@altman - probably a waste of time replying yet again but one last try.
My response was to your post where you appeared to make the claim that one would have to judge the merits of a scientific argument by looking at the fact that people like Gore were making money from promoting a particular point of view.

My point was and remains simply this. One consults the peer reviewed literature by the particular people with expertise in the area. In the case of climate that is the climatologists.

When you consult the peer reviewed literature then you will find that there is overwhelming support for the notion of anthropogenic global warming. No it is not 100% But that is to be expected science, is not about absolute certainty.
The IPCC was and is a political body. This is not to deny that it is concerned with the science of climate change but simply stating what its role is - to review the literature and provide governments with advice about that literature.
What you and many other sceptics seem to ignore is that we will not know whether or not the IPCC is right or wrong until the data about is expected to happen by various dates in the future has been collected.
Neither you nor I can say with any certainty that they will be proved right about the projected impact of climate change we simply have to wait until it actually happens.
This is why I referred to the Club of Rome report. 30 years of data have demonstrated that their predictions were accurate.
However, you did introduce the idea that maybe we should reject people's opinions if it can be demonstrated that they have a pecuniary interest in promoting those opinions.
So then ask yourself who has a pecuniary interest in debunking the views of the vast majority of climatologists? Who benefits by ignoring the peer reviewed literature? Who stands to gain by a business as usual approach

Altman you are either careless, or as Baygon suggests, obtuse. I refer you to my earlier post, in which I pointed out that debate is alive and well. Debate implies a discussion between people of different viewpoints. As you say, there are hundreds of papers which dispute the theory of AGW. There are thousands of papers which support it. So far, no one has succeeded in refuting the theory.

Similarly, there a very few reputable scientists (eg Lindzen, Spencer, Christy et al) who dispute the theory, but the vast majority of climate scientists (97.4% according to Doran, EOS 2009) support the theory. The debate continues.

Similarly, there is a very small number of scientists (of the forty thousand members of the American Physical Society) supporting the stand of Prof Hal Lewis, a veteran cold-warrior with no climate credibility, no published climate research, and pronounced political views.

I concede that the IPCC describes itself as a "scientific body", but the fact remains that it does not carry out research, and its primary function is to collate existing research from published sources, for the use of governments.

And your wild accusations of fraud and academic misconduct are not backed up by any evidence; where enquiries have been held, the scientists have been exonerated. If you know otherwise, please provide evidence.

Baygon, please disabuse yourself of the notion that there is any scientific backing for AGW. The IPCC put forward an unscientific guess that it is "very likely", and anticipated that it would have proof from data gathered by the satellite instruments.

The data from the satellite instruments gives no such proof, so the notion that there is any measurable effect on climate from human emissions has no scientific backing. There were seven independent scientists originally backing the “very likely” assertion, but two thought better of it.

Fifty-five conflicted scientists (the equivalent of the Climategate gang) also backed it.

There is a petition signed by over 31,000 scientists based on the fact that there is no scientific basis for assertion of AGW:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

http://www.petitionproject.org/

There are still assertions of a consensus on AGW when it is clear there is no scientific basis for the idea.

The IPCC have now blatantly stated that environmental considerations do not matter. Removal of wealth from the West is paramount.

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. “

Let us have the reference to the “peer reviewed science” to which you refer, Baygon, which backs up the assertion of AGW. No one else has found it

LL you assert. repeatedly, that there is no scientific basis for the idea that human activities can, and do, have an effect on the world's climate.

At the same time you apparently refuse to look at the scientific papers which have been cited, which give detailed evidence of the probable effects of human actvities on the world's climate. I and others have given references to peer-reviewed scientific papers, but you choose to ignore this.

The familiar "Oregon petition" of thirty thousand "scientists" has been refuted as a hoax. Even if it were not a hoax, it would be no more than the opinions of a fairly small number of people, with unknown climate credibility, while the climate scientists of the world (including atmospheric scientists, phenologists, oceanographers, vulcanologists, soil and water researchers) are in general agreement that we face a real and present problem. Pretending that it does not exist is not going to solve it.

Please check the science before you make more wild asertions.

Baygon.

At least you attempt to reason logically yet you seem to quickly discount other opinions out of hand which, as I have said, is unscientific and a little bit arrogant.

Your main responses to my post are:

1. The peer reviewed literature generally supports AGW so it must be right.

Climate science is in its infancy. Funding favours certain views. There is little or no money, especially from the IPCC, for Climate Scientists whose work contradicts the AGW theory. It is difficult to get a dissenting peer reviewed paper published because editorial boards of major journals have become stacked over the last 20 yrs with AGW proponents. You seem to be unaware of all of this which means in my reckoning, your view of the process of science and publication in Climate Science is too naive and simplistic.

2. You admit that "we will not know whether the IPCC is right or wrong".

EXACTLY. So, after all this political, social and economic disruption you might turn around and say " Oh well it wasn't right after all."
Sorry, not good enough.

AGW scientists failed to accurately predict 2009 global temperatures. How can they predict 30 yrs hence? (Don't do the weather v climate argument, it is really quite silly)

3. That making money is not in itself a sign of fraud or corruption.
Agreed. However, it is a well accepted principle in society that a pecuniary interest may impair one's judgment. So when Al Gore sprouts his views we should not be a little suspicious ? When Scientists' very livelihood rest on funding for one view only could their views be affected?

Do you believe the science about smoking and lung cancer from scientists who work for a cigarette company?

Nicco-

You jump immediately to make personal remarks which is common in AGW proponents and thought to be due to the weakness of their arguments.

You say-:
1. "So far no-one has succeeded in refuting the theory". It may have escaped your notice but no-one has proven it either.

2. "I refer you to my earlier post, in which I pointed out that debate is alive and well. Debate implies a discussion between people of different viewpoints."

What a laugh. AGW proponents only decided there WAS another side to the issue after Copenhagen failed miserably and they had to get dissenters on side. Prior to this they wanted to crush all dissent. (Even jail dissenting politicians if you ask scientist David Suzuki) Nice to see how conciliatory you guys are now you are losing. Nevertheless, though you pretend to, you never take the other side seriously.

3."And your wild accusations of fraud and academic misconduct are not backed up by any evidence; where enquiries have been held, the scientists have been exonerated. If you know otherwise, please provide evidence"

Pleae read below email. See terms 'hide the decline'

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil