Friday October 30, 2009, 10:08 am
The article is less about "climate change" than about the devastating effects of deforestation.

"The necessity for such flood control projects is simple, the forests have been cut down, the soil is washing away so there is nothing left to absorb the rains. Corrupt politicians protecting logging companies and promoting the interests of foreign mining companies are behind the loss of 70% of the forest cover of the Philippines over the past 60 years. The archipelago was one massive rain forest at the turn of the century, now it is has just a few scraps left."

Friday October 30, 2009, 10:38 am
Sure, you're right, I take your point - although the two are inextricably linked are they not?

Friday October 30, 2009, 10:39 am
Yes Les they ARE linked...

Big gorilly Hugs

Friday October 30, 2009, 10:49 am
Except the climate changes are normal and natural....the deforestation isn't.

"The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

Friday October 30, 2009, 11:15 am
I whole-heartedly agree that we should look carefully at the evidence presented by the 'pure experts'. those whose interests lie solely in establishing the facts and are not driven by economic or political motives. I am not in the least swayed by the numbers game. The fluctuating numbers who support one camp or another do not, in my view, indicate the reliability of one side of the argument or the other. They only suggest that certain voices are persuasive enough to cause a swell of opinion, which may or may not be indicative of the true position.

Friday October 30, 2009, 12:55 pm
Here is a "pure expert" .

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHwLoQdkL2E&feature=related

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2hckcCDy_0&feature=related

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv06IyygoUs&feature=related

Friday October 30, 2009, 3:15 pm
Thanks for that Judy. I shall watch those with interest.

Friday October 30, 2009, 4:58 pm
he rest of them.

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5hPu9K684Y&feature=related

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Um2Es1Hmo&feature=related

I'm watching them again myself. The fact that he had such trouble getting published for such trivial reasons is very telling.