Jesus dude, some of us have jobs with significant responsibilities and can't be logged on here all day. I had no idea you were waiting around for me!
I read through your string of responses and didn't see any legitimate scientific links, and nothing of substance to respond to.
I've already told you I reject your list of questions and demands, seeing as how you got them from rightwing websites which have misinformed you. Routinely. I reject anything you read on a rightwing website, and paraphrased here. Just because you yelp out a question, doesn't mean I'm going to accept the premise of your question as being legitimate. The fact that you were easily duped by Climate Gate makes any question you yelp out - unsupported by a link - to be suspect. I'll be glad to respond to any post you make that is backed by legitimate, and peer reviewed, science.
This was an interesting narrative from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences publication. The media, and rightwingers in the wingnutosphere have routinely tried to create the illusion that there is widespread uncertainty and disagreement in the scientific community about the causes of climate change. This study completely demolishes and debunks that lie.
The media will routinely put some "skeptic" on an equal par with an actual climate scientist to give both sides "equal time". Its poor journalism, but I suppose from the entertainment angle, the media loves to film two dudes or gals arguing.
bottom line: there is virtually universal consensus among people who are trained to know what they're talking about and who do actual research. The IPCC assessment is correct - and is corroborated by multiple independent reputable assessments in the U.S. and other countries.
Even the term "climate skeptic" is misleading. Scientists are skeptical by nature. It's a fundamental requirement of good science. 20 years ago, most scientists were skeptical that humans were impacting the climate. It was only through good science, that the universal consensus was achieved.
These science-deniers don't deserve to be called skeptics. They are, in fact, mis-informers and deceivers. Which is exactly what we saw with the Iraq War, and with the debate about "intelligent design" science.
"Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the twentieth century…
A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims. This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy….
Despite media tendencies to present ‘both sides’ in ACC debates [anthropogenic climate change], which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding regarding ACC, not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.."
