That would of course David, be the same type of consensus that agreed that stomach ulcers were caused by worry/stress wouldn't it?

Apart from the fact that 9000 scientists, including over 1000 PhD signed a petition stating they did not agree with global warming theory, have you ever seen a consensus that had a clue?

Hasbeen,

It seems that in arguing against a consensus, you are citing here your own "mini" consensus against AGW.

Except the consensus in favour of AGW is far more comprehensive, and less likely to be tied to fossil fuel/corporate interests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it

(btw, the science is never settled.....discoveries in medical science, like science in general, are ongoing - as is exemplified by your reference to stomach ulcers)

and less likely to be tied to fossil fuel/corporate interests.

And that is the most cowardly argument yet.

Poirot it is simple really. For some years I believed what I was told. Then I saw some holes too big to ignore.

If you don't have the math to follow the formula for yourself, you can only take someones word for what the thing says. It took me about 3 months of a couple of hours a day of hard study, before I could follow the equations enough to see what was going on.

Even now I am only up to understanding what the smart ones have found wrong with the warmists efforts. The more I see, & the better I get, the more I become convinced the mistakes are no accident, but mathematical slight of hand trickery. If it is not, these climatologists are really dumb people. Hell they are still trying to resurrect the hockey stick tomfoolery.

Now I don't know how much contact you have had with academia, or in which area. Some areas may have a clue, medical research does appear to from a great distance, but I have had some contact since my B Sc, with science & engineering people.
When ever I have talked to "professors" about a subject I had real knowledge of, I have often found them wanting, but very resistant to admitting their lack of expertise. This adds to my annoyance at having been silly enough to have believed the rubbish originally.

So sorry Poirot, but if you don't have the math, you're just accepting the authority of those with a very large financial axe to grind. If you are not prepared to put the effort in, to understand what you are reading, that's your problem, & nothing to do with me.

I have found some graphs that explain the relationship of co2 to
temperature very clearly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Now before you rush out and say "Oh that is just a denier website"
pause and don't make yourself look foolish.
This is the arithmetic undenierability of co2 and temperature.
This does not say that the world is heating up, it just shows that it
cannot be co2. All the heating due to co2 has already been done.

Bazz,

"That is the most cowardly argument yet."

Okay, so Exxon doesn't fund much climate skepticism or organizations set up to promote "skepticism"?...or the Koch Brothers likewise. Bit of a giggle when they funded Muller in the BEST study - and he came out in support if AGW. See Dick Run. See Fluff chase the ball. See the "skeptics" dump Muller faster than a skeptic arguing that "he has the maths".

Hasbeen,

So you're not an oceanographer - or an atmospheric physicist - or anything like that. You have a science degree and an uncanny ability to see through the knowledge of professors.

....okay : )