In response to legless' post below...
The idea that there's a AGW cover-up that's been blown has been nicely debunked in many places - but a good explanation of why the deniers are wrong can be found here.

Worth a couple of minutes.

EDIT: And while we're at it...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:42, 77 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

I'm sat in the camp where I'm aware that it's happening
I don't know how much effect we've had, I think measures to reduce our impact are a good idea regardless of whether or not we have had one, and I'm fucking sick of people going on about it all the time.

Particularly stupid people. like journalists.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:53, Reply)

I preferred the first link...
...and must admit I clicked the second in anticpation of 'I Love Horses' and was very let down.
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:54, Reply)

My standard response to climate change deniers is:
Do you think we're too reliant on oil?
do you think we should be more efficient in our use of resources?

You might not make them believe that climate change is real but that's not particularly important. The important thing is to stop people wasting so much of everything.
(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:55, Reply)

absolutely
most people are really stupid though, and trying to terrifying them with an over-simpified argument is probably the best way to go about it.

I admit that it has taken me quite some to get this into my head.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:56, Reply)

Well, yeah.
That one seems to me to be a no-brainer, and it baffles me how the denialist camp seems to be immune to the idea that relying on fossil fuels, irrespective of the CO₂ impact, is madness, and that there're very good economic reasons to spend money on research into renewables.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:58, Reply)

it's because they're lizard people who breath C02 and their blood is made from acid rain.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:00, Reply)

Shhhhhh!
Don't tell everyone.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:03, Reply)

it's something to get angry about though
and that is irresistable.

I find it annoying the other way too. I read the new civil engineer now and then, and recently there have been letters from people on the climate change subject. Regardless of what a doubter of AGW will say in their letter, the following week someone will have rabidly written in demanding that the journal no longer print letters from deniers.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:01, Reply)

It's a tricky one for editors.
No serious scientist will deny the possibility that the science is wrong; on the other hand, none will deny that the picture as we understand it is overwelmingly in favour of AGW hypotheses as correct.

At the same time, not every voice on matters of scientific importance is an important voice. What you do with the cranks is a tricky one for editors, though - and unless we start peer-reviewing letters, I guess that they're simply going to have to be printed...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:06, Reply)

it's more of a "have your say" for engineers than it is a place for scientific debate.

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:22, Reply)

renewables nuclear energy
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:01, Reply)

Both.
Nuclear is a reasonable stopgap, but renewables strike me as being a better idea on the whole. It's not like there's a shortage of wind and sun.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:03, Reply)

isn't the problem with wind and sun the efficiencies?
I'm in favour of hydro and tidal energy personally.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:09, Reply)

They should dam the Severn
and fuck the archeologists. I'd rather have power than boring old shit. If it was worth having it wouldn't have been thrown in a fucking river would it!
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:14, Reply)

Speaking as an archaeoogist, I welcome this fucking.
I do, however, object to it destroying my fishing for cod on those cold winter nights by Oldbury nuclear power station.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:16, Reply)

Glow-in-the-dark fish a bit easier to catch?

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:26, Reply)

Self-cooking, too

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:27, Reply)

I'm going to a presentation about the latest severn barrage stuff on friday
I'll let you know what the current thinking is
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:21, Reply)

Perhaps, but that strikes me as a soluble problem.
There's a proposal for a Supergrid, for example, that'd link Saharan Africa, Norway, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, and possibly Iceland with DC cables. This would provide all of the regions power needs in principle. Sure, there's an engineering problem, but there's also good reason to think that it's eminently doable.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:16, Reply)

any engineering problem can be solved with enough money

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:21, Reply)

Yup.
And the Supergrid idea, from what I've seen, would be expensive. But possibly still a good investment.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:22, Reply)

it could indeed be a good investment
unfortunately there would be a lot of politics involved, and hence a lot of politicians....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:24, Reply)

Renewables have a pretty big impact on the ecosystems that people like to bleat about.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:13, Reply)

You know me well enough by now to know that I don't care about public opinion.
Nuclear is better than fossil, but you still need to build the things, and concrete is a massive carbon emitter - and reactors use a lot of concrete.

You're going to get an impact on the system whatever you do (or, rather, the impact is part of the system). And not all impacts are bad: the Norfolk broads and Cambridge Fells are lauded today as environmentally precious, but they're just the result of mediaeval geoengineering (aren't they? The general point'd stand that changing an area doesn't mean damaging it.).

