Your still only talking about one data collection agency, aren't you? Basically all that article has uncovered is a blunder by the GISS and brought into question one or two 'scientists' credibility. Hardly enough to de-bunk the climate change theory.
And why do you put such faith in the data from 1930? There were still people living in trees back then.

they talk about it here, and why the AGW deniers desperately need to make a mountain out of a molehill.

www.realclimate.com

I remember reading on the press a few weeks ago something like according to latest studies by scientists at the University of Nevada strectching before excercise is bad for your muscle. What??!!! They were telling us over and over how important is stretching before starting any activity and now is actually bad?

Scientists are always contradicting themselves. Now CO2 is very bad, tomorrow they may tell us it has nothing to do with the heating of the world, and we people are like sheeps who just believe and follow whatever someone in a white coat tells us without actually reflecting on it by ourselves or trying to compare it with other opinions.

Scientists are the "prophets" of our time, and we are to believe whatever they tell us without ever questioning. This is especially true with the CO2 issue.

It's hard for me to think that all this hysteria that they want us to feel, has nothing to do with the Muslims having most of the oil available in the world and the fact that their countries, who are now controlled by the west through dictators imposed by us, may wake up one day and start saying: our oil is for us like Mr. Chavez did.

It's also hard for me to think that thirld word economies rapists from the west are not keen on preventing the thirld world countries from using their recently discovered oil assets and having them rather buy our expensive and inefficient solar panels so that they can keep on being completely dependant on us to barely survive, and of course, keep on making cheap workers, almost slaves, for the west.

But nah, those nerdy prophets dressed in white coats would never lie for the sake of keeping our luxuries, not even if their thirld world rapist and rich governments ask them and pay them to do so.

Don't think, the UN will do for you. And don't care about those poor people in the thirld world and their right to develop like we have, care about the poles melting in summer.

Afterall, we need the snow if we want to have fun on the slopes, who cares how they live in their undeveloped countries!

Sorry, but for me all this topic is very hypocritical. Some people need to travel more and watch less tv, and maybe their opinions will change when they see in which horrible conditions people are living.

A very cynical view of the 'men in white coats' Coldcat. Do you really believe that every single scientist on the planet that promotes climate change, and there are thousands of them, are doing so for financial interest and protection of their standard of living???

This tops the cake for conspirousy theorys by a mile. Wow! Forget 9/11!

If this is true, the boys aren't doing a very good job because Brazil (a developing nation) has now used new technology to have totally self suficient fuel industry. Sao Paluo ( a place I visited in the 90's) is one of the largest cities in the world, it's also now the cleanest. What a great improvement for the health and well being for those poor little repressed third world people. They may be chopping down the Amazon forests at a great rate to do it but hey. GW is BS anyway right?

Not everyone that is concerned about climate change is an Al Gore groupy. I've never seen his films and wouldn't even know what he looks like. I rely on the other reputable scientist for information, some of the living a basic existance in solar powered mud brick houses.

"Self sufficient industry"???

Ha ha ha! Don't make me laugh brother! Does Monsanto ring a bell? Well if you didn't know, Monstanto is an american multinational, a huge corporation of biotechnology and agriculture. Who do you think is going to acquire (actually HAS ALREADY DONE ) the crops of sugar cane in Brazil?? Yes, Monsanto.

Keep it on, keep the BS on, we will believe everything from the nice blonde guys from the West dressed in their environmentaly friendly customes. They are so cute, and well intentionted. They care so much about our planet. Let them save us all. Of course, the poor people of the third world are out, they don't count.

Edit: For those who don't know, what Mantas is talking about is known as ethanol which is obtained from sugar cane.
By the way its energy efficiency is still disputed, and according to the latest studies, it poses a significant risk to the health, as one of the studies says: "if every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations likely would increase" (Stanford University). To top it all, ethanol and biofuels are causing and have caused in the past global food prices to considerably rise. This is horribly wrong, and it just benefits us: the rich and the multinationals. The poor will starve like always or worse.

So how lucky these brazilian folks are huh!

Actually, in case you are interested in some facts and not just your rant about the "big bad west" ... ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, can be created by fermentation of ANY vegetable matter that contains some sugar. As it happens, the reason apples, peaches etc taste sweet is because they contain sugars (called fructose = fruit sugar). Even milk from all sources contains sugars (Heard of lactose? = milk sugar). Simply put, anything called ...ose is a sugar and can be converted to ethanol by fermentation.
Sugar cane has a high concentration of sucrose (cane sugar) and is a favourite for ethanol production. However, it is possible to generate a heap more ethanol from the WASTE materials of the sugar production process (there's enough sucrose left for the process to be reasonably efficient, too) and also from the waste from wheat, corn, barley, oats etc.
The straw has the potential to make ethanol without diverting grain from the food chain. Several good alternative sources of plant sugars are readily available and already widely used for production of a sucrose alternative.

