Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Climate debate

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 July 2009
GUY Johnson (Letters, 30 June) asserts that natural factors alone cannot account for the scale of change in our planet's climate. He then counters his own claim by citing El Niño (natural factor) as being responsible for 1998 being the hottest year in recent times!
As for his assertion that the International Panel on Climate Change data (all based on theoretical computer models) "fits into the pattern of man-made warming", this is hardly surprising. All of these computer models include a line of code which assumes that increasing atmospheric increases earth temperatures. A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. We sceptics need to keep on encouraging intelligent debate before politicians and their green allies drive us back to the Stone Age.

DR GM LINDSAY

Whinfield Gardens

Kinross





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 July 2009 8:47 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/07/2009 00:45:26
Dr Lindsay has picked up one of the latest canards to be dreamt up by the global warming denial industry. He repeats, "All of these computer models include a line of code which assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 increases earth temperatures"

What that actually means is that the climate models quantify the "greenhouse effect" of CO2. Of course they do. How could they not? Climate models are based on physics: that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is basic physics and the amount to which it retains heat in the atmosphere has been subject to an enormous amount of study. How could one estimate how much heat the increasing amounts of CO2 are going to produce without including this information?

The objections of denialists are becoming more ridiculous by the month.

Dr Lindsay might just as well complain that
2

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/07/2009 00:50:43
Contd

Dr Lindsay might just as well complain that financial calculations contains an assumption that the more money one has the goods one will be able to purchase.
3

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 04/07/2009 05:06:48
Dr GM Lindsay is absolutely correct. All the political organisations such as NASA, GISS and the Hadley Centre all base their models on C02 being the culprit.
While denialists like Slioch are correct in stating the obvious that co2 is a greenhouse gas, albeit a small part of it. There is no scientific justification for believing that the alleged global warming is a result of increased co2 levels. After all , co2 levels have been higher before and no doubt will be higher again.
What is far more likely is that sun activity is the main driver of world temperatures.
Where man's actions come into the equation is when we build on flood planes, overload antiquated drainage systems, cut down rain forests, bury non biodegradable rubbish etc.
4

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 04/07/2009 07:51:36
Of course the computer programs start off with the role of carbon dioxide built in - the observations of rising concentrations of the gas correlated with rising global temperature make it central to the theory.

The purpose of the calculations is not to tell us what is causing global warming but to indicate how changes in CO2 concentrations will affect the climate based on whether we have business as usual and continued emissions of greenhouse gases or other scenarios.

These computations and other evidence such as shrinking glaciers and icecaps are telling us that we are heading for serious consequences if nothing is done.
5

Martinh,

04/07/2009 08:37:53
#4. Nabodican takes conspiracy theory to the level of total paranoia. The Met office a political organisation? That's certainly news to me! A quick link through to their website offers data taken by scientists measuring global surface temperatures. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

This is not propaganda from a political organisation, these are data which indicates clearly the average global rise in temperature. This decade seems set to be the hottest since records began 150 years ago. There is no assumption of CO2 atmospheric content on these pure measurements (not computer modeling) but if you superimpose the graphs of increasing atmospheric CO2 on these temperature graphs there is a remarkable similarity, particulary since the 1980s-hence the theory that CO2 is the driver behind the observations.

I defy any climate change denier like Nabodican to demonstrate with authenticated data any relationship between sunspot activity over recent decades that could fully explain the hard data indicating global warming. Darwin's theory of natural selection is still a theory, but is as close to being a fact and still remaining just a theory. I don't belong to any religion, I don't 'believe' in God or MMGW, but although I see no evidence for the former, I find the evidence for the latter compelling and overwhelming, so much so that like evolutionary theory it is as near a fact as it is possible to be.

I also reject 'paranoia' as a mitigating factor by global warming deniers that we are just being manipulated by conspiratorial geo political scientific organisations in cahoots with World Governments using global warming as a means to tax us, arguments used by some on the loony fringe of deniers.
6

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/07/2009 08:42:34
#3 Cynicus in Exile

"what would constitute a falsfier of any model of his choice?"

If a model could not adequately replicate past climates or make predictions of the future that were born out in reality. Of course, the latter may require several decades to become evident. If the model cannot so replicate then it is falsified: then a parameter (or more) is changed and the model re-run to see if it better fits reality, and so on. In effect, the model is being falsified all the time during this process, and those falsifications lead to an ever greater approach to reality. The more sophisticated the model (ie the more parameters it is able to include and the more accurate those parameters are) the greater should be the approach to reality.

