Eclipse now, bringing up movies is nonsense and do not attribute to me what I DID not say.
Money grabbing scientists exactly and that mate is the real world. These scientists exist from one grant to the next. The United Nations has always been a totally corrupt organisation as evidenced by their "Food" organisation that never fed anyone but the beuracrats and scientists that ran it, climate change IPCCC, whatever, the same. As I told you the politicians are going to tax us some more.
Here is a real question have you ever worked at a place that pays tax or have you always been at quangos that do not pay tax and whose workers pay a lot less tax because of "Charitable " status.
This is not make believe I do know that!

Yup, predictable to the end. New Scientist really has your number!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored - far from it.

(snip)

As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

eclipse now does not understand basic chemistry physics. pv=nrt
I accept that additional greenhouse gases are minute in terms of total atmosphere, therefore n(number of molecules) change attributable to greenhouse gas will have negligble impact on pressure, however if atmospheric gas temperature is increasing due to greenhouse effect, then t increases will have direct and proportionate increase in pressure, simple physics.

Eclipse Now, no scientists are fostering alarmism, are they? Not even the ones who go on national media, claiming that our major cities will be abandoned and under water this century, or that Sydney's dams would be dry in a few years, or that the Arctic would be ice free last year?

Slasher, if you're such a physics genius spell it out for us then will you? What does 280ppm Co2 increased to 385ppm equal in terms of pressure? 105 parts per million, or 0.0105% of the atmosphere? Does that equate to a tenth of 1 percent increase in atmospheric pressure? I don't know, I'm not a physicist. But how do I know it isn't offset by other changes in gases in response? How much atmospheric pressure change is there in the larger 'natural' Co2 cycle (that we contribute to and distort by adding Co2 above and beyond the natural system's ability to absorb it).

Is any of this *really* relevant? You're the one putting the argument, the burden of proof is with you. Please demonstrate something or link to a credible science report so I can forward it on to the climatologists for a response.

Clownfish, according to that logic:
* Some politicians are like Pauline Hanson so we should abandon democracy
* Some people really can't drive, so we should ban driving
* Some people really cook crap, so we should abandon all cooking

So what if some people become a bit hysterical about global warming? There are nutters in every societal discussion and discipline. The scientific process is more rigid than that. Try and learn the difference between some greenie activist making a big flamboyant statement to attract attention to the absolutely worst case scenarios, and a more solid statement of scientific probability.

I'd like specific examples please, with who said what, when, and where if we are going to continue down this line.

“We're going to be witnessing whole cities being destroyed through the sea level rise. We can expect the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef for sure ... I think the big unknown to most people is the extent of the catastrophe. It is going to be severe beyond imagination.“ – Dr. Charlie Veron, Sixty Minutes, May 14, 2009

“(Tim Flannery) predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.” ABC NewsOnline June 11, 2005

“this may be the Arctic's first ice-free year.” – Tim Flannery, guardian.co.uk, August 9, 2008

“Professor Flannery says climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive.” Sydney Morning Herald, May 19, 2008

“ James Hansen - who is the world's leading thinker in this area ... believes we're on the brink of triggering a 25m rise in sea level.” – Tim Flannery, WWF website interview.

“If the Greenland and Antarctica icesheets melt (which they are doing in spectacular fashion), sea levels could rise, as they have done many times in the past, by 100 metres. If that were to happen, forget the metre-in-a-century mantra, and forget half of Sydney, along with most of the world's coastal populations.” – Mike Archer, dean of science at the University of NSW, Sydney Morning Herald, February 1, 2007

“(a sea level rise of 100 metres in the next century) is possible, yes ...it will be huge”. – Robin Williams, ABC, March 10, 2007 (not a scientist, I know, but still has enourmous clout in science reporting)

No need to even get started on Al Gore.

Are these your "greenie activist(s) making a big flamboyant statement to attract attention"?

Your logic is also absurd. I never argued that we should "abandon" anything other than ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reactions fomented in the heat of a mass panic. This is why it does matter if "some people become a bit hysterical about global warming" - especially people in authority.

"No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear" - Edmund Burke