say you were about to cross a busy street and 100 people were watching, and 99 of them shouted, "look out, there's a bus coming!" and the other one shouted, "nah, that's no bus, that's just a hound!"

I wonder if you would step out?

as for these proofs you are pretending to ask for, they are everywhere, on the subject of "is it really still warming or not?" there have been some good scientific articles quoted recently at Real Climate ( http://www.realclimate.org/ ) and these are articles from scientists not directly associated with Real Climate, I know that won't satisfy your paranoid delusion but it is the most I am prepared to do, and that only because I had the link handy

reminds me of the Stones years ago singing, "would it satisfy ya, would it slide on by ya ..."

the punch line (just in case for some fundamental or constitutional reason you did not get it) is, "yeah, it was just a hound, a Greyhound."

just in case anyone is interested in what a real statesman has to say about it, here's Lula da Silva from Brazil:
each of these is about 9 minutes and has subtitles in english:
part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQzVjDp5WA8
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGx8Ku08L_c

of course he never graduated from high-school so I guess he doesn't qualify as a scientist :-)

and if the Stones reference happened to go over your head (like I said for fundamental or constitutional reasons), here they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJkBKrd-Gs

be well.

David Wilson - so you're advocating gambling, so if something remotely looks like happening we should address it?

This is the precautionary principle yes? I don't agree with it as it is just all too convenient and dismisses real science for religious group think, lot's of people agree with this, so it must be true?

Even if CO2 is not directly linked to climate change, you surmise based on flimsy evidence it must be so? (can you link to any site that has a proven link from CO2 to temperature change? Not just hysterical AGW believer sites, the believosphere, I mean, real science?)

Then let's bomb the crap out if Iran now because it sure looks like they are going to develop a Nuclear weapon and they have already stated Israel should not exist - so let's stop what is 90% certain will happen, they will bomb Israel with a nuke the moment they get one.

Or does your theory only subscribe to AGW and your cherry picked situations?

Come, join me in insisting in the free world bombing Iran .. now!

Because we need to give the benefit of the doubt to Israel don't we or else we'd look stupid insisting the benefit of the doubt be given to AGW, yes?

David Wilson, your analogy is invalid because you imply that 99% support the science (bus vs. no bus). Naughty, naughty, assumption close methinks.

Firstly, there is only ONE international franchise for AGW that is the IPCC.

Secondly there are thousands of Universities, researchers and scientists round the world producing research and opinions. For every one of these that supports AGW, there is another that refutes it. Just adding up the petitions and the two recent open letters to the UN, there would appear to be in excess of 30,000 scientific voices of dissent.

Of all these multitudes of scientists who produce research and opinion, only those selected by the IPCC have their voices heard. If it isn’t good enough for the IPCC, we can howl as much as we like but we have to accept that they are just unofficial opinions.

So, IMHO, we have to let the vast “pro” and “anti” lobbies cancel each other out and focus on the remaining and only authorized International scientific body, the IPCC.

Quite how the current investigations into the IPCC, Hadley, CRU, EAU, Pen State and UK Met. Office will pan out, we don’t know. Given that they are investigating themselves poses some interesting challenges, particularly if the US Senate Hearings come up with differing conclusions?

Enjoy your Christmas Pud.

my mistake folks, I found this quite interesting article here and thought ... hmmm, maybe there will be some interesting chitter chatter, but the joke's on me, and happily, I like jokes

maybe y'all should just cut to the chase and take on that very biggest and most baddest of all conspiracies - cause & effect?

I'll leave you to it, Merry Christmas, be well.

I think David is advocating the Penny Wong type spin, lets have an ETS as a risk management tool. If the data looks even a little like CO2 is messing with the world, lets tax every one so that it doesn't happen. Does anyone really believe a tax is good risk management or will do any good at all even if we do believe there is global warming? I don't and I will be buggered if I want to see the likes of Al Gore or Tim Flannery getting rich on this spin.