Have you seen the source code for that data? I have never seen something that corrupted. You could feed lottery numbers into those programs and it would come out with the same results. The inbuilt bias in it is unbelievable.

That has almost single-handedly changed me from a believer to a sceptic. I don't trust what anyone from any-side is saying now, only thing I'm sure of is that I've read childrens fantasy fiction books that will give you a better idea of future climate than the models build on that code.

The debate is over over. There is a scientific consensus that the globe is warming. The sky is falling. All the usual dross.

Let's try some facts:

The CRU scientists and others DID 'fudge' (their word, not mine) the data to meet their expectations. Whilst we were being led to believe that top scientists were feeding accurate data into a supercomputer and verifying and reproducing the results, it was actually a bunch of retards making up 'adjusted' data on spreadsheets and fortran code that they had completely lost control of.

They then had their work 'peer reviewed' by their cronies, from within their own believers' circle.

They embarked on a (successful) campaign to besmirch the reputations of eminent scientists and pressured at least one journal editor into sacking a very good scientist, who happened to want to see their results reproduced (as is the scientific method).

They conspired to withhold data that other scientists needed in order to establish that the obtained results were replicable (replication being a requirement for a theory to become proven). Even to the point where they were desperately scratching around to find a way out of complying with freedom of information laws. In their flap they were asking each other to delete emails that related to IPCC work that could lead to them being found out.

They had a good old moan about how it was annoying that the planet had not obeyed their models and warmed as expected - it had cooled. What did they expect? They knew the data was fudged, because they said so in their programming logs. I think their predictions were more of a wish than anything based in scientific reality. It was annoying to them because they had been busy telling the world's press and anyone else who would listen that the globe was experiencing 'unprecedented warming'.

Why were they so desperate to withhold the data used in their 'models'? Because it was cobbled together in such a mess that their own programmer couldn't make any sense of it and if they had released it (as any scientist with any talent would have done) they would have been a laughing stock - as they are currently.

I like a laugh as much as the next man and this kindergarten science at Hadley would normally have me in stitches. Unfortunately it's a bit more serious than that.

Our leaders are meeting at Copenhagen and suggesting that 5% of GDP be stolen from each country to address a problem that only exists in the minds of these conniving simpletons.

By the way Mehdi, I love that you have dragged the 'climate change denier' phrase out of your toybox to label anyone who wants a definitive 'scientific' answer to all of this as being on a par with some SS pr*ck from Auchwitz.

It's not nice to be misled or lied to as the poor unfortunates at Auchwitz found when the logo above the main gate 'Work Makes You Free' turned out not to be completely true - but somewhat 'fudged'.

I forgot to mention the climate scientist leader of greenpeace was also exposed for his scaremongering and had to eat his words. Check out this short video. Its quite an insight. http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=6933

Move on, its over....

@Peter, you said pretty much what I wanted to say, I can only add this extract from the log of the person at the CRU running their databases, this raises serious questions about the value of the CRUs input to any rational scientific understanding of the reasons for climate change:

"This document has the title "HARRY_READ_ME.txt." You can easily find it online. just google it.

The 274 page long file describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009.

Th programmer is managing data that are the foundation of the study of climate change -- recordings from hundreds of weather stations around the world of temperature and precipitation measurements from 1901 to 2006, sun/cloud computer simulations, and the like.

These data are the core of climate science.

As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)

And based on stuff like this, we 'deniers' are to denigrated and the economy wrecked to 'save' the planet!

Really? Who to believe? Mehdi Hasan with his PPE from Oxford, or David Davis, with his "BSc Joint Hons molecular science/computer science" degree - both of which agree with a different set of scientists.

Only last week David Davis said on Question Time that he was 80/20 in BELIEVING that man made global warming exists.

So, of the two of you, only one claims to 'know the undeniable facts' about anthropomorphic Global Warming.

Funny how you aren't so inclined to believe the scientists when it comes to the improbability of God's existence.