Grey is a global warming sceptic, who just wants to promote his anti-science blog. Essentially, the blog describes scientists as dishonest fraudsters.

The role of a climate sceptics seems to be to create nonsense, invent facts or twist information. It takes a little bit of research to find out the truth and find out that, yes, indeed, it is nonsense. That has been the pattern for every global warming sceptic who has posted onto this forum. People like Grey will hyperlink to blogs which occasionally trick people by clever-wordplay. They'll never link to any reliable material. Ultimately, they just waste people’s valuable time. When all this fails (it always has) rather than admit the deception, they'll attack scientists or the scientific community in a ridiculous fashion.

My advice to davsab and others is to completely ignore a blog which does nothing but slander honest people and deceive the public. If Grey wants to say something here, he's got 350 words to make his point like everyone else, within the forum rules which prohibit defamation and hate-speak.

Mary Leyser has identified issues in her original thread that is worth thinking about.

I’m new to forums such as this and I am beginning to understand that a few people that venture into them on the subject of Global Warming don’t really understand the science behind it, but are quite willing to ridicule the vast majority of experts that do.

MichaelK
You have not been specific in your 1st question.

However, I will assume (rightly or wrongly) you are referring to a 5th April post in Grey’s blog-site titled “Global Warming is Real”;

http://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10999245&postID=7820165900633275745

The post is obviously written by a scientist (that has expertise in the subject of global warming) and is trying to inform a layperson (Grey) of the science behind so called human induced climate change. It makes sense to me, have you really read it? Or is it too long to explain a difficult scientific concept to a layperson?

It seems scientists are accused of confounding people with science (another language for some) and then confounding them again when they try and explain complex science in simple English (albeit long-winded) – a no win situation if you ask me.

Methinks the scientist who posted to Grey was really peed off with Grey’s assertions (“It is quite reasonable for the general public to ask how we know this – however, it is very disingenuous for certain individuals to answer their questions or espouse on topics that one is not expert in – it is too important an issue”).

Your 2nd question: Of course climate changes have occurred in the past. What is different about this current one is that it is human (societal) induced – read the referenced post again.
Evidence testifies to anthropogenic global warming.

David Latimer

Point taken.
However, GW sceptics can not be ignored – they must be confronted with the truth as Mary Leyser suggests – they might even learn something. I can understand why scientists don’t really want to get involved with forums like this (regardless of the 350 word limit) – they have a life.

I will leave Grey to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Straining at gnats? such as stereotyping me, as "a greenie from way back" - a description based on my own comment and near-total ignorance of anything else about me.

Swallowing camels? Such as citing, as valid evidence for his argument, an 8 year old petition intended to sway US parliamentarians' response to The Kyoto Protocol

See the Wikipedia article on The Oregon Petition for more details, beyond:

"The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001, shortly before the United States was expected to ratify the protocol. Professor Frederick Seitz, the past President of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Professor (Emeritus) Seitz, a far bigger gnat than I (some might suggest a blowfly), has also taken a bit of stick for his views.
I wonder if Grey has Googled Seitz?

Meanwhile, remember that the article to which we are responding invited us to "join the Eco-Res Forum", a global discussion on responses to global warming.
(see again http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5712)

Perhaps Grey would be able to contribute usefully to that discussion.

An afterthought. I think this item below reflects poorly on Professor Seitz. You be the judge.

I wonder why anyone would bother citing Seitz's 9 year old petition as authoritative evidence in a current argument against global warming.

Science 24 April 1998:
Vol. 280. no. 5363, p. 509
DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5363.509b
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

ScienceScope

"The governing council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) this week took the unusual step of disassociating itself from a recent mass mailing urging scientists to lobby against the Kyoto treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

"The mailing, which had a cover letter from former NAS President Frederick Seitz, included an eight-page attack on climate change research offered in a format that many scientists have mistaken for a reprint from the academy's journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Science, 10 April, p. 195).

"NAS President Bruce Alberts says that congressional panels involved in R&D issues also have asked if the academy is involved in the petition drive, which has collected more than 15,000 signatures.

- "It's important that Congress and the Administration not be confused about where we stand," says Alberts. "We're not taking a stand on the treaty, but we want everybody to know that we're not connected to the petition, that it would not have passed our peer-review system, and that in fact it takes a position that is the reverse of what the academy has said on the topic."

"As an example of such efforts, the council's statement cites a 1992 academy report that concluded "greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses." The date of that reference led one council member, mathematician Edward David, to abstain from voting on the resolution. "A lot has changed in 6 years, and I think our position should be based on the latest data," he says. A new academy report on the status of global climate change research is due out later this spring."

David Latimer, thank you for URL-a blog provides a factual data grounding my already strong convictions having initiated a question “No climate changes occurred in the past? All these evidences [on so-called “human-triggered climate change”] testify to a natural planetary process only.”

As in similar topics you were acquainted with my to the date expressed vision of a problem, in this discussion I would like for less fortunate (that is participants who had joint deliberating an issue just recently) to point at a usual mishmash created probably intentionally worldwide by mixing a natural process, which is the aging of the Earth, with a component human activities surely add while not INITIATING the naturally occurring alterations.

For those who not believe in Climate Change go and listen to the song 'In the Year 2525'. The artist for saw the coming of IVF, using the phrase 'Born at the bottom of a Long Black Tube'. Mind you it has help many couples. We had the Ice Age which occured over time. Gobal Warming maybe just a natural occurence like the Ice Age, but modern man has accelerated the process. Unless we reduce the pace and learn to live with it, we too may go the way of the Dinosaurs. A PLANET WITH NO LIFE. Alarmist, have a look at the world weather patterns over the last five years and tell me we should do nothing and hope there will be a place for our children's children's children to live. With a rising ocean that will claim all the land.