Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to pull the whole papers next time I get a chance.

That being said, from what I could gather from the abstracts, these papers don't negate the possibility of man having an impact on climate, only that the doomsday scenarios in the media are wrong (I did have to smirk a little bit though that one was a modeling paper, which many skeptics here have claimed in the past to be a useless way to look at this issue). I'm completely OK with that assessment. I don't think the world is going to end if we continue as we're going, but I do think there will be consequences that could cost us a lot of money.

But, I have yet to see anyone show that the CO2 being put in the atmosphere by man's activities (which is verified by isotope data) has no or even small effect. There is a lot of evidence for man's impact in the oceans from CO2 already (which, I admit, I know more about than other areas of this issue since I do marine biology research). The ocean is becoming slightly more acidic (the carbonate cycle) and it is affecting organisms that use calcium carbonate, like corals and pteropods. These are important groups in their respective ecosystems, and they are already stressed as it is in a lot of places without increasing acidification.

If people want to argue the consensus claim, go ahead. What I was trying to argue that disagreeing and disagreeing with some hard evidence in hand are two entirely different things. I'll read what you posted and get back to you.

And you are right about the "sandbox". I'd probably be much better off talking about this with just you. Take care.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb