"First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?"

No I wouldn't.  I don't worship at the feet of scientists.  Science is a continual search for knowledge.  Knowledge is not arrived at by vote.  The history of science is rife with examples of the majority being proven wrong as more knowledge is gained, which was my first point.  Moreover, when there are serious social and political implications involved, skepticism of the "consensus" is even more justified.

In this case, there is more proof that global climate changes are the result of solar activity rather than anything happening on earth, including human activity.  When you add to that the fact that there is political motivation behind the Global Warming movement (just as there was in the 70's with the New Ice Age movement) the conclusion that Global Warming is a politically motivated farce is even more likely than the idea that it even exists, let alone is caused by humans.

There is widespread disagreement within the scientific community and if you were anything more than a political operative you'd know that.

At the least, there are the following types of scientific opinions on the subject:

1.  There are scientists who do not believe that human activity is causing global warming at all.

2.  There are scientists who agree that humans are making some contributions to global climate but that these contributions are small in relation to the natural forces that shape Earth's climate.

3.  There are Scientists who believe that human activity is responsible for all or nearly all of the observed warming of the last 150 years.  These two groups are subdivided into those who believe this warming is significant and those who believe this warming is small.

4.  There are scientists who conclude that we do not yet know enough about how the Earth's climatic regulatory system works to ascertain what impact human activity may be having.

5. There are scientists who believe human activity is causing global climate change on the same scale as natural forces.

One thing that IS clear:  very, very few scientists believe that global warming of the scale forecast by prominent doomsayers like Al Gore is likely to occur and this is the whole point of criticism being leveled here at the MSM.  They emphasize the extreme warming scenarios as if they are the expected outcomes.   Consequently, most readers, viewers and listeners get the very wrong idea there is (a) some kind of real scientific consensus and (b)  that consensus says tempertures will rise 6-11 degrees celsius, the polar ice caps will all melt and the seas will rise 20 or 30 feet. 

Whatever.  I suffer from CRS.  Answer the question any f#!?ing time...

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

1.  I read your first post just fine.  "If the media pointed out that all scientific groups who study the climate agree."  Except, last time I checked, the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme weren't all the groups who studied it.  Maybe you should read your own post to see what I'm replying to.

  I'll bust up their little statement right now.  You quoted, apparently without understanding the absurdity of such a statement:  "It was concluded that based on the balance of all available evidence and even considering uncertainties and areas lacking adequate research, the Earth is undergoing a rapid warming trend that is outside the likely bounds of natural variations..."  Did you miss that part?  You know, the whole part where they willfully ignore the flaws in their own system and dismiss them out of hand?  How can you consider results that you admit you haven't bother to look into in the first place?

  While we're at it, let's have a little fun.  What is the definition of consensus?  I'll pull from Dictionary.com to make it easy for you:

"1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.  "

  Wow... that still does not add up to "all scientific groups who study the climate agree."  One is because 'consensus' just represents what a majority of those included agree with, despite any internal contradictions.  Two is because it still doesn't include ALL such organizations.  Three is, well, just because you did not list every scientific group in existance that studies the climate.  Good try, though.

  THanks for posting the ones who have a 'majority of agreement', though.  I'd post counters, except you can look on this page to find other links.  You know, the ones you don't try to dismiss out of hand as partisan.  As if United Nations organizations and committees are themselves nonpartisan.

  I can't access Blogspot from here, sorry.  Have a nasty case of filter-itis.  But if you want counter-links, look farther down at the post.  Quite a few you should check out.

  I don't have to worry about patently proven untrue statements that don't qualify as science (flat earthers, for instance), especially when such can be disproven by a middle-schooler with a little knowledge of geometry.  As far as I'm concerned, I don't want opinion on science being pushed to the rest of us as fact.  Humanocentric Global Warming is an opinion, as is obvious due to lack of proof and existance of opposition.  I'll be damned if they shove that agenda down my throat, nor use pseudoscience to try and prove it.  Especially when it's exemplified in a statement which contradicts the very ethos of science itself.

