“Congratulations Columnist Bob Hinton and Editor Spencer Feeney for giving a platform for TRUTH over all these "Green" climate change swindlers.”

“Greg, I heard someone from the University of East Anglia interviewed on the Today programme a few days ago, and his defence of the 'email scandal' seemed quite valid.

There were several different techniques used to produce historical temperatures, but the results from the different techniques didn't match up. One technique was apparently less accurate and known to underestimate temperatures, so they applied a 'fix' to the data to make it match up. It's not unusual in experimental science to process data in a set way, when you know that it will make the results more accurate. What's crucial is that you make it clear when you publish the data that you've processed it. I've heard no suggestion that they tried to hide the fact they they were processing the data, using a method that had already been published.

The peer review process can at times be a bit shaky. But like democracy it's probably the best way of doing it. From what I've heard about the emails, the scientist in question did seem to be quite bullish. He was convinced his opinion was correct and tried to shut out the opinions of other scientists. However, it's not completely unusual for someone to be a bit arrogant and assume they are correct. I understand the person in question tried to get the IPCC to ignore papers from other scientists. However, the person interviewed from UEA said that advice was ignored by the IPCC and they reviewed and considered ALL the work that the UEA scientist had told them not to.

So we have one bullish researcher, who is perhaps pressing his work too strongly and trying to influence the field. In the end though, it all comes back to the body of evidence. An independent panel looked at the research from UEA, and people who disagreed with them, and came to their own conclusions.

This isn't my field, so I can't give an expert opinion, but what I've heard so far from UAE doesn't give me anywhere near the level of concern that the media is creating about the leaked emails. I can think of people in other areas of science who behave similarly: pushing their own work unashamedly and shouting down their detractors, but everyone knows who they are, and everyone knows to address their work accordingly. The only difference is that this is such a important topic of debate at the moment and has attracted huge attention.”

“Hi Richard

Those are vaild points. However, the controversy is that scientists peer reviewing eachother's work may not have been doing so honestly. They would appear to have been changing information and colluding to alter results to fit an outcome that suits.

Don't forget, when astronomers started to suggest that the world was not flat or that the Earth revolved around the Sun, they were treated as cranks. That was because a scientific consensus had developed and noone was allowed to question the orthodoxy without facing ridicule - Much like AGW today.”

“I too missed this article the first time, but since it seems to be making a revival I will comment now.

Part of the public's confusion over climate change stems from a misunderstanding about how science 'works'. If I toss a coin and get a head, then I publish a paper that says that was my outcome. Therefore I predict that tossing a coin means you get a head. Then someone else repeats it and gets tails. They publish a paper with the opposite result. Looking at one individual piece of evidence is meaningless. Over time scientists will look at the body of evidence from lots of different groups and work out what the trend is: that half of the time people get heads, and half of the time people get tails. Someone publishes a review article to that effect and the field moves on. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) does exactly this: it looks at all the studies that have been done, from people who's research has found man is not to blame, and from those that believe we are. They review the body of evidence and look at the overall picture. This process has lead them to realise that man is to blame. There may be individual scientists who have carried out experiments or analysed data in a particular way which shows something different, but the body of evidence suggests quite strongly that man is to blame for global warming.

Science doesn't always give an exact answer to complicated problems - but over time it narrows down the possibilities and points you in the right direction.”

“Hi Bob,
I only came across your 2 posts on climate change because "The great global warming scam" (Wednesday, December 02, 2009, 15:16) appeared in the "Most commented" box for a short while.
It's a bit late now to start a debate but, I think comparing Gordon Brown to Hitler is OTT.”

“Dear Paul,

I did and learnt something! Very interesting but a bit self defeating. I believe the comparisons are made because the Nazis are possibly the mostly widely known totalitarian state, there are others and in my article I believe I mention Goebbels once but Stalin twice. They all use the same methods of quelling dissention. In the middle ages it was the church that was the fount of all dogma, later the Soviets, the Nazis, and the Chinese and today we have Iran and Zimbabwe. But they all have the same way of working, ¿What we say is right if you dissent you will be taken to the camps/re-educated in the Gulags/shot or stoned to death.¿ Gordon Brown gave a perfect example of this kind of fanaticism the other day when, almost frothing at the mouth in fine Hitlerian style, he proclaimed anyone who didn¿t accept his point of view as being ¿Flat Earthers¿, which is kind of ironic when legend has it that once upon a time they held the ¿consensus¿ (there¿s that word again) view!
I used to live in West Cross.”

“Bob,
Google Godwin's Law.”