//No one wants to own the fact that a new satellite found that the CO2 levels are 30% more than previously thought//

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is currently approx. 408ppm, according to all the sources I've looked at. If you have a reliable source claiming that it's actually closer to 530ppm, I should very much like to see it.

//and that the CO2 was actually coming from the forests and large areas of plant life.//

Yeah, plants emit CO2. Were you not aware of that? They emit nearly as much CO2 as they absorb. If they only absorbed it they'd rapidly deplete the atmosphere of CO2, which would be a Bad Thing.

//They were shocked to find that unlike previous 'assumptions', the cities emitted so little CO2 it was considered negligible and not worth including in the stats.//

Intriguing... might we be permitted to view this paper?

//As for 'getting paid', Gore is 'killing the pig'//

Killing the pig? That's not what Al Gore's about. He's about killing the manbearpig, and he's super cereal about it. Excelsior!

//he's not just getting a wage.//

Well, no. He's self-employed. Hunting manbearpig! Oh, why won't anybody take him cereal?

//I'll say it again, the scientists you claim are climate deniers are not 'making' any money out of this.//

I haven't claimed any scientists are 'climate deniers'. I have claimed that there are no scientists, to the best of my knowledge, that are carrying out their work in a volunteer (or slave, I suppose) capacity. That used to be the case a few hundred years ago, and maybe it's a shame that science can no longer take advantage of free labour. Scientists may not be the most well paid professionals, but I've never seen any evidence that they work for free. But by all means present it, if you have it. Otherwise, be prepared for your fantastical claims to go unbelieved.

OK Rache, let's have a closer look at your 100 engineers.

Bt way of background let's see how that 97% figure came about...Two researchers sent out two questions to ~10000 scientists. About 3000 replied. When the researchers compiled the answers they didn't like the results. So they started discarding certain types of scientists eg geologists, solar experts (after all, what's the sun got to do with climate!!) and so on. Finally they got the result they wanted - 75 out of 77 (97%) answered yes to both questions. Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000. Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate. But it was the result everyone wanted and how it was arrived at was immaterial to those who used it.

So what were the two questions..1. Do you think temperatures have increased since 1800 and 2." “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Significant wasn't defined so could mean anything from 10% to 100%.

So back to your engineers. They aren't saying the bridge isn't safe. They are saying its changed since it was built and man played some part in it. That's it.

Now we know from climate science that most of that 97% doesn't think its currently unsafe. And we know that at least some think it'll never be unsafe.

/cont

/cont

But since we're now in the realms of pretend let's say that most of your 97 engineers think it will be unsafe at some time. When?
Tomorrow? next month? Next year? Now in fact it'll be toward the end of the century. So they aren't saying you shouldn't cross now but that your great grand-kids shouldn't cross it in 80 or 90 years because it'll be unsafe then.

Now we know our great grandkids will be immeasurably more wealthy we we are, and we know that they'll have access to technology that our futurists haven't even imagined yet, but somehow we also think they'll be morons who won't be able to repair the bridge themselves. So we have to do it for them.

Enter government. Let's put a toll on the bridge they say, to both reduce its use and therefore prolong its life, and to provide funds so that we, in our usual efficient and spendthrift fashion, will be able to do the repairs that our moronic great grandkids won't be able to do.

Me? Well I'm inclined to ignore the engineers blocking my path.

The bridge might become unsafe in the future. But its entirely useless to worry about it now when it is both safe now and when we are unsure if it'll ever be unsafe. But if your engineers are anything like some climate scientists they are anxious to scare you about future problems so that you continue to fund their 'research' into those future potential problems. Add to that the fact that no government is going to pass up the chance to levy a toll and gather more funds while being able to claim its for the good of the great grandkids and, hey presto....the greatest example of mass hysteria in the history of mankind.

mhaze, I definitely could not have said it better. You have hit the nail on the head. I thought I was reading one of my posts as I read. Only you make your points so much quicker and so much clearer with more impact, I only wish I had such linguistic abilities. To clarify, I agree with you because I've always thought the govt is ripping us off at every turn and opportunity. This is just another con job. I do not react to pressure groups very well and so come out fighting (verbally). I think it is a sign of maturity to listen to all the arguments fore and against and then with the use of reason and common sense, begin forming an opinion. Where money is concerned, reason and common sense are dirty words. The thought of an ex-politician like Al Gore being lauded is the height of stupidity and shows a lack of imagination and depth of thought. And this is what I see as one of the reasons people make the wrong decisions throughout their lives. It all begins at the ballot box.

mhaze’s consensus views: I am using the structure used by Toni Lavis.

A // prefixes comments made by mhaze’s post on 4 March.
My comments have come from the original consensus project, viewable here:

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

// Two researchers sent out two questions to ~10000 scientists. About 3000 replied //
FALSE: Abstracts from published research papers were analysed by Consensus Project scientists, and each paper’s author. No mhaze-like questions to scientists. Approx 12,000 papers reviewed.

// When the researchers compiled the answers, they didn't like the results//
FALSE: Each abstract was classified according to: endorse, reject or no position on AGW. “like” played no role in assessment. Assessments available on web site

// Finally they got the result they wanted - 75 out of 77 (97%) answered yes to both questions. Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000.//
FALSE: Of 11,964 papers assessed, 3898 endorsed AGW (read CC); 7976 had no position, 77 rejected the concept of AGW.


// Remember that's 77 out of the original ~10000. Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate. But it was the result everyone wanted and how it was arrived at was immaterial to those who used it.//
FALSE: To repeat: 3898 endorsements, only 77 rejections. So, only 77 out of the 12,000 papers rejected AGW.
The consensus paper has been well respected and downloaded half a million times.

// Only in a field so corrupt as climate science would this be considered appropriate.//
FALSE: Only in mhaze’s dark fantasy world are climate scientists regarded as corrupt.

He follows a well-worn process by attempting to destroy CC scientists’ reputations, while he, and others, have no knowledge of climate science.

As mentioned in earlier post, this modus-operandi has been used, and continues to be used, to besmirch scientists whose work, if accepted, drives further government regulation.

A peer-reviewed paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature is freely available at the Environmental Research Letters (ERL) website.

Deary me (an)Tony, embarrassing yourself again. Surely you get tired of being shown to be so clueless....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Doran_and_Kendall_Zimmerman,_2009

(using Wikipedia is against my better judgement but we have to keep it simple for poor (an)Tony).

(an)Tony is referring to the Cook et al paper. That paper was rubbish and has been roundly debunked including by scientists who affirmed that Cook had misrepresented/misunderstand their papers.