I'm with you Raycom.

Eminently sensible to ask for us to be able to see undiluted or tamperless evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

I think what Prof Jutras is asking is even more relevant. ie. Why is Global Warming a bad thing?

All you alarmists should tell us why Global Warming is bad for us. Oh and give evidence to back your assertions otherwise you'll be, quicker than a lightening flash, lumped in with the likes of Al Gore, Phil Jones and Rajendra Pachauri.

"It is very likely that tropical storms would subside as well, as they are also the products of excessive heat in the dry, sub-tropical latitudes, whereas equatorial areas are devoid of them."

This too is false. To check that my own understanding of tropical storm formation was accurate, I did a bit of research which turned up three standard accounts of tropical storm formation which all agree that tropical storm formation requires warm water and moist warm air. Their energy comes not from excessive heat in dry latitudes but energy released when the water vapour in the air condenses to form raindrops.

This guy is a joke.

My only criticism of an excellent article is the lack of a question mark or two after the article header, Public Enemy No1. I thought 'You must be joking', but the header did not do justice to the article which was a joy to read after the vilification which has been heaped onto a trace gas which is essential to life on earth. I trust geologists who have a track record in forensically analysing the 'bones' of this wonderful old earth. Geologists who have studied 'fossil' fuels (more correctly called carbon fuels as there is evidence that methane from within the earth is a major source of the fuels on which mankind depends - there weren't enough decomposing dinosaurs to make all that black stuff) are better qualified than anyone to comment on climate change. Meteorologists admit they can't get their weather projections right outside of about 10 days. Climatologists with their models and prejudices, predicting 20 or more years ahead have yet to earn their spurs and may never live to prove their projections.

Jutras is really throwing some big numbers around and some people soak it in as if it all happened yesterday. Ian Plimer does it, so does Bob Carter – but that’s what geologists do.

Obviously, not a lot of people here can get their head around ‘geologic’ time – millions and millions and millions of years, people.

When a geologist looks at the stratigraphy of ocean sediments, or the rock layering in the Simpson Desert, or the potential for oil in an ice free Arctic, or whatever ... what resolution do you think they can nail a particular event to?

35,385,642 years ago? Or more like 35 million years ago?

What do you think could happen in the intervening 385,642 years?

How long has the human species been on this planet ... give or take tens and tens of thousands of years?

What was humanity doing only 1 thousand years ago? What was happening 385 thousand years ago?

Are you trying to compare what happened 35 million years ago to what has happened in the past 200 years ... since the population explosion, or since the exponential burst in burning stuff that has been 'locked' up for and millions millions of years?

In the following link, under “Earth Sciences”, see what the institutions representing geologists have to say about AGW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Earth_sciences

Have they got it wrong, too?

Compared to geologists like those aforementioned, quite a few scientists actually study stuff in ‘real time’ – you know, like what is actually happening 'now'.

Look, there will always be a dichotomy between geologists and climatologists, much like that between engineers and scientists. What’s important is that they put their disdain for each other aside and focus on the issues. The scientific academies and institutions across the planet do that, despite their differences.

It is so bleeding obvious that some people here treat the author as some kind of messiah to refute AGW when they don't have any concept of the science. As though he is pontificating from the pulpit and the religious followers (no, not sceptics) are salivating at his every word.

OK,all you AGW lovers.I'm taking bets on Al Gore's predictions.Put your money where your collective alarmist propaganda eminates.Cold hard cash for Al Whore's scare mongering.

Arjjay, Al Gore is a politician.

Maaate, you've got rocks in your head if you think anybody is going to place bets on what a politician says.