For some reason Sky didn't give me a copy of The Times this morning when I did the paper review alongside the incredibly beautiful Olivia Cole (unbelieveably the sister of Tory Bear), otherwise I would have talked about the front page story on climate change.
A poll for The Times shows that only 41% of people accept that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Thirty two per cent believe the link is not yet proved. Eight per cent say it is environmentalist propaganda and 15% say that the world is not warming.
So as I have constantly said, contrary to what Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth maintain, the debate is not over, and the argument is not yet won. If that were the case, they would have convinced more than 41% of the British people that global warming is man made.
UPDATE 3pm: As I thought would happen, the man made climate change fundamentalists have tried to attribute words and sentiments to me that I didn't utter or have. I reported a FACT. That Britons are unconvinced. I then reported another FACT: that the debate cannot possibly be over if so many people are unconvinced. I didn't even offer an opinion on man made global warming. So as usual, leftist idiots try to accuse me and others of being "deniers". They are like unilateral disarmers in the 1980s who having been comprehensively beaten over that left wing cause, have now adopted climate change as their new religion of choice. And woe betide anyone who should utter anything vaguely heretical.
Global warming is a con trick by the left to tax us more.
Glad to see that common sense is prevailing with the man in the street and suspicion of politicians motives in the AGW scam is being seen as the con job that it is.
You only have to read
to see how we are being conned.
And I'd be willing to bet that if the poll was taken amongst those with a decent scientific education the figure would be a damned-site less than 41%.
I think the more wealthier you are then the more likely you are not to believe in global warming.
I don't know why but it just appears that way.
BTW Gordon Brown is the 29th most powerful person in the world, North Korea's Kim Jong-il comes in at 24th in the Forbes list.
Would you say, given the remarkable similarity of those figures to electoral polling, that the public is "unconvinced" about the Conservatives' suitability for government?
Well said. I've twice tried to contradict the Times leader on their website, but ...they don't like it up 'em.
As a PhD scientist, and climate sceptic, I'm not sure that being labelled a village idiot by the Times is a complement or what.
What is the debate, though? Is it a scientific one about whether climate change is happening, or is it whether the general public thinks climate change is happening?
The scientific debate is pretty well settled, as much as scientific debate can ever be: there is evidence, and a theory that fits it.
Whether the general public believes (trusts) the scientists is clearly a different matter. What do you suggest?
This poll proves one thing: the public believe what they read/ see in the media.
on the other hand, you do call yourself "Merlin". That has to be at least a warning flag in the assessment of village idiocy?
We need to start a Global cooling scare and wheel out an assorted bunch of wannabe celebrity scientists backed up by on the make politicians who will all swear that a new ice age is upon us.
We can back it up with a few dubious climate models produced at huge expense by supercomputers to make them appear more credible. Then demand more and more grants to investigate this phenomenon which may have huge implications for Mankind....cue roll of drums and sinister music ..... pictures of snow covered fields with only cows horns poking out above white blanket ..... children frozen in ice .... cavemen in mammoth skins walking over ice covered south downs etc etc etc
I am sure that we can persuade % to do documentary
@Pogo "And I'd be willing to bet that if the poll was taken amongst those with a decent scientific education the figure would be a damned-site less than 41%."
Then I would say they had spent the time learning to accept blindly what "scientists" say without looking at fundamental information and the physics that underpins it.
Iain, on the paper review on radio 4 this morning most of the papers front headlines were read out but when they got to The Times they read out the Business headlines not what was on the front page. Strange that.
Also have you read the piece and the Times Leading Article? Basically anyone who doesnt believe, is portrayed as a village idiot.
Its that sort of abuse that makes me so suspicious of all of this.
Why do we all have to believe the same thing?
Alex nails the point which Iain fails to grasp: is this a debate about what the public believes or the science?
It's like saying there is still a debate on evolution because some people believe in creationism.
Perhaps more pertinently for Iain and the commentators on this post: what does it say about Cameron's acceptance of made-made climate change? Should he renounce that position because opinion polls are apparently against him or campaign more strongly to raise awareness among the public assuming he is right?
Forget the science - just look at the financial beneficiaries (including taxation) of AGW. Al Gore, the evangelist, is set to become a Billionaire on the back of it!
"The scientific debate is pretty well settled, as much as scientific debate can ever be: there is evidence, and a theory that fits it."
There is pretty good evidence that some of the experiments often cited are flawed or even falsified. Similarly there are enough people (think that Danish environmentalist, Nigel Lawson and plenty of other scientists) who have severe doubts about the "programme".
I'm not qualified by any means to say who is right and who is wrong - but I am smart enough to realise that there is a lot of doubt out there from some pretty credible sources.
Funny this - the scientific community is united in its support for evolution, and we call the creationists a bunch of looneys. The scientific community is united in its support for man-made climate change, and half the population that calls the creationists looneys calls the scientists looneys. Pick a side, for goodness sake.
Man made climate change is very much unproven.
Solar driven climate change is.
Galactic ( believe it or not ) is also ( where do you think the Ice ages came from ).
Geological climate change is ( exploding volcanoes etc ).
There is a massive self interested industry crossing extreme left wing politics to corporate protectionism that back the warmist religion - thankfully people have more sense.
Alas poor Britain, caught between a totally discredited New Labour and the increasingly loony right “better off out”, “AGW is a left wing hoax” of the Tories. Some years ago I decided to vote against whoever was currently in power. Politics really has become the last refuge of the scoundrel, to paraphrase the good doctor.
Delighted to find I`m one of 41%...was beginning to think I was on my own.....chin chin..
@Alex: "The scientific debate is pretty well settled, as much as scientific debate can ever be: there is evidence, and a theory that fits it."
Far from it old bean... There is, indeed, empirical evidence that the planet has warmed in the last 50 years or so, but there's nothing unusual or alarming about either the temperature at its peak (as we appear to be in a cooling phase at the moment) or the rate of warming.
As for the theory, I assume that you mean "greenhouse CO2"? Which certainly doesn't fit the data. The frequency of pirate attacks has a far greater correlation with global temperature than CO2 levels! :-)
Just out of interest, what do you reckon about banning the deadly chemical dihydrogenmonoxide from the food chain?
