http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Will Al Gore return his Nobel Peace Prize for publicizing inaccurate information?
No it's climate change now.Continue to pay your offset money and carbon taxes.Feel good about it and all will be well.
Just don't do any science.

You say admit like the BBC has been lying this all time. If you actually read the article and its tone, it's pretty obvious that they are only reporting the developments in the science and are careful to note that this has been known and is accounted for in previous climate change models. There's no angle here other than reporting the news.

What bothers me about this debate is how people seem to take sides based on ideological considerations. I have no idea what global warming has to do with the left/right politics, but the left seems to accept it and the right denies it.

I found this image and have been hanging on to it for a while. I think it will solve this problem for all partisan hacks.

So, you would say we should listen to the scientists, and not the media on this issue?

This thread has a bad case of false advertising.

"In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up."

Does anyone remember the hockey stick,there was no cooling,just increasing warming.
Yes listen to real scientist not one like this one here
Original source
A Judith Marquand is listed as a member of the School of Geography, Oxford University, but she is not on the staff list of this school. There is someone of that name at the "Oxford Centre for the Environment, Ethics, and Society", which has a defunct homepage (www.mansfield.ox.ac.uk/ocees), and which seems to be based at the Mansfield College, Oxford. No trace of someone with that name on the academic staff list of this college, though.
In these papers, Marquand's address is given as Holymoor Consultancy, Derbyshire, (probably www.holymoor.co.uk). No sign of someone of that name at this consultancy service, neither in the staff list nor in the publication report.

Out of curiosity, why do you think 90%+ of the scientific community specializing in this issue say global warming is man made?

Where is your source that 90% specializing in this issue exists.

Its no surprise that Global warming is BS, the hottest year on record was 1998 and its been getting cooler ever since. There have been thousands of scientists who have signed petitions against man made global warming and the general idea of global warming. if you had a Stadium of 10000 seats, 4 seats would be co2, most of the rest would be water vapor.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214
http://www.theclimatebet.com/?p=96
http://current.com/items/89613636_650-scie...bal-warming.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warm...3/04/77689.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/...nter-in-decades
http://arctic-council.org/article/2008/1/c...r_in_many_years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/persona...ed-in-1998.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/...vkin&st=cse
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNCl...stsSpeakOut.pdf

Lets go over a few things:
Just about every single scientific organization related to climate change has released official positions that it is human caused. None have released dissenting opinions.

Now, for the 90% source, a 2009 poll.
Full Report Here

The fact scientists who have expertise in the matter agree on it is not in dispute. If you claim they are lying, why?

I don't know if this is what you're suggesting, but Oxford University is broken down into college in a system I don't understand, but such that a faculty member at Mansfield College, Oxford would properly be referred to as a faculty member at the University of Oxford (if that was your confusion - that maybe it was just some community college located in the same town). Whether she teaches in the School of Geography or not, I have no idea.

With 3146 individuals completing the survey,
the participant response rate for the
survey was 30.7%.
Of this 3126 individuals 90% answered in the affirmative.
Their expertise:
"geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%),
and oceanography (10.5%). General geology,
hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology
each accounted for 5–7% of the
total respondents. Approximately 5% of
the respondents were climate scientists."

Climate Science is not a common field of study, I don't see how your post does anything except acknowledge my point as correct. Further,


You seemed to skip this part on purpose. So let me revise my earlier statement:
96.2% of Climate Scientists agree global warming has a major man made component.

Without getting into the debate about climate change in this post, I'd like to point out the survey of 31,000 scientists alluded to in most of the above links. To dissect the survey, let's first take a look at the form in its entirety:



What do we notice about this?

1. There are no options to send the form back and agree with climate change. They will never have any way of verifying what percentage of the population saw the slip and returned it with their signature. It tells us no information about the sample size and so there is no way to scale it up to the population at large. This was an opt in form, so it reveals nothing about the beliefs of the population as a whole.

2. The form has a box marked, "Please send more cards for me to distribute". Sample populations absolutely can not be self-selected like this. Do we have any guarantee that these biased surveyors handed the cards to a representative sample of the population or do you think they handed them to their friends who share similar beliefs?

3. Where is the fact checking? You can't do a survey by mail, ask for almost no details, and then expect no one to lie. Not only do I suspect the same people sent in multiple forms, but they could just as easily have lied or stretched their educational background as well. With no way to control for this, they should just throw the results out.

