Ah, I see spindoctor - you can't admit to misquoting The Royal Society.

No spindoctor, I do not have a problem with "Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect".

See my comment, last paragraph http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10494#172294

It's what you said (and continue to say) that is a problem.

For example, in your link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

no mention is made whatsoever of;

>> Professor Phil Jones declared “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995” <<

You are just changing goal posts, again.

Besides, this has been addressed ad nauseam in previous threads. I know you just don't understand but really, it is not that difficult, spindoctor.

Apologies everyone, OT I know.

_______

Just to be clear spindoctor:

You falsely attribute something you yourself assert, to the Royal Society.

Then you ‘lift’ a sentence from a Times’ journalist and misrepresent what The Royal Society did (and did not) say – plain and simple.

I gave you the links to what The Royal Society actually did say – in entirety. Here it is again:

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

Note this paragraph:

“There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.”

Putting your one ‘lifted’ sentence in context:

“The existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon.”

Following your logic (I use the term lightly), you and your pseudo-sceptic brethren want 100% absolute scientific proof before you will take action on anything, global warming for example.

It's great to see more and more articles on this topic. I've been passionate about flightless travel for several years and recently set up a website called http://www.flightlesstravel.com. Our aim is simple - to try and help people share their own travel experiences and hopefully encourage others to travel overland and sea! Hope this does not come across as spam, just want to spread the word on my website and hopefully be part of the solution to reducing air travel!