You can't help yourself with science can you,
nobody in the world denies climate change, it was warmer today than tonight, so yes climate change is obvious and clear.
<---How much are you willing to bet? The other thing is that it does get colder in other places, as the planet is a closed system and equilibrium must always be reached.
Now, "global warming", science has not proved this at all, the IPCC is a stooge for additional taxation and creating new boom green markets they (or rather their corporate funders, Gore the first green billionaire in his 8Bed Indoor Swimming Pool, Helipad Mansion, give me a break!) are behind IMO. Now governments have broken the psychological resistance to ?ú1.40+ litre prices, highly questionable peak oil claims (made by the oil producers) ''it's gonna cost you, there is not much left...''. With most of these issues, if you stand against this behemoth you risk your career being ruined.
<---Everything here is standard, right-wing gonad*s. As an aside, are you telling me that humans have not had an adverse effect on climate conditions over the past two centuries? Do you really think China is going crazy to research and produce solar panels as part of some ridiculous conspiracy?
Scientists against global warming;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming <----also known as the 'List of idiots who will do anything for publicity and money'
"inadequacies of current global climate modeling. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."[7]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 ??C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.".[8] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[9][10]
Nils-Axel M?Ârner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003) said in 2005 evidence given to a select committee: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future."[11]
Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre said in his 2009 book: "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said in a 2007 opinion piece: "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 – 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[14]
"
