Ah yes, those GW police...
Colibri, I consider myself well and truly spammed. If an argument was worth is weight in word processed charachters, you have made your case and won.
I'll spare you and pprune the same tactic because it doesn't mean anything (and isn't, in any case, my point of view). We have no way, as lay people, of assertaining the credability of what you have filled a large amount of space with. Finding a whole series of quotes from people who dissent sounds credible, but is it? It seems fair to assume that an equal and perhaps greater number could be found supporting the opposite case. And that would also mean nothing. The entire matter for lay people is impressionistic. BUT: The IPCC isn't exactly a fella who works at Walmart: It is the organisation which was tasked with reviewing the research and taking expert witness and drawing conclusions. Just because a few of the people it may have consulted didn't get their theories accepted, doesn't in itself undermine the credability of its findings. Why should it?
Of course, the people you quoted may have it right. But why the unfailing willingess to believe them?
For you, human influence in GW is a scam; on the basis of what I have heard, I see no reason to be so absolutely skeptical.