Regional Climate Change != Global climate change.

Global Surface Temperature Trends

The Guy's a real-life troll, except as well as getting his excitement from stirring people up, he gets market share and money.

Don't feed him with this attention except where there is a real chance of getting him sued or imprisoned.

It turns out that making the process as difficult and expensive as possible for the patent troll is very effective. They don't have a clicks and mortar business generating cashflow or profit, so each lawsuit has to end up with positive cash.

If you start demanding that they spend time and money, they can rapidly disappear.

http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html

There's not much evidence of this effect dominating increase due to accelerating fossil fuel use and land use change.

They're not shocked to discover that they don't know everything about the world.

They're shocked to discover the Arctic Phytoplankton blooms appear to be so much larger than previously believed, having been measured mostly by satellite that doesn't see them through the sea ice.

I find the navigation the best of all the browsers on my phone.

Dragging the screen left and right to expose the navigation and tabs is an awsome use of real-estate, that I reckon will be copied.

If you want to go home or to a bookmark, open a tab and choose the page from the menu.

Sometimes I want to open an image in a new tab, which it doesn't do, but that's the only frustration I've got with ff on my mobile.

Between 24 July and 28 July, CRU received no less than 60 FoI requests, and 10 more between 31 July and 14 August. The requesters demanded access to both raw temperature station data and any related confidentiality agreements. The Review found evidence that this was an organized campaign (one request asked for information “involving the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]”)

- Skeptical Science

You've completely missed the possibility of group-think within a tight community of people for whom professional diligence, competency and quality, critical workmanship have been substantially weakened by a tribal quasi-religious zeal to save the human race.

Tight community?

Science is competitive, not a community activity. (Although the community certainly benefits, if it is clever enough to use the science).

And there have been over 100,000 scholarly papers written on climate science ... most in the last 5 years.

That's a lot of output for a tight community don't you think?

Many people might think that there are diverse people from all over the world working and publishing on the subject.

Because science is the basis of our wealth and comfort. Attacking scientists is a social issue with broad and ugly consequences.

This is the correct response to the parent post.

But since I don't have modpoints, I have to post to agree.

Humans and trees don't have a net effect on atmospheric CO2 when the integral over their whole life and decomposition is taken.

It is digging up coal and oil from trees that lived 200,000,000 years ago that is altering the current climate.

The IPCC reports are pretty comprehensive, and written by scientists for the public.

Try them.

There a number of reasons to be highly skeptical of the AGW cabal. For one, there is such a thing as an AGW cabal, that was targeting CO_2 (and oil) long before there was any evidence or models at all that suggested that it was a problem.

I strongly suspect that this is wrong.

Evidence of CO2 causing a problem was available since the late 50s. There was a scientific consensus since the late 70s.

Who is in this AGW Cabal, and how did it get a hold on every scientific organisation of national or international note?

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change

It is at this point perfectly clear that the AGW cabal have tampered with data, cherrypicked data, and cooked up fits designed to minimize or eliminate "problems" for the theory, like the medieval optimum and little ice age.

Except that all investigations into such matters have shown that not only is it not perfectly clear, its patently false.

Everybody knows that Mann's infamous hockey stick graph is wrong at this point ...

Unless this "everybody" person has even a passing acquaintance with science. Nature magazine (you won't know what that is, will you) wrote "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph" in response to the NRC (you won't know who they are either) report that affirmed Mann's results. (Which have since been reproduced many times).

The truth is that at best we do not really know if CO_2 is a major influence on climate

That might be the case if we read only industry propaganda. But the greenhouse effect is no secret to science.