Grateful thanks for the link Peter King and I understand 'Science' is considered one of the world's most prestigious journals. I shall file your useful information for future research.

Amicus, your problem is that you are using out of date terms.

"Debate" now means only the warmists are correct and their idea of open debate is no one else gets a say. Did you see the recent warmist debate in Melbourne, it was more reminiscent of a religious festival, everyone agreed with everyone that the heretics are wrong - and that they were all participating in a debate .. what a farce.

"Skeptic" now means, well I'm not sure any more about this one .. it used to mean doubt - but recently I see it means you are a re a despicable denier (of what?) and must be in the pay of the oil companies - why oil companies I'm not sure. They must have a lot of money as there seems to be a lot of people skeptical about AGW, particularly in relation to CO2 the poisonous deadly gas that is killing the planet (did I go too far?)

Do warmists still really believe all skeptics are being paid to be skeptical, or to appear skeptical .. why?

We could pollute less, clear less land etc .. but I'm totally against this hysteria about paying taxes, or indulgences, to allay our guilt of excess material happiness by pissing money away to third world countries, who will only piss it away anyway - they always have they always will - that's why we have money and material things, we can manage our money and growth better. Why do lots of people want to move to first world countries - to enjoy wealth and excess - otherwise, if they really cared about the planet, they would stay at home and live dreary lives consuming less.

I'm not going to change and will ensure my offspring have adequate facilities and bright future, without impoverishing them.

I wish some of the loud complainers would do as they tell everyone else to - and go live somewhere else and consume less, please don't use a computer - or you're a hypocrit anyway.

Amicus, You seem to have missed my point entirely...Leo Lane makes the statement "So against the 5 scientists who back the unscientific assertion that AGW is “very likely” we have over 31,000 who have put their name to a refutation of the IPCC’s nonsensical claim."!

My posts simply points out that at least 250 qualified and named scientists is slightly more than his 5 scientists. whether you want to acknowledge their concerns is entirely up to you.

The issue I have with LL and co is that a tag as above is easily picked up by the general public and it sticks in their minds...no one in the GUP is going to study the myriad of charts that have been produced analysing CO2 versus solar radiation etc etc. Even scientists probably reel under the amount of data.

Once again in the context of the headline article it further demonstrates what the author is saying.

cont...

Leo et al, about wanting to see one peer-reviewed study...

I found a very informative video that is worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o

The short answer that the video gives to the question you ask is that your question might be likened to "Show me the single study that proves smoking causes lung disease", or 'Show me the single study that proves HIV causes AIDS".
Science does not work that way. There are thousands upon thousands of studies and observations, that, taken together, add up to the overwhelming case on global climate -- which is why every significant scientific body that has ever reviewed this issue is in agreement.

That said, if you wanted to look at a particular paper, you could do worse than:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html

There's no need for the gratuitous "told-you-so" sneer, Loxton.

>>it's good to see that I was right in my first post<<

Your case is no stronger, or weaker, than it was then.

>>...the denialists running around like meat ants in a frenzy - very busy, very heated, but ultimately pointless.<<

In a frenzy? Heated?

Let's have a quick look at the calm, rational and measured approach adopted by... ok, let's choose Protagoras, since you mention him by name.

Here's a Protagorean sample

>>All these oil shills lead to the Heartland Institute and are parasites... a freak with one half of one sensory neuron... environmental and white collar crimes committed by industrial and financial barons... the think tank whores that support them and the bribery of corrupt politicians... industrial and multi-national corporations who are bludging off the environment by means of corruption, fraudulence, vandalism, cruelty, graft and unscrupulousness... crimes against humanity and biodiversity... fake scientist... sucking off the oil teat... professional douche bag... serial liar... remorseless fraud... fraud, unscrupulousness and chicanery... the frontline cadavers, their greed-induced parasites... trolls under a bridge and smells more like a terrestrial polecat than a Kryptonian woman... unmitigated swill... fraudulent oil-shilling scientists... wear the leper’s bell... usual shitstorm of absurdities... troll and a wasted space... retards and useful idiots... back on your potty chair<<

Denialists "like meat-ants in a frenzy", eh? Quite unlike the calm dispassionate tones of AGW fanbois like Protagoras.

>>Quote - "I actually don't have the time to read all 1,550,000 papers on the topic". Maybe one or two then?<<

As it happens, that was precisely what I asked for, several posts ago.

Why would you have a problem with that, I wonder?

Thank you, qanda, for the links, much appreciated. I will most certainly download and read.

Global warming deniers and their proven strategy of doubt

Making a point here

How can I be a denier of what has not been proven?

Of course, the zealots of Global Warming might feel they have a god given entitlement to demand we believe and share their fantasies

but the last time I looked henny penny was just a silly chicken