Look I've had a gut-full of this CC crap. We have so many anti CC backers that I WILL NOT just accept the words of the YAY side as long as there are voices on the NAY side. So Tony, either you contact the NAY side and convince or blackmail them to change their views to agree with the YAY side or just drop it. Can't you see that for every example you produce, many more appear and are presented to contradict you. WE are wasting our time. The first chink in the armour against this topic was the very first title used to describe it; Global Warming. That con/lie didn't float so the vested interest groups had their little think tank session behind the public toilets and hey presto, they came up with a title that could not be de-bunked. 'Climate Change'. The con-men reasoned that the climate has and will always be changing so it was a sure bet that this title will float. So began this pointless game of let's show how 'the world is getting hotter because of what we did'. I'm sorry but the jury is still out on this one whether you and/or your mates like it or not. There are just too many nay sayers to draw a final conclusion. As far as I am concerned, what the world is going through is business as usual for it. I will repeat what a scientist being interviewed on radio once said. 'How arrogant is mankind to think they can change the state of the world'. The world has always had gasses flowing around. Such as volcanoes, whole countries would be razed by fire and so on. Maybe one of the fires or volcanic eruptions killed off the dinosaurs? Don't know but the Earth has been doing this, (settling down) since its creation. And it will keep settling long after we are gone.

mhaze,
Hey, a great Wikipedia reference: Survey of scientists views on Climate Change:

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

Seven groups of scientist - 7 CC Consensus analyses, including the John Cook's. The respective percentage agreement with CC are: 100%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 91%, 93%, 97%. The percentages rejecting the concept of AGW - Climate Change are: 0%, 3%, 3%, 3%, 9%, 7%, 3%.

In the article you provided, there is no support your view, mhaze. Over the many years, there is much consolidation of scientists views, worldwide.

Nil support of your view that climate scientists are corrupt.

ALTRAV
Nay side science voices number less than 3%. No value whatever in getting involved with the nay side. Too much to do addressing awesome negative CC impacts world-wide, today, yesterday, and getting worse tomorrow.

Nay side views cannot be changed, as many with those views are in organisations supported by the fossil fuel industry. And, some, unfortunately come from those who cannot contemplate what is happening.

And, another aspect of nay siders, they all have different views and descriptions of what is happening.


Anthropogenic Global Warming causes CC.

Of course climate is always changing. Think of ice ages with tens of thousands of years between iceages, driven by the Milanchovich cycles driving our earth a little closer to the sun, or a little further away.

The changes we are experiencing today are happening almost a thousand times faster that a single Milanchovich cycle. By the way, we should be in a cooling stage of glaciation now - but we are not.

Consider this: over the last 800,000 years, iceages have come and gone. During peak warmth, carbon dioxide levels never went above about 280 ppm, and during glaciations, never below about 180 ppm.

We are now at 410 ppm, and rising quickly. All we can do is stop the rising. We have no way of reducing CO2.

Oh, and many debates with the likes of Cook, Australian writers and more. All have their own views that do not coalesce with views of others. None could substantiate their views. GrahamY is one such person.

I gave a summary as to how the original 97% figure came about.

(an)Tony claimed that what I said was false.

I gave a link PROVING that my summary was entirely correct.

The correct response from anyone with even a modicum of ethics would be to concede he was wrong to label my summary as false.

Then there's (an)Tony.

It's quite entertaining watching all the armchair scientists adapting their knowledge in one field to other specialised fields and extrapolating in order to justify their personal opinion.
I wonder how many started from one position and changed their mind. More likely they took an immediate stance and simply refuse to budge.

It's OK to challenge my analogy of bridge safety but I could just as easily used smoking itself as an example. There's a prominent and official scientific opinion about it's effects on health but there are still those who challenge "the science". The bridge was all about the associated risk - not proof of itself.

Likewise it's funny how people accepted the hole in the ozone layer without attacking the minutae of the data or it's causes and solution. That's because the Chemical Industry behind it problem was also able to supply the remedy. Nobody needed to argue against it to for financial reasons.

It's an undeniable fact that ExxonMobile knew about the potential effects of fossil fuels on the climate and has been actively funding denialism since the 1970s.
Even economic neo-fascists like Thatcher and Reagan were convinced about it during their terms in office and took preliminary steps for environmental reasons.

It's unfortunate (for some) that the early effects (extreme weather events) had been forecast some decades ago to start at this time but more unfortunate (for most) that little had been done when they had the chance.

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

Yeah, and you'll be alright because the bridge is safe to cross. But what happens if your crossing dislodges a stone and hits poor Mr. Beaver on the head, killing him stone dead? There's a little old lady in the village down the road who erected a sign reading '$5 to see the beaver', and remarkably some people actually paid up (it's amazing what some people will pay to see what they could see for free just because a sign tells them they should pay). So there's that little old lady's income gone. With the beaver gone, his dam falls into disrepair, and in the next good storm it breaks, sending floodwaters cascading down into the village. They submerge a farmer's wheat crop, completely destroying it.

So well done you. You've completely destroyed the local eco-tourism and agricultural industries, and left a little old lady and a hard-working farmer destitute. But at least you made it to the other side of the bridge safe and dry, and managed to avoid the toll. Happy days! You're alright, and the consequences (even though far more dire than having to pay a meagre toll) are conveniently concealed by a Somebody Else's Problem field.

Apologies for mentioning Cook, when it should have been Patrick Moore