Poll: global warming

[SaigonSaddler]

This can't be right.....melting all over the place

It can't possibly be right! December 2009 (latest results) show total ice extent anomaly of +300,000km^2 compared to 30yr average. Freezing all over the place!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... _hires.png

Meaningless.

[SaigonSaddler]

Speaking of the Arctic, which I know we weren't, here's a handy comparison for sea ice concentration. Looks like it's really thinned and melted in the last twenty years...

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 18&sy=2010

Abject. What is the point of this?

[SaigonSaddler]

In summary, the blogs you are so fond of linking to are nothing more vehicles for the unholy sceptic alliance, of which you (Exile.com) are a lesser minion. Here is a link from NASA that answers many of the queries on here and goes to show the kind of misinformation the sceptics generate and cling to as the fragile ice they are on melts underfoot (quite poetic I thought).

Anyway, case in point, the notorious 'Global warming science' joke site that you attempted to (seriously :shock: ) rebuff those published scientific papers with. This does you and me no credit as it reduces the debate into a farce. I would politely invite you (see TSK I can be civil :wink: ) not to choose such flagrently disreputable musings to challenge serious science in future.

Before you attempt to dismiss NASA as some kind of fluffy collection of nitwits, yes this is the same NASA that accurately sent people to the moon and got them back again. I would remind it was down to precise scientific awareness, but maybe you have it down as pure chance....

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

[aaaae]

In summary, the blogs you are so fond of linking to are nothing more vehicles for the unholy sceptic alliance, of which you (Exile.com) are a lesser minion. Here is a link from NASA that answers many of the queries on here and goes to show the kind of misinformation the sceptics generate and cling to as the fragile ice they are on melts underfoot (quite poetic I thought).

Anyway, case in point, the notorious 'Global warming science' joke site that you attempted to (seriously :shock: ) rebuff those published scientific papers with. This does you and me no credit as it reduces the debate into a farce. I would politely invite you (see TSK I can be civil :wink: ) not to choose such flagrently disreputable musings to challenge serious science in future.

Before you attempt to dismiss NASA as some kind of fluffy collection of nitwits, yes this is the same NASA that accurately sent people to the moon and got them back again. I would remind it was down to precise scientific awareness, but maybe you have it down as pure chance....

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

From said link

"A Body of Evidence

In 2007, a scientific intergovernmental body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change, which summarizes our current understanding of climate change. The report took 6 years to produce, involved over 2500 scientific expert reviewers and more than 800 authors from over 130 countries.

Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

What was that quote again?

"Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC.....admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

In summary, the blogs you are so fond of linking to are nothing more vehicles for the unholy sceptic alliance, of which you (Exile.com) are a lesser minion. Here is a link from NASA that answers many of the queries on here and goes to show the kind of misinformation the sceptics generate and cling to as the fragile ice they are on melts underfoot (quite poetic I thought).

Anyway, case in point, the notorious 'Global warming science' joke site that you attempted to (seriously :shock: ) rebuff those published scientific papers with. This does you and me no credit as it reduces the debate into a farce. I would politely invite you (see TSK I can be civil :wink: ) not to choose such flagrently disreputable musings to challenge serious science in future.

Before you attempt to dismiss NASA as some kind of fluffy collection of nitwits, yes this is the same NASA that accurately sent people to the moon and got them back again. I would remind it was down to precise scientific awareness, but maybe you have it down as pure chance....

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

From said link

"A Body of Evidence

In 2007, a scientific intergovernmental body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change, which summarizes our current understanding of climate change. The report took 6 years to produce, involved over 2500 scientific expert reviewers and more than 800 authors from over 130 countries.

Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

What was that quote again?

"Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC.....admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The only funny thing than that is that even despite this error, none of the policy will change!

The reason being that there isn't a credible alternative...

So :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good try though :wink:

[aaaae]

The policy won't change because politicians are wedded to it........at the moment.

I'd rather do nothing than waste billions on some Quixotic crusade. Good luck with those windmills (how appropriate!).

[SaigonSaddler]

The policy won't change because politicians are wedded to it........at the moment.

I'd rather do nothing than waste billions on some Quixotic crusade. Good luck with those windmills (how appropriate!).

Sweet new word.

The politics won't change until the science does. The science won't change.

Windmills? Planning something in Scotland aren't they? Apparently some crisis in CO2 emissions, sounds like a conspiracy to me. :wink:

[aaaae]

The policy won't change because politicians are wedded to it........at the moment.

I'd rather do nothing than waste billions on some Quixotic crusade. Good luck with those windmills (how appropriate!).

