"America's lack of knowledge on climate change could prevent the world from reaching an agreement to stop catastrophic global warming, scientists said in an attack on the country's environmental policy." This is the latest effluvia from the world's favourite newspaper, retailing the opinion of Professor John Schellnhuber, "one of the world's leading global warming experts."

View full article here

Holy Goodness, this has gone global!

BTW I have, apparently, lost a bet of a pitcher of beer because, supposedly, Cameron has vowed to have a referendum on the EU Treaty.

I see no signs that the CamerMoron wants a referendum, except for some so-called private letter to Klauss of the Czeck Republic. Can you help me here?

Private and undisclosed ... and that's as good as it gets.

Yeah. I pointed him to the Conservative Party web page where it noticably DIDN'T proclaim a referendum on the EU treaty. Actually, it said diddly-squat.

The current "conservative" party are simply a bunch of "wait-and-we-will-be-thems".

Hey, Tories! How about liberal capitalism? Adam Smith anyone?

Hi Robert liked your 'tree-ring circus' on WUWT
Anthony Watts doesn't like nasty words like fraud, but I'm sure the good Dr. is not so squeamish
That the alarmist 'scientists' are producing peer-reviewed papers, reviewed by themselves, and these are passed off as 'data', should be very alarming to science itself.
Unfortunately as science squabbles the public respect for 'scientists' and 'research shows' is left in tatters.
Like Politics, in Science people are convinced of their Right to abuse the trust shown in them with no comebacks, since I suppose any idea of 'Honour' is a hopelessly outmoded pre-feminist concept.

Why am I not surprised that Keith Biffra is funded by the EU.

So we not only pay for this crap science to be fed to us, but pay again via all the associated taxes.

... keeping in mind that the one who destroyed the "hockey stick", was a Canadian, Steve McIntyre.

The only problem is that the climate change industry now has such a head of steam that mere debunking of the underlying "science" is going to have no effect whatsoever. The ambitions of the warmists only ever had a tenuous association with science - in fact, the "science" is merely a cover under which political ambitions are being fulfilled. To that extent, the McIntyre efforts, while warmly welcomed, are irrelevant. "Climate change" is a political movement, and has to be addressed at that level. By getting deep into the scientific minutia, the skeptics in fact damage their own cause. They tend to reinforce the claims that this is a scientific argument, which allows the polticians - who have very little understanding of science - to chose the "scientists" they believe, and thus opt out of the argument. Identify it for what it is and the polticians are not afforded that bolt-hole.

That's a great point, Richard. It is obvious now once put but very easy to overlook unless it is explicitly pointed out. You've switched a light on for me with that.

I think Steve McIntyre is right to keep his disciplined focus purely on the scientific critique, not least because that is where his great talents are most effective. But more importantly, he and others also provide the necessary scientific foundation on which the case of the critics ultimately rests. As you say though, the argument is primarily political and the criticism of the science, though absolutely necessary, is by no means sufficient.

Yes, nice one. I think your argument ought to be given more prominence.

RAE North is right. The political and media class has invested too much time, effort and credibility, for them to retract. Retraction now is impssible, for they will have no credibility left. Heavens, even when their expenses were revealed, they still managed to toughen it out.

Besides, once they have climate treaty in place, along with the Lisbon treaty, it is goodbye to democracy, and a Big Hello to the New World order.

As for Mann, it dose not matter – he may be thrown to the wolves, thrown under a bus, or offered an obscure but well paid sinecure. As for the “no expenses spared politicos”, Mann would have done his job, thats all that matters.

RAE NORTH

You have correctly defined the battleground - it is not a scientific but a political battleground. As far as I know, there are precious few heavy weight political warriors on our side- the Czech president comes to mind. He is also against the Lisbon EU treaty. In effect he is fighting on two fronts, and heavily outnumbered in both. Where do we go from here?

John, you surprise me, I'd have thought you of all people would have known it was a political agenda. Even I, of limited knowledge to some of the topics on EUref twigged it was political.

I go to smoking again This is also political, that was admitted by an American Senator, forget which one now. In minutes of a meeting on smoking ordanance, he stated it's politics. So all smokers are being demonised because of politics. It also involves a lot of money too, especially in the US where each county vie to get a sizeable slice of the tobacco settlement.

You're right, Rosie. AGW is quinessentially a politcal agenda, and I do know that. But the point at issue here is not the nature of agenda itself so much as one of identifying clearly the arena in which that agenda is to be fought. In my unthinking naivety I just took it for granted that that was the scientific arena — dynamite the smoke-&-mirrors basis of their case and we've won.

Richard, however, argues (convincingly, in my view) that that is most definitely not the case. It is only in the political arena that that fight can take place with decisive effect and finally be won, by us.

For the alarmists, the pseudoscience underpinning their case is/was merely the equivalent of an airstrip to get their circus flying. Once up they can float along idefinitely on all the hot air they produce. I'm all for bombing their airstrip (and that needs to be done for many reasons, many of which are to do with the health of the practice of science itself, and therefore extremely important) but as far as the strict issue here is concerned I'm just itching to see the bastards blown out of the sky.

By the way, I'm with you on the smoking thing. That too is fully political and all about control.

Do you honestly think there will be a politican with integrity that'll stand up and tell the truth, come to that if by a remote chance one did what would the lame stream media do.

As to blowing them out of the sky, yes I totally agree, but it would give me more pleasure if the anti smoking brigade were included and all were forced to smoke a last ciggie while awaiting their fate. Kill two groups of rabble with one blast.