There's really a very simple way to debunk the global warmists. Just check the photos of the polar ice caps and compare them with previous years.

Actually that is my point exactly. you can plot the data, smooth the data and make it say what ever you want it to.
There is not enough long term data that is accurate in order to claim that there is a long term effect due to mans inability to control himself. The Australian aborigines have oral records going back thousands of years talking of hot and cold cycles. True? I don't know but there is still room for discussion and investigation, especially given the propensity of the Global warming group to fake data.

Actually mminnick, There is so much data that when plotted it look like a fog. Multitudes of time series analyses have been done, a wide range of answers can be achieved by choosing start and end points and by weighting data for reliability and consistency and by adjusting for changes in instrumentation and heat island effect. The R-squared number, a measure of fit with a desired relationship, is always low meaning yes you can compute a slope but it means little. There is one relationship that seems to be interesting, there is good evidence of a link between global temperature and sun-spot activity. This is anathema to the political class as it means that climate depends on the sun (who would have thought?) and there is no point in wiping out industry and population.

True. And when it was "global cooling" nobody wanted to fund that.

When there are competing views from "supposed experts" one may ascertain a more truthful position by following the money... No one will fund a research project for someone that wants to investigate why things are within the normal range of variability...

Solution to what? Carbon in the atmosphere has marginally increased, mostly due to volcanic activity, and global temps haven't changed in two decades.

Love this!

There's millions of dollars in studying climate change, but there's tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity that have an impact on the climate. So if we're arguing we can never trust science b/c the human institutions around it are biased by financial interest, then we may be vastly understating the effects of greenhouse gasses. I'm not arguing that. I accept the consensus until new evidence is found. My trouble with it is regardless of what percent of climate change is anthropogenic, I don't see what we can do about it. Cutting emissions seems like a drop in the bucket. I suspect a better solution will be found.

This is why this debate is ridiculous. Altering the numbers to support a political agenda is problematic enough but what if there is an issue to be dealt with. This is crazy.

Why yes, it's settled science. We settled that it truly is a fraud.

And that's the point. Making up "hockey stick" data, suppressing alternative research, refusing tenure and grants to professors who haven't drunk the global warming kook-aid; all of these are anti-scientific.

Don't worry tobacco smoke overrides the solder smoke ;^) On the up side, if there's enough lead in the solder smoke you may not even feel the cancer.

Things are never settled for all time in science. We're always open to new evidence.

I'm looking for evidence that Taco Bell is actually good for me and a benevolent god is watching over me. If I find that evidence, though, I'll be skeptical b/c I want it to be true.

No matter how I hard I try, though, I can never convince myself that there's a controversy about whether Mountain Dew is good for me. My colleagues and I would like it, though, if you could find even a handful of doctors to say that it's good for me. I also would like to hear that the smoke from burnt solder flux is not a health risk b/c I breathe it sometimes despite the fans.