Examinator,
I’m not sure how you determined that AGW is a “workable theory”, it doesn’t explain much of what is happening; it guesses; it fudges; it glosses (as Taylor’s book well documents).

Have you stopped to consider that the symptoms of climate change --that you see-- in the sub-continent (and elsewhere) might be driven by factors other than GHG’s, like for example, the wholesale felling of forests, the clearing of mangroves, the siphon-off of too much ground-water; over fishing , over farming and over-breeding --or perhaps (even!) long-term natural cycles (beyond our ken). If any of the aforementioned are the real culprits, or even, co-culprits, no amount of Co2 reduction will solve your “real issue”.

<<My question is how has 'glacier gate' "scandal?" changing the actual looming disaster?>>
GlacierGate is significant in that it illustrates that all is not as popularly portrayed . You might recall how proponents of AGW have long brow-beat challengers about the strict peer review nature of IPCC data/findings. GlacierGate showed, to all and sundry, that the IPCC’s modus operandi isnt all it’s been claimed (and you will find more examples if you read Taylor’s book)

<< there's about 6 million currently and the world is failing most of them now. Think about it 300 million refugees on the move and we're not affected?>>
The core issue here as I see it, is over population. And people fleeing from regions of low economic prospects to regions of higher prospects,well illustrated by that fact that many by-pass intermediary safe countries of lower affluence.Even in a perfectly climate-stable-world you would still have your (economic) refugees –the only thing that would change would be the excuse(s) used.

I urge you and any one else who is seeking answers to read Taylor’s book. It is thorough and if you approach it with an open mind it may just change your views.

PS: You might like to view this documentary . It’s about climate change –and major climate change at that – in the ancient world, LONG BEFORE industrialization and large scale Co2 emissions.
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/502860

Hours: "But, when presented with sources ..."

That was half the problem, Horus. You didn't cite any sources. So, I went off and found what Taylor had to say. Maybe what I found wasn't a very good example. If so, provide a better example.

In what I found he said the globe is cooling. That is a pretty outstanding claim, which directly contradicts just about all evidence I have seen on the matter. Eg this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png Outstanding claims need outstanding evidence. He didn't supply any. I might of delved further, but he also said cooling caused the take up of biofuels. It is pretty clear what caused the ill advised rush to bio fuels, and it has nothing to do with climate change - be it warming or cooling.

So after my short investigation of Taylor on the web I decided the man was a complete fruit cake. I far as I am concerned I have wasted too much time on him already. But if you are determined to convince me otherwise, just provide a link that summarises his claims and the evidence he cites for them.

Horas,
My point exactly there are several factors that make up the workable theory.

Show me a working complex theory that is accurate to decimal point accuracy? There are none, they all work on statistical analysis!

IMO The so titled 'AGW' and its hype are both misleading,

A point I made *7/08* and continue to do so.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7606#118570

The term was the product attention grabbing media headlines.

The issue is really the consequences of several factors as you rightly point out.

What the media fails to stress clearly enough was that the world was never going to warm either evenly or consistently (Basic physics).
There are going to be heat bands and hot spots (see the lectures I recommended)

In fact the issue was/is the consequences of Catastrophic Climate Change not AGW per se.
What causes this CCC ? it's a bit of group A,
a bit group B,
a bit of C (Excess CO2 over a protracted time frame see. "Saturation", "ocean invasion", "calcium carbonation", "weathering thermostat" (Pre AGW science principals [PAGWSP]) scientifically accepted processes (including by the geologists),

When combining all these factors no existing theory fitted the observable factors. Therefore ; Specifically, what has set it off and why now?

Natural causes? ....yes and no. e.g. the provable melting ice took 1000's years to lay down but 70 years to retreat ?
The sun maxima ? No evidence during the last cycle ( besides the sun is losing activity, less solar wind etc. ) .

The specific glaciers melting rate is speeding up why? The climate is changing? why? You mentioned deforestation etc. It changes the air flows air pressures (weather) [PAGWS]
1 of 2

Continued 2 of 2
NB We are releasing EXCESS CO2 (more than nature can dispose of) [ PAGWS]
EXCESS CO2 is a greenhouse gas trapping in heat [PAGWS]
- the reducing albedo effect [PAGWS].
+ other pollutants, heat island and you have global AVERAGE (key term) Temp rising. In short human activities , too many people too much consumption etc.
It's getting colder? In some places and for limited times all this is in the theory. (the difference between weather and climate, absolute and Average).

The net result people pick at models the theory but ignore the problem and perhaps the only element we can change our man made problems.

Discussion about hockey stick, proxies etc disprove nothing least of all the theory. Very little of the science is new nor are the modeling techniques yet we rely on them in other areas i.e. economics? Where is the outrage by sceptics?

NB CO2 as a green house along with other human created excess gases has been know for decades and based on their molecular structure.

I still ask you how is all the scepticism solving or even acknowledging the real problems.
Also too many people alone isn't the problem as such it is what they are doing .
I don't expect you or anyone to actual read this but it more organized my thoughts on the subject.

Regards Examinator.

Would common-sense not dictate that damage to the ozone layer and atmosphere over the past 50years be indicative of significant droughts, melting of snow and ice, salinity changes, in addition to weather pattern diversity? I am a layman not scientist, yet after observing and living through different droughts over 30 adult years; I clearly recall the "stinging sun" [as have friends of mine, "biting" not just burning, after the El-Nino was announced along with the hole in the ozone layer? Q: why were these scientific claims disregarded?