Yeah well people make mistakes and some people cook books. That will always be the case in any human endeavor, which gives corporate-funded con artists (see also the campaign to label the link between tobacco and cancer as a hoax) a perfect opportunity to confuse the public.
And still the ice melts
Actually the trend for the past 75 years or more has been generally in the direction of melting. That hasn't changed. The North Pole may be ice free in summer within ten or twenty years at the current rate of decline of ice.
The fact that people made errors or even faked data doesn't change that. Neither does the fact that temperatures fluctuate from year to year.
The climate change skeptics are taking small facts out of context to convey a message that isn't factual. And that is a fact!
And sea ice has a net effect on water levels of.... ZERO.
The land ice has been thickening.
Most of the warming, once you take out the BS massaging of data, correlates very, very strongly with solar minima and maxima. Now, the loss of sea ice might mean that the oceans finally do actually start to warm at that point.
Which the planet has survived just fine numerous times in the past and returned to normal. You can levy all the taxes you want, but I don't think we are going to beat the sun on controlling surface temperatures any time soon through controlling CO2 emissions.
But regardless of the cause we have to formulate reactive policy. Climate change will still hurt millions.
Kinda funny, most of Europe debating the right response to global warming..
Here in the west we are still debating its existence.
And some people in the U.S. can't wait to become a carbon copy of Europe.
No, some people in the US care about the rest of the world *yawns* Amazing idea, i know.
And manufacturing a bullshit, global crisis in an entirely political money grab helps the world in what way?
Funny, only people who agree with you (outide parts the US since its a more mixed image here) Would be China and Russia.. Who would you really say making things up in a political money grab? The Communists you agree with?
There are plenty of people in Europe that see this for what it is. The voice or reason isn't always the loudest. Especially when politicians are spreading bullshit around.
Increased publicity of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has resulted in political and economic debate.[113] Poor regions, particularly Africa, appear at greatest risk from the projected effects of global warming, while their emissions have been small compared to the developed world.[114] The exemption of developing countries from Kyoto Protocol restrictions has been used to justify non-ratification by the U.S. and a previous Australian Government.[115] (Australia has since ratified the Kyoto protocol.[116]) Another point of contention is the degree to which emerging economies such as India and China should be expected to constrain their emissions.[117] The U.S. contends that if it must bear the cost of reducing emissions, then China should do the same[118][119] since China's gross national CO2 emissions now exceed those of the U.S.[120][121][122] China has contended that it is less obligated to reduce emissions since its per capita responsibility and per capita emissions are less that of the U.S.[123] India, also exempt, has made similar contentions.[124]
In 2007-2008 the Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population were unaware of global warming, developing countries less aware than developed, and Africa the least aware. Awareness does not equate to belief that global warming is a result of human activities. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite.[125] In the western world, the concept and the appropriate responses are contested. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University finds that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic" where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[126]
Debates weigh the benefits of limiting industrial emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs that such changes would entail.[101] Using economic incentives, alternative and renewable energy have been promoted to reduce emissions while building infrastructure.[127][128] Business-centered organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and companies such as ExxonMobil have downplayed IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[129][130][131][132] Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[133] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[134] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[135]
Some global warming skeptics in the science or political community dispute all or some of the global warming scientific consensus, questioning whether global warming is actually occurring, whether human activity has contributed significantly to the warming, and on the magnitude of the threat posed by global warming. Prominent global warming skeptics include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, John Christy, and Robert Balling.[136][137][138]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Debate_and_skepticism
raz-00
Dude, you get caught cooking the data for the Nth time, and the audit of temperature monitoring stations shows they are completely out of spec compared to a proper setup in most cases, and then mix it up with the fact that all your predictions have been off the mark, and even the mass of polar ice is growing, and there's going to be a fair bit of doubt.
Especially when you look at the history of it and see it didn't really gain much traction until said folks caught cooking the books above needed to come up with funding for a space mission that would never end.