I'm not denying the place of nuclear - fission or potentially fusion; but I don't think that it is, or has to be, the whole story.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:20, Reply)

Aren't the new proposed sites for nuclear power
based on building at existing nuclear plants, e.g. Oldbury, Hinkley?

And your point about changing the landscape can also apply on a global scale with regards to climate change.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:38, Reply)

they are
but at hinkley for example, they are wanting to level a big area of farm land and pave it to make new accommodation and a park and ride for the people working on the construction. among other things.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:42, Reply)

Yes - you're right...
... but see my reply to your reply to Legless. CC isn't just about alteration - that's not a problem - but about the fact that it'll predictably diminish the quality of life of millions. There's a good welfare-based reason to worry about it.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:48, Reply)

I don't much care.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:24, Reply)

The use of the word deniers is an odd one
It's worryingly close to the phrase holocaust deniers, and I think underlines a fundamental issue that climate change sceptics have.

The idea of man made climate change has moved on from being a debatable scientific question to a fundamentalist belief, with all of the blind sensationalism that you would expect.

In the same way that it's hard to take fundamentalist religion seriously because it is so unmovable in it's stance, so entrenched in it's doctrine and so unwilling to look outside of it's own boundaries it is becoming hard to take climate change advocates seriously as they undermine their credibility with melodramatic rhetoric.

Whether man is responsible for climate change or not, I feel a reasonable and measured debate has been left behind, in favour of doom mongers, politicians and corporate shills.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:09, Reply)

No.
The deniers are not sceptics, since scepticism in its true sense implies systematic doubt in a search for evidence, combined with an openness to evidence.

The denialist movement is no sceptical, because it will not accept the evidence. To this extent, it does have a common trait with holocaust deniers, "birthers", and any number of other fringe movements.

The belief among the scientific community - and even the American petrochemical science association accepts it - in AGW is not doctrinaire; its simply the case that, given what we understand of physics, chemisty, and so on, the reality AGW is about as close to proven as you can get. There is no debate to be had on its reality at the moment, any more than there's a debate to be had concerning the number of legs that the average dog has.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:16, Reply)

the fundamental bit comes in with ordinary people though
regardless of the science and the scientists, it's the common people that are the ones with the unshakeable faith either way.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:19, Reply)

I've just worked out the number of legs an average dog has
1 legged dog has 16600000 google results
2 legged dog has 3030000 google results
3 legged dog has 14500000 google results
4 legged dog has 15000000 google results
5 legged dog has 11000000 google results
6 legged dog has 12100000 google results
7 legged dog has 9910000 google results
8 legged dog has 10600000 google results
9 legged dog has 6460000 google results
10 legged dog has 13900000 google results

So dogs on average have 5.349 legs.
FACT
(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

I am going to use this methodolgy
for everything in my life from now on.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25, Reply)

So
David Bowie is Shit - 15,700,000
David Bowie is Awesome - 15,100,000
David Bowie is alright - 835,000
David Bowie is good - 15,400,000

Fuck me, it seems I've been wrong all this time. I humbly apologise to Monty Boyce. I'm off to burn Scary Monsters now.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:27, Reply)

hahahaha
this is awesome

and newsletter worthy I'd say

edit:
althegeordie is gay - 1,150 results
althegeordie is straight - 105 results

better break the news to your fiancée
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

Awwww that sucks
I was really looking forward to getting married.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:31, Reply)

And look at this
Vipros is a cunt - 451
Vipros is a god - 1,450
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:32, Reply)

the internet never lies

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:35, Reply)

Civil ceremonies are nearly the same.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:33, Reply)

I'm not from Islington
they won't let me have a civil ceremony with a woman.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:34, Reply)

Hahaha

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:58, Reply)

it's not science if you don't put FACT at the end.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

*clicks*

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:36, Reply)

When excited my dog has 4 1/2 legs...

To me there seem to be unsatisfactorily answered questions, and since it's politicisation AGW feels less like a scientific theory and more a govermental crowbar.

