Hmm. Rapidly melting antarctic ice kinda shoots down the theory that ice melting is caused by rising ocean rather than air temperatures, originating from something in the sun or deep in the earth itself - most antarctic ice rests on frozen land, not water.

However, the article also mentions the occurence of several warming and melting events over the past 75 000 years - cleary unrelated to human activity. How can we be certain that this is not just another of the same? That's a fair question isn't it?

I haven't read Gav's links yet, I'll do that before commenting further.

Bloody hell - for a lefty you're pretty gullible when it comes to taking political propaganda at face value (no offence - but jeez).

Have you tried checking out who put together that load of tosh ?

From the Union of Concerned Scientists :

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz

Of the 31,000 "scientists", over 2000 are doctors (for example) and only 9000 have PhDs (including the doctors) - pretty much anyone can sign the petition. Would you expect to get a definitive answer on this issue from your local GP ?

http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/05/lurgees-paradigm-iii-31000-scie...

Scientific American looked at 30 signatures (at random) from the petition and 26 were verified as being scientists. Of the eleven who said they still agreed with the petition, only one was a climate researcher with releveant research experience, two had relevant expertise, and eight said they signed on the basis of informal knowledge. Six said they would not sign today, three couldn't remember it, one was dead, and five did not respond.

DeSmogBlog has the most comprehensive rundown on the topic I've found :

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067

Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." (source). Robinson is the founder of a group called the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” (OISM ), which markets, among other things, a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and books on how to survive nuclear war.

In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , released a petition on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol that was so misleading it prompted the National Academy of Science to issue a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol.”

The infamous "Oregon Petition"
The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself. In April 1998, Robinson’s Oregon Institute, along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute , co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Oregon petition and big tobacco
It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Oregon Petition and the Spice Girls
According to the May, '98 Associated Press article , the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid methodology with which the names of scientists were collected. The petition included the names of "Drs. 'Frank Burns' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' " Of the fake names, Robinson is quoted as saying: "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake."

Robinson admits he is not a climate scientist
Of his own admission Robinson "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming," and an ISI database search of publications confirms that Robinson has never published any research in the area of human-induced climate change.

Here's another one - "Another Climate Change Scientist Tells Skeptics: Stop Misusing My Research"

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=58817&keybold...

A prominent American scientist studying the possible effects of climate change in Antarctica has written a strongly-worded opinion piece in the New York Times telling skeptics to stop using his name and that of other researchers to prop up their claims that global warming is a hoax.

Peter Doran, an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois-Chicago, is the latest scientist to say that climate change deniers are misusing the conclusions of his data to try and create a false impression of the science.

Writing in The New York Times Thursday in a piece titled "Cold, Hard Facts", Mr. Doran expressed dismay that skeptics have prolifically circulated the work of his team to suggest the Earth, overall, may actually be cooling rather than warming. While his study documented localized cooling in one region of the Antarctic Continent over four years from 1996-2000, he said the skeptics seized upon it and created a legend of doubt that has only grown in magnitude.

Indeed, Doran's work has been cited by right-wing thinktanks associated with the fossil-fuel industry, members of Congress, and others ranging from Ann Coulter to Michael Crichton to refute the thickening and already substantial body of evidence confirming that, overall, Earth is heating up.

"Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear' and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism,'" Doran writes. "Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that 'the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.' I have never thought such a thing either."

In fact, Doran notes (capitalization used for emphasis): "The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

"IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE MY NAME FROM THE LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO DISPUTE GLOBAL WARMING," he said. "I KNOW MY COAUTHORS WOULD AS WELL."

In a related matter, 60 supposedly-independent and objective scientists wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to bring the terms of the Kyoto Protocol out into open debate. The so-called experts also informed the Prime Minister that calls for drastic actions on climate are sensationalistic. "Climate changes all the time," they wrote, and insisted that it is currently impossible to distinguish potential human-caused atmospheric changes from natural ones.

Such a letter might otherwise be compelling. But guess what? Many of those lending their signature to this letter also signed their names to an earlier document that is part of the "Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" based out of LaJolla, Calif.

Viewed as a front for the oil, gas, and coal industries, "The Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" has made some eye-opening pronouncements that while they may be trumpeted as fact by U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, they have met with widespread incredulity from hundreds of leading scientists in every nation on Earth. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Inhofe has refused to consider any action on legislation that would address U.S. contribution to greenhouse gases being poured into the atmosphere. Moreover, he is part of a particular line of thinking that portrays concern over climate change as a plot by the rest of the world to hamper the U.S. economy.

To answer your question in a general way - yes - the climate has changed in the past. So what ?

The question is, do rising CO2 levels change the climate. The scientific consensus (as per the IPCC and peer reviewed literature) is that yes, they do.

Or to put it another way - people used to get lung cancer before tobacco smoking became a common past-time. People who don't smoke can get lung cancer today. Do you believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer ?

Somewhat ironically, I used to like the HR Nicholls Society and don't object to many of their positions - but their position on global warming is just criminal.