Q&A, your effort at placation is admirable. Disappointing that Sams has already sabotaged your efforts. Of course, sabotage comes from the French sabot, a heavy wooden shoe that disgruntled workers used to hinder production. Although, another argument goes that, when others started wearing leather shoes, 'saboteurs' were simply considered to be less productive. Either is applicable to Sams. So as for your suggestion to step into his shoes, thanks but no thanks. I imagine they are cracked, painfully uncomfortable and caked in mud. Dare I say he persists in 'clogging' up this site.

I am sure you are a skilled and intelligent scientist. You allude to the Nobel that awaits the scientist who disproves AGW, at least as the primary driver of climate change. Could you be overlooking an opportunity or a calling? Not that I doubt your convictions regarding the current orthodoxy, or that a Nobel is the sole aim, but that, as I'm sure you know, some of the great scientific discoveries have happened almost by accident while researchers were looking elsewhere. But they had to have the open mind to recognise what they had stumbled upon. I hope you keep better company in your professional work than here, as I fear someone like Sams is as likely to sabotage your progress as he does everything else. I wish you well in your work.

That said, thought I acknowledge the gesture, your opening questions have a whiff of The Inquisition about them (which nobody expected!)like:

Crock: what'll it take to make you see The Truth?
Brother Sams: how can we make the heathens see The Truth?

Is thumb screws the answer to both?

So though I'd like to add to your questions, I figure I'll just continue in my own shoes here as is - I thought your gesture somewhat fanciful and Sams has proved me correct (which everybody expected!)

Sams: "As a [forum] discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"It just approaches faster re holocaust denial." fungochumley's law

Great article, Mark.

viking13: "So much for your "tiny minority" argument."

Even if this list was valid - see below - this would still be a minuscule fraction of a percent of scientists in the world in related fields.
There are more listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus, but they are still a tiny fraction who are given disproportionate air time.

Addressing your list:

William Kininmonth - independent climatologist (self-described)
SourceWatch: "His only listed qualification is 'Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute', but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for 'Kininmonth, William Robert', and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia."

Richard Lindzen - a climate scientist, "Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen

Chris Landsea - atmospheric scientist - not an AGW denier - disputes effects on hurricane intensity

Duncan Wingham - climate scientist - not a AGW denier - disputes intensity of effects on Antarctica

Jasper Kirkby - experimental particle physicist - investigating whether cosmic rays have an effect on our climate - theory misused by deniers

Freeman Dyson - 85 year-old nuclear physicist

Sam Solanki - not an AGW denier

Anastasios Tsonis - mathematician - no info yet

Marcel Leroux - deceased climatologist

John Christy - atmospheric scientist

Zbigniew Jaworowski - Polish atomic physicist; also famous for claiming that leaded petrol isn't bad for you

Bob Carter - marine geologist - does not publish in climate journals

Vincent Gray - 86 year-old retired NZ coal chemist

Reid Bryson - deceased atmospheric scientist

Tom Segalstad - Norwegian geologist

Henrik Svensmark - physicist - another cosmic ray theorist

Khabibullo Abdusamatov - russian astrophysicist

Cliff Ollier - geologist - not a AGW denier, disputes icecaps melt rates

Patrick Michaels - climatologist - funded by fossil-fuel industry; in the past he predicted CFCs wouldn't cause ozone thinning over the poles

Luboš Motl - theoretical physicist (black holes and similar) - has stated that AGW supprters should "quarantined" and "euthanased"

Willie Soon - astrophysicist - research was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute

Ross McKitrick - economist!

Sams has been burning the midnight oil at wiki and sourcewatch - No. 1 choice for the 'who can I trust?' paranoid. Well, certainly not Sams. Just a couple of deliberate or negligent omissions from his "research" for starters.

William Kininmonth - Bureau of Meteorology for 38 years, 12 as Head of the National Climate Centre. For some tributes to him on his retirement, see here:

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1442.html

Richard Lindzen - Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

Envy isn't a virtue, Sams - identity, position and qualifications unknown.

fungochumley: "Just a couple of deliberate or negligent omissions from his "research" for starters."

Not really, just sticking to the salient points to keep within the word limit.

fungochumley: "Envy isn't a virtue, Sams - identity, position and qualifications unknown."

But I'm sure you find ignorance is bliss, fungochumley (identity, position, qualifications and number of fake aliases unknown).

"Not really"?

Only Sams could regard a 38 year career in meteorology and an MIT Professor's qualifications as not salient when making ad hominem attacks. I don't engage in this, choosing to argue the facts over the man, so my "fake alias" (nice tautology - what is a genuine one?) is irrelevant, a luxury, which as I have argued previously, you have denied yourself through your ad hominem logic.

Q&A: You ask Sams, "what can all the academies of science you list do to better inform people of the science and risks associated with anthropogenic global warming?"

An odd person to ask, as honesty is a good place to start.

Poor old Sams. It seems he has invested his whole being into the AGW meme, such a believer he is, so an attack on his beloved theory is seen as an attack on himself.

So he has to ignore all points of fact or logic in order to keep himself together.

No doubt he will say the same about me.

How sad it is that this issue is so divisive.

No-one is denying that the climate changes, Sams. Just that man's input is relatively minor, and doesn't justify the impoverishment of the battlers to the profit of people like Al Gore.