If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.

Study a) 2013, peer-reviewed, 12,000 papers; 97% agree:

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/ar...16/3759876.htm

Study b) 2012 14,000 papers; well over 99% agree:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

This consensus is supported by every single National science academy, every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.

Me? I can't get away from the overwhelming avalanche of science that points to CO2. A sceptical part of me hopes for something different to come along and mean that we won't have to take enormously difficult and expensive decisions to reduce CO2 outputs (which will affect me), but if I see record global temperatures during the next El Nino, that will be enough to fully convince me of the role of CO2. There's overwhelmingly enough there for us to take action now.

PS Cloudy and dry here; some sun. *))

On May 16, 12:03*pm, Dawlish wrote:
If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.

This consensus is supported by every single National science academy, every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.

Compelling evidence indeed.

However, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but..................

Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of
funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to
favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate
change, whilst those who might wish to research positive influences,
or be pasrt of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding. There are
even anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie
for not toeing the AGW line, and even TV presenters, like David
Ballamy, beng cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic
influence on climate change.

Just a thought, no personal axe to grind:-)

Steve J

Steve Jackson scrive:

On May 16, 12:03Â*pm, Dawlish wrote:
If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that
CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.

This consensus is supported by every single National science academy,
every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that
attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.

Compelling evidence indeed.

However, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but..................

Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of
funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to
favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate change,
whilst those who might wish to research positive influences, or be pasrt
of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding. There are even
anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie for not
toeing the AGW line, and even TV presenters, like David Ballamy, beng
cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic influence on climate
change.

Just a thought, no personal axe to grind:-)

Steve J

It seems popular to think that the scientists whose opinions one favour
are independent right thinking persons funded by philanthropic
benevolence while those on the opposing side are funded by evil corporate
types peddling lies.
Of course, none of that is true because scientists do what they are paid
to do, whether that be finding the cure for cancer or making nicotine in
cigarettes more potent. Being a scientist is much like being a dustman or
a brain surgeon. It is paid employment, not some angelic enterprise.



--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:08:43 PM UTC+1, Steve Jackson wrote:


"Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of

funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to

favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate

change, whilst those who might wish to research positive influences,

or be pasrt of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding."


-- Evidence and examples, please. And there's an 'AGW deniers alliance'?



"There are even anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie

for not toeing the AGW line,"

-- Anecdotal and usually false.


"...and even TV presenters, like David

Ballamy, beng cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic

influence on climate change.

By whom? Anyway, he doesn't merely 'downplay' it, he is in cohorts with the likes of M'Lord Moncktnon. And why does a botanist matter more than, say, an entomologist? Because he's been on telly? What other TV presenters, anyway?


Stephen.

On 16/05/2013 14:08, Steve Jackson wrote:
On May 16, 12:03 pm, Dawlish wrote:
If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.

This consensus is supported by every single National science academy, every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.

Compelling evidence indeed.

I don't really find a consensus any more compelling than one good
experiment. I am reminded of a hundred (mostly anti-semitic) authors
against Einstein - as he wryly remarked "If I were wrong, one would be
enough.".

However, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but..................

Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of
funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to
favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate
change, whilst those who might wish to research positive influences,
or be pasrt of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding. There are

Science actually advances by disproving the status quo.

Any credible experiment that looked like it could determine more
accurately the non-GHG non-TSI forcing contributions would be given a
high priority for funding. If you read the IPCC science report you would
see that it is an honest attempt to catalogue what is known and their
relative uncertainties and where additional work is needed.

The scientist who successfully disproved AGW would be in for a Nobel
Prize. However, right whinging cranks on Usenet don't count at all.

even anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie
for not toeing the AGW line, and even TV presenters, like David
Ballamy, beng cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic
influence on climate change.

Don't you find it just a teeny weeny bit suspicious that most of the
deniers and their sponsors are on the extreme ultra violet fringe of the
Conservative party or even further to the right Republicans?
(You can also find some Stalinists from coal mining regions of USSR)

And they are absolutely certain that we can continue to pump CO2 forever
with no problems, just as they were also in favour of using CFCs and
smoking tobacco being good for you. Seriously: a very good way to spot
deniers for hire is to look at their previous record for denying that
CFCs damage the ozone layer or tobacco not causing cancer.

