Have a great holiday all, seems like we might be inundated with rain this Christmas! So there's that pesky weather doing what it shouldn't, and buggering up the BBQ on Christmas Day.

When we all pay this ETS to stop GW I think we should write letters of protest to the politicians and complain; telling them they need to stop climate change or change the climate or something. After all they will be getting paid for it and they are the ones who know all about it, so they say.

I hope some common sense prevails next year, if not the Labour Government is in trouble towing this line.

Happy whatever it is you and your families. Enjoy

CJ, <<80% would work for me - that's about the lowest figure I can find for climate scientists who support AGW. >>

80% is as good number as any I suppose. The problem is you said “lowest figure I can find”. So may we ask where you found it?

Given that if we include the two recent open letters from scientists to the UN, and the petition opposing AGW, which includes 9,000 with PhD’s, it is evident at least 30,000 scientists do not agree and have documented their opposition.

So if you wish to stick with your 80%, you need to find another 266,000 supporting scientists. If you have indeed found some figures and the lowest in 80%, can you please direct us to your source? Otherwise we will have to assume the you have simply invented it.

I couldn't find anything about 80% of scientists agreeing with AGW either Spindoc.
According to this article in New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html

"In fact, a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet."

One can only wonder what the 9000 had Phd's in.

"Climatologists say human activity is warming the planet" ignores the Sun and the regular elliptical orbit of Earth that has for the past many years been bringing Earth closer to the heat and for the next many years further away. The NASA Earth satellite currently orbiting the poles has detected huge snow deposition at the North Pole which might be so if the current weather in the North is an indication. Rising affluence of the poorer nations, and demands on the World resources from the extra 2.8 billion souls in the next 40 years ( U.N. figures), an increase of one third, will have a much greater impact,the potential of which has yet to be imagined.As an engineering thinker and amateur plantsman, increasing the CO2 in a closed environment rapidly increases plant growth. What difference is this mini environment to the atmospheric mantle protecting the Earth? If scientists and climatologists have shown that atmospheric CO2 has reached such alarming levels ( but have they?) then my tomatoes should be size of footballs.

Hi spindoc. Among other sources, my figure was derived from this survey:

<< The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. >>

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

And also this one:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

<< Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. >>

My nomination of 80% was therefore conservative, but well grounded.

I note that you didn't provide a source for your 'open letters', nor the petition you cite. Shall we assume that you made them up?

CJ, Thanks for the links. Interesting things, numbers I mean. You know what they say, “there are statistics, statistics and damn lies.”

Your link says that in 2004, 3,146 “scientists” were polled; you forgot to mention that only 30.7% responded. Of the remaining 30.7%, 77 were climatologists and that 75 of these “agreed” with the “consensus”.

47% of the American public “thinks” that scientists are in agreement. Well jolly hockey sticks; you are still 120,000 scientists short.

You say <<I note that you didn't provide a source for your 'open letters', nor the petition you cite. Shall we assume that you made them up?>>

To which some might be tempted to say, you can assume what you like, the links for these have been posted many times on OLO, therefore, unlike skeptics, you seem to avoid going where contrary information might conflict with ignorance and ideology. This is your problem, stop being so lazy.

I have to wonder why someone else’s opinion which happens to support yours is such an obstacle to learning.