As things stand, if cap and trade comes in, the biggest losers are the US and Australia. They didn't vote against Kyoto for nothing. They're both sitting on lots of coal and are already huge per capita producers of greenhouse gases. Both have also developed mainly in the fossil fuel era (unlike Europe earlier) so as to be hugely dependent on people and goods travelling vast distances.

The first world pulls many many strings in the third world, but I'm not sure if this is one in particular.

Ethanol done properly is fine. In the USA with corn from industrial ag, its far too inefficient, hence the opposition to it.

That has something to do with the fact that we have huge distances between places. The geography determines the distances, not the fuels used!

Add to that the fact that the majority of the population (something like about 85% IIRC - but could stand corrected) live within the continental margins ie at the coast, or between the East coast and the "Great Dividing Range" (hills) and thus rely on the small population on the western side of the divide to feed and clothe them, and to produce a majority of our export earnings (be that from wheat, wool, coal or iron ore). That means we have to transport the stuff to the coast for consumption or export.

its obviously because the Dean of the U of N is a freemason.



that is how science progresses. Theories come, and some get surpassed by better theories. Of course you are right, we should be wary about the info we get (esp. from the mainstream medi), but jeez, the global warming thing is hardly news. It started making news almost 20 years ago, but due to indusrty pressure/manipulation and general apathy, it was kept fairly suppressed until more andmore evidence came in in support of it.



uh-huh. No, there is a ton of healhy questioning and investigation into this issue, especially invested by the industries that have so much to lose. Most of the "Global Warming is a hoax" stuff is funded by them. You wanna believe that they are a much more trustworthy and sincere group than the climate scientists?



like i said, the Global Warming stuff is old news, before the oil wars. I don't see where the evil empire has made the connection between the two. In fact, if what you said were true, why the hell are we occupying oil-rich countries to feed the addiction instead of putting in eco-fascist measures that a conspiracy teh size you are talking about is worthy of?



the US dropped out of the Kyoto protocol because they pouted 'unfair'. They are the only one, and the US is not the sole home of climate scientists. And no one, not even you evil UN is proposing that the 3rd world shouldn't use their own resources for themselves. Corporations just like to buy it up because its cheap. But no, somehow the evil aryan schientists are to blame...



i really don't get you on this one. The nerdy prophets, the majority of them anyways, say we are driving climate change. And what does the head of the most corrupt and secret society, the IPCC have to say about keeping our absurd standard of living?

http://rkpachauri.org/pdf/London08.pdf

does not sound comforting to those of us used to first-world amenities.



its the same thing. Poles melting means sea level rising, meaning a shitload of problems for A HUGE segment of the worlds population, ESPECIALLY poorer areas like Banglagesh and India. Global warming affects the poor first and hardest, as they are already living in marginal conditions and any slight change can mean disaster. Warmer areas means disease-carrying insects can travel to higher elevations in Africa, expsing more people to risk. It means desertification, like what we saw in Ethiopia.

And somehow all this climate change has nothing to do with the greenhouse gasses we've been pumping into the atmosphere? Like it is some sort of coincidence?

Until i hear a better theory that can explain both why our pollution has a zero effect by not behaving the way greenhouse gasses should, AND tell me why we are experiencing global warming and climate change, i will believe the science i have read.




Actually, this is one of the main reasons i try to talk about this shit on the boards. Skiing and snowboarding is just an easy starting point for the people that this site attracts.



like you have, i assume?

I don't know why you guys worry about debating this topic with coldcat. He knows absolutely nothing about the science of global warming other than what he has read on a couple 'Conspiracy R US' websites. He contirbutes nothing that could even remotely be considered as intellectual to this topic. He is best ignored as the raving lunatic he obviously is.

I appreciate you guys putting up with my ridiculousness, i just want to extend the same benefit of the doubt to others.

Besides, i'm bored.

Sorry I just find it very difficult to humour conspiracy theorist nut jobs.