So, for example, suppose one starts off building a climate model which resulted in CO2 contributing 14% of the overall warming due to greenhouse gases (along with a host of other factors). That is approximately what physical calculations back in the 1970s told us it was (Ramanathan and Coakley,1979) and what later calculations confirmed (Clough and Iacono,1995). If the model didn't quite agree with reality, then changes might be made that resulted in CO2 contributing slightly more or less than 14% of the greenhouse effect, and if that model better agreed with reality, and did not stray outwith the constraints of the underlying physics, then those changes might be adopted.

Your objection to my statement, "Climate models are based on physics" simply shows how far from reality your own understanding of climate models is.

As for "Counter-examples and reasoned alternatives", they are rightly dismissed if they do not stand up to evidence or, as in the case of Lindsay's reference to climate models, are merely ridiculous canards constructed to mislead idiots.
7

Unimpressed one,

04/07/2009 10:22:14
None of the climate models can account for clouds and so are churning out pure tripe. None has predicted the decline in temperatures experienced since 1998. None can retrospectively account for the MWP or the LIA, both purely natural variations with nothing to do with CO2. As usual, people with little understanding of how science works, putting their faith in technological crystal balls.
8

Martinh,

04/07/2009 10:55:41
#8. Unimpressive one. Show us the scientific data to back your ludicrous assertion that global temperatures have declined since 1998. Put up or shut up.
9

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/07/2009 11:28:25
#8 Unimpressed one

"None of the climate models can account for clouds"

Nonsense. Though it is certainly the case that the positive and negative effects of clouds are difficult to model, and a source of error.

"None has predicted the decline in temperatures experienced since 1998."

Average global temperature anomaly for 5 years centred on 1998 (ie 1996-2000) = 0.320C

Average global temperature anomaly for 5 years centred on 2006 (ie 2004-2008) = 0.416C

see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

EVERY five year average temperature period in recent decades has increased.

It is true that climate models cannot predict El Nino events like 1998 or the recent La Nina event that largely caused the 2008 dip. But that is not a fault of the models per se: such events are inherently unpredictable and it is unlikely that we will ever be able to predict them more than a year or so ahead. They cause annual wiggles on the graph of global temperatures, but the underlying relentless upward slope (with which the models are concerned) is largely unaffected.
10

Itchy,

04/07/2009 12:32:06
#1 'Climate change' is a weasel phrase used simply to repackage 20th century totalitarianism.

That is why totalitarian measures are always proposed as the solution.
11

Geomac 1,

Scotland 04/07/2009 13:51:47
Dr GM Lindsay makes an excellent point when he highlights the fact that all theoretical models contain the assumption that CO2 causes global warming - how can these models be believed when they already assume the answer??
There are a myriad of other causes of co calle GW - clouds, sun, El and Il Nino, population levels (we all exhale CO2!), particulate polution etc.
This preoccupation with CO2 is totally wrong and will result in totalitarianism as politicians and their armies of ecomaniacs try to run our lives.
#6 martinh - of course, the Met Office (Hadley Centre) is a political organisation - it's a quango paid for by the government!! You ask about the sun's impact:
Try : http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1026375.stm
12

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 04/07/2009 18:12:24
12 & 13:

Gullible Deniers helping to spread damaging propaganda sourced from:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

- The Union of Concerned Scientists.
13

Martinh,

04/07/2009 18:34:56
#13. Cynicus in Exile, this really is the most stupid post I've seen on the subject. Why don't you look at the evidence instead of making this type of comment? The graph I previously linked you and the other deniers to wasn't made up by Slioch or me. Just tell me which part of the graphs you don't understand, or refuse to contemplate more likely.

The psychology of this is fascinating. According to Schopenhauer all truth goes through three stages First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. With MMGW most of the World is at stage three, you stick doggedly at stage one.
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/07/2009 18:37:34
Clearly, neither #12 nor #13 have the remotest understanding of the scientific method, particularly as applied within the Earth sciences.

They are reduced to the rantings of paranoid idiocy.
15

BobD,

Backo'Beyond 04/07/2009 18:37:39
I object to the use of the expression "deniers", which indicates opposition to a view which has been substantiated. That would certainly apply where there is incotrovertible evidence, as in the case of the Holocaust.