The science is settled only so far as the fact that climate changes.
Whether we are the main cause of it and could realistically do anything to stop it if we were the cause are most definately not settled.
Until all the eco-religionists turn their collective clocks back 300 years, give up electricity and start living in huts on subsistence farms and actually practice what they are preaching they can shove the melon dogma up their arses.
I call myself Merlin ?
I just like the name dear boy. Nothing more than that.
Have you heard 'most Britons'? What they believe is quite often not very well researched. I think I am putting that mildly.
Some of the latest evidence of man made global warming. Not.
Climate Change is a fact. Happens all the time. For millions of years.
Is it man-made?
Well the last theories said warming was inevitable. Then not Then we're in a cooling period.
Whilst the pro changers are so intolerant of opposoing views, they will lose the arguments.
Sorry Iain you're drawing a fallacious comparison between what people in the street think and what is scientific reality.
A recent survey showed half of Britons don't believe in Darwinian evolution but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means there's a lot of uneducated people out there.
The same for the people who choose to believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design. There is zero scientific debate that the Earth is billions of years old and that evolution can explain the diversity of life here; yet thanks to people like the Discovery Institute and your friend Nadine, children are now being told there are alternative explanations.
And as for anyone saying that it's 'common sense' there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change, common sense tells you that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe. Fortunately most of us learned not to trust common sense some time back in the 16th Century.
@ Cynic said...
"We need to start a Global cooling scare and wheel out an assorted bunch of wannabe celebrity scientists backed up by on the make politicians who will all swear that a new ice age is upon us."
The main players in the current AGW scam tried the ice age scare in the 70's, it fizzled out probably because the Sinclair Spectrum did not have suffient power to baffle everyone with bullshit computer models.
What debate? I've yet to see one in the UK. I can't see the BBC hosting a series of debates, although that would be welcome.
If you haven't seen Lord Monckton's debunking of the scam, please do. He rips it to shreds. Even congressional committees are sceptical now, if the recent mauling they gave Al Gory is anything to go by.
I find it quite worrying that 41% believe the earth is warming when even the climate change propagandists say that the earth is cooling (hence the change from "global warming" to "climate change").
Iain I would love you to go to the Horn of Africa where drought now occurs 3 out of every 4 years compared to once a decade at the start of the 20th century. Or visit the melting glaciers on Kilimanjaro that have ruined people's water supply. Climate change is not something that's about to happen - for many of the world people it is a reality and I find the denial of it actually pretty offensive, particularly as it is the poorest suffering most.
The stupidity of some peopel is frightening. And even scarier is the fact they revel in their ignorance and show it off as if it were a virtue.
If any of you loudmouth pub scientists have a half a clue about climate change and think the theories are wrong, then point to the factual inaccuracies and write a Nature Paper outlining just where people are being scammed and what the world's scientists are fooling us about. Any old idiot can come on th einternet and spout off with vague comments to a largely similarly ignorant readership.
@Roger Thornhill: "Then I would say they had spent the time learning to accept blindly what "scientists" say without looking at fundamental information and the physics that underpins it."
I'd say exactly the opposite. The only "scientists" who manage to get their views widely disseminated are the "Deans" of AGW. The only effective way of developing a scepticism is actually to look at the data - hence the need for a decent scientific education - something sadly lacking in just about all "environmental correspondents".
Oh, BTW... Computer models are not data. Nor are they "science".
Charles: "Similarly there are enough people (think that Danish environmentalist, Nigel Lawson and plenty of other scientists) who have severe doubts about the "programme"."
That Danish environmentalist would be Bjorn Lomborg? He's an economist rather than a scientist (and actually also agrees with most of AGW theory, just questions cost/benefit of current responses).
As for Nigel Lawson: journalist/politician, no scientific training.
Personally I'm not an expert either, but the rabid paranoia on the subject you often find on the internet (as demonstrated in this thread) doesn't exactly do the debate much credit.
The reason *many* (by no means all despite the misreporting) scientists believe this is that their research grants depend on it being true.
The reason most of the public don't is because they see how readily politicians use it as an opportunity to take more tax off us.
The Times editorial this morning was an absolute disgrace. Never wise to label around 60% of your readers as village idiots.
I see at last climate change is being debunked and debated. Talking of grade 1 weapons of mass destruction misleading propaganda, may I mention the other one?
The health lobby in the 1970s and 80s made up the junk science of the harm of second hand smoke (SHS). SHS to many is irriating or annoying even, but as a health hazard, certainly not. The evidence is at best contradictory and debatable or more probably unrue. It was a deliberate ploy by the anti smoking movement to shame smokers and governments to bring in smoking bans. Please read the following links and quotes.
This is Sir George Godber the ex Chief Medical Officer. "it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS."
This is a 38 year study's conclusions. The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” And “Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse.”
I find it no coincidence that Amanda Sandford of ASH is a Green.
Science is not a debate. Scientific disputes are settled by the evidence and it matters not whether one or a billion people disagree with its findings. Sadly, many people do not understand this.
I, for my part, am agnostic about anthropogenic global climate change. I am not a "denier": I just don't know how much the climate will change and sceptical about whether the climate change predictions will come to pass because there are so many factors involved. But the point is that climate change is real.
The political response to it is not a matter of fact and is one of opinion. A poll on what should be done to limit the damage to our environment caused by climate change would be a more valuable exercise. There is no argument over the fact that climates do change.
A similar poll in some states of the USA, or some Muslim countries, on the truth of otherwise of evolution would uncover similar figures. Just because someone disagrees with something does not make it untrue. Iain, you were recently ridiculed by some for your musical tastes. Taste is individual opinion. There have been plenty of big selling singles that have not stood the taste consensus test over many years.
> ...the debate is not over, and the argument is not yet won.
The scientific debate is over. There is no credible scientific disagreement that human activity is dangerously warming the planet.
Convincing a scientifically-illiterate public is another matter.
Conflating public ignorance with credible science doesn't reflect well on your understanding.
