[Joe_October]

Uh, would 17,000 scientists who disagree be enough for you Larry?

Try http://www.oism.org/pproject/.

I know this won't convince you but for people who have not made up their mind yet, here are real people who disagree with politicians and others who feel guilty about something that has nothing to do with science.

[liberallarry]

"Uh, would 17,000 scientists who disagree be enough for you Larry? Try http://www.oism.org/pproject/."

I was unaware of this petition. It may take me awhile to look into it. I'll reply when I am satisfied that I understand it.

[liberallarry]

I've not had a chance to fully digest the info - especially the petition itself. I may be wrong about the number of well-qualified scientists who disagree with the IPCC. But the reality and legitimacy of both sides of the argument is unquestionable.

Carefully read the supporting article in the Economist. You'll see there are a lot of assumptions made. Will there be enough land to support 11 billion people? How firm is that estimate? What will be the effect on biodivirsity of such a large population? Forest cover is said to have decreased radically in one part of the article but not decreased in another part. Long-term data are used in one part and short-term in another part, depending on what sort supports the argument the authors are making. Greenhouse gases are a problem. The extent of it and its best solution are disputed. And so. And that's just my impression, as a non-specialist, on first reading.

[Clinton's a liar]

Outstanding. Thank you for the url. Let me link it for you:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[liberallarry]

http://www.epi.freedom.org/outlineglobal.htm

In this article Dr. Seitz is cited as saying the IPCC altered it's report to, falsely, indicate a consensus of opinion. I remember reading somewhere that the IPCC denied this charge and cited evidence to the contrary..

Take a look at this month's Scientific American. They review the work of another distinguished Global Warming opponent - rather unfavorably.

I don't know who's correct. I just cite these as examples of why it's so difficult for non-specialists to make sense of it all.