Altman, it seems that you do not understand the scientific process, nor are you aware of the history of climate science. The 'greenhouse theory' has been studied since it was postulated by Fournier in 1824 and Arrhenius in 1896. In Australia, researchers such as Graeme Pearman were studying atmospheric CO2 (with the help of QANTAS pilots) in the 1970s. CSIRO's Division of Atmospheric Research has been monitoring Australia's climate for decades, and Australian researchers pioneered climatic studies in the Southern Ocean, which they showed is one of the 'drivers' of the world's climate.

The theory of human influenced climate change is supported by an overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists. See studies by Doran (EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 2009) and Anderegg (PNAS 2010). Thousands of papers in reputable scientific journals reinforce this view. The point of scientific publication is to display your work, ask for comments, invite refutation. No one has refuted the theory of human influenced climate change, and the many lines of evidence give additional support, almost daily, as technology improves.

The quotation from the stolen CRU emails which Altman cites is out of context and misleading. A number of investigations have concluded that the only malpractice was in the theft of the emails. This is easily checked.

Although the sceptics will ignore it for those who are interested about the science in preference to dark conspiracy theories may find the links in this article of interest:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-climate-science-climategate/

Nicco-

Your condescending manner is out of place especially as it seems you have no or little scientific background. You are making some very basic scientific errors. Untestable theories cannot be refuted. Unprovable hypotheses cannot be proven wrong. Please stop spruiking that pseudo-scientific nonsense about "being unable to refute the theory". Theories can be challenged, but people like yourself seem to be unable to understand what the challenge is all about.

Re your Greenhouse effect comments. The Greenhouse effect is well known. The Greenhouse effect is not in dispute. You have confused the Greenhouse Effect with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming which are two entirely different things.

You have ignored all the points made in the last post probably because you are unable to challenge them. So here's some reading material (which you won't read)which could help you catch up.

800 peer reviewed papers which support AGW skepticism.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Baygon

I could go through all the alarmist claims listed in that article one by one but I just don't have the time so I'll do the first one.

This Nature article is a PhD Students dissertation. A critique of the claim can be found here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/30/now-its-phytoplankton-panic/

Its always worth reading BOTH sides of the story.

Altman, I am well aware of the 800 supposedly peer-reviewed articles, listed by the blog Popular Technology. As we all know, a very few reputable climate scientists (eg Lindzen, Christy, Spencer) have been published in a very few reputable journals. And, as we all know, there is a dense undergrowth of un-referenced material in blogs and un-refereed publications, often with a political or religious sub-text. (eg Be Alert! which takes a Christian fundamentalist line on the 800 papers); and of course there's a great deal in between. The 800 papers come from surprisingly few authors, some of them well-known (Loehle, Pielke Snr, Baliunas, Carter) and largely discounted - after examination - by mainstream science. Many of the 800 papers are published in the journal Energy and Environment, which is not highly regarded by the scientific community. The publication listing the 800 papers, Popular Technology.net, proclaims a specifically campaigning editorial stance against AGW. Taking all this into account, it is reasonable (1) to conclude that this list itself has little credibility, and (2) this list does not in any way damage the credibility of the very large number of scientific papers, published by reputable scientists, in reputable journals; (3) this list has an ideological underpinning, rather than a scientific underpinning; and (4) the 800 papers add a little to the real debate, which is robust and lively, and is happening elsewhere, ie the scientific literature.

The difficulty for the warmists is that over 50% of the population now believe the truth , that AGW is a fraud, so the politicians, who are poll driven understand that the game is up.

There is a remarkably frank editorial in the Washington Times on the demise of the AGW scam, and the wake to be held at Cancun. It is quite amusing.

“The mood of climate alarmists going into Cancun is decidedly downbeat…The November demise of the Chicago Climate Exchange - which sought to transfer billions of dollars to political insiders trading in government-rigged carbon markets - signaled that there was no money in the game anymore”

It points out the advantage of meeting at a beach resort in Mexico… “the Copenhagen meeting ended in an unexpected blizzard. It's harder to sell global warming to world leaders who have to flee the city before their flights are grounded by an ice storm.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/27/climate-craziness-cools-in-cancun/

If anyone is interested in a clear explanation of what constitutes climate science and which scientists are climate scientists, Robert Carter sets it out clearly in his recent book “Climate: The Counter Consensus”. Nicco should read it and stop making a fool of herself. There are no scientists asserting that AGW has any scientific proof, and only five independent scientists who endorse the IPCCs assertion that it is “very likely”.

The petition signed by 31,000 scientists is not a hoax, just a genuine attempt to highlight the fact that there is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.