I just don't think there's enough freaking science to back up this whole "The world is going to end" theory, I agree with the science behind Global warming but not how it will effect the entire climate and cause mass flooding etc. etc. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece For instance with Mars? How do we know this isn't just a natural thing? Aren't Carbon Dioxide gases part of the atmosphere anyway? What if it turns out we have a day after tomorrow situation and the Earth simply ends up correcting itself after awhile? I find that theory more likely than mass flooding. Of course I'm not a scientist but I've yet to see any scientific evidence pointing towards the polar ice caps melting and causing the sea levels to massively rise as fact.
Climategate: it's all unravelling now http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/
Interesting. Seems like there could be variations in the heat output of the sun that are too sensitive to measure because it would fall within the error of the measuring device, or be due to calibration. I mean, I understand that a satellite could measure the heat from the sun much more effectively, but how much error is introduced and how do you compare that data to the heat from the sun 50 years ago when there were no satellites? Too much room for interpretation and subjectivity. Luckily, the sun only comes out during the day so its contribution is cut in half. SM
All the climate models take into account multiple factors - not just CO2. This has been the subject of extensive research for a long time. Natural cycles such as El Nino. Short term solar cycles. Changes in the quantity of particulates dumped into the atmosphere (eg Sulphur compounds - the famous acid rain). Amount of CFCs in the atmosphere. There are lots of reasons - probably some as yet undiscovered.
Bringing a law suit proves precisely nothing. I doubt that many people would contest that proposition. In this case it is clearly politically motivated. The truth is that there is vast amounts of climate data from many sources available, including from NASA. NASA publish their data, their climate models and the source code for their climate models. For example here: http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/ And a large list here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ But there is a vast amount of data available from many sources. RealClimate is compiling a catalogue: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ The proposition that data is not available to the so called skeptics is just not true.
dcraig seems to be lone voice of rationality here. I will add one quote from the responses to the D Telegraph article. But first I'd remind everyone that the people who resist climate change and sell the stories are the ones with the biggest reward - not relatively poorly paid scientists. "Dr Albert Gortenbull @ 10.11 pm nicely sums up why there are 1000 plus deluded folk here. People believe what they have been predisposed to believe, and/or want to believe for their own comfort. This is made use of by the skilled journalists determined to make profits out of the Coolists by selling books and coaxing folk onto web pages. But we are still waiting for any fact from the stolen e-mails that will alter the present world temperature trend data sets. That no "corrected" trends have been produced tells me that none of the 1000 plus Coolist believers has managed to change the science one iota.:"
Yes, but not over the time frame we are most interested in, which is the last few hundred and next few hundred years. And not over shorter time frame such as ten years. Some denialists eg Monkton have consistently said this and it is just NOT TRUE.