[Arragonis]

There is a potential issue with the rate of increase - the data isn't exactly straightforward. For example a load of temp sites are badly placed, so actually they are recording temps that are higher than expected.

And secondly a lot of the data has been, er, 'adjusted'. Its interesting how these adjustments are always upwards and never down.

And thirdly when you look at the reconstructions, another issue is that there is a divergence between what the proxies tell us should be happening and what is happening - thats the 'hide the decline' issue - the proxies are declining yet recorded measured temp seems to be increasing.

If the proxies don't match current temps how can they be trusted to record past temp. So can we say there wasn't a warmer period or indeed a period of rapid change ? Dunno but the data needs analysing more cleanly to make sure. Like I say I'm on the fence.

The precautionary principle is a nice thing, except if you are in the 3rd world and being denied any of the developments we take for granted which may save your life or those of your children because of something which is at best a theory so far. And at the same time those same people still fly, drive, use central heating, electricity like mad.

If I was in one of those countries I would want my government to tell the IPCC to "go forth and multiply" too.