Just a thought, no personal axe to grind:-)

Steve J



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Buchan Meteo wrote:
Steve Jackson scrive:

On May 16, 12:03 pm, Dawlish wrote:
If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that
CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.
This consensus is supported by every single National science academy,
every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that
attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.
Compelling evidence indeed.

However, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but..................

Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of
funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to
favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate change,
whilst those who might wish to research positive influences, or be pasrt
of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding. There are even
anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie for not
toeing the AGW line, and even TV presenters, like David Ballamy, beng
cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic influence on climate
change.

Just a thought, no personal axe to grind:-)

Steve J

It seems popular to think that the scientists whose opinions one favour
are independent right thinking persons funded by philanthropic
benevolence while those on the opposing side are funded by evil corporate
types peddling lies.
Of course, none of that is true because scientists do what they are paid
to do, whether that be finding the cure for cancer or making nicotine in
cigarettes more potent. Being a scientist is much like being a dustman or
a brain surgeon. It is paid employment, not some angelic enterprise.



-------------------------------------
Whilst in essence what you say is true Gianna, it should not be
extrapolated to imply that findings are not genuine. If so it would be
more a human flaw attributable to anyone. As a formerly employed
Scientist and a member of The Royal Society of Chemistry I effectively
took the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath and never allowed my
employer to pressurise me (and they tried) to modify any of the
analytical data I was responsible for managing. My experience was that
the majority of Scientists were of this view.
Dave

On 16/05/2013 21:40, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Buchan Meteo wrote:
Steve Jackson scrive:

On May 16, 12:03 pm, Dawlish wrote:
If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that
CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.
This consensus is supported by every single National science academy,
every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that
attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.
Compelling evidence indeed.

However, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but..................

Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of
funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to
favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate change,
whilst those who might wish to research positive influences, or be pasrt
of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding. There are even
anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie for not
toeing the AGW line, and even TV presenters, like David Ballamy, beng
cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic influence on climate
change.

Just a thought, no personal axe to grind:-)

Steve J

It seems popular to think that the scientists whose opinions one
favour are independent right thinking persons funded by philanthropic
benevolence while those on the opposing side are funded by evil
corporate types peddling lies.

Not necessarily corporate types some of the biggest offenders are ultra
far right US "think tanks" that are hidden proxies for big oil and coal.

Of course, none of that is true because scientists do what they are
paid to do, whether that be finding the cure for cancer or making
nicotine in cigarettes more potent. Being a scientist is much like
being a dustman or a brain surgeon. It is paid employment, not some
angelic enterprise.

Not true - at least in academia the object is to discover something that
turns the status quo upside down and requires a major rethink. The best
researchers are always looking to find holes in existing models in
whatever field they are researching.

And even in commercial research most scientists are ethical with a
handful notable exceptions who have sold their souls to for example big
tobacco or illegal drug synthesis. It is no coincidence that ex-tobacco
lobbyists form the backbone of the AGW denial industry.

-------------------------------------
Whilst in essence what you say is true Gianna, it should not be
extrapolated to imply that findings are not genuine. If so it would be
more a human flaw attributable to anyone. As a formerly employed
Scientist and a member of The Royal Society of Chemistry I effectively
took the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath and never allowed my
employer to pressurise me (and they tried) to modify any of the
analytical data I was responsible for managing. My experience was that
the majority of Scientists were of this view.
Dave

You do get exceptions though and most of them are virulent AGW deniers.
The canonical denier for hire was the late Fred Singer who orchestrated
one of the first loads of signatures of ultraright whingers against AGW.

He had previous for helping big tobacco deny that smoking causes cancer
(a claim they can still just about defend on oath with a very cleverly
legally crafted form of words - strictly it doesn't *cause* cancer only
make cancer much more likely in a high proportion of the population)

And here is what his employers thought of him before he got involved in
AGW (with thanks to the US freedom of information act).

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/h...53.to bacco03

The Oregon Petition was almost a decade later.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown