Oil links of Tory climate denial grandees

Oil links are better, more honest and more honorable than Friends of the Earth links.

Clutching at straws here, excuse the pun.

Whereas Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are merely concerned and altruistic guardians of the environment, aren’t they, and not the Green Left cloaked in supposed environmental camouflage? Yeah, right.

The Kazakhstan President got over 91% of the vote, so I’m sure it was a free & fair election.

“They are based at 1 Carlton House Terrace SW1Y 5DB and share premises with the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining who have a Petroleum and Drilling Engineering Division, which includes two employees of the BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd.”

Unless I’m very much mistaken, Left Foot Forward were – until recently – based at 83 Victoria Street SW1H 0HW and shared premises with the TaxPayers’ Alliance, who have been described by Polly Toynbee as responsible for dripping “an insidious poison [...] into the nation’s veins”. Shocking.

Mark – it’s a bit different. 83 Victoria St has 7 floors and several dozen businesses. 1 Carloton House Gdns has a sign above the door saying “Institute of Materials”. As far as I am aware, GWPF are the only other people in the building.

Frank, Tory Bear, Clameur de Haro – I assume from your odd comments that you see no problem with Lilley and Lawson’s oil links.

When did oil become an illegal commodity Will?

Anon – obviously, it is not. The more interesting question is whether Lilley and Lawson are motivated by the public good or private profit.

Will – Since neither of them is in the Government and therefore cannot affect our lives who cares?

They are as important as someone like Andy Burnham or Tony McNaulty will be in seven months ie. not very.

I think your government know a thing or two about oil Will.

I always wonder if there’s a chicken-and-egg thing going on in situations like this – where they’ve consciously decided their policy on climate change, and then used that as part of their basis to decide to join up with these oil companies; or, as you suggest, the other way around.

Oil makes the world go ’round, the world go ’round, the world go ’round.
Oil makes the world go ’round, it makes the world go ’round.
*But it’s G&Ts that make it fun…

It is interesting to note that many of the Conservative grass roots and its activists are also very sceptical about the link between Co2 and global warming. This has nothing to do with such Tory grandees as Lord Nigel Lawson and Peter Lilley MP. This has nothing to do with the Oil lobby and is more often than not a result of reading up on the reality, rather than the myth of the Warming tread. Seems Conservatives feel that rather than this connection being a inconvenient truth, there is a very large degree of convenient lie. Not helped at all by cause following from effect. Rather than wasting our time arguing about climate change, would it not make good sense for an incoming Conservative government (the best sort of incoming government I might add), to commission the RMCS to get to the bottom of this matter, rather than simply excepting the spin, put on Co2 by the Liberal elite of America.

accepting the spin not excepting I of course mean!

“I assume from your odd comments that you see no problem with Lilley and Lawson’s oil links.”

It is absolutely not a problem as far as I am concerned. Far better to have Members of parliament and the Lords, engaging in sensible business rather than destroying it, which seems to be the socialist way.

Oh goody! now can we focus on Mandelson and his attack on the internet? Why the focus cyberlockers all of a sudden? Why the sudden change in policy and a push for harsh draconian measures on internet users, it’s all a bit insidious isn’t it? Let us not forget that nuLabour has been pandering to the interests of companies since day one, F1 anyone? and often it’s in spite of the public good.

Could we now have a list of all the national and international grants received by the High Priests of Climate Change?

Organ Grinder – It’s not just the liberal elite of America that foists this global warming nonsense on us. At present the so called “peer reviewed” science amounts to around 40 people reviewing each other. Yes just 40 people.

As a now ex Labour voter I was impressed by Will Smith on Sky News and came here believing that this place was evidence based.

I can accept that people can be of different political persuasions but as soon as you actually post comments which are both evidence based and true, one of the moderators on this site will immediately attack you (always your character and not what you have posted).

Not one single moderator has posted any comments regarding the fact the source code of the climate change software is manipulated to give false higher global temperatures than actually exist. So the data is false.

If I really believed in this climate change stuff AND this site was really evidence based I would be screaming blue murder towards the so called environment scientists who had made a fool of me.

Just out of interest why aren’t you Will?

‘Lord Lawson’s true motivations are now becoming clear,’ says Mr Straw.

