Good Grief Raycom, Delingpole interests me not at all. The man has no credibility, except among the extreme end of the climate change denial movement. He was tolerated for his ability to garner click throughs, but even the Telegraph found him too much. So now he runs his own on-line site.

The whole point of my comment was that Delingpole wrote a piece that was obviously wrong. Less than 5 minutes of checking would have shown that it was wrong. Despite it being so obviously wrong, fools like you fell for it – presumably because it supported jour beliefs. That is what I am laughing about

Raycom stated "Ant, your assertions -- even if they include those of physicist Lawrence Krauss -- do not qualify as scientific evidence that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming."

Raycom, name National Scientific peak bodies that do not believe in anthropogenic climate change.
Here is a list provided by NASA that do believe in man made climate change:
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

"(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
... " ... there are 197 entries altogether.

In relation to Professor Krauss you are suggesting a Physicist doesn't know anything about physics; you know better.

Ant: "... name National Scientific peak bodies that do not believe in anthropogenic climate change."

Whether they believe in AGW is immaterial.

I would suggest that you re-read Leo Lane's succinct post of Sunday, 15 June 2014 2:31:24 PM -- you may recall that it was in response to your earlier post.

As ant has demonstrated, in her post above, fraud-backers have no science to support the assertion that human emissions have any significant effect on climate. She relies on baseless statements by previously reputable scientific bodies, as do all fraud-backers.
Delingpole’s concern is to expose the truth, so the fraud-backers on this thread have made ridiculous attacks, to brand him a liar, because he was incorrect in a detail in an article which was essentially correct. He correctly named the scientific realists who will be involved in the reconsideration by the APS of its flawed statement on climate change. They are not part of the Panel, but are invited to advise the Panel. Delingpole may be over-optimistic in expecting that this will result in a truthful statement by the APS, but the incorrect detail in his post does not make him a liar. Fraud-backers want him branded a liar because he propagates the truth in relation to the AGW fraud.

There is no suggestion that Krauss does not know zcience. The fact is that he made a baseless incorrect statement, ant, and of course he should know better.

Leo, only you can come with a statement such as "...The fact is that he made a baseless incorrect statement" in relation to Professor Krauss.
On the particular Q&A program he stated that scientists fall over themselves to prove their peers wrong. If there really was controversy amongst scientists then he would be crucified by his peers, its not the first time he has made the same comment.

Leo where is your evidence that Professor Krauss is wrong. Your comment amounts to a Physicist doesn't know about physics. You comment on what's right and what's wrong in science Leo, what specialty do you have a PhD in?

I did not see the Q&A with Lawrence Krauss, ant, but found an appropriate comment by someone who did:

“Because of the poisonously censorious atmosphere created by highly politicized warmists such as Krauss himself the skeptical scientists who continue to question and disprove the AGW "consensus" don't become famous at all. If anything they become infamous, often lose their gigs and suffer derision and ridicule on a grand scale. One of the labels they are tarred with is "denier", which Krauss subsequently went on to use (on Dean, by the way, not Bernardi).

He should also know that to debunk a theory you don't have to offer your own prediction. You just have to show the theory's predictions are wrong. And any rational person can see that the so-called deniers have done that time and time again over the last several years.

Lawrence Krauss. What a clown.”

http://www.matthaydenblog.com/2014/06/dean-king-krauss-and-bernardi-on-q-and-a.html
If you are looking for scientists who endorse the fraud of AGW, ant, I believe that you will only find lying clowns like Krauss

There is no science to demonstrate any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, so ignorance or dishonesty are the only bases for support of the AGW fraud.