A 10 year sample over billions of years of history is clearly a convincing argument. That's like saying that no continents have moved all that much in the last 10 years, so plate tectonics is a fallacy.

Climate analysis is still in it's infancy as a science. I was born 32 years ago, and frankly nobody gave a shit about mankind's effect on the climate until I was in high school. Even then it was barely a passing reference.

It has not been studied long enough for any reasonable conclusions for or against. There's not enough data.

I think, Godzilla, that a lot of people here aren't necessarily in disbelief of anthropogenic climate change, simply stating that there isn't enough of a recorded history to make any definitive judgments. I think this is a fairly prudent opinion to hold.

Personally, I think it is a bit foolish to think that we aren't having some impact on the global climate, however it is very difficult to quantify just what that impact is, and what the long term effects will be.

Personally I think we haven't been here long enough to know what "normal" weather patterns and temperatures are exactly.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

To still maintain absolute faith in man-made global warming despite all the documented scandal involving high level internal falsification of data requires a much blinder leap in faith than belief in deity.

That said, I have no problem with Christians believing in the Holy Trinity and the divinity of the New Testament even though I don't. I have no problem with the Moslems believing in the prophet Mohammed and the divinity of the Koran even though I don't. I have no problem with Atheists rejecting the very existence of divinity even though I don't, and I don't have a problem with Global Warmist missionaries believing unconditionally that the earth has a man-made fever and doomsday approaches even though I don't.

I DO ask that they don't impose legislation requiring me to live according to their rituals, believe as they do, be evangelized non-stop at home, be indoctrinated in schools, demand I accept their tenets of Armageddon, or force me to tithe to their organizations so they can "Save the Planet".

In short, don't tread on me.

_________________
Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way. I can't wait to look in the mirror, 'cause I get better looking each day. To know me is to love me, I must be a hell of a man. Oh lord, it's hard to be humble, but I'm doin' the best that I can.

I agree, but it's important to highlight that admission of Professor Jones because of this:

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I don't think either side is completely innocent when it comes to cherry picking data and presenting information in a light which supports the conclusion their funders wish to see.

What of the supposed e-mailgate? Doesn't seem to be getting much coverage anymore, not that it ever really did. I don't recall if a major news outlet gave the story any credit.

From what I understand, the big beef was in cherry picking tree-ring data that supported a large increase in global temperature when the opposite was the case.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

huh?

The story I just linked is all about the main CRU professor at the middle of that scandal. So...um...it's still being covered.

He just admitted they lost the data.
He admitted there's been no significant warming in the past 15 years.
He quit his job and it's been reported he's suicidal.

I'd say that's something coming from the story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nised.html

I'd also call the BBC and the dailymail major news sources and all major news sources gave it credit.
a google news search will give you pages and pages of mainstream news coverage of it.
http://news.google.com/news?q=climatega ... =en&tab=wn

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Well to be honest, the last I had heard anything about it was when I was listening to Rush who was being quite vocal about the lack of mainstream media coverage.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

After finally being able to read all the articles, I think the gist of it is:

We don't have enough hard data for a long enough period of time to speculate on warming and cooling trends.

We lack the ability to accurately model and potential effects of those trends, or the increase or decrease of airborne particles.

E-mailgate doesn't completely disprove AGW, only solidifies the two above statements. Thus limiting the release of certain things into the air is not necessarily a bad thing.

Virginia Republicans are jerks who learned people skills from FireQuinn/Hal.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

...and it continues...

Yet another lead author for the IPCC has come out doubting warming based on temperature data.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 026317.ece

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

We're just going round and round here.

There's plenty of evidence for AND against climate change influenced by human actions. It all depends on which way you slice the data sets.

What that tells me is there is more science yet to be done.

What about the argument about scientific consensus and calling skeptics "deniers".

You've been no fun lately Squanto

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Sorry.

You suck. :p

That's the spirit, you socialist

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...