Sweet new word.

The politics won't change until the science does. The science won't change.

Windmills? Planning something in Scotland aren't they? Apparently some crisis in CO2 emissions, sounds like a conspiracy to me. :wink:

I was quite please with that one :wink: :D

I just wish they'd get on with it and build a load of nuclear power stations. Regardless of the arguments on AGW, windmills are not the answer.

[SaigonSaddler]

The policy won't change because politicians are wedded to it........at the moment.

I'd rather do nothing than waste billions on some Quixotic crusade. Good luck with those windmills (how appropriate!).

Sweet new word.

The politics won't change until the science does. The science won't change.

Windmills? Planning something in Scotland aren't they? Apparently some crisis in CO2 emissions, sounds like a conspiracy to me. :wink:

I was quite please with that one :wink: :D

I just wish they'd get on with it and build a load of nuclear power stations. Regardless of the arguments on AGW, windmills are not the answer.

I agree.
With everything! :wink: :D

[Exile]

Stock answers from a sceptic blog.
Scientific value - meaningless.
Peer review - none.
Shock value - none.

Why on earth would you attempt to negate scientific analysis with rubbish like that?

Forgot the 'Exile.com' monologue.

Sorry, I thought I was responding to a report from the green pages of that impeccably impartial broadsheet newspaper, The Guardian. had I realised their journalists peer-reviewed everything I'd have done something else. The story is the same though - refutation of overblown claims made by saigon.org.uk/theskyisfallingin.

I look forward to the further unravelling of the global warming scam now that the two chief conspirators (their words, not mine - read their emails) are both under investigation. No doubt there will be whitewash resulting, due to funding involved for the universities they work for (Penn State Poly and Norwich Poly respectively), but their reputations are in tatters, as is their research (if it can still be called research when you make things up as you go along). Losing original data, not keeping records, conspiring to buddy-up and peer review each others' papers, bullying editors of science journals, threatening lawsuits to drive publications to bankruptcy, manipulating data with spurious adjustments, faking data results, proposing each other for cushy Fellowships, creating a climate (ha ha) where nobody can question their authority, hiding from FOI requests and refusing to release their computer code to show how they arrived at the results they did. There's no end to their lack of scientific integrity.

More and more research (there's a website that documents more than 500 properly peer-reviewed papers so far, and climbing all the time) points to the fact that the greenhouse gas hypothesis remains just a hypothesis, and that climate change is more complex, and above all more natural, than was supposed. The sooner scientists of all ranks embrace the fact that climate is more than CO2, the sooner this bad case of Lysenkoism will fade away.

Saigon, do you get all your information from here? http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[aaaae]

The reason being that there isn't a credible alternative...

We could always settle Greenland like the Vikings did during the medieval warm period.........oh no, I forgot the IPCC abolished that didn't they?

[SaigonSaddler]

The reason being that there isn't a credible alternative...

We could always settle Greenland like the Vikings did during the medieval warm period.........oh no, I forgot the IPCC abolished that didn't they?

According to one of Exile's fantasy sites, the IPCC sent some angry innuit to eject them before they got wind of the mass warming conspiracy. Never underestimate the power of the IPCC!

[SaigonSaddler]

Stock answers from a sceptic blog.
Scientific value - meaningless.
Peer review - none.
Shock value - none.

Why on earth would you attempt to negate scientific analysis with rubbish like that?

Forgot the 'Exile.com' monologue.

Sorry, I thought I was responding to a report from the green pages of that impeccably impartial broadsheet newspaper, The Guardian. had I realised their journalists peer-reviewed everything I'd have done something else. The story is the same though - refutation of overblown claims made by saigon.org.uk/theskyisfallingin.

I look forward to the further unravelling of the global warming scam now that the two chief conspirators (their words, not mine - read their emails) are both under investigation. No doubt there will be whitewash resulting, due to funding involved for the universities they work for (Penn State Poly and Norwich Poly respectively), but their reputations are in tatters, as is their research (if it can still be called research when you make things up as you go along). Losing original data, not keeping records, conspiring to buddy-up and peer review each others' papers, bullying editors of science journals, threatening lawsuits to drive publications to bankruptcy, manipulating data with spurious adjustments, faking data results, proposing each other for cushy Fellowships, creating a climate (ha ha) where nobody can question their authority, hiding from FOI requests and refusing to release their computer code to show how they arrived at the results they did. There's no end to their lack of scientific integrity.

