Foxy wrote:"You need to read several articles
from NASA to get the bigger picture. "

Let's stipulate that you can find many articles from the same division of NASA (ie GISS) which advance the we're-all-gunna-die story.

But this isn't a competition to tally up all the articles and decide a winner. NASA is a large organisation with many different divisions and many different views.

GISS supports and has pushed the AGW theory for decades. But other parts of NASA have differing views and differing opinions about the cause of the warming and where we're headed.

So saying that NASA thinks this or that is just false. Some parts of NASA think this and other parts think that.

My point was that, given the massive difference of opinion within NASA as to the science, its simply wrong to say the science is settled and that we have to get on with cutting emissions.

The science is far from settled and we shouldn't be ripping western society apart based on unproven theories.

PS: did you notice that the graph in your linked article showed 4 different data sets. They are all ground based data sets. None of the satellite temperature data sets are mentioned. Its a constantly amusing to me how NASA/GISS (the 'S' stands for space) can talk climate and ignore the data from space. I know why they do it - the space data doesn't suit the story. But its still amusing and indicative of how climate science distorts real science.

mhaze,

The whole point is to read extensively on the scientific
evidence being presented - with all the views expressed
unanimously by so many.

Although as always the task of watering the arid desert
between your ears is a challenging one.

ttbn
As usual you are the voice of common sense and reasoned thinking.

I am constantly amazed by the way people focus in on their short lifespans,
as though they can change everything that has gone before or will happen in future.

The reaction to major weather events I also find puzzling, We’ve been seeing just as many major weather events,
droughts and floods, heat and cold for the whole of my considerable years on the planet. They really do react like frigtened over-cocooned
“Snowflakes” to these events, especially when it suits their political and monetary agenda to do so.

CHERFUL,

Someone once said that: "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.”

American economist Thomas Sowell wrote, “One of the most important reasons for studying history is that virtually every stupid idea that is in vogue today has been tried before and proved disastrous before, time and again.”

The West is collapsing rapidly. If we want to stop the decline, we need to relearn the lessons of history, and discover what made us great in the first place.

Foxy,

Now let me get your thinking straight. We have an organisation where different people say diametrically different things and you think they speak "unanimously". Wow..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

" the arid desert between your ears ".

When you haven't got the wherewithal to take part in the discussion, go with the invective.

The natural cycle that CHEREFUL described has been known for a
long time. The earths temperature has been rising since the late 18th
century. The work by the Turku and Kobi Unis has proposed a hypothesis
that that is the cause of this cycle.
It suggests that the peak of themperature was around 1990.
The cycle is about 500 to 600 years long and may vary because it is
composed of two cycles, the sun irradiation cycle and the 11 year sun
spot cycle. It is also dependant on cosmic ray intensity.

Henrik Svensmark’s 1997 discovery that the effect of cosmic rays on
clouds amplifies the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate.
This where it seems to have started.

If this process is confirmed it will mean the end of the AGW debate.
The earth is now entering a cooling period which will last about
300 years before it starts warming again.

The opening comments about emotional reactions to global warming will
be many times more intense and very widespread if AGW is replaced.
It will probably be a medical emergency.

Even some on here may have to take a Bex and have a nice lydown.