Quite right. Basically the argument has moved on from the science. Its not a matter of whether the science is right or not, but when or if the climate models constructed through the science are going to start giving useful results. Basically, temperatures have to start going up appreciably before we should start paying any attention, a point now being acknowledged by the scientists. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html#js-article-comments-box-pager

Chubbs position does nothing to resurrect his reputation from his arrogant
comment on assuming his current position - when asked why he was
convinced of global warming he replied " because i can read"
He is paid to explain science. He couldnt do it then and stll cannot.
Just another mainchance operator.

Don Aitkin says:

"the reality of global warming is beginning to penetrate the editorial floors".

Indeed it is:

http://tinyurl.com/insiders-story

The Conversation

Oh I thought the 'science was settled'. The true believers will need a new scare.

ozdoc
pointless post. I also saw that story. It means nothing either way except, perhaps, that there are total loonies on the skeptical side as well as on the global warming side. Why they bothered with a court challenge is beyond me.. even if there was any funding behind them, which is extremely unlikely, there's no way a court action could change anything.. bizarre..

I am happy to agree with Don that “we know much less about all of this than was confidently set forth by some scientists and politicians five years and more ago” (though scientists should complain about being lumped in with politicians). Let’s just say that ‘some scientists’ were too sure about the future trajectory of the world’s climate. Equally, some scientists and their supporters were too confident in rejecting climate change due to CO2 emissions.

So, if by chance we could all agree on a surfeit of certainty in both directions, what’s the remedy? I can think of only one. Leave it to the scientists to sort out. Their natural enthusiasm to prove their peers wrong combined with the usual rigor of the scientific process will ultimately ensure that the truth will out. Yet whenever I suggest this I get howled down, especially by the conspiracy theorists.

The starting point for clear thinking is to distinguish between science and what to do about it. One is science, the other involves values, economics, politics and the like. Right from the start they got hopelessly confused. An important factor was the impetus climate science gave to the believers in an environmentally doomed planet. Many environmental scientists were in that camp because their values had drawn them into that field originally. So the fight began.

The debate can maintain intellectual integrity only when climate science and ‘climate action’ are kept separate. For example, accepting the scientific authority of the IPCC doesn’t automatically mean banning coal. Cost, futility and lack of genuine replacement energy sources are three arguable grounds. The current cost of climate action exceeds the benefits. It is scientifically incontrovertible that nothing Australia does to reduce its emissions can measurably affect our or anyone else’s climate. So all nations would need to act in concert. Can the whole world ever agree on cutting emissions, or on anything for that matter? Now, there’s a debate for everyone. But investment bankers telling scientists they are wrong is a nonsense.