Do We Need The Met Office?

[La Bise]

The Met Office simply follows the prevalent wind in the scientific arena re AGW and that wind is blowing steadily on (look at it like a good old zonality eh...). They simply can't apply some kind of "fair and balanced" interpretation to please people who seem to think the vast majority of climatologists are either incompetent and/or in the pocket of some sinister force at play in the shadow. There is very little peer-rewieved, academic research that is available to change the mind of the best minds in the field. It is a simple as that...

Up until there is a gathering of opinion by people who play within the rules of research science that invalidate the current thinking, nothing will happen and rightly so otherwise we might as well call for equality of treatment for ID, astrology and other well known "alternative" ways to look at reality....I would wager it would be an enormous relief for many people if AGW turned to be far less intense than modelled or down to drivers that are not under our influence so if something worthwile will emerge, it will be taken into account. If anyone on this forum has such research available, have it peer-reviewed, get academic backing, propose articles to scientific magazines and let the community decide whether your research is indeed of value.

[weather eater]

The Met Office simply follows the prevalent wind in the scientific arena re AGW and that wind is blowing steadily on (look at it like a good old zonality eh...). They simply can't apply some kind of "fair and balanced" interpretation to please people who seem to think the vast majority of climatologists are either incompetent and/or in the pocket of some sinister force at play in the shadow. There is very little peer-rewieved, academic research that is available to change the mind of the best minds in the field. It is a simple as that...

Up until there is a gathering of opinion by people who play within the rules of research science that invalidate the current thinking, nothing will happen and rightly so otherwise we might as well call for equality of treatment for ID, astrology and other well known "alternative" ways to look at reality....I would wager it would be an enormous relief for many people if AGW turned to be far less intense than modelled or down to drivers that are not under our influence so if something worthwile will emerge, it will be taken into account. If anyone on this forum has such research available, have it peer-reviewed, get academic backing, propose articles to scientific magazines and let the community decide whether your research is indeed of value.

That’s a fair assessment along with the posts from TWS.

[Solar Cycles]

The Met Office simply follows the prevalent wind in the scientific arena re AGW and that wind is blowing steadily on (look at it like a good old zonality eh...). They simply can't apply some kind of "fair and balanced" interpretation to please people who seem to think the vast majority of climatologists are either incompetent and/or in the pocket of some sinister force at play in the shadow. There is very little peer-rewieved, academic research that is available to change the mind of the best minds in the field. It is a simple as that...

Up until there is a gathering of opinion by people who play within the rules of research science that invalidate the current thinking, nothing will happen and rightly so otherwise we might as well call for equality of treatment for ID, astrology and other well known "alternative" ways to look at reality....I would wager it would be an enormous relief for many people if AGW turned to be far less intense than modelled or down to drivers that are not under our influence so if something worthwile will emerge, it will be taken into account. If anyone on this forum has such research available, have it peer-reviewed, get academic backing, propose articles to scientific magazines and let the community decide whether your research is indeed of value.

If you care dig around, you will find good peer reviewed papers looking at natural forcings being the main drivers of our climate. Off course that theory doesn't fit in well, with other people's ideologies!

[weather eater]

If you care dig around, you will find good peer reviewed papers looking at natural forcings being the main drivers of our climate. Off course that theory doesn't fit in well, with other people's ideologies!

You don’t need to dig around, I've have now read quite a few books on climate change and paleoclimatology, Outrageous Waves Global Warming and Coastal change in Britain through 2000 years, The Great Ice Age, A change in the weather, The two mile time machine, The long summer, and several others all would agree that Natural forcings are the primary drivers behind climate change, but none dismiss the idea that man is having an impact on world climate, its not a case of either or, its about the interconection of all factors. I also doubt you will find anybody on the climate change threads who does not believe that natural forcings are the dominant factor in our climate, the question is, how much, if any mans actions are contributing to the climate change we have all witnessed.

[La Bise]

Why would the scientific community ignore valid research casting doubt upon the current modelisations? Why would peole who dedicated their lives to study and research do that? What would they gain other than demeaning their work, demeaning themselves and fail their duties towards mankind? Are you really implying that the people working in climate research are such vile individuals?