You are right to raise these links and to ask what his motivations are but to immediately jump to the conclusion that he is expressing a particular viewpoint he doesn’t really believe in because it suits his business interests is cheap and actually quite nasty in my opinion. I fear you will go very far.

“We are a non-partisan blog. Because we are progressive and because of the aims we’re committed to, we often find ourselves in agreement with left of centre policies and politicians. But we are focused purely on the quality of policies and furthering progressive goals, rather than on promoting individual politicians and parties.”

Talk about scraping the barrel!

Lawson’s so called links to oil are about as tenuous as it is possible to get.

Will

You’ve got to be kidding me, right? I feel like I’ve woken up in a high school debate.

Ignoring the arguments regarding the altered data and code from the climategate leak, and attacking Lawson and Lilley’s motives with some spurious links to ‘Big oil’?

Man alive, the economic impacts of climate legislation may beggar us all at a time where we have conclusive proof that one of the biggest planks of AGW was based upon unreliable data, and scientists with a political agenda. Warming by ‘evil’ man made CO2 is clearly an unsafe ‘conviction’.

Just as we now desperately need to counter the real problem (big government), believers on the left are still frantically seeking ad hominems with which to deflect attention from their opponent’s more powerful arguments. Big Oil? Give me a break.

Quite fascinating comments string. A little contrition might have been called for – but no, what we see instead is the brazen climate-deniers (plus the standard trolls) out in force. What is so interesting about this is that it underlines the implicit message of the post itself: that, if you strip away the husky-hugging public persona of the ‘New Conservative’ Party, you rapidly find the ugly underbelly of the same old totally-out-of-date hard-right climate-denying deregulatory Tories. If Cameron and cronies get in, then presumably you guys will try to start pulling the strings, hard, via targetting his funders (incl fossil-fuel-money), his ‘base’ etc. . What a pretty spectacle that will be: Cameron desperately trying to convince the British public that the Conservatives are no longer the nasty Party, while you dinosaurs viciously attempt to undermine any and all efforts to take Britain into the 21st century. And meanwhile, the Amazon will continue burning…
If it wasn’t so terrifying, it would be hilariously funny.
Whenever there is a comments string like this, one can tell that the piece being commented on hit a nerve, and most likely revealed something deep and true…

Let me ask a question of the people who do not believe climate change is occurring: what evidence would convince you firstly that climate change is occurring, secondly that this poses a serious threat to humanity and thirdly that climate change is largely caused by human activity?

Gosh, this blog usually gets a few comments from Anon E Mouse and the occasional bluster from old beardy lefties like me. But mention Lawson and Lilley and there’s a huge influx of Tory Trolls. Must have struck a sore point with L&L.

Perhaps the Tory trolls could report back to whoever it was that sent them here that the next time that L&L make pronouncements on climate change they at least provide full disclosure. It’s called honesty.

Full Disclosure: I am not a member of any environmental group, but I studied science and was a research scientist for 6 years, so real science is ingrained in my DNA.

Richard Blogger – Since you say “real science is ingrained in my DNA” give me some of this real science.

Rupert Read – Again you do not know why the planet gets warmer (if it does). I am not a denier as you say – I just have not seen a single bit of evidence for it being man made and neither have you.

I think Rupert Read is spot on – the “nasty party” is very much alive and well in the blogosphere and, especially, on issues like climate change. I’ve yet to find credible critics of climate change who aren’t somehow linked to the fossil fuel lobby. The Lawson and Lilley revelations simply reinforce this point. Then there’s the lack of credentials. Why should I believe Lawson, a superannuated Tory politician over James Hansen, a peer-reviewed NASA climate scientist? Even those “scientists” who claim to “dissent” turn out to be out of their depth, and not qualified to comment. I’ve blogged about the list of 687 “dissenting scientists” compiled by US Senate Republicanshe vast majority of them are not climate scientists, nor have they published in fields relevant to climate science:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2009/09/climate-global-monbiot

Dave Cole – On the climate change occurring – software models that are accurate and not deliberately fudged to show predicted higher temperatures than actually occur. That would be a start.

Serious threat to humanity – isn’t that for you to prove Dave since you increase our taxes to to to – what happens to those taxes?

