Then he must be either mad or lying. Glaciers? Why won’t anyone defend their position and explain why that claim was wrong?

What are you Global Warming – sorry it’s not any more I forgot – Climate Change I meant supporters afraid of?

And as for Joss Garman, considering his paymasters, the phrase “He would say that wouldn’t he” springs to mind.

India has pulled out of the IPCC. “”There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-to-pull-out-of-IPCC.html

Now that it’s been proved that this was just a manufactured skeptic machine…

Probably not, but what they do achieve is to damage the public perception of the independent, unbiased scientist.

What irritates me about the CRU emails was the effort to withhold source information from independent scrutiny (including avoiding FoI requests). For scientists to issue a report and then actively withhold the source information is a matter of concern for ‘believers’, genuine sceptics (by which I mean persons interested in testing the merits of any argument put before them without bias) and screaming deniers alike.

If the arguments prepared by CRU are sound, (which I reckon they probably are, though I’m not a scientist) then they should stand up to even hostile scrutiny. In fact, surely this would gain them greater merit?

By refusing to release information the CRU has laid itself open to precisely the sorts of claims of self-interest and money-grabbing rightly levelled at the deniers themselves. And if they do stand by their analysis of the data, they have done this for no good reason at all. In this regard Chris Mooney is right to say:
“ the controversy highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when science comes under attack.”

Given the potential consequences of a breakdown in trust in our scientists, and considering the awful ramifications of what they are telling us, I think the most important thing is to concentrate on re-establishing that trust as soon as possible.
If the arguments prepared by CRU are sound, (which I reckon they probably are, though I’m not a scientist) then they should stand up to even hostile scrutiny. In fact, surely this would gain them greater merit? To refuse to release information is to lay yourself open to precisely the sort of claims of self-interest and money-grabbing rightly levelled at the deniers themselves.

The one thing that has been hurt most in all of this is the public perception of the independent, unbiased scientist. Given the potential consequences of a breakdown in trust in our scientists (given what they are telling us) I think the most important thing is to concentrate on re-establishing that trust as soon as possible.

Of course in a fashion typical of the left at present, you talk at people and smear those who disagree with your scientifically flawed views yet never answer a single point any dissenters raise. If you make these posts Joss at least have the courtesy to substantiate the claims you make. So let’s try this:

Glaciers gone by 2035? Rainforests 40% reduction? Water vapour? 1998 hottest year on record? And on and on and on and on.

Oh and I’ve read your diatribes here before Joss so I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer from you or any kind of debate.