The year before gave even more farcical entertainment for the anti-AGW people...

2007 - "Explorers and educators" Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen said they were off on what reporters described as "a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warming's impact on the fragile Arctic".

It turned out that what was fragile was not the Arctic but the alarmists, who had to call off their big trip not long after it started, when Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold drained their batteries.

Explained a spokesman: "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming." Ha! Ha!

BTY - The last Arctic Winter experienced sub -48 degree weather, setting many NEW record LOWS, which resulted in an Arctic Ozone Hole...

Lots of people don't understand AGW very much, apparently. A few degrees warmer than freaking cold is still freaking cold, lol. No chance for palm trees to start sprouting in the antarctic any day soon. Just because it was cold does not mean AGW isn't happening. I'll still side with the 97+% consensus among climatologists that it is, and is in fact accelerating.

The "climatologists" do not have a degree in that name, as they are Atmospheric Chemists and Geo-Physicists....

consensus - does not make it a fact. Same as, "Before Columbus, consensus science believed (a matter of faith) the world was flat."

In fact, most did not believe the world was flat in Columbus time. Where Columbus was revolutionary was in his thinking out of the box, to travel West and end up in the East. Sailors and "scientists" were well aware of the curvature of the earth well before that fateful trip.

Keep in mind that the term "science" at that time did not have the same meaning as it does now. Philosophy and religion was fully integrated in the "sciences". I do agree that consensus does not mean fact. But there are many lines of evidence in many disciplines that indicate the greenhouse gasses are having a global effect. If you choose to side with the very tiny minority that questions the global impact of our current economy, so be it.

Have you also decided that gravity and evolution and aerodynamics and electricity are also not facts? There is overwhelming evidence for that we have those sciences down pretty good, but agreement is not universal. With very few exceptions, nothing in any science is universally accepted.

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• 1. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks^[41]
• 2. Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)^[42]
• 3. Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University^[43]
• 4. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC^[44][45]
• 5. Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory^[46]
• 6. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology^[47]
• 7. David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma^[48]
• 8. Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists^[49]

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• 1. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences^[16]
• 2. Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[17][18]
• 3. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[19]
• 4. Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland^[20]
• 5. David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester^[21]
• 6. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University^[22]
• 7. William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University^[23]
• 8. William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University^[24]
• 9. William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology^[25]
• 10. David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware^[26]
• 11. Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[27]
• 12. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[28][29]
• 13. Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.^[30]
• 14. Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University^[31][32]
• 15. Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo^[33]
• 16. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia^[34][35][36]
• 17. Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[37]
• 18. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville^[38]
• 19. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center^[39]
• 20. Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

So much for a 97+% consensus for AGW...

Still a tiny fraction of the number of scientists working on the issue. If that's what you got, its more like 99.9% consensus. But polls of both the active people that are publishing research on climate change and reviews of the peer-reviewed research itself shows overwhelming consensus.

Do they agree on everything? Of course not. Are ALL of them correct in their research findings? Again of course not. But if you check with 100 doctors and 97 of them say you are overweight and have heart disease, and 3 of them say everything is fine and carry on, who you gonna believe?