This sounds exactly like the sort of Oil money funded, bad science, that organisations like The Marshall Institute fronted up as a means muddying the waters and trying to scupper Kyoto, and guess who funded them? Exxon/Mobil Oil of course.

I wonder if Terry Jackson also supports any other of the DUP's mad theories like a 6,000 year old universe and Noah's ark of friendly dinosaurs, who somehow refrained from eating everything else on board during the time of their merry cruise? This is all real swamp-land thinking, and it's the sort of controversy referred to on websites as being created by trolls.

Posted by plannisuarus rex | 16.02.09, 20:43 GMT

I see the earth is flat type people are still banaging on that the earth cooling trend of the last ten years put paid to major climate shift.

Look, it is quite clear from geological analyis that we have never experienced such rapid environmental change in the history of the earth. It is also very clear that you do not look at short-term trends but long-term averages and I am afraid all but the most conservative analyses point to one thing: alarming rapid climatic change that just happens to coincide with the explosion in human population.

One day soon climate change denial will be regarded as disgraceful as holocaust denial and when that happens Sammy Wilson had better be in the dock for judgement on his dispicable performance as Environment Minister. This is the same man who once liked frollicking in corn fields naked with somone's daughter. Oh the irony of it all.

Posted by Conal Stewart | 16.02.09, 15:27 GMT

What you mean Johanne, is he is letting 'ordinary folk , be lazy and not take responsibility for the state of the planet. Another indicator of the poor society we live in. There are many studies which prove man made climate change and there are some that dont. You can interpret figures how you like to get the result. The people who commission studies into proving no man made change have a lot more to gain financially that those who dont. The point is Wilson does not know or indeed should be expected to know. He is the environment minister for goodness sake. He should be promoting 'green' as much as possible not trying to discredit something he is not qualified to talk about. He cant even sort his MOT out, yet some idiots stand up for his unfounded views. Joke.

Posted by soarer | 16.02.09, 09:05 GMT

All four measures (NASA GISS, HadCRUT, RSS, UAH) show increasing temperatures from 1999-2008, the last 10 years.

Historically, CO2 has been a feedback mechanism, following temperature. Currently, it is an initiator.

CO2 concentrations are higher now than they have been in 400,000 years.

H20 cycles through the atmosphere in days and is unevenly distributed. CO2 is well-mixed and can remain for over 100 years, each year of emissions building on the 100 previous.

Posted by Michael S. | 16.02.09, 03:08 GMT

There was once upon a time that the scientific community had a "consensus that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and that the breath would be sucked out of you lungs if you traveled more than 25 mph in a car. Then there were those in society that saw through the veil of stupidity and looked at the facts. All of the great scientist recorded in history are those that went against the "consensus" and sought the truth.

Posted by waterman | 15.02.09, 00:25 GMT

It seems from the replies that there are some gullible people who will believe EVERYTHING they hear while there are others who have a mind of their own and decide to use it. Sammy Wilson is one of the latter as am I gladly. Let the gullibles do their bit for the environment, but DON'T expect those with a mind to follow sheepishly.

Posted by Stuart | 14.02.09, 22:03 GMT

Terry,

lots of cherrypicked stuff there and incorrect facts. Here's a check on one:

Mars's atmosphere is mainly Carbon Dioxide (95%), which as you might know is a greenhouse gas. So your St Petersberg Observatory Director is either incorrect, has been misquoted, or may not exist. By the way, there actually isn't a 'St Peterburg Observatory' - there is a Pulkovo Observatory south of St. Petersburg, is that what you were talking about?

Of course, this is besides the point - as Mars's orbit is highly elliptical - i.e. egg-shaped. This means, that unlike Earth, Mars's distance to the Sun varies through the year. As you might expect - as it gets closer to the Sun it heats up. We don't have to worry about this on Earth as our orbit is pretty much circular.

Posted by Eamon | 14.02.09, 01:12 GMT

I moved to Edmonton, Alberta from Belfast in 1968. Whereas in the 1970's we sometimes got winter temeratures as low as minus 40, for the past ten years or so it has rarely gone as low as minus 30. In 1998 Edmonton had the warmest summer on record. (We regularly get summer temperatures well over plus 30.) The Athabasca Glacier (between Jasper and Banff) has retreated more than half a km. in the last 50 years. The Arctic ice is rapidly melting and thinning, and the poor old polar bears are finding it harder to get their food! Forest fires are now much more widespread in the summers. The pine beetle, which destroys forests like nobody's business, has "jumped" the Rockies from B.C.
Terry, I believe I was a graduate student in Physics at Queen's at the same time as you. I invite you to come to Canada and see for yourself the effects of global warming. I think you would be shocked.

