Leo,

Firstly, the list of 31,000 "scientists" has ben shown to be a farce. If you got your information from somewhere other than the Murdoch press or denialist blogs you might know that. The list even included two doctors from the M.A.S.H TV series.

Secondly, every single significant national and international scientific body endorses the AGW climate theory. There are thousands of peer reviewed articles which, as a whole, provide ample evidence to support the theory. None successfully discredit it. The science is 200 years old and calls on the fields of physics, mathematics, chemistry, geology, and so on. There is so much more to it than the simple hockey stick which denialists seemto think is the only piece of evidence.

Your statements that no scientists assert there is proof is an outright lie and has no place inthis debate.

Basically you are making false statements, regurgitated from newspapers and denialist blogs. Your sources of information are bogus, your assertions are bogus and therefore your whole argument is bogus.

Either you're a fraud or an ill-informed hot-head. Take your pick.

I wonder how many people out the think that the target for 2020 can be met in time, regardless of who is in power. It is the equivalent of removing five 1000 megawatt coal fired power stations and replacing them with the equivalent in non CO2 producing power in the next eight years.

David

Thanks, TrashcanMan, for more unsustainable generalisations, and no science. As I said, you will not come up with any science to sustain your position, because there is no such science.

This is all we ever receive from fraud backers. No science, just attempts to deceive.

As for the scientific bodies unjustified assertions on the topic, an outstanding scientist, Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society pointing out that floods of government money have corrupted science and the APS in particular. Government grant money is at the base of misleading statements by the scientific bodies, and not science.

As I said, everything that you come up with is based on the IPCC's pathetic guess "very likely". When they announced their guess, they predicted that the contribution of human emissions would be borne out when the "hot spot" in the troposphere was demonstrated, which would be the "signature" for AGW. Years later there is no hot spot, no signature, and no apology from the IPCC for being so wrong in their estimates.

Global warming is caused by natural cycles. This is well established science, and the IPCC has failed to dislodge it, despite efforts by the Climategate miscreants, who peer review each other's papers. There is no room in the established science for any effect by human emissions, and no such effect has been scientifically demonstrated.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf

The main document sets out the disgraceful behaviour of the Climategate miscreants in their opposition to publishing the paper confirming this truth about AGW, or demonstrating the lack of truth in AGW proponents.

Leo,

So it's a big conspiracy theory is it? I think not.

Lewis' complaint wasn't that AGW theory was false, but that the amount of warming could not be determined accurately. This fact surfaced after the release of his original resignation letter. He was also one of 48,000 plus members of the American Physical Society, but obviously the only one not in on the conspiracy.

In fact, in a book on technological risk published by Lewis in 1990, he asserted that:
"...the bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases, mainly carbon dioxide..."

And as for your link to Bob Carter's paper. The original paper this refers to was blasted because it was simply "bad science" and was quickly and effectively rebutted by peer review. Furthermore, it did not even refer to long term global warming at all.

Yes, global warming can and is caused by natural causes, the ÌPCC don't refute this and have no interest in "dislodging" it because it doesn't conflict with AGW theory, in fact it helps understand it better..

But current levels of global warming are not able to be correlated with any natural causes (show us the science that proves otherwise and you'll get a Nobel Prize).

You are providing shaky shaky shaky arguments to somehow assert that the majority of the world's scientists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to, well, science. OR that they're all in on some massive global conspiracy. Maybe they're hiding Elvis and Bin Laden somewhere and just using this all as a diversion.

@TrashcanMan,

Believe it or not, I was thinking about the odds on whether you would respond to Leo Lane. I figured you sounded like you had a clue, so you would recognise a brick wall when you saw one. I was wrong, because here you are, still banging your head against it.

Ah well, you win some and you loose some I guess.

@Leo Lane,

I'm curious. I figure you are posting under your real name, and you are as outspoken in the real world on climate change as you are here, so your friends and associates in the real world are very familiar with your views. Is that true?

For what it's worth, my nick here is how I sign my name, and I live in Brisbane.

rstuart,

I'll admit I'm a sucker for punishment. But I can't stand the fact that this stupidity is out there in the public domain and, as is seen in the polls, people are actually listening to it.

Never before has a conspiracy theory been so effective and damaging. And the conspiracy theorists / denialists / contrarians are running with it.

Besides, I'm not smashing my head against the wall, just patiently dismantling it one ignorance brick at a time.