No consensus among scientists that Global Warming is a fact

Right. It is only the vast, vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming and/or climate change is a problem, but certainly not all of them. Just as with the flat earth theory, there are and always will be holdouts.

The danger with the so-called "consensus" is that it is used by politicians and the media to press an agenda. Facts are only used if they support the premise. Otherwise, facts are ignored or criticized if it tends to prevent the advancement of the agenda. The vast majority of the population are sheep and are incapable of solving anything more complicated than the instructions on installing a DVR (and many cannot even do that). They will be the same "followers" that they were as children in High School--trying to "fit-in" with the cool crowd. Science and politics do not mix. One looks for objective fact. The other uses lies, opinion and subjective methods to push for control of others. Global Warming is simply the latest fad to push for more control and taxation upon the people. Only 12,000 years ago this very spot (Ann Arbor) was beneath about a mile of ice. A lot of warming seems to have taken place w/o human assistance. In fact glaciers have formed and melted over 6 times in the past 2 million years. Weather always changes, but the attempt to control and manipulate people with lies and distortion does not.

Really, John? You are referring people to a conservative think tank to find out the truth about global warming? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano The question whether anthropomorphic warming is occurring should be answered by science, not politics. If and how we choose to address the problem must be solved politically. There IS a consensus amongst the global scientific organizations on this topic that is based on on scientific evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions." To research global climate change or any other scientific issue, try searching reputable scientific journals/websites such as: http://www.realclimate.org, http://www.nature.com, http://www.newscientist.com, http://www.scientificamerican.com.

The vast majority of scientists are not climatologists and have been relying on reports such as those from the IPCC to be accurate. Those reports have now been shown to not be scientific and some have been faked. The vast majority of scientists would not support the actions taken by the Global Warming crowd.

The question whether anthropomorphic warming is occurring should be answered by science, not politics. Climategate shows us that politics have been the driving force behind the reports showing the planet heating up. The science has been faked at the highest levels while those writting dissenting reports have been kept from publishing and discredited by the very criminals faking IPCC reports.

Search Climategate to see the full extend of the Global Warming hoax.

So, let's see: the glaciers are melting because the average near-earth atmosphere is cooler? It is possible to show that the sun orbits the earth, but the mathematics are ever so much more complicated than the math showing we orbit the sun. If you hear hoofbeats in Central Park, think "horses," not "zebras."

"Global Warming is simply the latest fad to push for more control and taxation upon the people. "-John Galt

As I read this claim from many GW skeptics I have to wonder how all of the scientists were able to come to worldwide consensus to attempt to raise every bodies taxes. Isn't it more likely that if GW is not a real threat that the scientists are simply wrong and that there is no underlying "socialist threat"?

If they are wrong but well intended, does that not put them in the same camp as the Iraq War boosters, most of whom seem to be GW skeptics? Many of those people will tell us "We were wrong about wmd's, but still correct to invade." If the GW supporters are wrong, at worst we will spend some cash, but we may in the end save billions in energy costs and reduce funding for some of the more despicable leaders in the world, including Huggy Chavez, the Sauds, Achminijaed, Than Shwe, Islam Karimov and others. Along the way new technology will be created, birthing new job opportunities for our unemployed neighbors.

So I say proceed with caution, but act with the knowledge available to us, which right now tells us that the ice caps are melting at a high rate and the citizens of Tuvalu have real concerns.

JB0713

It has been happening from "both sides". Our previous federal administration used politics to stifle scientific presentations regarding GW.

I am on the fence on GW, but to claim one side only is guilty of "criminality" does nothing to further the debate, only to cloud minds. Are their not enough cloudy minds running around the blogosphere and talking head shows without us helping them?

John,

I was amazed and impressed to see you as a professor at the Univ of Michigan would go against the "grain" and come out and question "global warming" as fact. I am guessing that you will now need to keep an eye open and look over your back constantly as many folks will try and get you fired and call you a heretic.
Global Warming is nothing but a bunch of "hot air" spewed forth by liberal greenie weenies !!

