No amount of direct observations and measurements will convince those whose objection to science is ideological, rather than a reality check, direct evidence and calculations. With climate one does not even need to look at the science, just travel around the world, look at the devasation inflicted by melting mountain glaciers, droughts, depletion of water resources, intensifying hurricanes and fires. Ask the local farmers about changes in the climate and environment over the last 20-30 years. Parallels include earlier debates regarding ozone depletion, or the link between tobacco smoking and cancer, i.e. wherever such issues affect vested interests. Those who deny realities will avoid debating the science, instead focussing on ad-hominem attacks on environmentalists and scientists, even criticism of the scientific method itself. An echo of medieval times?

Andy1 "Ask the local farmers about changes in the climate and environment over the last 20-30 years." oh yes, and then ask them about 100 years ago etc .. oh, of course, they weren't around, how convenient.

You are a really tricky person with your posts aren't you - much like the CRU crew.

The climate changes, yes, we know - the question is the contribution by man, you are trying to make it out that climate change is caused by man with no evidence other than authority that it is so.

"No amount of direct observations and measurements will convince those whose objection to science is ideological, rather than a reality check, direct evidence and calculations." rubbish, let's get the raw data from CRU, if this were true, why have they fought so hard to keep data private - Steven McIntyre has been requesting raw data for years and gets excuses and no data .. again, tricky manipulation Andrew.

I am ashamed of you being an Australian scientist, you are a disgrace.