4. The word "scientists" is absolutely not synonymous with every person that took a science class in college. Even PhD recipients don't all qualify as scientists. What you want are currently practicing scientists in the community, not a random smattering of people who consider themselves scientifically educated because they majored in science in college (or said they did). Who's to say any of them are telling the truth anyway. (see 3)

5. There is no place to mark what institution gave you your degree. Do we really accept that getting a bachelors degree in science from the discovery institute qualifies you to make judgments on climate change? (see 3)

6. Any "scientist" who did not notice the flaws in the methodology listed in the above five points and filled out the survey should have their highest degree taken away. The survey structure's own obvious flaws ensure that no self-respecting scientist, even if they really didn't believe in global warming, would even dignify it with a response.

The survey has completely and utterly failed to get a representative sample of practicing and qualified scientists. It has failed to verify facts on every level, and should be thrown out on sight. Please do not make any future references to this survey for the remainder of this or any other thread. Failure to comply with these rules will be met with dirty looks by your peers.

Let me get this straight. The Earth warmed rapidly, and you're saying it's because of the Pacific ocean going through its warm cycle. Well, now that the Earth's temperature has stayed the same or has just barely decreased, you say it's because it's the Pacific ocean going a cold cycle. I'm sorry to say, but if the temperature goes up 0.5 degrees every warming cycle and down 0.1 degrees every cold cycle, you still have an overall trend of global warming.


Actually, there is one carbon dioxide molecule for every water vapor molecule. Carbon dioxide increases the global temperatures, which results in more evaporation, which results in more water vapor.



Also, I see the OP's link and raise you this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91023163513.htm

The inclusion of Monty Python completely made that image for me.

let's be clear, this isn't "the BBC" saying this. It's "A local BBC weatherman from lincolnshire"

Also, the globe has not "been cooling for the last decade", as would be obvious from the met office table linked in Paul Hudson's story. Here's the table of the hottest years on record in full:

(The celsius figure is temperature difference from the average.)

1 1998 0.515 °C
2 2005 0.479 °C
3 2003 0.457 °C
4 2002 0.455 °C
5 2004 0.432 °C
6 2006 0.422 °C
7 2007 0.403 °C
8 2001 0.400 °C
9 1997 0.355 °C
10 2008 0.314 °C
11 1995 0.276 °C
12 1999 0.262 °C
13 1990 0.248 °C
14 2000 0.238 °C
15 1991 0.197 °C
16 1983 0.187 °C
17 1987 0.167 °C
18 1994 0.163 °C
19 1988 0.163 °C
20 1981 0.130 °C

let's run the years since 1998, showing what happened to the temperature in each year. I've taken the liberty of emboldening each time that the temperature increased from the previous year.

1999: -0.253
2000: -0.024
2001: +0.162
2002: +0.055
2003: +0.002
2004: -0.025
2005: +0.047
2006: -0.057
2007: -0.019
2008: -0.089

If the temperature has been "cooling for the last decade", how come the temperature went up from the previous year four times in the last decade?

If global warming is not happening, how come every year since 1998 (a time you describe as "cooling") is in the 15 hottest years on record?
If global warming is not happening, how come the 20 hottest years on record all happened within the last 30 years?

Maybe I should help you understand the current cooling trend....

..and take it from him...

You do understand:
1) We've been in a La Nina cycle for the past year or two (which dramatically cools world-wide temperatures),
and
2) Trends are not established in two years,

ah yes, the "cooling trend" of all the years you highlighted being in the top ten hottest years on record.

And during the 90s we were in a strong El Nino Pattern.





wait..
2006: -0.057
2007: -0.019
2008: -0.089

1...2...3! WOW 3 years! Try counting.

yes, exactly. As the Met Office says:

"El Niño years see a shift in Pacific Ocean currents which results in the surface of the ocean heating, creating a warming effect. La Niña brings cooler water to the surface and creates a cooling effect. These processes happen in cycles over many years and, depending on which is in force at the time, can significantly affect global temperatures.

In 1998 El Niño was at a 20th-century peak, which contributed to record global temperatures seen that year. Many climate sceptics point to the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record, and say that because no year has topped that since, there must have been global cooling. However, to look at one year in isolation is effectively seizing on an extreme of natural variability and using that to judge long-term climate. It’s the underlying trend that is important, which is why you can only make judgements over longer periods of time."

As El Niño creates a heating effect, and La Niña creates a cooling effect, there must be some other reason to explain why 8 of the top 10 hottest years on record are from the 2000s, and only 2 are from the nineties.