Climate change is occurring, has occurred and will occur constantly. You take a leap of faith (since you do not have a single item of proof) to believe we affect it. Maybe we do. Maybe we don’t.

No one knows but when Moonbot at the Guardian expresses concerns I wonder why you don’t question the whole thing yourself.

Why don’t you Cooling Earth Deniers have a thirst for the truth?

Anon E Mouse,

Here’s the software model: http://edgcm.columbia.edu/

Serious threat to humanity: one example would be that a 1m rise in sea levels would displace around half the population of Bangladesh (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00175563) (something on the order of eighty millions) causing major population shifts in a volatile region. Rinse and repeat for other parts of the world.

I agree with you that climate change occurs naturally; the evidence is that human actions, particularly but not exclusively the emission of carbon dioxide, is increasing the rate of that change in a particular direction that will severely affect us. There is good evidence to show that humans have affected the climate in the past – this use to be a wooded island, after all – and that this incarnation is particularly dangerous.

Do you think there is some sort of global conspiracy here to use climate change to raise taxes?

The vast bulk of scientific opinion is that anthropogenic climate change is a reality and a threat.

We could look at the 2009 report done by Doran & Zimmerman at the University of Illinois at Chicago, which received response from 3,146 earth scientists. It found that 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. (from Wikipedia; original at http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf).

Or we could look at the 2007 Harris Interactive report, which surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger. (Again, from Wikipedia; original at http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html)

It is possible that a series of mistakes has been made, and that actually climate change is not happening, or humans aren’t responsible for it. (The latter point is somewhat irrelevant so long as we are able to affect it.) I concede the possibility, but I think it highly unlikely. However, given the possibility and the disastrous consequences it could have, it would seem prudent to take remedial action.

It is also possible that climate change is a giant con. If climate change is a con, a lot of people have either been taking in by it or are involved in promoting it. There’s a list of some organisations that have said that humans are having a deleterious effect on the climate, or words to that effect, and it’s quite long:

The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia & Zimbabwe, The US Global Change Research Program, the International Arctic Science Committee, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the InterAcademy Council, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the Network of African Science Academies, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Polish Academy of Sciences, the US National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Science Foundation, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the European Geosciences Union, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of Australia, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the American Meteorological Society, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the UK Royal Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Organisation, the American Quaternary Association, the International Union for Quaternary Research, the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, the American Society for Microbiology, the Australian Coral Reef Society, the UK Institute of Biology, the Society of American Foresters, the Wildlife Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the Australian Medical Association, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, the World Health Organisation, the American Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Statistical Association, the Institution of Engineers Australia and the International Association for Great Lakes Research.

Dave Cole – Wow someone on LFF has actually answered me without smearing anyone – the normal policy of one of the moderators is to call me a “denier and extremist” even though I do not deny the climate change and since my view is shared by the majority of people in this country I can not be an extremist. Actually someone called Claire was very polite. Misguided but polite.

I need to check the software you link to but if it doesn’t include the effects of solar radiation from the Sun, the only heat source that directly affects this planet and particularly cloud formations, it cannot be accurate.

Also since the effects on the climate are of (allegedly) an increase in CO2 it will also need to include simulations of CO2 absorption by the planet. If it does that and does it accurately, unlike the software used by the CRU then I will change my opinion of the man made CO2 contribution to global warming.

Finally I do not believe there is a global conspiracy to raise taxes. Governments are fully capable of doing that without any excuses.

I am still awaiting an answer though regarding the fact Gordon Brown said the floods in 2007 were directly linked to climate change yet he didn’t stop either new coal fired power stations or Runway 3 at Heathrow.

The question is whether he is mad or bad.

Anon E Mouse,

Too kind.

I need to check the software you link to but if it doesn’t include the effects of solar radiation from the Sun, the only heat source that directly affects this planet and particularly cloud formations, it cannot be accurate.

I wish you hadn’t said that as it shows something of a lack of knowledge. The earth’s considerable mass and consequent gravity also heat the earth, as do radioactive decay. It would appear that the temperature on the surface of the earth is dependent on insolation, but the earth’s albedo and tendency to absorb heat are also relevant.

However, on page 12 of the manual, it says

The Data folder contains several files of climate-related data, including greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (measured) for 1850-2004, and values for the solar
constant for 1500-2009. There is also a link to additional datasets for a variety of observations available from the GISS web site (http://data.giss.nasa.gov).

