If you don’t even know the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, or genuinely think that any scientific theory can be 100% proven, then it doesn’t say much for the interpretations you’re putting on all the other ‘facts’ you’ve listed.

All the myths, errors, distortions and falsehoods you’ve regurgitated have been countered in ample depth over at this site http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/.

I don’t see much point in restating it all here.

(quote)Noone who knows the science denies that climate change is happening, it is related to CO2 output, and is having impacts on our climate as we speak.(end quote)

Well who would have thought Co2 would geve us 63 new snow records also 6? yrs of consecutive cooling.
NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records
http://tinyurl.com/6xel3h

also 6? yrs of consecutive cooling. http://tinyurl.com/ko4vcb

“Anyone who knows the science”
Let’s keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation” The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures
11) Al Gores film was just deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Al’s film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) Storms have become less frequent and less severe (many GW alarmists are now backtracking these earlier “theories”)
15) Droughts have always happened and always will
16) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
17) Several publications, including those that are “warmist” have recently written that the “natural” cycles of the earth may “mask” AGW. Give me a break.
18) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

zoomster,you will get tired old son. Time to give it up and realize the game is up.

If you are sugesting Co2 is polluting,you are wrong.

“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see
around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.” – John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
——
(quote)for land and forests to be degraded(end quote)
It’s not as bad as some will try to have you believe.

Fudging Figures on Murray River Salinity: More Shame on CSIRO
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001387.html
——
Degraded?
I think we owe it a big apology and some loving care?
The present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2.
Ironically,There’s nothing better we could be doing than adding some additional Co2 for the planet.
——–
1- Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Mapping by satellite shows that the Earth has become about 6% greener overall in the past two decades, with forests expanding into arid regions. The Amazon rain forest was the biggest gainer, with two tons of additional biomass per acre per year.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=471&Itemid=1

Read the second paragraph to see the comparison between natural and the human Co2,It proves a carbon reduction scheme is useless even if Co2 was bad.

Thats a problem,There is no “unanimity” in fact there’s app. 32,000 Scientists AND GROWING all the time along with public opinion that now reject the AGW hypothisis.
Scientists now rejecting the AGW hypothisis OUT-NUMBER the 54? IPCC >TWELVE TO ONE.
Sheesh! “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
—————–
“scientific community”!
Sheesh! You mean these “scientific community” guys?

“How many MIT and IPCC lies and fraud does it take before you see the sham?

>>>The MIT modellers violated 49 principles of forecasting<<>>IPCC clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting<<>>an intense cold climate, globally<<<

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/nasa-solar-cycle-may-cause-dangerous-global-cooling-in-a-few-years-time/#comments

NOPE!! you’re the one completely wrong!

However as a gambling man I’m prepared to take out a moderately priced insurance policy against the evidence being correct (or even under-estimating the trend) and the possibility of a human induced climate apocalypse.

The consequences of CO2 reduction measures being wrong are a few % points of gdp over 50 years (and we can also turn around and burn that coal later). The consequences of you being wrong is irreversible drought, famine and extinction of various species.

You have the consider both worst case scenario’s. There’s no such thing as 100% certainty when you deal with statistical measures (just really high confidence).

Doesn’t any body realize it is NOT necessary to have >ANY FORM< of a carbon reduction scheme,C02 is no more a polutant than water.

Chugg, you may well be right, though I’m fairly sure you’re not. But given the unanimity of the world’s scientific community that you’re completely wrong, its prudent for countries like Australia to start cutting their emissions urgently as the risk of catastrophic consequences is so great.

Once we’ve done that we can sit back and wait for you guys to convince us of your argument. I’ll be relieved if you’re right – though fairly surprised.

In the meantime, can you please quit with the yelling…

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
——–
Amazing!Hasen’t anyone noticed temperatures have been falling for about the last decade while Co2 has been increasing proving last century’s worring but poor correlation of C02 f-a-l-s-e?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPPI8YR.jpg
——
There Is No Correlation Between CO2and Climate Change
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
——–
WHERE ON EARTH IS THERE A PROBLEM? NO decrease in rainfall,
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/aus/latest.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/09/mdb/latest.gif
——-
The ice caps have recovered,
NORTH
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

SOUTH
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
——
The imposibillity of no ice at either of the poles in five years or even 50 for that matter.

The Antarctic it’s about55 degrees below and in the Antarctic is about 55 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. The South Pole (Amundsen-Scott Station), the average temperature of the coldest month (August) is approximately –76 F (– 60 C), and the average temperature of the warmest month (January) is – 18º F (–28.2 C).

The North Pole can range from between minus 43 degrees Centigrade and minus 26
degrees Centigrade, which is between minus 45 degrees Fahrenheit and minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit.

In order to melt any ice at all, you’d have to raise the temperature of the region by 87
degrees just to get to the melting point of ice. To do this in 50 years is — incredible.
Third, notes Easterbrook, the volume of ice in the Antarctic is about 30 million cubic
meters. To melt most of this ice in 10 years, two to three million cubic meters would have had to melt per year and remember, the average temperature is minus 55 degrees.
——-
There has been NO increase in Cyclones tornadoes or storms
http://ecoworld.com/articles/images/monckton_16.gif
——
According to the University of Colorado sea level data there has been no sea level rise for the past three years,Just ups and downs.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
——
Any melting of SOME Glaciers can be put down to natural causes seeing we have been comming out of the little ice age for the last 300 years,
The Earth is actually in a Co2 DROUGHT.
———-
So much for Greenland melting.
Plane found Under 90 metres of Ice in Greenland
http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
———-
Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:

http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
———
As shown on Andrew Bolts forum, Bob Forster, suggested the following:

If you ignore the distraction of the bars for individual years, and just look at the 5-year running mean, you will discover that most of the warming was in a single step-change in the latter half of the 1970s.

That jump in Australian average temperature correlates with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/1977. The Shift marks a change from Pacific Decadal Oscillation cool phase to warm phase – thus reversing a cool shift in the early 1940s. This 76/7 climatic step-change correlates with an abrupt reduction in the upwelling quantity of cold deep water in the equatorial eastern Pacific. Put another way – before the shift there was a preponderance of La Niña conditions, and after it El Niño dominated.
——
I find it hard to fathom why some people give credibillity to the IPCC ,Gov,the media and SOME Scientists when they tout ice shelf collapse’s,other global warming stories and leave out important relevant information like e.g. there are Volcanic and Sisemic activity going on under the sea at BOTH poles.

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080627-sea-volcanoes.html
Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice-By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer

This map of the Arctic Ocean shows the Gakkel Ridge, Nansen Basin, Lomononsov Ridge, and the proposed cruise track of the icebreaker Oden. Credit: Jack Cook/WHOI.

New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/could-volcanoes-be-melting-the-arctic-ice

The eruptions — as big as the one that buried Pompei — took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.

Antarctic-Volcanoes
Volcano, Not Global Warming Effects, May be Melting an Antarctic Glacier
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AntarcticVolcanoes2.jpg

The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep PDF
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/Patterson_Interview.pdf

——–
P-R-O-O-F it WAS only ANOTHER NATURAL CYCLE
Warm_periods of Past 5000 years Temperatures
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg