Raycom,

"...the IPCC fan club includes many supposedly "highly trained and educated scientists...."

Precisely!

...as opposed to untrained conspiracy hacks who perpetuate the denialist mantra by posting their own unique amateurish "expertise" on public forums.

Poirot

The invitation remains open for you or any fellow AGW believer to table the scientific papers that document the factual evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused significant global warming.

Raycom, I haven't bothered to respond, firstly because we've wandered a little off topic, and second because there's really no point.
All the info is out there. If you want an objective view of developments, I strongly suggest you first check the established independent magazines and ezines; New Scientist, Nature, even Geographic. If you consider these too light weight, go to source contributors to the IPCC, if you don't like the body itself; contributions come from thousands of scientists in 95 countries, including Australia's Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.
I strongly suggest you check how your sources are funded when considering objectivity. Independent magazines which live by reporting news worthy items would, I suggest, be more objective than sources funded by Big Oil and Big Tobacco, like the Heartland Foundation.
The most newsworthy articles, after all, are the ones which conflict with convention, or better still cast convention into controversy.
Objective sources are quick to publish new developments, particularly those which challenge the established thinking, such as:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought.html

The Heartland institute by comparison, only publishes articles which reinforce its own views.
A sceptic is one who remains yet to be convinced, not one who refuses to be convinced.

>> one who refuses to be convinced <<

Recalcitrant, conservative, 'stuck-in-the-muds', 'anti-science types', non-progressives, 'dumb-ass/donkey', religious 'fundies', 'rightist' ideologues, etc, etc.

Why are they referred to as ostriches, with their head in the sand ... anyone?

Grim

AGW ideology that is disseminated in the independent magazines or else spruiked by scientists in politicised bodies such as CSIRO and BOM, all of whom belong to the IPCC fan club -- mafia would perhaps be a better description -- fails to convince. All of these supposed scientists have failed to come up with the empirical evidence required to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt

Raycom, clearly that depends on who the 'reasonable doubter' is.
All those 'supposed scientists' still frequently fail to accurately predict tomorrow's weather.
But I find they're close enough often enough to make it worth checking the weather forecast.