The non-political scientists keep working on the climate research andthey reached the conclusion that it is NATURAL and is not related toMAN activity on Earth.
How do you know that they are non-political? And how do you know they all conclude that it is natural??? I mean, are there no non-political ones who say that it is man-made??? Just curious...
And again, Geophysical Review Letter publishes papers in climate and in geophysics. Is it compromised as a peer-reviewed journal? Do you have authority and credentials to claim that?

I mean..people who uses the words lunacy definitely don't qualify in the scientific debate..not even published in the peer-reviewed journal, doesn't matter if Al Gore says so..but I would put him in a cage for sure..:-|

Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was challenged and notconclusively proven for over 15 years - from when he first proposed itin 1908 until 1922, when examination of total Solar Eclipse proved thatgravity manifests itself through curvature of time space.
So, when do you decide that it is "conclusively proven"? What is your scientific criterion? :-)
BTW, General Relativity was introduced in 1915 in the presentation to the Prussian Academy of Sciences -- not in 1908.

Svetlana, i just call it as i see it i am sure u read many scientific journals for breakfast though.. so mad props to you ( yeah i know, i am not supposed to say mad props either ).

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of
the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely
to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations”. Discernible human influences
now extend to other aspects of climate, including
ocean warming, continental-average temperatures,
temperature extremes and wind patterns
********ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
this is from the IPCC website..does it sound they have not established it? what does "very likely mean to you"?
Мишань, if I "call it as I see it" after every post you type, тут бы мат столбом стоял..;-) but I choose to be civil..*-) (v)

here is another one..
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions will continue to contribute to warming and
sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the
time scales required for removal of this gas from the
atmosphere...
to me it sounds pretty established...

Likely = 90% chance in science speak.
Very likely = 95% chance
Link the second article.

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

ok, now I want to hear your opinion on GW, what causes it, what are the chances it's man-made,..AND
if you were president, what would YOU do except resigning..(ch)

well..
1) it's a fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas
2) it's a fact that we pump out a lot of it into the air
From that we know that there is at least some correlation between increase in greenhouse gasses and increased temperature ( unless there is some negative feedback somewhere else, like cloud formation due to higher temperature, which causes cooling ).
3) as we move off oil in the next 30 years or so the next cheap alternative is coal, processing of which exhaust significantly more co2 and that can make it worse
In my "pulling from my ass estimate" there is maybe 10-20% chance that we will have some major issues due to GW.
I would say it justifies at least some kind of precautionary measures.
investment is nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc sound like a great idea.

__________________
Человек, который почувствовал ветер перемен, должен построить не щит от ветра, а ветряную мельницу

Go nuclear!
BTW, is Westinghouse the only company that makes reactors? Need to buy some stock...