bonmot, I think you will find that the majority of the scientists in the world do not support the alarming scenarios propagated by the IPCC and the Garnaut report. You need to realise the way that genuine scientists who do not support the politically correct line are put on the outer by the insiders of the IPCC.

As for the alarming scenarios, you really need to understand the way the climate models are manipulated to get the desired "results". This is explained by Garth Paltridge in "The Climate Caper", summarized here http://www.the-rathouse.com/2011/Paltridge-Climate-Caper.html

Pericles2,

You mean this Garth Paltridge?

http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=104

Anyone who references Cook's site is an idiot; Paltridge has many papers including this seminal one on atmospheric humidity being inconsistent with AGW;

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

Oh, that summary essay; The Climate Caper.

With the forward by the Lord Father Christmas, Christopher Monckton.

Published the 'deniers' publisher of choice (just ask Plimer).

Buy here, yeah - right.

The summary first appeared as a series of posts on the blog Catallaxy.

Yep, spam - that site again.

Oh pleeze cohers, you can get suspended for abuse here. Unlike Jo or Jen, no?

Poirot an interesting site. Dropping back the main list gives some interesting links. http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

Some info on how the list is compiled here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html

One of the dangers of the approach taken in that site is that part of the sceptic position is that the peer review process has been distorted by those pushing the AGW position. Eg if you question AGW then it's hard to get the review.

Not sure how true that is but one of the things that bug's me about this issue is how much sign there appears to be of sceptical voices suffering professionally for doing what scientists should do by questioning.

One of the peer reviewed papers by Sherwood B. Idso (http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=131) http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=131 appears by title to be relevant to this thread. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso

One list of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

I think that there are extremists on both sides of this with no interest in finding the truth. There are those determined to support one side of the argument or the other not because the science is right or because they are really in a position to judge the science (and I'm not) but because one side of the issue suits other priorities.

I can't judge the science, I can see that I'm being told lies and spun to by both sides of the debate. I can see that it's not as settled as some might claim.

I can see that there are some good reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuels but that some who are so very vocal on that issue would still rather travel in private jets than teleconference. They'd rather build new coal fired power stations than nuclear regardless of nuclear's actual safety record. Some of them still live carbon intensive lives because they can afford to buy credits elsewhere or hide the carbon in the air above China or India.

Settled science is a bothersome concept, not so long ago the speed of light as an absolute was pretty much settled, now it's under serious review.

R0bert