How can we say if there is global warming or cooling if the accuracy of data is not there?

China had it's coldest winter on record in 2007...COLDEST WINTER ON RECORD (which goes back almost two hundred years).

The science of proving global warming is a junk science at best...far less practical and peer reviewed than even "intelligent design" a conglomerate of over 200 scientists has met every year in down town New York to protest the logic, plausibility, and data that Al Gore and his host of pet scientists are using to promote their Global Warming legislation.

Al Gore is the Chairman of the Board of GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT which is the primary sales point for all carbon offset credits.

Now if you own the company that stands to make billions of dollars on carbon offset credits....you are lobbying Washington DC to impose cap and trade policy on the manufacturing industry to buy carbon credits from you....and you made a movie promoting a catastrophe if this problem was not addressed...doesn't it seem that your actions are less than pure?

I am all for sustainability....I am all for limiting growth so that we don't destroy our natural resources and damage the eco system...I am all for using recycled goods in construction, and manufacturing if these products are of a good quality and are fiscally plausible....who wouldn't want to protect the environment if it is reasonable?

But Al Gore created a hysteria with a movie that was created in Hollywood....he made the move with little scientific evidence to support his claims and yet he is using his Washington resources to pass legislation that treats his "theory" as though it is absolute fact. This will end up taking millions of dollars from companies that produce in this country...further crippling our economy in a world market..and further driving up prices of energy....all while these same millions of dollars are funneled straight to the man who created the hysteria!

It stinks to me...and I wonder how long this house of card will stand...like I said...I believe in protecting our environment...but Al Gore is violating the public trust in a way that is absolutely unimaginable....The President of the Weather Channel...stated that Al Gore is a sham...that he is a snakeoil salesman.

It should be interesting to watch it play out.

If you look at it from an argument point of view it makes more sense. The argument is that 1) human beings pollute the earth- pretty agreeable right?. 2) that pollution has negative effects on the environment- that' an easy one everyone knows that. 3) A negative effect is that the planet is getting warmer- that's where we get into some trouble.

See maybe the planet is getting warmer because of us, or maybe it's natural. Maybe the planet is actually getting cooler, who knows? All that is irrelevant because the fundamental premises in the argument are undeniable. It doesn't matter that there's a slight possibility that global warming in this particular case is natural, because that does not change the facts that 1) we pollute, and 2) pollution is bad.

I can understand people being skeptical of the whole climate change theory. But you're missing the point. What matters is that we acknowledge the fact that human beings put a lot of crap in the air, on land, and in the water. Whether or not that makes the planet warmer doesn't matter. Those pollutants are bad regardless!

Mark -- >>There is constant debate for and against in the scientific community and frequently published you just have to look a bit harder for the anti-global warming arguments as they are intentionally surpressed.<< There is no such debate in the scientific community. You have been lied to - and it is bad lie, at that. As Dana suggests, why don't you analyze the data yourself? >>Basically you can prove anything you like with statistics and it is very hard to get a conclusive answer on either side of the argument.<< No, you cannot. Statistics (the mathematical statistics used by scientists) are precisely defined and their application depends on strict mathematical assumptions (e.g, that variables are independent and identically distributed, that conditions of temporal stationarity and spatial homogeneity are satisfied, etc) and there are a battery of validation procedures and tests that must be satisfied. So, your solution to understanding the issue is to take the intellectually lazy road to conspiracy theory rather than try to educate yourself. And that answers Dana's question: You don't analyze the data because you are mathematically and scientifically illiterate. Apparently, in your world environmental science is not a prerequisite for employment in environmental protection. ======== Mark -- >>However the results are never 100% in one direction or anther.<< That's a trivial statement because it is true by definition. It does not preclude making objective determinations of statistical analyses that are explicit and based on mathematical principles. And it should not be necessary to point out that physicists do not make up the complete population of climate scientists or of scientists in general. I've heard physicists who have no problem conceptualizing nanoseconds (but are apparently unable to conceptualize millennia) argue that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Your argument is anecdotal based on your own personal experience and not on the full set of available evidence - and a physicist should know better.

On the one hand, there are actually clear trends from the data that show cooling in some areas, such as the southeastern U.S.

On the other hand, even if one completely leaves out data for the U.S., there is a great deal of data for the rest of the earth.

I'm a natural skeptic and distrust how the issue is being manipulated. On the other hand, as a scientist (outside of the climate field) I am concerned that it is NOT just the general trend of data -- because, as many have said, long-term patterns show cycles from ice ages to hot houses -- it is the strange COMBINATION of factors that are outside of their usual patterns and proportions. When looking at THOSE factors, present conditions appear more and more unique and even bizarre (because factors that would normally head in opposite directions and factors that are usually inversely proportional are not).

I'm no prophet and I'm no climatologist. But I can process data and must say that I'm sufficiently confused so as to be alarmed.

It is natural, and has been traced back to the Jurassic Period. How do they think they can tell how it will be 20 years in the future, and that it is caused by humans, if they can't even know if it will rain 3 days from now? Humans are insignificant to mother nature.

Ever wonder how Greenland got it's name? Look at the place now...

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/html/i...

you can only do your best...

by the time we have perfect temp readings, it could be too late...

if you're in a battleship and your sonar is acting weird... yet you spot an enemy ship on it, yet it seems to be unreliable... do you just ignore it because it may be a fluke... or take precautionary action?

They can't. It IS a scam to tax we the people more. Money tends to go into the elites pockets on this one.

it's a myth to get money. the accurate data will never exist.