Why is that research, invalidating AGW, is not being published in the relevant academic publications where other scientist can assess them and peer-review it according to standard academical rules? Why is it hidden away on the internet, not the most reliable repository of evidence after all? A conspiracy by those same scientists? Are they in the pay of someone who would benefit from AGW as it has been implied a number of times? Who would benefit from the consequences of AGW, which are rather unpleasant for most of the planet and will affect our lives far more than we can imagine (eg food...)? A "Big Governement" thing, taxing people for no reason for them to carry their nefarious pocket lining?

Is it really that, principle-free people aiding and abetting crooks to line their pockets whilst brave truth-seekers are silenced? Seriously guys, this is like a very bad episode of the X-Files and some of you are advocating the disbanding of the Met Office, one of the most respected institutions in the world based on that kind of thinking...? What next, close down universities because they are elitists? Consider "evidence" any half-convincingly written paper on a website? Cast aside rigorous academic vetting of published material for "fair and balanced" views?

Sorry for the diversion mods...but the question was so loaded in the first place that it was bound to enter the AGW arena...

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think research is significantly motivated by AGW-driven agendas or influenced by a desire to stamp out opposing views, most researchers just want to find out the truth, and some are, in fact, rather more sceptical and open-minded about the subject than it might first appear. There are some peer-reviewed papers out there that cast doubt on whether AGW is really having as big an effect as the IPCC say, and others which suggest that its effects might even be being underestimated. New research is coming out that challenges old research all the time.

Where I think the claims of bias do have merit is regarding the politics of the subject and engagement with the media and the general public. In that area there is a prevailing consensus that scientists should "speak with one voice" and make out that the science is settled because it is thought that if the public got a picture of differing opinions and uncertainty then it would generate doubt and scepticism. As a result dissenting voices are often drowned out or silenced. The problem is that when people can see through it, it makes them feel they are being lied to, and so not only do they get sceptical but they also lose trust in the scientists themselves.

It is important to differentiate the science, which is mostly of high quality, from the politics that often get in the way.

[Solar Cycles]

Why would the scientific community ignore valid research casting doubt upon the current modelisations? Why would peole who dedicated their lives to study and research do that? What would they gain other than demeaning their work, demeaning themselves and fail their duties towards mankind? Are you really implying that the people working in climate research are such vile individuals?

Why is that research, invalidating AGW, is not being published in the relevant academic publications where other scientist can assess them and peer-review it according to standard academical rules? Why is it hidden away on the internet, not the most reliable repository of evidence after all? A conspiracy by those same scientists? Are they in the pay of someone who would benefit from AGW as it has been implied a number of times? Who would benefit from the consequences of AGW, which are rather unpleasant for most of the planet and will affect our lives far more than we can imagine (eg food...)? A "Big Governement" thing, taxing people for no reason for them to carry their nefarious pocket lining?

Is it really that, principle-free people aiding and abetting crooks to line their pockets whilst brave truth-seekers are silenced? Seriously guys, this is like a very bad episode of the X-Files and some of you are advocating the disbanding of the Met Office, one of the most respected institutions in the world based on that kind of thinking...? What next, close down universities because they are elitists? Consider "evidence" any half-convincingly written paper on a website? Cast aside rigorous academic vetting of published material for "fair and balanced" views?

Sorry for the diversion mods...but the question was so loaded in the first place that it was bound to enter the AGW arena...

Climate science has gone the way of banking, to many with vested interest, with too much to lose. Also no one doubts that AGW as had an impact on our climate, just the magnitude! Scientist like Mann and Hansen have done climate science no favours, and then factor in all those whom have sang from the same hymn sheet as these. Then is it any wonder we have members of the public, who raise their eye brows at the mere mention of climate change!

I don't think research is significantly motivated by AGW-driven agendas or influenced by a desire to stamp out opposing views, most researchers just want to find out the truth, and some are, in fact, rather more sceptical and open-minded about the subject than it might first appear. There are some peer-reviewed papers out there that cast doubt on whether AGW is really having as big an effect as the IPCC say, and others which suggest that its effects might even be being underestimated. New research is coming out that challenges old research all the time.