More and more research (there's a website that documents more than 500 properly peer-reviewed papers so far, and climbing all the time) points to the fact that the greenhouse gas hypothesis remains just a hypothesis, and that climate change is more complex, and above all more natural, than was supposed. The sooner scientists of all ranks embrace the fact that climate is more than CO2, the sooner this bad case of Lysenkoism will fade away.

Apologies, I thought you had dared to rebuff the scientific papers, but you went for the media instead. Fair enough as it’s an easier target, although you did cheerfully link to the ‘Sunday Express’, so it seems the goalposts move again. As you wish.

I have to say you have given as skilful and valiant a defence as anyone could in your position. You simply don’t have enough ammunition to be effective however. Because unless you can come up with real research papers of genuine scientific quality in a like for like challenge of the evidence, as you insist will appear this year (but haven’t yet), then the science and the policy will move on without you, leaving you scratching around in the fringes of the debate, picking over the bones of dead arguments.

Policy has already moved on of course. I don’t know why you are still stuck in the ‘it’s not warming’ time-warp of the late 80s, most of the sceptics have moved on to the ‘it’s not CO2’. The world’s decision makers have advanced beyond ‘what shall we do about it’ and are firmly in the ‘what are we doing about it’ position.

That’s why the tribulations of IPCC will have zero effect on what’s actually going on. I’m probably more annoyed than you are truth be told, because errors like the glacier quote will be leapt upon by irrational sceptics and talked about for the next decade as proof positive of some conspiracy stretching back to the mid 19th century when it is clearly nothing of the sort. However much you need it to be.

The rest of the piece is wishful thinking. But you do really require something to happen to change the policy direction. You need a cataclysmic revelation in the conspiracy element or you need a complete about face in the torrent of scientific evidence coming through.

The science rumbles on though. I thought I’d give you some information to try and help you make sense of the jumble that you have in your mind concerning glaciology. Here’s a handy link:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... lting.html

NASA again. Maybe you’ve heard of them. I read on one of your sites that they filmed a moon landing in a Hollywood film studio. Please note that the funny bits at the end of the report are the references used to back up the data. Many from 2009. They include Geophysical Research Letters, Science, and Nature…

And therein lies the difference of this debate, my advantage, your inherent weakness.

[derbysaddler]

Careful Saigon, you might cause Shytallknight to have a mini tantrum again.

[SaigonSaddler]

Careful Saigon, you might cause Shytallknight to have a mini tantrum again.

I'm just sitting here pushing buttons mate! :D

[ShyTallKnight]

Careful Saigon, you might cause Shytallknight to have a mini tantrum again.

How very dare you :shock:

[derbysaddler]

:mrgreen:

[Exile]

Careful Saigon, you might cause Shytallknight to have a mini tantrum again.

I'm just sitting here pushing buttons mate! :D

Finally, an admission he's on a wind up and doesn't/can't seriously debate what's going on. :roll: I've lost count of the number of times you've tried to set up straw man arguments, the number of personal attacks on me, the misrepresentation of my position on global warming and the sheer pig-headed blindness to science. Like your NASA link. It it typical alarmist propaganda and reveals nothing without a baseline. All I get from that is that ice melts, which is what it's dressed up to say, with a very pretty graph showing the decline in ice volume at about 24 cubic miles (how quaint) annually since 2002. So, in 8 years, that's 192 cubic miles. Sounds terrible! What are we going to do? Right, what NASA left out of that little PR piece is the total volume of ice in Antarctica to put this into perspective. Total volume of ice in Antarctica? 7,500,000 cubic miles.

Let's do some sums:
rate of melting: 24 cubic miles per year, apparently.
volume of ice: 7,500,000 cubic miles.
Time till Antarctica is ice free and sea level rises by 60 metres: 312,500 years.

Even by your own standards that is a farcical piece of "evidence" for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Just an extrapolation of a short term trend with no background, no baseline, no fact and no substance.

Here's another example of why things aren't as they seem. All computer models that point to warming and CO2 use data provided by one of three main sources - the CRU in the UK, and NOAA/GISS in the US. Fair enough, you might think, but even these three can't agree between themselves on what the data is, and have to adjust the data to fit their programmes. Why adjust it? They'll say to "homogenise" it. The following picture shows graphically the sort of adjustments made. One does have to wonder why, so ask yourself, what justifies the sort of adjustments done here. Cold it be due to variation in the reading, or variation from the predetermined model? Here's a clue: do you need to adjust a full 2 degrees a century to homogenise, or to turn a cooling into a warming to fit your theory? Saigon will no doubt say it's one site in isolation, but it shows, dramatically, what's happening in lots of places, and repeats the observations made in other temperature graphs I've posted in this thread. Anyone beginning to see a pattern developing?



