A timely reminder Rache, thanks. Another excellent source can be accessed here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Indeed, since the 1800’s scientists have become increasingly aware of the adverse impact on the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere caused by human activity. This ‘unintended consequence’ has been exacerbated by exponential growth in energy production, population growth and unfettered consumption.

I recommend looking at the embedded links for a more detailed account.

Contrary to the shrill ‘Galileo’ meme so called ‘sceptics’ continually assert, if anyone can be compared to that remarkable man, it would be Svante Arrenhius – virtually pilloried and virtually condemned by the scientific community at the time. Today, his hypothesis is the foundation stone for the orthodoxy it has become.

Moreover, not one robust counter theory exists to explain the global warming the planet has been experiencing since industrialisation – but I say, let them keep trying.

It’s amusing really, and sad – some people try to justify their ignorance, and their inaction, by whatever means they can – so long as they can stay mired in their warm and fuzzy comfort zone.

Here's the author's bio:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm

Thanks for the serve, Bonmot, you confirm my argument :)

Yes, of course, there is evidence of global warming over the past sixty years: a couple of inches' sea-level rise, close to a degree temperature-rise. If these are human-induced trends, and if governments and economies do nothing whatever in the next fifty years and keep using the same old technologies, sea-levels could rise by anything up to thirty cm, and temperatures by a couple of degrees, over the next fifty years - which could have major natural and human consequences.

But we all have the right - perhaps the obligation - to question how, how much, and what to do about it, without being pilloried, or perhaps being dismissed from our positions. I'm sure, as a decent and well-informed person, that you would agree :)

Joe Lane

Of course Joe - which part:

<< Moreover, not one robust counter theory exists to explain the global warming the planet has been experiencing since industrialisation – but I say, let them keep trying. >>

don't you understand?

The antics of the so called "sceptics", Joe, is to imply or infer that the real experts wouldn't have a clue, about anything. Perhaps, just perhaps Joe ... that is the intent of the power, money and control freaks, the BAU vested interests, the manipulators of people's thoughts?

Oh no Joe, you're not a sheep, you're not a lemming - you're just Loudmouth. That is not ad hom, btw.

You haven't read Oreskes, or Weart - that is obvious. And that dear Loudmouth, confirms my point ... about 'armchair pseudoscientists' being taken out of their warm and fuzzy comfort zone.

Oh, and smiley back at ya.

What about the sun bonmot.

The NIPCC says that solar activity may have a role to play in the warming of the earth.http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/NIPCC.pdf.pdf

The problem with this debate is that it was taken over too soon by the green movement. Those who aren't green have VERY little faith in the pronouncements of the green elite. Many of their demands on issues outside of climate change seem unreasonable (often extremely so) to avergae people.

The NIPCC has a signed plea from 31 000 scientists asking the US gov't to ignore the claims of AGW. from the fourth report of the IPCC.

You want to tell us that all these people are stooges? Really?

Isn't it much more likely that people on both sides of the debate are following the science, responsibly, and coming up with opposite conclusions. It would hardly be the first time.

You're right, Bonmot, there are evil people in the world, as well as stooges, dupes, fools, naive and thoughtless people of all sorts. There are conspiracies, cartels, fascist and semi-fascist regimes, and all manner of corporate criminals who couldn't give a toss about the environment as long as they can make money from it.

And there are, quite legitimately, sceptics as well. It IS possible to hold the evidence at arm's length, as it were, and not be too impressed by it. Two inches of sea-level rise ? Less than a degree temperature-rise ? An assumption that few governments will do much about it all ?

For many years, I've worked on polling booths for the Greens. I don't think I'm a dupe, and even less some sort of conpirator against the planet. Semper ad rem, my dear Bonmot.

Joe

Ah yes, Paul ... which part of this http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11431#194841 did you not understand?

No Paul, this debate was taken over too soon by politics, per se ... of all persuasions. You have profoundly demonstrated this with your link to the inimitable neo-con right-wing ‘think tank’ and their so called ‘non-governmental international panel on climate change’(sarc) – you do remember Abbott’s “crap” or Morano’s “hoax” quips, don’t you?

Ok, of course the Sun plays a role in warming the Earth – no scientist says it doesn’t. Yep, there are some scientists who actually study the stuff. Not the 31,000 mind you, but quite a few. Some study galactic cosmic rays too, and magnetic flux, and Sun spots, and, and ... and, all sorts of other things, like Earth's radiative energy balance, and all sorts of other fascinating stuff. Gee, even some of my best friends are ‘Sun’ experts.

A tad facetious - but you get the drift. Guess what? Take out the enhanced greenhouse effect and nuttin-but-nuttin explains the warming trend the planet has been experiencing in the geologic time of a breath.

Oh yeah, Paul - I would say 97:3 is substantial – that is not to say the 3 are wrong. They just haven’t got anything robust to counter AGW with, yet.

Joe/Paul

I would agree, people (from all sides) are entitled to be cynical, about all sorts of things (especially these days of sensationalised news in short, swift sixty-second soundbites. However, they are NOT entitled to be sceptical UNLESS they are prepared to do what real sceptics do – a.k.a. do the science yourself.

Nope, you can’t and you won’t, for obvious reasons. Next best thing? Adopt your preferred outcome on ideological, religious or socio-cultural standing – science will not have anything to do with it.

The vast majority of those that have done and are doing the science are pretty well damn sure that the planet has got problems and we (humanity) have played a significant role in them – believe it or not.

Now, I'm outa here - must finish a report.