But we have no idea it is correct. The proof of the theory hinges on the temperature records. And what do we see about the records? Much if not all of the raw data has been “lost”. So what we have is “adjusted” data. We have an analysis carried out by Dr Roy Spencer of alternative data, which gives trends over 1973 to 2009 as 20% less than Jones’. We find proxy reconstructions being manipulated to do away with the Medieval warm period and little ice age.

In short the credibility of the records is completely shot. We can say some warming has taken place say since 1973 but not by how much and we can be fairly sure that it is in no way unique. Absolutely no cause for alarm.

In the face of such doubt and uncertaintly if the pompous governing body makes a policy statement – you can bet your bottom dollar that statement is a political one, not a scientific one.

“how you would want them to update their policy?”

Should they say that change is not happening? –

They should say that change is happening as part of an ongoing process that started 150 years ago. That we have no idea in what direction the change will continue over the next decade, leave alone over the next 100 years.

Should the focus be on adapting to the inevitable changes?

As always. Have we not adapted over the last 150 years, and indeed over and since the last ice-age?

Should we just ignore it all and carry on regardless?

What do you mean by that? Carry an umbrella when it rains and cancell flights in a snow storm. What is your exact question? Ignore what?

Should we assume CO2 is not a problem and focus on sustaining a larger population?

How are the two related? Tackle population with education, family planning and more food growth. CO2 is not the cause and solution of the worlds problems.

Should research focus on long term cost efficiency?

It should focus on real science. Physics, chemistry, medicine and not be hijacked by the fraudsters of climate science.