Where I think the claims of bias do have merit is regarding the politics of the subject and engagement with the media and the general public. In that area there is a prevailing consensus that scientists should "speak with one voice" and make out that the science is settled because it is thought that if the public got a picture of differing opinions and uncertainty then it would generate doubt and scepticism. As a result dissenting voices are often drowned out or silenced. The problem is that when people can see through it, it makes them feel they are being lied to, and so not only do they get sceptical but they also lose trust in the scientists themselves.

It is important to differentiate the science, which is mostly of high quality, from the politics that often get in the way.

Sorry just read this after my rant! I agree with all of that TWS, it's the politics and ideologies that have caused so much mistrust!

[La Bise]

TWS, climatologists are speaking with one voice, there is very, very high percentage of them on board in regards to AGW, over 90%. Of course there is going to be some dissent(thank God!) but the matter, as far that part of the scientific community is concerned, is settled. How much more consensus is needed before people stop heralding every study that shows a hole in the theory whilst ignoring 100 others that reinforce it...?

Solar, how on Earth can you establish comparisons between the banking system and the scientific community? Come on, it's plain silly and you know it...

Also, please, please, please explain to me what are those "vested interests" that would bend the verdict of the best experts on the matter? Are they going to get a cut on taxes levied by governements to stem pollution causing AGW? Since when has the general public understood complicated matters such as these when all they know, in most cases, is some reductionnist media non-sense favouring the loud and the obnoxious (in both camps)?

Chaps, I'm a pretty open-minded kind of bloke who subscribes to a rather daffy philosophy (forteanism) that is openly sceptical of scientists due to their inate human bias and I enjoy like the next man a good dose of mistrust towards "The Man" but at some point one has to accept that people might be onto something when nearly everybody involved in the field agrees with what's being proposed.

[reef]

Moved this as its taken a distinct AGW theme.

Cheers.

[Cookie]

you're a mod? :(

Edited September 9, 2009 by cookie

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

surely the met office agenda is to produce forecasts across all sectors and to do research into weather related areas..you portray it like some kind of sinister covert govt agency??..get a grip..life's too short!!

Yes, producing forecasts of weather (not climate) has always been supposed to be their job. One they have done, and still do, very well. And as SC indicates, it is why they should stick to it.

Research 'into weather related areas' (ie climate) are where the problems might arise....

worth considering what his post was actually suggesting, in reality, before stretching to grip the handrail perhaps?...

Edited September 9, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Solar Cycles]

TWS, climatologists are speaking with one voice, there is very, very high percentage of them on board in regards to AGW, over 90%. Of course there is going to be some dissent(thank God!) but the matter, as far that part of the scientific community is concerned, is settled. How much more consensus is needed before people stop heralding every study that shows a hole in the theory whilst ignoring 100 others that reinforce it...?

Solar, how on Earth can you establish comparisons between the banking system and the scientific community? Come on, it's plain silly and you know it...

Also, please, please, please explain to me what are those "vested interests" that would bend the verdict of the best experts on the matter? Are they going to get a cut on taxes levied by governements to stem pollution causing AGW? Since when has the general public understood complicated matters such as these when all they know, in most cases, is some reductionnist media non-sense favouring the loud and the obnoxious (in both camps)?

Chaps, I'm a pretty open-minded kind of bloke who subscribes to a rather daffy philosophy (forteanism) that is openly sceptical of scientists due to their inate human bias and I enjoy like the next man a good dose of mistrust towards "The Man" but at some point one has to accept that people might be onto something when nearly everybody involved in the field agrees with what's being proposed.

These vested interest are those of self preservation! I must say you have a very low opinion of the general public, and over inflated view of climate scientist! What makes you think that climate scientist are right? Geologist have a far better understanding of our climate, than a science which is only 30 years old!! Some people really do find it easier for others to think for them, rather than think for themselves. As for comparisons with the banking system, well both have been found to be underhanded when it comes to presenting the truth, Manns hockey stick, being on par with any of the dirty dealings within the banking community!

[Thundery wintry showers]

TWS, climatologists are speaking with one voice, there is very, very high percentage of them on board in regards to AGW, over 90%. Of course there is going to be some dissent(thank God!) but the matter, as far that part of the scientific community is concerned, is settled. How much more consensus is needed before people stop heralding every study that shows a hole in the theory whilst ignoring 100 others that reinforce it...?