”As I read this claim from many GW skeptics I have to wonder how all of the scientists were able to come to worldwide consensus to attempt to raise every bodies taxes.”



I can field that, as it’s obvious that very few of you bother to read other publications. The conclusion came as a result of using the data provided to them by people like professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, who were just caught red-handed falsifying data to manipulate the results in order to keep their grant money rolling in. Here are a few links for you folks:


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/?feat=home_top5_read


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

For a more reliable resource on climate change than a scientifically bankrupt website put together by right-wing thinkers paid to spread skepticism, check out www.globalchange.gov. This website, put together by the collective US Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Commerce, State, Health and Human Services, and Transportation alongside NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, the EPA, and USAID, contains a report they produced this summer of all the different information on climate change gathered by each agency (paid by taxpayers to serve the public, not by oil companies or Greenpeace to produce favorable figures). Their overwhelming consensus is that we can already see the effects of growing climate change and that these effects are due to human activity that we can control.

But it's also important to keep in mind that the actions we would take to stop climate change would be positive even disregarding benefits for the climate. The climate bill in Congress would allow for massive investment into the clean energy industry, which at this point offers one of this country's only opportunities for economic rebirth and revitalization. The bill is expected to help create tens of thousands of jobs in Michigan alone, and millions across the country--jobs that could help fill our empty factories and take advantage of this state's skilled manufacturing workforce. Cutting carbon emissions would also help clean up our air and reduce our reliance on foreign oil--two important steps for keeping this country in good condition for our children.

No denial of scientific consensus can change the visible signs of climate change: receding glaciers, melting sea ice, ski resorts that can't open, failing crops from Africa to America. And no other legislation promises the benefits for economy and environment that the climate bill does. I hope Senators Levin and Stabenow will stand strong for Michigan's needs by voting in favor of the climate bill.

Professor John-imagine if your email system was hacked. Do you think that people with opposing political views could "cherry pick" some of your emails resulting in some of your words being taken out of context? Do you think the general public might misconstrue some of the terminology used by academic engineers? This is the extent of "climategate". Is this sufficient "evidence" of a global warming hoax? Should it negate all of the worldwide research supporting anthropomorphic global warming? Is this the kind of critical thinking you taught in the lecture hall/labs at the U of M? I recommend readers look at the database of emails in their entirety and/or to read the responses from the scientists themselves who provide context about the emails in question.
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/those-climategate-emails/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/

Marie,

The site you offer the link features data influenced and provided to them by Phil Jones. Are you unaware of this, or simply ignoring it?

Lateralus,

I want to be polite, but I must be frank: your post is nonsense.


I happen to be a person who read all of the data, and the most compelling, and damning evidence against Jones and his ilk is revealed when we examine the programming conventions.


For those unaware of what these are, comment conventions are small text notes that are preceded by a special character that alerts the computer's/server's processor that the following text on the line are comments, not code. Programmers use conventions to allow themselves, and others who may work on the software at a later date, ease in understanding what task that particular block of code is performing. As a programmer myself, comment conventions have aided me greatly. It's difficult to remember exactly your logical process a year or two, or several hundred programs later.


When we examine the comment conventions in Professor Jone's working code, we see comments that openly tell the user how to alter the code so as to get the result the researcher requires. This is defacto evidence of fraud.

Longfellow, What exactly about my post is "nonsense"? And easy with the use of the authority principle of persuasion. "When we examine the code..." You seem to be suggestion that you have some inside information about this? Provide evidence. Here is what Michael Mann has to say about the so called "defacto evidence of fraud":
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/28/climategate-michael-mann-hockey-stick-copenhagen-diagnosis/
"The reference to “hide the decline” is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960."
...

Regarding the notion of a temperature "decline"...look at the longer term temperature trends:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Lateralus


I read it, again. It does not mention the comment conventions. Small wonder. There is no explaining that away.