I am glad that you don’t believe there is a global conspiracy to raise taxes. Why do you think all the organisations I listed above believe climate change is worth dealing with?

I am still awaiting an answer though regarding the fact Gordon Brown said the floods in 2007 were directly linked to climate change yet he didn’t stop either new coal fired power stations or Runway 3 at Heathrow.

As these are separate issues with no bearing on the science, I thought I’d answer in a new comment.

Firstly, it was an imprecise statement at best. It’s not possible to say that a particular severe weather event was either caused or worsened by climate change. If that’s what GB meant, he was wrong. If he meant that the available evidence suggests that climate change causes an increase in the number, frequency, severity and duration of such events and that this might explain, at least in part, the nature of the ’07 floods, he was right. Soundbites aren’t great for nuance

As I understand it, new coal is based on the idea that carbon capture and storage technologies will be available for deployment. As it happens, I think that’s wrong (for one thing, a lot of carbon will have to be transported from where it’s produced to where it will be sequestered, and I don’t think that’s been considered yet), but that’s the rationale.

On Heathrow, something on the order of a tenth of all the avgas burnt by planes using the airport is spent not going anywhere – either on the ground or stacking. R3 could – with intelligent capping! – reduce that amount. Whether or not that will happen is another question.

In both cases, the argument was that we could deal with climate change without destroying our economies.

xD.

Full disclosure – I used to do PR for some aerospace firms.

It’s funny to see the manmade-climate-change-deniers still desperately plugging away, after even most of the oil industry has abandoned them… [Here is one of very many places that you can read about the smooth transition of the manmade-lung-cancer denial industry into the manmade-climate-change denial industry:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 ]
You ‘climate-sceptics’ out there reading this are following in the distinguished footsteps of Phillip Morris and others who have profitted from the pollution of humans’ lungs – and now of our atmosphere. Congratulations! You are working – unpaid – for Exxon’s PR machine!… And guess what: even Exxon has stopped denying manmade climate change, now! Yuo are working, unpaid, for a PR machine that has moved on to pastures slightly less ungreen… You are a sad hangover, unaware even of your own historical occlusion… You are in the dustbin of history, and somehow you deny even _that_ to yourselves…

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/real-scandal-in-hacked-climate-change-e-mails-controversy

Anon,

Just to respond to your post from 9.52pm last night. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the moderators (Shamik and me) have attacked your character. We have removed the odd comment when commenters (yourself on one occasion) have got personal or drifted off topic. But we have only done this because we want LFF to be a space where people can engage in the issues in a pleasant environment.

And yes, of course, I was concerned by the events at CRU. But I don’t think it detracts from the overwhelming scientific evidence (laid out here in great detail by Dave Cole and on other blogs like Real Climate).

All the best,

Will

And the answer to Anon’s question about the government & Heathrow? They were almost certainly nobbled by industry lobbyists. Unfortunately, lobbying in this country is shrouded in secrecy (unlike, say the US), so you never know quite what is going on…

Will – I never suggested that you personally had attacked my character – you haven’t but to have Shamik call me “a denier” when he knows I’m not and “an extremist” when I share the majority view in the country on the matter is quite ridiculous and not exactly a mature way to run a blog.

When someone disagrees with your minority opinion to then start name calling them is hardly a healthy way to debate an issue.

Couple that with the fact that quite ludicrous and certainly personal attacks are made on a repeated basis and seemingly without challenge by Climate Cooling Deniers such as Rupert Read, makes the blog seem both biased and unfair.

This blog looks great but you moderators need to be less dogmatic in your approach to the topics you feature. One could argue it is very ‘New Labour’, all style and no substance but I think it’s more than that.

Research your topics guys and have less of them – if you are not willing to accept dissenting opinion and provide robust rebuttal then don’t post the items.

Your scattergun approach may or may not hit a target but the right wing successful blogs, Guido, Iain Dale, Dizzy etc have fewer but more important topics and they are more forensic in their targeting.

You feature too many articles, seem unable to substantiate them and the majority are really not stories. One example was that “Tory cuts would hit the eldest”. And Labour abolishing 10p tax for the poorest in our society didn’t hit the poorest? It’s an own goal Will and there is no story. Pots and kettles.

