SOLAR PANELS

I thought the grant system (or at least the best part of it) ended a few months ago.
I think it was a very good deal for those planning to stay in the property for the life of the panels.
try moneysavingexpert for advice.

Put your panels on an awning / canopy facing south. works for me.
get your bits from ebay and be happy with free power.

dig a trench up and down yer garden to 200m at 1m deep and fit a ground source heat pump.

agree with that. considering how far the technology has come, it suprises me that they can't make them to look like roof tiles

The disputed subject of climate change certainly never fails to push your buttons does it trevh ?.
You cetainly sound very hot under the collar about it.
What's the background to your interest, and your quite obvious knowledge in the subject ?
Tbh it's something that generally makes my eyes glaze over, if and when I see one of the never-ending articles about it in the popular press.
Is it really all so cut and dried that it is self-serving Govt. propaganda ?
You obviously think it is.

man made climate change was established fact.

Is to those who believe it.

I speak from personal experience.  We had our loft converted 4 years ago.  One of the provisos in the planning stage was that we had to do something that was energy efficient.  There was a (small) grant available for solar panels that would help with the cost (at the time about 3k) so on the architect's suggestion we sent plans in that included solar panels.  Huge monstrosities they were and shortly after they arrived I spoke to the architect again and asked if planning would be compromised if we sent them back, to which he said no so I sent them back at a cost of about 10% from memory and we installed energy efficient light fittings instead.  The architect was from Cyprus as it happens and his words not mine were that it would take 100 years to get your money back.  You don't live in Cyprus he said!

I'm leaning towards believing in some man made climate change, but there are some examples of scientist getting it completely wrong to be fair. 20th century dietary advice to take an example. Corporate interests can skew science.

"I understood that it was the consensus of the scientific community that man made climate change was established fact."

No, not at all, you've understandably fallen for the constant barrage of propaganda that makes you believe so. More below.


Cat, post up "the evidence amassed for climate change" and I'll spend some time debunking it for you, assuming you really mean man made global warming when you say climate change (there obviously can be nothing but climate change - climate constant is not an option).

Man made climate change as it's now called (or simply and wrongly climate change by the BBC propaganda machine) exists due to the flawed theory of human carbon dioxide emissions causing a green house effect in the atmosphere, and preventing warmth from radiating out to space. This is a flawed theory as I'll explain in a bit, but never the less the whole concept of man made climate change is based on this global warming theory.

To change the name simply to climate change is to claim that human carbon dioxide not only causes a greenhouse effect, but it infact changes climate in some other fanciful way unrelated to warming?! It's a well known fact that natural global warming decreases temperature differences between the poles and the equator, thus leading to more stable air mass and less extreme weather events. Global cooling increases temperature differences and air pressure thus resulting in more extreme weather events. The reverse of what propaganda would have us believe to create maximum climate chaos fear.

A brief explanation of the greenhouse effect, which is in no way comparable to what happens in greenhouses!

Without the effect, life on Earth wouldn't be possible as it would be too cold. Greenhouse gases absorb infra red radiation emitted from Earth and re-emit it in all directions, some back to earth some out to space. The greatest and most powerful greenhouse gas is simple water vapour, which accounts for more than 90% of the greenhouse effect. Computer models used for predicting future climate are hoplessly flawed when it comes to water vapour which is overlooked in favour of trace amounts of CO2. They are programmed with flawed enhanced positive feedback mechanisms for alarmism value.

Now to the common myth. Warmists will usually state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so adding more and more must result in more and more heat reflected back to Earth. This is false. Yes it is a mild greenhouse trace gas, but it saturates and has diminishing effects.

As a simplistic demonstration of the effects of CO2, imagine greenhouse gases in the atmosphere representing 10 duvets on your bed (9 for water vapour 1 for CO2/Methane/Nitrous oxide) (water vapour accounts for 90% of green house gases) whilst you're snug as a bug inside. Adding another duvet will make no difference, adding another 10,20,30 or more duvets will make no difference. So it is with CO2.

The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. Remember, atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 390 ppmv (0.039%) and of that amount less than 4% is of human origin. Reducing that 4% to 3% or even zero would have no effect whatsoever on global climate. Meanwhile the oceans de-gas and re-sink CO2 at huge rates naturally, always following temperature never preceding it.

At the risk of appearing obsessed haha, here's some of the many scientists who do not fit into the supposed consensus... there are actually very few figures behind the climate change scam, I could name them later if I haven't bored you all to death before then.

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America

8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by:

1.Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2.Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
3.Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
4.J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
5.Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
6.Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
7.Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
8.Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
9.Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
10.Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
11.Joe B'di, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
12.Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
13.David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
14.M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
15.Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
16.Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
17.Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
18.Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
19.James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
20.Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
21.Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
22.Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
23.George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
24.Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
25.Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
26.Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
27.Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
28.Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
29.Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
30.Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
31.Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
32.Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
33.Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
34.Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
35.James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
36.David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
37.James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
38.Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
39.Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
40.Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
41.Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
42.David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
43.Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
44.Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
45.Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
46.Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
47.R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
48.David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
49.Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
50.Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
51.Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
52.Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
53.Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
54.Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
55.Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
56.William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
57.Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
58.Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
59.William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
60.Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
61.Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
62.James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
63.Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
64.Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
65.Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
66.Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
67.Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
68.Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
69.Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
70.Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
71.Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
72.Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
73.David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
74.Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
75.Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
76.William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
77.Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
78.Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
79.Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
80.Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Vizerprasident
Dipl. Ing. Michael Limburg
14476 Grob Glienicke
Richard-Wagner-Str. 5a

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by

Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist
16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUSSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural bioloist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologst
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

I'm not British Cat, so I don't know anything about any salt debates in the Sun. I was among other things thinking of the fact that it once was an established "fact" among nutritionists that eating fat make you fat. People were eating cereals with 0.01% fat and 35% sugar thinking it would aid weight loss.