Digging down deeper, we're told that the term "trick" doesn't mean what we all believe it to mean. Instead, we're told that it's a common term and methodology, and that "tricks of the trade" is closer to the mark as to its meaning.
However, this explanation fails to answer why, if this methodology is the excepted norm and default position, it hasn't already been added to the methodology of the equation?
Thus, it becomes a "trick of the trade" to be used at subjective convenience.
Does this sound like a scientific methodology to the reader?


A little help for you. The reason we do not repair computer cards and replace them instead is simple: a computer that is not 100% is worthless. A program that can be manipulated to skew the data according to the wants of the user is equally worthless.

Just re-read my post: accepted, not excepted. Sorry, the missus called me away to cook up breakfast while she & number 1 son registered for classes for him. No matter, my meaning is clear.

So who among us can legitimately believe anything they read and hear about global warming? It has become so polarized and politicized that it is hard to consider anything to be credible. Too many so-called "scientists" and "experts" have axes to grind, either overtly or covertly, for reasons of politics, funding, trying to gain notoriety, etc.

Then there are all of the self-appointed "intellectuals" who like to weigh in on the subject, blowing their own ill winds that stir up more dust clouds that conceal and twist the facts. Just look at all of the comments above getting into discussions about manipulating code, etc. That entire smokescreen really has nothing to do about global warming. A tempest in a teapot!

So who can you trust? For me, pretty much nobody. The sources and analysis of any information on the subject are all too contaminated. I believe that the earth and its climate are just one huge, immensely complex science experiment hurtling through space. One that is influenced by too many variables to comprehend. Those variables come from within its atmosphere, beneath its crust, its oceans, its land masses, polar ice caps, the sun, and from the surrounding universe. I do not believe that our scientific community has the capability yet to understand with any certainty how all of the many variables interact to produce our climate and its cycles and trends. We can certainly observe and report, but we cannot do so for a very long period of history with any necessary degree of accuracy, consistency, or reliability. Anyone who says they can is wrong. A consensus vote isn't going to work. Especially if the Kool Aid bowl is tainted.

As with too many issues right now, we need some level-headed non-partisan leadership to step up and moderate things, not to continue self-serving polarization, name-calling, lying, twisting, cheating, concealing, and knee-jerking. Someone to just say that we don't know one way or the other with any kind of certainty. That someone needs to say that we must proceed with caution and common sense to lessen our impact on the climate without over-reacting and destroying our economy and people's lives in the process.

And no, I am not saying to ignore facts and stick our heads in the sand, I am saying let's cut through the crap and find out what the real untainted, unfiltered facts are try to understand them first. Until we can do that, let's just "chill"!

Then there are all of the self-appointed "intellectuals" who like to weigh in on the subject, blowing their own ill winds that stir up more dust clouds that conceal and twist the facts. Just look at all of the comments above getting into discussions about manipulating code, etc. That entire smokescreen really has nothing to do about global warming. A tempest in a teapot!


So true, so true, and pot, meet the kettle.


You engage in the very same behavior you complain about!


One more time, and I'll go slowly.


Before you can even make the claim about "smokescreens" and "global warming," we must first objectively prove that a pattern of global warming exists, and this proof must be established using repeatable scientific method. In the case of climate modeling, custom computer programs are often used to make these calculations, as computers, by themselves, are incapable of bias. They're machines.


In the case of Professor Jones & his cohorts, if we put aside the statements in the e-mails, we're still left with the results of their actual program's analysis: there are clear comment conventions in the code detailing "how to" skew the program's results. This cannot be explained away. ANY data from these researchers is highly suspect, and cannot be believed on its face. It's that simple.

