Do you think we'll ever see scientific justification for claims of manmade global warming?

nope, because global warming is natural. cant stop it. but obviously you know this.

global warming is something that we would all have to face if it hit in our lifetime because nature decided upon it. the humans only complain because it takes away from the life of people they hate.

"So far the warmers are batting .000"

Interesting, if this is true why, for instance is Anthony Watts putting so much effort into trying to discredit the temperature record. That you don't see the irony of mentioning junk theories and politics and then linking to canadafreepress.com is quite funny.

Anyone who visits here regularly is familiar with canadafreepress, while no one would dispute Tim Ball is a qualified scientist, he is, in this long and rambling comment basically hitting all the denier talking points.

"70s science consensus on cooling" - simply not true

"Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980" - he needs to look at the temp record, temps climbed from 1950-1960 and slowly climbed from the early 70s

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed"

From the CRU link above, the rise in temp is quite a bit more than an appearance.

Ball is simply not telling the truth, the 70s cooling scientific consensus myth is a common lie, it is easily proven false by documents of the time from several major scientific organisations like NAS, which clearly show scientists at the time did not have a consensus and freely admitted they needed more data. From the SCEP report in 1970 to the NAS report in 1975.

The main source for the cooling myth is a Newsweek article in 1975, Newsweek is not a scientific journal.

This covers a number of the 70s issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_...

It's a pretty easy theory to test yourself, and the act of experimentation will be good for you =). Take a sealed transparent box of any make, fill it as well as you can with CO2, and leave a thermometer on the bottom. Set the box on the ground, and next to it in the air set a normal thermometer. Leave it in the sun a few hours then come back and take a look at your temperatures. Or if it's hard for you to get CO2, just get two identical boxes, leave one with just outside air, and in the other place 6 or 7 plants. Again leave both boxes in the sun, but this time let them stay a day or two to let the plants take out a fair amount of CO2 in one of the containers, again check your results.

Or walk into any green house in a cold climate that doesn't have a heater, and ask yourself how is it warm in here? Greenhouses operate on semitransparent materials which reflect portions of the infrared spectrum.

Or seriously research Venus.

Or......just seriously research the properties of CO2 and other compounds which people have claimed to be a cause of global warming. Notice they all have the same properties of being "transparent" to most EM waves in the visible spectrum, and reflective or obsorbant (then randomly reemited in a new direction, which 50% of the time is back towards earth) towards most EM waves in the infrared spectrum.

After you've decided that CO2 and the other GW compounds do indeed have those properties, then do a little research on approximate mass released daily or yearly by us. It's not a small amount.

To sum, we are releasing vast amounts of compounds which will raise the temperature of our earth.

The argument of global warming being a natural "cycle" or being "just a normal part of nature" is bogus.

That's analogous to forcing a pre-schooler to smoke cigars and using the argument that he / she will smoke in their rebelious teenage years anyway, it's just a "cycle".

Your article was from before the last IPCC Assessment. There has been an avalanche of research and evidence published since February 2007. I suggest reading current news.

The irony of this question is palpable.

You claim "warmers" don't provide any scientific justification for AGW, and then as what I can only assume is supposed to be evidence supporting this claim, cite a 2007 article written by one Tim Ball. A man who has done zero climate science research since obtaining his PhD by researching the climate - not of the globe, but of Canada. Since then he's been a geography professor. Ah yes, geography, my favorite climate science.

And the article itself overwhelms us with scientific arguments like "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science."

Oh really? Well, you've got my attention. What's your reason for arriving at this conclusion?

*crickets chirping*

There is not one iota of scientific content in this article. Let's be honest - the only reason you like it is because it's a 'scientist' who's telling you what you want to hear. The problem is what you want to hear is a load of hooey. So is Ball's article.

*edit* I summed up the evidence here. Feel free - nay, encouraged - to explain where you think it's wrong.

http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/global-warming-and-c...

Yes we are. Factories and automobiles are belching out huge quantities of carbon which is heating up the atmosphere, add to this the huge number of trees being felled, trees which are our carbon sink. Global warming is being felt in the changing weather patterns and resources like water are becoming scarce. If you want to protect the environment save water. And to learn how you can save water at home visit http://www.bewaterwise.com/

If you cannot see the evidence now, you will never see the evidence.

The pitch came in and you do not even see it because you were too busy kicking around the dirt in the batter's box. You have an amazed look on your face as the umpire calls "strike three".

Edit: Finally Dax says something I can agree with. There will never be proof for something that is unproveable.

Stop Signs - I disagree with the IPCC Summary to Policymakers. I have scientists who were involved in it and disagreed with how the interpretation from the main report to the summary was distorted. Your turn.

Junk theories and politics and Tim Ball's opinion in one link?

Ah, from February 5, 2007, no wonder.

I guess he's still cowering under his bed after his last spectacle.

http://www.desmogblog.com/decline-tim-ball-denier-...

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/29/1/

http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-la...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal...

http://www.kantor.com/blog/2007/02/timothy-ball-op...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Tell us which parts you disagree with and we'll go from there.