You have got to be joking!

These are the gentlemen that fabricated The Oregon Petition, which I think you are also alluding to?

You’ll find the names of most of the Doctors from M*A*S*H on that bullsh*t petition.

Sorry cobber, you’ve been had.

See what Sourcewatch makes of your cyberspace outfit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

If you want data, then see
http://www.ipcc.ch/

As an introduction, see Pachauri’s statement in Montreal last week for an overview of what data exists, what it refers to and where the source data can be found.
http://www.ipcc.ch/press/sp-07122005.htm

Or if you are uncomfortable with the international science community then examine the work of the US Government at http://www.climatescience.gov/ or the Australian Government http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/accsp/index.html. Though be aware that US and Australian scientists were, and continue to be, major contributors to the IPCC and UNFCCC.

IPCC. You cant be serious. IPCC was caught fudging data back 1994 and has'nt changed.
Dr. Stephen Schneider. A prominent spokesman for your views .In the 70's he was advocating global cooling.He was quoted in Discover Magazine in 1989 "To capture the public imagination , we have to offer up some scary scenarios , make dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us to decide the right balance in being effective , and being honest'.
I have been an enviromentalist for over 60 years . In the 60's I opposed all new irrigation licenses on Lachlan River in NSW.
For a balanced view try.ICCF ; TCS ,CCNet , The Register , CO2 Science , TCS , Friends of Science ,*john-daly.com,I have a list of required reading if you wish.
macp

Angle,

Those are just more partisan websites, peddling politics, see who they are and who funds them.

Didn't you say you wanted data and not opinions?

e.g.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Tech_Central_Station

Instead of virtual political outfits with P.O. Box addresses, give us the name of a peer reviewed climatology journal that supports your claims or counters mine? Even better, give us the title of one recent paper.

I do require your list of reading. Please post it. I don't take anything any politician (our their proxy web sites) says without checking the facts.

Show us the science not just more rhetoric.

Hello Martin
I went to the calculator that you posted. If you had flown from Sydney to Montreal and return, you should have paid at least 29 pounds and 9 pence. Therefore you still owe 24 pounds and 9 pence.
Maybe you went by sailing boat most of the way.
All your postings prove is that no layman can believe a word of what anyone says about climate change. The IPCC especially, in view of what it fails to mention about the subject, cannot be believed.
All we can really say for sure is that the climate is changing. This is not news, it has been changing for the last four billion years or so.
The point I’m making is that it appears to me, as a layman, that the science is not completely settled, there is a lot of debate still going on, and yet you are expecting Governments (and in fact succeeding in scaring them) into making far reaching economic decisions based on your views.
It’s no good saying (or implying) that all opponents are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries.
Climatologists are in the pay of universities, research institutes or whomsoever employs them. As some critics say, the pressure is on all climate scientists to go along with the fashionable viewpoint, which guarantees funding to the research or other institutions involved.
The only thing I really agree with you on (in another article you wrote) is that we should have a sensible and honest debate about our energy future. However, the waters seem to be continually muddied by the fact that no-one can really agree on what needs to be done, and there seems to be many, on both sides of the debate, pushing their own interests, whether financial or ideological.

Hi Froggie,

See how much it is from New York. Maybe I live in New York. It’s minus 7 outside and I can see the chrysler building; pretty sure I do.

If you can’t believe the IPCC or the collective view of the international scientific community, then, I guess by your analogy, you’ll not avail yourself of the scientific benefits of modern medicine. Why should you? You don’t understand how every part of the body works, it isn't clear, and you apparently distrust international science.

If you trust someone to tell you what’s wrong with your heart, then you should trust someone to tell you what’s wrong with the climate. Same goes for treatment.

Heart surgeons are in the pay of someone too, but, their work has scientific integrity and they stand, in the eyes of their peers and community, on their record.

I can list the web sites of plenty of Pro climate change outfits. I don’t because we all know what they have to say. I point, instead, to scientists whose pure job it is to find out what’s going on. Sure, scientists can be bought, but if they depart from the truth they soon find themselves irrelevant. None wants that. Just ask all the doctors and scientists that testified that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, some were honestly mistaken but most were helping themselves.

A sensible and honest debate: that’d be great. Unfortunately there is political mileage in debasing simple truths and virtues. The only reason I have spent an hour of my life over the last few days on this forum is to defend what I reckon are just the simple truths.

There is legitimate debate to be had about what to do about climate change, and this is where political debate will be purely constructive.

Determining physical truths though I leave to scientists but we can’t fix things until we agree on what the problem is.

The Following for a balanced view of environental question.With particular note of bibliography's.A Moment on The Earth by Greg Easterbrook ; Playing God in Yellowstone by Alston Chase ; Climate History and The Modern World by HH Lamb ; The Great Maya Droughts by Richardson Gill ; State of Fear by Michael Crichton ; The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan ; Enviromental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray ;etc. The Webb site of "john-daly.com" 2735241 hits to present.All dodgy data and opinions analysed . Particular interest is Isle of Dead .

macp