Back to the issue at hand. I'll repeat a part of a post I made some time ago, stil unaddressed.

Here's the crux of the matter for me...

1 - The AGW model favoured by the UNIPCC says that carbon dioxide contributes hugely to global warming and that man made emissions are "highly likely" to be the cause. If this is the cse, then how could it be that the planet has been warmer in humankind's past, such as Minoan optimum (2000BC ish without checking), Roman optimum (BC-AD turn without checking), Medieval optimum (800-1100AD) without CO2 levels as present?

2 - If CO2 has been rising since the industrial revolution and has such an effect on climate, why would it be that the temperature record for this period shows no direct correlation with CO2 emissions?

3 - All IPCC climate change models predicted a temperature hotspot in the upper atmosphere. Measurements have shown that this does not exist.

On each one of those three counts the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis fails. It has failed on all three.

Your support for a hypothesis that has failed everywhere except on the computers it has been programmed into is unwavering, but, I fear, misplaced. CO2 follows warming, it doesn't cause it. Don't forget that correllation may be approximate in human timescale, but decades and centuries apart on the planetary timescale. I keep thinking that's where you're falling down here - your timescales are too short.

Science is moving ever onward. I see the UN have finally decided that COP15 was a complete flop and abandoned the deadline for signatories to the "Copenhagen Accord", the one that was meant to save the planet. You'd think that all those government science advisers, having read the latest UNIPCC climate report, would have recommended to their leaders that this was the last chance to save the planet for their children, wouldn't you? Looks like their science advisers don't quite trust the science either, doesn't it? Out of nearly 200 attending countries only 110 crafted this Accord, and of that, less than two dozen countries signed the Accord. The list of signatories to this Accord is so impressive the UN haven't even released it in public, so it's probably all lefties with bleeding hearts or banana republics looking for a tax handout. Looks like the rest of the world needs a bit more convincing. Perhaps when some papers come out with empirical proof of AGW, rather than the deluge of papers studying the possibility of the extinction of the double-kneed wasp of Patagonia due to possible global warming, things might advance, but hey, 30 years on, we're still waiting.

[SaigonSaddler]

Exile.com in hyper-ventilation mode wrote

Help! Help! Banana-wasps of Patagonia!

Take a breath mate, you'll do yourself a mischief!

PS :lol:

[aaaae]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

"Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier "is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it's hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer."

What a bloody awesome job!! Must make sitting in his office for the other six months analysing data seem very very dull. Where do I sign up!

[Exile]

PS :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

Patience Exile, try and do some breathing exercises.

You will get a full response at 1600 local time, but I'm just indoctrinating some minions into the tepid global networking self-fulfilling prophecy feedback sham. It shouldn't take too long as they're all very receptive. :wink:

[SaigonSaddler]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

"Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier "is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it's hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer."

What a bloody awesome job!! Must make sitting in his office for the other six months analysing data seem very very dull. Where do I sign up!

That's what research scientitists do. You have to go out in the field and actually get some information, otherwise you end up sitting on a computer hypothesising with nothing but hot air and a whole lot of hope. Unless you think Lister, Boyle, Newton, Franklin, Jenner, Babbage, Wallace, Rutherford, Hodgkin and Shackleton all sat at home dreaming up their ideas without actually doing anything practical.

I should think you would welcome this as it's sure to show a massive build up of ice......won't it? :wink:

[aaaae]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

"Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier "is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it's hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer."

What a bloody awesome job!! Must make sitting in his office for the other six months analysing data seem very very dull. Where do I sign up!

That's what research scientitists do. You have to go out in the field and actually get some information, otherwise you end up sitting on a computer hypothesising with nothing but hot air and a whole lot of hope. Unless you think Lister, Boyle, Newton, Franklin, Jenner, Babbage, Wallace, Rutherford, Hodgkin and Shackleton all sat at home dreaming up their ideas without actually doing anything practical.

I should think you would welcome this as it's sure to show a massive build up of ice......won't it? :wink:

Boyle got to sit in a lab in Oxford dreaming up MV=PT, I go past the plaque on the wall every time I walk up High Street. He didn't get to take bloody great drilling rigs to the antarctic!! Who gets to drop the buoy into the hole? Let's hope they don't fall in after it.

For the record, I haven't got a scooby about what is happening to the ice in the antarctic, but I bet there's lots of it.

If it melts we can all go and live there!

[SaigonSaddler]

the sheer pig-headed blindness to science. Like your NASA link.

