I'm a physicist, and a skeptic. I have been all my life. Now, when it comes to global warming, I admit to not knowing a great deal. It seems that many in Academia feel that this is a legitimate threat. However, I have this growing suspicion about the integrity of many of these academics in the geo sciences. And frankly, that pisses me off, b/c there is no reason I should be doubting a fellow scientist at an accredited institution. The thing that started rousing my suspicions, was when I was with a group of physicists who were debating fellow proffessors. The physicsists (who actually knew what they were talking about), were completely dismissive of the 'geos' viewpoints, and with good reason. Indeed, some of the fundamental physical equations the geophysicsists were using to model things were WRONG mathematically. Upon talking with my colleagues, they informed me that the field was ripe with fraud, politics, money and excessive crap. Hell, read Freeman Dyson's thoughts on the subject (and there are few people alive I trust more implicitly) So who am I to believe? Obviously the eqns are so complicated, it would be completely futile to expect anything definitive, but I am beginning to retreat into uninformed skepticism. Surely there are serious academics in the geo sciences who are proffessional and scientifically competent enough to make progress in the field. Its their viewpoints that I want... I'd love nothing more to hear an informed opinion, whether its pro/neutral/or con. But there is this trust issue. Its times like this, where I often look for a review article which tries to be nonbiased, a cold hard technical centrist look at things.