The use of renewable energy, less polluting cars, the clean up of industry can only be a good thing whether AGW is true or not, however the paradigm shift in our style of living neeeded to meet government set targets feels wrong and unecessarily economically damaging.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25, Reply)

I don't see why it's damaging at all.
The Stern Report was clear that moving to renewables would be expensive, but expensive doesn't mean harmful: the money spent would provide jobs, technology, innovation; and it would, of course, save us from the oil shocks headed our way.

It would also be cheaper than the predicted cost of climate change - a cost which, since the Report, has been revised upwards.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:34, Reply)

I think you've summed it up quite nicely there

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:16, Reply)

I disagree
I think he's entirely wrong.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

I'm trying to clarify what I'm saying above and below
not talking about the science, more the attitude of the public and the way things are reported in non-scientific media. in a huge sweeping generalisation.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:26, Reply)

No, it hasn't.
The newspapers just like to paint us as unreasonable and fundamentalist. I admit, the use of the word 'deniers' has unfortunate associations, but most of us don't actually look down on climate change sceptics quite that much.

We are open to debate and we would dearly love it if someone could provide irrefutable proof that actually we just forgot to carry that three and it's all going to be alright. Most of these studies don't actually say "don't worry, it's going to be alright after all," they just proffer a study or a simulation that's contrary to fifty-odd other studies, because they set up a certain parameter in a different way. Unfortunately, because it goes ever-so-slightly against the grain, innumerable idiotic journalists see it as sensational and decide that the best thing to do is blow it up into a huge, triumphant publication that says everyone else was wrong all along. They seem to like to ignore the fact that it's just one little paper floating in a huge sea of similar papers which all make slightly different predictions. We're not ignoring these papers; they just don't have that much impact.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:22, Reply)

I may have been mistaken
but I don't think he was talking about scientists, or at least, what he says is much more applicable to people who have a staunch belief for or against AGW, but have little understanding of the science behind it. The people cultivated by sensationalist media reporting.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

Yes, sorry, you're right.
Reading his post back, he's not actually used the word "scientist." I've just been a bit tetchy since the papers started accusing all the climate scientists of being unreasonable and refusing to debate the matter. Sorry, almost got a bit knee-jerk there.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:26, Reply)

I'm not surprised that scientists are refusing to debate the matter
why would you want to discuss it with someone who doesn't understand and won't listen?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

Well, there is that
Although again, I refute the idea that they're "refusing" to debate - after all, in order to have a proper debate, you have to have a convincing case from the sceptics. And we're still waiting for that one...
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:42, Reply)

sorry, wasn't saying they were
just saying that it was understandable if they did.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:44, Reply)

Oh, well that's fair enough, yes.

(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:48, Reply)

That's not a refutation.
It's a rejection. To refute something means to prove that it's mistaken, which you've not done.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:01, Reply)

Ah.
Ok, in that case I reject the idea.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:06, Reply)

My point really was

that sensationalism of any topic AGW, religion or politics on either side of an argument undermines that argument and at present it feels like there is a lot of AGW propogander that falls into this camp.

Similarly outright refusal to believe something is happening to the global climate also makes you look like a berk, as with most things a sensible and reasoned middle ground is where the truth and in this case our survival lies.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:29, Reply)

Well, yes, you have a good point there.
Again: blame the papers.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:49, Reply)

Reasoned middle ground is, frequently, a pile of crap.
Right (ahahah I put it on the left)------------------------------------Wrong

Anywhere in the middle is still wrong.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:28, Reply)

Isn't the economy of a lot of the world based on oil
rather than gold or drugs.

It going to be hard to get countries like the US to go over to renewable s.
( Peej, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:42, Reply)

that's because you can't fry things in wind energy

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:44, Reply)

*CLICKS*
*wipes coffee off keyboard*
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:45, Reply)

They won't have much choice in a decade or two...

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:45, Reply)

Watch you don't choke on that croissant.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:17, Reply)

Just one point..
I don't give a monkey's about climate change, and doubt it is man-made (all the while I try to continue a sensible "waste not, want not" approach to life as taught by my family), but I really object to being called a "denier", like "holocaust denier". I've got a right to my own opinion and I expect that to be respected, thanks.
(raymond "three griddle pans" luxury yacht lovin' the christmas action, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:44, Reply)

No, no, no, no.
Noone has a right to an opinion, because an opinion can be mistaken, and if you had a right to it, it'd be wrong to point that out and try to correct it.

