Your post is riddled with contradictions. How can you start by saying:
Originally Posted by
jungle
Again, you seem dead set on political ideology and refuse to even consider science-except that science which serves your ideology.
But then follow with:
Originally Posted by
jungle
Do you actually believe that mankind will suddenly stop using carbon fuels, do you actually think we can really just supply all of our energy needs by some unstated and unproven methods?
Can you give us some idea of the economic impact this would have?
What does that have to do with scientific data? Does man's ability to cope with a certain event make that event any less likely? I hope you can see how thoroughly that statement reveals the real motivation of your skepticism. You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing and allowing the cart of your political beliefs to come before the horse of science.
Originally Posted by
jungle
How could ideology ever really effect science?
Exactly. What effects do economic consequences have on scientific conclusions?
Also, you may not want to trust the Met and the U. of East Anglia research unit any more -- that article you keep quoting that claimed "the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997" was immediately refuted by the very agencies whose data was quoted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and
for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
...
However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with
the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link for anyone that cares:
Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog
The fact that you cannot accept the potential effects of acting on a certain conclusion betrays your inability to accept that conclusion. The fact that you question the economic consequences of scientific data utterly convicts you of being prejudiced when viewing that data. You have perfectly proven that objection to the science behind anthropogenic climate change is purely political.