Letter: Warm words

Published on Saturday 11 February 2012 00:00

CLARK Cross’s claim that “the planet has not warmed for 15 years” is not based on 30,000 measuring stations (Letters, 9 February).

It is based on an article in a tabloid (Daily Mail, 29 January) that so badly misrepresented the data that the Met Office issued a statement calling it “misleading”, and containing “numerous errors”. The Met Office added that the decade 2000-9 was the warmest on record, and 2010 one of the warmest years yet.

(Dr) Stephen Moreton

Warrington

Comments

There are 11 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

11

Slioch.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 01:56 PM

#9 cajwbroomhill retorts, "meteorologists, overlapping with "climate scientists" and using the same methods, provide notoriously chancy forecasts." ..... Thereby confirming yet again how little you understand about climate science.

• Report Unsuitable

10

cajwbroomhill

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 06:40 AM

No 8: Your styles are more (scientifically) dishonest than mendacious, and, for the last time, that dishonesty and distortion, thence inadequate scientific analysis and conclusion stems from your starting with a hypothesis, larded with conscience-stricken melodrama, then finding anything and everything in the literature to endorse your prejudices. You may not recognise it, but that's not true science, it is a mixture of data cherry-picking, secular "religion" and politics. Think about that, if you can, because it could get you back on the path to science, which you have lost sight of.

• Report Unsuitable

9

cajwbroomhill

Monday, February 13, 2012 at 07:15 PM

As usual, Slioch, you think you and your pet, carefully-selected scientists' opinions are the repository of all the answers, yet meteorologists, overlapping with "climate scientists" and using the same methods, provide notoriously chancy forecasts. Your faith is as shaky and arrogant as your manners.Do not accuse me of ad hominem attacks, which are usually irrelevant to argument. In your case, however, you deserve a good kicking, metaphorically at least, but I abhor gratuitous violence. Therefore, I say get lost, you're rumbled, "Mr Grouser"!

• Report Unsuitable

8

Slioch.

Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 07:08 PM

#7 cajwbroomhill ....... Thus writes someone who hasn't a clue about the science of climate change, is unable to answer the simplest question about it, and yet thinks that he knows better than the thousands of scientists around the world who study the subject and who warn of dangerous consequences of continued reliance on fossil fuels for energy production (or worse, falsely accuses them of mendacity).

• Report Unsuitable

7

cajwbroomhill

Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 02:32 PM

Yes, indeed, (A)GW is of either no or quite unknown relevance to us, unless, like windustry subsidy junkies, we benefit from acquiring fellow-subjects' citizens' hard earned, or, if we're shabby politicos hoping to get votes from the gullible or, just as bad, feart of losing a place at the top table or trough. We should worry about the politicians in charge of our nation, who could and should abandon it all forthwith, as a nightmare of a misunderstanding andor scam, whose madness has gone on far too long already and bids foul to wreck our already puggled prosperity, brought to this state mainly by the B, B and now C trio of unworthy holders of high office.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Malcolm Parkin

Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Who cares. Britains needless pursuit of CO2 reduction to reduce alleged global warming will either bankrupt us or reduce us to such a meagre lifestyle that getting enough to eat will probably be the real issue for the next generation of environmentally friendly green children. The whole thing is a self made industry for pseudo-scientists and politicians. The bandwagon of the century. It also draws attention away from the real economic issues that face Britain. We simply don't have the luxury of even thinking about it. China, Korea, and India are not concerned, so why are we? Because there is a good living to be made from it for the few, that's why. Listen to Clark Cross. He makes sense. Malcolm Parkin

• Report Unsuitable

5

samcoldstream

Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 01:33 PM

Plenty of misinformation, disinformation, and lack of truth?

• Report Unsuitable

4

steve660

Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM

John #1: Al Gore did NOT launch the global warming hypothesis. It predates him by decades. He merely helped popularise it. As for access being sought to Mann's e-mails, it is only so that they can be trawled through in search of sound bites that can be wrenched out of context and misinterpreted to suit the deniers' agenda. Exactly as happened with the East Anglia e-mails. I wonder how many prominent deniers would offer up their e-mail archives for public scrutiny?

• Report Unsuitable

3

Ron Greer

Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 09:26 AM

Pot, kettle and black---and that's just the IPCC. Have a google at ClimateReaists.com and Weatheraction.

• Report Unsuitable

2

Back To The Future

Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 08:08 AM

"....the Met Office issued a statement calling it “misleading”, and containing “numerous errors”. Well, they would know all about that type of thing I suppose.

• Report Unsuitable

1

john cameron

Saturday, February 11, 2012 at 06:20 AM

The fall-out from the Climategate whistleblower continues in America with an ongoing freedom-of-information lawsuit leveled against the University of Virginia. Access is being sought as a matter of public interest to some 12,000 emails received or sent by Michael Mann while he was on the staff of this publicly-funded university. Dr Mann and his infamous ‘hockey-stick’ temperature curve were part of the propaganda used by Al Gore to launch his highly controversial global warming hypothesis. The University insists disclosure would ‘damage the reputations of its staff’ but tax-payers are entitled to know whether or not they have been hoodwinked by charlatans. Trillions of dollars are at stake with policy decisions based on this work so it cannot be taken on trust that that this secretive cabal of climate scientists is telling the truth.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.