There is a denialist movement, and it does have similarities to holocaust denial and any number of other fringe movements. I don't know if you're a part of it or if you subscribe to it, but if you are, and if you object to having that pointed out, tough.

Opinions are not worthy of respect. People, perhaps, are. But you don't respect a person by pandering to their petulance.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:51, Reply)

I do have a right to my opinion
in that I can't be prosecuted for it. However, I guess you have a right to insult it - I just don't like being compared with holocaust deniers - that is just ridiculous, and to my mind dangerously dogmatic. Legislation could soon be put through to prosecute anyone who doesn't conform with green iniatives, something I don't like the sound of.

I get my political info from www.spiked-online.com, who can argue the "denial" case more eloquently than I can. I used to get all excited and argue the case for climate change years ago when it was laregly ignored. Then I fell in with a group of pilots, through a very good friend, who flys the airbus around europe. They pointed me in the direction of some info, and I was suddenly confused about the issue. Then I found Spiked and decided there are much more important things to worry about, expecially when half the world can't afford to care about it.

I'm not part of any movement, and wouldn't like to be because I am nowhere near to being a scientist and therefore cannot properly comment. But I don't feel the least bit guilty about my personal "denier" stance.
(raymond "three griddle pans" luxury yacht lovin' the christmas action, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:14, Reply)

Enzyme isn't a scientist either.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:27, Reply)

And the importance of that is what, precisely?
(Elaboration edit: The fact that I'm not a scientist doesn't prevent me from being at least scientifically literate; you don't have to be doing the research to understand it in reasonable terms. Moreover, "scientist" is a very wide term; if I'm disqualified from commenting because I'm not a climatologist, you're disqualified for precisely the same reason.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:35, Reply)

he said
"I am nowhere near to being a scientist and therefore cannot comment properly". I implied that you aren't a scientist but it hasn't stopped you from telling everyone the true facts that you found on the Internet.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:43, Reply)

Ahhh - concentrating on the source rather than the content.
Well done you.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 15:23, Reply)

I imagine people might be more inclined to listen to you
if you were less pompous.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 15:29, Reply)

!!!P*O*W*E*R*S*L*A*M!!!
awesome
(raymond "three griddle pans" luxury yacht lovin' the christmas action, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 22:15, Reply)

Opinions that run contrary to the evidence
do not deserve respect.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:53, Reply)

Well
regardless of whether climate change (real or not) and whether it is caused by humans or not, there is a very very good reason for us switching to alternate forms of energy- whether nuclear as would be my preference, or reliable renewable energy, and that is pure economics and politics.

Our dependence on gas in particular is really going to fuck us over badly in the future without a doubt. Reserves were predicted to last longer than they will given the massive increase in consumption in recent years. As a main supplier, we're giving Russia a very useful hold over us, and even the new sources in Denmark etc are liable to exactly the same problems in terms of Russian supplies- we're end of the line, and bidding wars in cold times mean promised gas can be easily diverted.

So while I'm all for people cutting down energy usage and recycling etc, I really feel that it simply isn't the answer- we need to get to grips with the future as well in terms of supplying the energy we *do* need
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:58, Reply)

I don't know about AGW
but I'm a little skeptical that we've had that much impact on the climate. It's certain that things are changing- but what of that? Why should it stay constantly the same? Who's to say that the climate we've known for the past fifty years is the optimal climate for anything?

A key concept that I have yet to see addressed: how do we demonstrate that someone's climate model is correct? I would think that the best way would be to feed it raw data up to 1990 and see if it can predict what actually happened over the next two decades. If it's close, it's worth using. If it's drastically off, it's a pile of wank.

I find Jerry Pournelle's response intriguing. In brief, he points out that we should spend some time and effort on figuring out eactly what is changing before we start making laws based on what we fear might be happening.

There is a good summary of what is known and what is not known about Climate Change models by MIT Meteorology professor Robert Lindzen in today's Wall Street Journal.
online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703939404
574567423917025400.html

It's a good introduction to what's serious about ClimateGate.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate.