Don't hurt yourself now.

yes, exactly. The Earth has temperature trends, according to La Nina and El Nino. There is no "Al Gore global warming".

But over the course of a few centuries, global temperatures are continuing to increase. There is global warming.

WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAVE BEEN TRACKING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES FOR A CENTURY!!

See what I mean by my first post? I could have made a list of resident liberals(including socialists, simmer down) and conservatives(including crypto-fascists, simmer down) and that would have reasonably determined which side of the debate you'd fall on.

Why is that?

Because right-wingers have a tendency to have hugely religious bases, parts of which reject science because they think it somehow contradicts their beliefs.

/generalizing

Also, western, we've been recording daily temperatures in multiple cities around the world since the Renaissance. Putting all that together = picture of world temperatures at the time.

la la la http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91023163513.htm la la la

" The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records -- one from satellites, the other from weather balloons -- that tell a different story. Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979... many investigators have tried to explain the cause of the disparity while others have denied its existence.

So, which record is right, the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming or the other two? ...In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of us (Mr. Douglass and Mr. Singer) compared it for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.

This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models... Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it... Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot."
Climate discussion at chaos manner

"Better models and more data will be all to the good. Before we do expensive things to fix future problems, it helps to know which problems need fixing."Dr. Jerry Pournell

No, but we can track what the temperatures were a century ago.

@Yggdrazil, I'd like to see your sources.

Please don't.


Depends, really.


Ummm.. I'm not so sure. I'm thinking that it's just the temp trends, too.


Untrue. Nothing was just very accurate a century ago.

Differences in global average near-surface temperatures - 1850 to July 2009:



Just once, just once could you please check a statement you make before bellowing it as a fact? It's getting really really boring having to show you the ways that you are wrong.

1) El Nino/La Nina patterns only last, at the most, a year or two. In any event, climatologists rely on longer periods of time then a decade.

2) And that disproves my point (that trends are not set by a few years), how?

hmm, the same people that were giving all their money to the Catholic church


religious nuts?

I think right wingers deny global warming because they associate it with taxes and because god promised not to destroy the earth again or something stupid like what a congressman said in a meeting about global warming.

I'm sorry, but did you just quote the wrong person?

I think they deny it because the left accepts it.

That too.

GogoGadgetPartisanship!

Stop funding models and conclusions and start funding some actual data gathering capabilities...

"Hockey Stick" problems here

was that statement to do with anything in particular?

EDIT: Nice job linking a piece from the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonscientific conservative think tank heavily funded by industries with a vested interest in deregulation.

What?

He doesn't know. He's vamping furiously trying to ignore all the stuff he can't answer.

A conservative think-tank heavily funded and promoted by industries that need deregulation and would be helped by a lack of support in global warming is not exactly a credible source in this argument..

The address had data, refute the data. How does it matter where money comes from if the data is correct.Are do you believe that those getting federal funds from the US government because its publicly funded is somehow superior? Data is not compromised by the money behind it.

Yeah, actually, it is.







You lose.

This is the result of the fix suggested by the IPCC:


The average American currently generates 22 tons of CO2 a year, but to limit 21st century warming to 2.5 degrees Celsius, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests cutting the global rise in CO2 to one part per million by 2050. That’s only a small multiple of the weight of the CO2 people exhale, and realizing this goal within 42 years could require America to burn less carbon in a month than we do now in a day.
Source


It would seem to me given this data those convinced of global warming would turn off their computers due to the carbon sent into the air to allow them to post.

Pretty flawed analysis. That's under the assumption that the average American home will use the exact same inefficient products over the next 42 years.

42 years. That means over four decades of getting things like hydrogen or solar-powered cars, getting alternative energy sources to power homes and businesses (which is feasible now if you invest a bit of money, just think of how cheaper and more effective it will be in four decades), improving public transportation, decreasing unnecessary waste, among other things.

You need all the data.I repeat all the data your famed "hockey stick" initially forgot historical warming trends and had to be corrected for this using, yet still a proprietary algorithm.
These examples you give do not supply all the data.Plus all prescribed medicines I take come with a data sheet,where all risks are listed, even a comparison with a placebo.

You repeat biased data from a biased source and expect me to accept it. You then say that it doesn't matter who says the data, data is data. I gave two (three, actually) examples of how your source was biased and thus untrustworthy and then two more to refute your assertion that all data is never compromised.