Perhaps a bigger danger than Global Warming...I dont see Obama, Gillard, Flannery and the rest of the do gooders getting worked up about this one.

http://topinfopost.com/2013/05/28/russia-warns-obama-monsanto

This mob is one of the biggest eco destroyers on the planet, their history is appalling. And Obama and the MSM protects them while banging on about Global Warming.

Science is largely outnumbered , on the web, by pseudo-science.

try this search:

https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=634&q=co2+emissions+vs+temperature&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

The reason scientists rarely participate in these futile discussions is that they've got jobs. Their Departments do not allocate funds for debating the global warming issue with those denying that it exists or who started it - or whatever.

This kind of subsidy -[funding research into public attitudes] - as far as I know, has only happened once, in the New South Wales study I have cited above.

I ask, to my fellow contributors who follow the mainstream science model, please do occasionally take the time to discredit the climatology amateurs with their logical fallacies, ignoring personal attacks or topic-changing ruses.

Most climate-change-denial arguments arise from errors in thinking. They can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

Please do what the scientists would do themselves if they had the time to visit the blogs: quote the science succinctly and move on.

@eyenorth

I trust the scientists whose ideas are published and peer-reviewed. That is, and has only ever been, the only benchmark.

Nobody has published a paper challenging current consensus on climate change. That means the papers might have been written, but as theses they'd have been refused by their own university's review process or as papers by qualified scientists their publication will have been refused by academic journals to whom any such papers might have been submitted.

There is no debate on the issue of climate change happening, that it is happening faster than expected, or that it's man-made. None.

Scientific rigour is the system we trust when we get operated on in surgery. It's what keeps planes in the air. Frankly, it's the only system.

Bad science, (i.e. misuse) is caused by commercial interests, corruption, sloppiness, but rarely by listening to voices of scientific lunacy or magical thinking. Even the guys building dodgy nuclear reactors know and trust in the science that they're gambling with.

Science with all its rigour, does the numbers, daily. Now, whether you want to pick up on all the climatic ups and downs, various radiation, solar or volcanic forces - and submit to the blogosphere the view that the scientific world has somehow ignored these, or is unaware - or has overlooked some factors contributing to climate change - then you are wrong. If you believe that there's a conspiracy of universities to suppress the facts, well, investigate it and you'll find out that's not the case.

@Gamer_s

why does it hurt so much if a few guys on the internet have differing ideas than you?

My grandchildren are already enduring climate change and will almost certainly continue to do so. This will be worse if any political campaigners manage to win a few votes from global warming denying lobbyists. Sometimes, just a single, elected independent member in an otherwise hung parliament can manage to throw a spanner in the works of remedial action.

What is about to happen in my country in September's election is the axing of the few measures which would help steer us in the right direction and put us in line with world best practice. That's why the promotion of climate change denial is dangerous.

@freeheels I'm not sure i follow. Would you care to elaborate?

If they can't run the economy, healthcare or education why should I trust them when it comes to even more complex climatology?"

Agreed.

IMHO, it's about control and revenue at the governmental level. The idea of global warming (now more popularly referred to as "climate change" which allows for both cold and warm weather scenarios) becomes yet another mythical dragon that must be slayed through increased carbon taxes and added regulatory agencies. Further, from the government's perspective, it must be man's fault, so that man is made to pay for his "weather-affecting sins." As such, natural cyclical explanations must be jettisoned and ridiculed. The end game? Total control of the flow of assets and resources through the federal government at the expense of the private sector.

OK First thing is...you may not be saying that "Science is a religion" no problems...that's accepted, but I am saying that tho. Most people accept scientists words on faith, they have not tested or seen the evidence themselves 99% of the time. Dawkins says ""Science, then, is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith." Well thats pure and utter nonsense, the realm of the individuals human experience is small, everything else is more or less taken on faith through written media, TV, internet and whatever else, you have not measured the weather or been to the moon...you have received all that information thru some form of media, and from there you took it on "faith" and some rationalization. So to discount faith in the scientific community is ludicrous...and people like Dawkins can only eventually engage in word semantics to try and make his point. Now let science create one mosquito from nothing first, then I'll give them some credence. BTW I am not a Christian, or a Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist or anything else, just a realist who happens to believe in a creator ...and I don't wish to "kill" anyone who disagrees (as Dawkins suggests). Everyone is an individual and has a different point of view, but those that say there is no higher power and they have the answers, well...perhaps they could stop "one second of time" passing (they have no control or power over that, not a single living entity does), or perhaps even explain to me how many hairs are growing on their own head. They rely on material nature to even keep their tongue moving, their lungs breathing, their blood flowing...they take these things for granted, yet they basically say there is no power higher than them...or God is just a particle or something. My point is they know very little about even their own body but pass themselves off as very knowledgeable on the subject of creation and whatever else, and if they dont believe that things are taken on faith...why do they speak and try to convince others? Hawking etc.. I'll tell you why, but I don't expect you to believe it...it's because they want to have followers, recruits etc...saying yes I agree...its a nice stroke for the ego of these puffed up so called philosophers.

@Astro I said science "can" be a religion. I didn't say science is a religion. A big difference.

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

"Science, then, is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith. But, as I pointed out, science does have some of religion's virtues. Religion may aspire to provide its followers with various benefits — among them explanation, consolation, and uplift. Science, too, has something to offer in these areas."

"I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge — and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist — is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them. But I would want to deny even the lesser charge of purely verbal zealotry. There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation."

97% of all scientists who ever researched on this field dont disagree on this matter, there is no disagreement whether gravity exists, just on its force :)

@Walker Didn't even bother, eh? A lot of Svensmark's research predates the massive CO2 campaign, so it was never meant as an explicit refutation. But the conclusions that come from that data do contrast with a lot of the agw literature.

@walker let it rest its a hopeless case. its sad and dangerous, true, but that reminds me of a scene of the "yes man fix the world", where they speak to lobbyists who deny the global warming first and then later say its a good thing for the homeless people in winter...as long as there is economic interest, there will also be weird rumours and theories circulating to disinform the masses...in the american midwest there have been the worst dry periods last year, worse than ever before, fracking has had strange effects aswell, still most farmers suffering called ecological questions bullshit. they lost everything and still, ignorance will never be cured, platos allegory of the cave will always be valid...

@eyenorth

http://principia-scientific.org/

???

If everybody and his dog feels free to make up his own climate theory, then that's just dandy.

It's modern, it's very liberating, but - just like a fake cancer cure, it's bullsh*t of the dangerous kind.

Stick with science, (try Google Scholar for your info) and you'll find yourself on an information fast-lane, where there has been no climate debate, no "other side," - and, as I said, not a single paper published anywhere in the world doubting global warming or the fact that we humans are contributing to it.

@eyenorth: and that is your own resume? do you have any source of information besides your pinky? and how would that correspond with the melting poles? And have you read what @walker wrote regarding the temperature shifts in global warming? it does NOT grind against any dogma, i know, it takes the ability to a second step of thought...

A certain degree of scepticism is healthy, but its not good if your source of knowledge is all mambo jambo medievil nonsense.

@Mirrorkisser Nopes - I hail from the nauseatingly politically correct Scandinavia. And again, my only point is that global temperatures having been cooling since 1998. If that kinda grinds against the AGW dogma, that's another issue.