In respect of the claim that we are in a period of no change in temperature of the globe since 1998, apart from a small amount of cooling, I was directed to a NASA Goddard site which asserts 2005 to be as hot as or hotter than 1998.

Apparently there are four sources of global temperature. One uses the same database as NASA, and the other two use different methods. All except NASA found 2005 to be cooler.

UK Climate Research Unit, using the same database as NASA found it cooler, as did the two other sources, each using different methods. NASA is one out in its finding, but gives no indication of this on its web site, where it blithely announces, in addition to the claim in respect of 2005, that the globe has warmed by .6 of a degree in total over the last hundred years.

Most other sources give the total warming as one half of a degree.

I am not inclined to give credence to NASA, in these circumstances.

A full account is at:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/BobCarterUSSenate2006-1.pdf

Nick Lanelaw is "not inclined to give credence to NASA". (4-Apr-2007 12:09PM). This is the same NASA which put Neil Armstrong on the moon -(well some people waste time debating that too.)

Nick Lanelaw believes "the IPCC remains guilty of misrepresenting the situation on global warming in its summary" (2-Apr-2007) and "persists in prevarication, and misleading statements, in its summary, which is not prepared by scientists." (19-Mar-2007) But when I checked who prepared the reports, I discovered that it was Nick Lanelaw who made the misleading statement (3-Apr-2007). All the authors were scientists and anybody can easily double-check this.

As Nick Lanelaw tried to deceive us about the qualifications of IPCC authors and working party members, then we'd be foolish to listen to his pronouncements about NASA or the IPCC in general. Very foolish.

And Richard Castles thinks this is just a matter of disagreement. Evidence and fact checking? Apparently, none of this is relevant. So whether someone is a scientist or not is a "disagreement". It does not matter that extensive biographies exist for these scientists on the Internet. The Bureau of Meterology climate summary is merely an alternative view. Plagiarism is an acceptable contribution to debate. And don't use the Internet, because facts make people hysterical.

After ignoring information from the BOM, from NASA, from various universities. After the attacks on scientists. After their lies and misinformation has been uncovered so easily, how can climate sceptics imagine they have any credibility at all.

Having firmly established that scientists are being attacked only by people you wouldn't trust to tell you the time of day, let's respond positively to the sober warnings by the scientific community. These warnings are not hysterical and we can make the switch over the coming years and decades with economically-sensible conservation measures and efficient technologies.

David, it is simply not possible to have a meaningful or fruitful discussion with someone who repeatedly miscomprehends, misinterprets and misinforms. Where you got the idea that I don't believe in using the Internet is something only you could explain? I think the Internet is marvellous, but like all technology it's how you use it that is important. Why, just today I read of the report that claims that Mars has warmed by 0.65 degrees since the 1970's. Fascinating. Anyway, good luck to you.

Response to Richard Castles:

Everything which has been provided by me has been backed up by links and references that anybody can review. As far as I can remember all my sources are from reputable sources, such as government agencies (BOM, NASA), universities, research institutes. All my quotes have been marked appropriately. Where I have quoted from a thread, I have also provided the date and time, so it can be readily found. I have not relied upon blogs or PR material. This is why my posts are fair and honest. They get to the heart of the matter. If posters make inventive or spurious claims that are contradicted when you go to the source(s), then it is right and proper to set the record straight.

This applies in all cases and if wrong I will admit my mistake, such as in this case: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=379#7267

From your article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5543) I am responding to the the following view was expressed in your article you wrote "In the Internet, the first “global” issue found its perfect medium, and promptly spread like a virus."; then: "Global warming + global medium = global panic."

Mars survey from is NASA and I give it full credence. Here are some articles on the subject in recent years:
2003: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03415_ice_age.html
2001: http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=962

Science is looking into every aspect of global warming and this includes looking at other planets and the sun. The IPCC summarises the science, which is continuously advancing and there is no evidence that any relevant scientific evidence is ignored. The conspiracy theories are proven false by the open publication of these reports by NASA and other universities and reputable institutes.