An interesting and thought provoking article. Why, I ask myself, do so many non scientists, and some of them appearing calm and rational, feel so comfortable and confident in doubting a mass of scientific opinion on a scientific matter in which they have only an interested layman's knowledge?

According to Wikipedia "since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies: of Australia, of Belgium, of Brazil, of Cameroon, Royal Society of Canada, of the Caribbean, of China, Institut de France, of Ghana, Leopoldina of Germany, of Indonesia, of Ireland, Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy, of India, of Japan, of Kenya, of Madagascar, of Malaysia, of Mexico, of Nigeria, Royal Society of New Zealand, Russian Academy of Sciences, of Senegal, of South Africa, of Sudan, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, of Tanzania, of Turkey, of Uganda, The Royal Society of the United Kingdom, of the United States, of Zambia, and of Zimbabwe."

Is it really likely that an interested layman has spotted something overlooked (like water vapour as per this article) by all these bodies, or alternatively known by all these bodies but deliberately suppressed for some reason?

I'd say the chances are even lower than the percentages Alan Jones likes to quote.

If you love the planet, be happy for it and be relieved that the planet you love so much will not experience a life ending crisis of climate change. Climate change was a political and cultural industry, not science and not pollution, or energy or waste or population. It was a specific CO2 death threat to billions of children and it was a mistake and a criminal exaggeration that served as a comfortable lie. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 25 years of climate control instead of the obviously needed population control. Nice job!

Oh pleeeeze. Not yet another denialist astroturfing article.
Goebbels has a lot to answer for.
This one even makes jokes about the quality of his wine being improved by global warming. I wonder if he will be so enamored by the climate in Sydney when it is regularly reaching 40C+ and water spouts and tornadoes are hitting weekly?
Also he will find himself surfing under the bridge, past the peaks of the good old opry house sticking up through the water.
Enough of this nonsense, get real of keep quiet.

Sarian - it is you who are spouting nonsense, as shown by your post. You can't have the high temperatures and tornadoes together. The tornadoes in the US were the result of lower temperatures - a la nina effect. Temperatures for all of this year have been quite low compared to last year. Best to pick one non-contradictory scare story and stick with it.

Rich2 - indeed, all those experts and scientific societies have come out in support of greenhouse theory, and yes the consensus is that industrial emissions are warming the earth. But as has been pointed out many times now, a consensus and the agreement of experts counts for precisely nothing. Instead you have to ask yourself what track record does the theory have? Answer: none.

I could say a lot more on that point, but a good illustration of just how far scientific debate can go off the rails is Freudian Psychiatry. This was practised for decades quite seriously, and had whole learned journals devoted to it - even spilling over into other disciplines - without a single scrap of scientific evidence to back the new bits of Freud's theory (importance of dreams, childhood sexuality ect).

Laymen and occasially doctors occasionally pointed out it was a load of nonsense, only to be howled down. Although the psychiatric profession has long abandonded Freud's theories, you will still find people sprouting Freud like ideas about repressed memory and the like.

yes that's what I thought.. Oh Dear yet another arm chair Google right wing anti-science scientist here to tell us all why all the know nothing climate scientist are wrong and why he is right.

Got a problem, thinking of using the Scientific method to study and solve it, junk that just find out what does Alan Jones think, job done.

I really don't understand why anybody would believe anything a scientist said about any subject. It's simple, if you have a question about physics ask a lawyer. If you have a question about chemistry ask a economist. If you want to know the age of the earth ask a preacher and if you've got any questions about climate then ask a opinion writer. Whatever you do don't ask a scientist, I mean what would they know

Chris, you are right to be skeptical. However, skeptics should be just as ardent about the need to deal with climate change as the ardent believers.

We need to err on the side of caution, and certainly NOT demand proof or highly convincing evidence before we see fit to act.

Only those who absolutely KNOW that anthropogenic climate change is not real should be denouncing it and refusing to do anything to mitigate it. And there is absolutely NO ONE who can genuinely put themself in that category.

But more importantly, we should be taking a holistic approach to sustainability, instead of largely concentrating on one aspect of it and leaving other huge aspects very poorly and inadequately addressed.

As a huge part of this, we need a global effort to quickly stabilise and then progressively reduce population. This is at least as important as the entire global warming effort.