Also, your one poll contradicts several that show the majority of people recognise the need for urgent action.
And all other things considered, why is it that all things to do with climate change are negative. That one really gets me.
And the paper review on R4 this morning only covered the Times story 'til 7:40. It was missing at 8:40.
As in all things, follow the money (and power).
wf - (ph)-no-tan. Very apt for global cooling.
I think you are being disingenuous here, Iain.
Many people, including the majority of Americans do not believe in evolution. So there may be "debates" on the subject.
But for anyone of a scientific disposition, there is, quite literally, no debate. Evolution occurred and every bit of evidence points to it.
I am not saying climate change science is quite as clear yet, but it is damned close.
What fools think does not really count.
You appear to be under the impression that scientific facts are amenable to public opinion. They're not. You could produce a poll showing how many people doubted that the earth was round. So what?
Its a bit like the Eu really. The population think we should have less of it, but the politicians keep shoving it down our throughts.
The EU is of course all for the global warming as they get even more control and it costs us more in taxes.
And of course only poor people pay taxes.
Europe is becoming a very expensive place to live in. High fuel costs, high food costs, high housing costs and high taxes.
Paul Said: "What fools think does not really count."
In a democracy, fools DO count. And those arrogant enough to ignore that lose.
Evolution and Anthropogenic Global Warming are nowhere near similar, never mind 'damned close'.
One is an elegant theory which has brilliantly and simply predicted and explained 150 years of of observations, the other is based on a decade of computer models which fail to match even past events.
All of these models rely on unobserved positive feedback terms create significant temperature rises. Even in the last ten years the observed climate has moved in the opposite direction to that predicted by these models.
Recent observations from satellites point to increased radiative cooling, rather than less as would be required by the models tp provide positive feedback.
Similarly the percentage of man made carbon dioxide emissions remaining airborne have remained constant, indicating carbon sinks are not saturated, another requirement of AGW.
Carbon dioxide itself is not a pollutant but a necessary trace gas, the addition of which to the atmosphere aids the plant life our ecosystem depends on. The CO2 percentage of the atmosphere would be too small to see on a pie chart, and the amount we contribute would again be difficult to see.
Science is ABOUT skepticism. We used to be a credulous species which believed whatever the man in the hat said. We have now realised that this is wrong and that a skeptical approach to knowledge allied with predictive and falsifiable theories is a more sensible way to add to the fount of human knowledge.
Few would argue against making massive changes to the way we live if AGW was backed up by similarly robust science.
If you take one thing from this post let it be that the system we are attempting to understand (climate) is complex and not well understood, and we should be wary of repeating the canard that there is no scientific debate to be had.
This "well-attested thesis" as The Times refers to it is nothing of the sort. If you go back to when MMGW as we then use to call it) first kicked off there was actually very little science to support it. Basically all the alarmists had was the hockey stick and a loudmouthed failed US politician to shout about it. Since then we've really only had numerous computer models - which are not science in any form - and a growing, very select, incestuous band of useful idiots to shout about them. Papers cross referred to by the same small band; IPCC reports doctored by this same small group; ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesnt share their view etc - hardly the hallmarks of a "well-attested thesis".
We still keep getting told about the CO2 link despite global average temperatures flattening and falling over the last 12 years. Just because two lines on a graph head in the same direction doesnt mean there is any causal connection between them. This is a supposition not a proven piece of science. For another perfect example go and look at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster website to see the graph of rising temperature vs the number of pirates in the world....frivolous, but it makes the point.
It's only in the last few years that any real, peer-reviewed, evidence based science has managed to fight its way through the alarmist's shout-fest. The vast bulk of this new work shows that the "facts" so beloved of the ecochondriacs are nothing of the sort. Only today a paper from India's leading climate scientitst shows that the Himalayan glaciers are growing not shrinking, the complete opposite of the position taken by the alarmists.
Unfortuanately, and not entirely against their will, our leaders have been completely hoodwinked by the Climate Change lobby (note the cynical change of name since the early 90's) and are following policies that have no basis in fact but, conveniently, do work towards increasing their control over us all, what we do and how we live our lives.
Where are the men of principle in our political system who will stand against this fraud?
Anyone with a neutral stance on this debate can see "deniers" trying to make objective criticism whilst supporters of man-made global warming theories throwing out insults.
@ Joe Powell said...
"Or visit the melting glaciers on Kilimanjaro that have ruined people's water supply."
Not this old chestnut again. Go and read this at WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-this-kilimanjaro-rubbish-again/
Here's a talking point for the pub later.
If the miners strike was 25 years later than it was, who would the left support? The heroic miner? Or the heroic government shutting down all those mines and saving all the fluffy polar bears?
(My personal view is that they'd be like the old computers stuck on a bad repetitive program "Does not compute, does not compute..." and eventually they would explode. Actually for what it's worth this more than anything proves that GW is simply a middle class guilt trip; it nothing other than middle class liberal values in search of a religion).
Climatic history goes back just a little further* than "since records began" ie 50 years ago).
*4,600,000,000 years - give or take a few million.
@ David Cognito
"There is no credible scientific disagreement that human activity is dangerously warming the planet."
Yes there is, yes there is. yes there is.
Do some research you lazy bastard there's a wealth of papers if you look even a little, and remember stating that the evidence is indisputable makes an utter mockery of science. There is no such thing as incontrovertible scientific evidence. That's an as uniformed bollocks statement as you can get.
Any fule kno that.
I can't believe that someone who labels those who have commented here as 'pub scientists' and tells them to publish their views in Nature then refers to 'realclimate.org' - a website run by the coterie around a certain Dr Mann, who presented the world with the now totally discredited Hockey Stick.
Actually - I can believe it, because warmists tend not to debate facts, especially those which are inconvenient for their 'science', but prefer to attack any they decry as 'deniers' on a personal level.
It doesn't wash any longer, chaps!
Think of it as a betting proposition dear boy.
The odds are about 1000/1 on that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has gone up, is going up and will go on going up if we do nothing.
The odds are about 10/1 on that this increase, unchecked, will raise the world's average temperature by 2-4º C over the next 40 or 50 years. That would have expensive consequences.
