Peer- review is still the best process/institution to evaluate science and subsequent policies. You guys say the system is corrupt. The only thing resembling credible evidence for the overall corruption of science/climatology is the long debunked "Climate gate" scandal, which turned out to be no scandal at all. Is there orthodoxy? Yes. Are there fraudsters that chase grant money? Yes. But indicting science and climatology in general as corrupt, without anything but anecdote for evidence is a fool's play and argues for a policy response of sitting on our hands.

The issue of pause is not accepted in many credible scientific circles. Here's what the American Meteorlogical Society said. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00106.1 Cooke writes that three different studies so far have refuted to socalled pause that deniers carry on about.

What's the best policy response? I dunno, but it's likely a double tipped spear, it will mitigate CC as well as the issue Vitaliy frequently comments on: limited supply of energy. I'd like to think there are solutions that don't require a near extinction event.

The 97% per cent figure has been challenged and defended competently, not shredded. It's in fact corroborated by the link you yourself provided -- your study actually put the figure at 98%. I don't know what to say, the citation you reference totally undercuts your own position on this. You think 98% of scientists are either incompetent or fraudsters and yet you work in a profession that relies on their work.

You might be right about the issues with various policy responses.

The latest IPCC AR actually increased the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 including the lower bound. This was wilfully misrepresented in the Summary for policy makers as increased certainty. Well I can make the statement that I am 100% certain that the sensitivity is between -10 deg C and +10 deg C. Such a statement indicates almost complete uncertainty about what the sensitivity actually is. By the same token, the IPCC actually expressed increased uncertainty for CO2 sensitivity compared to the previous ARs. If uncertainty increases with more data, the underlying theory is in serious trouble.

The increasing body of scientific work supporting lower CO2 sensitivity actually goes hand in hand with the pause/ hiatus that many alarmists seem so keen to deny.

Here's what NOAA says about the "pause"

Another straw on the camel's back.

Warming ocean temperatures a third of a mile below the surface, in a dark ocean in areas with little marine life, might attract scant attention. But this is precisely the depth where frozen pockets of methane 'ice' transition from a dormant solid to a powerful greenhouse gas. Methane has contributed to sudden swings in Earth's climate in the past. It is unknown what role it might contribute to contemporary climate change, although recent studies have reported warming-related methane emissions in Arctic permafrost and off the Atlantic coast.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-plumes-washington-oregon-warmer-ocean.html#jCp http://phys.org/news/2015-10-plumes-washington-oregon-warmer-ocean.html

@Vitaliy I don't have enough intimate knowledge of climate science to agree or disagree. Phys.org is among the more reliable news services on the web. It's editors are reputable and esteemed. But it's still a news service not a journal.

Among most concerning passages is here, regarding ocean acidification.

But most of the deep-sea methane seems to get consumed during the journey up. Marine microbes convert the methane into carbon dioxide, producing lower-oxygen, more-acidic conditions in the deeper offshore water, which eventually wells up along the coast and surges into coastal waterways.

I know marine biologists in the private sector that say exactly what scientists in the large institutions say regarding acidification. They are not chasing grant money.