The 97% are not a scientists but rogues. Idiot politicians are listening to the rogues, impoverishing the country. Science has been dragged into disrepute by the rogues and politicians, and the scientists who could save their discipline are gagged or ignored by the the media.

While I would agree with your statement about apparent sea level changes being largely due to tectonic shift etcetera, particularly Pacific islands that sit on fault lines, the reason why it hasn't been effected greatly by melting sea ice is due to Archimede's principle. If all the sea ice around the world melted, there would be no significant sea level rise. That would only be effected when ice supported by land melted.

However, if you care to take trip into the foothills of the Himalayas you will find that over the past twenty or so years, levels of glaciers have been falling at a considerable rate. The consequence of this is that those people living downstream above any dams, are finding that their river flows have also diminished.

Likewise, a trip across the Tundra in Siberia also reveals considerable melting with the liberation of measurable increases in methane.

You don't need to be a scientist to realise that something is happening, and only a fool with his head in the sand (or a politician) would not want to do something about stopping it. The rate of change is many times greater than what might be attributed to natural cycles.
David

Of course, the climate is driven by the sun. When it waxes the joint heats up. when it wanes, as it has done since the mid-seventies, (NASA) the joint cools, sometimes to the point of an ice age!

Currently, we're told, that CO2 levels are not only at record levels but up there in uncharted territory!? Moreover, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas involved, but methane as well and, we're also informed, at least 21 times more efficacious as a greenhouse gas than CO2. And a permafrost that now melts, releasing tons and tons more of it!

Most of the science you quoted seems at first reading, good. But one needs to take issue with a few of your claims and conclusions. The first is that 97%of scientists are bogus? Or their peer-reviewed claims are?

And that all global warming is the product of natural events, time and tide, etc-etc. And reads as if taken from the coal lobby handbook.

I don't know what your problem is Don? Save, if you were forced to relocate a little further west and without the benefit of for you, affordable air conditioning? Your essays would look startlingly different?

You all have a nice day now, y'hear.
Alan B.

>our leaders are afraid to differ, and proceed, lemming-like, to plan for the suicide of industrial society.

Unfortunately many people on this forum are (like Don Aitkin and even many of our politicians) idiotic enough to believe this neocon lie.

And rather than challenging this delusion, they create others. Many cherry pick data to support the ridiculous conclusion that global warming has stopped. Every time they learn something about how the atmosphere interacts with infrared radiation, they assume it's something the climatologists (who've actually known about it for decades) are ignorant of. They seek to hold climate scientists accountable for claims non-scientists made. Need I go on?

We know the mechanism by which increased CO2 levels warm the planet. We know CO2 levels and temperatures have been increasing.Yet somehow people retain enough cognitive dissonance to claim the two are unconnected.

Aidan, don't be so polite, it isn't cognitive dissonance, it it is just plain blood stupidity.
David

Gee Don, you want us to believe that the science is on your side and you've carefully considered the scientific data and in the second paragraph you subtract 2018 from 1960 and get seventy years. You couldn't even copy the text of the speech where Lindzen says 60 years.

Several of the things Lindzen says are worth listening to. Nobody knows how to measure the increasing number of droughts and the increased intensity of hurricanes that global warming logically would cause. We need to keep looking closely at this. But this conclusion is way over the top:

An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays.

The "overturn of industrial civilization." Please. The IPCC recommends spending 2.5% of Global GDP. Second rusting wind farms. Even if there is no global warming if wind farms are cheap and clean and save coal which is non-renewable there is value in them. The whole thing seems to be written to seek attention rather than further scientific knowledge.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Lindzen criticizes cherry picking data and then does his own regarding Greenland ice sheets.

The 97% is hard to nail down but there is clearly a significant consensus among climate scientists. The way you have phrased it indicates that there is no consensus at all.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#5de954cd1157