My thesis on AGW with quotes from the 97%

I grant you there are special interests that seek to influence public opinion away from alarmism. It is presented, however, as if there is one side in it for profit and the other side is purely objective and altruistic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I already posted on this board quotes from scientists who say that the IPCC is flat out lying about their work. When confronted with these damning quotes, AGW true believers do what religious zealots do when confronted with something they can't explain: They ignore it. They go completely silent and wait for the moment to pass.

So if one side is altruistic and objective, why are they lying? Why do we have emails detailing how some science that is not "helpful" is being repressed? Why, after several years of a warming " plateau", after Nasa data comes back showing heat passing through the atmosphere at a much higher rate than any of the models pedict, after CERN showed that seed clouds are caused by cosmic rays, after every single climate model shows drastically more warming than what we actually experienced, why does the IPCC raise their level of certainty of imminent devastation from AGW?

Because the largest single special interest group that the world has ever known actually sits on the side of AGW. It's called government. Sure, the Al Gore's of the world profit in the hundreds of millions from propigating AGW, by trading carbon credits and lobbying fees, among other things. But they pale in comparison to world governments that stand to receive trillions in taxes from climate regulations. And those trillions pale in comparison to the growth of government and the increase in regulatory power that it stands to gain. That's what governments really want. The money is lagniappe, because it is only a vehicle for attaining power and control.

If the public is swayed by this wave of alarmism and hands the government the ability to take the steps it desires to regulate industry, overnight governments world-wide would gain and power and influence over the private sector, the likes of which have never been seen since America was conceived.

Anyway, for those interested, here are the quotes along with the CERN and NASA data:

NASA

CERN

Members of the 97% "concensus" speak out:

"That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

-Craig Idso

"Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission. What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006”

-Nicola Scaffeta

"it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”

-Nir Shaviv

Other papers were classified as having "no opinion" and not counted as for or against. Some quotes from these scientists:

"that is Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”

-Nils-Axel Morner

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works”

-Willie Soon