Sir David King: IPCC runs against the spirit of science - Telegraph

What’s more, this is only one manifestation of a very broad and robust set of evidence. We know from thermometers and satellites that temperatures have risen at least 0.8C. There is now massive monitoring of the loss of land ice around the planet, including the ground-breaking double satellite gravitational measurements. We have robust data on rising sea levels, the acidification of our oceans, and the spectacular multidimensional details of how climate has changed in the past.  [so where's the evidence that humans caused these changes?]

Given all this evidence, it’s ridiculous to say this that human-induced climate change isn’t happening, absurd to say we don’t understand why, and any suggestion that we have nothing to worry about is like making a very bad bet.

Sir David King criticises climate scientists - Telegraph

Sir David King has hit out at climate scientists for 'overstating' the risks of global warming.
...
 "I know that when I was in Government this was very highly developed in the American lobby system and this has their fingerprints all over it if we look at the sophistication of this. It is a concerted effort and it looks just like the cigarette lobby".

He even suggested that British intelligence may have knowledge of who is behind the campaign.

Flashback | [Speaking of overstatements]

And in a speech to the Climate Group in April 2004, he reportedly went a step farther. The Independent on Sunday of 2 May 2004 reported: ‘Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist Sir David King said last week.’ (4) [Emphasis added.] King never complained about that report.

Global warming and green technology: Is China eating America's lunch?

Green technology isn't that technological. Solar collectors and windmills? (I'm not even sure windmills are that Green, let alone technological. GE can put as many servos in them as they like to make sure they line up right with the wind, but they're still only producing 25% of rated capacity--that's not high tech, that's low tech. In fact, it's perilously close to no tech.) So whoever can make them cheaply, should. And we should buy them. Cheaply. And spend the money we save on research and development. Because we will need high tech solutions, both for global warming and the other challenges we face.

Ordered Notes About The Pielke Jr vs Ward vs Muir Wood London Debate « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE