[matt_xyz]

these 'petitions' are well known but quite simply DO NOT reflect the scientific consensus. Also, you really do have to look at the quality of those signing it and not just the quantity. Count the professors on the petitions from US Ivy League universities and English Russell Group universities. It won't take you long. The groups organising these petitions really do have an agenda and before anyone sides with them they need to look at some of the other issues they campaign on. You then start to get a feel for their motivation.

Furthermore, one well known German petition argued quite vociferously that 'up to' 20% of climate scientists had doubts about the human impact on the climate. (a) I would question whether this really is 20%, but (b) even if it is, that still leaves 80% who do, on the balance of evidence, agree that we're influencing the climate. Surely we have to base policy on the scientific consensus? It would be madness to do otherwise.

I am no longer contributing to this debate since it is indeed going around in circles. I simply do not understand the logic or reasoning of those non-scientists who do not accept the scientific consensus on this topic. I can only question the objectivity with which they are approaching the issue.

Matt