Oh BAM, our country can't talk about bad policy anywhere now because of ONE NUT...you got us good there AC.

So Al Gore who recently purchased real estate by the beach is a tard by your definition?

And here I thought I was the only one who thought that man was a bloated waste of space...

Universally is a strong word. Any evidence for global warming comes with the same amount of evidence against it.

In this article we have people claiming its Global warming causing it, which is said without proof once again...but if we listen to Dr Mörner who has studied ocean levels for 40 years...there is no measurable increase in sea level, and he is an expert in his field...not one person who wrote the Nobel winning report was an expert in sea-level change and yet they make all sorts of claims on being experts on that..

Here is a nice list of everything global warming "causes" as said by the media and scientists:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

If you want to discuss more: lets discuss NASA data being stacked:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

As you can tell station data has gone down in last few years, and if you plot it against temperature rise, you get a very obvious trend:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

That tells the story of how bad the NASA datasets are which are one of the main data-sets used in AGW Debate..or we can just get it straight from NASA/..

James Hansen’s colleague Reto Ruedy told the USA Today weather editor:

“My recommendation to you is to continue using CRU data for the global mean [temperatures]. “What we do is accurate enough” — left unspoken: for government work — “[but] we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best.”

So in other words the NASA data is worse then the data that was doctored purposely by CRU

There is a debate whether you want to bury your head in the sand or not, because the data does not point to ONE thing causing current warming, assuming there is warming considering how much of the data is suspect currently....

And even assuming today's trend is warming, there is debate on the ocean causing a majority of it... Or solar cycles...the science of the climate is far from settled, we have just now scratched the surface...

Very few times I will say this, but very occasionally a comment makes me spit out whatever I am drinking all over the keyboard, and you sir did it. Congratulations sir, now I must be off to clean off my main keyboard..

Yes, we do not like the French here, didn't you hear? They just hold up white flags and yell weird mutterings at us, no real sport there to be honest. Long live the Freedom Fry.

I concur, and the fact that they call a solid planet that "might" have been larger then Earth "Super Earth" says even more volumes about their science. But then again, maybe they just got some super creative genius to write up the press release.

It all depends on how you define infant mortality, and since the US and GB define it differently that statistic is meaningless.

No idea on Singapore, but if I had to guess.....same thing.

In other words, MN is doing the right thing by making those bastard polluter's pay their indulgences ..

Only one way to get into heaven, and that is to force people to pay for carbon.

Your comment on Russia is one that should be explained in more detail...and what other stations were thrown out. I know in the case of Russia, it was because stations were under-funded and lax controls meant measurement was not exact if not missing...and I for one understand that case....HOWEVER

This is where I started having a major issue with the global warming movement a long time ago. The SECOND you start picking out sites as unreliable, you are left with data points missing and every other weather station becomes human choice on whether its included in your modeling. Of course this is necessary, but even excluding one station can effect predictions especially when you are drawing the correlation based on just one variable, and there is more then one with climate.....This is a big issue in statistics, and the fact that we can not even be 100% sure on modern data collection of temperature throws modeling this same data into the waste basket. Start over, get new measurement techniques and redo the modeling...that is what I would recommend, but of course its impossible to do that as a climate scientist today now that the "end of the world as we know it" slogan has already been sung.

As a side not, peer reviews simply say whether or not the technique was scientifically sound...if bias was introduced purposely or accidently, peer reviewing this will NEVER catch it. Peer reviews deal with the technique, they do not touch the data gathering methods..

"crash course on climate physics" ....

Since you are the expert and the teacher, teach me why its wrong for people to question science?

Once again, its been said over and over again, but the basic tenant of science is questioning theories vigorously until they are proven through exhaustive testing.

Or why climate has anything to do with physics? I am also confused on that point...

All I hear is climate scientists have a "consensus" on what the future holds, and here you quote these people and claim to be one of these experts...Tell me, how is my stock going to do in 5 years? 10 years? 50 years....

It may seem like a bad example, but climate "physics" as you called it predicts the future, and there are many things that we do not know of the future that may effect climate. Even trying to predict 10 years in the future is dangerous because any number of unknowns may pop up...here are 4 examples, and you can tell me how the models take these into consideration...

1. The sun has an unusual period of sunspots. Not beyond the realm of impossible.
2. Major volcanic eruption. We still can't predict volcanic eruptions as of yet.
3. An increase in photosynthesis in plants that actually reduces CO2 from what we predict it will be.
4. Nuclear holocaust and/or insert your doomsday prediction here___________________ .

Again, you are the expert since you appear to be a teacher, so enlighten us all....

Although I agree with most of what you said, why should they be except from paying taxes? Not sure what the IRS has to do with anything on what they do as a rule....but that bit is a little bit interesting to me. I just can't see how a paper pusher paying taxes is bad for an inter-national agency. Yes, give them the immunity to do their jobs, but give me the tax exemption instead please.

Maybe so on the local conditions at one location, but playing the devil's advocate again, if you change the weather, won't it effect temperatures at some point? Since the reliable models use tree rings and glaciers as their data, if you changed enough snowfall those could be affected at some point and all you have left is 200 years of maybe reliable data based on different gathering methods across the globe ....so yea weather patterns could affect climate potentially based on the premise that taking weather patterns from around the globe produces accurate climate models....

And then again, another way to look at it, no matter what technique you use to figure out the climate data, you run into the issue that climate is nothing more then the summation and average of local WEATHER temperatures.

He may be confusing them, but who is to say that changing weather will NOT effect climate? Any studies to show it doesn't? Seems like he might have a point even as you claim he does not....

Now I was being the devil's advocate there, and more then likely such a small change in weather will not effect climate, but then again, stranger things have happened....