Well, yes and no. There is indeed a consensus among scientists re. AGW, but there are differing degrees of consensus, and I often get a sense of there being a significant difference between the strength of the actual consensus and the one that is preached to the general public and the media. Also, a consensus of any kind, whether knowingly or inadvertantly, tends to stifle dissenting voices to some extent, especially when there's a desire to speak with one voice. On top of that, I am more sceptical than most mainstream scientists because I am not convinced as to how far we should trust the outputs of the computer models that form a large part of the basis for the current consensus.

It's near-100% settled that AGW exists, what's more open to argument is its extent.

Regarding the Hadley Centre, it's hard to see why so many people are singling it out (other than another excuse to bash the Met Office) because the criticisms that are being levelled at the Hadley Centre, whether justified or not, could equally be levelled at almost any other research institution. In the meantime the Hadley Centre is well known to be one of the best there is, and in a sense we do need it, because if we didn't have it, it would slow the rate at which high quality research comes out, just as would happen if we closed any other top quality research institution.

[VillagePlank]

Well, the answer to the question is, I think, yes.

A government's primary task is setting out the safety of its citizens, and, as we all know, weather is, and can be, a very dangerous phenomena. You need a government body to do that work. A body that will take the responsibility to warn citizens of potentially very dangerous weather scenarios.

That body, of course, is the MetO. If it were solely private funded - who would take the responsibility? Who would take the blame/accept the honours?

It's a necessary evil, and, that they might add value in other areas of expertise, is fine by me ... even if they won't give me any data ...

Edited September 10, 2009 by VillagePlank

[weather eater]

These vested interest are those of self preservation! I must say you have a very low opinion of the general public, and over inflated view of climate scientist! What makes you think that climate scientist are right? Geologist have a far better understanding of our climate, than a science which is only 30 years old!! Some people really do find it easier for others to think for them, rather than think for themselves. As for comparisons with the banking system, well both have been found to be underhanded when it comes to presenting the truth, Manns hockey stick, being on par with any of the dirty dealings within the banking community!

That’s the funniest post I've seen for a long time SC, The idea that climate scientists agree with AGW for self preservation purposes is frankly foolish, And Geologists know more about climate than climatologists, if you read any literature about past climate you will realise that many branches of science are involved, geologists, biologists, palaeontologists, and climatologists, the bulk of that scientific opinion is that man is impacting on climate to one extent or another, how much is what we should be sceptical about.

And yet again we have the inference that anyone who thinks differently to you is being lead around by the nose and not thinking for themselves, never mind low opinion of the general public you seem to have one about many NW members,

I would suggest that anyone should look at the science behind AGW with an open mind, take into account that the media will spin any story to make it appear more dramatic, organisations like Greenpeace will do the same. And yes there are alarmists in the scientific communitee, indeed on a Radio 4 program broadcast a few years ago "overselling climate change" one scientist Dr Hans Storch who is incidentally a climatologist Said this “The Alarmists think that climate change is something that is extremely dangerous and bad and that overselling it a little bit if it serves a good purpose is not that bad“ Writing in Der Spiegel he also said this. "The current predictions of doom are hysterical and idiotic. Many ‘scientific’ pronouncements on the subject of climate change are bereft of merit. Global warming theories have left the laboratory and become the stuff of Hollywood. And he reminds us to consider how wrong some dire forecasts have been in the past.

Here’s a link to a biography for him http://fora.tv/speaker/3252/Hans_von_Storch

He does not however dispute the general theory of AGW.

Edited September 10, 2009 by weather eater

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I think it is true that irrespecive of one's own beliefs, it is a good idea to have an open mind but also that does still mean being able to think independantly based on your own judgement without necessarily being led by a consensus. We do need to question any consensus belief - in my own opinion the time when such a belief its at its most vulnerable is when there is a large mass of opinion behind it. It becomes too easy to become over narroly focused on it and to miss other tricks that may be taking one away from the real truth.

If consensus was never questioned then the world would be a very dangerous place.