I think only you cannot see the irony and absurdity in that statement. I’ve linked to NASA because they support what I’m saying. In the end, it’s the quality of supporting evidence that makes or breaks any argument. I have NASA. Which brings me neatly to that graph. Darwin airport apparently - published where? Doctored by whom?

I enjoyed your concession to the fact that Antarctica is warming/melting. You even did some mathematics on the amount of ice loss and resultant sea level rise. Any chance of you adding in the Greenland Ice Sheet, glacial melt, permafrost thaw, the rise attributable to the increase in sea temperatures (makes water expand) and the increased rate of melting due to the closing of the ozone layer above the South Pole? I suppose 60 metres does seem a lot, but it puts the rise predicted by 2100 well within reach (up to 2 metres according to latest 2009 research).

Ultimately, in the final reckoning we will eventually have to go our separate ways in this debate, but not yet I think as your ego is denying you an painless exit. I will continue looking at the salient evidence emerging from around the world and appearing in University papers, research bodies, institutions and relevant science journals. You will go back to scouring the internet, copying and pasting meaningless web effluent from bitter and crepuscular blogsites. The only question is that will this be before or after your complete mental breakdown.

The best that you can hope for is that I don’t continually rub your nose in it for the next decade, and beyond. Here’s a prelude:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... point.html

So that’s Oxford University and the British Antarctic Survey. Article dated 13th January 2010. It uses models, along with sound knowledge of glaciology and geology, which I know you’ll love but it’s backing up my position, not yours. That’s something I’ve got quite used to during this debate, along with your knee-jerk derision of such institutions.

Not just some, all of them.

Allow me to respond to your other questions a little later. I have the suspicion it will result in more rejection of perfectly satisfactory evidence in favour of some outdated and illogical rhetorical splurge, such is the depth and innovation of your argument.

[Exile]

the sheer pig-headed blindness to science. Like your NASA link.

I think only you cannot see the irony and absurdity in that statement.

I meant to say "I like your NASA link". Guess you read it differently. Perhaps I should have started a new paragraph.

[Cully]

My vote for the most sustained, onerous pile of steaming procrastinating non evidence goes to...............................................







EXILE





....... for his magnificent ability to dedicate almost every waking moment in scouring the internet for morsels of extraneous research which have all the expertise of The Nolans latest research document on the denegration of sub nuclear particles contained within an aardvark flavoured cuppa soup.


I do accept that I could be wrong and the evidence could be out there, after all is said and done I don't know anything about Exiles area of expertise, however, I know that should paper clips and blue tack become in short supply, Exile will have my full support for the reasons. 8)

[Ned_Kelly]

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

"Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier "is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it's hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer."

What a bloody awesome job!! Must make sitting in his office for the other six months analysing data seem very very dull. Where do I sign up!

That's what research scientitists do. You have to go out in the field and actually get some information, otherwise you end up sitting on a computer hypothesising with nothing but hot air and a whole lot of hope. Unless you think Lister, Boyle, Newton, Franklin, Jenner, Babbage, Wallace, Rutherford, Hodgkin and Shackleton all sat at home dreaming up their ideas without actually doing anything practical.

I should think you would welcome this as it's sure to show a massive build up of ice......won't it? :wink:

Boyle got to sit in a lab in Oxford dreaming up MV=PT, I go past the plaque on the wall every time I walk up High Street. He didn't get to take bloody great drilling rigs to the antarctic!! Who gets to drop the buoy into the hole? Let's hope they don't fall in after it.

For the record, I haven't got a scooby about what is happening to the ice in the antarctic, but I bet there's lots of it.

If it melts we can all go and live there!

According to the IPCC it'll all be gone by 2035 !!!! Oh no, hang on a min, they meant 2350, it was just a typo :? :lol:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

[ciscokid]

I question the data supplied by NASA.
NASA is a government funded organisation, and many of NASA's top scientists rely on that funding for a living. If they express views that are "anti congress", your out of work buddy.
Are we expected to believe this data, just as we were expected to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :?: :wink:

[SaigonSaddler]

I question the data supplied by NASA.
NASA is a government funded organisation, and many of NASA's top scientists rely on that funding for a living. If they express views that are "anti congress", your out of work buddy.
Are we expected to believe this data, just as we were expected to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :?: :wink:

Considering most of the research has been done under a Bush government that was sceptical of warming until it changed it's mind due to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you may have to rethink your position on that one.

Also NASA only supplies a small percentage of the total data, so your accusations would have to encompass scientific communities and institutions around the world.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. Royal Society.

The last one to go was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007.

However, I believe that the BNP represent the last British political movement sharing your opinion on this..... :wink: