>> the tendency of some scientists (Sir Mark Oliphant was an early example) to speak as though a science background
>> enables the possessor to pontificate on the state of society and its future.

of course, it's completely unheard of for a social scientist to pontificate upon scientific matters of which he knows bugger all.

for bushbasher:

Two things. First, remember that the original point of this thread was the diminished status of 'science' and scientists', and I was offering some possible explanations. I don't think that 'social scientists' ever had much status anyway.

But, second, and since you presumably have directed your shaft against me, why do you think I know 'bugger all' about science? One likely answer is that you think that unless one is a working scientist one cannot know anything about the natural sciences. A moment's reflection should tell you that this can't right, because working (=experimental) scientists work in tiny areas of tiny areas of their discipline. How could they possibly know much about anything else? The answer, of course, is that the basic approach is common, they can read, and do. And so can the rest of us. Until the early 20th century, science students at university 'read' science, they didn't do laboratory work at all.

And remember also that the 'scientific method' is not peculiar to scientists. It is the standard approach in Western society of anyone working anywhere, including garage mechanics, plumbers, teachers, doctors, all of us. There is a problem. What do you think has caused it? You develop an idea. How would you determine whether your proposed solution is correct. You test it, and it doesn't work. So you develop another possible solution. And so on.

With sufficient maths and a preparedness to read widely, any educated person can nut out what is the point of most articles in scientific journals other than those in the highly mathematical parts of physics and chemistry, and of course in maths itself. Climate science', which is very new, is quite accessible.

Leo Lane, you are full of it!
There is *overwhelming* evidence from peer reviewed processes from multiple published sources. The BOM website is a good start, and the US equivalent is also a good source. The fact that you cannot be bothered, and are not qualified in any case is no excuse for this sort of outright untruth!
BBoy. Good stuff, these buggers play the man rather then the ball but I suspect there are a few lurkers out there. We can only hope to guide those who are not convinced by the Conservative hype to keep an open mind...mind you not so open that our brains fall out!
If it is alarmist to point out that tipping points have been passed that will make our kid's lives *much* more uncomfortable than ours, let alone causing a mass extinction event then call me alarmist.
Remember who this crowd supports: Corrupt bankers, corrupt warmongers and a corrupt press. The fact that they are trying to undermine science is just another shameless part of the information warfare they have thrust upon us.
The scientists I work with are *very* sceptical indeed, but the theory says what should happen, the data has shown it is happening, and the recent data shows it is happening close to the worst case scenario. Science would be negligent if they did not convey this to the public.

Don –
I won’t attempt my own version of the IPCC reports here, but I’ll pick up some key points.

The evidence you seek is of several kinds, and this list is not at all meant to be exhaustive.

First models without human emissions do not reproduce the recent warming, whereas models that include it do.

Second, the basic plausibility of the models is supported by the fact that their results are similar to earlier, simpler calculations whose behaviour can be easily followed. Indeed, the basic conclusion was made decades ago, that the warming signal would emerge from the noise early in the new century. This is a primary and successful prediction of climate science.

Third, the case is supported by geological evidence that the relation between temperature and CO2 concentrations is at least as strong as the models indicate – in fact stronger in the longer term. This is expressed as “sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2 content being in the range of 2-4 degrees (models) or 3-6 degrees (geology) – (I’m quoting from memory).

Fourth, the world is indeed warming, even faster than predictions of a few years ago. There is abundant evidence of this – the retreat of glaciers, the dramatic thinning and shrinkage of Arctic sea ice, accelerating land ice melting, shifting climate indicators and ecological phenomena, warming ocean, acidifying ocean, etc. And, estimates of global mean temperature versus time using instrumenal records. The fuss about alleged manipulation of these data is hugely out of proportion with the fact that the disputed data would hardly affect the estimates at all, and all the other evidence cited is consistent and overwhelming.

Don, you say ‘confirmation’ is irrelevant, but that is the essence of science – to provide an explanation that fits what we observe. It doesn’t prove the explanation (science never does that), it supports the viability of the explanation. Your dismissal of ‘confirmation’, and of comparison with simpler models, suggests you fundamentally misunderstand the scientific process, or are too hot under the collar.

Continued –

Don, continuing –

Of course there are natural fluctuations. These ensure there is not a one-to-one relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. This point is overlooked (conveniently) by many people, including Bob Carter with his disingenuous plot, paraded by Steve Fielding, showing the two not directly correlating over the past decade. Of course they don’t directly correlate over a few years, there are also influences from the El Nino cycle etc. See http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/

The Mediaeval Warm Period is only an issue if you think it was as warm as the present. Recent estimates continue to indicate that it was well short of the present warming. Many choose to disbelieve this conclusion, and many impugn the motives of the scientists doing the work, but the work needs to be done and it is not easy. Of course the instant experts always think they know better.

Another simplistic criticism concerns the ice age records showing temperature leading CO2. The explanation is well established. The large fluctuations of the ice age were triggered by changes in solar heating. The role of CO2 was to be an amplifier – as some warming occurred, some CO2 was released to the atmosphere. This increase warming, which increase CO2 release, etc. The same physics that explains this also explains how a sudden increase in CO2 can produce the present warming. There is still a question about what terminated the ice-age warmings, but the basic pattern is well explained. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/co2-lag-during-ice-ages/

I don’t propose to continue this exposition. “Sceptics” like you can always find loose ends to pick at, and completely distract everyone from the overall picture that it is the IPCC’s job to portray. Indeed this is the deliberate strategy of the denialist web sites funded by ExxonMobil and others. I don’t accuse you of being part of that effort, but I do think your attitude is superficial and biased.

And Don, one doesn't have to be an experimentalist to be a “working” scientist. Do you imagine there is an experiment where someone can directly and incontrovertibly measure the relationship between temperature and CO2?

So to sum up, Geoff, you have no scientific evidence that human emissions have any measureable effect on global climate.

You have nothing to offer, so you might as well dish out a baseless slime to a real scientist, Professor Robert Carter, who has shown that all the warming is accountable from natural sources, much to your chagrin.

There is no room for the baseless, pathetic, "very likely" of the discredited IPCC.

You have endless words, Geoff, and no substance. Why do you not seek an occupation which you can handle? Science does not seem to be it.