW.
Just in case Lord Stern was worried about us,I am a "real scientist", I am a practising geophysicist and I am not confused nor am I muddled. I firmly believe that the evidence supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is flawed. I also wish people would stop calling a build up in CO2 "pollution".
Lord Stern claims, "The degree of scepticism among real scientists is very small as a proportion of the people working in these areas", this is because they are taking the skeptics outside and shooting them in the name of AGW.
Sorry Stern but that simply won't do. The evidence is not overwhelming, it's shaky in the extreme. The computer code is awful, the data ropy and incomplete. And even if there were a clear link shown by unbiased scientists (not the groupthink revealed by the CRU emails) there is still no demonstrated need to spend billions on a probably-doomed attempt to change this.
With every new development (no cooling for the last 11 years, growing icecaps, CRU, etc) the climate-change ringleaders declare that nothing has changed, nothing must stop the relentless march. The time has come to ask if anything would change that, and if the entire enterprise is not just an excuse to increase government control over us and to hobble free enterprise.
Just in case Lord Stern was worried about us,I am a "real scientist", I am a practising geophysicist and I am not confused nor am I muddled. I firmly believe that the evidence supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is flawed. I also wish people would stop calling a build up in CO2 "pollution".
Lord Stern claims, "The degree of scepticism among real scientists is very small as a proportion of the people working in these areas", this is because they are taking the skeptics outside and shooting them in the name of AGW.
Sorry Stern but that simply won't do. The evidence is not overwhelming, it's shaky in the extreme. The computer code is awful, the data ropy and incomplete. And even if there were a clear link shown by unbiased scientists (not the groupthink revealed by the CRU emails) there is still no demonstrated need to spend billions on a probably-doomed attempt to change this.
With every new development (no cooling for the last 11 years, growing icecaps, CRU, etc) the climate-change ringleaders declare that nothing has changed, nothing must stop the relentless march. The time has come to ask if anything would change that, and if the entire enterprise is not just an excuse to increase government control over us and to hobble free enterprise.
Sorry Stern but that simply won't do. The evidence is not overwhelming, it's shaky in the extreme. The computer code is awful, the data ropy and incomplete. And even if there were a clear link shown by unbiased scientists (not the groupthink revealed by the CRU emails) there is still no demonstrated need to spend billions on a probably-doomed attempt to change this.
With every new development (no cooling for the last 11 years, growing icecaps, CRU, etc) the climate-change ringleaders declare that nothing has changed, nothing must stop the relentless march. The time has come to ask if anything would change that, and if the entire enterprise is not just an excuse to increase government control over us and to hobble free enterprise.
Sorry Stern but that simply won't do. The evidence is not overwhelming, it's shaky in the extreme. The computer code is awful, the data ropy and incomplete. And even if there were a clear link shown by unbiased scientists (not the groupthink revealed by the CRU emails) there is still no demonstrated need to spend billions on a probably-doomed attempt to change this.
With every new development (no cooling for the last 11 years, growing icecaps, CRU, etc) the climate-change ringleaders declare that nothing has changed, nothing must stop the relentless march. The time has come to ask if anything would change that, and if the entire enterprise is not just an excuse to increase government control over us and to hobble free enterprise.
No, Lord Stern, you're the one who's thinking is muddled and confused if you're willing to believe a word that the charlatan staff of the CRU and therefore the IPCC say. The "overwhelming" evidence you speak of was just made up by a bunch of people so intelligent that they had email conversations about destroying emails covered by FOI requests and put FOI in the subject line.
We may have been confuded in the past, we are not now, we are enlightened, it is you Lord Stern who is confused and muddled and a fraudster.
No, Lord Stern, you're the one who's thinking is muddled and confused if you're willing to believe a word that the charlatan staff of the CRU and therefore the IPCC say. The "overwhelming" evidence you speak of was just made up by a bunch of people so intelligent that they had email conversations about destroying emails covered by FOI requests and put FOI in the subject line.