I read down to here in Geoff’s post at Betternature.

“The claim that the world has cooled since 1998 can only persist because either the data have not been properly examined and understood”

What data, Geoff? Is there some that has not been contaminated?

Should we waste our time looking at temperatures where 60% of the Russian data has been omitted because it showed cooling, and only the 40% which showed warming was included?

Should we look at the “homogenised” data from Darwin, which showed .7 degree cooling before and 1.2 degrees of warming after homogenisation.

We need to have some honest data before we consider it.

We will not obtain it from NASA where Hansen has spent years, constantly revising data, which somehow always comes out warmer.

We will not obtain it from the IPCC, which has its data contaminated, to order, by the Hadley gang, to “hide the decline”, before it receives it.

It does not say much for you, Geoff, that you consider the fraud evidenced by the Hadley emails to be normal procedure for scientists.

qanda still refers to the paper by the Hadley miscreants, as negating the study by Carter et al which showed the warming relied on by the IPCC for its ridiculous “very likely” assertion, to be from nature, and therefore not allocateable to human causes.

If they happen to be right, and it is confirmed by honest scientists, then we are back to the situation of no proof either way.

No proof of AGW. As Al Gore and Geoff both say, we should not have to rely on facts. After all, it is a fraud which is proposed, and it is just a matter of having corrupt governments pass legislation to force Carbon trading, and the swindlers are in business.

Apart from the Czech Republic, Western governments world wide, are seeking to enable this fraud. Vaclav Klaus, the President of this one honest government has approached world leaders to join him in acknowledging that AGW is a fraud, and he has been uniformly rebuffed.

The bottom line for me is this. In climate science, as Geoff essentially says, there is more that we do not know. That's the fundamental reason why hypotheses keep on being updated - something new is being observed or understood that is forcing a readjustment of the theory.

However, we are using modelling as a guide to predict what will happen some time down the track. The problem is that modelling software is based only on *what we know now*. Therefore, if the hypothesis is not fully correct, then neither is the modelling.

Another way I'd characterise the situation is that the climate projections based on today's models and understandings is a tangent to the curve. The real trajectory that we need to understand and follow is the curve, not the tangent. What we need to do is predict where the curve is going in order to do the best for society and mankind whether that be through good policy or good understanding of science and nature.

Don - I had to search to find where I had used "confirm" - it was about a simpler model 'confirming' a more complicated model, part of the process of checking the complicated model. Plain English, not technical language. 'Supporting' if you prefer.

Regarding standards of acceptability, you mistake my transparency of statement for weakness: 'some of the key observations are accounted for reasonably by existing hypotheses and models'. I was highlighting the nature of the process of establishing a hypothesis. I think the current case is reasonably strong, and the current state of your alternative (emerging from an ice age) is quantitatively weak.

We've debated in private how 'extraordinary' the measures would have to be to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. My point, which you disbelieve despite evidence, is that, properly done, it would not be very expensive and it would simultaneously reduce our many other assaults on our life support system, which we must do, regardless of global warming.
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/

Your latest statement of your standard of acceptance of the AGW hypothesis is so vague as to convey little beyond "I don't like it". I think it comes back to the fact that you are mistrustful of scientists, and you are also apparently willing to give credence to obviously inflated allegations from unscientific, politically motivated, often hysterical web sites.

A piece by Richard Glover puts it nicely in the perspective of common sense:
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-lara-bingle-of-climate-change-20100319-qlzz.html

Don, Hasbeen, Leo Lane - the allegations of fraud and manipulation of data are not yet tested by investigations in progress, concern only minor parts of the evidence, and are promulgated by politically/ideologically motivated sources. If you are sceptics, why do you accept these allegations at face value?

odo -
I think perhaps you need to take a cold shower, you're getting in a bit of a lather. Are you going to claim that your scientific 'sceptic' heroes never indulge in discussion of policy? Such as suggesting that we should do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

And it has not been a secret needing to be 'dragged out' that I have views on policy, and the nature of the debate, they're all over my blog site http://betternature.wordpress.com/ . I'm careful to separate discussion of science from discussion of policy, for example by stressing to this community that the IPCC is not stating 'scientific' conclusions but rather the collective professional judgement of the field at a point in time. But perhaps you can't conceive of people less a captive of adrenalin than yourself.

Geoff - I don't have any skeptic heros, you're applying your belief system as if it relates to everyone. I read many things, both sides of this "debate", or as I see it, big orgainsed well funded green versus unorganised skeptics with no funding and little or no access to outlets - thank goodness for the internet, or AGW would be a lay down mezzaire.

Bit of a lather, no, that's just you reacting to an unexpected prod.

I'm not interested in your blog site, nor would you be in mine, it is unrelated to this field. It's interesting that you have an environmentalist/evangelist website - good luck, I'm sure you have a nice green halo - and I mean that without sarcasm I'm sure you believe in what you are about and try to put it in practice.

I'm not anti-environment, nor am I pro-environment, more about balancing needs of everything.

You're trying to justify why you can be objective about science when you have a clear environmental activist belief structure.

You can't seperate the two, you cannot possibly see how AGW could be caused by natural causes since you "want" it to be man made, as that justifies your environmentalist stance that "something must be done"

It may turn out that AGW is enhanced by mankind, but I see no reason that it is CO2, nor that taxation is the way to "reverse" AGW - you on the other hand see the taxation or "doing something" asd good because "we all have to look after the world"

I can seperate the issues, you appear to be unable to. I have to wish to attempt to control the weather or climate, I admit it is beyond mankind's current ability - some people think we are capable of fiddling with the controls, what balls they have! What arrogance!

Simple as that, let's agree to disagree, but please don't tell me that you are objective, you are clearly not.

Geoff, are you hoping for another corrupt UN inspired whitewash of the frauds who back global warming?

Remember that your allegations of human caused global warming have been well and truly investigated, and no basis has been established for the assertion of AGW.

So would you like to withdraw the flimsy allegation of “very likely” until there is some evidence of it?

The evidence of fraud of those alleging warming is spread all over the internet, fortunately, so the nonsense of the UN, Gore, the IPCC, our clown Flannery, and so on is there for anyone to see for themselves. We are not dependent on the corrupt MSM for information.

You should ask, Geoff, how did you become corrupt? Your attitude can only come from ignorance or corruption, and I do not believe that you are ignorant. If there is another possibilty, you might inform me.

As for the “collective professional judgement” you say that the IPCC is exercising in its unscientific, and unsupported “very likely”, you failed to mention that 5 unconflicted scientists stand behind the “very likely” guess.

The other fifty who put their names to it, are in conflict situations and should leave it to objective scientists. like the other 3,945 scientists,(“in white coats”, according to the lying warmist, Rudd) who abstained from backing this desperate ploy to mislead people.

Would you be honest enough to at least correct your website, so that it is clear that most scientists do not consider it likely, let alone “very likely” that human emissions cause global warming.

Thanks, Geoff.