Sams' reply is so typical of the arrogance displayed by the it-is-us cadre of climate change opinionators.

By referring to those who - quite politely - ask for some more detail and less opinion as occupying a "fantasy world about a world-wide conspiracy", s/he is able to avoid the question entirely.

Suggesting that these very simple questions are "the product of minds constrained by fixed , unyielding opinions, struggling to bend the facts in any way they can to suit their theory", shows a level of condescension typical of those who have already made up their minds, and refuse to look any further

The concern being shown here is that too few questions have been asked, not normally a trait of people with "fixed, unyielding assumptions".

Sounds horribly like that ol' kettle addressing that ol' pot, what?

Sam's quoted;
Lev wrote: "Anyone who dared – and dares now – to look for the real truth is a heretic."

Well Lev did not write that. Probably in the original article.
I don't think anyone believes that there is a climate scientist
conspiracy, it seems to be more of a bureaucratic stance within the
UN IPCC.
It seems that the authors have issued a challenge;
Prove their figures wrong regarding the numbers of scientists that
say that it is caused by anthropogenic carbon.
What worries me is that this is not the first time or place I have seen
comments along these lines. There is just too much money involved
to not have these statements resolved, after all would you buy
shares based on such disputed information ?

Seems simple to me this ignorant pleb.

So scientist who don't agree with the authors view point are not creditable? That fact is this report is a political report it's written for Governments so it will be. If you want a science only report then read all of the science journals on climate change in the last 30 years or so. The answer is very clear there. This anti-global warming stuff is very much like the lobbing that went on while the tobacco companies were still trying to tell us that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Baz wrote: "Sam's quoted; Lev wrote: "Anyone who dared – and dares now – to look for the real truth is a heretic." Well Lev did not write that. Probably in the original article."

My humble apologies to Lev, my eyes slipped a position in the comment .. it was "Mr. Right".

Kenny wrote: "If you want a science only report then read all of the science journals on climate change in the last 30 years or so. The answer is very clear there."

Hear, hear. If you are not going to become a climate scientist, then you need some very strong and solid evidence (eg. that they are all corrupt or incompetent) to discount them. Show it to us please if you have it. Climate change science is very complex and is no more amenable to 'common sense' analysis than is special relativity, or quantum mechanics, which is why the worlds largest supercomputers are being used to probe it.

Pericles said .. well, a whole bunch of ad hominem stuff. But what substance he did bring up was to assume, through prejudice, that I'm someone "who have already made up their minds, and refuse to look any further".

My original background is a PhD in particle physics, although I'm running an IT company now. I continually monitor science reports about climate change because it concerns me greatly. In fact, only today I discovered this NASA resource:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTimeMachine/climateTimeMachine.cfm
which has some useful pictorial representation of climate change that would be suitable for the use to the layman.

"The concern being shown here is that too few questions have been asked"
One might think that if you only followed mainstream media that sensationalises the occasional sceptic, and attempts to draw childishly simplistic conclusions about climate change. Look to the peer-reviewed journals and you'll see a different landscape.

Lev, perhaps you didn't find this which CERTAINLY comes from the horse's mouth and implies that this group of +2500 scientific expert reviewers agree with the report’s conclusions. He certainly doesn't say "that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/valencia-2007-11/pachauri-17-november-2007.pdf.
i.e.
IPCC Chairman Dr. R K Pachauri
Press Presentation
Saturday, 17 November 2007 Valencia, Spain
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)
Process
• +2500 scientific expert reviewers
• 800 contributing authors
• 450 lead authors from
• +130 countries

This shonky IPCC is a monumental fraud operating with a total eclipse of reason. Just why should we be so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious IPCC with its weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery? Are people just so naive or stooopid not to comprehend that carbon is life which surely should induce a modicum of humility as the reason for our very existence?

Just consider its initial assumptions. We should know that it has no chance of even getting past its first assumption of catastrophic warming because of earth’s one-way cooling bias. Its second assumption of depleting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a bizarre, anti life bias with no hope of success. (.... unless you worship thanatos or wicked pedia. lol)

Sams,

Predicting climate change is a decidedly complex area of study. I’m only an engineer but I can tell you, as you no doubt already know, that modelling anything with as many interdependent variables ( whose relationships we don’t fully understand )as global climate with a view to predicting the future is pretty much black magic. The error bars for this type of study are huge.

I don’t think we need to suggest that the supporters of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are corrupt or incompetent for them to be wrong. And the same goes for climate change sceptics.

This is science and popularity is irrelevant. However this article explores a point which is often brought up by ACC supporters, that is, that there is a consensus on this issue. They make a solid point about the factual incorrectness of that claim. It is up to you to disprove it if you wish, but to suggest that the debate is over is simply not correct.

There are many valid points made by ACC sceptics which are written off by ad hominem attacks on a regular basis. Bob Carter is one who suffers these attacks all the time and he is by no means alone.

In particular, the biggest criticisms made by Carter are that many climate scientists are looking at this data over too short a time span. Your link to the Climate Time Machine is a perfect example of this. When you look at the climate of the earth over millions of years, instead of tens, hundreds or thousands, you begin to notice that the Earth has not only been far hotter, it has also heated up more quickly than it has over the last 50-100 years.

Have a look at this presentation by Carter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Already we have had hysterical analyses by ex Vice Presidents, which were so far from the predictions of any science it is scarcely believable. Before we send the global economy into spiralling recession, never to emerge, it might be best if we took a little time to get this right.