Why does this issue get you so cross? And – forgive me for repeating the question, but you don’t seem to have addressed it – who, in your opinion, is best placed to explain and interpret science?

Who said anything about fair trade or lowering food miles?! Was that an attempt to answer my last paragraph?

The best thing you can do with your daily copy of The Guardian is to make firelighters of it, before reading it: We’re heading for another ice age, haven’t you heard? But then, how could you? That was the doom-laden prediction of twenty years ago (ten years after we were all to be dissolved by acid rain), before the present solar cycle and, it seems, your birth.

Grow up yourself, sonny!

Is two cycles of the sun enough when global climate change happens over hundreds of thousands of years? Or is it convenient to stop there because if you go back further you get the data that convinced scientists we were heading for an ice age?

The issue of fair trade, lowering food miles, cutting our use of finite resources is completely separate to the global warming scam but the two are conflated by the propagandists because it blurs the lines and gives them a get-out clause when they’re exposed as liars and frauds.

Grow up, Gruff. The data disproved Svensmark’s hypothesis. Did anyone imply that they ignored other data? No. And your last sentence is beneath contempt. Scientists are the people best placed to explain and interpret science. Who else do you think should have the job?

I’m fascinated as to why any mention of climate-change brings some people out in a rage. It’s as if some people think that trying to treat the planet, and our fellow human beings on the planet, with care and respect is somehow a bad idea.

Fuckin’ biff ‘im Allie!

Yeah!

Were Henrik Svensmark’s data limited to the previous twenty years? You do not say; you merely state that his detractors used the data that proved the contrary, thus implying that they ignored that which supported his arguments.

You write as though ‘science’ were entirely objective and incontrovertible, which it isn’t (which is why so much research ends up in the bin), nor is it ‘logical’ (the definition of a metre is no more ‘logical’ than the length of a king’s arm, nor is counting in tens instead of twelves, or sixteens). Few scientists are inspired thinkers; most are simply educated mechanics using more highly developed fag papers to set the timing of more evolved machines with slightly better screwdrivers. As good as they are, mechanics are from infallible.

Science should not be left to scientists to misrepresent.

And you will, of course, recall that Al Gore’s film footage of polar bears apparently drowning was fabricated and only the other day the lead author of the IPCC report on climate change released the “news” that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was about to collapse when it collapsed 10 years ago.

Amusingly, the BBC has just reported that cooling sea temperatures in the Pacific are going to bring the temperature of the earth down. But they were at pains to point out that it didn’t mean global warming wasn’t happening, just that the globe was cooling this year. But only temporarily, it doesn’t change the pattern of climate change. Which is that it goes up and … er, down. Oh how I laughed.

Now you can whine all you like about it (and I’m struck by how little of your post relates to the story, which of course makes perfect sense if you haven’t actually read it) but yes, it’s science.