David G:

...I am almost convinced you have a "Problem"!

Prompete, thanks for the link to the graphs – not quite sure what point you are making with them, but I note that three of the four lines are showing rising temperatures, and the graph with the declining temperature line seems to stop at 2010, while the other one looks to be up to date.
Saltpetre, you might also have added alarming decline in human male sperm count, which has not been directly linked to any particular chemicals but has occurred alongside the increase in environmental plastics which mimic oestrogen as well as all the other chemicals we carry in our bodies.

Candide. I think the purpose of the link was to illustrate that in graph 1, the red (raw data) line is roughly in sync with the blue (published) data line but in graph 2, following 'adjustments', there is an apparent divergence.

The 'new' adjusted published line, produced I am sure with adjustments for UHI, station relocation etc etc is quite stark and leads me to consider very carefully statements by many in the MSM, ABC etc when new 'records' are constantly published.

Yes, I agree with you in observing a continuing temperature increase from 1860 to 1995, indicating a definite trend, a trend I would expect to see as the planet recovers (?) from the little ice age and moves toward the temperatures experienced during the Roman warm period etc. (although these temperatures are derived from proxy data sources which, again, I have to view with a degree of scepticism.

We're I a scientist with all the relevant expertise I may well be less sceptical of all the claims and counter claims I guess. Cheers.

diver dan ,toxic chemicals another name for "population control" surely a good thing in the end.Then he accuses David G of being unhinged?

Diver Dan,time for some serious introspection.

As usual with OLO, the polarisation takes a only a short time to manifest itself. It makes it tedious to wade through the innuendo and the sweeping generalisations. e.g. Carson's book Silent Spring. It was not forensically perfect but it did create a focus for what was and is going on.

The amount of energy spent arguing here is a waste. Accept the fact that Julian Cribb cannot be expected to support his statements on-line and that his credentials as a science journalist are impeccable. If anyone is in doubt about the voracity of what is said, the posts above contain on-line sources - "our stolen future" is a good start. Otherwise look at Google Scholar and check for yourself. Is BPA toxic to us/animals or not? Go look for the data yourself.

But what is worse is what underlies all this. "Food Inc" - still available at SBS (http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/13406275550/Food-Inc.?utm_source=Programs:Documentary:Most-Popular)typifies the major issues.

Our regulators are not regulating well enough, our chemical and biological monitoring has been "outsourced" i.e. we do nowhere near enough testing of environmental sources for the things that might (or do) have a history of biological damage anymore.

Corporate control is just that.

Renew, I am astounded by the number of seemingly brain-dead people on OLO, people who cling desperately to the status quo as though it was perfect.

It doesn't matter that we are headed for a nuclear holocaust as long as nothing upsets Wall Street. Most of them don't even know that the U.S. is engaged in trying to dominate the world or that things in America for its citizens are dire.

They could find out if they wanted to but they think it's far better to live in a fantasy world and ignore the warning signs. Wait until they have to bow down to Yanks. Then they'll complain, "Why didn't someone warn us!"

Ignorance is not bliss, I'm afraid.