When the RT's favourite carbon-sceptic Piers Corbyn starts publishing his work in the science recognised outlets, then he will be taken more seriously in the UK. Until then, the leading universities facilitating his lectures are fully exercising their right to disclaimer that they are not affiliated with this "weather man" who makes his living by pretty accurate weather forecasts (based on solar rotating patterns) and alleged sponsorship by big fossil-burners. Russia with its vast natural resources must be his and others alike 'dream audience'.

It is tiresome to still hear people actually believe that the "science recognized outlets" are free from establishment pressure. Same goes to "leading universities", and "mainstream media". If indeed any of these are NOT manipulated by the power and influence of the establishment, they would have LONG TIME AGO published REAL science of global warming/cooling. It has been known for a long, long time. Milankovich cycles moved from theory to proven science by the contributions by scientists world over, especially as the data from the oceans and glaciers became available. These are NATURAL phenomena, and is working in multiple, concurrent cycles of various durations, the longest being approximately 100,000 years long. Even superficial reading (try Wikipedia) shows exactly why is currently northern hemisphere warmer, while southern is getting cooler. The pictures of Antarktic glaciers falling into ocean is typical deception: it does not explain that the EXPANSION of the ice cover in the Southern Hemisphere results in the new ice, which on the edges is less stable, and does not hold, while at the same time, its core, stable mass is continually expanding. I APPLAUD anyone who would cut carbon emmisions, as it is imperative for the health of our plannet. But this is POLLUTION, just as is pollution of fresh water, oceans and soil. We need to deal with POLLUTERS (including each of us), not with some planetary phenomenon called "global warming". This gets polluters off the hook, and destroys the environmental movement by pushing it into corporate-approved "global warming" ghetto. This clever device has not only conmingled natural phenomena of global warming/cooling and pollution of the Earth, but is coming up with a tax to pay for whatever further damage the polluters do. Watch the hydraulic fracturing to release gas from beneath shale rock. Just watch.

Now, the newest miracle technology has already being packaged by the corporations trying to peddle it worldwide as the "green" technology! And along with the support of their governments, it is being sold to unsuspecting pathetic countries whose politicians value their own perks and status above the health of their citizens and their own soil and drinkable water. What else is knew. But, wait. Watch how clever and ultimately unpatriotic and criminal these companies can be. They have DIVERTED all the attention to the chemicals that are infused with a large quantity of water for the purposes of using hydraulic pressure to crack the shale rock and release gas. But these chemicals, they say, are infused WELL BELLOW the water table, and hence, how can it cause problems? For the public that has long ago been conditioned to pay a nanosecond to any issue, this is good enough. Therefore, the "accidents' that occured and caused people's driking water to be set ablaze, were just "accidental" problems with the tubes they insert, etc. etc. What they AVOID saying is that, appart from problems with tubes, the chemicals once infused with the water can travel great distances underground through natural cracks and crevices and resurface again. And MORE IMPORTANTLY, they fail to explain the presence of methane in the "flaming water". And this is where the GREATEST danger lies. Rocks, once fractured, do not behave like a clean drilling holes. The cracks can be unpredicable due to the endless differences in the underground rock formations and their natural weaknesses. An VOLCANIC activity that caused such a crack in Cameron released methane, CO and CO2 into a lake, and then spread upwards to approx 200 meters altitude. People and animals within that area were all poisoned. The volcanic activity, fortunately, plugged the crack, and the leaking stopped. Should methane and other gases be released accidentally, who can stop it? Such leaks can poison millions.

Bianca, I don't think it's tiresome to read about the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. I also don't think that any relevant scientific data should be manipulated or serve politicians. The world is divided into proponents and sceptics of ACC for various reasons, the most acceptable way to understand and conclude by ourselves is through publications of scientific literature followed by reviews of fellow scientists in the same field. I just want to demonstrate how our views are similar and not. Last year one of the American professors gave a mild 'shock' to the scientific community by publishing his work about depleting the ozone layer by conspiring chlorofluorocarbons and cosmic rays. In his findings he stated that global warming was recorded since 1950-2000, but the global cooling begun since 2002 for the next 50 years and, according to his ground-based,satellite and balloon gathered data the carbon dioxide components didn't play a significant role at all. There is another culprit responsible for Arctic and Antarctic ozone depletion - the CFCs particles. Now, the Montreal Protocol of 1987 ceased the use of CFCs and their compounds in refrigerators, aerosols,cleaning solvents, electronic washing and even foams of upholstery and insulation. In the UK we don't have any of those in production or even from old stock - they are forbidden. The lifetime of some CFCs in our atmosphere can be anything from 40 to 1700 years due to the continuous chemical reactions with sunlight resulting in the destruction of the ozone layer. My point is that this latest science is still carbon-related, dismissing it by carbon-sceptics means, in effect ,doubting their own established theories of naturally occurred patterns( no CO2). Pollution? Of course we're not emitting CFCs anymore, but we need to know other culprits and how to deal with them for the sake of our planet. I'll keep reading!

There are indeed many leading scientists who, to a greater or lesser extent, agree with Piers Corbyn (what is a carbon skeptic? I think Mr. Corbyn does believe in the element carbon). It is crucially important that the public see the Climate Scientists' Register that we, at the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), have created and has been endorsed by 139 climate experts. See http://www.tinyurl.com/2es3rqx . Nice job RT! Tom Harris Executive Director – ICSC Ottawa, Canada http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

That's the problem - the sceptics of ACC became so 'noisy' and gone 'international'! Now they have reached our cosy discussions. Some experts, not so shy of self-promotion and not so known as fossil-burning-industry lobbyists, show us that their organisation ( often "confusion" substitutes the "coalition" word) is actually targeting our minds. Did I say about Russia being a "dream audience"?

THE FACTS: For the last 24 years of crisis warnings, the IPCC climate scientists have continued their unified consensus that the consequence of Climate Change are still estimated to be anything from “catastrophic” and “unstoppable” warming, to negligible consequences if any, and may or may not include more extreme weather events. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of population control. You decide.

Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Marie Curie, Aristotle, Newton, ............Gore? Obama? How may climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb? None. BUT, they DO have consensus that it WILL change. Scientists not only polluted the planet with their chemicals, they also produced cruise missiles, cancer causing chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, strip mining technology, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change. Are WE not the new neocons when we condemn our kids to a CO2 death, just to get them to turn the lights off more often?

Climate science is complex and to many people too hard to fathom, but you don't need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination. Government-funded researchers keep claiming they have a "consensus" yet can never name one scientist who can prove so-called "greenhouse gases" can trap heat- it can't that's why. These crooks never debate with so called skeptics and never show the proof of their so-called “settled science" and consistently and unlawfully denied freedom of information (FOIA) requests in Britain, at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and at NASA/GISS. Many thanks to Russia Today for asking me to repeat the story to worldwide audiences via a live Moscow broadcast. The conclusion that must be drawn here is that when brought to court, the eco-advocates are tellingly exposed and cannot possibly justify their destructive trillion dollar cap-and-trade policies.

It is interesting to note that while both interviews (with John O'Sullivan and Philip Foster) were being shown, the viewer was being confronted by images of melting icebergs, deluged city areas, and other assorted horrific weather excesses. The interviewer was of the hectoring persuasion and determined to portray his interviewees as ignoring "the evidence" (helpfully illustrated by the aforementioned images). Seemingly not content with asking his subjects to explain their views, he sought to push his own extreme alarmist agenda. Altogether, a not specially edifying example of how to demonstrate the difference between the intelligent debate and the closed-mind harangue. In that sense it was a success. But was that really what he intended?

Even more interesting to note that neither of the two recently inserted interviewees are of the scientific circle on climate change nor holders of any degree in science. Both are entrepreneurs and 'experts' of various businesses and both are chosen predictably for the Russian average reader with equally non-science connected background. In contrast, we had in London 20 world's Nobel Laureates gathered in May 2009 to discuss the threat of climate change, what is known as the St Jame's Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium. The Memorandum is simple enough to understand the following: -" Governments at all levels together with the science community and business and civil societies, should seize on this historic opportunity to transform our carbon intensive economies into sustainable and equitable systems" - Targets of cutting carbon dioxide emissions must go far beyond of the Kyoto Protocol, the UK's target should be increased from 34% to 40% in the next five years and to 50% by 2050. US would have to commit to any targets for the first time - "Global greenhouse gases will have to peak by 2015 as a result of the economic growth and rapid development of China and India, but have to stop in the next five years" - Facing pollution and stopping deforestation by increasing imposed penalties on major polluters and paying poor countries not to cut down their trees Is there any chance to meet any of those real scientists-Nobel Laureates on RT to have a well balanced discussion? Why to be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and at the same time to handpick sceptics-businessmen to doubt its global principles among the 'Russian audience'?

The very latest science of today is even more convincing - now the marine mammals have been diagnosed with sun burns by the American scientists. The killer whales developed unexplained skin leisures when exposed to the sun while breathing on the surface and playing with youngsters. Now it has been confirmed that the ozone depletion caused the  UV-rays to harm these animals skin. The concerns are now whether this latest discovery has any relevance to the development of skin cancer in humans.

 global warming is real you just have to use common sence and take a look around you these ppl are just saying it doesnt exist becasue the sun was in a solar minimum so the global temps droped just look at the artic then tell me theres no global warming how about the crazy storms i see around were i live geting worse every year how about every summer seems to be geting hotter the great lakes are reaching temps they have never hit before wake the hell up casue it doesnt really matter if you belive or not its happening and if we do nothing well then you can explain why to your children 

I suppose when britain coast line is under metres and metres of water ,or when countries are either baking,or freezing to death,no comments please about Climate fools day,they already stated they fools.

Watched the interview and noted the question regarding the Summer heat wave, reminded me of the NOAA conclusions amongst others who say it was largely the result of natural events. Thought it might add to the debate.

"Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900."

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

A Russian Science input: http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/12/russian-scientist-extreme-central-russian-heat-wave-not-an-indication-of-a-future-climate-change/

Recent research is also linking the Suns activity to the Arctic blocking events.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727730.101-frozen-jet-stream-links-pakistan-floods-russian-fires.html
~~~~~~~
Just adding to the debate. :)
Mick.