TB, I'm sure by now you've identified every source that supports your position, but you notably fail to bring to our attention those that dispute it, and systematically attack those that others post here, no matter how authoritative they might be, even though they appear to be the consensus position on a controversial and admittedly murky topic. Remember the assault you and your allies mounted on the Royal Academy of Sciences?

Since I am not trained to properly evaluate this information, I can not really comment meaningfully on any of this flood of contradictory data. All I can do is rely on the consensus of the majority of researchers in the field. I know perfectly well that scientists can Lowellize themselves into believing what is later shown to be unsupportable by evidence, for a variety of reasons, including sheer wishful thinking. But you certainly can't expect me to accept a perspective that is influenced by ideological and political preferences either, not to mention economic interest. And don't protest too loudly at that assessment, you have no trouble accusing the bulk of the scientific community of doing precisely that.

I admit that your dogged defense of this issue has made me wonder if perhaps it is not completely settled yet, and that maybe it is premature to base expensive policy decisions on one or the other opinion on the issue. But the fact remains, if I am forced to decide on insufficient data one way or the other, and taking into the account the non- environmental consequences of this debate, I have no choice to accept as a citizen, that global warming is real, it is a threat, and it is caused by human industrial and agricultural activity.

I will make a suggestion though. If you wish to continue this debate on other forums (everyone here is pretty well immunized to your Global Warming Updates by now), you might be more persuasive if you witheld your ideological reasoning explaining why the majority of the climatological research community is so mistaken and so foolish. As in Percival Lowell's case, the truth will out, but it will be settled by those working in the field, not by agitprop.