During his career Kelvin calculated the age of our planet based on available data – it took a few years to correct his miscalculation – he was out by billions of years. His calculations were wrong because they were based on an incomplete data set, but his calculation was correct based on the known data set. He acknowledged later his error (he didn’t take into account that fission events inside the planet contribute heat to the planet). So for a time the world of science was wrong on a crucial issue because of an incomplete data set.

The current data-set as used by East Anglia University has not been released; there are active elements at East Anglia University that have sought to frustrate attempts to release the raw data that they based their modeling on.

We know now, from the emails that the research group at East Anglia University has no explanation for the cooling trend over the past decade.

Release of that raw data is crucial to allow scientific examination and debate.

Green house operators often boost the CO2 in their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth (e.g., tomatoes).

It’s an application of Le Chatlier’s principle – a scientific principle that man uses in the manufacture of ammonia – by boosting pressure we shift the equlibrium to the right. If the earth’s atmosphere warms up – there will be counter affects – more heat will be radiated into space – something that is generally ignored in the models – and one has to ask the serious question: why?

Now a question for you: do you know why Lord Kelvin got the age of the Earth wrong? Many people believed he got it right. But he was billions of years out. Do you know why?

It’s not a question of being sceptic – it’s a question of the lack of good old fashioned reliable science. The whole area of climate science has been corrupted by politicization – to the extent it is questionable if it is justifiable to use the term “science”.

As to your common sense argument, please answer this question: what happens if you add heat to an object? It looses more heat. As the world warms up – so it loses more heat to surrounding space, the earth will radiate more heat energy into space. It seems that the computer models make the assumption that this will not happen, that the earth will retain more of the heat instead of irradiating the heat into space. This is against common sense and perhaps explains why the computer models did not predict the current cool down cycle that the Earth is experiencing. It looks like we have to relearn King Canute’s lesson all over again.

The climate research groups are not releasing the raw data on which their models are based – they are using every trick to stop the release of the raw data despite numerous requests for this data. This is plain wrong – why are they fighting the release of the data?

Yes, the world’s climate is changing – it is always changing, it is either cooling up or cooling down. Back in the 70s climate scientists were arguing that man’s activities would cause a global cool down and a new ice age.

Supercomputer modeling can deliver what ever answer you want, it is inherently inaccurate because of the approximations that have to be used to get an answer in reasonable time. None of the supercomputer models can accurately predict the world’s climate – for starters they did not predict the current cool down.

I am very much in favour of cutting back on pollution – Canada is fast becoming a problem in that regard – China too.

If folks want to reduce pollution, then stop buying things made in China – the pollution caused by the huge ships bringing the goods is ENORMOUS … these ships burn dirty extremely dirty fuel (including high sulphur/sulfur content fuel).

Btw, the Earth is not going to be fundamentally damaged by anything we do – think about it. The entire world’s nukes and all the world’s nuke power stations could detonate tomorrow – mankind would be damaged – but actually animal and plant life would in general flourish. Look at Chernobyl – the areas around the nuke plant are bursting with life – plants and animals are flourishing. Man isn’t flourishing – but man less able to cope with such large radioactive leaks. Dying for us is a big issue, animals and plants die as a way of adapting to the new environment. Radiation is part of the evolution of life on this planet – it is a driving force.