Manufactroversy
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

Scientists generally go about their research based on modelling and eventually come to a consensus around their established theories (as in scientific theory, much different than the common definition of theory) without any controversy. But there are two glaring exceptions...evolution and global warming. Instead of primarily being grounded in science, powerful (internal and external) forces exist that permeate these issues causing many people to reject the overwhelming consensus and underlying evidence. The former, due to the fact that the conclusion contradicts certain religious interpretation of scripture. The latter, due to the fact that the scientific conclusion is likely to result in an increased role of government (and potential increased taxes), which is contradictory certain political ideologies. These "skeptic" misinformation campaigns are funded by religious organizations and corporate energy interests, similar to the misinformation campaign propagated by the tobacco industry. Only in these two areas are people up in arms about the theoretical models and assumptions behind the science.

In only these two cases, are scientific conclusions met with "it's only a theory." True...just like the Theory of Gravity.

New news:

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Wrong, Clara. Here is the data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Are human thought processes becoming synonymous with Glen Beck's conspiracy theory chalkboard?

Interesting report.
In one part is says: Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel burning in 2008 were 40% higher than those in 1990, with a three-fold acceleration over the past 18 years.

and

By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group
1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters
sea level rise by 2100.

and

Avoiding tropical deforestation could prevent up to 20% of human-induced CO2 emissions and help to maintain biodiversity.

and

Satellite measurements show sea-level is rising at 3.4 millimeters per year since these records began in 1993.

Lateralus,


I came back to see if the points I made were addressed. I didn't expect a response. Frankly, I wasn't disappointed.
No surprise... direct evidence of fraud will waffle any tongue.

stunhsif

You have not explained how the scientists wround the world got together and decided that GW would be a good way to raise our taxes. You postulated how they MAY have come to a way to increase or gain grant money. The same conclusion could be reached by GW skeptics to gain more grant money from energy companies who have a vested interest in the status quo.

As I read the very interesting and informed comments I am thinking that the skeptics have taken one set of emails from one group and created a tempest from a tea bag. If we had used emails from the Bush admin attempts to squelch GW adherents and applied it across the board to ALL skeptics, would we come to the conclusion that skeptics are ALL involved in a worldwide attempt to continue to increase energy usage as fast and as much as possible in order to continue Ayn Randian ideology?

Not to bang on Mr Bush too much, but this debate reminds me of the current ACORN story. While Mr Bush ran things rampant corruption abounded, particularly in Iraq. Recent State Dept reports put the dollar figure for Iraqi government embezzlement at an estimated 18 BILLION dollars of Us tax payer money stolen. While this was occurring no amount of evidence was enough to prove any wrong doing to those that believed in Saddams wmd's.

Now, when ACORN gets caught in a minor "sting", the uproar over theft from the tax payer is mind boggling. Many attempt to use ACORNS employees stupid behavior to prove points about their entire structure, and even the methods and ideology og "the left". Meanwhile, graft on a grand scale continues in Iraq, and we are not allowed to discuss withdrawal of troops if the corruption does not stop.

A short side trip from this blog. My apologies, but I find many GW skeptics to be the same people that attack ACORN while ignoring Maliki, now using the same tactics because a few emails from one source have been uncovered.

Climatedepot.com? Really? I guess if you are looking to see what "flat earth" and "consensus" look like, that site is a place to start.
This apparent cooling you are referring to in the past 10-15 years is also explained quite well when adding natural cooling factors such as La Nina and minimum solar cycle. However, even though we might have been off the highs, we were still well above average when those two factors should have created well below average temps.
There also has been a true statiscial analysis of the temps in the last 10 years that show the slowdown in temp increases is not significant.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/10/earth_is_not_cooling_according_1.html

Also, actual data show that record highs in the past decade actually out number record lows
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/11/record_highs_versus_record_low_1.html

Let me know if climatedepot.com discusses these issues fairly and I will retract my statement.

Longfellow- I do not have the time to address each one of your points in detail. And frankly (to use your word), many of your points are not strong enough to warrant a rebuttal.