However, there is no clear evidence of the causes, other than naturally occurring,and certainly no proof that humans can either cause or prevent climate change.

A couple of decades ago, we were solemnly assured that earth was heading for a mini ice age - now they claim to be able to forecast weather patterns 40 years in advance.

Seaweed hung from a window is more reliable than computer models.
16

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 04/07/2009 18:55:48
Melting icecaps !!!! Oh yes !
Try looking at Cryosphere today.
It was interesting that the photograph so beloved of the truth deniers such as Slioch and co of the polar bears on the ice turned out to be nothing at all to with the global warming or bears, but simply an interesting wind and sea blown ice formation.
Hadley, Nasa and GISS are politically driven organisations who's employees dare not go against the mantra of their masters or they are out. Check the facts truth deniers.
17

Martinh,

04/07/2009 19:03:50
#17. But there is clear evidence, and any quick google search will find you plenty of it, and it does appear clear to me. If you don't agree with the evidence, present reasoned arguments for this, but don't just deny that it exists. And can you provide equally compelling evidence that 'natural occurences' explain the global warming phenomena? If so lets see it?

#18. More madcap paranoid tripe.

18

Geomac 1,

Scotland 04/07/2009 19:39:52
#14 Fred - name calling is a pathetic response so I'll ignore it.
#15 martinh - what evidence? Spell it out and not the usual garbage from the government funded gaggle
#16 Slioch - name calling agin - that'll be convincing!!
#17 BobD - I have my seaweed in my garden - brillaint at forecasting
#18 Nabodican - well said. There is no evidence that ice caps are reducing - the Arctic ice has grown in total and the Antarctic has only a very small peninsula melting - the vast area of the remainder is growing

19

Geomac 1,

Scotland 04/07/2009 19:44:05
#19 - name calling is the last refuge of the intellectually challenged
I would aslo argue that the real time evidence provided by what you derogitarily call deniers is far more persuasive than that of the theoretical and self fullfilling arguments of the ever more discredited GW brigade.
20

Martinh,

04/07/2009 19:51:34
#20. You forgot about glaciers. No doubt you believe they are proceeding? Am I right or am I right? I look forward to them reappearing on Ben Nevis.
21

El Franko,

04/07/2009 20:49:29
The virtual world inhabited by the global alarmists continues to look bizarre to more and more people, not least more and more scientists are daring to challenge the stalinist orthodoxy engineered by the IPCC and its fellow-travellers.

Some very good posts on Greenie Watch today (4 July):
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

A nice lucid email re the fact that CO2 and other gases released by coos come from the atmosphere in the first place via photosythesis.

And this is good from Booker at the Telegraph re some recent idiocy on the the related topic of windfarms (see Greenie Watch for link):

'The third, perhaps most disturbing point is that the media dutifully reported Lord Hunt's absurd claims without asking any of the elementary questions that could have revealed that he was talking utter nonsense. One cannot of course expect Opposition MPs to take an intelligent interest in such matters. But if journalists allow ministers to get away with talking such tosh, the slide into unreality can only continue.'
22

Martinh,

04/07/2009 21:25:46
#24. Bye! Oh I see, its all over, opposing view dismissed and I've been duped. You see, I have absolutely no axe to grind, as mentioned previously I don't believe in anything without evidence.

Just one question. How is it possible to have a reasoned debate with those like yourself who take the opinion that anyone who works for a Government agency or a publicly funded body like the Met Office is peopled by conspirators? Give me just one tiny shred of evidence to substantiate the claim that scientific employees of such organisations have manipulated data to fuel the theory of MMGW.

A decade ago there was a paper published in a scientific journal suggesting a link with MMR and autism. This claim has subsequently been thoroughly debunked by all other scientific teams who have consistently failed to establish a link between MMR and autism. So who is correct? Surely the basis of all scientific evidence is both dispassionate and objective? On MMR it would seem that the Irish study that precipitated the MMR scare is completely discredited, but STILL there are thousands of parents throughout the UK who refuse to accept the evidential consensus.

And so too with MMGW. A theory yes, but the evidence by scientists throughout the World establishing a direct link with rising CO2 atmospheric content and the rise in global average temperatures is overwhelmingly compelling, whereas all other explanations are unsubstantiated by hard analysis.