The chance of less than 2º C is well under 1 in 20 and the chance of over 4º is well over 1 in 20. Over 4º would hurt us all, a lot.
Pace the rabid believers (anybody who 'beleives' in any scientific proposition rather than just accepting it as the best available basis for thought and action is in danger of going rabid), it does not really matter for our future whether humans caused the rise so far or not. What matters is what we can now do to reduce the chance of a very nasty outcome for us, our children and our grandchildren.
How we place our bets is still open. As always, there is a good case for spreading our bets over different solutions; and another case for getting on before the odds worsen.
As to it all being a conspiracy or a con-trick, the reluctance among the scientists to accept the original evidence for global warming was fierce. But, in the end, scientists can't hide from evidence and still remain scientists. The insurers did not like the evidence either. But they cannot stay in business if they hide from the evidence. They now campaign for action.
It is a bet we cannot dodge.
Dr Halsall, Sir, you say you are a socialist democrat and yet you are quite happy to dismiss opinions of others as "fools". Typical arrogant response of the left when they get the view of the people of this country and they disagree with it.
Doubtless when the country gets Tory government voters are "fools", but are "wise" when the country votes labour.
What is your opinion about man (sic) made global warming? How would ou have answered the questions in today's Times poll?
The fact is that the globe is currently cooling & has been for 10 years. It is currently cooling strongly, though CO2 is still rising & this is almost certainly because of the lack of sunspots - a MUCH greater influence that CO2.
Any politician who claims that we are undergoing warming is simply a wholly corrupt eco-fascist parasite after money & power.
“Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.”
Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
“Ideology on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism.”
Economic Adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Illarionov subsequently broke with Putin & his reasons for doing so were very widely reported by the British MSM. They have never reported what he says about alarmism)
It's typical of the way this democratic Country works. 41% of the public are still unconvinced that climate change is man made. 100% of the greedy fiddlers who run our Country believe climate change is man made. That tells the same story on Europe, the death penalty, and many other things. What can we do about it? Vote more fiddlers in power.
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the government propaganda advertisements on climate change and the CO2 emissions of cars. They seem to be mostly on government channels; mainly C4. So, our money is being used to sustain what I understand is a failed tv station. And brainwashing the public with spurious claims and exhortations to drive less. I would think that given the amount of money they steal from all of us, from fuel duty etc, they should keep their traps shut and let us make our own minds up about how often and how far we choose to travel.
As for the new religion, perhaps Henny Penny could be the patron saint.
Iain, I've been called a denier on Comment Is Free threads for suggesting we have passed tipping point, the arctic permafrost is thawing and it is too late for quick fixes like carbon capture which depend on technology as yet undeveloped.
These people really are behaving like religious fundamentalists. And as it really winds them up to be told that we should tell them at every opportunity.
Things Just Keep Getting Better
So are you disagreeing with Dave and Zac Iain?
I base my views on evidence.
Climate Change was once "Global Warming". When that is no longer convenient the name changes.
The Met Office is the bigggest UK scientific and public supporter of Climate Change. They forecast temperatures rising for the next 100 years.
This year they forecast a blazing hot summer. Result: rain.
With a track record like that, how can any scientific thinker support them?
"So as usual, leftist idiots try to accuse me and others of being "deniers"."
Iain, why make this a left/right issue? There are plenty of people of the right who think that man-made CO2 emissions are contributing to possibly danerous global warming. Margaret Thatcher was one of these people. You even wrote a blog on this earlier this year: "Margaret Thatcher: Climate Change Pioneer."
Climate change is a reality. Anthropogenic climate change is for bean-eating nut-roasters who love little furry foxes and like to pretend they are Celtic.
Of course, it could all be the fault of the Gays.
Like I said above, if you can point out the inaccuracies in the accepted science surrounding climate change, then write a paper, get it published and make a massive name for yourself.
And www.realclimate.org won't be discredited by you cheaply slagging it off. I hope people here will use it and if they disagree, then they can debate with the climate scientists on that site, rather than childishly labelling it as a 'con'.
Neil Craig, you fundamentally misunderstand the data. Read this and learn something:
Now that the lunatics finally realise that sexism and racism have probably had their day, this is obviously the latest righteous band wagon they'll all be riding on..
"What matters is what we can now do to reduce the chance of a very nasty outcome for us, our children and our grandchildren."
The answer to that is "bugger all". We do NOT know enough about our planet's ecosystem to start messing around with it as if it were a toy! (Hell, we can't even simulate the laws of *physics* accurately, let alone an entire planet.)
1. "Climate Change" has been going on for *millions* of years. There is ample evidence to support this. (Look up "ice ages" sometime.) Human activity *MAY* be influencing it now, but the evidence for this is still being debated and gathered. It is NOT a foregone conclusion.
2. We are still coming out of an ice age. Geologically speaking, it's only been a blink of an eye since the last one, and the Earth's temperature has *naturally* been on the rise. This is NORMAL!
3. So are WE making that temperature rise faster? We don't know. Not with any real certainty. We may even be cooling it down.
4. Computer simulations and models are NOT "evidence". They are *experimental tests*; nothing more. Computers can only model the rules *we* give them. They can only use the data *we* give them. If WE don't know all the rules—and we don't—then the results will be of dubious value.
5. Our ecosystem is riddled with inherently chaotic events. We can sort-of, vaguely predict *some* long term trends, but the accuracy of these depends entirely on the models we are using. (See point 4, above.)
Let me say this once more, as it bears repeating: we can't even simulate *physics* accurately! It's 2009, and even this has intractable problems. (Believe it or not, even basic numerical accuracy is a major cause of problems in programming simulations. Try expressing 1/3rd in binary!)
We sure as hell don't know exactly how the Earth's ecosystem works down to the last detail. Until we do, the *best* any scientist can hope for is *speculation*. This is a fancy word for "educated guesses".
What most of the Ecovangelists are demanding is Climate *Stability*. They want to preserve the Earth's present climate in aspic, forever. Never to change again.
Good luck with that.