The problem with GW though GN is that there is just so much popularism behind it. Until very recently it was hard to find a major environmental event that wasn't attributed in someway or at least in part to GW. I think there has been a bit of a trend away from that level of hysteria recently but it is still quite common. No conspiracy just a popular trend towards environmenalism promoted in part by the media's delight in portraying doomsday scenarios. One might say that GW is the best thing that every happened to the green movement because now, finally, they have got something to attract people's attention with and if it means they can stick it to big business and global consumerism, then all the better. Because, after all, everyone knows that if we could only return to the eden of our hunter gather existance then we would all be better off. so long as everyone (environmentalists included) can still fly OS for holidays and go snowboarding and generally live pretty much the way they currently are and do pretty much what they're currently doing.

GW? - a lot of it is just hot air!

I completed my science degree (majoring in meteorolgy) in the early '90's, so I have certainly seen how the debate has changed over the years. At the time I was a bit of a sceptic but over the years have been persuaded by the overwhelming scientific evidence that we humans are definitely affecting climate to some degree by changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Change in the debate was most notable to me after Bush was elected. His refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement and his support for big business was immediately followed by a propaganda blitz to discredit AGW theories. Up until Bush came into power the debate was mostly within scientific circles. After Bush the debate moved away from the science to politics. Once politics became fully involved we started to see the ridiculous conspiracy theories, centred around those evil doers at the UN (Bush was never a big fan of the UN if you remember). To be honest I have given up debating GW issues on most forums out there because the whole debate has been hijacked by the scientific illiterate like coldcat. There's no point debating scientific issues with people whose theories have not a shred of logic or science behind them.

Also note I too have never seen Al Gore's little doco as I consider it to be little better than Bush's propaganda.

Coldcat would be taken a bit more seriously if he didn't rant on about the big bad west scientists with evil agendas for all the poor repressed third world citizens.

I have seen first hand poverty in places like India, Indonesia, Nepal, Zambia, Botswana and many others (have you?) and I can tell you that there is a multitude of reasons for their situation which I won't go into here, it's not all our doing.

Also Australia is about to embark on a massive carbon trading scheme that will place huge burdens on industry and probably cripple some completely. There are no financial winners anywhere that I can see. It's purely a moral stance. It kind of squashes flat your conspiracy theory about greedy evil corporations inventing a lie line their own pockets.

BTW. BP Solar just announced that it will be moving its Solar plant operations from Australia to India. That's less jobs for us more for those poor little third world victims.

The trouble is RD, those scenarios may be very real.

Like GN said the range of data being studyed is huge and extremely complex.
I believe that they probably definately might know what's really going on.

GoNative, you don't know me, so please don't talk about me like if you knew me. I have a right to have my opinion and express it without being called a 'lunatic' or someone who has to be ignored, as long as I don't atack or insult others in the forum. Who are you to talk about me in such a despising way? You may have a major in methereology but you lack basic education on civism.

I am just being flamed because I have skeptic views on Global Warming.

It's a well known fact that Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, left greenpeace and the environmentalists scene for reasons similar to the ones I give.
He has also been called a lunatic, someone paid by the oil companies,... and many worse things.

I'll say it one more time there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming.

There are many scientists who don't agree with the mainstream GW views, some of them have been named without their consent by the UN as supporting mainstreem GW views, and subsequently asked to be pulled off. Many others scientists disagree but are afraid to say so for fear of losing jobs, or being flamed (like has happend with my posts).

I think someone asked this so I'll say it, I was 8 years old first time I went to Africa with my parents, I have been going to Africa several times in my life since then. One time I was near death from drinking contaminated water. I have also been to South/Central America. Nowadays, it's more cool to care about polar bears than people who die from drinking contaminated water, and many other problems for which they have resources to solve, but are not allowed because of Global Warming. Everyone, even Bush, is agreeing that developing countries have to cut their CO2 emissions and stop using oil. Global Warming is not new, but neither is the fact that these countries have huge oil assets in their territories.

Sure coldcat you have a right to voice your views and so do I. Including what I think of your views. Whenever you start a sentence with "it is a well known fact..." it is generally only a well known 'fact' within the conspiracy theorist world you live in.

You are from what I can tell completely clueless about any of the actual science surrounding AGW. Your arguments all come from anti AGW websites and rarely include anything to do with the science but concentrate on ridiculous political conspiracy theories.

You can say all the times you want that there is no consensus on Global Warming but the fact is that within the climate science community there has been a consensus for many years, certainly before and after the political crackpots started getting in the mix. The actual magnitude of the effects of AGW are certainly in debate and will continue to be so for some time.

And frankly I see no reason to be civil with fools, so get used to it.

Right, right, so I guess the Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center, Syun-Ichi Akasofu is not within the climate science community.

"Akasofu is one of the 400 scientists listed in a report issued by the Republican minority of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works entitled Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 who were said to dispute the theory of anthropogenic global warming."