The first of a number of these peer-reviewed pieces is included here:

A June 29, 2007 scientific analysis by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm.

Excerpt: “Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” (LINK) Burger's technical comments in Science Magazine state: “Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.” (LINK)

#5 New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes: Published in Geophysical Research Letters:

Excerpt: “Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability. The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century. Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. See August 2, 2007 Science Daily – “Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” (LINK)

#6 A September 2007 peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. Excerpt: Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science. Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records. “There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express. “You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown – but was not its main cause. “The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.” (LINK)

#7 Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon co-authored with Dr. Art Robinson and Noah Robinson, a November 2007 study that found mankind's emissions are not harming the atmosphere. The paper, published in journal of American physicians and Surgeons was titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The study reported: "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth." The study also found, "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape." (LINK) & (LINK )

So there are peers, and peers, and peer reviews. So what? Peers do not change the physics.

Can you prove otherwise right here?

I don't believe you can. In fact, you can't!

Depends on constitutes proof.
If it is your apparent standard of 100% proof positive with no remaining detractors (able to be published or otherwise), then no answer to any scientifically posed question has ever been or will ever be proved. If on the other hand the standard is what is most likely given the current evidence then it has been well shown in the links to the literature from my previous posts.
As far as my view on the connection of CO2 and climate they are currently primarily informed by GISS model E.
Some additional info about model predicted effects and actual outcomes can be found here.
As to consensus some more info is here.
I would include more but the spam filter would kick out the comment and no amount of evidence will change your view anyway.
Feel free to take the last word, which I will go ahead and assume will contain any reference to any peer reviewed scientific literature due to the evil, communist, tree hugger, liar, scientist cabal that apparently runs all of the journals.

Of course there were journalists reporting as well! Nothing wrong about that, per se, but you purists want nothing but PhDs writing. Never heard of accurate journalism, I suppose.

Now, one can wonder just why you two keep on responding here. You want the last word, is my guess. You can't bear to leave my post alone as the final word, so you keep trying. The more you try, the more abusive and out of line you become, and the less and less you remark about the actual subject at hand. Sounds like two losers to me.

If you are so adamant about GW, how about returning to the subject at hand and writing up here your own statements of belief on GW?

I have given you 31,900 people and references to their statements of belief, including mine. I have given you about 200 references that deny virtually every aspect of the GW hoax.

All you do is try to ignore these references, but never to make any statement of your own beliefs about GW.

Your positions so far should therefore be passed up as merely noise. Is this because you cannot refute the statements of real scientists? Seems so.

I have yet another 31,000 or so to go, many of which are redundant, of course, since most say that there is no significant relation between manmade CO2 in the atmosphere and the current minor surface warming on earth. Can you prove otherwise right here?

I don't believe you can. In fact, you can't!

Where do you think they meet? Is it the same place the 'evolutionist' cabal meets to marginalize the 'science' of intelligent design?

Yes. In the sub-basement of the Rotshschild's secret bank headquarters somewhere in Europe, attended by the Illuminati, Freemasons, and Knights Templar, and guarded by the Yeti, Sasquatch, and Area 51 aliens.

They believe just about anything BUT actual considered scientific opinion. Funny, though, how they never have any problem believing the experts when it comes to, say, architecture or automotive design. But when it comes to GW or evolution, suddenly there's a worldwide conspiracy to silence "the truth" and the whole peer-review process is fundamentally flawed.

Don't say I didn't warn you about Manning and his nutjob ilk, Grewgills.

f you read the open literature, most scientists currently are wary of the peer review process as being highly biased towards the popular GW theory...
As an aid to understanding, there is a comprehensive site for Deniers...

BS.
This is a convenient excuse for someone who simply cannot find support for their argument in the scientific literature. You set up Cato, AEI, and various crank websites and newspapers (from your 100+ article link) as more reliable reporters of science than 'Science', 'Nature', and every other relevant scientific journal because of some crank conspiracy theory.
Apparently you believe there is a global conspiracy among scientists that involves the editorial boards of every scientific journal and has them send all articles to a coterie of scientists that they know will dishonestly review any article that dares challenge the theory that this cabal has endorsed. Where do you think they meet? Is it the same place the 'evolutionist' cabal meets to marginalize the 'science' of intelligent design?

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

Rather than do things one at a time, you can go to this site and roam to your heart's content. Virtually every GW hoax is covered, sometimes by multiple articles, each by well-known scientists.

I suppose there are at least 150 to 200 articles there, but I didn't bother to count them. The main point here is that GW is most definitely not "settled science". It is a scientific area in its early stages, and highly prone to exaggeration.

Seems that the entire list of signees of the 31,000 person survey is posted on line, so there are tons of personal statements of position against the prevailing GW theory to sample, if needed.

As it turns out, there are literally thousands and thousands of such statements from very respected scientists in the field. Their testimony is largely blocked from view, except for statements such as in the Senate committee, or in petitions or Accords. If you insist on your biased peer concept, I will insist on publishing statements from these highly respected scientists that counter your ideas. (Although not here necessarily, amd not forever.) I would make a bet that the credentials of most of these scientists far exceed yours, and hence, have far higher credibility.

