On Monday, 22 April 2013 01:25:54 UTC+12, Ian Bingham wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message ... On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote: "Alastair McDonald" wrote in message .... There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the state we are in with regards to global warming. http://vimeo.com/43012713 Of course, those who should watch it won't :-( Cheers, Alastair. On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions. I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic. It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global warming or whether it is the other way round. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire. "Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus. This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have hardened markedly since then: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell (Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK, but an enormous sample): What can we conclude from this study? 1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement that humans are causing global warming. Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority, including Prof Bob Carter, don't. Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances. Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I have time for and keep an open mind. Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

You are dead wrong - and those above (for example) who cite a discredited has-been like Lindzen are not up with the play at all. The "dissenters" are a small minority in the scientific community, but include plenty of scientists who have no expertise whatever in any aspect of meteorological science, but are more than willing (along with conservative TV station weather hosts!) to make confident assertions about the "facts".

I suggets you spend more time looking at these sites (below) for example - but don't expect to be treated politely if you start quoting from the uninformed.

The "controversy" is politically-inspired tripe emanating from vested interests acting in the same way as the tobacco lobbyists, and media organs who think it's reasonable (convenient, in reality) to treat all arguments as equally valid. The media gave that discombobulated loon Monckton air time he didn't deserve in his recent visits down under.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://hot-topic.co.nz/

I look forward to your contributions/questions.