It is however impossible to argue rationally with conspiracy theorists,who dismiss all data from their predetermined position on MMGW on the basis that all employees of Government funded organisations are part of the conspiracy.
23

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/07/2009 22:47:35
#27 Hugh V McLachlan

If you wish to propose a world view that reduces complexity, lumps together organisms because of residual similarities and refuses to celebrate difference and diversity, then so be it.

Perhaps such a world would be populated by those who refuse to acknowledge the difference between human induced and natural events:

Arrh! What a tangled web that would weave! What price responsibility for species and habitat destruction? For pollution and global warming?

Oh No, Me lud. I was only doing what comes naturally, after all, I have no more responsibility than the lowliest cockroach.

And as for your venture into the arena of global warming. Natural causes? Well, lets look at carbon dioxide: ice core records show conclusively that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has remained below 300ppmv for at least the last 800,000 years (and other evidence suggests much longer). 800,000 that is, until the industrial revolution got going: since that time the concentration has reached 387ppmv, an increase of 38%. It is now increase sixty times faster than at any time in those (natural) 800,000 years.

And you talk of human and naturally caused events as though there is no difference? That is at best a useless (since it reduces complexity and causation) and at worst a highly dangerous (since it may lead to the removal of responsibility) philosophy.
24

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 05/07/2009 07:29:32
Rational 60 on the 800+ Guardian thread has put it much better than I can:

'In the end, this is not an academic debate, because we and our children are part of the experiment. The consensus among scientists (yes, with a few exceptions, as is always the case in science) that we should decarbonise our economy as a matter of urgency.

Say we decarbonise our economy, and it turns out that AGW theory is wrong? Well, we will have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in insulation and manufacturing and taken thousands out of fuel poverty. Not bad, but that's not all. We will also have reduced the shock of Peak Oil and Peak Gas. And addressed our energy security problems. And prosperity in hot countries. Not bad.

Say we go the way of the denialists/sceptics? We will have problems with energy security, Peak Oil, Peak Gas, fuel poverty, unemployment, poverty, civil unrest and finally, massive, catastrophic climate disruption from droughts, floods, crop failures, disease, and war. With massive migration caused by environmental collapse. Not good.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on decarbonising the global economy.'
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/07/2009 07:42:03
#30 Hugh V McLachlan

If you define "non-natural" in the way you wish to then the term ceases to exist, since by your definition "non-natural" events cannot exist, and you have lost a useful way to distinguish between different events in the world. All you are left with in distinction to "natural", is the supernatural, if you believe in it. And the need to distinguish between different events in the world still remains: you would have to use the awkward term "human caused" and "non- human caused" events instead.

And then you contradict yourself by saying, "That which is natural might be bad just as that which is non-natural might often happen to be good."

But you have just told us that there is no distinction between natural and non-natural, so by your definition that statement is meaningless.

By the normal definition of the terms, it is a statement of the profoundly obvious: why make it? Does it reveal that that is what you are actually objecting to? That you think you are confronting some kind of Orwellian echo, "Natural good, non-natural bad!"? Surely you don't believe such parodies exist?

The distinction between events that are caused by human actions (such as the emission of some 30 billion tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels) and events that are caused by non-human actions (such as the average annual emission of 0.3 billion tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere from volcanoes) is a crucial one. It is crucial to understanding what is happening to the climate system and it is crucial to determining what can be done about it.

Bringing in your definition simply opens the door to idiots everywhere to argue that since global warming (or species destruction, or pollution or invasive species etc etc)is "natural" then there is nothing we can do about it or should do about it. Indeed, precisely that argument has already been made by Angus MacMillan with respect to grey squirrels: they are, he claims, here "naturally",
26

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/07/2009 07:42:55
CONTD.

they are, he claims, here "naturally", ergo we are not justified in destroying them.

27

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/07/2009 09:13:58
#34 Hugh V McLachlan

"My point is that, however, the term is defined, 'natural' and 'non-natural' are not the same as 'good' and 'bad'."

Yes, I rather gathered that was what you were wanting to say. I would simply respond that that is a truism to which no serious observer (let alone someone who has witnessed tens of thousands of people being crushed to death in an earthquake, or listened to the Goldberg Variations) could object.
28

eyeswider,

05/07/2009 10:01:50

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453043a.html

"....the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/

June 1666 CET 15.0C June 2009 CET 14.8C



http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/journalists_protest_global_war.html

Journalists protest Global Warming spin cycle

"Controversy erupted this week at the World Conference of Science Journalists over the National Science Foundation's "underwriting" of media projects. It turns out that the NSF, which is heavily invested in propagating the Global Warming party line, has been quietly producing content for news outlets, content which the casual observer might not recognize for the propaganda it is."

