Re 5 points:
Muso offered 2 statements, followed by 2 measurements and another statement about oceanic pH.
They do not add up to a demonstration of AGW, whether in its original form, in my summary or Muso's 'cleaned up' version of my summary.
Plimer and Monbiot - I scanned the pages, I did not check the links.
There was to be depate at The Spectator. The place and time were settled, the event was advertoised.
Then Monbiot asked Plimer to answer some questions before the debate. I stress that this was AFTER the debate was booked. All concerned immediately saw through Monbiot's move as a way of trying to get out of it.
Plimer, obviously miffed, and unwilling to be so blatantly snookered, countered with his own questions.
Monbiot declared himself unqualified to answer them (but not unqualified to discuss the whole AGW issue, obviously).
WHen Plimer was not forthcoming with the answers, Monbiot triumphantly declared him a chicken and congratulated himself on his own cleverness by wriggling out of a debate while blaming his opponent whom, it appears to me, he was afraid to face on a debating podium.
Re Plimer's errors as detailed by http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
I only sampled this effort and read the couple of references to Plimer's treatmeant of the medieval warming. To my mind, the compiler has not made any dent on Plimer's claims that the medieval warming period was warmer than the present and that it was obviously unrelated to human emissions of CO2. As these points are not refuted by the compiler, I am not sure what he is on about. WIth that in mind, I am sceptical (!!) about the rest of this document.
If it warms your hearts, I haven't read Plimer's book either. And I am not planning to, either.
The emerging news overataking us is the hacked emails in England. I have not looked into this beyond the headlines and what the ex-Chancellor has said in The Times:
Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.
It is against all this background that I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.
Scepticism has its place and uses. It's good, don't knock it, boys.
Forum
Pages: 
Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? (Read 32362 times)
