[licker]

Why so hostile Edi?

It's true that a large portion of that link deals with strawman arguments. And while even if he is correct it doesn't shed much light on where the real debate lies.

He also seems to have some kind of fascination with Crichton and Boortz, and last I checked, no one was taking them seriously (RIP to Crichton anyway...).

The case for AGW rests on proving the link between CO2 and rising temperatures. This I think, everyone here agrees on. So far this link has been found wanting in the data, and no matter how much it seems that the link should be undeniable, the facts do not actually support it (historically as well as currently).

It could be correct, and it's certainly an hypothesis worth continuing to investigate. Further, it's also worth spending time and resources to mitigate and adapt to climate changes no matter the driver. It's also a good idea to continue to investigate and develop alternate energy sources (and clean or green can have a priority).

However, all of that is completely beside the point of what the evidence actually shows, AS FAR AS A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE IS CONCERNED.

Sorry to shout, but that's the fact, and I don't want it to get lost in the silly name calling or strawman rhetoric some people have been throwing around in this thread.

Everyone seems to admit that global climate is a hideously complex beast and there is not an abundance of historical data to use (in terms of the kind of data we have started to collect over the past decade or so). My contention has never been against the fact that there has been warming, or that we should be looking at ways to mitigate the damages caused by climate change (since clearly climate change is inevitable anyway, no matter the perceived causes). My contention has been with the seeming willingness of many people, scientists with whom I work included, to jump off this cliff without the normal scrutiny applied.

Look at cold fusion, look at the anthrax scare, look at various epidemics from history, look at WMDs in Iraq. When the scientific method (or just raw data) is misapplied (or taken out of context by governments) the results are usually an embarrassment to all involved.