I have read most of the latest IPCC report, but this blog is not the place that level of scholarly discussion. I can add a few more thoughts:

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, has admitted that no warming has occurred so far in the 21st Century.

The original IPCC report makes no concrete claims that man has caused global warming. However, the later “interpretations” by UN bureaucrats and media members have made those conclusions.

Problems with the science contained in the IPCC report are numerous:

From 1996 when the most catastrophic predictions were made: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

Wegman debunks the “hockey stick” http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2008/03/14/80438.html

No observable evidence that CO2 is driving climate change: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/04/19/ipcc-challenged-to-recant-global-warming-position/

Accused of destroying and falsifying evidence:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

Scientific level papers – not filtered by the mainstream media: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/research.cfm?TopId=564

“The Times recalled that in a recent National Center for Policy Analysis study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Green and Armstrong found that the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions.” http://www.madeinusanews.com/content/view/399/113/

You can trust the UN all you want, but their track record is pretty weak. Oil for food, sex traffic rings, coddling of terrorists, standing by during ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and more.

Further, for the prediction to be correct for 2000-2008, ALL the remaining months would have to be as cold as January 2008, by far the coldest month in this decade so far.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/

You seem to be quite skeptical of climate predictions based on the difficulty of meteorologists to predict weather. Are you not aware that these are very different fields with very different models?

You ask us to check the credentials of scientists… why not read the original sources rather than just picking those who are most public? Isn’t a peer-reviewed paper with a reproducible model much more authoritative than unverifiable position claims? How have you come to the conclusion that the dozens of models considered in the IPCC reports were wrong — do you just ignore the data and reject the conclusion based solely on the fact that you distrust anything remotely related to the UN?

Global Warming took place between 1918 and 1940, cooling took place for the next 25 years, warming begain agin in 1965 and ended in 1998. We have now been in a period of cooling for the last 10 years. Does that strike you as odd? The expansion of industry and resource usage continued during that entire period. Read the whole article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Virtually all of the predictions that have come from the IPCC and other global warming advocates have been wrong:
http://www.aib.subdivisions.co.uk/?p=1074

It is not my intent to be contrarian for contrarian’s sake. The majority has been wrong before and I am suspicious that it is wrong this time.

But we will have to wait and see.

The arguments you present as to why global warming is (a) real or (b) not caused by human activity are weak. I don’t think there are 400 scientists who went to the Senate. Also, a single professor from MIT, versus thousands of others? The way to bet here is with the crowd. After all, it’s not just a “crowd”–it’s a couple thousand climate scientists. They aren’t known for just making pronouncements based upon their “gut” or “intuition”–they use their intellects, as well as the scientific method.

It’s all reassuring to believe that we can keep going on like we have, “keep the economy strong and it’ll all be ok”–actually, it really won’t be ok when we hit the environmental wall.

1) re: “We cannot predict the weather, therefore it is ridiculous to believe we can predict the climate”–

no one has ever claimed that we can predict the weather. the broad scientific consensus is, we can make relatively accurate broad predictions about the average temperature of the surface of the planet. which, actually, is a stupendously astonishing achievement of humanity, to even be able to come up with an average temperature for the entire planet.

The greenhouse theory has been in existence for about 180 years now, and it has never been disproven. Putting the carbon dioxide that the earth has been sequestering for 10s of million s of years back in the atmosphere in 130 years or so of industrialization, and you will be definitely changing your climate.

The fact that the sun is the primary force behind the climate is not going to save your argument either. Actually, the sun is getting hotter on average in its lifetime (just not in the recent, say, 50 years) and will eventually supernova. In the meantime, we are busy pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to heat it up even more. This is not too smart in the long term, butit’s very convenient in the short term.

3) “the earth has been through heating/cooling cycles before. therefore it is natural and we don’t need to worry”

ummm-”natural” doesn’t mean “good for you.” There are lots of natural things that are bad for people. E.g, a heat wave can easily kill people. It happens every summer. Usually to the weak and the elderly. Hotter temperatures can kill more. Higher temperatures on average will likely wreak havoc on the entire food chain, particularly in the ocean. Also, all that CO2 gets absorbed into the ocean and acidifies the water. Again, bad for the food chain and bad for us. The ocean will eventually buffer this acid over, say, 10000 years. However, 10,000 years is too long for a human being to wait for a meal.

Jellyfish will do great under this regime, though. Yum.

2) common-sense or intuition are not the tools to be using. Global warming can only be comprehended with the analytical mind, not “common-sense” reasoning or analogical reasoning. One man cannot affect the climate. A couple billion can, equipped with internal combustion engines, oil and coal furnaces, and simple fireplaces, can, however. And do.

Sorry about the unpleasant truth.

Be Well

http://newportcity.blogspot.com/2007/12/dr-nils-axel-mrner-claims-ipcc.html

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=67

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

Furthermore, I have deep suspicion with anything having to do with the UN. Their credibility is less than Al Gore.

I know that I can’t change your mind on this issue, but I think that we will begin to see a shift in world opinion very soon. Too many global warming predictions have not come true and too many people are profiting from the hysteria.

So sure, anyone can find 400 scientists who say climate change is not happening…but you can also find over 2,000 who say it is.