Want to argue about Global Warming? There's an app for that

great post, u can also find the great post in this site:http://globalwarmingfact.com

It's pretty sad to read anti-science comment-screeds on a tech blog.

And, by the by, weather is not the same thing as climate. Even if it was:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/16/noaa-warmest-january-on-record-in-both-satellite-records/

>> I'm sorry that the Daily Mail isn't an acceptable source for you

Don't feel sorry for ME.

An overwhelming majority of the most accomplished and brilliant scientific minds on the planet support my side of this "debate" (which is a debate in the same way that a geocentric universe, creationism, and a flat earth are a debate, which is to say only in the minds of the uneducated and dim).

Feel sorry for the rabble who have to cast back to the anonymous doctor from Louisiana, the panties-and-playmates Daily Mail, Ben Stein, and Glenn Beck as their sources. The deniers roll up in a clown-filled jalopy and there's still sorrow left over for me?

Oh my.

I wish you people could see yourselves clearly. If only for a moment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

World hasn't seen "warming" in 15 years and the "scientist" at the heart of most of this GW nonsense now says temperatures were probably warmer in Medieval Times.

Gotta love the increased push for "climate change" now that the "science" is unraveling. See the latest news?

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Read the article here from Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Does anyone have the guts to read this article? The end has begun.

http://tiny.cc/He83Y

It's amusing. Two groups of scientists arguing each is right and the others are loonies without credibility.

It's always been that way in science.

The world might just be better off without scientists.

And politicians.

Politicians need fear. It used to be the nuclear threat, then Y2K, and now climate change. Politicians need a good apocalypse to keep us in fear.

And people seem to need it too. The terrorist threat promoted by the previous western governments wasn't scary enough, so they got voted out in favour of those who support the much more scary catastrophic climate change.

Yep, the world would be better off without politicians and scientists. And if we must have them, they should never be allowed to talk to each other.

JD, I don;t know if you are old enough, but go back to the early 70's, and be amused at the exact same hysteria campaign, with pretty much the same data, except it was Global Cooling which was going to kill us. I do believe it was NewsWeek that printed that particular article, check it out here (the link has a link to the original in PDF form) http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

It is not about Climate Change, as the worlds temperature has always fluctuated, it is about control. They are controlling you through fear. Why let them?

Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

>> I am a Physicist, I work for the government.

To put it politely, I am... skeptical about your claim. I doubt you are a physicist any more than Dr. Robert is a doctor. Or at the very least, I suspect your educational background (as with "Dr. Robert") and professional history would shed a great deal of light on your credibility as a competent scientist.

If one takes the time to scrutinize the quality of skeptics who refute global climate change, one is confronted with apparatchiks, shills, pseudo-scientists, and just a general inferior level of water carriers for a political point of view. There's a lot of duck-and-cover. Sniping from the hedges and then running back into the bush.

You may be a peripheral figure who labors in some limited capacity in and around some physics-related discipline, but I think referring to yourself as a "physicist" is a sham, a title enhancement.

Further, I think your loyalty to the scientific process is false. I don't think you respect any sort of empirical process. I don't think you're a reasoned critic. I think you have a political point of view and this compels you to stake out a position of ongoing opposition. You are no scientist, Bill.