Another UN Scientist Bails: UN IPCC Coordinating Auther Dr. Philip Lloyd

...Prof Hewitson stood in his pulpit and preached the gospel according to St IPCC.

He says he was a lead author for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). That is not material — I was a co-ordinating l ead a uthor, but it gives me no mantle of infallibility. Instead, it gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.
...
The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.
...
It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.

Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng

Going, going, gone: How global warming could kill off our best loved species | Mail Online

The British countryside could see many of its most iconic species vanish forever if temperatures continue to rise, the Environment Agency has warned.

An army of alien African toads and choking South American weeds will replace trout and salmon in our rivers, according to the agency's report.

[Swindlers: Increase the size of the swindle, or we may refuse to swindle you] | Environment | The Guardian

The Copenhagen climate talks hit trouble tonight as a number of African countries indicated their leaders would refuse to take part in the final summit unless significant progress was made in the next three days.

Full text of Tony Blair's speech in Copenhagen | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Let me restate the reason for this negotiation, since in recent weeks there has been a concerted fight back against the notion that such a negotiation is even necessary. It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege.

It doesn't need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity. Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act.

Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible. Also the same [fraudulent] science is telling us that time is running out. So action has to be now.