Just because I HATE having to copy and paste from the question: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

His description of the global warming mechanisms may not be potitically correct but is scientifically correct. More and more, scientists are having the courage to speak out against the pseudo scientific reports from the alarmist dominated, politically charged circus called the IPCC. In the end, true science will win out. Of the many worldwide issues we should be concerned about; global warming is not one of them.

The Dr. denies the existence of the entire greenhouse effect, which is scientifically incorrect, politics aside: "Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true." Another Russian scientist does the same thing here: "However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere." http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html The greenhouse effect has been universally accepted as true because it has been scientifically verified.

The most tangible way for a non scientist to understand that the greenhouse effect is a reality would be to think about the respective surface temperatures of Mars, Venus and Earth. Venus is extremely hot, and it has a thick cloud cover. Mars has a thin atmosphere, and so it is very cold. Earth's conditions are between, and it's temperature shows that. Calculations on the irradiative atmospheric influence of GHG are computed via quantum mechanics. If you are thinking that the theory of AGW will be proven wrong due to the non-existence of the greenhouse effect, I wouldn't bet on it.

The GHGs emitted by mankind, though only a small fraction of those emitted by nature, are hardly insignificant. The biosphere can absorb 213,100 Million Metric Tons of CO2 per year. In the year 2001, 210,000 MMT were naturally emitted, and mankind emitted 6,300 MMT. This created an overage of 3,200 MMT. CO2 has a life span of 500 years. The biosphere can absorb 576 Million Metric Tons of Methane per year. In the year 2001, 239 MMT were naturally emitted, and mankind emitted 359 MMT. This created an overage of 22 MMT. Methane has a life span of 7 to 10 years. The biosphere can absorb 12.6 Million Metric Tons of Nitrous Oxide per year. In the year 2001, 9.5 MMT were naturally emitted, and mankind emitted 6.9 MMT. This created an overage of 3.8 MMT. Nitrous Oxide has a life span of 140 to 190 years. The data is from 2001, but the same basic relationships continue: with mankind's emissons, earth is out of balance regarding GHGs. Your notion that we contribute but a small percentage is correct (regarding CO2) but is immaterial. How long have you been studying the AGW issue? http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_4iss_grnhse.html http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/environment/057301.pdf Are you saying that you understand quantum mechanics?

I think he's right. The global warming scare is a reaction to normal climate change. People are making hay with it for various reasons. Power is there to be grabbed and money to be gotten. It's going to be hilarious watching them backpedal as it cools down. Too bad it will be so hard on us.

The IPCC is corrupt, just like the rest of the U.N. Haven't you learned from the oil-for-food scandal, UN soldiers raping in Kosovo, etc.? The IPCC has absolutely no integrity. All their pronouncements are based on lies and pseudoscience.