Who are this huge portion of the worlds educated population who are very skeptical of the science community ?
Is it possible you have an anti-science agenda and therefore look at the subject of man made climate change with bias because you don't trust scientists ?
Mistrust is rife ? - could that comes from misinformation and a lack of understanding.
The thing is Alan, the US and UK national accademy of sciences both agree that Man made climate change is real and that there is sufficient evidence to point to mans affects over the last 50 - 100 years to be significant.
I can look at all the evidence till I am blue in the face, with a reasonable understanding of a lot of the science involved, I still can't say I am expert or well enough versed to go against the scientific consensus.
Are you claiming to known better, as per your post above ?
Could that be considered far more arrogant and high-handedly haughty, being that they are a mix of greatest minds on the planet, with Nobel prize winners and the likes of Steven Hawking, and are they all part of a political conspiracy ?
1 to all that, and your previous post.
What's always missing from the anti-posts is any attempt at providing, even qualitatively, mechanisms which exactly counterbalance the known effects of man-made atmospheric pollution.
In that respect, it's very like the creation vs evolution debate (and I mean the debate as such, not the beliefs and science behind it).
On the one hand we have a wealth of established theory, research and evidence which unequivocally all point one way, forecasting and explaining effects which are actually happening and can be observed. On the other, there is a belief system, based on nothing more than wishful thinking or entrenched ideology (religious in one, political in the other), which marshals its arguments by attempts at debunking points of detail without offering credible alternatives.
Well you bet wrong then.  The last time we had long lists of scientists against Climate Change some of us had a field day.If someone would be kind enough to post an up-to-date list I'm sure we could have just as much fun again.
My favourite was one who was exceptionally well qualified (PhD, degree, all kinds of paper qualifications!)who it turned out was a music professor at some deep south American college with a specialisation in teaching the piano.
Rather epitomised by our very own favourite denier, who is 'on the World stage' but graces us with occasional visits.All very nice, but nothing more than a slightly whimsical thought process and stream of consciousness stuff, rather thanlogical, sequential, "scientific" steps towards a provable/deniable conclusion.
It's tongue in cheek, but clearly way over your head!
Numbers are irrelevant, what is true (and can't be denied) is that there are plenty of vastly experienced climate scientists that disagree with MMGW
The sensible approach is to view the evidence, which does not support CO2 as the main driver of recent temperature changes and expectations for the future.
What evidence?The climate is changing, it always has.Man's impact on those changes is minimal, which is why the last 10 years have shown no statistically significant warming despite increases in CO2 emissions.Further there is some recent evidence to suggest that the temperature has fallen so much in the last year or so, so as to reverse the vast majority of warming experienced since the turn of the century.The trend could continue to be downward for some time, which will cause serious problems.
Resorting to the 'scientifc consensus' argument is meaningless, given the strong evidence to show how the science, the peer review process etc has been abused to support the IPCC and their political agenda.
QUOTE=Toko Black;13845727]
Shame they forget about all the other respectable scientists that do support it and don't think it's a conspiracy yet are not funded by or directly envolved.
And yet you ignore all the respected scientists with opposing views, which suggests that the science is not settled.
Rubbish!Once again your only defence is the 'scientifc consensus' - I never said I believed in 'the opposite' of the 'consensus', I simply believe that there are a huge amount of unknowns and as stated many times there are highly respected scientists on both sides of the debate.
We just don't full understand all the factors that affect the climate and how these might change in the future.
As an educated person I can read both sides of the argument from respected scientists, and look at the evidence and make my own mind up.
My view is that there is very little evidence to suggest that man-made CO2 is driving temperature change, although it may be having a second order effect.This view is also supported by many leading climate scientists, but that does not make it right.
The science is NOT settled.
Rubbish!
That is so naive it is untrue.You clearly haven't read any of the climategate emails which shows how the peer review process was horrendoussly abused to ensure that opposing views were not published.
If the science was settled, why would they need to manipulate data and hide opposing views?
This has been proved numerous times to be a myth.
Respected givernment scientisits in India, China and Russia do not agree with the 'consensus view' on MMGW.
Some leading climate scientists have refused to contribute to the IPCC process due to concerns about the politicisation of the process.
That works both ways.

Sidicks
You two should get a room.
Nothing has to 'exactly balance' anything.The climate has changed and it always will do.Man's impact is minimal, though likely to be non-zero.
It's nothing like the creation v evolution debate.Comapring the two weakens your argument.
How many leading scientists oppose the science on evolution?
How much evidence is there that contradicts the science on evolution?
Oh how wrong you are!!
What has happened to the climate in the last 10 years?Was that predicted by the IPCC??
Rubbish!There is plenty of science about the impact of sun activity on climate which correlates strongly to short term historical records, longer historical records and recent activity.
It doesn't explain everything because there are a lot of factors involved.No-one is claiming that sun activity is the ONLY factor.
//static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
Sidicks
What are you expecting, names and addresses?
There have been plenty of independent surveys to suggest that there is a lot of skepticsm about MMGW.
You clearly don't trust some scientists i.e. those that argue against MMGW, so of course you are equally biased.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that some of the proponents of MMGW have abused the science and the scientifc process to meet their own agenda.That is the reason I distrust them.Why do you distrust the leading climate scientists who refute MMGW?
That comes from evidence of significant abuse of scientific process from the MMGW community.
If the evidence is so strong why can't it be presented in such an unequivocal way?
How about Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology and “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”,who worked for , who said:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly. … virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both … But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”
I assume the you put more weight on the views of Steven Hawking, that expert "climate scientist"...?!


Sidicks
... Just more than you.
No there aren't
In the US, only 16% of scientists disagree with MMGW, this drops to around 3% for Climate experts.
84% vs' 16% is a large and significant number that can't be simply ignored ....
97% vs' 3% ..... well .....
Laughable!How gullible are you?
Was this an independent survey?
Have ALL scientists been surveyed and asked to provide an opinion or is there a huge amount of selection bias going on.
What exactly were they asked?Whether MMGW exists?Whether man has had some impact on climate, regardless of whether significant or not?
Most likely it is that, 'of the scientists surveyed (we have no idea whether this was a representative population or not) and of those responded (clear bias here as it is likely that the question was worded to produce the answer required, and maybe MMGW believers are more likely to respond to try and add credibility to their case!) y% agree with some biased statement'.
Who defines what is a climate scientist?The scientist themselves (biased) or the person carrying out the survey (are they qualified)?
Surely 'climate science' encompasses a huge set of specialisms?

The numbers are meaningless, as explained above.How many 'scientiists' believed that the sun revolved around the earth until Copernicus / Galileo put them straight?!