Why do you think they are doing it?

Listing a couple of sites isn't going to add any credibility to your claim. I can google global warming and find hundreds of sites supporting the opposite of your views. I place my faith in the hands of mainstream experts and have a "better safe than sorry" attitude about this whole ordeal. I would rather gamble with some tax hikes rather than risk having hell on earth.....

You misrepresent everything that you cite.

Professor Phil Jones is one of your Own. If you won't listen to your own scientists that, under Mandate of the United Nations, are Charged with Directing Climate Reseach Units to prove global warming;

Well then yes "Faith" is an applicable term and you may place it in which mainstream media news anchor you like.

lets hear it...

You just don't understand the science behind it all. I'm not shocked becuse you are looking for information in arenas that only support your preconceived notions. The reason Jones was able to say that there wasn't significant warming from '95 on AND that global warming has occurred is because climatologists use 30-40 year blocks to determine if there is a warming trend. They do this to account for annual fluctuations and tipping points.

I used the word faith for a reason, yes. I don't know what's going to happen and neither do you. The stakes are VERY high in this game your playing and if you're wrong then we are all going to pay and I don't understand what you have to gain by doing nothing.

The concept is simple and almost universally accepted: pollution=bad. If you understand this, then why do you have such stark opposition to Global Warming theory? If the supporters are wrong then we still will at least have a cleaner air, water and land as we progress towards greener technology.

Therein lays a problem:

Scientific method: you don't put the theory before the data. You need data to turn your hypothesis into a theory. Otherwise your theory is only based on "preconceived notions" and is not a theory.

I don't doubt that despite the fact there has been no warming for 15 years,
global warming scientists are going to say they still need 40, 50, 100 more years of research.

Why? It takes a certain type of person with strong "preconceived notions” to select global warming scientist as a chosen career path. They make a living off of grant money, and U.N. money to prove just that.

So even though after 15 years there is no data to support global warming they will not flat out say "our preconceived notions that the globe was warming where wrong," thereby disgracing their chosen profession and losing their reason for employment. They will simply say we need 40 more years of time, and money.

Aside from that, there are a host of ethnical questions raised from whipping the public into a frenzy about a global warming apocalypse without data to back it up.

The data is there. The science is there. The logic is there. The evidence is there. The warming is there. The melting of ice caps is there. The ocean acidification/hypoxia/warming is there. The extreme weather is there. The greenhouse effect has been proven and is there. The pollution is there. The global scientific consensus is there. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... What specific warning sign are you you waiting for?

"pollution=bad"

This is always what it boils down to on Current.

Yes we need to fight against pollution. But not by using Scientific fraud and scare tactics. Not only will the public lose faith in scientific process but the green movement will lose credibility in eyes of the general public as well.

More importantly the amount of money being funneled into the global warming cause could have been used to purchase half the rainforests in South America for preservation.

Yes Pollution IS bad. But Lets attack Pollution instead of going outside and railing against the climate, and then pretending we made environmental progress.

The IPCC admits when they make mistakes. They never make any statements that are with 100% certainty. They always leave room for the unknown. This is not a group of alarmist ecomaniacal wackos. They are scientists using their extensive knowledge on the subject to try to discern what is happening and why. They are humans and are capable of making mistakes, but you would be a fool to say that because there was an error in one equation on one study that it is best to throw out the entire subject of climate science. In many other cases their prediction trajectories weren't as drastic/dangerous as the actual observations. For you to think that the entire global climatologist group is trying to trick the world into giving them money is ridiculous. That would have to be one of the largest and least likely conspiracy theories I've heard. Especially when you have evidence from many other scientific fields (marine biology, etemology, atmospheric science, NASA, and every recognized Academy of science) that supports the anthropogenic climate change theory. I know that you will dig and dig until you find an article that might reveal a surface blemish on the science, but that does not mean that the science is not solid - it just means that it's not 100% perfect (as is NOTHING)

Then why are the glaciers and polar ice sheets melting?

Thank you. An interesting read. A related article says "Number of people affected by extreme weather has doubled in 30 years and is expected to reach 375 million a year by 2015" yet in the last 30-40 years the worlds population has also doubled, meaning the proportion of people affected is the same, it is population-density in poor countries that have caused "more severe" extreme weather.

That graph sucks. For one thing they've added earthquakes into both lines, which makes them both look similar. In the all disasters they put insect infestation, basically like it says that could all be because of increase in communications around the world that let us now what is happening, plus before whos to say we were actually bothered about what happened elsewhere, there are two world wars in that early period. The seconds not so bad but trends in reported events will always be bad science if you're looking at any significant period of the past.

...and then another 500 in Congress so we can get climate legislation.