Posted by Tony Kernahan | 13.02.09, 22:47 GMT

The US government just released an analysis of the climate change debate...the correlation between solar activity and global temperature matched exactly until 1850, at which time the variations of temperature moved into a higher range than previously existed. Measurements of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere show a marked increase during this time. By the way, we actually know how these gases behave...it seems to be a pretty straight forward connection. Not convinced, an examination of the work of Camille Parmesan, who looked at over 800 studies of natural processes, seems to suggest that global warming is taking place at the same time as the observation of increased greenhouse gas concentration has taken place. I have yet to hear a credible explanation other than human activity...solar activity just does not explain this.

Posted by TCP | 13.02.09, 16:33 GMT

Great to find a politician willing to stand out against the crowd. Anyone who checks the historical record knows that there is nothing unique about our current climate.
Is it warmer than 1880? I sincerely hope so. Summer temps have not been getting much warmer, the changes have been in autumn and winter as we emerged from the Little Ice Age which lasted on and off from around 1350 to about 1850. Winters were desperately cold and I cannot understand why that thought is so attractive to people. I also cannot understand who decides what the average temperature of the planet should be when even Gore Guru, James Hansen doesn't know:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html: To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is, and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. For global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, 57.2F. but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58F, regionally the situation is even worse.

Posted by harbinger | 13.02.09, 16:25 GMT

Well done Sammy - someone had to stick up for the ordinary folk! We do what we can but being only ordinary cizitens we make easy targets for the scaremongering tactics of big brother who are becoming increasingly more and more interfering in our lives. Punish the big firms who don't make an effort to help the climate - not the orinary householders. Thank you for not letting us be intimidated and for sticking up for us. Good for you!

Posted by Johanne | 13.02.09, 15:24 GMT

CO2 levels higher back in the 1880's? I am pretty sure about this, scientists did not have the technical capacity to measure CO2 levels worldwide in the 1880's.

To say a specific region has CO2 in its ice core at a particular time is speculation. It may also be very accurate, but completely misrepresents any global measurement.

Weather systems may deliver volcanic eruptions to one place consistantly for 30 years, then disappear overnight. Just because a rock sits in the middle of the desert doesn't mean the rock was always there. Glaciers deposit large boulders thousands of miles.

The warming of the Pole is questioned, the justice of Shock and Awe was not.

Posted by Earl_E | 13.02.09, 15:05 GMT

Sammy Wilson is to be admired for his stand against the GW doomsayers.
The plain fact (which can be easily verified) is that the recent warming trend ceased circa 10 yrs ago, and was superseded by a cooling trend circa 7 years ago.
Does this not defeat the concept of anthropogenic global warming?

Posted by RICHARD MILNE | 13.02.09, 14:42 GMT

Mr. Jackson makes some excellent points which are based on the obvoius. However, the "politically" correct" would have us believe otherwise.

Posted by Seán MacCurtain | 13.02.09, 13:41 GMT

Letter obviously from another 'ignorant' person, who has not access to the inspired vision that so called faithful have. They do not wish to find out what they do not wish to know. Strange how the baying hordes think that silly exaggerations will reinforce their cause. 99% of experts indeed !

Posted by Malachy McAnespie | 13.02.09, 12:55 GMT

I don't think that you have understood the impact of global warming. the glaciers are melting and many species of plants and animals are nearing extinction because of this. I dont know from where you got the data that CO2 emmisions are falling. the fact is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere today is the highest that has ever been seen!!!! I suggest that you watch the iconic documentary"The Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore and then only will you realise the inconvenient truth that you are so intent in ignoring.
If you want to know about global warming and climate change and how they are affecting our world you can log on to www.climatechange-forum.blogspot.com

Posted by Soumitra Kandpal | 13.02.09, 12:54 GMT

I totally agree. You'll find most of the general public act like sheep believing it's man made. I have watched many programmes over the years casting doubt on man made climate change. Its irrelevant what report he uses to reference the details, if they were to produce a report annually it would state the same thing.

Posted by Monty | 13.02.09, 12:19 GMT

You have impressive credentials Mr Jackson, but I think your are incorrect to say "The majority of the world’s climatologists do not accept that humans are mainly responsible for the present climate change." I think that's exactly what they say.

Having moved to Toronto from Belfast after graduating from Queen's, and having lived there for almost 20 years, I can tell you that I learned that heavy snow meant it was warmer - a welcome break from cold winds & colder air temperatures. Warmer air can carry more moisture, & also evaporate more moisture from the surrounding Great Lakes. I wonder what you were trying to say about Toronto having more snow? That it's colder?

Apart from anything else, what I learned at Queen's and in my Masters degree course work at the Univ. of Toronto, was that most of the policies that are suggested to cut CO2 emissions make sense for lots of other reasons too. Reducing our environmental footprint just makes good sense no matter what way you look at.

Posted by David Howe | 13.02.09, 11:14 GMT

Just what this debate needs - another letter from another armchair scientist.

Posted by Richard | 13.02.09, 09:24 GMT

I agree many meteorologists have been threatened with the sack
because they did not follow the flow, Dr. Tim Ball,Canada, and many others.
Just another way to suck money from the people!

Posted by Bill Moore | 13.02.09, 08:50 GMT