Good post Leon Lane.

Don -

Well, if my 40+ years' experience in world-class science makes me "lofty" then so be it.

*You* criticised BBoy for getting involved when he's not a scientist. It was you, not me, that started that line.

Don, you have little understanding of how Nature (the journal) works. Its papers are fully peer reviewed, just with a short time limit. Yes, they tend to choose newsworthy topics, which they can do because they get about 20 times as many papers as they publish. Their system does not compromise quality. You reveal your prejudice against science again.

Stezza backs my own experience that my papers are often sent to "rivals". My rivals do not necessarily have the last word (that's the editor's job), but I have to acknowledge and address their concerns. I have got 100+ papers through the scientific review process, and I think you have not had any, so I think you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, I know you were Chair of ARC. I agree people from outside a field may judge its work, but they had better be careful they really understand the depth of the issues and arguments.

There is more to the conclusion that humans are causing global warming than the big computer models. For example, they are confirming what was projected from back-of-the-envelope calculations decades ago. You (and most of the "sceptics") assume that the scientists haven't thought of the questions you raise. You claim those questions haven't been considered, but evidently you are not looking in the right places.

Regarding the CRU business, you evidently simply disbelieve information that doesn't fit your view. As I reported in my OLO article a little while ago, one of the climate scientists' key concerns was that papers had been published without being subjected to a proper review process (the very thing you allege). The editors involved have admitted as much. The scientists also had every right to be concerned that data would be cherry-picked by a hostile and unscientific political campaign, the existence of which you evidently choose to ignore.

I did post this afternoon, but it hasn't appeared. My comment in reponse to the issue raised - Communicting Science - was as follows:

Err..... What about telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Steady on Herbert, this is prophesizing, based on well known polished facts, polished by the prophets themselves in fact, those are personally owned facts in the case of CRU.(did they pay for the accumulation of their datasets themselves, out of their own pockets, or was it taxpayer money?)

What's this about truth?

Why didn't CRU just comply with FOI requests, because they might be criticized, that sounds reasonable, if there's something to hide.

Australia's taxpayers smell a rat, and the climate scientists here now realise that and want to appear "reasonable and honest", good luck with that, the ship has sailed.

Science does not have an image problem, climate science and weather prediction does, trying this huge media campaign just makes it look worse.

If the Climate Scientists would come out and instantly knock down extreme alarmism every time it appears, it would help their credibility, but they don't as they seem to believe all support of the AGW view is good.

The CSIRO's latest messages still contain government biased spin, do you think everyone is too stupid to realise that? I guess you do.

It seems to me that the whole climate change discussion issue is best summarised as a form of "Pascal's Wager", which is a form of the precautionary principle.

If AGW is a fact and we do nothing, the potential consequence is hugely negative, possibly including a massive loss of life and habitat for humanity. If, on the other hand, whether we have specific evidence or not that it is true, we have little to lose as a species by acting as though it is true. The worst consequences of acting to reduce greenhouse emissions are solely economic AFAIK. Does anyone suggest otherwise?

The precautionary principle is used a great deal in law to offer protection to the potentially vulnerable when the facts of a case have not been fully explored and even sometimes when no offence can be shown to have occurred.

Domestic violence law, summary traffic offences, many forms of local bylaw, fair trading laws, surveillance cameras - all rely on the precautionary principle to justify their existence. There are many other examples.

At its worst, it can lead to nanny-state oppression, but it is still an important consideration when thinking about issues that have potentially grave negative consequences.

Geoff Davis - your post - Posted by Geoff Davies, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 4:06:05 PM.

Is very reasonable and I accept your point of view and wish that was better communicated, but all we seem to get by the media and by any climate scientists quoted, is exagerated fluff and bother.

I see today we have some climate scientists educating the ALP in Canberra being touted as a science love fest, it's just more spin by the government to sell their tax as being reasonable and endorsed by scientists.

This will further bias people against scientists in this field as the things of politicians.

You are digging that hole deeper and it will be harder and harder to get out of.