Curmudgeon,

You are up against every reputable scientific institution in the world with your claim that AGW is a theory with no track record. In other words your hypothesis is that all these scientists have misled themselves and others through incompetence (or as part of a conspiracy).

The theory that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas has been on the table for 100 years and it can be proven in a lab that adding carbon dioxide promotes the greenhouse effect.

On top of that the climate is warming as CO2 levels are rising - more evidence of the linkage.

On top of that the impact has been modelled into the future, but only after testing the model by calculating parameters based on a portion of the actual real world data, and then running the model up to current times to see if the model results reflect the known reality. This sort of approach is well understood in other fields, for example by stock traders who wish to use a back tested system to trade markets into the future.

I can't do justice here to all the multiple streams of evidence that exist and which allow all those scientists in all those national science academies across the globe to be confident in the AGW theory.

It beggars belief that you seriously think you have a fresh insight or have discovered a false premise in their work.

Why do some people even bother arguing against what is deemed to be an established fact?
There will obviously be refinements yet to come but it would be extraordinary if some new evidence completely nullifies the notion of AGW.
I would have expected some prominent whistle-blower to have come forward by now and exposed it as some sort of scam and the IPCC has been around for over 20 years - it's not some new-age belief founded by Al Gore.

Those obsessed with looking for flaws in the mathematical analysis or keep requoting disproven theories simply ignore the physical reality that is becoming more and more evident - particularly in the northern hemisphere.

If I stand with one foot in a bucket of ice and the other foot on hot coals, on average I should be quite comfortable.

In addition to the precautions I take still I doubt that my house will burn down but that doesn't stop me from taking out fire insurance.

rich "It beggars belief that you seriously think you have a fresh insight or have discovered a false premise in their work."

It beggars belief that people believe to be skeptical you have to have an alternate solution or theory, you do not.

Climate science is relatively new and uses many tricks and tools to account for things they do not know, like how clouds form, where they form, and why .. that alone means their modelling has to use guesses.

It is immature, regardless of the egos involved.

CO2 is a trace gas and got its place in this by climate scientists determining they do not know what is causing warming and in the absence of anything else, it must be CO2, then came the pile on.

We know how the grants system, journal system and university tenure and promotion system works. If you move outside the accepted norm, you do not get funding, the uni does not get to publish and on it goes, it's a self licking ice cream. If you want to survive, you conform, see how they deal with anyone outside the system. See how they defend their own, ClimateGate.

We simply do not know enough about climate or climate science to say that a majority viewpoint is enough .. its like saying if enough people believe in a god, he must exist, surly the weight of their belief is enough.

That is exactly what you constantly appear to be saying, that weight of belief is in effect, proof - democracy causes physical effect.

So if enough people believe that stomach ulcers are caused by diet and environmental effects, it must be so .. oh wait, 2 guys disagreed and said it was bacterial. They got Noble prizes.

Belief is not enough Rich, sorry, and berating Curmudgeon because he does not believe, like you do, "beggars belief"

Do you think in 20 or 50 years time, they will look back and say, hey they really understood climate back then .. or are they likely to laugh and say, what primitive arrogant fools?

"Why do some people even bother arguing against what is deemed to be an established fact?

There will obviously be refinements yet to come but it would be extraordinary if some new evidence completely nullifies the notion of" the universe revolving around the earth?

Yes wobbles, that was established fact 600 years ago, questioning it made you a heretic, and Galileo was almost burned at the stake.

Thankfully those days are over, but I suspect you and many others would like to bring them back.

Yes the climate is changing, yes mankind is probably affecting it, mainly by land clearing and movement of people .. the attention on CO2 is out of perspective and unfortunately hijacks all the attention from real problems, like adapting.

Every dollar spent on "Climate Science" is a waste of resources we should be using to adapt .. this folly of trying to adjust the temperature, or stop the temperature is the greatest example of hubris ever.

King Canute, move over mate .. the alarmists are here!

Of course climate scientists love it, they get attention, they are important, they get money and resources .. they are human after all and of course, love being celebrities.

Did you see the ANU climate "scientists" doing a rap dance song thing, where they called non believers "bitches"?

Oh joy, how their egos soar, so smart, so clever yay!

Then got all sooky when they supposedly got "death threats" maybe calling people names was not such a good idea, scientists eh .. so clever eh.

Hello rpg.
Looks like another disciple of Dr Goebbels has made an appearance.
They all come out of the woodwork when there is dissention to sow.
Repeat the misinformation often enough and people might believe in this “Conspiracy theory” about global warming, with thousands of scientists all over the world organizing together to hoodwink everyone else.
My word if they are so clever and are able to put this together, you would think that they would get themselves elected and run the world…… instead of global corporations.

Rich2 - no, not every institution. There are exceptions (the Russian academy for example). There are also quite a few individual exceptions - Prof Richard Lindzen, a professor of meterology at MIT, or William Grey, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics at Colorado State University to name but two.

As for the other academies, they are mostly rubber stamping a view put out by the central body based in Italy and are, in fact, behaving more like trade unions in protecting the funding base of their members, than bodies giving independent scientific evidence.

Having communicated with a number of scientists over this issue, its apparent to me that the bulk of those who endorse the global warming position simply have no idea of what proof there is for the theory, or realise that they are dealing with forecasts not theories as such. In fact, they often have a completely mistaken view of what the debate is about.

Look, for example, at your earlier assertion about CO2.. sure the direct effect of CO2 warming have been known for a long time, but this has never been part of the debate. The argument has always been over the indirect effects or feedback effects of additional CO2 - notably whether the additional slight warming from CO2 will cause additional water vapour in the upper atmosphere. This is very well known, and there have been articles even on this forum dealing with exactly that point, yet you still find scientists who try to tell you that the direct warming from CO2 is well known so where's the argument?

The confusion in this area beggers belief. Best not to cite expert opinion but pretend you were really a sceptic all along.

Leave it with you.