Sir Vivor, steel and others. I posted links documenting thousands of scientists in appropriate fields who disagree with the hypothesis of anthropomorphic global warming. Your hand-waving and ignorance of this is startling.

If we are to "trust thousands of scientists and researchers around the world", why not trust those who disagree?

I find it incredibly amusing that Steel derides politicians and media as spinners and liars, and so untrustworthy, and yet davsab appeals to the acceptance of politicians by signing kyoto as support for the thesis.

Sir Vivor, a greenie from wayback according to his comments, has made his mind up already and the thousands of scientists and large amounts of evidence that disagree with his close-mindedness is obviously ignored in pursuit of envirowingnut goals which have tried to use climate change as a fearmongering pr gag for the last 150 years.

All the appeals by people to scientists who don't simply 'make stuff up' (even though it has been proven that many do http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/06/science-frauds-and-falsehoods.html
http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/08/science-50-percent-of-papers-are-wrong.html)
are irrelevant when you look at the vast scientific opposition to man centric global warming. I don't need an alternative theory to point this out.

To me, it is utterly clear that adaptation to challenging conditions rather than changing a natural way things are going is the most.

Therefore, socio-political change rather then willingness to dramatically decrease consumptions might be a right step in a right direction.

Grey, I can't see why you are so hostile to the concept of environmentalism. You call environmentalists wingnuts while ignoring that the most hostile political party toward the environment has suggested the authoritarian, anti-market solution of eliminating all incandescent light bulbs in Australia and promoting the non-destruction of forests overseas. Why aren't you livid at the suggestions? The amount of rage and scorn that would have come forth if it was the Green Party to suggest such measures and proposals, the media frenzy and the allegations of communism/anti-capitalism (baseless, but that doesn't stop the bigots) would be immense. But when the Liberal Party says something like that? Not much furore. Maybe some day you will come to realise the environment is truly priceless. Most Australians are being forced by their own ignorance to face up to this fact, when they could have opted to vote for sustainability and foresight a decade or two ago.

I have just looked at Grey's blogspot, in particular his blog on "is global warming real". What is interesting, there is one post there that tries (and I think succeeds, although it can be hard reading due in large part to the way Grey styled his blog site) to explain some of the science of global warming to Grey - it appears he did not have the decency to respond to the post, he will probably even delete it now.

Sure there are some scientists that argue the toss about why or how, but they ALL agree the planet is warming. It is just that most of the deniers just happen to be funded by vested interest groups for the the anti-global warming lobby - you know, oil and intensive energy using companies, etc, or are grumpy old farts that have passed their use-by date.

Some climate change deniers even try to push their own bandwagon (too much to lose now? or, have their papers undergone such a review process as the IPCC?). I hope they're right and one day they might get a Nobel, but the overwhelming science tells us otherwise.

The 2 IPCC reports published recently are summary reports for policy makers (there is another one due out May 4 on mitigation of climate change), the full scientific reports for each SPM cover about 1600 pages each. The science is there, has been extensively researched and comprehensively reviewed by peers.

It seems all governments (of all political pursuasions) are now taking climate change seriously - what planet is Grey living on? What is wrong with just doing the right thing by nature, for us and our neighbour for once.

I for one would rather fight the war on climate change than fight the war in Iraq on weapons of mass destruction - a war that has cost billions and billions and billions of $US - dollars that could have been spent on much better things.

BTW, just because a scientist is a geologist, it does necessarily mean they no anything about climatology, oceanography or biogeochemistry, etc.

Following on from Grey's comments I came accross 2 sites well worth a look - putting climate change into perspective.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2053520,00.html

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/05/weeks-knobloch/index.html

In summary:

"Global warming scientists are under intense pressure to water down findings, and are then accused of silencing their critics ...

... If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed ...

... The Union of Concerned Scientists (including 48 Nobel Laureates)... reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.

... the White House gutted the climate-change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that suggested that temperatures are not rising.

... Last year Nasa's top climate scientist, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by Nasa's PR officials that there would be 'dire consequences' if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases.

... Last month, US scientists were told that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand 'the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues'.

... At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago ... a former White House aide who had previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration. Though not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming."

If Global Warming was not such a serious issue, one could laugh at the rantings and ravings of people such as Grey, or any of his other misguided diatribes.

So, what is all this plain English softly novel-style long writings about?

No climate changes occurred in the past? All these evidences testify to a natural planetary process only.