And of course the same arguments apply to economic modelling and so-called forecasting. Perhaps Aitkin might begin with his own profession and the duplicity of the army of highly paid talking heads pronouncing daily on where the world is going, when all the evidence is that they have no information to offer.

Asho - of course the same arguments can be applied to economic modelling, as Aitkin would be the very first to admit.. the problem is that the climate people are extremely unwilling to apply the same standards to climate models as occurs with economic models..

If the climate models are not working why not admit it, as economists have to admit it when their own models go wrong (actually they don't, but there are plenty of others who are willing to point out the problems)? This has been the problem all along.. the climate models must be right, sop the global warming industry tells us, and it doesn't matter what the results say..

This man has provided a graph that no matter how you look at it even if you stand on your head to look at it, is trending relentlessly upwards .
This can only mean one thing in the long run and that run is now not all that long.
Climate disaster.
Enter stage right all the trolls and shills who are devoted to anti AGW, with their shrill cries of plots, conspiracies and confused gabble about "the science".
Good luck.

Yes Don the modeling/guesstimates is never ever better than a ball park figure at best, as indicated by the graphs.
The forecast may not be as serious as some numbers might suggest, or far worse than the median average of the modelling?
Perhaps we should wait until an unstoppable firestorm, the product of climate change, sweeps through and devastates a huge part of one of our major cities? Or even worse. the formerly frozen tundra starts to melt, removing absolutely all doubt!
By then every boy and his dog would understand that this is not an academic exercise, or a duel between competing models or graphs, conducted from ivory towers?
I believe, only recalcitrant politicians; and or, endlessly squabbling academics, stand in the way of the wholesale conversion to households producing their own independent power, using gas powered ceramic fuel cells that provide energy on demand and endless free hot water.
We've poured billions into the local car industry; and are apparently willing to cough up millions more.
In fact, with just what is on the table, (half a billion) we could, if we were but wisely lead, start up a pilot (proof of concept) plant to produce gas powered electric cars, using our own homegrown innovation, the gas powered ceramic fuel cell. The exhaust product being mostly water vapor!
The advantage of this combination removes the need to carry around half a ton of very expensive batteries on board.
The 72% energy coefficient is more than three times better/cheaper than coal fired power, which we would almost certainly use to recharge electric vehicles overnight.
And it would only take a few minutes to refill a gas powered electric vehicle.
The 72% energy coefficient, would massively increase current range between refills! And the family wagon could be plugged into the house overnight, to supplement solar cells?
If the mooted changes would do anything other than quite massively boost own own endlessly sustainable economic performance, some of the resistance to essential change, might actually be understandable or forgivable!
Rhrosty.

Is it possible to establish one basic "fact": that the polar caps are melting?

Robert LePage,

<< Enter stage right all the trolls and shills who are devoted to anti AGW, with their shrill cries of plots, conspiracies and confused gabble about "the science". >>

Before you get too overenthusiastic about abuse and name calling of those who might disagree with you. I doubt there are many skeptics who would disagree with climate change. The issue for most of us is the link with CO2 and the extent to which human CO2 emissions play a role.

The NIPCC Summary for Policy Makers has been released in response to the IPCC’s AR5.

“NIPCC’s conclusion, drawn from its extensive review
of the scientific evidence, is that any human global
climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the
background variability of the natural climate system and
is not dangerous. At the same time, global temperature
change is occurring, as it always naturally does. A phase
of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild
twentieth century warming. It is certain that similar
natural climate changes will continue to occur.”

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html

You appear to have three choices. You can demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t.

You can continue to demonstrate you have abandoned rational argument by resorting to abuse and vilification, or having reached rock bottom you can start digging by shooting the messenger and abuse the peer reviewed scientists at the NIPCC.

Nice to have choices though?