Amicus. Many of the same inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions apply to short and medium term weather forecasting as are used in long term climate predictions. E.G. There are several different definitions of "average temperature". Some are good for certain purposes (crop growth, weekly forecasts, evaporation predictions, etc), others for other purposes. Those in the trade know the subtleties and why, outsiders who ignore the complexities (the ignorant) may see it as arbitrary, however it is just the nature of the beast.
Clearly, the weather report is less than "perfect" in the sense that a layman can easily digest it, yet no one sane would claim that because of this it is useless.
One of the major reasons that shipping and aircraft are so safe these days is because they *can* rely to some extent on forecasts and predictions made by models, despite the so called flaws. Chaos dictates that specifics will always be limited, yet the shape of the attractor, the range of possibilities certainly can be modelled and predicted.

...As for the CO2 issue: Yes, it is settled. Solid theories predict certain patterns: If it were sunshine variation the numbers would go one way. They haven't. The fact is that all viable alternate theories to CO2 induced warming have been considered, tested, and discarded because the predictions that have been made by the CO2 model, even the more incredible and formally dismissed (science is inherently conservative and sceptical), are now tracking with the real-world data.
Sure there is ongoing debate about details, but there is enough agreement on enough things to say the big debate is over...Warming will occur, it is due to CO2, it will cause change that is so rapid that plants and animals will not be able to cope, and for the human animal it will cause untold suffering and probably cause wars. If you want an exact date on when the ice fields will collapse you will get much "debate"; just how high the seas will be by 2050: very debatable.
You are aware of the butterfly effect? Well in the terms of chaos theory we know the attractor is shifting radically, yet we cannot, as always predict the trajectory along the attractor nor when some of the tipping points will "tip". That they will tip however is as certain as certainty can get.

Byork, it constantly amazes me that with all the financial backing and all the sympathetic media resources at their disposal, the Agw brigade constantly complain about how they are getting beaten up.

You can count the public skeptics of Agw and the skeptical media in Australia and still have fingers left over, yet they act as if there is some huge conspiracy against them.

There isn't, it's just their case is so weak it invites skepticism .. you would expect with all the resources and power they could suppress debate, as they thought had been done pre-Copenhagen.

Why do many scientists doubt and are skeptical as well?

You have to ask, is there another way to explain the additional, if it exists, warming - as curmudgeon says, it may be cycles we do not understand - that also sounds reasonable.

If they really are as wrong as many think, and the climate goes into a cooling phase, against all the predictions of doom - there will be a lot of egg on face and the remains of climate science credibility (such as it is now) may never recover.

It will be the byline of jokes and the definition of hubris forever.

qanda,

I have urgent need for credibility assessment of Ferenc MISKOLCZI Hungarian physicist's allegedly constant, law.

I don't understand the maths but it seems to me that conservation of energy and matter is being bent a bit. Can you ask around and get back to me.
Thanks
examinator

Gee, Ozandy, I wish I was as certain about what's for dinner tonight as you are about the inevitability and the effects of global warming. By my calculations five propositions need to be true for the AGW alarmists to be correct: here they are and here are some extremely generous evaluations of their probability.

1. CO2 levels are rising -- probable but not undisputed (see http://tinyurl.com/yl789dc for instance) -- probability of, say, 90%.

2. This rise will cause major climatic changes -- certainly not proven, but let's be generous and allocate a probability of 75%.

3. The negative effect of these changes will outweigh the positive effects -- AGW enthusiasts don't say much about this but if I was in Russia or Canada I would be looking forward to a warmer climate. We know already that more people die of cold than heat, and that many people deliberately emigrate to warmer climates -- let's say 70% for this one.

4. We can stop these changes through human effort, given the current state of the world. Copenhagen -- need I say more? 65% for this.

5. The costs of stopping the changes will be less than the costs of allowing them. Also very dubious -- let's say 60% for this.

Multiply this out and what do we get? An 18% chance that all five of these are true. And on that 18% chance we are meant to bet our economy and our children's prosperity? Come now!

The White Queen told Alice that she could believe six impossible things before breakfast. AGW alarmists are only one short.

Steven Keim is a lawyer and I have the greatest difficulty beliveing he has any sincerity, only the attraction to the cause of making the law complicated, unjust and very profitable.
That said he would have seen many many hoaxers in his time, all with very good stories and all the evidence to back it up. y2000 Bug, Ozone holes and now a tax on the air we breathe. That is just brilliant all us muppets have to pay it excepting of course the very rich and others who have "Charitable" (Tax free) status.
Steven just does not get it! Say reduce pollution, reduce waste and we would all be right behind you. Say we will increase the tax take and public service pensions and we all know we are being well and truly duded! Understand now?