[Solanum]

I couldn't decide whether to reply to this or not, as it is pretty clear you aren't going to be persuaded by actual evidence. However, for the record I am, call me an egotist if you like!

Originally Posted by Argonavis

This is patent drivel.

What climate change???

The temperature record over the last 30 years shows virtually no global warming, when the hysteria and IPCC projections predict massive increases of over 2 deg C.

The satellite temp trend is here. This is unadulterated by the UHI.

The 10 year data show global cooling.

Firstly, a 30 year temp record is too short to determine anything with confidence. The evidence for global warming is based on records over the last 150 years. Secondly, the figure you show for air temp, does seem to show a warming trend, is from a blog of all places, and is based on three sites! How can that compare with many thousands of records from around the globe? What is the point in showing that data?

The IPCC GCM's have been a total failure in predicting temperature trends. The hypothesis that increasing CO2 is a temperature forcer has been totally falsifed.

The IPCC doesn't have any GCMs it uses the data from over twenty GCMs published by other groups, including all of the worlds major metereological organisations that are used for our weather prediction.

CO2 cannot be anything other than a temperature forcer. It absorbs infra-red, that is how we measure it. How large a forcer it is is of course open to question. To deny it is a temperature forcer is to deny it's spectra and coincidentally, almost all of astronomical science.

The ice isn't melting - it is back to normal in the north after a lower than average period. The southern hemisphere never displayed any ice loss events.

And your evidence is? The history of satellite photography doesn't support your claims. Obviously that is rescent history, so if the ice is returning to 'normal' whatever that may be, can you tell me why the north-west passage was never navigable and now is for part of the year?

The mantra of "thousands of scientists" is propoganda. Please name them. After Hansen and Mann, and about 30 others on the inside of this scam, you luck out.

It isn't hard, look at the contributors to the IPCC assessments, there are several thousand authors cited there. They vastly outnumber the actual scientists (mostly commenting ourtside their area of expertese) cited on the websites you quote.

Perhaps you could look up the Manhattan Declaration for hundreds of names of publically declared scientists, including Freeman Dyson, IMHO the most brilliant scientist alive today. They have publically trashed this hypothesis.

They have not publically trashed the hypothesis. A scientist, no matter how brilliant, outside of his or her field is little better than a layman. Who would you listen to if you wanted to understand plant biology, Einstein or me? I am a plant biologist and I can guarantee you I know more about the subject than Einstein did. Freeman Dyson has neither the background nor training in this area. Fred Hoyle, was a brilliant scientist, but he never accepted the big bang theory and that was in his field!

The suggestion that anyone skeptical of this nonsense, for which there is zero evidence, being "in the pay of special interest groups" is a sick smear. Many scientists like Bob Carter and Ian Pilmer would love to be in the pay of "special interest groups".

That isn't quite what I said. Firstly, I was talking about scientists, secondly most of the websites you clearly peruse ARE funded by businesses with an interest in the area (follow the money), and there is little actual research funded or otherwise.

If you only get your information from the IPCC, that's very sad.

On the whole I don't get it from the IPCC, I read the original research as that is my job (I am a scientist and I have been working in this field science 1998 - although I've only vaguely been in this area for the last couple of years). But the original research isn't available to most people. But the IPCC synthesis of that research is.