voxUnius and others

The following peak scientific bodies have issued position papers warning their governments of the dangers of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (Britain)

French Academy of Sciences

Max Planck Institute (Germany)

Indian Institutes of Technology

Science Council of Japan

National Academy of Sciences (US)

I have struggled to find a single scientific institute of international repute that dissents from the view that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real and may have catastrophic consequences.

Among science Nobel Prize winners there seems to be a lone dissident, Ivar Giaever. All other science Nobelists who have commented on the matter are in no doubt that AGW is real and potentially catastrophic.

This is as close to scientific consensus as it is possible to get.

I guess the real scientists are not reading wattsupwiththat.com.

They prefer to look at the ever mounting evidence in the real world.

Leading business publications such as Bloomberg Business Week, Fortune Magazine, the Financial Times and the Economist all take reality of AGW for granted. I guess they're also not reading wattsupwiththat.com. They prefer to take the word of real scientists.

In the English speaking world the lone holdouts among major business publications seem to be the always eccentric Forbes Magazine and the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal.

Policy responses, their successes and failures and public opinion do not affect the validity of the science.

As I pointed out in the first post in this thread, I suspect the intellectual battle is over. Whatever their public posturing, the world's key decision makers seem to be accepting the word of real scientists.

Historically the scientific consensus has usually, not always but usually, been more nearly right than dissenters.

In the past 120 years, when the scientific consensus has been overturned it has always been as a result of scientists doing the hard yards. There are no recent examples of outsiders with pamphlets or websites proving the scientific consensus wrong.

So keep fighting the good fight if that's what you want but you're facing long odds

Wonderful, voxUnius,

Let's all celebrate ignorance and its perpetuation!

That the deniaist camp is pretty much full of sound and fury emanating in the main from those who are not climate scientists - and who have much to gain from preserving the status quo - it's not really surprising that you would claim it's all about which side is "winning".

If all the land based ice melts, we could see ocean level rises of as much as 70 metres.
Even 10 metres would be absolutely disastrous, and drown all of our coastal cites; and or, around 70% of our economy.
And let's not forget, just how much of our population; and or, best arable land hugs the coast.
At my age, I expect to be in the ground long before the worst effects of climate change and a now thawing tundra, impacts negatively, on all life.
So, why should I care or seek viable solutions, preferably before we experience an absolute calamity!
Those with large land holdings on the coast, may cry BS, even as they try to unload holdings, which are becoming less and less desirable and consequently, less and less valuable.
A good businessman knows when to cut his/her losses and get out!
Meanwhile, our politicians are reacting with glacial speed, to this emerging threat?
[When they need to get ahead of the curve, and become proactive! Pick and fund winners!]
Why? Well when you get down and dirty; or just too busy slinging mud and vying for the spoils of political defeat?
There's simply no time to focus on anything actually important or likely to result in TIMELY, nation saving or nation building outcomes!?
Rhrosty.

We have another lie-fest coming up in Qatar shortly, so brace yourselves for the obligatory flurry of climate lies.

Dohar is an appropriate place. It is rich in the type of energy of which the AGW fraud backers wish to deprive us, but it is an appropriate place to hope for relief from the freezing weather which traditionally dogs these presentations of mendacity.

The nonsense that Carson did anything but harm in backing the banning of DDT has long been put to rest. It was established by an full enquiry that there was no scientific basis for the banning of DDT. The EPA said that the decision they made was not scientific, but political. It caused millions of unnecessary deaths.

Ban Ki-Moon, the main presenter of lies about climate, has been requested by 125 top climate scientists to stop lying about climate.

OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Until there is such science, which is unlikely, considering the futile and expensive efforts to date, nonsense like this article is counterproductive.

125-plus scientists.

Chortle......

I'll bet there's another of those fly in global warming conferences, in some lovely resort area somewhere right now.

There must be, it is usual for all the tin pot academics to burst into print, with inane bits of bumph, or appeals to authority, which ever is easier, when one of those annual holiday rhorts is on.

The word must go out from higher authority, demanding a new blast of all the old, all ready disproven, global warming scenarios.

Who do you reckon it comes from? Does Julia issue a demand for those in government pay to give a blast of carbon tax supporting bull?

You know, I think she might, she is very fond of lies, now isn't she?