Brownedoff

It's not just spelling. His final concluding statement-

'...These reviews highlighted the uncertainty surrounding some individual factors, including the magnitude of future warming and its precise impacts. However, in doing so, they confirmed again that there is a robust body of evidence consistently showing that climate change poses real risks for the UK and the world.'

A text book non sequitur.

Jul 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM | matthu

Sir John Beddington was appointed as Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) on 1 January 2008.

see http://tinyurl.com/3vm4bxu
.......................

David MacKay, Chief Scientific Advisor DECC

see http://tinyurl.com/3qyzsdc

...........................

So, which is it? Adviser or Advisor?

They cannot even agree amongst themselves which version of the spelling to use.

It is probably all down to which predictive software is loaded on a given twitter machine.

No wonder the UK is headed for the knacker's yard..

Josh
Over there Latimer Alder(July 29, 2011, 1:41 pm) said

'I’d rather be a Cool Dude than a Hot Head.'

And thats so good that maybe it gives you a whole new canvas!

Sir John Beddington has posted a second post on his report and has responded to comments – view it at http://blogs.bis.gov.uk/blog/2011/07/28/responding-to-comments-from-preparing-for-the-future/

Don't know if this Hannan one minute speech has been posted here. Hope you like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYMAT0cO4k

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/07/open-thread_29.html#comments

Splendid letter to the BBC by Concerned Citizen.

Mike

There's a quick summary that addresses the infamous 'Vostok lag' here. It's one of those non-problems.

High levels of atmospheric CO2 in the deep geological past were offset by a much weaker sun. Again, a non-problem.

Thanks, BBD, I'll follow that up.
Perhaps it will help to solve the confusion over "390ppm and rising" since I don't understand why this 390ppm is a threat when the 390ppm (and considerably more) in the distant past was not and when there seems to be (from what I read) considerable evidence that CO2 increases follow temperature increases and not the other way round. One of the blatant "errors" in 'An Inconvenient Truth', if I remember right.
I'll follow your link as well, Lord Beaverbrook. Thanks to both of you.

Lord Beaverbrook

Why don't you have a look at the links I posted for Mike? They will help you understand where SW goes wrong.