Read again what I requested, Squeers

“a reference to one peer reviewed study from reputable scientists giving a basis for asserting that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming.”

I did not ask for a reference to a spurious site which publishes unscientific nonsense.

The IPCC discredited itself, by publishing mendacious assertions based on nonsense like World Wildlife Fund propaganda, and students’ essays.

Its statement on AGW is disgraceful. Pretending that its baseless assertion, that it is "very likely" that human emissions have an effect on global warming was scientifically backed, is the type of tactic expected of a third grade news reporter, or bottom of the barrel websites like Realclimate, or Skeptical science.

There is peer reviewed published science, which demonstrates that all warming is accounted for from natural sources, leaving no room for any assertion of AGW.

Update yourself, Squeers. It is years since Gore and the IPCC had sensible people fooled. Why do you wish to be on the side of the ignorant, and shifty?

Settle down, for starters I am not suggesting for a moment that Corporations should not be held responsible for their sins (actually, I'd go further and implement PERSONAL, financial and legal responsibility for environmental and other corporate crimes).

But I am saying that letting emotion lead one to stand foursquare behind so-called "science" that is derived from asserting a conclusion then seeking evidence to prove it, harms everyone who seeks to bring about environmental responsibility.

The FACTS are that our climate has always changed, a minor contributor is the massive fires and the airborne pollution that they cause as the climate heats up. Those fires exceed by some serious magnitude the output of industry. But even they are made to look pitiful beside the sulfur-aerosols and ash-clouds that are the result of volcanic eruptions.

It is established science, based upon coral cores, etc., that the "rim of fire" has been almost cyclical insofar as every 400 years or so there is a period of intense volcanic and seismic activity in our area. We are now at the end of that 400 years, and guess what?

If people could just tone down the rhetoric, then there would be less space for denial of corporate responsibility, however, with things the way they are now - Corporations are charged with crimes that CANNOT be proved, thus they escape the consequences of the Crimes that could have been proved in a less emotionally charged environment.

THAT is not good for anyone and is certainly not good for the planet. For those involved, please, try and restrict yourselves to only stating that which is proven or able to be proved, making outrageous claims merely sidelines you as some form of hysteric (and the spin machine will ensure you are sidelined as such).

“Update yourself, Squeers.”

Squeers – I’d say that order’s a bit rich when the only link Leo Lane can provide is a crap one: “whatthecrap" where it appears he's only just discovered the Oregon petition (’31,000’ scientists) that's been circulating since 1998/9.

One can speculate that Leo Lane trolls under a bridge and smells more like a terrestrial polecat than a Kryptonian woman – ‘up, up and away’……hopefully?

31,000 scientists sounds impressive, but considering there are about 23 million scientists and engineers in the U.S., that is 0.13% of them – a mere drop in the bucket. Moreover, many of those who signed were misled and many were not scientists at all and certainly not in the field of climate science – dentists, nutritionists and even Ginger Spice, Perry Mason, IP Freely and Michael J Fox.

Many of those contacted said they’d never signed the petition but these clowns never flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot no matter how sordid.

Strange that the fossil fuel shills who spend so much time heckling climate scientists and spruiking in the media and on the public speaking circuit, have no scientific credentials, never attend scientific conferences or have any material published in the ISI peer-reviewed scientific journals - think McIntyre, Watts, Swizzle Eyes, Bolt et al.

Custard says of fires: “But even they are made to look pitiful beside the sulfur-aerosols and ash-clouds that are the result of volcanic eruptions………..For those involved, please, try and restrict yourselves to only stating that which is proven or able to be proved, making outrageous claims merely sidelines you as some form of hysteric.”

Custard – If you must insist on calling others hysterical, could you set an example and desist from peddling such hysterically dodgy information:

Global Sulphur Emissions:

Anthropogenic: 65.9%, Biomass: 2.5%, Dimethyl Sulphide (mainly from oceans): 18.2% and Volcanoes: 13.7%

"Corporations are charged with crimes that CANNOT be proved,"

Claptrap Custard and you speak with forked tongue. Ongoing litigations abound; crimes ARE legally proven, corporations pay the petty cash fines (or none at all) and then continue abusing an outraged planet.

Protagoras,

Invective such as "The debate on climate change is the result of the environmental and white collar crimes committed by industrial and financial barons (the clones of Charles Ponzi) in the ‘free’ market, the think tank whores that support them and the bribery of corrupt politicians."

Would lead most people to believe that whilst you passionately believe in climate change and that big business is behind it, they would also believe that you are slightly unhinged.

While I believe that action needs to be taken against global warming, I cringe at the ever more extreme doomsday predictions that get published, and the extreme calls of the greens for immediate and drastic action.

The end result of this is that the general public have been desensitized and have become somewhat skeptical. This makes fertile ground for the anti action group to sow seeds of doubt.

While trying to hammer the message through with a sledge hammer, Joe public has stopped listening.

Shadow Minister, it is as you say .. we skeptics just sit back and watch as people self destruct and bring all manner of ridicule upon themselves. Nothing further needs to be said - self evidently some people have gone beyond hysterics and have become, or always were "unhinged", their desperation now has lowered the veil.

BTW - you'll now come under fire from various warmists (qanda) for not defining what type of "skeptic" people are becoming - have you seen the efforts to redefine "skeptic", another laughable ploy that the public reject as idiocy.

Doomsayers, soothsayers, sages and fortune tellers all predicting the future and mostly hysterical when their predictions don't come true, some are suitable cases for treatment.

Amicus,
you lot are not sceptics, as I keep saying, you're minimidianists.
A sceptic "maintains the impossibility of real knowledge of any kind" (OED). Scientific hypotheses are always provisional and perpetually tested in this true sceptical sense. A 'weakness' you lot don't share, but in fact exploit.
Are you 'sceptical' about your scepticism over AGW?