The raw (unprocessed) temperature data has always been available online for anyone to view (see my previous post). So even if you are correct about a scientist diabolically manipulating software which processed the raw climate data (which I do not believe has been proven) without a valid reason, everyone would be able to tell! In addition, the temperature data used in climate research comes from a variety of physical locations, sources and types (air, sea, ice, vapor) . The data is analyzed and processed independently by scientific agencies from around the globe...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-11-30-warming30_ST_N.htm
"Further, notes IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, the evidence for warming in the 2007 IPCC report comes from multiple lines of evidence besides surface temperatures, such as ocean heat, atmospheric water vapor and sea ice."

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/11/more_heat_less_light_in_cru_ha.html
“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

There will be independent investigations into the CRU email hack (which there should). But even if there turns out to be that some mistakes were made (intentional or accidental), this is one agency of many throughout the world that reached the consensus conclusion from many sources of evidence that anthropomorphic global warming is occurring. But because your position has no actual evidence suggesting this is not the case, you are left with blowing a situation such as the CRU hack out of proportion...in an attempt to manufacture a controversy by introducing ridiculous conspiracy theories that do not exist in reality (similar to the nonsense written on Glen Beck's chalkboard.

We are in this sad state of unintelligent skepticism with global warming only because of the overwhelming political interest (of lesser government) and corporate interest (of lesser regulation) that seeks an alternate result than the overwhelming science concludes. These strong forces produce a fat confirmation bias in the minds of many, causing them to bury their heads in the sand of ignorance.

@Lateralus You clearly do not pay any attention to anything other than the Main Stream Media. Phil Jones has admitted he has "accidentaly" disposed of raw data. Everything they show is already modified. THEY HAVE ADMITTED WRONG DOING!

In addition, there is clear evidence of intimidation in the released hacked data. (by the way they admit the data is accurate)
They would not let anyone who disagreed get published. They even said they would change "what peer reviewed means" to stop the inclusion of papers in the IPCC report. It is clear there is no "settlement" on the issue.

My real question is why are you afraid to let discussion begin on the subject? Are you invested in Global Warming? Or are you favoring a Socialist economy?

By the way every oil company is invested because they will be able to charge whatever they like for oil and they have already poured billions into "Green Tech" like ethanol, which costs more to make than it saves. Look at the price of corn since the "bio fuel" rush started. Lots of money to be made, oil is not the only place!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Longfellow, you wrote, "I happen to be a person who read all of the data, and the most compelling, and damning evidence against Jones and his ilk is revealed when we examine the programming conventions."

Could you post a link to this software? I've done a few searches and can't find that. I'm quite surprised to hear that the director of the UEA Climate Research Unit is personally writing software. That would usually be farmed out to a grad student or post-doc. Either way, I'm looking forward to looking at that code myself.

Burning fossil fuels is polluting, and alters the atmosphere. The first is clearly bad and the second seems risky. "Green" taxes on fossil fuels make people use less. Some people have desired such taxes since at least the mid-1970's. Americans have been poor at doing any such thing compared to European countries, why is interesting but long. This has invited sprawl, skewed our industrial production and farming practices, negatively impacted the environment and human health, and enriched oil exporting nations at our expense. Short-term it did help keep food cheap and help US automakers and farmers - by letting the rest of us pay for the costs of the pollution, perhaps for years to come.
Disclosure: I am in the camp of very concerned about human-caused weather changes.

John,

Thanks for posting this.

Two points:

1. The ice core data over the past 100,000 years shows temperature cycles every 15,000 years, with ice ages followed by warming periods. This data also clearly shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have always LAGGED global temperature increases (by about 800 years). This is because global warming was caused by some other means. This then caused the oceans to warm up, which then released dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere.

If atmospheric CO2 were indeed a dominant factor, it's increase would have created a self-reinforcing feedback loop in the very first such cycle. This would have caused global temperatures to keep increasing, and we would all be roasting right now.

