Again, the best reporting on Climate Science comes from Times Online.
They focus on the skeptics, not deniers. They avoid irrelevant issues like religion and politics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6944684.ece

Hannah Devlin
In a debate that has become highly polarised the label 'climate sceptic' is readily slapped on
anybody who stands on the soapbox and contradicts Al Gore. In reality, the sceptic landscape is
more varied, ranging from those scurrilously pursuing scientific truth to others with more obvious
economic or political gains to play for.

Richard Lindzen, an American atmospheric physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has
been one of the most vocal in expressing concerns over the validity of computer models used to
predict future climate change. He argues that they may be over-predicting future warming due to a
failure to properly account for the climate system's water vapour feedback. However he has also
been an active contributor to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports.

Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that
Lindzen agrees with about 90 per cent of what other climate scientists are saying, yet the last 10
per cent is sufficiently different to label him a contrarian.

Stephen McIntyre, editor of "sceptic" blog ClimateAudit and former director of several state-owned
Canadian mineral exploration companies, is known in the climate science community for his continual
demands for raw data.

McIntryre was behind an orchestrated campaign that led to 60 Freedom of Information requests being
made to CRU scientists at the University of East Anglia in a single weekend in July.

However, while potentially vexatious, McIntyre has made genuine scientific contributions, notably
spotting a mistake in NASA data that led to the average US temperatures to be reduced about 0.15C
for the period 2000-2006.

Philip Stott, an emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London (although not a
published climate scientist), has publicly argued that the climate is too complex and chaotic a
system to make long-term predictions on.

None of these scientists are climate change deniers, but they question the certainty of the
scientific consensus.

Several Tory MPs have recently contradicted the Green Conservative line of the Cameron era.

Peter Lilley, one of only three MPs to vote against the government's Climate Change Bill in
October, has accused climatologists of an "unconscious conspiracy" in which a dogmatic
determination to conform to a consensus driven by the incentive of public funding has made them
happier to let the data fit the theory rather than the opposite.

David Davis has also spoken out on what he describes as a "ferocious determination to impose
hair-shirt policies on the public". Taxes on holiday flights and noisy wind turbines are too high a
price to pay, he suggests. Both MPs claim to be open to the possibility that man has significantly
contributing to climate change, but both remain unconvinced by the evidence.

Former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson, has also publicly stepped up his opposition to environmental
policy, founding the think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, complete with a board of
fairly distinguished academics to provide scepticism with a "respectable face". However, the think
tank was this week accused by scientists of appearing to misrepresent scientific data on its
website.

At the far end of the spectrum, figures such as Sarah Palin appear to be happy to disregard
scientific evidence wholesale in favour of economic gain.

Despite substantial differences in outlook, bundled together under the "sceptic" brand, the views
of these individuals appear to be increasingly gaining favour with the public in the lead up to
Copenhagen.

Eric Gisin wrote:
Again, the best reporting on Climate Science comes from Times Online.
They focus on the skeptics, not deniers. They avoid irrelevant issues
like religion and politics.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6944684.ece

Hannah Devlin
In a debate that has become highly polarised the label 'climate
sceptic' is readily slapped on anybody who stands on the soapbox and
contradicts Al Gore. In reality, the sceptic landscape is more
varied, ranging from those scurrilously pursuing scientific truth to
others with more obvious economic or political gains to play for.
Richard Lindzen,

....denialist liar.