Have you ever suspected collusion with the proliferation of the... "It's cold in my town so global .?

I agree that the person asking those questions was almost certainly lampooning the many people asking questions recently about cold weather. You can see that even through his choice of town name, "Gomer." Since you're Australian and many others in here are too young to remember, there used to be a television show in the US about a character "Gomer Pyle," who was very much a country hick.

However, to think that most (or even many) of the recent spate of "It's cold in my town..." questions are fake is giving too much credit to the populace. Most of those questions are real--you don't see the people asking those questions in here, but you do see people on television, radio and newspapers asking the same questions. I have no doubt that belief in global warming is both seasonal and highly dependent on the weather in populated areas.

I think that most of the regulars in here that deny global warming have learned not to ask those questions (there are exceptions, though), and it's usually newcomers that ask them in an attempt to sound clever.

I actually agree with Pegminer on this. There are simply very uninformed people on both sides. Certainly, all of the idiot comments about CFCs causing AGW, that make the warmers look foolish are not created by skeptics that want to make warmers look foolish. Not to mention all of the idiot comments linking 2012, end of the world, destruction of civilization to AGW. All of these make the warmers look like a bunch of loony freaks solely fascinated with the end of the world and gloom and doom predictions. I don't think it could be argued that the skeptics are really coming up with this.

Some prominent warmers, like Hansen, have certainly predicted crazy things like flooded streets that never occurred. Further some scientists actually wrote crazy ideas about 13 degree changes and the earth being uninhabitable. Now while none of the warmers are honest enough to attack these assinine statements, most of them really cringe at having to defend such idiocy.

In this case, however, I do think it is fair to say that the person is more likely trying to make fun of skeptics, than actually being a skeptic.

I also found it funny that some warmer came on here and suggested raising the tax on a gallon of gas by 2 dollars. This was to "eliminate the debt" and reduce CO2. Sort of goes against the image that the warmers want to portray, that they are not just trying to raise taxes and put us deeper in a recession.

A troll is a troll is a troll.

You need to look no farther than our frequent contributor and renowned British obfuscator (who ironically chimed in above) to see the other side of that coin.

And there are plenty of trolls on both sides.

C'est la internets.

No one needs to go out of their way to make people in denial look silly. Just aks them for references to 10 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals that they justify their position on. I've never heard of even a single such paper; the entire existence of a valid skeptical postion seems to be an urban legend.

That isn't to say that anyone else is any better. I haven't seen many of the people accepting the massive evidence of global warming analyzing the numbers in a rational way and advocating a logical, effective response, with success being measured primarily on a global basis (as it must be if we're all on a single warming planet).

The "elephant in the room" which no one wants to acknowledge is that we can't stop climate change any time soon. Science tells us that the excess CO2 already emitted every year will remain a warming influence on the planet for 1000+ years, and on a global basis we're well on track to double or triple total global annual emissions (while scientists tell us that we clearly need to freeze at current levels, and preferably decline ASAP).

Here's the clear barrier to global reductions: developing nations produce half of all greenhouse gasses today, but represent the vast majority of emissions growth, so it's mathematically impossible to stop climate change until they stop building coal power plants (China and India alone have 500 more planned for construction). Despite this simple fact, politics being what it is, there isn't a single treaty or proposal under discussion to address the problem globally.

So until we have a solid proposal that some group of people with power and influence are advocating, pretty much everyone that I see speaking on the topic is responsible for sidetracking the discussion away from the critical and necessary "net global result" focus.

Exponential growth in China and India alone could double global emissions in one to two decades, so about the best we can do at the moment (under current political rule) is to buy locally-produced goods and prepare for the worst case scenario that we're on track to achieve.

However, the growth and pollution in developing nations is to manufacture goods for developed nation populations (and for retailers such as Wal-Mart), so a key component of any solution will be to bring back manufacturing to developed nations, where we have the ability to insist upon investment in cleaner power generation (40% of global emissions) and minimize transportation emissions (the second biggest category at 20%). We also need to curb black soot emissions (60% as strong an influence as CO2, primarily a developing nation problem).

First we'll need to elect entirely new political representatives who are intelligent and honest enough to take the difficult but necessary steps to minimize the global damage and destruction that we pass on to our children. Neither of our two current political parties here in the U.S. are even remotely honest with us on topics such as global warming and immigration (a major contributor to U.S. population and emissions growth). To make progress on this, the first order of business must be to properly define the acceptance of so-called "campaign contribution" bribes as treason, to remove crooks from the process and to restore politics to the role of public service.

These greentech salesmen will go to any lengths to peddle their windmills. It's the same people who say "oh my back yard is flooded" or "it's really hot out there today"... "must be global warming!"

They have been trying to confuse people that don't understand hot weather and global climate for decades with their lies and misnomers... the good thing is that as people are re-educated they waking up to these lies and they are not very happy about how they have been deceived into paying more greentaxes to support their silly expensive greentech and non jobs.

Have a laugh when that happens. It's fun to watch the alarmists come out with their "I told you there's a difference between climate and weather" answers. They take themselves so serious, even if it is somebody in their own camp pulling their leg.

Especially when they misspell every third word or so... If we do not fit the model they created for us, then they simply pose as us.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04... Remember crashtheteaparty.org? A bunch of leftists posing as tea party members and, for once, letting their racists tendencies be exposed? I see little difference.

It's probably because it's cold everywhere. So I guess mother nature is the head of the collusion.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/12/agw-enthusiasts...

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/reco...

http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/freak-pattern-b...

http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/recor...

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/parts-of-wester...

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/savag...