  3 certainly is.  If science can't prove there's a problem, then people better not use it as an excuse to try and impose policy (ie: Kyoto).  And if they DO try to push it as policy, it better be applied evenly to everyone... (see China's lovely inclusion into Kyoto... oh wait, it's not!)

sorethroatwobbler,

There are numerous peer-reviewed papers that have been given in some of the esteemed journals that have editorial board members from some of the organizations above.  These papers give examples that do not attribute the warming trend of the past 150 years to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  The problem with sheeple like yourself, you cannot or will not form your own opinion based on across the board research on such a topic.  If you do not possess a working knowledge of chemistry /physics then get one or shut up.  I've read your post now for over a week on this subject and not once have you cited anything but IPCC or Hansen or the scientifically challenged MSM.

Interesting you quote IPCC. Did you know they have 2 definitions of climate change in thier new report? 

"In the IPCC TAR document WG2SPM.pdf  on page 3 (shortly after item 2.1 for those who access this document in some other format)  ... "Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

So now if the sun causes climate change it will be evidence of Throatpeckers anthropogenic climate change and his fault.

They took lessons in language and definitions from Bill Clinton.

Further:

If you're not familiar with the FCCC, also notice where Article 4
requires the rich countries to pay the poor countries (items 3, 4, 5).
The Kyoto Protocol specifically mentions Article 4.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

The fact that many of said scientific groups are funded and/or motivated by a specific politcal agenda is evidence that they are not following basic scientific doctrine, to whit, seperating their analysis of the results from the desire for specific results.

Because, just as Copernicus and Kepler were part of a very tiny minority of scientists who thought the heliocentric model of the solar system presented a better explanation...

...that THEY MIGHT BE RIGHT???

And you wonder why I can think that you hate science and desperately want it to be dogma.

Oh, and the media will be more than happy to report the scientists findings that conclude man-made GW is bunk, but then they eagerly attack their funding sources.  But no one DARES question the motives of those who proclaim GW is in fact happening; never mind that they are feeding at the trough of government money just the same.  (Scientists still must eat and they don't work for free, from everything I gather.)

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."  -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)

The sum total of all your answers has been, "It is so because this amalgam of panels of government experts say it is so..."  and what these experts say is by no means in agreement and by no means an imperative for government action.

to. wit.  I notice your list of Scientific bodies includes the Chinese Academy of Science, whcih I will presume is the PRC version, since the Taiwanese body no longer presumes to call itself 'China'.  If they really support this notion, then why is the world's largest polluter, the People's Republic of China, not taking action to stem this disaster?  Could it be because they do not think this is a crisis?

You said there are few scientists who dispute human caused global warming.

Your nose is growing.

Over the months this group have listed a large number of scientist who disagree. Many among the tops in their fields. Probably over a hundred. 60 here. 40 there. And quite a few individually.

 "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."  Albert Einstein

Actually, not to assist the other guy, but the Theory of Gravity is, in fact, a theory.  We can observe its effects, but do not know its cause  Oh, we know that a mass will somehow exert a force upon another mass, but we don't know how...  is it a form of undetectable energy?  Some sort of extremely small particle exchange?

  Science makes a distinction between Theory and Law.  A Law is certain and proveable, the results capable of being understood and reproduced.  A Theory is reserved for something observable, which science believes to be true, but either does not know the exact process of how it works (Gravity) or because the results of an experiment involving it can not be replicated for whatever reason (an example being Evolution... science believes it is possible, but it is impossible to prove because of the limits of the scientific method--a person must be able to reproduce an experiment and gain the same results, and as yet no human has sufficient lifespan to actually produce or reproduce such an experiment).

  Humanocentric Global Warning doesn't even rate high enough to be a true Theory, as it is not a majority agreement, it is untestable, and it is far from being close to fully understood.  It's somewhere on a lower rung, probably best classified as a "hypothesis" (translation:  A 'guess' as to the expected results an experiment will produce).

Don't get me started on evolution.  It doesn't exist.  Darwinian evolution hasn't been observed in any way, just invented and put into models.