How can one diagnose the problem when the data is corrupted. Check
out John Coleman's latest discovery. The NASA data was corrupted.
They were correlating temps by hand picking areas, then crediting these
temps with areas that weren't tested. eg. Taking warm weather points
and reporting the temperatures tested were actually from cooler weather points. Google John Coleman's NASA temperatures doctored. Or something. It seems the global thermometers were reduced from 6000
in 1998 to 1500 present time. Now why would anyone go to trouble
of willfully corrupting data? That is what worries me!

Money and governmental control seem to be my first choices, but on
a third, some hidden agenda to place developed countries at a political disadvantage. Any other suggestions?

Q&A. Thanks for the clarification on CO2. I was hoping that you would give me the details on those economic studies. I think you are using a unique definition of "forcing".

Geoff, thanks for your response on CO2 and temperature in the ice cores. I think there is a fundamental problem with the claim that they show CO2 is the major forcing agent after it increases in the atmosphere as a result of outgassing caused by an initially warmer climated state. If, as you say, you don't know what causes the temperature decrease, then you can't be sure that that factor (or factors) in reverse didn't cause the increase, and so can't be sure to what extent CO2 is implicated.

This underlines the fact that over millions of years there is a very poor correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

No-one can really explain why Climate Science rather suddenly in the last 20-30 yrs, realised that there had been a massive 'hockey stick' like increases in temperature since 1850?

Somehow prior to the mid to late 1980's Climate Scientists 'missed' 130 years or so of dramatic warming and even touted global cooling as recently as the 1970's. Strangely, the recognition of this formerly unnoticed increase coincides with new social and political forces emerging and not new data.

Perhaps they will change recorded history again to prove otherwise.

“Strangely, the recognition of this formerly unnoticed increase coincides with new social and political forces emerging and not new data”

Wishful thinking Atman and try to keep up because by the 60s, Keeling from Scripps (bereft of "political forces,") was on to something and recognised that the rise of C02 had been relentless and it showed a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, which can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that 57% of fossil-fuel emissions remain airborne.

Regardless of the uncertainties over AGW, CO2 is a pollutant. Industrial emissions which oxidize to CO2 are among the most dangerous known to man including the man-made chlorinated hydrocarbons. CO2 from fossil fuel sources, are the progeny of these industrial pollutants. As a consequence, the state of the environment is seriously degraded. Time for action regardless of global warming.

So while GHGs elevate, the planet cooks and the irrelevant stuff goes on about ice cores, the deniers are insidiously fiddling the books:

On Page 217 of Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth book, Plimer claims to be citing Brasseur and Granier, and states that the Pinatubo volcanic eruption released "very large quantities of chlorofluorocarbons, the gases that destroy the ozone layer."

A lie!

Chlorofluorocarbons are not found in nature and are man-made:

"These changes could affect atmospheric circulation. In addition, heterogeneous chemical reactions on the surface of sulfate aerosol particles render the ozone molecules more vulnerable to atmospheric chlorine and hence to man-made chlorofluorocarbons." (Brasseur and Granier.)

https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/257/5074/1239

In 2007, the Heartland Institute published a paper by Mr Monckton:

“As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.”

“Contributor,” “Peers,” “Nobel Peace Prize,” "Co-laureate" "Comedy Horror," Your Lordship?

Could someone please direct me to his Lordship's whereabouts?

Ice cores indeed!

Oh dear, the IPCC in yet another embarassing moment "THE peak UN body on climate change has been dealt another humiliating blow to its credibility after it was revealed a central claim of one of its benchmark reports - that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 because of global warming - was based on a "speculative" claim by an obscure Indian scientist" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

"Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Professor Lal admits he knows little about glaciers."

Easy, when you want so much something to be true, you'll do anything to try to make it so. No "peer" review was there? Which the pundits all demand everyone take note of, when it suits the supposed science of climate, you just slip one through, eh? Anything else you'd all like to 'fess up to? Now would be a good time.

Don't worry about little errors by some of the little people, worry about the errors and complicity by the people demanding the world redistribute wealth.

So please do go on demanding that everyone hold the IPCC as the world authority./sarc Those that do risk further ridicule, and rightly so.

The skeptics are certainly correct to doubt the supposed science, melting glaciers indeed!

What on earth are you all doing supporting an organization that includes a quote from a phone interview as "science"? Also the WWF, scientific organization, oh please, they are a lobby group and eco club at best.

Lord Monckton, "The big lie peddled by the UN", yep, that sure looks correct doesn't it?

RPG, the problem with insisting that the science is settled is that when anything you say proves to be wrong all of your assertions and all of your credibility come into question. It's an all or nothing assertion to say the science is settled.

If this report is correct it is an indictment not just of the IPCC but of the thousands of journalists and science advisors who swallowed the story on glaciers. Given the cold temperatures where they are found the claim was obviously tenuous or bogus or both. In fact lack of precipitation rather than increasing warmth was a more likely explanation of shrinkage in these areas.