Jon J...I work with climate scientists and have been to 3 conferences in the last 6 months. They call it "global warming" and the signal is getting stronger. Please don't confuse media/political spin with real science...although I know this is hard to do in the combative environment surrounding Economics vs Environment.
Warming isn't the only change going on; there are decadal oscillations, 3-7 year oscillations such as ENSO and much more...but on top of this is a very clear CO2 induced warming. It is not only credible...it is the only reasonable explanation left for the data.
Any perception of backing down from the science comes directly from paid for faux sceptics and the fools that trust the Murdoch lame-stream media. It also comes from the extraordinary hubris of the ignorant Right...how dare youth demand responsibility from their elders. How dare the "smarty pants" scientists put limits on my profits? It's communism I tells ya!

[Deleted for abuse.]

Look here for a recent summary of the by-now rather direct evidence that our emissions of CO2 are warming the middle and lower atmosphere, as predicted.
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/still-warming/
So not only is the evidence for warming clear, there is evidence for the cause - us.

The claim by snowman and many others that there is no evidence is nonsense. The implication that the only argument is computer models is nonsense.

Thanks Shintaro for your eloquent comment, not that many here might know about haiku, they seem to be more into sarcasm.

When Sophie attempts to link the Brisbane flooding to climate warming/change/disruption the conclusion could very easily be drawn that climate change/warming/disruption was more serious in 1841, 1890, 1893, 1931 and 1974 and on other occassions before European settlement when flooding in Brisbane was or could have been much worse.

And I suppose records if kept in Pakistan would confirm my conclusion after all Pakistan is affected by the historic regional moonsoons also.

But what would I know ... I only use logic ... and am yet to be taken in by the arguments that started out as man-nade global warming and have morphed into change and now disruption ... as events, that don't support the arguments of man-made warming/change/disruption, seem to dictate.

I had a great giggle at this conclusion in your website Geoff.

'If, finally, you still think these assessments are exaggerated, then you could reflect that the very different world of the ice ages was only 5°C colder than at present, and the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approaching what it was several million years ago when there was much less polar ice and sea level was 10-20 m higher than at present. The scientists’ warnings are all-too plausible in the larger context of geological history.'

Tell me, as it really begs a couple of logical questions ... all those 'several million years ago 'was man-made global warming the cause of the 'much less polar ice and (when)sea level was 10-20 m higher than at present' ? Or was it an entirely naturally occurring event? And how then, if not man-made, did it evolve subsequently into an ice age and other extreme climates?

Ah Keith, you have hit the nail on the head. The climate changers make too much of their models and diagnosis'. They way over egg the case that global warming is the cause of every natural disaster in the world. Much the same as the anti-populationists refuse to look at any other factors except population. They do incredible damage to their cause.