My own scepticism of AGW derives from standing back a bit and hopefully being able to see a few trees for the wood. That doesn't mean having a full understanding of all the issues related, but it is a good starting point. My example as a reference to this is the overview that the happily recovered and returned P3 provided in explanations regarding the IPCC report and some of the background issues which developed the framework of the report. I believe my own scepticism is better based in judgement because of those explanations

Edited September 10, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Mr Maunder]

That’s the funniest post I've seen for a long time SC, The idea that climate scientists agree with AGW for self preservation purposes is frankly foolish, And Geologists know more about climate than climatologists, if you read any literature about past climate you will realise that many branches of science are involved, geologists, biologists, palaeontologists, and climatologists, the bulk of that scientific opinion is that man is impacting on climate to one extent or another, how much is what we should be sceptical about.

I admire your confidence! Just ask yourself the question as to who is actually funding their research and you start to understand where the reference to "self preservation" comes from. It is just human nature (favourable reports = more funding = saved job).

Remember that our over powerful and self important politicians have hi-jacked the AGW agenda because they just cannot resist meddling in anything that enables them to both dictate behaviour and raise taxes at the same time, This is an open goal to them - a double whammy!

Meanwhile any serious actions (Transport Policy, Air Travel, New Nuclear Power Stations you name it etc) are for some time in the future. Perhaps they don't really believe it themselves............or they just want to pretend they care.

MM

[weather eater]

I admire your confidence! Just ask yourself the question as to who is actually funding their research and you start to understand where the reference to "self preservation" comes from. It is just human nature (favourable reports = more funding = saved job).

Remember that our over powerful and self important politicians have hi-jacked the AGW agenda because they just cannot resist meddling in anything that enables them to both dictate behaviour and raise taxes at the same time, This is an open goal to them - a double whammy!

Meanwhile any serious actions (Transport Policy, Air Travel, New Nuclear Power Stations you name it etc) are for some time in the future. Perhaps they don't really believe it themselves............or they just want to pretend they care.

MM

I'm afraid this is where things have got muddled, the problem we have is that all sides of the debate are being meddled with by the politicians you speak of, and for various reasons, not least amongst them are the right wing think tanks and their friends in the energy industry, who have every interest in not changing anything, they have their fingers in many sceptic books and internet, blogs, websites, etc, as well as tame scientists, over the last few years they have become very adept at hiding their tracks and turning attention away from themselves, usually with pretty standard tactics. The first one, is usually to accuse the other side of tactics, that they themselves are using. Some of that applies to the alarmist camp as well. I made a post about this earlier. Given some of the nonsense that gets posted on these threads the tactics are working. As for actually doing anything about it, well that becomes more difficult because politicians have no wish to loss votes by bringing in legislation that might mean people have to change their lifestyles, as of yet we have seen much hot air and very little action. Action as I say is not likely to be a vote winner. In regards the MO I think the suggestion that they are only supporting the theory of climate change because of some sort of self preservation, ludicrous, what if they go against it the government will see they all lose their jobs, come off it. And as for the wider scientific communities and the people at Hadley, if they turn out to be badly wrong, that’s going to be a lot of egg, on a lot of faces, do you think that as professionals in their chosen fields, that they care more about jobs and money than their reputations. I know which one would be more important to me, I hate being wrong.

[Solar Cycles]

That’s the funniest post I've seen for a long time SC, The idea that climate scientists agree with AGW for self preservation purposes is frankly foolish, And Geologists know more about climate than climatologists, if you read any literature about past climate you will realise that many branches of science are involved, geologists, biologists, palaeontologists, and climatologists, the bulk of that scientific opinion is that man is impacting on climate to one extent or another, how much is what we should be sceptical about.

And yet again we have the inference that anyone who thinks differently to you is being lead around by the nose and not thinking for themselves, never mind low opinion of the general public you seem to have one about many NW members,

I would suggest that anyone should look at the science behind AGW with an open mind, take into account that the media will spin any story to make it appear more dramatic, organisations like Greenpeace will do the same. And yes there are alarmists in the scientific communitee, indeed on a Radio 4 program broadcast a few years ago "overselling climate change" one scientist Dr Hans Storch who is incidentally a climatologist Said this “The Alarmists think that climate change is something that is extremely dangerous and bad and that overselling it a little bit if it serves a good purpose is not that bad“ Writing in Der Spiegel he also said this. "The current predictions of doom are hysterical and idiotic. Many ‘scientific’ pronouncements on the subject of climate change are bereft of merit. Global warming theories have left the laboratory and become the stuff of Hollywood. And he reminds us to consider how wrong some dire forecasts have been in the past.

