Max says:” You're trying to change the topic “
No, troll, the topic is your lack of science to support your assertions, which have no basis other than your dishonesty.
Assertions by entities which support lies are irrelevant.
You cannot produce any science to support your assertions.
I have posted science to show the invalidity of your position.
You have posted no science to support your baseless nonsense.
Attempting to change the topic to scientists who support assertions with no scientific basis does not mitigate your dishonesty.

You are a meritless troll.

Its all very well to be claiming a consensus. But what is the consensus and what do 97% of scientists agree with?

Well it comes down to agreeing with two propositions:
1. That we've warmed over the past 100-150 yrs
2. That a 'significant' portion of that warming was due to man's actions.

OK. I accept that north of 90%of climate scientists would agree with those propositions. I certainly would.

But so what?

Is there a consensus that the warming is bad, dangerous or catastrophic? If so where's the evidence for that?

In the article in question its asserted that man's actions "will raise the Earth's temperature by +5-10 degrees centigrade." Is there a consensus around those sort of numbers (or anything approaching them) and if so where's the evidence?

Indeed is there a consensus that we'll even get to the purported dangerous 2c warming and if so where's the evidence?

Is there a consensus that 2c is indeed dangerous?

and so on.

The 97% number is a marketing exercise, not a scientific one. Its used by those a certain ilk to go from a couple of motherhood statements that all agree with, to assertions that everyone therefore agrees we have to have CO2 taxes and renewable subsidies. But there is no consensus about that and certainly no evidence that a consensus at any level exists about what ought to be done in response to the current 1c per century warming.

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

4. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

5. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Other than all that, I’m sure there’s no scientific evidence whatsoever! ;-)

Hi Mhaze,
interesting question, as it shows you've been living in the cave behind the hermit's cave, because even the proverbial hermit knows the answer to these two! He must have been blocking your view of the TV in his cave for the last 10 years.

"Indeed is there a consensus that we'll even get to the purported dangerous 2c warming and if so where's the evidence?

Is there a consensus that 2c is indeed dangerous?"

Fortunately here's a 3 minute summary of the most basic consensus of all: 2 degrees MATTERS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtGg-Lvxso

Max,

I'm in an ebullient mood following the US elections so I'm gunna let your childish hermit tirade pass and give it the consideration it deserves ie none.

Again, I'm not disputing that there is a consensus of sorts about the past 100-150 yrs and its causes.

But my point was that there is no evidence for a scientific consensus about the future and what, if anything, to do about it.

Now I get that you, in your childish naivety, think that a YouTube video by Bill McKibben (really!) is the same thing as a scientific consensus. Alas, you'd be wrong.

We know that the 2c figure was plucked out of thin air (so to speak) - Phil Jones confirmed it in emails revealed by FOIA.

But again, where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its valid? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its dangerous? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think we'll get there? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists agree about what to do about it? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists agree we need to do anything now (repeat, now)?

It get that you are convinced by the Mythbusters team burning candles that its all real and we're all gunna die 40 years from next Tuesday week, and that therefore we need to uproot society to avoid it. But some evidence might be a value, n'est pas?

And there I was thinking I was doing you a favour by at least linking to something entertaining. Maybe the fact that you're a Trump supporter has you on too big a high to comprehend basic presentations? Being a Trump supporter is certainly very revealing of your general state of mind, and shows what is really driving your climate scepticism. Politics.

The real question is *what* do *you* think they were studying at Copenhagen? A horoscope? One of those "Around goes the wheel and out comes the rat!" spinning wheel sideshow raffles that Sarah Palin is so fond of up in Alaska? Gee, that's a hard one. I *wonder* what they were discussing! ;-)

Also, you snuck this in without a reference or any evidence.
"We know that the 2c figure was plucked out of thin air (so to speak) - Phil Jones confirmed it in emails revealed by FOIA."

Are you trolling again? I thought we already discussed your propensity to make assertions without a shred of evidence. Perhaps you didn't like being repeatedly caught out quoting things out of context, and think it's easier just to sneak unfounded assertions into a trite and petty little bit of trolling, instead of actually discussing something like an adult?

It's this simple: put up or shut up.