People should be entitled to post different views on your blog and reasonably expect a response to the questions and preferably one that is not rude.

I personally think that the moderators here should be more like Charles Clarke or Frank Field intellectually (not their leanings but the way they present) and less like Gordon Brown. These guys not only ‘get’ the mood of this nation but are able to articulate why they make the statements they do.

If the intention of LFF is to be an ‘Evidence Based’ blog then base the blog on evidence and aim at a wider audience. If you want to be a poster boy blog for New Labour then you are succeeding but I certainly wouldn’t want to support this dishonest fag end bunch no matter what my political leanings.

Dave Cole – Your initial point about how difficult it is eg earths mass and gravity etc show exactly why it is not an exact science and my point on the solar effects was in cloud generation and the further effects on the climate that has.

I haven’t had time to look at your links yet but unlike seemingly the majority of posters on this blog, I have a an open mind and am realistic so if the information shows you are correct “I’ll be back”…

Oh and I make no apology for my “lack of knowledge” on the subject. I also have a lack of knowledge on Bigfoot, the faked moon landings and aliens landing in Roswell…

Anon E Mouse,

I agree that is not an exact science; that doesn’t mean it can’t make useful predictions.

You repeatedly make an implicit assertion of knowledge on the subject by calling people ‘climate cooling deniers’, which suggests that you have at least made a brief survey of the available evidence. Not being even familiar with what heats the earth suggests that you have not actually done that.

There is a big difference between climate change and the conspiracy theories you mention. I’ll ask again – why do you think all the organisations I listed have come out and said that anthropogenic climate change is a reality with serious implications for humanity?

xD.

Anon,

Thanks for coming back. I think you make some fair points here – we’re a young blog (barely in our 3rd month) and finding our feet so it’s always useful to have this kind of feedback.

Personally, I think we have just about the right number of topics. We focus heavily on climate change, economics, migration, and local/devolved government. We then have a range of contributors and guests who write about a range of other topics. I don’t think we’ve got much wrong in our coverage although we have always amended and clarified when things weren’t quite right the first time. We don’t pre-moderate comments like on many blogs so readers can have their say in the comments.

On a couple of your specific points. I think that tempers have got a bit frayed between you, Rupert Read & Shamik at various points. I have judged that you crossed the line on one occasion for unnecessary comments made to Shamik. But I hope we can draw a line under all that now. Climate change is, of course, a controversial issue and opinions are deeply held but we are confident that the science supports our argument and will continue to write stories about many aspects of climate change. You are welcome to, and I’m sure will, continue to comment on these stories.

On 10p tax, I agree with you but the decision was announced over two years ago. If it happened today, we would cover it. But it has not and so we instead cover other examples of policy decisions that harm the poor like the Tory marriage tax plan or what is happening in Nottingham. If we have missed significant Labour policies in the last 3 months that have been regressive then do point them out and we will make amends.

Glad to have you on here and please continue to keep us honest.

All the best,

Will

Dave Cole – The scientific consensus in 1975 was for global cooling. At the time exactly the same debates took place, although in a different forum, between people equally passionate about their side of the argument. So why were they wrong then when the “Scientific opinion” said they were right? Scientific opinion is just that and I don’t believe it. I cannot take the leap of faith that is required.

The IPCC, Feb 2007 said the warming “very likely caused by man”. That’s their opinion.

Since it isn’t the opinion of the majority of people in the UK what gives our government the right to tax working poor people more on that basis? The Tories are just as bonkers as well. If the government said for example, we have directly spent £££ – whatever on buying sections of the rain forest or planting trees or installing solar panels in public buildings OK. But they don’t. They take new taxes say on plane flights and where does that money go?

And when people ask for proof this stuff exists they get silly responses from “snake oil salesmen” such as:

“Congratulations! You are working – unpaid – for Exxon’s PR machine!… And guess what: even Exxon has stopped denying manmade climate change, now! Yuo are working, unpaid, for a PR machine that has moved on to pastures slightly less ungreen… You are a sad hangover, unaware even of your own historical occlusion… You are in the dustbin of history, and somehow you deny even _that_ to yourselves…”

That posting in this blog is by an elected council official in Great Britain and does not encourage the majority of the public to take any of this stuff seriously.

