For a long time the UK's Royal Society had a policy of not becoming involved in politics. Obviously, it was being run by brighter people then than it is now. Then it was understood what was best for the long term independence of science.

These days, short term gain matters more. The promise of funding, or honours for the person in charge, or the promise of well-paid sinecures masquerading as jobs count for much more. Governments are as bad. These days being in govenrment is just for the contacts and experience before they get the well-paid jobs afterwards. $100,000 per speech anyone? Gore and Blair to mention but two.

The fact that the scientific bodies publish their agreement with "the consensus" means nothing scientifically as you know. Argumentum ad vericundiam - one of Aristotle's logical fallacies. Not all science bodies have published their point of view. Some can't agree on one. We don't hear so much about those. I wonder why not.

Could such august bodies be wrong? Are they represenrting then views of their members or are they putting words into their mouths. What did you think about the government's of the western world and their intelligence organisations when they said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Did you believe them? Did you listen to the alternative points of view? Were you convinced by the so-called "dodgy dossier"? How did you handle the questions about how could a complete amateur have a view that opposed the government run consensus and their global spy network?

On that pretext over 100,000 people lost their lives They were people like you and me but just had the misfortune to have had Iraqi parents. That is what governments are capable of.

Dook and Linlyons, You should be aware that the Youtube video you are talking about is a spoof. Those are not real Miss American contestants.

Nonetheless that political clap-trap that makes up stance by these reputable scientific organizations are overgeneralized and are not as valuable as the paper on which they are written. What does it matter that they say some warming is occurring and caused by man? Or they it represents a danger, if they do not define danger?

If you were trying to get some paultry million dollar plan through on undefined crap like this, then I would say, have at it. You are talking about multi-trillion dollar "solutions". That needs a bit more evidence then a popularity contest amongst science organizations.

Dook,

PULLLEASE. You always pull this BS crap. Mostly because you are not a scientist but a politically-motivated troll.

AGW is not about weather CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not whether or not man is causing some warming due to CO2 emissions. It is about if the consequences of that warming will be catastrophic. You are proposing multi-trillion dollar solution, so if you want to spend that much money you better be avoiding catastrophe and not a little bit of warming.

You ACT as if you can say whatever scaring-mongering patently false, world-ending, all are going to die, must agree to tax-solution garbage, because most scientists (including MYSELF) acknowledge that CO2 does cause some warming.

You act like you have the scientific view, when the truth is that you do not even understand science enough to distinguish between political claptrap and data. You present claptrap as evidence, when that claptrap does not even go against what I have said.

THis is nto about you not having a PhD, it is about you not thinking like a scientist.

Pegminer,

It is funny that you think you are mocking me with "true scientist". Remember that when you take you next medication. For testing that medication, we used the non-scientific ideals of double-blinded, placebo or best suppotive care controlled studies. Does this frighten you? Would you prefer us just model whether the drugs works?

You already know you are full of crap. We both know that climate science cannot accomplish the type of blinded studies and control of variables that we can. You know very well that this should and does lead to less certainty in your field. If you want to PRETEND that my non-acceptance of your view, is unscientific, I have to laugh. My guess is that you know that I am correct well enough that you will take medication and you won't be stocking up for a climate apocalypse.

In fact, you so little believe in your climate apocalypse, that you would turn down my nuclear solution for reducing CO2 output to nothing in favor of your tax non-solutions that will only slightly reduce CO2 emissions. You choose your political views over science.

No.

Scientific consensus is not a matter of a "popularity contest", or scientists "voting" on the right answer. It's a matter of the evidence for something becoming so compelling that no other idea could stand up to it. It would maybe be a little like if Miss America involved, I don't know, all of the contestants fighting to the death until only one was left standing.

No. unlike a Miss America contest, this section is quite funny. For example "Dook and Linlyons, You should be aware that the Youtube video you are talking about is a spoof. Those are not real Miss American contestants." is hilarious. It also makes shows by comedians like John Oliver funny [1]. However other then a source of entertainment, the "discussion" here is essentially useless.