I've looked at that article, Sea Demon, and it's quite revelatory.

*Although*

Trying to chase up the original post, I found myself at the Science & Public Policy Institute, and it's "consensus" paper. The SPPI? Oil & gas funded think-tank.

Paper - http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf

Check the tone.

This was written by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a bit of a joke to climate scientists. his scientific training is in classics. But he has another qualification. Journalism. Reporting the Trojan war, perfect. Scientific papers on climate change, 100% useless. His scientific articles have been ridiculed, here for example.

Listen to this from the head of the SPPI
Does he sound rational and fair-minded? Seriously?
I'm not saying that this story, Dr Shulte's study, is wrong. But it seems rather interesting that I always end up at either an incompetent and biased source, or James Inhofe's webpage.

Oh yeah, this Inhofe

Again, nothing is disproved here. I spent six or seven minutes with my friend google, and I'm not bothered going further. But the circumstantial evidence is rather nasty.

Fair enough Tchocky. Just wanted to show that there is no consensus. There is indeed alot of disagreement and skepticism.

True, there is never 100% certainty, that would be silly.
However, in my experience there are many groups who are prejudiced towards a certain outcome, due to financial/political pressures, and these groups nearly always fall on the skeptic side of the argument.
Of course, there are legitimate objections to anthropogenic climate change, but these tend to get drowned out by prejudiced thinktanks and politicians in the pay of energy corporations. Such as the SPPI and our friend Inhofe. You just don't get meddling on this scale or nature on the other side. There is the odd story about modifying results while wrangling for research funds, but this is nothing like the amount of money that hydrocarbon dealers put into the debate.
The great thing about science is that it only asks for your eyes, not your beliefs. Unfortunately it's seen as a political football by too many people, who are happy to hit their opponents for doing too much/too little about the problem while the Earth sweats itself past event horizon.

Regarding the original story, I'm a little too supicious of where it came from to take it very seriously. That may well change.

Remember, you read it at the BBC. :yep:

Global Climate Change is not reflected by a single day's temperature in a particular place. That's called "weather." I can just as easily counter that this has been one of the dryest summers in the southeast United States in the last 100 years, with records of consecutive 100 degree weather set. Likewise, that in and of itself doesn't prove GCC. I have yet to read an intelligent logical argument against GCC in THIS thread. Merely some who dismiss on the basis of ignorance and stubborness.

Maybe you should reread the whole thread because I don't think anyone is arguing against climate change, only it's causes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6974475.stm

The Pope is calling for us to care for the planet.

Maybe he could help out by changing the Catholic Church's position on condoms, which would combat population growth.
Solar panels on the Vatican are fine, but there's a lot more he could be doing.

100% agreement there. No energy saving/carbon reduction scheme is going to work as long as population growth remains unchecked.

Respectfully, I have read the entire thread and was responding to the multiple instances where specific weather at a particular area was stated as if it was evidence for or against GCC.

And there are, in fact, posts in this thread arguing against GCC. I am a bit confused as to how you think there aren't.

Reducing population growth wouldn't matter either, if we kept using fossil fuels.

That is all fine and dandy to keep the population stable, but the point is that there are too many people already, as Cpt. Scribb points out.

What needs to be changed is the position towards suicide. We need to start looking at suicide and euthanasia in a new light, and we need to remove our prejudice against the Nazi recycle of dead bodies. If people started suiciding more and their corpses were put to a good use we would depend less on fossil fuels, and since it would all be voluntary, there would be nothing wrong with it.

I.T.D.S..

Close enough.

Well we can't stop world population from growing let alone keep it stable so the point is moot. In any case if global warming is caused by humans it's the numbers far more than how much each individual contributes which is the point i'm trying to make.

Ok now you're being a bit wierd...