GATA is the globally averaged temperature anomaly. It is the single figure of merit that governs the concern about climate change and global warming, and the real truth is that it can't be measured to the kind of accuracy demanded by the climate change/global warming hypothesis. Debates about the wisdom of governing multi-billion dollar economic decisions on the basis of a single figure of merit are certainly not inappropriate at the policy level; and debates about the reliability of that figure of merit are certainly appropriate in scientific journals. Note that those who advocate those debates are generally denounced as "deniers", and the Climategate Papers suggest strongly that political tactics, not scientific concern, have been the moving issue in much of the UN IPCC reports. Lindzen clarifies this. If you haven't read his paper, it's worth your time to go read it now.

Lindzen summarizes the science, and in an aside says that perhaps the worst crime of the IPCC conspirators as revealed by the Climategate Papers is "their destruction of raw data". We can all agree to that. Do note that the raw data cannot possibly generate a consensus GATA accurate to fractions of a degree. The data aren't that good.

Much of the raw data have been deleted, but some general observations remain. I've mentioned this before, but it's worth reminding ourselves of some things we all know.

The Earth has been much warmer in historical times. We have some general ideas about climate in ancient and classical times, but we needn't go back that far: we all know about the Medieval Warm period. We all know that the Vikings established dairy farms in Greenland. Some of those farms are emerging from glacial ice, but some remain covered. We all know from Doomsday Book that there were vineyards in northern England in the time of William the Conqueror. It's less well known that there were vineyards in Scandinavia and Scotland, but that's easy to establish. We have records of growing seasons from those times from both Europe and China. Protests that the Greenland Viking farms were due to some strange wandering of the Gulf Stream are merely assertions: neither evidence for those wanderings nor mechanisms for accomplishing them are backed with serous evidence. It was just plain warmer from about 800 AD, and that continued until about 1325 when climate changed rather dramatically with a year of dark and cold rain, and it began to get colder. The exact GATA of the Medieval Warm period isn't agreed -- how could it be? -- but that the Earth was warmer then is simply not in doubt, nor is there anything like a consensus on just why we had that warming. It was a significant fact in both Western and Chinese history -- food was more abundant, populations grew, travel was easier -- and the effects seem to have been positive.

We know that the Earth has been much colder in historical times. My favorite example is that the cannon of Ticonderoga, captured by Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys ("by the authority of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!") and dragged across New England by Henry Knox. Rivers froze solid enough to drag cannon across them. We have other indications of temperatures from 1700 to 1800. It was cold. Rivers froze. Growing seasons were shorter than now. We have similar data for Europe and China. Recall Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates and skating contests on the frozen brackish canals of Holland. Again we have no reliable (to a degree, much less to fractions of a degree) estimations of GATA, but we can all agree that it was considerably colder.

We know that temperatures began slowly to rise sometime after 1800 (there was so far as I know no dramatic event) and the trend was obvious after about 1825. Growing seasons grew longer. Rivers that formerly froze solid became unreliable. Spring icebreaks came earlier, and streams froze later. Cuckoos nested earlier. Those trends continued into the Twentieth Century, and may be continuing now.

We know that the major climate alarm in the 1970's and early 1980's was the fear of a coming Ice Age. Gus Spaeth, Carter's environmental quality advisor, was concerned that nuclear waste depositories be able to withstand glaciation. Margaret Meade as President of AAAS had much to say about the coming bad times as the world began cooling. During the 1980's the speculations of Arrhenius made about 1895 about possible "greenhouse" effects of CO2 began pushing forward, and with increasingly powerful (and cheap) computers climate models became affordable to many academic and scientific institutions. The models began predicting warming, although the data collectors weren't really finding it. The rest is history. There emerged a "consensus" about an "inconvenient truth". Whether that consensus was forced by scientific data or by social engineering is open to question.

Finally we know that one phenomenon of the coldest part of the Little Ice Age was the "Maunder Minimum": a long period of minimal solar activities, characterized by long periods of few to zero sunspots. You can monitor rcent solar activity at www.solarcycle24.com/ .

Given that the science is not settled, and that the economic effect of national policy to counter "climate change" are enormous, simple Bayesian analysis would indicate that we ought to be spending a lot of money to determine just what the climate trend is: and that means funding contrarian studies, studies designed to refute the "consensus" theory, as well as funding the collection of accurate data. This seems an obvious conclusion. It is of course inconvenient to those whose careers have been financed by grants peer reviewed by peers who don't include "deniers."
( The Resident Loon Not a demographic. Do not measure., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 14:12, Reply)