I wanted to reply with a link to an irrefutable source on Global warning but I was informed that I am not allowed to post links. If anyone is interested in fact, the information is on the BBC UK site.
Isn't it strange that it is acceptable to help diffuse stolen material but not scientific data?
That's a news site. I don't trust the BBC anymore, they are too close to East Anglia. Besides, nobody is disputing that there is a general warming theme over the last century, the dispute is how much warming and what it is caused by.
And if you were interested, there isn't much proof of anything in the emails, but those emails do verify a lot of suspicions, they verify a lot of research into the methods those scientists used, they reinforce the confidence that what was done was done wrong or in deceit. <add> There are also a lot of interesting program code in there with some very, very interesting (and damning) comments!!
The earth has been in a general warming trend since before the beginning of the last century, since the end of the last solar minimum, the oceans have been in a general rising trend, the trends have been relatively constant, even dipping mid century when they "should" have been rising.
Most of the IPCC graphs are modified, filtered, modelled, adjusted, and then crapped out of the bowels of the great AGW establishment. If you start looking at straight graphs, the weather stations that generate them, land use, solar trends, oceanographic trends, historical trends, etc, then CO2 starts looking like a pretty pathetic modifier.http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Considering it was a solar minimum that caused the little ice age, I think that at Copenhagen perhaps they should be discussing how to spend money for undeveloped island nations on coats, not boats!!