Dear Mr Morgan,
Professor Bellamy is not reputable! What a comment. Considering it comes from someone who is so famous in the field of climate. That bit is sarcasm because I'm getting a little annoyed with this argument. As long as you are insulting just the people on this forum, you really did not have much of a problem. But it is a little different when someone actually calls your bluff about there being no dispute to your "we all agree" statement or that those that disagree have no expertise in their chosen field, and provides a rather succinct link to a very large number of so called skeptics.
You might not like the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition" and somehow find fault with it because it doesn't seem to have a lot of peer reviewed published research to back it up but it does have an awful lot of documents on why this might be so. I might not agree with everything that is written on the site either but it certainly makes interesting reading as some of it is rather difficult to dispute at all.
For instance, do you really agree that the Mann hockey stick graph is not discredited or even verging on scientific fraud? Do your really agree with statements such as those by the ultra pro global warming experts that suggest that Katrina brokes levees because of the effects of man-made global warming?
At some point modelling and statements about what might happen start to feel, well, just silly. The more extreme the rantings, the stupidier the position starts to look.
Do you suggest that there is a mistake in the statement: "The world has not warmend in the period 1998 to the present" (whether you pick satellite data or weather station data). This is despite the 2005 year. If the statement is incorrect, how about suggesting why it is wrong.
The Coalition is large enough and contains enough members to make a bit of a mockery of your wonderful "consensus". It includes comments from such people as the ex head of the Australian National Climate Centre; Dr Singer; Professer Blamey; Dr Gray; Professer Carter.
You don't like what I write because apparently I'm not famous, and have not had my work published in respect to this field, yet at least it is a field that I'm active in. And my critisicm of global warming as a scare boils down to the problem of data, nothing really more than that. This is the only area you just will not address at all, because it is actually too simple. It is pretty hard to look at data that has glaring problems with it and declare otherwise without looking rather foolish. I suspect that is why you haven't said anything on the subject. It is certainly not because the subject requires special expertise in climate science. It really only requires a basic understanding of data and the maths that is used to make data useful.
All of these people are cranks, crackpots and zealots according to your previously posted definition. I'd really like to see you actually argue with some of them about climate science, it being the field of specialty for many years of many of these people.
What the Coalition site has managed to do, that a whole lot of lobbiests for global warming would not be thrilled about is to bring together a great many scientists, experts in climate science. These are not bloggers who have nothing better to do such as myself who dabbles in a bit of research when I'm healthy enough. These are people who have a wealth of expertise and are rather difficult to simply ignore when grouped together.
But I'm sure you'll manage it somehow.
Regards
Richard
