As one of the few people in the AGW thread posting like you have a clue, some comments for you:
"the overwhelming majority of the scientific peer-reviewed literature does not predict that a catastrophic global warming thesis is correct. Yet Al Gore is still peddling that line as if all the scientific community backs him."
This doesn't sound right. There are far more peer-reviewed papers that are pro AGW than anti AGW. That the majority of peer-reviewed literature doesn't predict AGW is extremely likely as the majority of peer-reviewed literature doesn't concern AGW.
As far as I'm aware, almost every major scientific institution is pro AGW. Can you name any that are overtly anti AGW? I'm thinking along the lines of the Royal Society, NASA, CSIRO?
"Last year, NASA was forced to revise their figures and eventually admitted after their corrections that the years 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 all had lower temperatures than the year 1900 rather than the other way around"
I didn't hear about this, can you post a link?
"meteorologist and researcher Anthony Watt has found serious flaws in the positioning and re-positioning of temperature recording devices installed throughout the United States (eg, air-conditioning systems and car parks being built around thermometers)"
I'm sure there are plenty of poorly positioned stations around the place. This is why results from urban weather stations are calibrated with results from rural stations. I've read that the urban heat effect accounts for in the order of a thousandth of a degree per year of global temperature measurements (would need to do some digging to back that up though).
As an aside, do you think the numerous scientists who are pro AGW are involved in a vast conspiracy to dupe the public? Or are they just a bit incompetent? Other popular theories I read with glee on HC is that it is the work of aliens and the UN...
