plainly, to anyone but a scientist on a research grant, the weather sample rate that these people are using is far too small to give any sort of accurate trend indication. we are just as likely to fall into an ice age as we are into a continued heat increase. there is evidence immerging to suggest that the electromagnetic effects of the universe may have as yet unmeasured effects on global temperatures, but we haven`t got the research grants in place yet to do the studies.

I disagree. 100+ years of climate data is quite sufficient for any number of sophisticated, and not-so-sophisticated, trending and forecasting methodologies. That in itself does not _explain_ why it's happening -- that's where computer simulations come in. By using simulations that vary different factors, including pollution, scientists can predict what's going to happen. If the predictions pan out, as they did in Hansen's work, then that provides strong evidence that what we think is driving climate change actually is. Granted, there's no way to be 100% sure of the future until it happens, but that's the nature of science.

it`s also the nature of science to ignore what isn`t sexy to the grant givers. the electromagnetic model of the universe has been around for as long as we have been discussing the wave/particle duality of light. for a light particle to be wave-like it has to have something in which to wave. much as other forms of energy will wave through such substances as water and air, producing measureable and visible effects. for light to wave it must wave in something. it was proposed that this something could be called an ether. this concept and it`s surrounding experiments culminated in the developement of the interferometer by a bloke called michelson in 1881. he never found it.
my personal opinion is that too many scientists use the map words of previous experiments to demand that the next experimental paradigm has to be the same. take the speed of light for instance. an absolute speed barrier....though particles have been seen to move immediately from one location to another, over small distances. absolute speed. not limited by the boundary limit of newtonian mechanics.
science is a stack of theories. the scientific method moves toward proving theories to be wrong. we are moving into an era whereby this approach is being challenged, for the simple reason that science is collapsing under the wieght of it`s own dogma.
we are learning to ask better questions, after a hundred years of people in big moustaches telling us that things are impossible, when our own eyeballs are telling us differently.
and the global warming thing........more to do with social politics that to do with proveable science. (see any criticsm of liberalism.)

and if the forcasting models are even remotely functional then how come we can`t get a reliable weather foercast for the next 3 or 4 days? my guess is that the meteorologic models are using established thermodynamic models to predict, and they`re wrong. the simple fact that there isn`t enough energy contained in the ocean to spin wind up to 400+ miles an hour on the scale of hurricaines, yet they happen all the time. a substantial amount more energy is being introduced into the system to produce these effects. coronal discharges from the sun might do it. if we are allowed to suggest that the sun is a capacitor that discharges occasionally. i know that the theory doesn`t allow for kyoto politics to work, but who cares if the truth is something else than greenhouse effects. we can then work towards functional solutions as opposed to tilting at windmills.

I don't know where you get your weather forecasts, alistair, but the ones I get from wunderground.com are typically VERY accurate up to three days away.

Beyond that, your statements like "there isn`t enough energy contained in the ocean to spin wind up to 400+ miles an hour on the scale of hurricaines, yet they happen all the time" show that your grasp of science is hardly adequate to critique it.

You can try to make science political all you want, but the vast majority of scientists want nothing to do with politics -- they want the science to speak for itself and for people to listen to what the data say. Those few who try to manipulate science to meet their political objectives are not scientists (actually, we call them politicians).

Beyond that, your statements like "there isn`t enough energy contained in the ocean to spin wind up to 400+ miles an hour on the scale of hurricaines, yet they happen all the time"
check www.mccanneyscience.com
i was quoting the observations of an astrophysicst, jim mccanney. he tends to ramble and is a bit conspiracy minded,but his observations regarding thermodynamic vs. electromagnetic models merit further inquiry.
the majority of scientist may want to be removed from politics but politics pays the bills and calls the tune. therefore we live in a socialist economic society of which science is a part. science, in and of it`s self, doesn`t produce a product other than that which is consumed by it`s patrons. that`s why it is inevitably becoming indistinguishable from a religion.
and the majority of people get thier weather from t.v. which is about as accurate as a guess. personally, as a cyclist i do a bit of observational estimation and dress accordingly.
oh, and if you have some figures that clearly demonstrate the thermodynamic model of wind currents that does more than entertain a nine year old i`d like to see it.

sorry, the url is;
www.jmccanneyscience.com