To Steelredux.

The natural climate variability of the earth clearly displays a regular succession of ice ages and interglacial warming periods. If CO2 is "the highest it has been for 3 million bloody years", then how do you explain the regular warming periods which have occurred in the last 3 million years, which occurred during periods of low CO2 levels?

To Ant.

How were the questionaries worded? Did they ask "do you believe in climate change", in which case, there is your 100% agreement. If you asked the same question of HIGW deniers, you would still get 100% agreement. Were the ballots secret? Or did the respondents have to endanger their careers and sinecures by publically stating their views?

I am certain that an unknown "number of surveys" of ABC journalists would result in "97%" of those journalists claiming that the ABC is not biased. The 3% who would disagree with "97% consensus would not have jobs at the ABC in the next staff reduction cutback. As Dr. Tim Ball himself asserted, it is the most prominent Alarmists who are in charge of the peer review process.

The North Pole's ice retreat has stopped and there is just as much ice as there always was. The polar bears are not drowning. The coastal cities did turn into Atlantis. The Pacific Ocean Islanders are not swimming in the ocean looking for a place to land. The dams filled again. Hurricane super storms did not destroy entire coastlines. Millions did not die in heatwaves. Crops worldwide did not fail. Diseases caused by global warming did not kill millions. And human civilisation has not been destroyed.

I think that in another 20 years we are going to see a lot of books written about "The Great Global Warming Fraud." Authors will ask, how is it that so many educated and supposedly intelligent people could have been sucked into believing in sheer nonsense, which was invented by venal people furthering their own self interest by corrupting science for their own self aggrandisement.

Lego

You ask how the consensus was established; your the one who is critical, it is up to you to show how the studies were wrong.

You state .."The North Pole's ice retreat has stopped and there is just as much ice as there always was." That the Arctic ice is back to normal levels is a most ridiculous comment. It displays a complete lack of understanding. What are you speaking about sea ice extent, sea ice volume , sea ice area, the amount of multi year sea ice, or sea ice thickness.
The minimum sea ice extent and volume for each year happens in September.
Did you get that nonsense from WUWT? WUWT regularly writes rubbish about a recovery in Arctic Ocean sea ice.

How many billions of dollars in costs have accrued for 2019 world wide through extreme events.

Lego, the assertion of 97% support for the global warming fraud emanates from the failed cartoonist and fraud promoter John Cook, and has no validity
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#99c3ca0485dd

It is widely referenced by fraud promoters, including the lying dunce, Obama
, but it is shown to have no proper basis.
There is some disagreement as to whether Cook is fraudulent, or incompetent, or both.

Dear LEGO,

You asked;

“The natural climate variability of the earth clearly displays a regular succession of ice ages and interglacial warming periods. If CO2 is "the highest it has been for 3 million bloody years", then how do you explain the regular warming periods which have occurred in the last 3 million years, which occurred during periods of low CO2 levels?”

Well I'm a sucker for punishment so here goes.

There is no doubt that solar cycles and orbital fluctuations have an impact on Earth's climate and on occasions these become overarching.

Humans have really only managed to move toward civilisations within the last 10,000 years, in a relatively benign climatic period. This is what we are putting at risk and instead of CO2 levels marching along with changes due to climate it is now taking a leadership role.

There is absolutely no physical way increases in atmospheric CO2 can not raise temperatures. Some might argue that as those temperature rises are mitigated by increases in water vapour but there are counters such as the shrinking Arctic ice extent.

The only way we can truly know the 'bottom line' is what we observe in global temperatures and they continue to rise decade by decade.

Here is what Dr. Robert Carter said, some 15 years ago, and it remains true today:"atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

Dear Leo Lane,

Thanks for reminding me what a dishonest old coot Bob was.

Firstly let's fix the link to the story, yours isn't working;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate.html

Now if you look at his graph you will see it is taken from the Mid Troposhpere. That's right about 6 kms above the surface, an area where climate science says will remain relatively steady with regards to temperature while the stratosphere will actually cool. Whereas on the surface it will warm which is precisely what is is bloody well doing.

Go on Leo be off with you mate, you are playing childish games with serious matters.