Correlation does not equate to causality. That a region is getting warmer is not an indication of man's influence on the climate. It merely indicates that the climate *is* changing—a process which has been going on since the Earth was formed.
The analogy that some have made here between the theory of evolution and the theory of man-made global warming is not a sound one.
Actually, there is not universal agreement among scientists on the theory of evolution; some scientists, noting the lack of empirical evidence to support that theory, and the absence of a coherent rational basis for the belief, adhere either to creation or to the theory of intelligent design. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, gives one scientist's explanation of his reasons for not accepting the evolutionary hypothesis.
Climate change supporters do base their theory on empirical evidence, but it's not true to say that the interpretation of the data is universally accepted by scientists. It's completely dishonest of supporters to claim that the scientific debate is over.
What the survey published in the Times shows is that the debate among the general population isn't over either. This what Iain rightly draws attention to. (hClearly, the nightly propaganda from the BBC and that unpleasantly exploitative stuff from the quango that calls itself Act on CO2 isn't working as expected.)
Sooner or later the enthusiasts will get bored with all this and climb aboard another bandwagon. Who knows what that will be?
I have made this same point numerous times in various forums, so I'll give it one more outing...
Near the end of the 19th century, classical physicists were so arrogant that they thought that discoveries in physics were near the end and all that was required was a few tidying up exercises to refine physical constants and they would have a complete and perfect understanding of the physical laws that defined the universe.
A few non-classical physicists weren’t so sure and made all sorts of weird assertions that went against the ‘orthodoxy’ at the time. They were ridiculed by the establishment as they went against the ‘consensus’.
Move forward 30 years and quantum theory was generally accepted as a given. Before 1900, quantum physics was not even on the radar. By 1930, it was the new orthodoxy (‘consensus’).
To me, this shows that scientists are no different from the rest of humanity. (I did a science degree at University.) Many have big egos. Don’t be fooled by the fact that they say that all scientists are persuaded by the arguments. Professional advancement and personal egos play a big part in their thinking in my opinion.
At this point in time, if you were a graduate looking for funding for your PhD thesis, would you try to get funding to disprove ‘man-made’ climate change or would you go for the safe option of a grant to prove that climate change is ‘man-made’?
We are so arrogant as a species that we expect that climate change will stop because we have built cities near the coast.
The climate has always changed.
There was a warm period during the middle ages. What caused that? During this warm period don't we think that the arctic ice was less permanent than now? How did the polar bears survive this?
We are all terribly concerned about the fate of the polar bears. 12,000 years ago we were in an ice age. Where were the polar bears then? So what if they die off? That is what happens to species which become too specialised in their food chain or environment (e.g. Pandas).
Finally, don’t forget that these dire predictions are generated by computer models.
As someone with 25+ years of experience in computing – I rest my case!!!
I also find it interesting that 10 years ago it was called 'global warming'. As the globe has not warmed for quite a few years, it is now called 'climate change'.
I have something of a 'scientific disposition'. There are two issues
1 is there global warming? - the data on this is confused and a lot of the 'science' is based upon predictive models that have either been stretched beyond credibility of are based on 'projections'
2 if there is global warming, what is causing it? Here, frankly we havent a clue and a lot of the twaddle is from dead-beat, none-too-bright politicians who are suckered by scientific shysters in search of jobs, publicity or grants
Then we are told that the 'precautionary principle' should apply - it might be true so we had better do something. This is the equivalent to demanding a gruelling course of chemotherapy because a distant aunt died of cancer so you might get it too
Backlink is along with my own take on this.
Some of the pro climate change brigade - especially those on the left are truely scary. they are not interested in argument or discussion. more to the point they appear to feel they are perfectly within their rights to silence or smear anyone that might oppose them. Thats the route to totalitarianism. a state some on the left are more than happy to embrace.
Dont forget the earth has cooled since 1999, yes cooled but they dont want you to know that.
As I have blogged before this issue is a scientific one and I fail to understand why an individual’s propensity to pooh-pooh the science of climate change has become one of the virility tests of right-wing credentials. Why is spouting scepticism about this branch of science something that good conservatives have to be seen to be doing?
It’s a complex matter and it is hardly surprising that the public is confused. It isn’t Left wing to worry about climate change and also to ask for the science to be better explained. It’s commonsense. But it does seem to be right wing to challenge the science and even to dismiss the obvious fact that mankind is largely responsible for global warming. I wonder why?
WUWT has just published a pdf linked list of the top 450 skeptical peer reviewed papers
It would do a lot of honest politicians, and others, considerable good to take some time and read some of these papers before further sticking their feet deeper into their mouths and making even greater fools of themselves than they already have.
Paddy Briggs said...
“... it does seem to be right wing to challenge the science and even to dismiss the obvious fact that mankind is largely responsible for global warming”. (emphasis added).
Think about that statement and consider in what sort of world view does it become obvious that mankind is largely responsible for global warming? Is that a scientific, rational world view?
"Dont forget the earth has cooled since 1999, yes cooled but they dont want you to know that."
1) What on earth do you mean by "they" don't want you to know that ? The graphs of the earth's temperature over the last decades are easily available on every climate institute or similar's website. There are temperature graphs galore in the Stern Report. There is no secrecy about this at all. To suggest otherwise is wrong.
2) Your comment that the earth has cooled over the last ten years is simply misleading. It is true that 1998 was the hottest year in modern records. This was because of a peculiarly strong El Nino effect (yes, there are other influences on climate apart from CO2). It is also true that the ten hottest years ever recorded in modern history have occured in the last twelve years. Climate is volatile, hence there are occasional large spikes up and down in annual temperatures. This is why moving averages are used to best see what the real trend is. Looking at a ten year moving average of the annual temperature record the trend has been, and still clearly is, in an upward direction.
You might like to check out the most vociferous of the Global Church of Warming
Then you might like to find out who funds them.
Oh yes, the Rockerfellas, owners of Mobile, Exxon, Chevron, etc.
We ain't that dumb, sorry guys.
@Paddy Briggs: "But it does seem to be right wing to challenge the science and even to dismiss the obvious fact that mankind is largely responsible for global warming. I wonder why?"
There's nothing inherently left or right wing about being a sceptical scientist - scepticism is what "science" is all about. Consensus and majority views are political constructs, not scientific.
As for the "obvious fact that mankind is largely responsible..."? There appears to be not one solid shred of empirical evidence to back up this, frankly ludicrous, claim. Sure, there are plenty of computer models predicting this - but that's because they are only able to follow the rules under which they are programmed, said rules including inferences that change is anthropogenic.
Attempting to model a process that you understand very imperfectly is essentially impossible. The present models only backcast with a dgree of accuracy because they are heavily parameterised - said parameters can thus be tweaked so that the model's result, when run against historic data, produces the "correct" result for "today". I think it was John von Neuman who reckoned that "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" and these models tend to have dozens. Unfortunately, the chaotic nature of climate more or less guarantees that this won't make them any more accurate when they're forecasting. As all "catastrophic" AGW predictions are derived from the boundary results of these models I therefore feel it incumbent upon myself as a scientist to be extremely sceptical.
I've written elsewhere about the The Tripati, Roberts and Eagle study which despite being used as an AGW scare story by the BBC - "The last time CO2 levels were the same as today it was 10F warmer and sea levels were 20 feet higher" - actually indicates to anyone of reasonably logical mien that since at the present time, despite CO2 levels being of the order highlighted in the TRE paper, temperatures are 10F cooler and sea levels 20 feet lower there might not be such a strong link between CO2 and temperature after all.
The tragedy of climatology is that it has become politicised, with jobs, status, reputations (and a lot of money!) depending upon whereabouts in the orthodoxy one is positioned. This is not the way to conduct scientific debate.
Sorry to have gone on at length, but it grates to read the comments made from ignorance by so many "political scientists" and English-degreed "environmental" journalists...
What is left wing is using the climate scare to take choice away from people.
What is left wing is using the climate scare to stop other people doing what those in power will continue to do.
What is left wing is using the climate scare to transfer money from the individual to the state.
TheHoatzin if you know 1% as much about alleged warming as you claim to then you know that your advice to "write a scientific paper, get & get it published in a peer reviewd rag" is simply nonsense. You must know for a fact that when Stephen McIntyre did precisely that, proving that the maths behind the Hockey Stick theory of fast 20thC warming was rubbish Nature repeatedly refused to publish it (though in a grossly unprofessional way they did publish ad hominum criticism of him, rether than his paper & didn't require "peer review" for that". There is no question that his "unpublishable" paper was wholly right & Mann's publishable one untruthful.
Since you put "realclimate" propaganda as "facts" in this lets see what factual dispute you have with this article detailing how Mann, the inventor of the Hockey Stick fraud & of "realclimate" faked his model.
I think we can say without fear of contradiction that anybody on the alarmist side who did not publicly denounce Mann & "realclimate" as corrupt liars ins demostrating the same level of honesty or otherwise as he does.
As to the "realclimate" link you provided - all it says is that there has, as I said, been 10 years of cooling but that that isn't long enough to count, whereas the preceding 20 years of warming is absolute & undeniable proof that we are facing 4, 6, 8, 10. 300 or some other unspecified degrees of catastrophic warming.
An honest person with the intelligence of a bright 8 year old couldn't believe that but plenty of cunning eco-fascist parasites pretend to.
That it is indeed a pretence is shown by their Ludditer attitude to nuclear power of which they would be the strongest possible supports if the actually believed CO2 was bad.
I cannot find a report on this on the Times website: has anyone else bothered to look for it before commenting?
To all the deniers: "Global warming" was renamed "Climate change" by people like Frank Luntz, whose jobs are to rename things to suit right-wing discourse. Not by lefties.
It is at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6916510.ece . It is dated Nov 14, i.e. Saturday. The report also says 'A Met Office survey conducted in August found that the proportion of people saying they knew little or nothing about climate change had grown from 32 % in 2006 to 47 %.'
In the same time, the scientists have gone from being 'worried' about climate change to despair.
We must hope that the ignorant masses, who seem to be well represented here, are correct and the scientific experts are deluded [though no-one has plausibly suggested this delusion has come about and persists and spreads] . For my part I too recommend http://www.Realclimate.org to anyone who wishes to find out the science for themselves, though some of it is hard to follow even with a general science education.
It is far from an obvious fact that mankind is responsible for global warming. The majority of the alarm was created by the infamous Hockey Stick graph, which has since been largely discredited.
In addition to the points I made earlier, neither CO2 levels nor temperature are at historically high levels. Ask a geologist.
We are looking at a snapshot of recent temperatures and CO2 levels which is akin to attempting to discover the subject of a book by selecting a single word at random.
The unfortunate thing about obvious facts is that sometimes they are wrong.
Of course, this may or may not be the case about anthropogenic global warming. The good thing about science is that it does not work by obvious fact or article of faith, it works by evidence.
When a scientific paper is released that proves conclusively that mankind is responsible for the warming we see, and these findings are replicated by other scientists, I will no longer be skeptical. This is generally called the scientific method.
Indeed, when such a thing happens, everyone will forget about the word consensus. They will simply show the paper.
Your point about the right wing people being inclined to be skeptical is an interesting one. It may be that some on the right (libertarians, generally), though by no means all, value rationality and individual thought rather susceptibility to groupthink.
I believe it is far more rational to be skeptical about something for which we have little evidence than it is to take other people's word that it is happening and make huge sacrifices that will make the poor poorer and the hungry hungrier.
I find it quite sad that Science, which I consider to be the best hope for mankind, is just being turned into another religion by people who do not understand the scientific method but have assumed the trappings and terminology of scientists.
There must be something deep in the human subconscious that requires this kind of unswerving belief in the unseen, especially if there is an element of guilt involved.
In 30 years I imagine the case will be largely proven, one way or the other. I just hope we haven't caused too much hardship or death with our actions by that time.
Now if you wanted something really scary that we could do something about, try asteroids.
Thousands whizzing through our part of space all the time. Indeed we watch them hit our celestial neighbours through our telescopes and do nothing to prevent the same happening to us! And of course, it's not a question of if, but when.