Here’s a link to a biography for him http://fora.tv/speak...Hans_von_Storch

He does not however dispute the general theory of AGW.

I'm sorry but you really do fail to see the point I'm making!

[Mr Maunder]

I'm afraid this is where things have got muddled, the problem we have is that all sides of the debate are being meddled with by the politicians you speak of, and for various reasons, not least amongst them are the right wing think tanks and their friends in the energy industry, who have every interest in not changing anything, they have their fingers in many sceptic books and internet, blogs, websites, etc, as well as tame scientists, over the last few years they have become very adept at hiding their tracks and turning attention away from themselves, usually with pretty standard tactics. The first one, is usually to accuse the other side of tactics, that they themselves are using. Some of that applies to the alarmist camp as well. I made a post about this earlier. Given some of the nonsense that gets posted on these threads the tactics are working. As for actually doing anything about it, well that becomes more difficult because politicians have no wish to loss votes by bringing in legislation that might mean people have to change their lifestyles, as of yet we have seen much hot air and very little action. Action as I say is not likely to be a vote winner. In regards the MO I think the suggestion that they are only supporting the theory of climate change because of some sort of self preservation, ludicrous, what if they go against it the government will see they all lose their jobs, come off it. And as for the wider scientific communities and the people at Hadley, if they turn out to be badly wrong, that’s going to be a lot of egg, on a lot of faces, do you think that as professionals in their chosen fields, that they care more about jobs and money than their reputations. I know which one would be more important to me, I hate being wrong.

I appreciate your reply. I agree with some of it.....and disagree with some of it.

I'm not here to defend the tactics, say, of vested interests that have infiltrated the "sceptical" blogosphere. Also I'm not suggesting that the whole of the MO is pandering to government pressure to produce pro-AGW reports.

But there is (in my view) a very considerable difference between manipulating opinion and manipulating official data. The lobbyists do not control the official data, (largely) government agencies world wide do.

For example, in the US, GISStemp temperature records (not satellite but actual readings) have been amended by the application of new algorithms to "correct" historical "inaccuracies". In some cases this has been done so many times it is doubtful whether the original thermometer recorded temperatures can ever be reconstructed (If anyone ever wanted to do that). I've yet to see a change that could be interpreted as lowering temperatures, the changes always seem to be in the direction! Perhaps this delays the “egg on face” you refer to.

In the UK Hadley (is this part of the MO?) have removed some climate data files from public access and refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset. Why - what is to be gained by this? Surely more public/peer scrutiny is a good thing. If there are flaws in how they are using this data (and I have no idea whether there are) then surely it would be better to know.

In my view examples such as those quoted above make people like me much more sceptical that we are being manipulated for some other (political) ends. In addition, the BBC (also government funded!) really does not help with poor and unbalanced journalism such as its banal coverage of the Caitlin Arctic Expedition. So, as a result, the arguments about preserving and saving the worlds resources get lost in a welter of claims and counter claims.

Clean data, with assumptions and algorithms in the public domain - that is all I’m really asking for. Then, armed with these, we can better make up our minds. In my view the long term manipulation (or obfuscation) of data probably just weakens, rather than strengthens, the case for the pro-AGW camp.

MM

[Thundery wintry showers]

In the UK Hadley (is this part of the MO?) have removed some climate data files from public access and refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset. Why - what is to be gained by this? Surely more public/peer scrutiny is a good thing. If there are flaws in how they are using this data (and I have no idea whether there are) then surely it would be better to know.

MM

This question has come up before. Hadley is indeed part of the MetO, and the data issues are also tied in with UEA's Climatic Research Unit. Mistakes have certainly been made over the data, but there is no conspiracy involved. A large part of the problem is that various national agencies are unwilling to have their raw climate data freely shared- a pre-requisite for the free sharing of all methodologies used to generate the global climate data. Copyright restrictions often get in the way in these kinds of cases, especially in the computer software industry- companies would rather try to extract more revenues by protecting things by copyright instead of freely sharing them. Which in moderation is absolutely fine- but sometimes it goes too far.

