The British Royal Society’s claims regarding scientific uncertainty are incorrect. Since satellite data became available in the late seventies it has consistently shown us (Wentz et al. 2007) with scientific certainty that changes in evaporation are around four times as much as the IPCC assumes. Evaporation is three times as powerful as net greenhouse gas affected long wave radiation at cooling the earth. Evaporation cools the earth’s surface by around three times as much (78 Watts per square metre) as net outgoing greenhouse gas absorbable long wave radiation (26 W/sqm). Evaporation cools not just the surface, but also planet earth because the latent heat transferred from the surface, mainly the oceans (86%), to the atmosphere is released above most of the greenhouse gases, where it can easily radiate into space, but only a small percentage can penetrate the lower greenhouse gases and re-warm the earth’s surface. Wentz’s discovery alone gives us scientific certainty that a mooted doubling of CO2 could cause at most a moderate temperature increase of under 1°C, spread over a century. Even a 1°C rise in temperature is impossible because the evaporative cooling effect (5 W/sqm) of a 1°C rise would exceed the net warming effect of the increase in CO2, indirect effects and the increase in outgoing long wave radiation due to the temperature increase.

so ozandy "this guy works for an institute that has as a main goal to "argue for a reduction in the role of government."
Can you see his political angle?"

No ozandy .. what is it?

Is it different to your political goal of ensuring continued funds from taxpayers and government to people like yourself?

Self interested exaggerators involved in climate astrology? So everything that happens seems to fit the predictions of the climate scientists who are obviously so far up the vested interest creek that they have lost sight of skepticism as a scientific minimum? Hot or cold weather, extreme or benign weather, now everything is a "sign" of dangerous climate disruption .. what rubbish, anyone can see that and that's probably what disturbs you all. Those uneducated voters didn't vote in the Greens in a landslide .. wonder why not?

If we knew who you were and where you worked, I'm sure it would be obvious you were looking after yourself and your self interested mates. Don't make out that it is only other people who are political, why you'd have us think only climate scientists who Believe (!) are honest and upstanding folk, and everyone else probably blows up children .. oh wait.

it's easy to cast aspersions the way you do .. all it shows is the usual exaggerated state of your hysteria at the thought of all that money NOT coming the way of climate science .. let's not stop the vested interests or the gravy train eh.

Sorry Clownfish: " tu quoque"?
I guess your quote proves there is a lot of complete tosh written about climate change.
I cannot comment on the "psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs" that GW provides...I can only suggest that there is real science, it is complex, and that much of the "doubt" is based from profit motives using a political style, *not* genuine scientific analysis.
I encourage scepticism, but keep it sensible. When complex topics are given the Fox News treatment then everyone loses. We cannot do an Iraq war here and say "Oh well, no WMD's after all. Looks like we were lied to". Destroying a country is one thing. Destroying the economy (a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment) for the sake of a few rampant capitalists is not a good option.

Here we go again, with another fruitless-if not intellectually corrosive- debate on climate change provoked by a non-expert with a pre-conceived mission.

Moore's first error is that he seems to have got his title the wrong way around- the article looks like another attempt to close open minds. The fervour of his advocacy and his glee at thinking that the Royal Society's paper is a big mea culpa portrays a prejudiced mind, let alone one that in not qualified to comment on the subject.

To my limited understanding, a lot of the non-warming in the 20th century can be attributed to global dimming caused by industrial aerosols, which have decreased, at least proportionally, in recent decades.

But the main point, relevant to OLO, is that this is not a viable forum for amateurs or inexpert scientists to squabble about scientific details. It would be more fruitful if we discussed the broader implications of the many issues with high scientific certainty (we never claim the absolute certainty of believers in faiths)

I hope they update the textbooks quicker than they have done with the evolution myth which 'scienctist' keep insisting that the ever changing 'theory' is settled.

LOL! Thanks runner. I really do appreciate your input here, inadvertent or not. (I still harbour a suspicion that you are a witty troll!)

Amicus. Yes, I currently accept a public service wage.
My AusAid funding is not about Climate Change per-se, it is more about understanding the Climate so that Pacific island residents can plan agriculture, health investment and manage fisheries. Frankly we *don't care* if CO2 GW is happening or not, we still need to do the climate research.
There could be *no* funds for "climate change" research yet research on "Climate" is still vital for subsistence farming countries. The work I'm doing is around climate data rescue, which is digitising old paper records to ensure that historical data is not lost and can be used to understand cyclical patterns, climate drivers and yes, whether CO2 induced climate change is the "culprit" in the massive changes the region is experiencing. (Try telling islanders there are not massive changes happening. They will show you otherwise!)
Even if there was no CO2 issue at all we still need to do the science properly. Too many lives depend on Climate to ignore it. The "natural cycles" theory is a good one: we need to know how much variation is "natural" such as El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This is one of the more well known cycles but there are many others and they interact in complex ways.
I guess the take-home message is that we are doing climate science for very human reasons...maximising funding by hyping CO2 Global Warming is *not* our focus, nor would it be tactically clever to go down this road as we would *definitely* get caught! Peer review and transparency is not perfect but it is much harder to cheat in science than in business or politics!