Unfortunately this would involve technological advance and job creation, which does not seem to fit into the environmentalist agenda.
Mmmm so let me see:-
There is no empirical evidence for MMCC; from Polar Bears to African mountains, all has been debunked.
The model the whole idea is based on has been refuted, and cannot even predict the British Summer.
The so call consensus amongst scientists, doesn't exist and never did. (You don't have to look very hard on the internet to find the evidence.)
The supporters of MMCC talk about science, but obviously have no idea what scientific method actually is.
The main arguements of the supporters are around myths and name-calling, whereas time and time again those who recognize the scam for what it is give reasoned arguement.
C02 is a plantfood not a toxic substance, and a 35% rise in next to nothing is, still next to nothing. It can be proved that C02 levels have been higher in the past anyway.
The climate has always changed - long before man evolved. And quite dramatically. It will contine to do so, it cannot be held in aspic - as the 'alarmists' seem to want to do.
If the earth was warming then why is everything doom and gloom, surely there would be some benefits, where are those? Look at all that new land that would come available at the Poles for example!! Everyone at the Equator could move there!!!
Why is it that the behaviour of the 'alarmists' has not modified in line with their dictates. Why is everyone flying to Copenhagen?
Am I convinced by the MMCC hypothesis. Nope. And name calling really means nothing to me. The poor opinion of greedy, people who want to undermine freedom, democracy and scientific thought - is not something to worry about.
you ignorant idiot
I have already posted a simple explanation of the oft-repeated fallacy of a cooling planet
Try again: here
There is a very good essay on 'Global Warming as a Religion' by Prof John Brignell at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Iain, you are absolutely right about the link between the climate change taliban now and the Commies, Neutralists and Defeatists of the 70s and 80s.
They are the children of the same, I have no doubt.
At university, I ended up sharing a house with one of the leading lights of CND in the place. He really did spend nearly every minute of every day shitting himself.
Forget moral concerns about nuclear weapons, he was consumed with irrational fear and thought the Russkies had a nuke personally targetted at him.
You cannot have rational debate with someone who things that a nuclear bomb is going to land on their head at any second.
These climate change nutters are same kind of folk who in former times used to go into a panic every time there was an eclipse or a comet.
Paddy Briggs - "it does seem to be right wing to challenge the science and even to dismiss the obvious fact that mankind is largely responsible for global warming".
Er... because it isn't obvious and it certainly isn't a "fact".
It's a theory - and the part of the global warming theory that says that any warming that might be happening is man-made is not backed by any conclusive data.
I guess right wingers are more sceptical of the global warming theories because we are still used to thinking for ourselves, rather than relying on an all-consuming state to tell us what to think and how to behave.
I might be more convinced that your 'fact' is a 'fact' if The Times still had reliable pollsters as when they used MORI (now IpsosMORI).
you ignorant idiot"
Wow do you always talk dirty to your friends.
Dizzy and Bishop Cramer recently linked to some bloggs abot the guy who predicted the hockey stick rise in temperature had cherry picked his trees from the siberian woods. The guys samples had been used as the basis for the key papers - yet he refused to publish his full data set until he made the mistake of publishing in Philosophical Transactions whose policy was to publish raw data. It's taken over a decade for the environmental academic sleazeballs to publish their data and they have been found to be frauds.
Sure climate change happens but as politicians we need to focus on real issues like - flood protection, energy supplies, land fill sites, too much packaging In food materials and so on. The real crime here is that New Labour has used the global warming as a Marxist proxy to bash business and not focused on fixing the real issues. Floods, predictions of power cuts, no land fill sites and bins full of plastic wrapping show New Labour's subliminal Marxist agenda renders them unfit to govern because the don't focus on real world issues.
FYI. Follow this link to find out how shocking the fraud has been by the Eco Marxists. I also have to add how STUPID this make President Obama look. Why didn't he ask independent statisticians to look at the RAW DATA rather than the daisy ring of peer reviewing eco marxists.
the lesson from this is ... When ever presented with this sort of argument force the raw data (the FIELD data) out of the scientists and get independent statistician to stake their reputations on a public review of the data.
Since TheHoatzin refuses to answer the points I raised disproving his eco-fascist claims lets move on.
Rob's Uncle says "the scientists have gone from being 'worried' about climate change to despair"
Again an example of the very highest standard of honesty to be expected from the eco-fascist side of the debate. The largest single expression of scientist's opinion is the Oregon Petition in which 31,000 of them have expressed the view that not only do we not face catastrophic warming but that the rise in CO2 is beneficial.
For obvious reasons this has never been mentioned by alarmist politicians & their propagandists running the BBC.
There are a number of scientific bodies which say they believe there is some warming thlough they say it has been a fraction of a degre which is beneficial & certainly not catastrophic. Such bodies are uniformly funded by governments which have already announced that catastrophic warming, like Lysenkoism in Stalin's day, is official truth. It is good to see that the Russian Academy of Science has proven itself independent. Though, under its previous chair the British government funded Royal Scoiety was a hysterical alarmist propagandist their latest pronouncements a carefully worded to appear alarmist but claim nothing.
I am quite certain that every alarmist who is remotely interested in the truth will either dissoaciate themselves from Hoatzin & Uncle or point out any factual inaccuracy in my answer. I am almost equally sure that there is not a single honest person promoting catastrophic global warming alarmism.
I'm not a lefty, certainly not an eco-fascist. Can't stand them. But I am a scientist. I have already shown the error of your thinking re a current cooling. It's an oft-repeated meme. Repeated by people who aren't cogniscent of the facts or comfortable with anything other than basic science. Continually shouting about it all being a con by the world's leaders and scientists might go down well in your circle or with the people you browbeat on a daily basis who are too pleasant to tell you you're thick but it doesn't wash with people who are a tad better informed than you.
Still, keep shouting it. If it makes you feel better
Hoatzin the closest you have come to mentioning what I said was on th14-8.00pm post in which you made no answer.
