Hume rails against "global warming alarmists" who can't explain why there's been "no apparent increase in global temperatures" since '98

Skin cancer's not the right approach: they will contend that any warming we've experienced has been driven by the sun, likewise any increase in atmospheric CO2.

The evidence exists in the relentless increase in both atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations. The evidence of global climate change is everywhere, be it melting glaciers or plagues of invasive species in areas previously impenetrable due to cold winter temperatures.

Does anyone actually believing this consider what FOX is trying to say right here? They are saying that a few emails from the same research team proves that the entire concept of global warming is a hoax. And not even a few emails, what the viewers have seen is a few sentences taken haphazardly from these emails is proof the whole thing is a hoax.

One, why can't FOX or whoever hacked into these emails at least give us the entirety of the emails? Why offer up a few sentences when the context of such sentences would be far more credible proof that the researchers were trying to fudge data?

Two, there are literally thousands of organizations across the world supporting the conclusion that global warming is real and caused by man. How do a few sentences offer up proof to discredit thousands of research orgs and hundreds of thousands of scientists. One would think a reasonably intelligent person would need a littler more proof to discredit that kind of consensus than a few sentences like maybe perhaps some actual statistics.

Three, where is the motive here? If this entire thing is a hoax, what exactly are thousands of scientists getting out of making a mockery out of science itself? If this was a hoax and it was eventually revealed as such (which no doubt it would be if it was a hoax) wouldn't thousands of scientists lose their jobs and their careers to such a ploy. The motivation to do something like this would have to be tremendous and yet, it seems such motive is never actually discussed on FOX. and the rare instances when it is, none of them can actually come up with anything even remotely legitimate.

Finally, if most of science is in agreement over something that is some giant ploy to fool the world, how did they achieve such consensus? It is extremely hard to convince thousands of people to believe something that isnt true. To try to convince scientists of falsehoods is even more difficult. And to get scientists to risk their careers, reputations and lives on such a hoax one would think would be impossible. How did the scientific community reach such a false consensus? FOX never ever delves into this which I would think would be absolutely critical to proving to the world that this is all a hoax.

"There are too many variables in climatology and too much history of climate change sans human intervention to conclude humans are imminently to blame and therefore able to reverse"

You're right, kanye . . . global warming is the inevitable result of all the SUV's driven by grizzly bears and the industrial wastes created by wolves [SMH] . . . /end sarcasm/

Science is imperfect mainly because it relies on the scientific method. Using such a method which has been used for centuries is not ideal (it is just the closest to idea) because relying on such a process means that nothing in science has or can ever be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Science is far from law in that scientists cannot and usually will not (if they are credible) go out and say something is definitely correct. Even sciences greatest discoveries that defined science for generations to come are mostly stated as theories and not facts.

It is because of this doubt that science is both perfect (in that everything can always be disproven with the proper investigation if wrong) and imperfect(in that nothing can ever be proven if correct).

The problem is that when it comes to action to support these conclusions that science has reached, it is often up to politicians, law makers, doctors and administrators to implement such things rather than scientists themselves. So even the strongest conclusions drawn from extensive research can be left to the court of public opinion after being wholeheartedly supported by the dedication of thousands of research experiments and investigative constructs. So while the evidence is almost entirely in support of such a process of global warming, we will let something that has the potential to be catastrophic (like AIDS and lung cancer before it) go entirely unchecked for a while while society debates its truth.

Fact is, one out of every three Africans would not have HIV and die before they reach 40 right now, if we did not first allow AIDS to be debated as incurable or the punishment from God or some other nonsense and put massive money into research before and during the debate. But politicians let the political debate supercede the scientific proof and millions have died as a consequence. Similarly, lung cancer was known to be associated to cigarette smoking decades before politicians did anything to stop the catastrophic impact of big tobacco and America and the world still pays the price today - smokers account for about 85 percent of lung cancer and cause 1.3 million deaths annually.

WHEN WILL WE LEARN THAT SCIENCE IS NOT UP FOR A POLITICAL DEBATE? And if we allow such nonsense to occur, the result is often disastrous beyond compare.

Yeah, don't waste your time. The Wegman report has been refuted.

There is a consensus on manmade global warming. It's real, it's happening, and it's scary to any thinking person who's educated on this topic.

Just so you all see what I see.....

The global chart (top) shows swings with that blip in 1998 (due to an el-nino) looking higher than recent points.

But, take a look at the northern hemisphere chart. Notice a nice, steady up-ward trend. Remember, most of the industrial societies are located in the northern hemisphere.

Now, take a look at the southern hemisphere. More variation. But, there's not nearly as much industrial societies in this hemisphere.

The el-nino effect in 1998 shows up on all charts.

If there's cooling, I certainly don't see it.

I suppose the polar ice caps and Greenland are melting because they feel like it. Obviously it has nothing to do with temperature.

That's right Eddie. Just the Lull Before The Storm. Corporate Shills Suck!