hedgehog

The following may send shivers down the necks of those who can see the problem:

http://www.ippr.org.uk/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf

I appreciate that not everyone might see the problem but the following, taken from the report, might give you a clue:

"Treating climate change as beyond argument

Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.

The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality."

So, there you go. Because there is no science to support their claims the government are going to create their own "factuality" while not allowing the "noise" that we might call scientific debate. Note also that "interested agencies" must now just behave as if climate change exists even if there isn't the slightest trace of it. Truly frightening when you consider how climate change is being used to give "interested agencies" control over many aspects of our lives.

"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Alg

A year's free supply of good old British Weather to anyone who can unscramble the names of the authors of the report:
Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit

speedking

A LIE RE GLUT and Neat Sting. Am I right

Alg

Haven't got a clue chap.
They look like made up names to me.
Here, take the weather for 2007 anyhow.
2008's weather up for grabs if anyone else has an answer

NotoriousREV

Funnily enough, Radio 1 recently used the the statictic that cars are responsible for 8% of all atmospheric CO2. Where in the hell they got this statistic from I'll never know. From the US Govt figures it would appear that worldwide only 3% of CO2 emissions are man-made and cars are rsponsible for around 14% of that 3% (so about 0.2% overall if my calculations are right).

Another fact that is conveniently laid to one side is that by far the biggest atmospheric greenouse gas is water vapour, responsible for up to 70% of global warming, which is entirely uninfluenced by man.