I'd like to bring up a few points that havent been mentioned.
Firstly, has anyone heard of Haarp?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/air-force-bombshell-admits-they-can-control-weather-haarp/
What about chemtrails; Why are they spraying the atmosphere with this stuff?

Most of the hysteria about Climate Change is because of reduced ice in the arctic region, but no-one mentions an increase of ice in the antarctic.
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/22/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-as-arctic-hits-2014-minimum/

Take into account The Flexner Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
100 yrs ago the Rockefellers funded this report and gave out a ton of money only to medical institutions advocating drug-based medical procedures, its the reason why even today Cannabis Oil is not an advocated method of treating people with cancer, even though its proven to be helpful to these patients.

When you look at things like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc16H3uHKOA
You will realise that the people with all the money probably fund a lot of these studies that go along with supporting Climate Change and that is a reason that might skew the statistics.
Scientists who aren't on-board with the agenda are probably vilified, probably don't progress as far in their careers than they would if they supported the general consensus, and so there's incentive for them to agree publicly, even if they privately have their own doubts.

Has anyone here heard of the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution? Where you create a problem, then manage the reaction, and then come in acting like a savior by presenting the solution to the problem, in order to bring about a change you wanted in the first place?
We should take this into account especially when some on the planet advocate global depopulation.

In regards to the article itself, to me the important thing to note is that if the majority of experts abstained, then the 98% figure is untrue, and what do these people really think; why did they abstain?

I wont agree that everything is rosy and that we should do nothing.
We are slowly making a mess of the planet in many ways and we need to do more to take care of it.
We do need to work towards building new alternative energy.

P,

Perhaps you should read your own links. TA clearly promised to match the first 4 years of Gonski funding only. That is what he is doing.

Health funding is increasing at a rate exceeding inflation as promised, without the unfunded promises that labor made.

Abbott is obliged to keep his promises not Labor's.

Armchair, relax, "we" all know about HAARP.
It suggests that you do not know anything about HF Radio.
It is an experiment to see if the various layers can be modified to enhance propergation.
It is a bit like a souped up ionospheric sounder.
I suspect it was installed to enhance OTR, "Over the Horizon Radar".
Sure you are not Arjay ?

SM,

Lol!....of course one has to keep count of the backflips by the ever agile Chrissy Pyne.

http://theconversation.com/abbott-gonski-backflip-puts-the-money-back-21018

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has done a backflip on his earlier Gonski backflip - restoring all the money he originally promised for schools funding, with a guarantee that no school will be worse off."

"Last week the government declared that it would only match the A$1.6 billion that Labor had put into the forward estimates for extra school funding, plus adding A$230 million for Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory which had not reached agreements with the Labor government.

In the election campaign the Coalition promised to spend A$2.8 billion, to match Labor’s Gonski offer to all states and territories.

Abbott and Education Minister Christopher Pyne announced the latest policy switch at a news conference just before parliament’s question time, to blunt Labor’s attack."

"After Abbott claimed at the weekend - despite election quotes to the contrary - that the Coalition had not promised no individual school would be worse off, the government now says with the restored funding there won’t be any reason for any school to be a loser."

And that was before Hockey's budget...

http://www.afr.com/p/national/budget/states_must_find_bn_to_pay_for_health_Yb6v0t2socuZhmUueCG2xH

"The government is creating a $80 billion hole in the states’ projected funding as it pulls back on Labor’s large commitments in health and education."

Backflips, backflips, policy switches.....if they weren't quite so shambolic and squalid, it might be entertaining!

Poirot

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16779#295157

Why would I be bothered to reply to Leo when his standard response is to call people liars?

If I produce Lanelaw's patrents, birth certificate and DNA signature to him, he will still deny the evidence of his birth.

So too with his denial of the significance of AGW.

He is continually presented with evidence and he continually lets loose with his denial mantra - Google "Leo Lane".

I can't be bothered with irrational fools.

Hi Bazz,
Thanks for your reply.
I only mentioned HAARP because no-one else had brought it up.
These HF radio transmitters are all over the planet.
With a topic such as climate change, a plan to superheat the ionosphere and modify weather patterns may have some bearing on the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEAmjTeSe8g
In reference to Arjay; Some of the things I mention might seem a little unusual or differ from the general consensus but I usually back it up with some form of reference (whether or not you can count these things as evidence) to show that what I am saying is worthy of adding to the discussion.
I like to consider the factors that they aren't openly telling us just as much than the ones they are, because I like to try to see the bigger picture.
Lets not forget that this topic is used as a political issue to gain votes, as well as others who have a vested financial interest in profiteering from carbon emissions trading.
- Scott