Now this is a hilarious turn around. After all that ranting against science not being a consensus, and all my arguing that scientists were fiercely independent and competitive and trying to out-do each other and disprove each other, and yet still we have 928 reports over 20 years all confirming Global Warming:-
1/ Alzo says he will believe it in a second if he sees any evidence. (I submit the 928 reports, starting with the IPCC. Your second is up.)

2/ Alzo appeals to the lowest common denominator — public opinion. There’s no consensus in the PUBLIC, therefore there’s no climate risks in reality.

“If global temperatures start to rise and continue for the next 20-30 years then that may be enough.”
The last 50 not good enough for you?

Finally, Alzo repeats the lie…
“If temperatures continue to stay in stasis as they have since 2000 or even start to decline then I can't see much change occurring.”
Liar liar pants on fire. You’ve already been caught out, I don’t know why you bother. When you're in a hole Alzo, the solution to getting out is to stop digging.

The reality is that various ecosystems are already struggling to move towards the poles, food chains are being disrupted, other species are retreating up mountains to cooler climates, and Alzo wants to see more evidence?

Ok Alzo, you are a denier - that is your choice.

I came across a site that attracts some serious discussion (debate if you want) and was very impressed by this particular post ,

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/the_denial_industry.php#comment-528273

Seriously, I would really like to know what people think of Jeff’s posts.

It's worth reading because it addresses some of the issues raised here.

Alzo, “nobody is interested in Guy Pearse’s book”, please tell us why.

Ok, a bit of fun,
Rev Hansen or Rev Carter, two sides of the same coin.

Pope Bozo (Big G) is the omnipresent science expert that wants evidence? Evidence of what in particular? How much evidence? How do you want the evidence measured? Who do you want the evidence to come from? What confidence levels? Who be da judge?

Cheers,
Elizabeth

PS
Keiran, as far as Pearse and his book about “climate change” in Australia (which people seem to want to put their head in the sand about), it is impossible to argue against a proposition unless you have read the proposition. This is fundamental in any research and is important if you want to have a valid opinion. So, I am perplexed by your response.

Sorry Keiran, you lost me on this “electric sun” stuff – I tried. But I am with you on sustainability, we only have one planet.

The denial industry is alive and well as we yet again see more evidence. Wolfowitz 'tried to censor World Bank on climate change' – why shouldn’t we be surprised?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2861732.ece

“The Bush administration has consistently thwarted efforts by the World Bank to include global warming in its calculations when considering whether to approve major investments in industry and infrastructure, according to documents made public through a watchdog yesterday.

On one occasion, the White House's pointman at the bank, the now disgraced Paul Wolfowitz, personally intervened to remove the words "climate change" from the title of a bank progress report and ordered changes to the text of the report to shift the focus away from global warming.

But the issue predates Mr Wolfowitz's appointment as president of the bank in June 2005. According to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), which has tracked efforts to censor debate on global warming, environmental specialists at the World Bank tried unsuccessfully to press for consideration of greenhouse- gas emissions in a paper written - but never published - in 2002.

It was politics that prevented the publication of that paper, according to one senior bank insider who spoke to the Los Angeles Times, and politics that has been the principal obstacle to progress since.

Only now, with the Bush (and Howard) administration on the ropes politically and the scientific evidence for global warming reaching such critical mass that even President George Bush (and Prime Minister John Howard) has been forced to acknowledge its reality …”

It seems Bozo is not the only one suffering from paranoia.

"On December 3, 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes from the University of California analysed 928 scientific papers that dealt with climate change"
"928 papers by the experts in this field "
"There have been 928 reports over 20 years, all agreeing with the basic premise."
"928 studies by climatologists and climatological organizations"
"928 studies over 20 years."
"928 studies over 20 years"
"when 928 studies over 20 years have confirmed the obvious"
"and yet still we have 928 reports over 20 years all confirming Global Warming"
Wooo! This guy is setting some sort of broken record here.
Please stop saying the same thing over and over, repetition (or mantras if you prefer) do not make something so.
The Oreskes study has been well and truly discredited and she admits it herself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

"A flaw in the essay was, as Oreskes later conceded, that the keywords searched weren’t “climate change”, but “global climate change”. The search was also restricted to certain sections of the database that were not listed in the essay."

"The last 50 not good enough for you?"
No they're not, as it is ambiguous what is causing the warming.

"Liar liar pants on fire."
It is hard to debate with children.

"The reality is that various ecosystems are already struggling to move towards the poles, food chains are being disrupted, other species are retreating up mountains to cooler climates, and Alzo wants to see more evidence?"
How about some papers saying this instead of your hearsay.

Alzo, your pants are on fire AGAIN! (The best strategy for this is to roll over and over on the ground, and not fan them into flames by posting here again).

Other than some quibbling over her search parameters, the article you refer to clearly also shows that the critics of her study quote NON-PEER REVIEWED WORK by Big oil (propaganda pieces) and that later the chief critic withdrew his claims!

"Regardless, many critical readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on Anthopogenic Climate Change. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms. [3]"

Sorry dude, 928 papers over 20 years remains.

"A University of Texas press release says Parmesan and Yohe conducted an extensive global statistical analysis, examining the behaviors of a wide range of plant and animal species in North America and Europe. In studying data accumulated over several decades, they found that species such as birds, butterflies and alpine herbs had shifted their habitats northward an average of 6 kilometers per decade, or to higher altitudes of 6 meters per decade.

Other species have adjusted behaviors, in an apparent response to warmer temperatures. Migratory birds, amphibians and other animals are breeding earlier in the spring, and plants are blooming earlier, according to the Parmesan-Yohe study. In all, the researchers say that
global warming has accounted for a shift to an earlier spring for 677 species studied. "

PDF at...
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/global_warming030101.pdf

"Sorry dude, 928 papers over 20 years remains."
I think you'll find there is a lot more than that. Don't be sorry, its not your fault.

"In all, the researchers say that
global warming has accounted for a shift to an earlier spring for 677 species studied."
A natural warming would produce this too...