[kelster]

Aright Adam, hope th hangover has gone.

I'll tell you why I labeled it as lazy journalism. It just doesn't quote any sources against global warming. It's all his hearsay, such as "some commentators". You should always question articles without references and especially those without references that aren't pulled from respected science journals. I believe his motive is just to get paid and published. It is much easier to achieve that with an anti-global warming article than it is one that is for it.

There is a perfect example of what he is doing and its effect on this thread. kop said that his mate had calculated that humans produce more CO2 going to the shops than cars which is pretty unblievable. But you didn't question it at all, it went straight into the memory bank as you said, and became gospel. If I hadn't shown you an alternative calculation, how many people would you have told that interesting fact and how many would the have told?

How many people are you going to tell now that it seems that the opposite is true? I guess no-one as it is just what you would expect and not interesting at all. It's much easier to disseminate and publish something that is unorthodox, even if it doesn't have sources.

As for NASA, if any agency is going to produce data against global warming it is them. They recently removed the words "To understand and protect our home plane" from their mission statement. This is believed to be from pressure applied by the Bush administration. And temperature data is also gathered from satellites, and they have plenty of those.

And if you don't believe the NASA data, why not use the other sources I posted. All these well respected scientists can't be wrong can they?