Besides being an obvious ‘strawman’, the statement compares ‘apples & oranges’, Dean. Comparison of criticism of past medieval orthodoxy from the perspective of today, can’t be compared to current criticism of current AGW orthodoxy. Now if one where to compare it to the skepticism and criticism by medieval contemporaries of their own current orthodoxy, at that time, that might be an apt analogy. However such analogy would entail implications perhaps discomforting to advocates of a current orthodoxy.

I think we should be doing many, many things including: reducing river pollution, fighting city smog, improving sanitation in the third-world, eliminating malaria, being more energy efficient, reducing landfill volumes and so on.

I do not think we should be spending so much money on useless groups like the IPCC, who could, potentially end up helping to direct/dictate policy that will end up with even more (trillions) being wasted on fighting something that isn’t actually a threat to mankind. I dread to think how many “good causes” are going to end up being screwed because climate-change has the lion’s share.

As for end-of-the-world hysteria then I agree with you, I don’t think the scientists are particularly vehement on this (with the exception of a few good loons like Hansen who seems to have lost the plot recently). However, the same scientists have also kept their mouths’ shut when those with media access over-egg the pudding; such phrases as “death trains”, “death spiral”, “Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, says Kofi Annan thinktank” etc etc etc.

It is interesting that a number of senior climatologists (including the venerable Gavin et al) have actually started to make public statements about not over estimating the negative effects of certain aspects of climate change. Should have spoken out earlier in my view.

Cheers

Mark

“That theory will no doubt be further refined and understood in the future. That is science, but that does not mean that we shouldn’t listen already to what it could mean for this world”.

Absolutely correct – and there is slow refinement going on already. After continual denial the Hadley Centre eventually agreed that Al Gore’s warming/co2 relationship was the wrong way round (although it will be different this time – they said). After being part of “the atmosphere hasn’t warmed for a decade” deniers group – a sizeable chunk of the AGW community, an article on the Met Office website at present starts

“Global warming continues to pose a real threat that should not be ignored — a claim reinforced in a new study by scientists, reported in a supplement of the August issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This is despite very small global temperature rises over the last 10 years.”

The point is that this decade of little change fits pretty well into an oscillating pattern within what has been a slow overall temperature rise for 200 years or so – please don’t mention hockey-sticks!

As someone who was a user(customer)of atmospheric model output, almost from its inception, I am not easily impressed by modellers, except where they demonstrate skill in their predictions. please don’t flame me to say its climate not weather as a few have in the past. I don’t even bother to take that seriously – I am well aware of the differences and similarities of the models. Both use parametrizations (informed guesses). With synoptic models you only have to wait a few months to know if your fudge factor improves the output. Obviously many of us will be dead before climate models are brought to book, but climate models are not showing much accuracy yet. That’s a worry if we are to spend $billions on the back of them.

I remain open to science – unfortunately much AGW is just propaganda.

Who was talking about immaculate? Why does it have to be that ‘Science has to be 100% correct, settled, justifiable’ before one has to listen to its results?
This black and white argument ‘if science is not 100% sure, we don’t have to bother’ is a fallacy. Skepticism is always needed, ignoring the science all together is something else. A good thing a majority of people didn’t do the same when confronted with the ozon layer and acid rains problems. Was the science then 100% settled? Probably not. But the indications were severe enough to require action.

and about ‘how can we, as a race, possibly be so arrogant to assume that we fundamentally have a handle on everything when we’ve only really been studying it for a short time.’
I has been studied for over a 100 years now (the first theory about greenhouse gases was stated even before 1900). If you would read about the history of climate science you see how in the beginning everyone had a theory (which is the same as saying that no one had any idea what they are talking about), and how it slowly converged in what is now the dominant theory of climate science (which embodies more than just the greenhouse effect). That theory will no doubt be further refined and understood in the future. That is science, but that does not mean that we shouldn’t listen already to what it could mean for this world.

‘Show me some fundamental proof that we’re all basically f*cked’. So you don’t want to do anything unless it is the end of of a world scenario and at the same time you complain about the end-of-the-world hysteria. I don’t think that many scientists are talking about the end-of-the-world. They do talk about great consequences for our present world. Some how it seems smart to get some control on these consequences. But that is just me.

(But anybody who really believes it is just because the current climate science is ‘biased’, and not themselves of course, will probably only be convinced when it is already too late).

“There is an overwhelming agreement among scientists of certain aspects of climate science, and you shouldn’t expect it to be easy to challenge virtually every multi-disciplinary science academy around the (admittedly round) globe on those issues. Particularly if your theory is that all of those academies, plus Nature, plus Science, are all part of some conspiracy to get funded.”

It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy of the kind wherein all parties are somehow “in on the secret” – it can simply be enough to “go with the flow”. If funding is available to study the effects (and potential solutions) to climate change it follows that papers that publish saying “nothing to see here” will not get airtime, simple. It is also then very hard for any such parties to get a slice of the cake for next time. Remember, people are effectively pre-wired to want to be part of the pack. In science there is one “killer” – confirmation bias, I personally think climatology is riddled with this due to the lack of double-blind testing of theories.

When very influential people and organisations have put their reputations on the line by repeatedly banging the same drum then they will naturally fight any perceived ‘attack’ on their position, and use any and all means at their disposal, it’s human nature. Some of the biggest and brightest minds have often been the most blinkered, stubborn and arrogant when it comes to being shown the cracks in their world-view.

History is littered with examples of the concensus railing against the maverick (think flat-earth, heliocentricity, plate-techtonics, heliobacter etc. etc.)

The current level of hysteria with regard to the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, doom-laden, messages coming out is simply ridiculous. All predictions (sorry projections) for the catastrophe we are facing with a circa 2.5C rise in temps are patently rubbish and reminiscent of ancient soothsaying and rune-reading.

All projections are based on incomplete and inaccurate models of a natural system that is so complex that it may actually be impossible to ever get close to. The whole science of climatology is in its infancy, esp. with regard to future predictions, how can we, as a race, possibly be so arrogant to assume that we fundamentally have a handle on everything when we’ve only really been studying it for a short time.

Show me some fundamental proof that we’re all basically f*cked – please don’t include GCM projections because they are simply not science; I can write a GCM to show you any scenario, there are so many variables that can be tweaked and indeed that have “guesses” applied to them. Please also don’t include studies indicating hockey-stick shaped results as these have been shown to have incorrect and bad statistical methods applied. Proxy analysis where you select the proxies that give you the signal you want are similarly void.

When real science is done, such as measuring (as best we can) real data using a consistent set of tools the picture seems less bleak…global temps flat for a decade, sea-ice above 30-year average (globally) and ‘recovering’ in the arctic, very low hurricane numbers etc. etc.

Cheers

Mark