[Sangetsu]

xyzone, you haven't been successfully ridiculing anyone, and if your only posting on this thread to ridicule others, then I would ask that you leave.

If you have information relevant to the discussion, either for or against it, feel free to post it.

You asked before how many "climatologists" were referenced on my list of scientists who are skeptical about global warming. What exactly is a "climatologist"? A person who hold a degree in climatology most certainly. But a climatologist does not know every detail of the weather, just as Radiologist is different than a surgeon, though they are both doctors. A climatologist takes information provided to him by experts in other fields, meteorologists, oceanographers, physicists, and the like, and uses the information provided to him by these people in his work.

I recently posted the changes made to the 1996 IPCC Report on Global Warming report which, without authorization of the reviewing scientists, was changed from saying that there was no proof that global warming was man-made to the opposite. Even the authors of the report and the IPCC itself have admitted to this change. Many of the scientists on the list I posted worked as reviewers of this and other IPCC reports, and they signed a declaration as a means of protesting the changes.

The reason this is all relevant is that the person who changed the report, Dr Benjamin Santer, earned his degree at East Anglia University, which is the center of the current scandal.

The UN and IPCC no longer say that global warming is occurring at this moment, because, no matter how they read the tea leaves, it isn't. This is why global warming is now called "climate change". The climatological models developed by Dr Santer and his associates have proven to be wrong. According to their models (which are shown in the IPCC reports), temperatures should have increased markedly over the last decade, but, in fact, the opposite has happened. This alone, without all of the other scandal going on, is enough to question the validity of the global warming phenomena.

I am all for keeping the environment clean. I almost never drive (I own 4 bicycles), I separate and recycle, I don't use unnecessary electricity or gas, and, as I mentioned earlier, my home in America is completely solar-powered. Few people I know leave as little a "carbon footprint" as myself.

What I have a problem with is being lied to. If the UN wants to do something about pollution, then they should use an honest argument. Instead, they try to scare us, or use guilt in order to get us to do something. They should try inspiring us. It's all well and good to preach to us to cut back on using natural resources whilst they themselves travel hundreds of thousands of miles a year by chartered jet, live in multiple places, and work from multiple offices. One of Al Gore's overseas trips will generate more carbon dioxide than 5 American families make in a year.

The money spent each year on global warming research is enough to provide clean drinking water to all of the world's poor. The money projected to be spent to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the future is more than what would be required to end hunger on earth.

But the UN is an organization of politicians; selfish prostitutes interested only in helping the world so far as it enriches themselves. As they have nothing to gain materially from providing the poor with clean water or food, it's not a priority for them. The money spent in developing countries to reduce carbon admissions would be administered by the UN, and companies contracted by the UN. Their profit would enormous.

The argument that climate change skeptics are paid by industry sounds viable at first, we are taught by movies that industry is greedy and profit-motivated, and will stop at nothing to increase those profits. But when you think objectively, you come to realize that industry is no different from politics. The only difference is that the governments have much more money and power than private companies. Many scientists who have been skeptical of global warming have found that work can be hard to find. Many have had their research funding cut or eliminated, and they find that they can't publish their work in scientific journals. Since these scientists can no longer be funded by universities, they have no choice but to work for industry. They have to eat, don't they? And, the amount of money industry spends in support of these scientists is a minute fraction of the money spent by governments in support of global warming research. If these scientists were truly dishonest, wouldn't they actually rather say global warming was indeed occurring, and continue to receive nearly unlimited research funds?