Can some kind person please explain?

Any journalist, two bit politician, man or woman in the street, vice president of USA and so on is licensed to speak in favour anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. The only qualification required is to claim, [evidence is not required], that AGW is “proven” and “settled science.” This can then be followed-up by alarmist and exaggerated prognostications. In other words fairy tales are allowed, provided the essential dogma is not violated.

On the other hand any critic of AGW is hounded by the true believers. Their scientific qualifications are questioned. Their affiliations, if any, to organisations with a link to industry is interpreted as proof of malignancy.

I am retired and have never been employed by an industrial complex. However, I have dealt in my professional life with industrial scientists and by government regulating bodies. Always I have found them to be extremely knowlegible and even more important to have had hands on experience. So I conclude; that an industrial association is an indication that the person concerned is more likely then not to possess true expertise.

I regard the ad hominem attacks on individuals because of their anti-AGW opinions as having no place in serious discussion. Therefore please explain why there is a double standard in response to pro AGW postings compared to anti AGW postings?

XY,

Contrary to your claim the sea levels are rising. These figures are based on observations at geologically stable tide gauge sites. The red line is based on TOPEX/Posident satellite altimetry recordings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Mörner's assessments have been rejected by the President of the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Research) when he finished his period on their Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. The President was very annoyed that Mörner "misrepresented his position" in INQUA by claiming he was still president of the commission, when it was not true. The fact that he engages in misrepresentations for political reasons may cause some to question the veracity of his science.

I have already answered the matter concerning the ozone layer; the reason why it is less of a danger now is because of the bans put in place by the Montreal Protocol. You may wish to reconsider your views on Solar Variation as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation)

If you want a just tax system, I would strongly recommend one which is based on deriving public monies from the consumption of natural resources, rather than the provision of goods and services as we have now.

Anti-Green,

Any test of a scientific proposition must be in according to scientific validity. Whilst science is never a settled question, and nor should it be, there are far more people in the general populace who question AGW than there is in the scientific community. In the latter the matter is (almost) "proven" and "settled science".

Affiliations to organisations with industry funding is important. "Who pays the piper" etc. Many scientists are not in this category. They will receive their wages for their recordings and investigation regardless if they say there is global warming or not. Those who will not receive bonus cheques if they claim that there is no global warming (or vice-versa) are suspect and should be treated as such. Most of the organisations cited (e.g., the IPA) are not "industry associations" but rather organisations with a political agenda, and should be treated as such.

Lev

Most scietists rely on public funding. If there is no global warming requiring political involvment, then funding for their research will dry up as the money will be directed elsewhere. Therefore they may not get their wages unless they study something else that attracts funding.

You cannot, on the one hand, argue that someone who is a denier and works for, or is a member of, an organisation linked to oil companies etc is biased in their opinion and then say that scientists who rely on finite public funding are not.

I would love to see a list of the 500 worldwide scientists who support AGW via IPCC and where they work and who funds their research.

Tragedy, pardon but this argument of yours is very simplistic (see an earlier post to fluff).

Do you want to stop scientific research because you don’t like what the research is telling you?

If your answer is no, then the science can only get better by continuing to research the science.
Sheesh, it might even 'kill' AGW as a theory! Believe me, this should make everybody happy.

If your answer is yes, well just maybe you're blowing a lot of smoke.

Tradgedy

Incidentally, there were about 600 independent scientists for the AR4 who correlated the peer reviewed literature, journals and so on of the thousands of scientists who published.

These so called IPCC scientists of yours don't get a cent from the IPCC.

It would help if you understood the processes and procedures of the IPCC before you make such sweeping and misinformed statements.

As to your list, just look up the IPCC on the web, check out the various technical reports and eureka. If your really interested in the science, check out the references to the published and peer reviewed papers.

And if you're really, really interested in what the science is telling us, check out some of these papers themselves.

Having done this ... well, then you may be in a position to criticise the science.

Seriously, scientists are not involved in a world-wide conspiracy.

However, there are some vested interest groups who want to maintain the 'business as usual' - it is only right to ask why.

Q&A - my argument is not simplistic. On the contrary it goes to heart of what you and your ilk argue - if you are associated with IPA or a private company that wants to maintain 'business as usual' - then you have nothing to contribute to the debate because you are biased, yet scientists who publish peer reviewed ("peer" increasingly these days being their mates) papers and rely on a system of funding from the public purse to maintain their relevance you seemingly are not biased.

It has nothing to do with a world-wide scientific conspiracy. It has a lot to do with each individual milking the gravy train while they can. Nothing like being in bed with the media to create a bit of hysteria to achieve your aim.

I never suggested we should stop scientific research. I am only saying the bleeding obvious - there is an inherent bias in the current system - and if you disagree Q&A, I would argue you should remove your face from your arse and step into the real world.

If you read my post Q&A you would realise that I didn't suggest that the IPCC was paying these scientists so the rest of your post is irrelevant twaddle.