97% of the scientific community says that the current adverse climate is being caused by anthropogenic global warming produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The other 3% disagrees. And this is the group the AGW / climate deniers want us to believe.

If this leaves you puzzled you can take comfort in the fact that you're not the only one.

Dear Hasbeen,

That gravy train projection is really very misdirected isn't it.

Just like the doctors who said smoking wasn't a hazard to your health anti-AGW scientists are more than adequately sponsored by the big fossil fuel companies. That is where the real gravy train exists.

The reason why AGW scepticism is so proportionally rife among the geologist community is because so many of them rely on their livelihoods from mining.

There certainly isn't that much money in climate science in comparison.

So perhaps you might park that meme for a bit.

Mr Opinion "97% of the scientific community says that the current adverse climate is being caused by anthropogenic global warming produced by the burning of fossil fuels."
You need to take a closer look at that figure.
Virtually every scientist in the world agrees that climate is changing. To not do so would require that there were never any ice ages, medieval warm period or little ice age. Most scientists also believe that humans are contributing something to this change, though by how much varies greatly. The main points of discrepancy are firstly, is this warming dangerous? and secondly, if it is dangerous, what is the solution?
There seems no reason to believe that a warmer climate is a less productive climate. in fact the opposite is likely true. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations lead to a richer environment, increased plant growth and less need for water for plant growth.
One thing that is obvious to me is that it is the wealthier countries who are able to protect their environments whilst the poorer countries have little choice but to destroy theirs. This pattern was true for the Western world and remains true for the developing world today. I suspect that slowing down economic growth due to high energy costs is likely to be far more harmful to the environment than increased carbon dioxide concentrations. Certainly Byorn Lombourg would agree with me there.

Rhys Jones,

My dog knows the climate is in constant flux. So does my neighbour's cat and the chimpanzee at the local zoo.

Goodness gracious, even Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott know it.

We all know it!

But it is knowing when it is not natural that counts. That's what sets me apart from you, my dog, the neighbour's cat, the chimpanzee, and Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce.

This just reeks of entitlement. As Thureau quipped , what use a home without an inhabitable planet. What use a smelter if we're all dead ?

That aside, as a counter to this rubbish here's an interesting interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3DHJa-IH3I&feature=emb_logo

Valley Guy,

It's too late to turn back the clock on AGW / climate.

Action should have started in the 1960/70s.

Even if the world ceased used fossil fuels today it will be too late to prevent the planet from getting so hot that it will result in disastrous weather patterns everywhere.