This post is not for the one who began this topic. Some minds are already determined to go against any reasoned argumentation that defeats their position. This is dedicated to those who are willing to actually look at the evidence and think for themselves . Regardless of what you believe now, a willingness to read the objective observations of those who are the Professors (experts in their fields)those who teach this stuffeach in their own discipline.
Who are these 97% Climate Scientists that have consensus that Climate change is caused by human activity?
Science is not consensus, it is factual. Any scientist who disagrees with that statement is not. It is, or it isnt. And, one of the basic rules in scientific investigation is you cannot prove a negative. It is the burden of the postulate (the one who say it is) to be proven. The postulate that global warming (recently named climate change) is anthropogenic (caused by humans) has left to be proven.
The claim that 97% of Climate Scientists agree is bull crap
find a list of who they are, then research their academic contributions! Lets look at their on the record academic contributions ( being quoted in a Michael Moore movie doesnt count if they havent provided a peer-reviewed article in acedemia).
I live in the world of academia, Im sorry if that offends you. I am the first to admit that I am over educated, and grossly overpaid for doing something that I love. To make myself clear, I want to see the Science (the proof); and, not an enumerated list of unproven talking points (many redundant), which sound very impressive to an Occupy protester, but fail in any academic circles. [Please, reader, forgive me for sounding pedantic].
The US Govt had established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which publishes an annual report,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ the latest.
These folks are not Scientists, they are politicians. This is a UN group, that receives information for scientists voluntarily. The primary channel of this information path is not via academia; and, this information is not peer-reviewed scholarship.
With that said, lets take a walk and talk with some real scientists that know a little something about our Global Climate. Ill be providing links to their academic research presenting their positions. Ive chosen those who within their discipline are most notable. If you dont understand these sciences or heard of these people,
use google, check em out.
Meteorology
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor emeritus
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/Vulcanologist
Peter Ward, US GS , volcanology - Teton Tectonics. . .
http://www.tetontectonics.org/Climate/Ward%20Understanding%20Volcanoes%20100517.pdfPaleogeophysics
Nils-Axel Mörner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7438683/rising-credulity/Astrophysicist
Sallie Baliunas & Willie Soon
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.htmlAlso,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..891SHeliophysics
Too many scholars to list names, here check out this class problem setthe links to the notes work (right columnyoull see this is not an easy two credit class).
http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/science-resources-problem-sets.shtmlThere are so many other disciplines to add, but I'll keep it short.
What can we learn from these scholars
There are a lot of unanswered questions to defend the postulation that climate change is anthropogenic!
--What effect does the solar cycle/behaviours have on our climate.
--Earths magnetic north is movingwhy?
--Arctic ice is melting, and Antarctic is increasing, is this caused by magnetic Norths change?
--What is the effect of volcanoes on climate?
--What is warming the earths molten core?  we dont know what is causing the molten core?
* to those who take the time to read the contributions of these scholars will come up with a hundred more unanswered questions.
Bottom line, Science is not consensus. With so many unanswered questions, how can one resolve to say they have the answer?