Yes. Back when I talked to people about global warming, they frequently believed that there is a well-oiled science machine out there somewhere and that it has unambiguously supported the IPCC executive summaries. Most people really don’t know how the sausage factory works, much less that it could possibly go wrong.

No one here has studied the science “in depth” either. And how sure is Mr. Meyer of this anyway? He sounds very authoritative, but so do a lot a people who do not know what they are talking about.

Shouldn’t Mr. Meyer hold himself to the same standards?

http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/

“In retrospect, I can imagine all those scientists that used to sign these petitions looking at what the CRU emails and thinking, ‘this is what I have defended as true science?’” — Wishful thinking. Most of the folks I know unimpressed by “a few indiscreet emails.” Most of them uninterested in the scientific issues; don’t really care whether the planet is really warming, the causes, etc. What they do care about is humanity’s ecological footprint, which they’re determined to reduce. Anthropogenic warming (AGW) just a means to an end. As case for AGW crumbles, many already riding other hobby horses — most notably biodiversity crisis.

1) In medicine you can run a “double blind” scientific test which eliminates observational bias. You cannot do that in climate science. It was found that even honest scientists wanted to please the person signing their paychecks. Like the scientist that is motivated to exaggerate CAGW because his source of funding wants him to.

2) Medical processes complete in weeks or months and a huge database of results vs predictions can be acquired and studied. You cannot do that in climate science where 20 or 30 or 50 years are required for the completion of some cycles. A lifetime will not even allow 1 cycle of some phenomenon. The rate of learning must be far slower.

3) Climate studies have almost all been done since 1988 [22 years ago] while medicine has been studied for thousands of years.

4) In medicine we can use lab rats etc to observe the phenomenon while in climate we cannot. We do not have a spare earth to play with and so must resort to models which are far less valid than actual observations. Models are particularly vulnerable to preconceived biases.

5) Observational bias in climate science is a real problem while in medicine it can be almost eliminated.

6) A climate scientist and his models can be wrong for 30 years and retire without getting caught. He says that so what if his model stinks in 30 years it will probably be “spot on” in 100 [which is nonsense] A medical doctor puts his knowledge to the test with each patient and they sometimes bury his mistakes. A lousy climate scientist can retire honorably after 30 years of being wrong, a doctor cannot.

Likening the two shows poor thinking skills.

We are thousands of times more certain about medicine than we are about CAGW.

Climate science is to medical science as Astrology is to Astronomy. [Think about it.]

Have you ever read your horoscope ? No matter what happens seems to fit because the predictions cover everything.

Astrology like climate science is everything to everybody. Whatever happens is predicted just like your horoscope. [That is a major difference]

A snowy cold winter is caused by global warming. A village in Peru is freezing to death blame global warming. If storms are more violent it’s global warming and if they are milder that is global warming too. There is no malady known to man which there isn’t a peer reviewed study which claims will be made worse by global warming.

The scare stories are an insult to the reader’s intelligence.