2. The issue today is that atmospheric CO2 levels are supposedly higher than ever recorded. Since there is no precedence, the global warming scientists relied on computer modeling to predict the resulting global temperatures. These models predicted an exponential rise in global temperatures (hence all the hoopla). Unfortunately, instead of global temperatures rising over the past 10-15 years, as predicted by these models, they have actually dropped, while atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing. This clearly shows that the models are missing some fundamental physics, and are essentially worthless. It also indicates once again that CO2 is not a dominant factor for global warming/cooling.

So both the past and present evidence clearly indicates that carbon dioxide is not a dominant factor for global warming. The global warming crowd has essentially nothing left to hang their hat on.

Larry,
Again, please look up the statistical studies on the temps of the past 10 years, either in the links I gave above, or some where else. Its not statistically significant. And by the way, its 10 and not 15 years.
Also, its expected that CO2 levels will rise as temps go up. The example you gave with the oceans and also with increased biomass decomposition, etc. However, there is nothing historical or scientific that states increasing CO2 first will not increase temps. You cannot scientifically or logically rule that out. CO2 by scientific properities increases air temps, however, as you state, other things are going on. So when CO2 increases in linear amounts over the past 10 years, temps may not because of external cooling factors such as La Nina, solar cycles, etc. Now the big question is, when these factors subside, will temps rise exponentially.

PittsfieldTwp: "So when CO2 increases in linear amounts over the past 10 years, temps may not because of external cooling factors such as La Nina, solar cycles, etc. Now the big question is, when these factors subside, will temps rise exponentially."

These "external cooling factors" are caused by something far more dominant than CO2. El Nino is just a symptom of these "external cooling factors". CO2 itself has never been shown to have a dominant effect on global warming. Past ice core data also shows the same thing.

The current Global Warming hypothesis was based on the prediction of Climate Models, which indicated exponential increases in global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 increased. These have been shown to be incorrect as temperatures have decreased or maybe remained the same during the past 10 years or so, and do not have the appropriate physics necessary to capture the complexity of global warming.

The hypothesis that "temperatures will go up exponentially once these external cooling factors subside" has no scientific or logical basis. It would make a lot more sense to determine what is causing these "external cooling factors" in the first place, since these are the true drivers for global warming/cooling.

Ask any world famous global warming activist two questions and really places their voice in the proper context.

What is the worst possible means of transportation in regards to global warming?

How did you get here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cvK9vxA6M

try this one as well, long but good..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=player_embedded#

Here's another good one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s

Larry,
Sorry if I was unclear. I am not stating that the external factors are caused by CO2. I was just explaining that they have an affect on recent cooling.
To your point about the models predicting that we should be in this exponential feedback by now; I guess the input error might be the amount of CO2 that starts the feedback cycle. If its not 380, do we want to wait until its 500 to know for sure? Its too late to do anything if we wait and see exactly. Also, the feedback may affect regions with variation. It may already be happening in the tundra and polar regions and subsequently that may trigger warming in other regions.
At any rate, good debate. I find it much easier to read and follow your thoughts on this than I have experienced in the past with others by trying to wade through links and name calling.

there is a lot of interesting posts here. Can we agree that we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by doing two simple things: 1. plant more trees than are being harvested, and 2. limit global population growth. Both of these factors are more significant than man's use of fossil fuels. Simple fix. Is Gore and all the GW fanatics stretching the truth? Of course. they are making billions$. Will it help the earth to grow more green plants? Sure. Will it help all of mankind to stop the rabbit like breading of humans? Sure. Problem solved.

Here is video which breaks down the two most "controversial" emails of the "climategate" scandal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg The video offers a lessen in critical thinking.

Also, here is a comprehensive analysis of some of the points raised in the supposed scandal by client scientist, Michael Le Page: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?full=true

And here is an extensive guide written by climate scientist, Michael Le Page that addresses most of the issues (including some raised in the comments) regarding anthropomorphic climate change: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html