Not really... emissions are seen as the driver by the IPCC.

Frankly I think people make too big of a deal out of the fact that some groups question what the healthy majority of all scientists agree on. That's like saying evolution is a myth because a few wackos think Intelligent Design is the real deal. Or that simply because Einstein's theory of relativity cannot fully explain all gravitational phenomena we have observed that it is wrong.

Even if scientists have not worked out all the kinks in explaining something as massively complex as extrapolating the relationship between every phenomenon that contributes to climate change and aggregate global temperatures does not mean they are wrong. It justs means that their conclusion is like ANY OTHER scientific conclusion, imperfect. We're human. No scientific theory we have ever come up with has been perfect.

The theory of evolution is still far from perfect, and many scientists disagree about a lot of the finer details of the theory of evolution. That doesn't make it wrong.

All the experts in ancient Greece believe in Humorism.  The difference actually lies in the proof.

Which is what global warming reminds me of... Humorism.

I mean... if you actually sit through and read the reports... and what the results are based on... it's humorous.  Especially if you've studied how the earth has changed in the past.

It's not a matter of a "few flaws".  We don't even have a way to judge global tempeture that makes much sense. 

Heck, even historical bouts of global warming don't have definite causes.

Additionally... you have correlation vs causation problems... no matter what would cause the tempeture to rise... there is going to be more "greenhouse" gasses in the air.

It's a cycle you know... the hotter it gets, the more the heat creates more gasses that the carbon sink system can't handle that stay in the air.  It's why i say even if it's man-made there probably isn't anything we could do about it.

Update: I would like to point out that the ten-point statement was in point of fact produced by the Geologic Committee of the PAS and not the PAS' General Assembly (PAN). Also, it is claimed that the PAN has endorsed the IPCC statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Polish_geologists
I pushed the PDF he referred to through Google translator and it seems to support his claim.

But the Geologic Committee by itself may disagree with the General Assembly and, if so (which seems fairly likely due to statements in the ten-point statement and in the PDF), and if it counts as a scientific body of national standing by itself, that would still be a negation of Wikipedia's assertion.

Seriously, so much evidence points towards supporting climate change, yet people are still in denial because they would rather have their large gas guzzler cars. I can understand it would be easy to do. But the fact remains. harmful emissions to the O-zone have a direct correlation with rising temperatures, they have found the cause to this and demonstrated how it happens repeatedly.

Science isn't trying to trick anyone, it has no emotional attachment to results, just that the results are correct with regards to what the evidence suggests. An overwhelming amount of scientists suggest that climate change caused by man made emmisions is a threat, if it was the other way round they would say that it isn't a threat.*

Oh yeah and global warming is a redundant term, anyone that uses demonstrates they do not realise it is not all going to get warmer. I live in England, I'm going to be freezing my nads off in a few decades if nothing is done. Climate change is the more accepted term I believe.

A little change will go a long way.

(*although almost any meteorologist would tell you that it is blown out of proportion by politicians such as Al Gore, but that doesn't hange the fact it is happening.)

Yes.  Cause correlation certaintly means causation... and when you have an understanding of maybe 5% of the imputs and outputs and have no reliable way to judge global tempeture... clearly you can ascertain what causes what.

I don't think you actually meant "redundant" when you said "global warming is a redundant term"...

When did I say that? I said a correlation has been found and they have discovered the (some) causes of it. I didn't say they found a correlation this is proof.

Not... really.  I mean nothing there really suggests they support a man made effect.  Just "something is happening and reasearch should be done to see what because our current methods aren't good enough"

Followed by a statement that says they're going too far and the statements still aren't good enough to prove anything.

haha, I'll rephrase it then. Global warming is a term that is not used anymore.