[BJEugene]

So you think 9 short years makes a study by 15,000 scientists irrelevant.

If it was a report issued today, based on the knowledge gathered since 1998, and if those 15,000 scientists were all, or even mostly, schooled in climatology - and that 1998 report says that of the 15,000 scientists, only two-thirds had advanced academic degrees - I suspect that the odds would favor a different view of global warning. In other words, more is known now about global warming than was known in 1998.

Until you're willing to post both sides of the story, and who's financing them, you're never going to be taken seriously.

Glad you mentioned financing. Did you happen to see this?

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study - The Guardian, Feb. 2, 2007:

Most of the glaciers in the world are actually growing, not receeding. Just heard it on Boortz. In the 1930's it was warmer than it is now. If we're causing global warming how is that possible. Also there's the medieval connundrum where for 100yrs during the middle ages the Earth was warmer than it is today. How is this possible if global warming is true? It's ironic that we're discussing his at the same time Boortz is.

The 1930s were warmer? Do you have a link to that data?

Climate Change: Case Closed? - Time, Feb. 2, 2007:

British meteorologists say the world's 10 hottest years since 1850 have occurred over the past decade... The article also includes:

IPCC scientists now say that it is "very likely" that global warming is chiefly driven by the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and that dangerous levels of warming and sea rise are on the way.

Those two words — the product of 2,500 scientists, 130 nations and 6 years of work — translates into a certainty of over 90%, up from the 66 to 90% chance the panel reported in its last major climate change assessment in 2001. That might not seem like a big difference, but in science, especially in a field as rapidly developing as climate studies, 90% is as good as it gets. The new report effectively completes a scientific revolution that began at the end of the 19th century, when a Swedish geochemist named Svante Arrhenius first proposed that CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels could change the planet's climate. "The message of this report is that the time for sitting on the fence is finished," says Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank and a former chair of the IPCC. "Now is the time for action." Perhaps the scariest thing about the IPCC report is that is, by the nature of its composition, probably conservative. The final review, which took place this week in Paris, is painstakingly bureaucratic; the IPCC received 30,000 comments from scientists around the world as the report evolved through numerous drafts. Only the most-solidly backed facts — and often the least-controversial ones — survived the winnowing process. The report itself offers a range of different estimates for temperature change and sea level rise, corresponding to different "emissions scenarios" that map out possible human responses over the coming century. Do all scientists agree with the report? No. But as the article points out:

It should be no surprise that arguments and questions still remain — good luck getting 2,500 scientists to agree on what to order for dinner, let alone come to a single conclusion on massively complicated climate science. But it would be a mistake, as skeptics have done, to point to the remaining disputes as evidence that a broad consensus still hasn't been reached on the science behind climate change. The new IPCC assessment is that consensus; as United Nations Environment Programme head Achim Steiner pointed out, "attention now shifts from whether human activity is linked to climate, to what on earth we are going to do about it."