In article .com,
wrote:

If you stick to serious scientific journals, like Science (which I've
read on a weekly basis since college), it's clear that there has never
been any serious controversy about whether the current warming is
anthropogenic, nor the extent to which CO2 and other gasses are to blame
(and yes, there are others, but that's the main one).

No such theory exists. All we have are vague, untestable notions.

Nonsense. We're talking about detailed climate models here; nothing
vague or untestable about them.

If you believe otherwise then why don't you show us. Go ahead. What
are you waiting for, a hand engraved invitation. Show us. Put us in
our place. Go ahead.

Okey dokey, but I only have 5 minutes before I need to leave for the
day. Let's see what a mere 5 minutes or less of Googling turns up
(should be faster than rifling through recent issues of Science, though
not as effective -- I invite you to visit a "library" and try the latter
for yourself)...

http://www.ocean-sci.net/1/45/2005/os-1-45-2005.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL025579.shtml
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/...ts/060405.html

OK, that only took about one minute, but it shows you (or at least,
shows those willing to see), as requested. And you're not worth any
more of my time than that.

I don't expect you to be convinced, because you are a AGW-denying loon
with a political axe to grind, and you'll reject any-sized mountain of
evidence if it conflicts with your politically motivated agenda. But
you asked, so there it is. No please go away, and take your
anti-science babbling elsewhere.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/