Global Cooling Deniers like that mean that I will never again vote for the Greens locally and indeed will actively suggest, again locally, that other people do the same.

Which has nothing to do with the “science” of global warming and being time poor at present I still haven’t checked your links fully but I will.

Have a good weekend fella…

Anon E Mouse,

That was the opinion then. New facts have come to light. When the facts change, I review my opinions. What do you do?

I look forward to your review of the links. Bear in mind that there are several pieces of software for modelling the climate out there and the best ones need significant computing power.

One last point – why do you think all of those organisations I listed have come out to say that climate change is real, anthropogenic and dangerous?

xD.

Will says “…The more interesting question is whether Lilley and Lawson are motivated by the public good or private profit”. Why is private profit a bad thing?

@gracie the collie

There’s nothing wrong with private profit. But it should never influence public policy – especially something as important as the planet’s future.

Dave Cole – I nearly choked om my Cornflakes whist watching Andrew Marr interviewing Caroline Lucas, the leader of Greens on BBC 1 this morning…

…when Marr quite correctly stated the planet has got colder now for over a decade, including the latest data (luckily the data hadn’t been destroyed by the CRU) Lucas stated that she agreed the planet had got colder – obviously she said the overall trend was upwards but hey ho.

So I’d like to propose Caroline Lucas for LFF’s “Progressive” of the week and (in her case at least) I will no longer call her a Global Cooling Denier because she isn’t.

Well done Caroline Lucas. Now where’s Rupert Read…

Anon E Mouse,

Three points.

1. The figures for my (sadly fictional) bank account over the last twenty weeks are:

10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90.

Overall trend is upwards, particularly as the bit before would (in this crude analogy) extend for rather longer.

2. You will note that I talk about climate change rather than global warming. Although average global temperatures may drop, variation may increase and there may be significant changes in particular areas. The polar ice could completely melt, flooding loads of places, but the average temperature of the planet could still drop (I’m not saying this is likely, just conceptually possible).

3. Why do you think all of those organisations I listed have come out to say that climate change is real, anthropogenic and dangerous?

Dave Cole – My end point is that since Lucas is honest (which is why I qualified the point about overall trend) why do Climate Cooling Deniers like Rupert Read not agree the planet is cooling?

Your numbers put up a fair (at present) and easy way to illustrate the situation as you see it. Why can’t Rupert Read?

I agree that climate change exists, is serious but having not had time to read the info on your links I don’t know why they would say it.

Anon E Mouse,

I think you have misunderstood me. The fact that there have been drops in global average temperature over the last ten years doesn’t mean parts of the planet haven’t been warming (the bits covered in ice that will melt and flood us all, but hey ho) and doesn’t mean that the trend isn’t upwards. Put another way, banging on about ‘climate cooling denial’ is based on an oversimplification so gross as to be useful and, frankly, a little bit pointless.

I kept asking the question about the organisations I listed because you said

At present the so called “peer reviewed” science amounts to around 40 people reviewing each other. Yes just 40 people.

and

I just have not seen a single bit of evidence for it being man made and neither have you.

and

You take a leap of faith (since you do not have a single item of proof) to believe we affect it.

and

Why don’t you Cooling Earth Deniers have a thirst for the truth?

and

the “science” of global warming

Which suggested to me that you did not accept that climate change was real, anthropogenic and serious. The logical conclusion I drew was that you had to disagree with all the learned bodies was that you considered them wrong through scientific incompetence or outright fraud.

I want to clarify what you mean by ‘climate change exists’. That’s a bit like saying ‘gravity exists’. Do you believe that climate change is occurring because the activities of our species and that this change poses a serious threat to us? If not, do you think all those organisations I listed are stupid or lying?

Dave Cole – I believe that the changes in our climate occur naturally and go in cycles.

I believe that the actions of mankind burning fossil fuels increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere which in turn increases global warming.

I do not believe an increase in the overall temperature of the magnitude we have seen since 1850 (ie not much) poses a serious threat to us – solutions will be found – it was believed that the planet couldn’t sustain 9 billion people but it does and (globally) food isn’t short – something will come along. And anyway as the oil runs out there will be less of it to burn so less fossil fuels will produce less CO2 proportionately(ish).

