“Well Bob,
I should have taken my own advice and steered clear of personalities on this thread.
Where did you get the information that Al Gore stands to make $3 trillion from carbon trading? Bear in mind that Bill Gates' personal wealth is approx $42 billion.”

“You are now writing about what politicians say and how rich business people take advantage of situations.
Yes but the problem here is that the whole Climate Change scenario is fostered by big business who then tell the politicians what to say. Big business isn¿t taking advantage of the situation ¿ they engineered it!

Al Gore has made money out of publications, DVDs etc., but, he could have made a bigger stack of cash by accepting directorships of multi-national companies.
You are kidding of course. Al Gore has made billions out of all this, and is estimated to be in line to make $3 trillion when carbon trading gets under way. Don¿t you understand what is happening here?”

“Hi Bob,
You are now writing about what politicians say and how rich business people take advantage of situations.
By all means, have a go at politicians and billionaires but, don't expect me to defend mass bio-fuel production because I don't support it.
Snow loss on Kilimanjaro.
I mentioned it in an earlier posting because you mentioned it. I maintain that the snow loss is due to human activity.
In General.
I have tried to avoid using quotes and views of those who get media attention. If you want to criticise Al Gore et al., please ask them to respond. Do not ask me to reply of behalf of others. However, I will say this about Al Gore: Sure - Al Gore has made money out of publications, DVDs etc., but, he could have made a bigger stack of cash by accepting directorships of multi-national companies.
Y2K Bug.
Sorry Bob but, Y2K was not the science community at work. Y2K was real because there were foreseeable problems with the 6 digit "short-date". Y2K was a great business opportunity for computer hardware manufacturers and computer software houses to make a great deal of money. The mainstream media pushed all the right panic buttons and the IT industry raked in the bucks. Not science Bob: It was Business.
Tax.
Oh please, don't start me off on tax.

paulwatcher.
My comment on 14-Dec-2009 10:46 referrred to a "Statement from the UK science community" (10 December 2009) and I pointed out that the full list of signatories is on the metoffice.gov.uk website. I did not post the full list as it exceeds the 5000 character limit of comments posted to this website.
Go back and read paulwatcher.”

“My point about Kilimanjaro is valid because too much tree-cutting does have adverse effects on the world's climate and also causes problems such as soil erosion, flooding and the deaths of many. De-forestation is a subject for debate at the Copenhagen summit.
No it¿s not valid because we are constantly being bombarded with the mantra that man¿s burning of fossil fuels is causing excessive greenhouse gas which is causing global warming which is causing Kilimanjaro¿s cap to melt. Now are you admitting that what Al Gore said in his film about Kilimanjaro was wrong? In which case why don¿t you say so? My car tax has doubled ¿ because we are told of the amount of Co2 it emits, my flights abroad are being heavily taxed ¿ because we are told of the amount of Co2 they admit, my access to London is being taxed based on the amount of Co2 my vehicle emits, there is nothing there at all about chopping down trees.
Because of this idiotic war on Co2 we are being told, ordered, to increase our use of biofuels. George Soros has bought up large tracts of Brazilian rainforest to cut down and plant biofuel crops as soon as the deal is done. Can you tell me how that improves Co2 emissions, cutting down the very trees that act as a Co2 trap? It doesn¿t ¿ that¿s because this has nothing to do with Co2 and everything to do with making money!
Paul Jones.

You don¿t know where all this money is going? Look around you how many completely useless, pointless jobs have been created using taxpayers money? How many nice little directorships on Global Warming think tanks are going to the ¿boys¿? I cannot think of a single penny of taxpayers¿ money that has been spent on something really useful like dredging rivers to prevent flooding, or keeping our countryside properly maintained instead of building on flood plains.
Don¿t forget Al Gore made billions by advising Governments on Climate Change, a problem he manufactured!”

“For some time now indications have pointed to "Paul, West Cross", whoever he or she is wherever, is connected to Swansea University. The "Paul, West Cross" recent comment posting on this Bob Hinton site finally confirms that when he lists 21 Academics from the Swansea University off an international list of signatures. Only someone closely involved would know that detail. Obviously it was not a secret, but certainly not the sort of information any Joe Public would have to hand. I wonder if the Vice Chancellor could flush out "Paul, West Cross" for us to see the public face instead of hiding behind a mask hurling nasty barbs everywhere?”

“Not seen any comments from government on tackling climate change through geoengineering. The real alternatives include greenhouse gas remediation/carbon sequestration, I would be happier if my green taxes were spent realistically. I don`t know currently how this revenue is going to be spent by the government.”

“Nature is cyclical, simple as cause and effect. When it got cold at some point it would have to warm up. Global warming is a vehicle for increased taxes, world wide.”

“Thanks Bob,
I don't think that you have grasped what science is about and how scientists differ from the mainstream media people. MSM people want headline grabbing news and want straight yes/no answers.
Scientific reports in publications, such as "Nature", when dealing with probabilities, are very rarely forthright in claiming that an event in the future is "inevitable".
The problem for scientists, when making statements to the general public, is that many of the public are not interested in something that might happen. Unless Joe Bloggs is informed that an event is certain, Joe will think that it probably won't happen or won't occur in the next 100 years or, if it likely then, there is nothing that he can do about it.

I leave belief systems to theologians and you ought to do likewise if you want your future articles, about science, to be treated seriously.

My point about Kilimanjaro is valid because too much tree-cutting does have adverse effects on the world's climate and also causes problems such as soil erosion, flooding and the deaths of many. De-forestation is a subject for debate at the Copenhagen summit.

For "falsified data" (I presume that you are writing about the leaked emails from the CRU), the "hockey stick graph" "peer reviews" and the "Medieval Warm Period" there is an article "The Inconvenient Truth about David Rose¿s 'Special Investigation'" by Unity of the liberalconspiracy.org blog.
Feel free to join in the debate using the comments box.

Don't torch your icecubes - Put them in a good stiff drink and enjoy!”

“Very interesting Paul, would you like to see a list of scientists who were convinced that the Y2K bug was happening and posed the greatest threat to mankind ever seen? Or how about a list of scientists who were convinced that we were heading for a new Ice Age in the 1970¿s. Saying you believe something is fine, but you¿ve got to say why you believe it and what evidence there is to back up your belief, otherwise all you have is faith. I¿m quite sure I could get you a million signatures saying that God in one form or another exists ¿ that doesn¿t make it so. I have got a lot more posts waiting to be put up which expands my views and why I hold them. Would someone like to contact the Post and ask them to get a move on?

One section of your post caught my eye.
¿the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.¿
Does that include scientists who deliberately falsify data like the one¿s presently being investigated? Or how about Mann, author of the infamous Hockey Stick graph? As for peer review, what a joke. The IPCC themselves admitted that they only produced the peer reviews that backed their case, one¿s that didn¿t - they didn¿t include.
The thing that makes me laugh about you Paul is that you make a statement like the one about Kilimanjaro. I show you you are in error and you just move on to something else. Why don't you stay and explain why certain people are pushing stuff like this which is just plain wrong?”

“thanks paul, i will have a look.

cheers”