The BBC, meanwhile, continues its pathetic attempts at damage limitation and Johann Hari in The Independent wishes the (Mann-made) "global warming deniers" were right. He doesn't really - he's just saying that ... just in case you might have been fooled. "Imagine you are about to get on a plane with your family," he writes:
A huge group of qualified airline mechanics approach you on the tarmac and explain they've studied the engine for many years and they're sure it will crash if you get on board. They show you their previous predictions of plane crashes, which have overwhelmingly been proven right. Then a group of vets, journalists, and plumbers tell they have looked at the diagrams and it's perfectly obvious to them the plane is safe and that airplane mechanics – all of them, everywhere – are scamming you. Would you get on the plane? That is our choice at Copenhagen.Er ... actually, a "huge group of rent seekers" want you to pay an absolute fortune to climb back into the Iron Age. Would you still get on the plane?
But hey! Robert Watson in The Guardian says: "The science still points to Copenhagen". So I guess we can all relax.
"The global temperature analysis is robust and the work of the UEA Climatic Research Unit, on the land component, is fully supported by two separate independent analyses in the US at Nasa and Noaa," he says. What is this word "robust"? Is he using a different dictionary from the rest of us?