Unfortunately that link's broken but I'll do my best Herbaholic! "detection and attribution science"? Sounds like another name for retrospective science to me, which is weak science. Scientists have to PROVE cause and effect, not just give evidence which supports arguments. As for the lawyers and campaigners (journalists too), they all have their own agendas and are free to pick and choose the science which best represents their needs. Don't believe everything you read in the paper. Schär specialises in regional climatic change, not global, so maybe he's not the best source. I'm sure the legal profession is over the moon about "legal relevance of climate change". I'm sure they can't wait to line their pockets with the myriad lawsuits they'll be able to bring...But maybe I'm just being cynical.
mr chinnery Reviewed by mr chinnery on . Greenhouse Effect 'May Benefit Man' Pro-Bush think-tank outrages eco-groups with report that denies Greenhouse Effect http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/headline.php?id=294 Climate change is â??a mythâ??, sea levels are not rising and Britainâ??s chief scientist is â??an embarrassmentâ?? for believing catastrophe is inevitable. These are the controversial views of a new London-based think-tank that will publish a report tomorrow attacking the apocalyptic view that man-made greenhouse gases will destroy the planet. The Rating: 5