The only problem is. I don't trust Phil Jones.

Just because Phil Jones was a giant asshole who edited numbers and in doing so ruined a bunch of other studies that used the same numbers... doesn't mean EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY is nessisarily wrong.

The Weather station data was ALWAYS stupid.  The sample wasn't representative, didn't take into account things like urban sprawl, and had very little ocean representation.

It's the satellite data that matters.

hahaha, sorry my friend.

We could all at once, set off every weapon we have ever made, and burn everything we have ever produced, and worst we would do is kill all of us and maybe 40% of all living things.

20 million years from now, nothing we do will matter. Life will be on earth, and the earth will be just fine. We are not remotely destroying the planet.

@real mafoo

im not retarted, i know this rock will be here till the sun explodes long from now

however, we are making the world WE live in, pretty damn ugly

Also... I'll just say this.

Any science that doesn't have numbers that are shown to the people are in fact not science...

If you aren't willing to produce your numbers you aren't a scientist... and what you produce isn't science.

It's no better then religion, and actually fairly worse in a number of ways.

The problem with Phil Jones is that he swears he believes in things 100% while still mentioning that these things are not statistically signficant in the data.

Which, as anyone who's had a basic science class should be able to tell you... if it's not statistically significant you haven't disproven the null hypothesis.

So... you definitly shouldn't believe in it 100% hell you shouldn't even believe in it 50%. 

In otherwords.  Phil Jones is no real scientist.

Look, if you can prove something with viable scientific evidence, I am wrong. None of this is science. There was some study about a number of mountain glaciers in India that were "melting" and would be gone in something like 40 years. This was used to try to get a number of countries to sign binding agreements to give money into this massive cashgrab carbon buying scheme at Copenhagen. The scientist recently admitted that he had no scientific evidence that this was true, he just guessed it. There are some of these mountain glaciers that are melting. However, there are some that are growing, and some doing nothing at all. That's not global warming. It's fraud. These scientists and U.N. politicians are saying to all the "wealthy" countries to give them billions of dollars to stop a made up catastrophe.

Oh that's smart.  So now instead of just suicide, it's conscious or assisted suicide.  That's lovely.  It's good know we as a human race think so little of ourselves which is actually a mask for how arrogant we are. 

As Kasz stated, you obviously can't trust this guy whatsoever.  If you say he's untrustworthy for his global warming stuff then how can you trust him for its disproval.  That's what we call a contradiction.  As I said, early on, I'll wait for the data.  Until then the best I can do is go off the data that I know exists and notice the discrepancy in a rising global temperature during a solar minimum.  With that we have to start researching new hypotheses on the situation.  But also as Kas said, I'm not going to listen to conspiracy theorists on this or joke scientists, I'll listen to real ones who actually know what they are talking about.

But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it.

Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here.

I don't think we are arguing here. These scientists are saying this "science" has been settled, and it obviously has not been. I'm just saying I want proof, and it hasn't been given. They are saying the sky is falling, give us binding agreements to redistribute your wealth around the world to stop it. I don't think industrialized countries such as the U.S. should be put at a disadvantage, when China and India are emerging as major industrial powers, and are laughing at this.

The point of my response was to demonstrate how melodramatic he was being. I was hoping it would move him to a place where we could debate a little more rationally, and not talk about what we are doing as some sort of hollywood picture where the world blows up.

We should take care of the world better then we are, for many many reasons. Temperature is not one of them.