Tom:

No, I already make up my mind. And I am allergic to bull, especially as steamy and juicy as on realclimate.

I strongly suspect that because of this:

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Jan/14/132464.html

we will have a chance to hear arguments from all sides, and pretty soon.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Watch this, then come back.

Actauly one of the things givernments have to do often is filter out eh bottom feeders and me too grantmongers and the devote ill see what I want types from what they look at.

Then they have to deal with something acedemiacs never do.. real people and reality.

Fact is trying to change a nation is like trying to drive the statue of liberty a 767 500000 decranged poodles and a fleet of hungarian mimes on rollersakes all over the rocky moutains in winter. Only real life is alot more annoying and no one lets you shuut the mimes.

andrey:
you are allergic for sure !
and that is why you are having the rash you are having

... the problem is that you can't scratch it anywhere else other than in public ...

Andrey,
The original warming graph did not include Alaska (only 48 contiguous states). They did imply that Alaska was warming outside of this trend. The IPCC data set is for all of North America, probably accounting for the incongruities you find.

I am not a climatologist but try to follow the general flow of the arguments. I would ask the sceptics a few questions:
1/ Is there any chance at all George Bush and John Howard would accept the science of human induced climate change unless the evidence is incontrovertible, given their investment in business as usual?
2/ Is there any way that the IPCC would make the strong statements it is now making unless the evidence was very strong, given the need for agreement between such a broad group of scientists and nations?
In the end if you can wilfully ignore the overwhelming evidence of an overheating world then no amount of evidence will convince you anyway.

For the die-off people. Attitudes and habits take time to change- but they are changing fast. I would not be surprised if climate action is led by the corporate world and civil society with most politicians dragging their feet behind. These are difficult times but they are exciting times.

I can't beleive anyone would dare to dispute that we are causing global climate change. I remember playing in the sun as a young child 20 years ago. The sun shined orange, and I could play for hours without a sun burn. Now the sun shines white,sun glasses are required and a sunburn is the result from 20 minutes in the afternoon sun. I work in the forest management industry. I spent a couple thousand hours in the forest last year, looking at the health of the forest. Our hardwood forests locally a showing major signs of poor health, and mortality is rampant. Our forests are growing on shallow sites (bedrock) and during the hot summers soils drying right to the bedrock. Three of the last several years I have seen large areas of saplings pull in all of there energy in July and August. It looks as though someone has gone through with a broadcast pesticide sprayer and killed the entire understory. I have seen 75 acres at a time completely dead on the highest hill tops, these forests of which may have been functional for thousands of years, and evidently for sure 180 (which it seems would have survived that hot summer in the 1880's). Smoke from Sudbury kill this forest, yes but I am assuming indirectly. I can't say what happened centuries ago, but in talks with seniors who were in the logging industry locally their whole lives, there is a great certaintly that something major is going on with our forests and our environment. One individual who has owned a private 100 acre lot since the early 1900's, said that he can remember cutting 2-5 trees across the entire woodlot that were showing signs of decline for whatever reason. He says now the entire forest is showing those signs (in the amount of 4-5000 trees)and it is happening at an alarming rate. As well I have additional talks with these old-timers about speckled trout populations. Tiniest of streams harboured this coldwater fish species. Now all but a few major streams, rivers, and lakes harbour this sensitive species. Snow loads in the spring disappear pre-maturily in these seniors eyes. Used to be that these old-timers would freeze winter roads mid December and use them until April. The last three years in a row I couldn't get a winter road frozen until the latest part of January, and the roads were unusable excepting 2005 after March 20-25. Coincidental? I doubt it.
We will de-evolutionise the plantet in few too many years at this rate, and the rate is increasing, and you'd have to be a fool to beleive otherwise. It shouldn't take a review of the IPCC to be convinced, a quick look around should do it. It is my hope that this is one of the hottest summers ever and a bunch of people perish from it. Hopefully it is those consumers who are not eating the food for thought we are right now, and folks using fossil fuels for recreation that perish (which will likely not be the case cause they'll be sitting in their running vehichles with the air conditioning on, or driving to the pool).
I've spent enough time assembling this exserpt, and must finish off my day. I'm trying to work my way out of the cage the rich hold us in, and build a solar house with a garden ect.. 1% of the world has 99% of the worlds money (I think bush is one of them), and I will be hostage no more to the throw away society that they hold so dear. Bill Gates should be donating to the environmental cause rather than AIDS. What good will the cure for AIDS be when the environment won't harbour these healthy people anymore?

Do what ever you can please, for my children and for the long term evolution of humanity. You know the whole meaning of life is to be sure to be around to see what will happen next. For gods sake

The foundation of Science is the dispute of theories with out that it is a Religion.

The Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the
difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties,
knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding
data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic
mechanisms.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years,
and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming
trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing
data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other,
more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield
smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively
small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling
evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of
a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The
hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing
a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is
credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by
formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly
disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be
decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity,
direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many
of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to
produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not
guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of
freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for
any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse
gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the
uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing
or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of
uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and
indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.