Therefore while I once again accept your claim to "shown the error" of what I have written as being the very highest standard of honesty to which you eco-fascists aspire. It is nonetheless wholly untrue as anybody here cab see.
I note your claim to be a scientist & raise you all the various other eco-fascists online who have claimed to be scientists, nuclear physicists etc while displaying a total ignorance of their alleged subjects.
Now if you actually feel you have a factual answer to my points 2 posts ago feel free to put them up for taget practice.
Neil, you're getting pretty tragicv now
The OISM and their pathetic 'paper' entitled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide are a source of open amusement among scientists.
As SourceWatch state: The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
The OISM is located on a farm (I shit you not) about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The 'paper' has never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher.
"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago.
Numerous other scientists, and even the NAS themselves, ridiculed the paper publicly. Almost none of the signatures are of climate specialists, and only a few dozen were from people in the climate field. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
If you''re interested in Pierrehumbert, check this demolition of the poorly-written Freakanomics/Superfreakonomics climate claptrap.
Neil, you might like to also consider the credentials of a few people who 'did' sign the petition.
Such as, er, Geri Halliwell and various Star Wars characters. The monitoring was so lax that it was published with these obviously fictitious signatories. Try page 152 here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf
Wow its amazing some of these comments I blogged to your report Iain here http://bracknellblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/can-climate-change-debate-wait.html
I dont want the left or right to highjack this issue for there own ends, I just want us to move forward on the issue and I dont know if we can wait for a debate.
BTW Neil Craig also posted on my blog, he thinks us Lib Dems are Nazi's a step too far I think, infact its laughable.
I also think as a comment on Bracknell Blog that it has become fashionable to be a climate change denier. Its the easy option.
It's a true measure of your commentators, Iain, that they call people *who actually agree with Tory party policy* "eco-fascists."
We have our own little Palinistas in the UK.
TheHoatzin you have, yet again, declined to dispute any of the facts I put up previously. You have made it abundantly obvious that, despite your lies, you simply can't - you are reduced to purely ad hominum attacks.
Indeed your criticism of the 31,000 scientists on the petition revolves entirely round an ad hom attack on the Institute. It is certainly true that it is a small body refusing government funding on principle (unlike ALL alarmists). On the other hand it includes a Nobel prize winner & another member who fell out with a double Nobel winner over whether vitamin C stopped colds (he was right). Perhaps Hoatzin, if that is your name, you could let us know how many Nobels you have?
That eco-fascists managed to put in a fraudulent signature in the name Geri Halliwell has been broadcast loudly by them. What it proves is that it is the alarmists who have absolutely no problem with fraud (as many of their papers also prove) & that the scientists aren't fans of the Spice Girls. You think that reflects badly on the scientists - I don't.
Daz I have indeed posted on your site asking for any member of the LibDems who thinks they can argue the science rather than simply making ad hom attacks to do so - the response so far has been predictable.
Since you bring it up I have indeed stated that those who commit war crimes & engage in genocide, ethnic cleansing, the sexual enslavement of children & the dissection of living people to steal their body organs in Kosovo are working in the Nazi cause. All big parties have been involved in this but the LibDems most enthusiastically & only they have made supporting this genocide a condition of party membership. I have said this previously here too. The difference being that though Iain has not answered it he is a good enough liberal not to censor it.
Your own party has, of course, no such liberal principles & indeed now instructs its members to censor in the cause of genocide denial. I expect them to issue similar instructions over anybody mentioning the fact that the globe is cooling.
I dont know where you think the lib dems instructions are coming from. But I would not adhere to any instructions anyway. We are not paid we pay them. So I would never take instruction from the Lib Dem leadership. Also no where does the lib dem membership state that supporting this genocide is a condition of party.
I infact am a liberal in that I believe in free markets and small government leaving people free to be productive.
I of course like you am not a scientist so can like you only make up my mind on global warming using the evidence. Which yes is on both sides of the fence but overwhelming on the Man made global warming side. However I would never say that anyway can’t express their believe that there is no global warming, that is for people to make their own minds up as indeed both you and me have.
Get some help. Seriously. You're a very shouty man.
You brought up the OISM. You're out of the game. You have zero credibility mate. You have been roundly educated on the farce that was the OISM paper and how the science in it has been totally junked, not be the climate change camp but by scientists IN GENERAL.
Go and bother some people down the local with your 'theories'
@dazmando: "I of course like you am not a scientist so can like you only make up my mind on global warming using the evidence. Which yes is on both sides of the fence but overwhelming on the Man made global warming side. "
Sorry old chap, but if you really were a scientist there's no way that you'd claim the evidence of MMGW to be "overwhelming" - because, quite simply, there is no empirical evidence pointing to that conclusion. Computer models might, but, and this is a very big but, computer models are NOT science.
Daz, Pogo is dead on - claiming ignorance & following it up by claiming knowledge of "overwhelming evidence" is clearly untrue. Lets make it easy on you - produce one single piece of evidence proving catastrophic global warming is actually happening - not a theory & not simply assertionn but evidence.
As regards the LibDems it is a matter of record that I was expelled officialy for believing in free markets & low taxes to allow people to be productive (this was officially described as "illiberal" & "too right wing" to contemplate) & that I was later informed that the real reason was because I openly opposed racial genocide. Regulars here know this, as do most LD bloggers - see my blog.
Tail you are simply engaging in another evidence free ad hominum attack. Even Hoatzin seems to have accepted that is unconvincing.
Incidentally as an example of the ignorance of the alarmist charlatans see St Al Gore - remember David Cameron insisting the shadow cabinet sit through a personal lecture from him - saying that 2 km down the Earth is "millions of degrees" warm. The truthis 10s of degrees. Let us hope that most Tory advisors are 100s of thousands of times more educated than this eco-fascist buffoon.
you're still onside with the OISM then Neil?
Well spotted Hoatzin.
I note that this is your 7th post & in none of them have you produced any facts showing catastrophic warming, though specificly asked to, & have stuck rigidly to personal attacks on all & sundry. May I say how pleasing it is to cross swords with somebody who represents your movement in such an accurate & unadorned manner.
Post a Comment