Spindoc,

You are confusing expert opinion on a problem with the willingness of politicians to do something about it. The Wikipedia article on the scientific consensus on global warming contains a long list of learned societies that have issued statements supporting AGW, or at least not contradicting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

When the learned societies change their positions, I will follow suit. Not all of us are emotionally invested in this issue, and we have God's own plenty of environmental problems without AGW.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you have to assume that the vast majority of climate scientists are either too stupid to recognise the problems with their arguments, even when pointed out by lawyers and other laymen, or that they are part of some conspiracy. Climate scientists have passed stiff examinations in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, and then worked full-time on atmospheric physics and chemistry for years or even decades, using the most technologically advanced instruments. Scientists (even the whole scientific community) aren't infallible, but science is competitive and self-correcting, rewarding researchers for interesting new findings or ideas, or for shooting down the arguments of other scientists. How likely is it that you know more about their field than they do?

The conspiracy argument is daft. Who organised the worldwide conspiracy and how have they managed to cover it up? How do they stop individual scientists from breaking ranks and showing that the emperor has no clothes, even though it would mean a Nobel Prize and unlimited grant money? No one wants AGW to be true. If the government wants to frighten and stampede people to get more power, there are far simpler and less economically damaging ways to do it.

"The conspiracy argument is daft. Who organised the worldwide conspiracy and how have they managed to cover it up?"

Read the emails: emails 1:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

Emails 2:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/breaking-more-emails-released-climategate-ii/#more-18980

Anyone who denies these guys were not conspiring to suppress views opposing AGW needs their head read.

The rest of the 'conspiracy' is not about 'scientists' lying in private but about suppression, bullying and intimidation. There are plenty of scientists who stood up to the heads of the pro-AGW organisations and were punished; google Clive Spash, Doug Lord etc.

There are vast amounts of money being wasted on AGW; scientists are human; they know if they play the game they'll get the money; don't tell me these guys are all pure and scientifically moral.

Then there is the scientific backbone of the AGW 'science', models; they are damaged beyond repair:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/16/climate-models-getting-worse-than-we-thought/

The people who have stood up to the bully-boy tactics of the AGW industry are the true heroes; the Watts, Novas, McIntyres Stockwells, Michaels, Pielkes etc.

Finally your consensus is a joke, fundamentally unscientific and proved using every shonk technique in the book as Cook's latest effort shows:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/#comment-1274748

Anyone who uses the consensus to justify AGW is a dope.

Divergence,

I’m not a scientist, at least not the sort of scientist that could possibly comment on climate science.

That said I think you completely miss the point. It matters not how many “learned people” or even politicians you can enlist, because they and their science has caused the collapse of the entire infrastructure needed for a global response to a global problem.

If your science cannot convince your infrastructure to do something about your problem, all you are left with is YOUR problem. Alarmism is your problem and so is your “belief” in it.

You say when the learned societies change their position, you will follow suit. That tells us all that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. That Divergence is what got you into this position in the first place. You are sheeples!

Interesting that those who preside over us and tell us what to think are the same “intelligentsia” who have been “had” by this monumental scam, go figure.

You and your fellow travelers are a lost cause and quite frankly there are many who are quite happy to see you remain that way

Well said, Divergence.

Of course, spindoc doesn't give near enough credit to all the players who fuel climate denial, most of it backed up, not by scientists with expertise in the various disciplines associated with climate, but by so-called "expert commentators" like Jo Nova and Anthony Watts....and ably supported on blogs by loyal acolytes like spindoc.

Yup...climate scientists are dumb.....or they're part of a world-wide conspiracy....or both!

....yuk,yuk,yuk....

Spindoc,

If a climate scientist started making pronouncements in your own area of expertise, you would most likely proclaim him to be an idiot, and with good reason.

Cohenite,

I didn't give a figure for the degree of consensus, but the existence of a consensus is obvious from the positions of the various learned societies.

Individual scientists are people, so they can obviously be bullies, be corrupt, abuse their authority, or just be incompetent. I make no apology for the East Anglia people, although I doubt that you would want to be exclusively judged by stolen emails taken out of context, with the worst possible construction put on them. At the very worst, this is still a long way from a worldwide conspiracy, affecting what is published in Chinese journals, for example. No one scientist or group of scientists has that much influence or control, especially since the rewards for breaking ranks would be high. Imagine being able to tell the Communist Party leadership of your country that spending money on greenhouse gas abatement is unnecessary (and providing good evidence to back up that position).