Thank you. This is one of the clearest, brief explanations explanations of the science I have found. It should be widely shared.

Sorry Mike, I don't agree with your argument. You clearly are hooked onto the IPCC report which is increasingly being shown to be flawed.

I thought that it would be 5 years before this whole business of global warming would be behind us. It now looks like that will happen much sooner.

Mike "they offer no supporting evidence, though in an effort to “prove” their view"

"they" don't need to, and if you or anyone else claims something (absurd or not), you need to prove it, it's not up to anyone to disprove. That's how science works.

Anything else would be irrational ..

Next you'll be claiming the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting due to AGW.

We're coming out of an ice age, it's a long term thing, regardless of the attraction to do something now and try to change the climate, and for some reason you think it can be done in a few short years, that would be irrational.

You can't stop tectonic plate movement, climate or progress, to think you can is irrational.

Loved the article. Wish I could answer each point but I only have 350 words to reply. So let's start with the summary which sums up your article.

You said:
The vast majority of people, ...... accepts the scientific explanation for global warming.

My reply
At one point in our history most people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the world. It did not make it true.

Please use scentific langauge to describe a scientific explanation.
Science is not a democracy. We don't vote on what is true or not.

Stephen

Mike,
Dear o dear. You start by claiming it is FACT that CO2 is the cause of global warming and, in the third last paragraph, you acknowledge that there is debate about the role of CO2. I have yet to see it as undisputed fact.

You also assert, without evidence, that human activity is responsible. Again that has not been proven.

I am no scientist, but when these two things are proven I am sure we will hear about it. Then I will take steps to counter it. In the meantime business as usual.

I wouldn’t know how many people accept “…accept(s) the scientific explanation for global warming. It would be very hard to ascertain this with the number of people in the world, and we only hear from those who can be bothered to say they do accept what (some) scientists say and those who do not believe what (some) scientists say. I do know that many people do not accept the CO2 theory, and neither do many scientists. What about the REAL majority of people who do not express an opinion?

The fact is, nobody, not even Mike Pope, can say that the majority of people accept the man-made theory of global warming. And, since the Copenhagen fiasco, it seems that fewer people than ever are even interested any more. (See Benny Peiser, OLO, Jan. 24th.)

It is noticed that Mike Pope has thrown in a few more gases, hitherto unmentioned, to keep the scare going. There also now seems to be some confusion on whether it is the amount of CO2 in the air, or but “the speed with which it changes.” It gets more confusing the more the alarmists try to convince us. One wonders if we will ever get the truth from these people. They might know what it is, but they sure as hell haven’t shared it with us; and that’s the problem, and that’s why they have failed.

Even the ‘great’ Monbiot has admitted that they have lost the argument (‘The Australia, 24th. January).

“A further cause for concern (for the alarmists) is that land in the northern hemisphere which has been frozen for millennia will thaw due to global warming.” This seems to be rather a joke, considering that the northern hemisphere is currently enduring temperatures of 45 degrees below, and normal movement is almost impossible because of snow. Tell the relatives of those who have frozen to death in their own homes that they died of global warming!