29

eyeswider,

05/07/2009 10:05:08

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf

"Our conclusions are (i) that whilst recent increases in greenhouse gases play a minor radiative
role in global climate, no strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are
causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous global warming; (ii) that it is unwise for government
environmental policy to be set based upon monopoly advice, and especially so when that
monopoly is represented by an international political (not scientific) agency; and (iii) that the
results of implementing emissions trading legislation will be so costly, troublingly regressive,
socially divisive and environmentally ineffective that Parliament should defer consideration of
the CPRS bill and institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry into the evidence for
and against a dangerous human influence on climate. We add, with respect to (iii), .....
30

eyeswider,

05/07/2009 10:05:54
..... that the scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global warming
that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under strict rules of evidence."
31

eyeswider,

05/07/2009 10:08:59
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

"Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes,...."

http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm?q=lindzen

"Climate change has become a religion..."
32

eyeswider,

05/07/2009 10:13:09
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf

"1. As written, the
statement that
“globally, 13 of the 14
warmest years on
record have occurred
since 1995” is true.
2. In assessing how
meaningful the
statement is, the key
phrase is “on record”,
which refers to the
period of
instrumental
temperature records,
i.e. about 160 years."


......


"5. It is therefore no more
surprising that there
has been a run of
warm years around
the turn of the 21st
century than it is that
most of the warmer
days each year occur
around and after midsummer's
day, or that
the warmest part of
each day occurs in the
early afternoon."
33

eyeswider,

05/07/2009 10:16:14
I am gone before sean the sheep gets here - fundamentalists get my goat up.

34

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/07/2009 18:11:51
#41 Eyeswider

If anyone wants a competent discussion of the embarrassingly fatuous Fielding questions, to which Eyeswider links, they can find it here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/

I've just had a very brief look at the article by Bob Carter et al to which eyeswider links. I haven't read it - I know Bob Carter's nonsense too well to waste much time on it and besides I'm just in for a for a few minutes at present so couldn't even if I wanted to.

So I just skimmed down until something caught my eye, and sure enough on page 10 there are a couple of graphs based on the HADCRUT3 data [you know: the organisation that, according to nabodican, is a "politically driven organisation who's employees dare not go against the mantra of their masters or they are out"].

The smaller of the two graphs shows temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations since 1995.

The caption states, "CO2 is rising … But global temperature isn’t!" and it repeats this saying "Carbon dioxide measurements taken at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (in black, rising) plotted against
the Hadley temperature record since 1995 (in red, falling).

There are two errors in that caption.

Firstly, the carbon dioxide measurements are plotted against time (not temperature): that is a silly undergraduate error but it is not egregious.

The second - the claim that the graph shows temperatures have fallen since 1995 - is a downright lie. A least squares linear fit to the data presented shows a POSITIVE slope of 0.010C/year, see:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/to:2010/trend

Similarly, taking the five year average temperature anomaly for 1995-1999 gives +0.321C whereas 2004-2008 gives +0.416C. That is a rise. You can check the figures yourself here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

Almost every time I look into the sort of documents that eyeswider keeps dredging up, similar incompetence, misinformation and
35

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/07/2009 18:12:23
Contd.

Almost every time I look into the sort of documents that eyeswider keeps dredging up, similar incompetence, misinformation and lying is evident. But still this garbage keeps getting churned out: because the target audience really doesn't care whether it it true or not. They just want to be told that CO2 is not a problem, or that there is nothing we can do about it if it is: that means they can continue as before; nothing has to change; the fossil fuel companies won't be threatened and profligate consumption can continue unabated. That is what they want to hear, and if that means the likes of Bob Carter have to lie to them, then so be it.
36

eyeswider,

09/07/2009 09:38:31
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453043a.html

"....the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/

June 1666 CET 15.0C June 2009 CET 14.8C



http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/journalists_protest_global_war.html

Journalists protest Global Warming spin cycle

"Controversy erupted this week at the World Conference of Science Journalists over the National Science Foundation's "underwriting" of media projects. It turns out that the NSF, which is heavily invested in propagating the Global Warming party line, has been quietly producing content for news outlets, content which the casual observer might not recognize for the propaganda it is."

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.