I believe there are other reasons for climate change not just the man made production of CO2.

Lastly I believe the CRU were both lying AND stupid and they certainly falsified the data in their favour to show greater expected increases in temperature to suit their case. Then just to be sure they weren’t rumbled they destroyed the data so no one can challenge it.

That stinks and is inexcusable behavior and the persons involved should have been sacked the day this was discovered.

Of course they weren’t and so called “evidenced based” opinionated sites like this actually have articles like “Climatic Research Unit data is valid – don’t let the sceptics tell you otherwise”.

Well however you look at it that data is invalid – they have tainted and admit that themselves.

Had these people not destroyed the raw data we could have checked it but they did so whether you like it or not the data is NOT valid from the CRU and where’s the stink from the Climate Cooling Deniers, annoyed that their case is weakened?

There isn’t one because it’s a leap of faith and (presently) I don’t wish to take that leap. Sorry Dave.

Then I have to ask the question again: are all those organisations I listed bad scientists or conscious frauds?

Dave – Then I have to answer the question again: are all those organisations I listed bad scientists or conscious frauds?

I don’t know.

I will look at your links but I am swamped at work at the moment – honestly I’m on 14 hour days with only Sunday off – it’s a killer.

I must point out that you are as tenacious as I am Dave and that is a rare thing – mind you you’re still wrong on (man made) CO2 driven global warming….

Anon E Mouse,

Well, it’s been an instructive debate. Fun, too.

Good luck with the work – for what it’s worth, I feel your pain!

[...] and confused.” Meanwhile, the Telegraph reports that the Global Warming Policy Foundation, launched last week by climate sceptic Lord Lawson, has had to correct a graph showing global temperatures on their [...]

[...] as having “no authority on this subject”. The Independent outlines links, first revealed by Left Foot Forward, between Tory grandees Lord Lawson and Peter Lilley and big oil. Further revelations on the blog [...]

[...] now, Left Foot Forward discusses some of the Oil Lobby’s connections with the Tory Party, it is well worth a [...]

[...] Left Foot Forward’s revelations about the links of climate sceptic Conservative grandees, Peter Lilley and Lord [...]

[...] also eerily reminiscent of previous high-profile climate denial efforts. Curiously, the GWPF also shares its offices with the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining – whose Petroleum and Drilling Engineering [...]

[...] Lawson’s claims that the science on climate change “isn’t reliable” and exposed his links to big [...]

RT @paulwmk Could Lawson's links to the oil industry explain his stance on climate change? http://bit.ly/8PB8Js #bbcqt

@bbcquestiontime will noone question Lawson's links with the oil industry? http://bit.ly/8PB8Js

Oo-er Nigel Lawson's climate change skepticism rumbled http://bit.ly/8PB8Js #bbcqt (via @paulwmk)

Oil-er shurely? RT @davecameroon: Oo-er Nigel Lawson's climate change skepticism rumbled http://bit.ly/8PB8Js #bbcqt (via @paulwmk)

Oh dear, Lord Lawson representing the oil companies on #bbcqt http://bit.ly/8PB8Js (via @AndrewTindall) #ClimateChange. Roll on #ThisWeek

RT @RichardSmedley: Oh dear, Lord Lawson representing the oil companies on #bbcqt http://bit.ly/8PB8Js (via @AndrewTindall) #ClimateChange. Roll on #ThisWeek

I knew there must be something behind Lord Lawson's Climate Change denial #bbcqt http://tinyurl.com/ygb3whh – all makes perfect sense.

Oh dear, Lord Lawson representing the oil companies on #bbcqt http://bit.ly/8PB8Js (via @AndrewTindall) #ClimateChange. /via @RichardSmedley

@channel4news pls question Lawson about his links to oil companies! http://bit.ly/8PB8Js people need to know to make an informed judgement

[...] the story is being cited in its ori­ginal form on the web­site of cli­mate den­iers – and min­ing industry front-group – the Global Warming Policy Foundation, replete with the added cred­ib­il­ity its status as a [...]

Something to read: Oil links of Tory climate denial grandees | Left Foot Forward: Richard WiseTags: no_tag Posted … http://bit.ly/cJwi8C

God there are some awful posts on this thread. I hate Tories!