Neohuman,

Have a read of the IPCC third assessment report on climate change.

Apart from the summaries (which are advocacy statments rather than scientific studies) the vast majority of the document is full of contradictions, caveats, guess work and assumptions.

In short, there is as much evidence from the scientists that global warming is happening as there is that it isn't.

statements such as there could be a link between X and Y in the report turn into Y causes X in the summaries.

Happy reading.

t.u.s.

Hmmmm on the one hand theusualsuspect, or on the other, eight of the world's most prestigious scientific institutions and the best climatologists in the world.

That's a hard one.

I know, much easier to dismiss rather than investigate something for yourself, hey Neo.

All I was trying to get you to do was actually read the document which is the Bible for the global warming experts - including the ones from the eight leading acadamies you talk about.

And there really is no such thing as a climatologist - just meteorologists, biologists, glaciologists, geologists, physicists, chemists etc - you can't go to university and do a course in climatology - it is a combination of a variety of sciences.

Not that it matters, if you are so quick to dismiss.

t.u.s

>Not that it matters, if you are so quick to dismiss.

T.U.S thers's a thread over at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/06/13/experts-and-interests/

on experts bias and leads into what can a lay person do to get the bottom line. It is problematic for lay people or even those with academic yet not qualified , nor informed about latest research or data, in a field to give judgments on complex subjects. So while it isn't perfect going with the mainstream experts is your best bet. Unless you can give solid evidence that some sort of bias is occurring.

Basically I don't have the time to go point to point with the evidence on GW or evolution and know how easy it is for the dishonest and biased to cherry pick, misrepresent and plain refuse to admit when they are wrong. Which is often the case when you talk with those like yourself on GW and creation science advocates who go against mainstream science.

Instead I look at quality science broadcasting and publications-since I've an interest in have done so for many years- to get an overview of what mainstream science is saying.

So when consistently the worlds sxcientists have been saying that humanity has been having a detrimental effect of the environment and now the leading scientific academies say there is no longer any doubt that GW is in fact the case, and the environmental and GW skeptics have consistently denied humans are having in impact on the global environment and continue to say that the evidence for GW is still doubtful; well that leads me to to conclusion that like the creation science adviocates you have a severe case of confirmation bias and it is a waste of time debating the facts with you.

When you and Jennifer can start honestly dealing with the evidence and those most quailified to do the reseach, instead of denying it because it doesn't fit your idealogical positions we can move onto debate about the solutions including the nuclear option.

Garra,
People like you will never make a difference because you could never be convinced to a differing point of view. Stay in your little cocoon – you’ll feel safer there. Thank God (not the Environment) for people like Jennifer who think outside the square. My family has had its livelihood stripped from us in the name of environmental science. Jennifer just happens to be one who wants to be sure that legislation which impacts in this way is driven by science and fact – not emotional ideology and politics. There aren’t enough Jennifers in this world. They are all intimidated by those who have embraced the green ideology and like to make others think they are red-necks if they have a differing point of view- or worse that they are somehow in a conspiracy with big business, the real bogey man. Remember – a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Keep up the good work Jennifer. Australia needs you. Garra will recognize you as a hero one day.

Evidence based approach to environmentalism sounds very reasonable on the surface. But whose 'evidence'? Powerful governments and corporations have too much tied up in money and power to commence the huge ideological shift required for a balanced approach to managing our environment.

The following link exemplifies the low levels that the 'powers-that-be' will sink to in an effort to maintain the status quo.

"A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?