sillyfilly, it's not that "models are bad", rather, do we want to bet our entire future on a relatively new methodology developed by people who average what they don't know and adopt constants for what they don't understand .. or are you of the opinion that climate scientists currently know everything and there is nothing they don't know?

So you are so confidant in current climate science that you are willing to bet the entire future of society on current knowledge .. a consensus, a democracy of scientific thought?

Are you saying there is nothing left to learn and that everything about climate is now known to the point that any predictions climate science makes are absolutely true and accurate? (And you're willing to back them absolutely .. no denial of the current state of knowledge?)

Come on mate, step up and commit .. do you believe current climate science has nothing left to learn?

This should be good reading in 50 or 100 years .. the arrogance and folly of this age.

right, perfect, got-it

Seems rpg is another who thinks science has to be 100% perfectly accurate, with not even a tad uncertainty (there is and it is acknowledged).

Perhaps you really are an engineer who just doesn't get the science bit.

Corollary: You are sounding somewhat alarmist (from the other end).

No rpg, the world is not about to end anytime soon.

Oh, and science is never settled, you have misconstrued what the scientific process is, obviously.

sillyfilly - climate models are unable to retrospectively fit the climate record without a lot of very suspicious 'adjustments'.

bonmot - it would be helpful if the error margins weren't on the same order as the supposed trend.

QUESTION: What could have been achieved without climate models?

ANSWER: World peace and utopia.

I think Iam going to be sick!

BLUE

bonmot "a tad uncertainty" really?

We never seem to get that message here on OLO, or anywhere else for that matter .. or what the uncertainty or errors are. If you read some of the papers, the uncertainty is often larger than the predictions, but why ruin a good scare eh?

All we get is galloping hysteria, snide comments, insults, and of course you are now into trying to bait people you disagree with .. which seems to show you can't deal with adversity, but that's your problem.

When the media and politicians and climate sciencists go public, they never mention uncertaintly .. see Bob Brown claim the floods were because of coal burning, no mention of a possible error in his statements, when the UN science chief spoke on the ABC, he said skepticism was untenable .. no mention that their science was possibly not completely correct, or that there is a sound basis for skepticism.

So please don't come the raw prawn with doom laden statements then when poked with a pointy stick, say "of course uncertainty is always present".

It is never mentioned, and you all seem to slyly avoid it till pushed on the matter. Which says a lot about how current climate science is tricky and not well understood, but the bounty is enormous so that justifies the subterfuge.

No i don't expect science to be perfect, but you seem to expect that your current level of knowledge is sufficient for changing the world, even when many scientists disagree and constantly expose the climate science astrology for hat it is .. I do not agree.