List any international scientific organisation, academic institution, research body, STATE, Corporation etc that refutes the high school level science that underpins anthropogenically driven global warming trends and REJECTS the urgency in mitigating global Carbon emissions in order to avert future climate driven catastrophies.

Now surely if the Denialist priests are claiming that the data sets are unreliable and inconclusive, and that there is a massive debate going on in the scientific community concerning the validity of AGW, they should be able to point to who is on the other side (apart from Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton of course)

GOOD LUCK WITH THE HOMEWORK

...amazing how the truth attracts liars to stick their heads out of the swamp

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:



It's a simple question.

Why do you think scientific consensus is an argument, or even part of the scientific method?

... wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:



I love your post, however, you run the risk of AGW disciples accusing you of "destroying your grandchildren's future".

Their cult is unforgiving.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:


Well if you want to study chimps in west africa and approach the government for a grant you would be lucky to receive anything.

If you want to study chimps in west africa with respect to the effects of global warming then you would be assured something.

CSIRO come on down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You would be fool hardy not to.........................

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 5^th, 2013 at 4:00pm:


Science is not based on consensus, its based on facts!!!

I might add what consensus regarding AGW??????

There are scientists even today on the IPCC list that would rather not be there but have no other choice.

Should read up on the consensus of AGW.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:


Dribble and malarkey at best.

Do you actually know how this consensus of AGW was formed.....????????????

Should look into it.......??????????????

Worse than climategate.....??????????????

How can you follow such PIGS.

Rather like following the orange people....???????

Ajax wrote on Aug 7^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).  Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

Several studies have confirmed that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.