Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52C - well above the 1961 to 1990 long-term average of 14C.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, said: "The fact that 2009, like 2008, will not break records does not mean that global warming has gone away.

"What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007, with an average of 14.44C, was 0.21C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000

It's been freezing (I mean minus degrees temps) here for the last three weeks. We generally have a cold January/first half of February but it's arrived a month early this year. With all the qualifications and exclusions the Prof is quoting in his stats above do you think he's trying to make sure his Climate Research Unit at the UAE lasts long enough until he retires. Damn the thought

I live in the tropics as you are well aware, our kid, and I'm typing this with me Insulate hat on. Xixi is just warming up some milk for her supper, has bought two winter coats today, has had a moan about having the heating on for six hours today, and is dreading the journey to work in the chill tomorrow morning.

0.27 degrees average?? Naaaah...welcome to the board.

How cold is it?? 9C.

If the prof's figures are right, then the prof is right.

True.

It's just the 'if' that worries me..

Yeah but he left out 2007 and 2008

Every time I ask some swivel eyed believer in 'climate change' what caused the Ice Age to end, you never get an answer. I know 4x4's were thin on the ground then and flying was strictly in the mouth of some predatory bird ...I'm still awaiting an explanation.
Mind you, if they ever do reveal 'climate change' for the middle class self flagellating guilt scam it is, there'll be a lot of graduates having to get a proper job instead of this glorified job creation sponge.

why can't they just be proper hippies and live in the forests and dance round fires?

What's a polite way of saying "talking out yer arses"?

I don't think you will find any scientist anywhere who denies there is climate change, so anyone putting forward anecdotic evidence to the contrary is just being plain silly.

The only real argument is over who is causing it: mankind or nature. Here again, those who have done the least research tend to be the most talkative. Now I'm not coming down on either side because I haven't studied all the research. All I know is that those who know sod all about science are invariably the first to put scientists down, and since that includes the vast majority of the population, the cynical view is the one that prevails whether on this subject or any other.

The prof's figures stop at 2007. Seeing as that was the last full year at the time he made his statement, and he predicts 2008-2009 won't be owt special, you can hardly claim he's playing with statistics.

Have you seen the documentary called The Great Climate Change Swindle? Offers a great counter arguement to An Inconvenient Truth.

Bloody freezing fog here now.

its the 'if' that worries me about a lot of things, notably religion/god

I wonder why people automatically assume global warming automatically turns Seaton Carew into a Carribean paradise. It's beyond question that the polar regions are shrinking at an alarming rate. Like the man says; its definitely happening.

Ever wondered why Moscow which is on a similar lattitude to us gets minus 30 temps in winter and yet the UK hardly ever falls much below minus five or six? It's because we're protected by the gulfstream and without it the UK would be of a similar temp to Siberia.

This airflow is seriously at risk.

I blame Danny Wilson me like

i blame chris de burgh

So the scientists say it's happening, it's true then ... ? ....conveniently overlooking the fact that scientists disagree about the subject, like they do about every subject..... and the scientists in favour are those who take the view 'we're all gonna die if we don't change our ways and nail a wind turbine on our forehead'.
I am seriously interested in cutting the waste of our rersources, starting with the traffic on our roads, but when the great green advisor turns up in a Shogun, while I've made the journey by bike, it beggars the question, ....... who's taking the pee.
Global warming has caught the eye of the liberal consience and thus the media, we are bombarded relentlessly with the 'LET'S ALL FEEL GUILTY' aspect of the subject and those who question how the Germans were duped by the Nazis would do well to reflect how the power of constant repetition and the ridiculing and demonisation of those who disagree can influence the people and especially the young to whom it becomes a mantra.
If the day ever comes when the experts get their way, Top Gear will feature comparative donkey trials, sports horse shoes and leaded or unleaded hay...we'll be communicating on the messagboard by burning beacons ... it appears everyone wants to save the cute Polar Bears but aint figured out that they'll be waving their present lifestyles goodbye....... which may be a good thing for some of us.

one way or the other, the only way for the human race to survive is to get off this planet. There won't be many who pass the audition, but it will have to happen. The rest will have to evolve into something else or die.
HG Wells' vision of the future may not be so wide of the mark

Snowy's interpretation that there's alot of propaganda involved rings true. Yes we all know that the baby boomers were brought up with snowy(no pun intended) winters which don't happen as frequently now and it's obvious that there is a change in the climate for whatever reason.

The fossil fuel industry has a giant stake in preserving it's commercial position and isn't going to give up access to billions of dollars easily. Strikes me that the subject of climate change is being used by the non oil and gas producers to exert political pressure to determining who is going to hold the economic power as the fossil fuel/sustainable energy debate proceeds.

The politicians aren't in it for fun y'know, they like the money and the power it represents.

but genuine competition in this area is what we've been crying out for - let's just hope it doesn't start a war somewhere along the line because of the root cause of any such scenario - greed and desire for power

I have just read that article in full... it's hardly rational as it starts off by basically denouncing the paricipants like some Maoist show trial.. the first few responses are in agreement with the views of the originator yet one says he says he hasn't seen the programme but been infromed by friends and reviews, thank fook he's not a judge then eh...? "Oh I found him guilty on the reports I'd read in the newspapers, the Daily mail and Sun were particularly scathing"...It then ended up with views from both sides of the argument, with neither side throwing the knock out blow.... and that's the trouble, cause and effect, the media have hijacked the idea and effectively strangled discussion in the cot...who's turn from the newsroom to be pictured with the polar bear or stood in some Mediterranean idyll to show hpw Britain will supposedly be in 20 years time .....
People will agree wholeheartedly about these measures .... till it affects them, because people are basically selfish... I'm not advocating a lifestyle of unfettered energy use, far from it, but most campaigners for cutting back on energy are amongst it's biggest abusers.

[quote/][quote="parmopooly
but genuine competition in this area is what we've been crying out for - let's just hope it doesn't start a war somewhere along the line because of the root cause of any such scenario - greed and desire for power[/quote]


Russia's turned off the gas to the Ukraine this morning. Who's next. You might be right talking about energy being the cause of a world war.

Oh......and a happy new year

sadly, Putin is a very "ambitious" man. A very, very dangerous bloke.

Try winking at a traffic warden, it'll confuse 'em.

The reason I don't think that climate change is caused by humans is that the idea is passed off as a fact, without any intelligent debate or promotion of alternative explanations.

And anyone questioning the validity of this 'fact' is assumed to have some sort of hidden agenda.

Whenever I've encountered an individual or organisation who takes this approach to 'facts', it automatically makes me suspicious.

It seems that lots of 'ordinary' people have started to change their behaviour in order to reduce their carbon footprint - making less car journeys or taking less flights - and all this does is conserve resources so the rich can enjoy them longer.