If science is to be about finding the truth, blocking or suppressing such differing opinions is a traitorous act to science itself. Let them be aired for open criticism. The very idea of not even reading statements from qualified scientists because they are, in someone's slanted opinion, ill-informed, out of date, or simply not up with the science, is to be condemned as deadly bias.
Such attitudes are arrogant in the extreme, and deserve to be shown for what they are.

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
► The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
► CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
► Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
► The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
► The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
► “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
► Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
► The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
► It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
► Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
► In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Ome more skeptic that agrees with Lord M. 31,899 to go.

OK, I will modify that statement to "a small but significant minority of climate scientists, chemists and physicists, only about 31,900,

The methodology used to come up with this number is fatally flawed for the reasons previously stated and now repeated in brief. It includes anyone who claims to have a bachelors in any science or economics and neither the names or degrees are verified. Would you accept such a list unless you desperately wanted validation for your position?

Re: Singer
It is reasons 1 and 5. I will give relevant cites as soon as you offer even one relevant peer reviewed scientific article that is not hopelessly out of date (say since 2000) to support any of your assertions.

A few quotes from S. Fred Singer, an Atmospheric Physicist, on March 19, 2007:

"There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity.

None of the schemes for greenhouse gas reduction currently bandied about will do any good; they are all irrelevant, useless, and wildly expensive:
• Control of CO2 emissions, whether by rationing or elaborate cap–and–trade schemes
• Uneconomic “alternative” energy, such as ethanol and the impractical “hydrogen economy”
• Massive installations of wind turbines and solar collectors
• Proposed projects for the sequestration of CO2 from smokestacks or even from the atmosphere
ctivity

The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity."

Just one of the many scientists that could be quoted as having virtually the same opinion.

Now, I will make a bet: Singer will be discounted for some extraneous reason, perhaps one of these:

Oh, he isn't up to date.
He is a shill for the energy industry.
He is not really a climate scientist.
No one listens to Him!
...
...
But Scientist Z has disproved all of this!
Etc.

Let us wait and see what is posted next!

If he IS discounted, there are hundreds, yea thousands, that have made similar statements to be quoted next. Until, of course, this thread is cut off.

I have seen no evidence that the current predictions of temperature rise over 100 years using the GW models being touted is given a defensible error budget.

Given that you have read little to none of the primary literature and I would wager do not know the error bars built in to any of the current models this is hardly surprising or of great concern.

I have seem no evidence that the full models have been released to the public, together with all key assumptions.

Have you really looked? I don't currently have good or easy access to a good research library and don't have the necessary subscriptions to get the full text of most articles right now. I did have easy access to a good research library less than a year ago and did recall the model assumptions being made explicit in the methods of the modeling papers. Do you feel that these lists are incomplete or the assumptions are invalid? If so could you be specific?

This should give you a more or less full description of the current NASA model (GISS model E). It does require a subscription, but if you really want the information, rather than just an excuse to hold on to your current view, you can either subscribe or go to a research library.

It is a fact that many scientists that have seen the full picture and have gone into the matter seriously have recanted their opinions on GW

Change many to a small minority and that statement becomes correct. That a small minority of the scientists that have direct contact with the models and data (whether that number is on the order of 10s or 100s) is of little concern. The vast majority that have that same level of access and understanding agree with the conclusions. Why do you so readily discount the opinions of the many in favor of dogged defense of the opinions of the few on this topic?

It is a fact that many environmental scientists doubt the impact of CO2 on GW is the primary factor involved

A great many compared to what? Certainly not compared to those with the opposing viewpoint. By that measure they are at least a 4:1 minority. You tout these 'large' numbers of scientists yet reflexively discount any mention of the at least 4x greater numbers of scientists with the diametrically opposed views. Why is that?

and that we can make effective changes to CO2 emissions that would help in a subatantial way.

That is a much thornier question and in need of more prioritized research.

I have seen no evidence that the current predictions of temperature rise over 100 years using the GW models being touted is given a defensible error budget.

I have seem no evidence that the full models have been released to the public, together with all key assumptions. In these circumstances, I distrust the results, and consider them scare tactics.

It is a fact that many scientists that have seen the full picture and have gone into the matter seriously have recanted their opinions on GW, whether it has been 31,000, 4,000, 400, or some other number. (see previous reference)

It is a fact that many environmental scientists doubt the impact of CO2 on GW is the primary factor involved, and that we can make effective changes to CO2 emissions that would help in a subatantial way.

When the underpinnings of the enviromental models you use for describe and predict behavior do little but scare people to death without moving the real problem forward you have created a failure.

What are you on about? By that standard all descriptive models regardless of accuracy are necessarily failures if an accurate description happens to be disconcerting. That is a ridiculous position to hold.

Oh, you are not at the board? You are not actively doing environmental seience? Your opinions will be treated as they deserve, bystander!

If you cannot back up your statements with verifiable data and instead rely on dubious ideologically driven web sources then your opinions deserve little weight. Why not back up your assertions with relevant peer reviewed sources or the accepted temperature records? I think we all know the real reason.