Anyway like I said I have personally been mostly convinced by the evidence for man made climate change. Just saying that "established facts" can sometimes be wrong for long periods of time, and political and corporate interests can skew science.

There's no doubt that a big majority of all scientist currently think that human activity has affected the climate.

what were the chances that the flat earthers wouldn't end up on this thread?

1.01 if you go through those names one by one you'll find

a) a load of phds from joke universities
b) a load of phds in totally unrelated subjects
c) a load of people getting paid off one way or another by the oil industry and allied trades.

man made climate change is happening and it's generally accepted by actual, real, proper scientists as opposed to the tin foil helmet and brown envelope alliance.

UK solar panels.
Now that is an oxymoron up there with military intelligence.

Cat, if you studied the facts as I have done as presented by non government funded scientists I am absolutely certain that you too would no longer believe in man made global warming theory. Anyone with a logical brain could not possibly believe. Politicians are the ones peddling the theory, but as said some are now breaking rank.

The very science behind MMGW theory is flawed, so much so that real scientists refer to it as junk science theory. AGW theory relies on expensive computer models programmed with voodoo science and exagerated effects of CO2, under estimated effects of water vapour and clouds, and magic the whole thing together with exagerated positive feedback mechanisms. Proper scientists - physicists, chemists, astro physicists etc became involved when their disgust of this voodoo junk science being peddled to the world as fact became overwhelming.

Have you read the Climategate emails, I could post up a nice but lengthy summary and you can read or not, up to you.


But beware of Wikipedia entries as you posted above, as U.K. Government scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley has turned Wikipedia into a global warming movement!

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

I repeat my basic question to you trevh.
Why does this subject seem to push so many of your buttons.
Surely there are many examples of self seving Govt propaganda campaigns, both now and in history, that were more harmful to society.
Or am I wrong on this ?
Are you more upset over climate change than ( say) US middle east policy, as but one example?
Or more upset than over Govt. coddling up to bankers who have wrought havoc on the world economy through greed and incompetence ?
The list is endless.
Why climate change in particular ?
Both sides of the so -called scientific debate probably contain many glaring "white " lies, but the very least you can say is that it has increased the general public's awareness that they are only temporary residents of the world and owe a duty of care to future residents not to abuse it.

Trevh, I'm not in a position to either dispute or verify your statement.  I am confident that the scientific community will not leave inaccurate science unchallenged and your posts demonstrate that the challenge is there.

I am however skeptical about conspiracy theories which are usually platforms for somebody to get some temporary fame and fortune.  I can't see what motive there is for dreaming up a story like this, there are so many other genuine environmental issues (pollution, over population, over fishing, deforestation etc) that could be used so why create a fake?

I would be horrified by lots of things but especially if the scientific community can be bought. If this is the case we know nothing !

I am naturally a very questioning person but when it comes to technical matters that I don't understand I am not in a position to question.  I don't see that my trust in scientific consensus has been breached here, Trevh's evidence just goes to show that the community is constantly challenging itself and all I've been guilty of is believing that a matter had been largely accepted in fact is still being resolved.

Cat : I would be horrified by lots of things but especially if the scientific community can be bought. If this is the case we know nothing !

I don't know where to begin to try and explain Cat, the facts are many and far reaching. Believe me I'm no conspiracy theorist either, my brother in law is one of them and is always going on about 911 theories and other garbage, and I always tell him straight that I'm not interested. Trouble is, maybe like you he thinks I'm up for it because of my views on mmgw. The fact is though, my views are based wholly on science and fact, it's as simple as that. I think and hope that you may have an inkling that I'm a logical person and not a conspiracy freak :) 

Basically there are a few characters that have controlled and manipulated the state of climate science over the last decade. Have you not heard of Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit in east Anglia? He was a major player along with a few Americans, but namely Michael Mann.

Mann is responsible for forging the infamous hockey stick temperature graph (a graph such as the one on Wiki that you linked to) and used in Gore's film which shows a huge temperature rise in the shape of a hockey stick which has been proven as nonsense. Basically Mann used proxy data gained from tree rings to reconstruct temperatures over the last 1000 years, then twisted the data to erase the medieval warm period and exaggerate the present. The graph is still used in schools today even though proved fake.

Details of the private emails sent between Mann and Jones (and a few other key players) are listed in the link above, the whole exposure of the emails was called climategate, which sent the blogosphere into overdrive while mainstream media reported nothing. They were leaked from the University of East Anglia by an insider who couldn't simply stand by and watch the fraud.

There are conversations discussing how to keep scientists who didn't conform to MMGW theory from having their work published in journals. Any scientist who dared to question mmgw would be blocked "even if it meant redefining the peer review process" I kid you not. Mann and Jones had that sort of power.

They also 'lost' much of their data after it was requested to be released via freedom of information requests, because they knew it wouldn't hold water, all discussed and revealed in the private emails.

Like I said, I don't know where to begin, but just hope that you and others understand that the science of climate is not as clear cut as the BBC machine will have you believe.

A good credible source for climate science is www.wattsupwiththat.com which you could take a look at when you get time.

Trevh, it's fascinating stuff and you've certainly aroused my suspicions.  How did you decide that the "real" scientists are right?