Faustino,

That expresses what I was trying to say, so very much better. I agree with you 100%.

logic, it appears that you are suggesting that only those who have impeccable scientific credentials (whatever they might be) are empowered to contribute to this discussion, a view that is both arrogant and misguided.

One of the tasks of the scientific community is to translate their findings so that we ignoranti can understand their implications and - if the opportunity presents itself - to place a vote consistent with that understanding.

It helps us to do so if i) there is some form of consensus among those scientists and ii) we can detect no personal agenda that might introduce a bias to their findings.

Unfortunately, neither of these conditions has yet been fulfilled in the realm of climate change.

>>The number of scientific papers on this subject are sufficient to make us worry<<

Nonsense. That is akin to measuring the success of the US in Iraq by measuring the number of leaflets it has distributed, or the number of speeches George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard have made on the topic.

What is needed here is clarity of thought and honesty in presentation. Unfortunately, with the intrusion of money from vested interests on both sides, we are unlikely to witness either of these within our lifetimes.

In the meantime we can - and should - be able to comment on the apparent quality and credibility of the evidence that is presented to us.

"All of the IPCC's scenarios are based on statistical and economic modelling which has been shown to be seriously flawed by acknowledged leaders in those fields".
Now that opens opportunity for discussion on the differences existing between those "acknowledged" and those others who do not agree with them. It would provide an interesting break from the desperate efforts being made to lever apart the hairline cracks of imperfection within the solid greenhouse data.
I would rather put my faith in the models provided by the well-qualified scientists and economists Al Gore founds his campaign upon, than in the rarefied elements hovering around them and shouting loudly against the message found to be so inconvenient.
If most of economics is about understanding how the world works, then I wish the economics community would get those recalcitrant members of its ranks up to speed on that. For starters, it could get them to accept the reality that the world is finite; and consequently unlimited growth in consumption of the planet's resources is pie in the sky; that "just" 2.5% annual growth of GDP means a doubling during each human generation.
Instead of heading towards a 13th generation rejoicing(?) under 200,000 times our current GDP (assuming 2.5% annual growth), or even our grandkids' generation pleased(?) with 16 times our GDP, couldn't we change direction towards the reality of the planet? Maybe head towards a steady state of no growth in consumption; and a situation in which a Genuine Progress Indicatior takes precedence over the current one ruled by growth of GDP?
Yes, be skeptical - but, most of all, be skeptical of the uninhibited professional skeptic.

Colinsett

Now that is a laugh. Gores story is just that, a comprehensive fiction designed to further his political ends. You will notice that he avoids debating the issues with anyone other than his fawing followers.

This fraud cant even get the facts surrounding Kilimanjaro right, thats how bad it is, and there is about 50 more just like that.

I am not saying suggesting that only those who have impeccable scientific credentials are empowered to contribute to this discussion. I am saying that only those who have the relevent knowledge and experience are able to contribulte useful data. Would any of you like to have a non medical team take part in your operation?

And regarding statistical methods they may be the same for science and economics but the impirical input and measurement is vastly different.

Judging by the comments it suggests to me that the global warming doubters on this site are comming mainly from economists rather than scientists. And that could be a problem.

Well, logic, that's a relief.

>>I am not saying suggesting that only those who have impeccable scientific credentials are empowered to contribute to this discussion.<<

That leaves the way open to us laymen to observe and comment upon the quality of evidence placed before us.

One of the elements in making this assessment is, as always, the pecuniary, reputational and political interests of the scientist in question.

One significant aspect, to me at any rate, is the massive amounts of money involved:

"A World Bank study ... found that, in the absence of any regulatory framework, the dollar volume of over-the-counter [carbon trading] transactions has already surpassed $100 million. Furthermore, The Economist magazine projects an annual volume of trading ranging from $60 billion to $1 trillion"

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/environment/

With this pot of gold at issue, is it not highly probable that a small percentage of this is devoted to "encouraging" the opinions of an array of scientists in the desired direction?

And in the other corner, we have another few billions at risk in carbon-dependent industries such as oil. Would they too not divert a couple of bucks to the scientists of their choice, to ensure their particular views were aired?

As I said earlier, when and if there emerges a consensus that does not depend upon tainted money, reputational enhancement or blind ideology, I will - and most non-scientists will - find it a lot easier to reach informed conclusions, and vote accordingly.

But in this world where spin is regarded as a prerequisite to any public pronouncement, I'm not holding my breath.