Which goes back to my statement you know nothing of science or proof!  Peer reviewed articles are not "proof".  It is evidence, but not "proof".  I think that is why you are so clueless.  You just have no understanding of science.

Strawman alert!  NO it does not.  As we have seen (and as the scandal continues to unfold), it only requires a few key people to "hide the decline" of their doctored data.  Once they contend they are gods and there is no question, the rest of the studies/data using their tainted results come to the same conclusions!  Shazaam!  Who would have thought?

Well, apparently the ones that know nothing of science and "proof".

Not demonstrated or proven.  Strictly uneducated opinion.

My stove shows warming!  Non-sequitur.  So what?  Satellite records are only 30 years old, and less than 25 of them are considered accurate.  So for 25 years (actually 10, since Phil Jones has already stated no statistical warming in the last 15) they showed warming.  Just like there was warming back in the 30s and there was warming 1000 years ago.  So what?  Was Co2 causing the MWP?

All the satellites have shown is the temperature over the last 25+ years.  Not what has happened over the last 100, 250 or 1000 years.  Which means we have a temperature.  And this was not known before satellites?

Again, you don't know science.  Warmest for satllite records is like saying climate changes.  And only a voodoo priest (or an AGW religious) would argue that statement.

Thousands.  Hmm.  Why, then, would the 'evidence' for some of the IPCC's most dramatic & publicized claims (glacier retreat, rocketing ocean levels, Amazon deforestation, African dustbowl/famine) be anecdotal fluff from pop magazines?  Surely in all those 'thousands' of peer reviewed articles in all those 'respected' journals they could have found something.  Not that any of those dramatic & publicized claims 'proved' anthropogenicity, anyway.  Warming has occurred during (some of) my lifetime (how many times now have I had to remind you I acknowledge that?), but unless it can be made out to be 'dramatic & unprecedented' there's no case for the A in AGW; 'dramatic & unprecedented' are necessary to building such a case (hence the 'minor mistakes' in AR4) but hardly sufficient.

Your usual broad-brush condescension at work.  Faced with the proposition that GW is a dire, man-made and remediable threat to my children's future, I can accept, doubt based on reasonable cause or reject.  There is no obligation to 'disprove' the proposition in order to either doubt or reject it.

Further, AGW is, for better or worse, inextricably bound up in what has been proposed to 'fix' it.  The draconian nature of the proposed 'remedies' substantially raises the bar when it comes to proof of the A in AGW, not to mention the bar for proof that the proposed remedies would 'work'.  Association is not causation, but there is an apparently innate, powerful (and probably survival-based) human proclivity to assign cause-effect relationships to sequential or simultaneous events: B occurred after (or coincident with) A, therefore A was the cause of B.  This is a highly seductive notion to humans, but almost always wrong in nature.  Someone gets a cold during flu season and they invariably blame it on the flu shot they got the week before, no matter the biological impossibility or the eloquence of my explanation absolving the flu shot.  There is more to concluding cause-effect relationships than 'consensus' and I commend to you this discussion of Hill's Criteria.  I'm not ready to burden myself, my children and grandchildren with the cost of a remedy as likely to be futile as beneficial (depending on whether you're a carbon trader or not), for a 'problem' of uncertain cause and scope.

I'm well aware of your favorite non-sequitor.  And of your disdain for [anything big such as oil] companies.

This argument was so familiar... I finally figured out why! I have heard it before from another religion!

Christians often told me the exact same thing as backing for their belief in god and the bible.

[EDIT]well, not EXACTLY the same, what I was told by several christians is: For someone to doubt the validity of such a source essentially requires them to believe in a world wide conspiracy of christians that have been deluding everyone for over 2000 years.[/EDIT]

Well put, or as any school teacher would say "cite your sources".

not to mention that even if the problem is real, the massive economic damage caused by the so called "remedies" (ex: cap and tax) for an ineffective <10% reduction in emissions could prevent necessary funding for research and development of true solutions. (aka, there are unintended consequences... which are actually being predicted by people with half a brain)

Absolutely true.

It is the refuge of scoundrels that they change the rules of the game in mid-play..  Having lost the debate on facts and the issues, MF always resorts to name calling and non-sequiturs. ke5trel is just a carbon copy of the same.