Is this true and if so WHICH editor deliberately fudged the data to prove a case because that is surely wholly unfair on Lawson.

To criticise him on something he said is one thing but to criticise him without actually telling exactly what was said,(therefore allowing us to form an informed opinion) frankly stinks (if it’s true).

I think this may be the first time that LFF have actually edited an article in this way but how do we know?

The heat island effect is significant and has not been accounted for properly.

As for temperatures going forward I wouldn’t trust anything not from satellites. There is talk of hundreds of billions of dollars transferred from developed to developing countries to help with climate change. Is the UN going to guard every weather station in the Congo? It would only take a weather station to have a blanket thrown over it for 5 minutes a day to show up more in the temperature record than 100 years of global warming!

To be fair, Lawson’s reference to the Met office was cut out by the LFF editor – so this point wasn’t made very clearly.

Lawson’s full quote was this:

“If you look for example at the HadCRUT temperature series, which is made by the Hadley centre at the Met office … whereas there was some very modest warming in the last quarter of the twentieth century there has been absolutely no further warming this century so far, despite a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, and despite the models predicting an acceleration, not just a continuation, but an acceleration of warming. That doesn’t show that there won’t be warming in the future, certainly not, it just shows that you can’t rely on these models, and it just shows that the whole picture is much more complicated than is frequently made out.”

You plea, “…let’s do it in on the basis of all of the evidence”,
and then try to present an argument based merely on two interpretations, backed up by no objective, quantitative data whatsoever.

You ask to “have…out” the “differences”, yet in the preceding paragraph you show clearly your mind is already made up.

You file this piece under “Old Politics” and then proceed immediately to polarise what should be a purely scientific issue along party-political lines.

The way you take on an issue, which you would have us believe threatens us all, is simply childish and tantamount to playground name-calling.

Why are you unable to see this as a matter that reaches far beyond the realm of policy? http://is.gd/gQe0C

Until you can and your alarmist “No Pressure” friends show a modicum of maturity and open-mindedness, you won’t be taken seriously, nor should you be.

melting glaciers are not evidence for climate change

“air temperature in the troposhere increasing” not recently it hasn’t.

global temperatures increased faster 1910-1940 than they did 1970 to present.