Froggie: "There is plenty of evidence running counter to the assumptions of the IPCC. You will find it easily enough if you are willing to open your mind."

We call statements like this "weasel words" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
"Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available."

There is not plenty of evidence at all. If there is, point to it in recent climate science journals. But no, of course you won't, because you reject peer-reviewed mainstream science - how convenient. Too scared of what's written there no doubt.

There is certainly plenty of propaganda put about by fossil fuel companies and their pathetic minions, but the climate science journals put paid to that. You keep quoting the same old handful of scientists (not climate scientists. many retired, almost every one linked to the fossil fuel industry) over and over again in this charade that you put on for the readers. Yet you fail to mention the thousands of active, qualified *climate scientists* who are against you.

You point to this articles but even there you can see today's temperature sky-rocketing on an unprecedented rate:

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

far faster than any natural process seen so far.

Froggie: "Sams, you are not a climate scientist, and neither am I."

But I am a physics PhD, so that helps me follow the real research, not the old wives tales bandied about by dishonest people and the ignorant fools that follow them. The fact that you reject peer-reviewed mainstream science, and yet point to scientific research to try to back up your weak arguments speaks volumes. Trying to reject discount mainstream science is the same tactic used by the Flat Earth Society, the pokies companies, and the tobacco industries.

Ah, the "appeal to authority" I'm a physics PhD, so I can know the truth. Having looked at all your posts, I can see where you are coming from.

Why don't you comment about the articles regarding the climate in China? It doesn't assist your argument, does it?

Peer review = Peer pressure. Peer review is not the silver bullet you imagine it to be.

Just ignore all the scientists who disagree with the theory, call them fossil fuel company shills, retired or whatever, and denigrate, denigrate, denigrate.

However, there is no need for you to become so desperate. Your beloved IPCC has managed to impose its political views on governments all around the world, so you will probably get what you want. A world where the governments take even more power to tax and order people's lives. All based on climate change, which has been going on for millions of years.

Froggie: "Peer review = Peer pressure"

Do you propose that scientific articles should not come under scrutiny by other scientists in the same field who are best equipped to understand them. That would be an absurd state of affairs.

Froggie: "Why don't you comment about the articles regarding the climate in China? It doesn't assist your argument, does it? "

Because you only presented one specifically about China, and its a book that I don't have access to. In any case, I'm certainly not going to go off and read a entire book on some crackpot's say so. Why don't we instead discuss something we can all access, such as the documented effects of climate change in China and the action they are taking:

http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File199.pdf

"Due to global climate change, the climate in China has experienced significant changes in recent years. During 1986-2006, China experienced 21 warm winters nationwide in succession. Consequently there was a marked increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather/climate events and associated disasters all causing increased losses, such as shortage of water resources and a sharp imbalance between regions, a deterioration in ecology and environment, a tremendous loss in agricultural production, a heavier pressure on food security, a rising sea level, and a threat to coastal economic and social development"

"Major advances have been made in developing efficient coal-burning power generation technology, heat-power co-generation technology, clean coal power generation technology, utilization technology of oil field torch gas, and etc. Energy efficient and saving technologies have been widely used in building materials, steel, chemicals, construction, transportation (electric vehicles), mining and other sectors. Research and development of renewable and new energies like wind power, bio-energy, solar energy, hydro power, thermal power and fuel cells have been witnessed substantial progress."

Another couple of scientists who don't agree with the AGW alarmism:

Emeritus Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Center http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu

Well yes he is retired, but does that prevent him having an opinion, given his qualifications?

Then there's John Christy:

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

The endorsers of human-caused climate change, including the overarching science academies of the G8+5 nations:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA, CSIRO, InterAcademy Council (IAC), the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States, National Research Council (US), European Science Foundation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, World Meteorological Organization, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, International Union for Quaternary Research, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), American Statistical Association, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, American Association of State Climatologists, Network of African Science Academies

I do not have builtin belief either way about global warming.
However there does seem to me to be a question over what proportion
of global warming is caused by human activity ?

If human activity is such a large influence then why has it not been
able to overpower the slight decrease in global temperature that has
been experienced in recent years and so force significant
temperature rise ?

If we cannot answer these simple questions then it seems rather
reckless to be imposing economic penalties on ourselves.