If you can understand graphs an' all those things, have a deko at
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/00915869073237

"Remember that global warming deniers”
You mean Global Warming Green House Gas doom and gloom denying Heretics David.
Just because I or others do not worship your god of Altruism and depravity, does not make me any less offensive to you as you are to others. Predominantly Christian / Jew

There are a great many Global green house doomsday heretics David and I suppose in your philosophical spirituality reality do not get a look in.

Science and history tell you, but your God is all so powerful and full of cow paddies- Hmm Sounds like some other Idled deity from a Moon background I could name.

And you wonder why they call you people Looters and Proletariat Lobotomized.
Fairdinkum.

What cave is your new address, I will send you a bill by carrier pigion.

Well, is mise there are plenty of statistics on that site you’all recommended. In particular patrickm shows a lot of stats which he says are the result of “educating himself” on the topic. Well I educated myself more thoroughly by reading the BBC article referred to more carefully. I quote the scientist interviewed: “A key factor in the formation of a tropical cyclone - a low-pressure region that can turn into a hurricane - is sea-surface temperature, which has to be above about 27 degrees Celsius.” Now may be I’m naïve but I think sea temps will go up with global warming.
Next quote:“The most recent study on the issue, published this month in the journal Science, found that while the incidence of hurricanes and tropical storms has remained roughly constant over the last 30 years, there has been a rise in the number of intense hurricanes with wind speeds above 211km/h (131mph).”
In fact, for trends in hurricanes the key question is the energy level of hurricanes (which rises with the square of wind speed (?) and correlates with their potential destructiveness). These levels are not accurately represented in the categorization which is why the stats on this site are misleading to the layman.
If you want a fuller education on hurricane changes you need to combine stats with the science. Try reading what scientists have to say at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/

David: “Why do you overlook the official reports, in preference to your anecdotal storytelling?”

I don’t. I haven’t doubted or challenged your figures from the BOM.

David: “You are trying to persuade people that Canberra is not hotter now compared to past decades.”

No, I’m not. You seem very confused. You will note that I state that the 1968 temp occurred during a time when average temps were agreed to be dropping and that the 1989 figure was during a time when they were agreed to be rising. This is the warming we are talking about, no?

I mentioned the storms as an incidental aside. They were fantastic. How things have changed: Everybody wants to do something about the weather; nobody wants to talk about it.

Skeptical of Skeptics asks, “How come I have no memory of the global cooling scare that skeptics often trot out.” And later, “My point is that the global cooling scare Richard is talking about is mainly a product of spin; it didn’t really register with the public.”

Did you mean to agree with me? I am aware that there are people who do not believe there was much science behind the cooling scare (I don’t love the headline written for this piece as I didn’t want to make a big deal of the Ice Age stuff – perhaps ‘Cold Warring to Global Wiring’), but nonetheless you seem to have inadvertently grasped my point.

The author is questioning why a 0.2 degree average drop over approx 30 years hardly caused a ripple, while a 0.3 degree rise over a similar period has lead to mass panic. The author opines that this may relate to social and geo-political changes, and the advent of the global media we are currently using to foster this debate (unless, of course, you are billie).

Discuss.

I remember back in the 70's that there was debate over co2 causing either warming or an ice age.No one took any notice since scientists could not make up their minds.

Scientists today say that they are 90% sure that co2 is responsible for global warming.They were also 90% sure that the millinium bug would bring about a world economic collapse.

I think the entire world including poor countries need to clean up their acts sa regards the environment,but we should not be too keen about signing the Kyoto Protocol unless the same rules apply to countries like China,who alone,increase the entire world's pollution by almost 2% per year.

No one is mentioning the world's population problems which have the most direct influence on pollution and with the envitable scarcity of resources and energy,will reduce us all to poverty and war.The world is a finite place and we ignore that reality at the planet's peril,as well as our own.

Russell, when you use terms like “scare”, “virus”, “ blow the budget”, “a speculative state … in 50, 100, 200 years,” forgive me if I feel you are slanting the argument. (Also when I said the global cooling scare was a product of spin, I meant that this was manufactured after the event by "skeptics".)
To get to your thesis that this “scare” is bred on the internet, however: my take is quite different.
In the 70s, the 0.2 degree cooling was very uncertain and speculative, derived by a small band of scientists. (Can you imagine the fun that the internet “skeptics” would have with “scaremongers” that raised such speculations now if they had the temerity to threaten “our way of life” with such claptrap?)
Our knowledge of the warming trend now, however, is much firmer. That’s only because of an enormous collaborative effort by thousands of scientists using millions of dollars of computer power. The explosion of effort and money which has gone into this issue is comparable to the growth of the internet. (In fact, in my opinion, it is this growth in knowledge and the new world of computer models which has left many old climate hands floundering and skeptical. Have you noticed how nearly all of the skeptics are older people—who probably are struggling to keep up with the internet too?)
My next point about the internet is that you seem to imply that it has concentrated our fears. As I said before the google numbers don’t add up for this. I could equally say that the internet is a great distractor. To put global warming in context you really need to compare its numbers with total internet traffic, I think you will find it swamped by distractions such as Paris Hilton, youtube, and on and on and on.

Alternatively I agree the end of the cold war removed a distraction (and gave the American right a dose of hubris to fuel the skeptical reaction)but personally I am pleased that we are now looking 50-100 years ahead. At last we are beginning to grow up!