Climate change sciences - short versus long term?

Comments on Michael Asten “Climate ball up in the air”, 24/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25680666-5015664,00.html

I tried very hard to understand this article and am still not sure I have done it. I feel Michael Asten is not convinced the argument of human induced global warming. If so, then say so and say it loudly.

While it presents some useful information, it is unclear what people would feel more or less informed after reading this.

We need scientists to be more straightforward and forthright, tell what they think and the main reasons, in a scientific way.

It may be possible that most of the science used in the debate, although seemingly convincing based on limited data for very short period, is questionable.

If that is the case, then it needs to be proven with more reliable science, if any scientists can do it. They should do it in an equally convincing manner. They need to work hard and fast to demonstrate they are credible or otherwise.

I am at present open minded on climate change, although I tend to go with the current majority for now, as probably the majority of people who are not a scientist on climate change.

Although climate change sceptics are clearly minority at the moment, that does not necessarily and automatically mean they are wrong. There may be some similarity between Newton’s physical laws, Einstein’s relativity theory and quantum theories. Differences in scales either in terms of size or time may be relevant.