@Agronomist: the '97%' meme has been exposed as nonsense so many times in so many ways that the only thing it shows is the ignorance about the issues of the person who quotes it. In AGW terms it makes you equivalent to the Christian apologist who claims 'Hitler was an atheist!' (I don't think even runner is trying that any more).

I'm not even going to bother to tell you where you can find out how wrong it is, because Google is your friend: but if you want to appear with any credibility at all, I suggest you find out.

>> Stop shooting the messenger just because they are giving you a message you don't like. <<

But that's what they do Valley Guy. In reference to AGW, ever since the IPCC was first instigated.

Just look at the comments on this piece. OLO's usual suspects prancing around like a pack of hyenas snipping and sniping at the merest hint of a message they don’t like.

Sheesh, even the mention of Wikipedia is like testing the water with your toes – a school of piranhas circling and wanting to strip you to the bone.

Yes, this site is full of it Valley Guy - cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and motivational reasoning.

Loudmouth, you clearly failed to understand the point I was making. If you want to get an idea of how scientists view the evidence for a particular theory, you survey the specialists in the field, not random people on the internet or the street. As you yourself have pointed out; random people believe all sorts of things. You don’t survey the religious right if you want to get an idea of how strong the consensus for evolution is among evolutionary biologists.

When the evidence is assessed for whether experts in climate science agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change, very strong agreement is found http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract Those people who disagree, like Anthony Watts and Andrew Bolt, have much lower levels of expertise.

And for those like Jon J who wish to rely on the University of Google for their evidence, I am afraid I can’t help them.

<< But that's what they do Valley Guy. {shoot the messenger] …[the] … usual suspects prancing around like a pack of hyenas snipping and sniping at the merest hint of a message they don’t like>>

Perspective, Bonmot, Perspective

Your messenger is telling us that if we buy his bottle of snake oil [the carbon tax] it will solve all our ailments [drought, flood, bushfire, the spread of infectious diseases…]. Is there any wonder many want to tar and feather him!

"Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one
another, not least the use of similar tactics. All set themselves up as
courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to
suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy
is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover
of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain,
atheism.

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference)

@ Robert LePage,

<< Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept…>>

Ah, but, just maybe, the real denialists are those who believe that climate change is all about CO2 – for they are in denial that other factors may play a primary role