Austin Powerless, a whisper in your ear.

You might want to look at some of the letters/comments in the links Mr Luciferase has referred you to ( http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/ )

Now, it might not have been his intention, but the letters provide as much illumination as the article he’s wanting you to read

For example, the letter from SteveB :May 15, 2011 at 10:16 pm.
Tells how the warmists came up with that magic figure that anywhere between 90 and 97% of “scientists” believe in orthodox AGW (this is cited by Belly in his post above).

Or, the letter from Andrew: June 30, 2009 at 7:09 am
Which exposes how the warmists – who though insisting that any of their critics must be “climate scientists” to be believed –are more than willing to compromise and accept lesser credentials just so long as the speaker agrees with the AGW hypothesis.

Being a representative of true science & objectivity, Mr Luciferase will I expect, be exposing the above-mentioned warmist shenanigans in a upcoming post—I also expect to be seeing some flying pigs about the same time.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Do ther rest yourself.

Just read the Sceptics site SPQR. My resultant thinking is;

The Climate Scientists agree that there is AGW. They agree on the need for more scientific information.
The Denigher agree that there is NGW.(Natural) They agree on the need for more scientific information.

Result. There is GW. They both agree on the need for more scientific information.

Difference in Arguments;

SC's believe Man has caused all of the GW, hence Anthrapological.
D's believe that GW is a Natural Earth Cycle, hence Natural.

Things I wish to know:

If the CO2 % has doubled. In what year was the reference point taken from.
Have there been changes in % of any of the other Earth Gases.
Are any of the Climate Scientists relying on a Government Grant for their livelihood.
Are any of the Denighers Scientists being paid by heavy polluting Corporations.
Do Any Governments, Corporations, Organizations or Religions stand to gain one way or another from either argument or from the confusion of both.
E.g., Taxes, Higher prices on their products, Creating a feeling of apprehension in the world population for monetary gain. Causing unrest through fear for monetary gain. Causing hatred between groups of peoples for monetary & territorial gain.

SPQR gee thanks! thought I must have lost it!
Saw that quote attributed to you, and fell under the table in the fetal position!
Inquisitive nature got the better of me,and then, lawd I was happy! found your rebuttal.
And yes, at last! I agree, knew you could not have said that.
In this thread I support csteele, but in that matter you, your words have been mine in that matter, however are we claiming some thing new?
Are those wonderful drones, until the enemy gets them, bringing about climate change?
Still I side here with the truth,a day will come when the words of deniers will be read and regarded as hugely funny stuff.
Maybe on a beach,5 meters higher up than today.

Gawd! - the denialists have brought out their big gun in runner.

Okay guys, we know when we're beaten.

runneresque logic - stunning!

Belly,

5 metres ? May you live so long, old fellow :) After all, at 10 cm every fifty years, that gives you another 2,500 years to re-build a little higher up the mountain every 100 years or so.

I'm confident that there is such a thing as global warming, rather than cooling, and that some, if not most, if not all, of it is man-made- it's the nature of capitalism, after all, to externalise such costs. The question is how much, and I don't think that there is anything to be gained by over-egging the pudding, and making ridiculous claims, in sea-level changes for example.

And why assume that governments won't do anything about it all ? Most are doing something, by way of supporting renewable energy development, tree-planting, turning off the odd light. Yes, they could all be doing more, I'm sure, but big things from little things grow :)

Cheers,

Jo