Why do suppose that the wrong disciplines cited as experts on global warming?

Thank you for explaining the differences between these Fields of study, what you say makes a lot of sense. Especially the part about climatologists primarily being involved with statistical study of shorter term climate data. Extrapolating a hundred years climate data into a long term trend is like saying that the stock market went up yesterday, so the economic troubles are over. That'd be looking at a short term trend, and ignoring a lot of data that implies otherwise. The data preffered by the warmists seems rather cherry-picked, also.

I think political bias is a great problem in interpreting the data. A chart can show multiple trends, two people can make entirely different prognostications about which way the market will go, based on the trend they see, and their assesment of limits to trend(resistance levels in market). Then there's the politicians and media adherents, and their power seeking agenda and ability to emphasize (and fund) that which suits their purposes.

I agree with your take on the agenda of those pushing the warmist policy. I'd like to add:

1. If it was about reducing carbon usage, a carbon tax would be far simpler and fairer. There's far fewer producers of fuels than users. The cap and trade idea will establish a system where new industries will need to apply for carbon permits, and lobbyists representing various industries will flock to congress seeking favorable treatment. The steel industry in Germany has been doing a lot of lobbying. Athough steel can be made with electric furnaces, it turns out that a solar powered steel industry is unable to compete on price with coal fired. What a surprise. But it lines the politicians pockets.

2. Its not just about taxes, and supporting the UN. Those who beleive that the government should control every economic activity benefit from a messed up economy. This causes people to rely on government more. Roosevelt got re-elected four times, all the while doing very obviously anti-business things, at a time of high unemployment. Marxist tactics involve damaging the economy. Google "cloward-piven strategy". Carbon limitations are a sure fire way to decrease productivity. The chart in this article clearly shows what investors (the people who risk their savings to fund business's)think.

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=32002...

- crime follows poverty, a fringe benefit to the democrats largest ?conributors, lawyers.

I think you have missed the point that there are climate scientists (I won't call them climatologists) that specialize in the study of the Earth climate system as a whole. These would include atmospheric scientists, paleoclimate geologists, planetary physicists and biogeochemists. I think your suggestion about who the experts are is a bit naive and suggests you haven't spent much time around these departments. If you go and pick out people at random that call themselves "geophysicist" or "astrophysicist" you are probably not going to find out anything useful about the Earth's climate from them. There are a few that might work in that subfield but they are definitely in the minority.

You are wrong about the consensus, by the way. I'm curious, what are your multiple degrees in meteorology?

I don't see any problem with it. Meteorologists are usually quite knowledgeable in the atmospheric sciences, and geologists usually have a firm grasp of planetary physics. So long as they're presenting solid science, I don't care who the skeptics use as sources. Of course, while they are probably very knowledgeable about their field of study, when discussing issues related to climate science (say, climate modeling), I always take the word of climate scientists (like Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt, for instance) above that of anyone else. However, when their sources say silly things like Bob Carter has, I tend to just ignore them. That I know more about the issue than they do tends to dampen my esteem for their opinion.

Your claim about the qualified opinions of geophysicists/geologists is grossly incorrect.

AGU consensus:

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate. "

EFG: "The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization. "

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."

"In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.”

It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.

CCS (Carbon Capture and geological Storage) should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

There is some disagreement among petroleum geologists, however, which shouldn't be a surprise. Their official position doesn't take a concrete stand.

Geologists and geophysicists study the atmosphere in terms of geologic time (naturally enough), and their models are optimized for time scales far longer than humans have been around. They are also focused more on the chemical processes of weathering rather than the dynamic processes driving weather and climate. This hardly makes geologists and geophysicists the most qualified experts on climate.

I am a fervent believer that everyone is entitled to express their opinion and welcome the contribution of all the disciplines to the debate, providing they are giving their true opinion and not just spouting what is required of those that pay them. I think we can glean far more information from, for example, Realclimate, with it's collection of climate scientists and other related disciplines. I am interested in the research rather than the refutations given by all sorts of unqualified unrelated academics.

I pretty much agreed with everything you said. I was amazed the other day when a self described scientist tried to deny that current CO2 levels are actually historically at a near minimum when you talk about geological time frames. I can only imagine that it interfered with the notion of CO2 as a poison that will kill us so had to be denied. I learned that decades ago and find it rather amazing that isn't taught as common knowledge since CO2 concentration is taught in grade school now. When I learned it, CO2 was still one of the building blocks of life.

Regardless of how well a field fits a researchers qualifications, when they make a claim they should be prepared to back it up with evidence. Otherwise who's to say that their not just persuing an agenda.

Practitioners in every field, occasionally come up with claims that they can't back up with evidence. These claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

These people who claim that AGW proponents are apolitical and only interested in the truth while AGW skeptics are deceitful industry stooges are a little naive to the ways of the world.

The fact is, virtually all climate scientists agree that humans are having a significant impact on the Earth's climate, and that the current substantial warming trend is due to human activity rather than natural forcings. Of course there is plenty of debate about exactly how bad it will get, about possible positive and negative feedback effects and so on, but climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the current warming is due to human activity.

It is of course true that global average temperatures are dependant upon solar irradiation but it's been known for over 100 years that the Earth is many degrees warmer than it would be without the 'greenhouse effect' of naturally-occurring gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Simple physics tells us that increasing the global concentrations of greenhouse gases, as humans are currently doing, will therefore result in an increase in global temperatures, so there is no controversy there.