No it sounds like some scientists are being sloppy.
The problem is that the edifice that is the IPCC is built on the work of a lot of scientists all of whom seem to refer to each other.
But that to me is not the main problem - I'm quite happy to believe of accept the world is warming, however:
DPinBucks keeps going on about the theories of AGW being 'hard physics' (ie science with a solid foundation) - that to me is simply laughable. All anyone has is a set of models and theories - they are not hard (in the sense that say the laws of gravitation, the theory of evolutionare) - they are simply untested hypothesis.
If you could point to me to where these theories have been tested - I'd be delighted to know.
In addition we have some very 'peculiar' (well certainly not mainstream) science (based on tree rings etc)that leads us to the 'hockey stick'.
My main concern is, is if the hockey is incorrect - and if say Roman Britain was as warm as the temperatures we are expecting in the 50 years, we could be diverting funds and resources to the wrong areas.
Oh, so you think there is a conspiracy.
I was watching 'How the earth made us' last nite, and the prof on it was in the desert somewhere.
From the air you could quite clearly see where a river once flowed, making it possible for people to live there.
But a few thousand years ago the climate changed and now the river has dried up and the people have gone.
So, this kind of thing has happened before, and it would seem on a worse scale.
So the 'scientists' are quite clearly not revealing certain facts.
And thanks Bacardi for pointing out that information about the Australian city.Its seems that some people can say 'take a global view' but their idea of the globe is just the hot parts at hot times 
The whole thing about one hot night in melbourne is a red herring anyhow.I only posted it in response to someone else posting along the lines of isn't it cold this winter here in the UK.Both phenomena are weather as opposed to climate.
I am happy to accept the general conclusions about MMGW because it has been a theory developed over decades, by numerous groups, from different backgrounds.Certainly we can sit here and look at one tiny area of the 'whole' and say I don't understand that, how can that be right?For example the whole "CO2 vs H2O/ both are greenhouse gases and one much more prevalent than the other/ so how can the minority gas be so important" kind of thing?
I don't claim to understand the science.Trying to understand the subtleties really doesn't interest me.But over 30 or 40 years no-one has said 'This is the fundamental flaw and so its all tosh', (or not with a bit of science that can be shown to be valid).
The main strength of the argument therefore is that it hasn't fallen.Now, the cynically minded out there will say its a conspiracy, everyone looking after their reputations/jobs/etc etc.But science isn't like that.The truth has a very nasty habit of coming out.(Like with the Indian Glaciers, if there is a truth that is being hidden/suppressed, it will come out).And if the theory is flawed, it will fall.There are no two ways about that.But while it stands, it implies that we as a race are heading for trouble and that there is a possible solution.I really do hope that its all ********.But until it is shown to be, I am very much in favour of planning to take action.
If in ten years or so the theory is finally blown away what damage will have been done?No major spending is planned, apart from some infrastructure stuff (nuclear power, as opposed to fossil fuel power).Some carbon tax may have replaced other revenue streams (and reducing the importation of oil is good for the balance of trade and therefore the economy) and a few other minor tweaks.
But if in ten years the theory is stronger than ever and looking right, then we have a ten year advantage compared to us doing nothing now.
At the moment its all talk, and talk is cheap.
Which was in response to someone saying how cold it was in the UK this winter 
That's all fair enough and I have no problem at all with that. I just wish that politicians and the media would adopt a similar stance.
Yes which was me, I was pointing out it was colder than last year and you said 'not in Australia it isn't'.
Antartica last year had more ice than in 2007.
Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian
Also the Arctic Ice has also grown and not shrunk away like the credability of gloabl warming / climate change or whatever you people are going to call it next.
An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing - Water Cooler - Washington Times
I will say it again, If GW / CC is a casue by man, then why don't the world government ban or infact TAX cars with Air con, or tax businesses that have Air con, or Supermarkets that use HFC's for cooling.
These supermarkets such as ASDA and TESCO and the like regularly have their cooling systems topped up monthly, so that means that the HFC's that WERE in there are no in the atmosphere.
HFC's are upto 20000 times more detremental to the climate than a car, and were introduced when a REAL threat was discovered in CFC's.
See, they ban CFC's because that was putting a hole in the ozone layer.An actual threat.
I do not see the worlds government acting with the urgency of the CFC problem.In fact, I don't think I can remember having to pay upto 3 times more for a can of Lynx.
Explain that.
Well, the plan is to cut emissions over the next couple of decades, once everyone has decided on what constitutes a level playing field.But as we don't want any one country to be duly disadvantaged, nothing is currently happening.
Explain political decisions? That truly would be a remarkeable feat.
With regard to what the UK Government on it's own, could do. Diddly squat is the answer. If you believe AGW or not, the UK contributes about 2% of the mankinds' CO2 emissions. Transport makes up about 10% of that and cars about 10% of that 10% (if you follow me). You could put a complete ban on all cars in the UK and not replace them with anything else and it would reduce mankind's total annual CO2 emission by about 0.02%.
Taxing air con in cars would have about as much effect on global CO2, as banning anyone from peeing in the ocean would have on sea levels.
I'm not saying it is, but if it is a Global problem, then only Global measures will solve it.