No peer reviewed science is necessary for me because I am clearly NOT "anti global warming" (as you put it).<quoted text>
I am not either. But I am one of the crowd that believes what the scientists say about global warming. I do not ditto what Senator Inholfe, Rush Limbaugh, and other folks who have nothing solid to back up their rants. It is easy to say that something is not true. It is something else if one has to back it up. Show us some solid peer reviewed science that backs up the anti global warming mantra. Otherwise, you are just blowing out the kazoo.
GW is a 'fact' as well as an evangelical 'cause célčbre'. As such, everyone knows that Man has benefited from this (GW) change! So wake up each morning afraid of the day's weather extremes and allow the rest of us enjoy the climate we have been fortunate enough to be born into.
You and others may need to think some scientists are smart enough to understand how and when the climate will change ... fine. I will not call you stupid for what you want to believe.
Personally, I do not bestow my faith upon such scientific prophecies.
So; if sea level rises 2.5 feet by year 2100 I may feel silly for "denying" the power of today's science but until a scientific Forcast comes true it seems reasonable to remain skeptical of such prognostications.