Straight from a 1997 NASA article on the accuracy of temperature measurements from satellites in space. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... 06oct97_1/ I'm not sure what exactly you think it proves. That climate science is complex? That there were things we didn't know a decade ago? That's not a exactly a secret. There are still things we're learning. But we do know enough to know we have a problem and what's causing it. There's no serious debate about that in the scientific community. Yes, there are deniers. But time and time again when the deniers have tried to disprove the consensus they've lost. They've even used junk science, fake controversy's and outright dishonesty. The data simply does not support their position. There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world and so many National Science Academies take the position that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it. It's not becasue of some vast global conspiracy. It's not because they all just want more grant money. It's not because they're stupid. It's because that's what the evidence indicates. This is also straight from NASA: "Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes." http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/ Who funds these people? Mostly the fossil fuel industry. How do they operate? The same way the tobacco companies did when they said cigarettes weren't harmful or addictive. "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Brown & Williamson company memo, August 21, 1969 There's zero debate now as to whether or not tobacco products cause cancer or if nicotine is addictive, but tobacco companies used doubt and junk science for years to prevent their products from being regulated and to shield themselves from ligation. They didn't give a damn that their products were killing people, which they already knew. It was all about profits. Here's the same tactic: "April 26, 1998 - INDUSTRIAL GROUP PLANS TO BATTLE CLIMATE TREATY Industry opponents of a treaty to fight global warming have drafted an ambitious proposal to spend millions of dollars to convince the public that the environmental accord is based on shaky science...An informal group of people working for big oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations that oppose the treaty have been meeting recently at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute to put the plan together...to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases...maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences", with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom". http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/in ... nted=print Same tactic, same goal. Create doubt, prevent regulation, maximize profits. The amusing thing is that these same companies know the climate is changing and are planning on how to profit from it: Oil Companies are Actually Planning for Climate Change http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/oil ... te-change/ They're not stupid. They just think the rest of us are. They'll sell us a bill of goods that they know is crap in order to keep themselves from being regulated as long as they can, but they're making long term plans based on the actual facts. Why? It's all about profits. There's your conspiracy.