I believe one of the great failures here by climate scientists is believing that climate can be forecast or modeled at all.

Climate is clearly so complex, that current modelers, as Peter says, have to fudge all manner of effects and variations.

Our current science is too primitive, regardless of the arrogance and posturing of scientists and politicians (mainly the green variety) to even be run in hindsight, with any meaningful success.

The amusing trend now is to defend all weather effects as having been forecast, so Europe will have warmer and cold winters, which are both consistent with climate science.

This alone should have everyone in hysterical amusement of climate science, it is a joke, not a mature region of study or research.

Mind you the fascination factor is driving loads of money into climate science and its associated "remora" like, fellow sciences (those that study the effects of climate change on ..). So, great AV slide shows, Gore like movies generate fleeting glimpses for the layman and are entertaining.. there's always the attraction too, that someone you don't like will lose something or be inconvenienced by AGW. How delicious is that!

They have a word in German that I believe sums up the attitude of many AGW believers, it's Shadenfreud, and most AGW believers, just want this so badly, to see others inconvenienced and unable to enjoy their societies wealth, is what drives them.

Ludwig, doesn't care about anything, except being cautious, but on ly on AGW, if I asked him to apply the same cautious, "let's do something now" to say North Korea, would he get it? Probably not.

<< Ludwig I have asked in here numerous times who is the "we" referred to by advocates of AGW policy. >>

Peter, ‘we’ as I have used it, means humanity. WE (all us humans, including those who think that it is just fine to continue on with business as usual, including massive population growth and increasing per-capita energy consumption, as if this could be sustained into the far distant future!) should be erring on the side of caution!

<< While there are people going hungry in the world, AGW policies are restricting food production on a massive scale in the most productive countries. >>

We want alternative energy sources from wind, wave, solar and perhaps nuclear… and from ethanol and biodiesel if it doesn’t lead to large-scale replacement of food crops or clearing of rainforests.

Of course we want to develop the right strategies to replace fossil fuel power to a fair extent (and it doesn’t have to be a complete replacement or anything near it). And of course the wrong policies could lead to real problems.

But doing nothing will probably lead to much bigger problems.

Your fall-back position seems to be business as usual, and that we should not deviate from this unless it can be proven, or indicated extremely strongly, that we need to.

My underlying tenet is that we should be doing just about everything that we can to change business as usual, especially in terms of stopping population growth, developing renewable energy sources and just moderating the scale of human impact on the planet and developing a sustainable future, instead of the current fossil-fuel-powered rush-towards-the-cliff scenario.

The business-as-usual scenario scares the crap out of me. It can only possibly end in enormous pain!

Peter, I could go into much greater detail responding to your double post. But I’ll leave it at that for now. If there is anything that you particularly want me to respond to, just let me know. Cheers.

<< Ludwig, doesn't care about anything, except being cautious, but on ly on AGW, if I asked him to apply the same cautious, "let's do something now" to say North Korea, would he get it? Probably not. >>

Hey, why not Amicus? Let’s nuke ‘em to ashes NOW! Before they cause any more trouble!

That’s the way we greenie schadenfreuders are; boots ‘n all.

Yeehaaar!

A very informative article, which the warmists undoubtedly would regard as denialism. Regardless, this is the type of information that has to be brought to the notice of the media and politicians -- especially the Climate Change Committee -- who unquestionably accept that climate science is settled

While there have been some barking mad articles on OLO re climate change and its knock on effects, Ludwig is right to raise the precautionary principle. A world with less carbon emissions makes sense.

"Ludwig is right to raise the precautionary principle. A world with less carbon emissions makes sense."

There might be a meteor about to hit your house. True, we have no evidence of it, but if it did happen it would be a disaster, right? Time to run outside.

But wait! There might be a ton of TNT buried near your house about to explode, and the only safe place would be inside. No evidence, but there MIGHT. And that would be a major catastrophe! Time to run inside.

Inside, outside... how many times do you have to run back and forth before you realise that the 'precautionary principle' is worthless in the absence of evidence? Once we know what -- if anything -- will happen, then we can take steps to deal with it. Until then, knee-jerk panic reactions are not going to help anyone except the politicians and scientists who are eager to take away your rights and your money.

I prefer EE Nesbit's formulation of the Precautionary Principle:

"When in danger, or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout."

It's a lot more honest.