The thread's topic is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-uzNBtdYOo[/quote\\]
Clearly James Corbet is an unbiased source without an agenda.
I especially liked the bit where he says "...further affirming the theory’s non-scientific status as an unfalsifiable prediction that anything that ever is due to manmade carbon dioxide..."
Well, no, that's not what the theory predicts.
And for all his lamentations about the CRU and others deleting their raw data, there's the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature which, as I recall, comes to the same conclusion as everone else.
...and the implications arising therefrom.
Oh, and consider this (predates 'climategate'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CVh2deXTI
"There are four major agencies producing global temperature on an annual basis, they come up with different numbers each year. And the number, I remember one year it varied by 0.4°C, well, if your saying 0.6 in a hundred years, and each year you're differing by 0.4, using the same data, well, the reason there's a difference is because you don't use the raw data. You adjust, you "modify" (read manipulate) the raw data, and of course at what point are you manipulating it to get what you want? If you're not willing to dicslose how you came up with your number, well, the suspicion has to be that you cooked the books fulla."
Well, actually... They use different methods. One of the differences in the methods being in how they treat areas for which we have no data. Some methods ignore them, which, essentially assumes they behave in an average manner, other methods use kriging, which uses the data from around the holes to try and guess what is happening inside the holes.
The two different methods of treating that one variable alone can produce quite different results.
