"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II).

After reading Katy’s article I see, yet again, that Dick had a point.

In fact the more I discover about the law and lawyers the more I understand just how dysfunctional is our legal system.

Katy, the scientific enterprise is far from perfect but it cannot be "improved" by importing the worst aspects of another dysfunctional “discipline”. I speak loosely when I apply the word “discipline” to the law because that’s just what lawyers – especially judges – aren’t

I don't think that you can judge the merits of the legal profession on the basis of Katy Barnett's writing.

Katy it's about science and your attempt to make it about political inclinations is way off the mark. As is believing that climate scientists have not applied scepticism. Or that those who insist that action to avoid the worst consequences be taken have a desire to see people forced to live in mud huts not develop large scale clean energy.
When it comes to politics it isn't the green left letting us down it's the mainstream and the conservative right. The growth of the greens is a consequence of the complete failure of the middle and right to take the overwhelming science on this matter seriously.

Sorry, but you don't come across as someone who wants the case decided on it's merits but decided in favour of you client (those who don't want money or effort spent on this and don't want their illusions that the way they live will negatively impact future security and prosperity upset.)

I want the science that comes out of all our leading institutions taken seriously.Science has applied scepticism and found the physics, chemistry and thermodynamics all to be genuine and sound. Models have been subjected to hindcasting and verification efforts by scientist who really do want to get at the truth of how our climate works and real world changes agree with what's known. The hottest year to date (GISS) at the end of the hottest decade, following the second hottest decade, following the third hottest. Every real world indicator -sea temperatures, sea levels, icesheets, surface temperatures - showing it's real and you want to cling desperately to your doubt? I suggest you try genuine science style scepticism and look at the whole body of evidence rather than focus on the few bits you think will convince an inexpert 'jury' but won't work on true experts.

Science can never be decided like a court case although there are similarities; in this case 'sceptics' are less like the expert witnesses and more like noisy objectors shouting angrily from the back of the courtroom after the verdict's been handed down.

Has the IPCC run their computer model against the more realistic
fossil fuel figures published by the Uppsala University's Global Energy
Systems report ?

No ?

Then this whole discussion is redundant.
Unless we discuss global warming using real input data then we are wasting our time.

As others have mentioned, nothing in science escapes ceaseless peer-review, the need for predictability and compatibility with empirical data. These refine and establish science, scientific discovery and thought. Without scepticism and questioning, peer-review would not exist, nor would robust science.

However where global warming is concerned the respectable term “skepticism” is all too often used instead of the more accurate descriptor “denier” of its causes and effects. Deniers fall into two groups: those who simply express a personal opinion which rejects one or more aspects of climate science without giving a reason: the other claims to present a scientific basis for their rejection.

The latter group are more akin to true skeptics and I would accept them as such were it not for one thing. The evidential material they present in support of the denialist position they hold is invariably based on a misrepresentation or distortion of other peoples work or claims which are clearly wrong or are outright fabrications.

Monckton is a good example of the latter. When in Australia he forthrightly asserted that “there has been very, very sharp global cooling on all measures since 2001”, a claim refuted by empirical evidence showing the opposite to be true. Ian Plimer provides another example with his claim that human activity is responsible for only 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere, the rest being produced by volcanoes. The basis for this assertion is so easily proven wrong that it is no surprise that Plimer offers no supporting evidence.

A favourite of skeptic/deniers seeking to substantiate their views on global warming is to cherry-pick data or present data as statistically significant when it is no such thing. They present data covering a short select period, showing what the presenter wants, rather than a longer period showing a significant trend. The Skeptical Science website gives numerous examples of this and other forms of cherry-picking.

There are of course many genuine skeptics who put forward views critical of or rejecting claims made by other scientists and they do put forward credible material supporting their position. They are usually shown to be only partly right or entirely wrong but they do hold science and scientists to account and in the process provide an invaluable service for which we should all be grateful.

But there comes a time when matters of science simply can not be shown to be wrong. They are no longer questioned, nor should they be unless there is good evidence to do so. For example we no longer question that the world is an imperfect sphere, or that it revolves around a star we call the sun. Similarly we should no longer question that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb energy at particular wavelengths and radiate it or that the result is global warming.

After all, we have known about the properties of greenhouse gases and their sources for over a century and they have not been shown to be wrong.