This link provides a list of individual scientists and scientific organisations that concur with mainstream thinking on AGW.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

I particularly like this quote from Dr James Baker:
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

The most common complaint made by climate sceptics is that "money rides on academics toeing the line"; yet the oil companies are the only ones openly offering bounties ($10,000) for scientists prepared to speak out against AGW.
As to climatologists ignoring the effect of the sun on climate, that makes as much sense as claiming a barber would ignore the effect of baldness of his customers on his occupation. In controlled environments, the amount of CO2 introduced to significantly affect plant growth needs to be such that plantsmen must limit their time in the environment, due to breathing problems.

Grim, I think you confirmed my point quite nicely. For every link and quote that you provide someone else will provide an equally valid but opposing scientific view.

I really am puzzled by this. Let me put it to you this way, and maybe you can help. There is only one franchise on the planet for AGW, the IPCC. There are only five “lead” authors. So whatever scientific opinion is made public and there are thousands of them, only that which is selected, channeled and included in the IPCC assessments is official. The rest is simply unofficial scientific interpretation of the available research.

After that we have several more layers of opinion, political, academic, intellectual and media commentary. Tagging off the bottom of all these opinions is public opinion.

So why would so many in the public domain, without any scientific qualifications, choose to support one particular group of opinions?

Scientific “consensus” is often quoted. There is no such thing as scientific consensus; the very word consensus recognizes conflicting scientific opinion. We now know that even the lead authors to the IPCC can’t agree, let alone the thousands of scientists who have put their opposition in writing.

Grim, can you please explain your basis for adopting the views of only one set of scientific opinions?

Spindoc, you obviously didn't bother to follow the link. The IPCC is not the only 'franchise' on the planet for AGW. There has never been greater consensus in scientific circles than there is now for AGW.
Darwin certainly didn't enjoy the degree of consensus AGW currently enjoys.
What are you, a creationist?
The evidence is overwhelming. Just consider the millions of tonnes of fossil fuels burnt -turned into atmospheric pollution- every single day.
Look at the number of trees that have been cut down, not just this or last century, but over the last 5,000 years.
To suggest that 'puny' humans cannot affect climate is absolute stupidity.
A bloody dam can affect climate (locally).
Humans are 'local' all over the whole planet.

Grim, looking at the link and I usually don't puddle around looking at other people's favorite cookies, it is all for the IPCC climate change alarmists.

If you are serious about common discussion, post some of the opposing scientific links or don't you look at those.

Seems like a one sided arguement from the IPCC perhaps. The one thing I do agree with you on is, the IPCC is not the only "FRANCHISE" pushing global warming. How right you are. People deserve better than a one sided argument.

Anyway most people in this country are not going to be "TOLD" any longer. They want "PROOF" and the IPCC quite simply are not giving that. They are not playing fair, why? Perhaps too many interested franchises? You said it.

Grim, << The IPCC is not the only 'franchise' on the planet for AGW.>>

Really? And the others are?

Academia class Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academié des Sciences,
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change.  The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico 
New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

Individual societies and organisations which accept the reality of AGW
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council (USA)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society