James O’Neill. On the nonsense of 97% of climate scientists. This misinformation came out of another attempt to mislead by fraud backer John Cook. In ignorance of its mendacity, you mentioned it in your post.Here is a sensible comment on it :
“Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

There is general agreement that human activity contributes to climate change. What the fraud backers cannot face up to is that the effect is insignificant. The effect is so trivial that it has no scientific significance, and is not measurable. It is like the pollution which occurs when the waterfront dwlling ex-inister for Lies about Sea Levels urinates in the ocean adjoining his home. He pollutes the water, but the effect is not significant or measurable.That is why there is no scientific evidence of any human effect on climate.
All we request is that Lyn and the other fraud backers wasting space here, admit the truth.

Slence really is golden.

@Leo Lane and others.

One reason I am reluctant to engage in debate in this forum is that the responses one receives are all too frequently offensive and attack the person rather than addressing the arguments. I also have a policy of avoiding debate with people who hide behind a nom de plume.

I am aware of the Taylor article that you cite. What you fail to point out is that Mr Taylor is the M.D. of the Heartland Institute, a right wing think tank in the US which the Huffington Post described as having "a penchant for misrepresenting science".

In the comments section of Taylor's column there is a response from a Russell Seitz who points out the systematic fallacies in Taylor's article.

As I said in my original post I am not a scientist. I try to read the science as intelligently as I can. Notwithstanding the criticisms of the Cook et al article (the source of the 97% claim) the fact is that the overwhelming majority of articles in the peer reviewed literature acknowledge a human contribution to climate change. There is of course scope for reasoned debate about the extent of that influence.

But even if one takes the view that humans make little or no contribution to climate change the fact of the matter is that the climate is changing, as it has done for the 4 billion plus years this planet has existed. Some of that change is beneficial; eg the case of Greenland. In other cases it is not. The policy challenge surely is to identify the nature of the change and where possible to adopt policies to ameliorate any ill-effects.

To engage in vituperative name calling is surely the modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. The planet deserves better than that.

James are you now suggesting you might not think warming is occurring but whether it is warming or cooling doesn't really matter, yet you acknowledge you don't really know to what extent humans are influencing that change but that we should develop and introduce policies that will control those changes.

I think it was better that you kept silent.

James my alternative is that as individuals we should prepare to face the coming cooling and just deal with it.

Proposing spending huge amounts of taxpayers money to try to stop the cooling or even mitigating the effects would be just plain dumb.

Don't you agree?

Can you please point out where I have attacked you or anybody personally on this thread? I have issued challenges and debated reasonably. For you to suggest otherwise is either gross misjudgement or deceitfully offensive.