As for the Met Office Hadley Centre itself, it has generally relaxed its stance on copyright in recent years with more of its data being freely shared. For example a large percentage of the monthly data for the UK regions going back to 1914 or 1929 is available on the website for free download.

[La Bise]

These vested interest are those of self preservation! I must say you have a very low opinion of the general public, and over inflated view of climate scientist! What makes you think that climate scientist are right? Geologist have a far better understanding of our climate, than a science which is only 30 years old!! Some people really do find it easier for others to think for them, rather than think for themselves. As for comparisons with the banking system, well both have been found to be underhanded when it comes to presenting the truth, Manns hockey stick, being on par with any of the dirty dealings within the banking community!

If I'm sick, I will go to see my GP, someone who studied 6 years to understand the human body and he will only give me an appraisal and refer me to a specialist should my condition require more pointed advice. This will maximise my chances of finding whatever problem is affecting me.

I assume that when you're sick you go to look for an answer on the internet, probably looking at the fringes of medical science because doctors have a vested interest in their own self-preservation and are all in the pay of politicians...? Just to prove how independent minded you are...? Or are you going to ask advice to an anthropologist..?

The general public knows jackonions about AGW Solar, climatologists do. This is why, in an incredibly daring gesture, I will side with those who, one expects, are best qualified to comment on a certain subject rather than the "general public".

[Solar Cycles]

If I'm sick, I will go to see my GP, someone who studied 6 years to understand the human body and he will only give me an appraisal and refer me to a specialist should my condition require more pointed advice. This will maximise my chances of finding whatever problem is affecting me.

I assume that when you're sick you go to look for an answer on the internet, probably looking at the fringes of medical science because doctors have a vested interest in their own self-preservation and are all in the pay of politicians...? Just to prove how independent minded you are...? Or are you going to ask advice to an anthropologist..?

The general public knows jackonions about AGW Solar, climatologists do. This is why, in an incredibly daring gesture, I will side with those who, one expects, are best qualified to comment on a certain subject rather than the "general public".

I'm a health professional, so I probably know more than most GP's! As for climatologists knowing more than others, well one only as to look at all their previous dabbles with predicting the future. 5 years ago, their flawed models and judgement, predicted continuing warming. What happened with that one I wonder? The same is now happening with the ever fading el nino, the so called experts, are going to be left with another huge dollop of egg on their faces! Solar activity, was touted as having a negible effect on our climate not that long ago. Now these professionals, as you call them are having to re-evaluate that misguided opinion. The list goes on, but it's pointless trying convince those who like others to think for them, is it not!!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I will happily agree that we should not adopt a simplistic assumption that climate scientists are always right and the general public are always wrong, but many of those who say "we should trust the climate scientists more than the public" don't see it in such black and white terms.

Put simply, if people are knowledgeable on a subject, it is usually the case that they are more likely to be right most of the time than a group of people with somewhat less knowledge. Therefore, surely, it is not unreasonable to expect climate scientists to be more likely to be right most of the time than the general public, and thus consider them the more trustworthy source?

[weather eater]

Solar activity, was touted as having a negible effect on our climate not that long ago. Now these professionals, as you call them are having to re-evaluate that misguided opinion. The list goes on, but it's pointless trying convince those who like others to think for them, is it not!!!

You see SC this is statement emphasises what’s wrong with your posts.

1. Can you back up your first statement, who touted exactly, how many climate scientists said solar effects are negligible.

2. As yet we have seen no discernable cooling from the solar minima, that’s not to say we wont, I hope we do, but as of this time we haven’t. As I pointed out the other day static temperatures mean just that, static does not mean cooling any more than it means warming.

3. Yet again you are implying that those who don’t think like you are being lead around by the nose, in other words if you don’t think like me, you’re stupid. It seems to me that your method of putting your case is to shout louder and more often than anybody else without backing up your case with any evidence.

All you are doing is stating your opinion, that’s fine, I do that a fair amount as well, I have a different opinion about last winter than some on the forum and I’m pretty bullish about it but I don’t think those who disagree with me are stupid, they are just stating it as they see it. Maybe your opinion will turn out to be right but given the evidence available its not being close minded to think other than you, or that those that do are letting others do the thinking for them.