Curmudgeon (as Max Lawson) wrote a much disregarded book, purporting to disprove climate change, so he should be familiar with the scientific conventions of probability and error-bars. But he prefers to sneer, waffling on (his words) about forecasting systems and suggesting that scientists need to 'verify their computer models'. This is almost laughably wrong. The science of climate does use computer models - as does the science of medicine, aeronautical design, astronomy - but the theory of climate change is supported by measurement and observation from satellites, ground stations, radiosondes, floats, a whole battery of instruments dealing with the real world. See for example (not a computer model in sight) Murphy et al: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml

... oops, sorry, it was Mark not Max Lawson who wrote the much disregarded climate denialist book ...

Nicco - its actually Mark not Max..

Your response points to another source of total confusion in this area. You speak of measurements confirming warming. Certainly it does. No one has ever disputed this. Climate temperatures are undoubtedly high at the moment, so what is causing those high temperatures? Are they due to to human activity or a natural cycle? If its a combination of those factors (the orthodoxy), how much of each factor is in play?

Measurements alone cannot possibly settle those questions. For that scientists most definitely have to use computer models. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. In fact, for the forecasts they use three related computer models - one to forecast emissions (this depends on economics, not science), another to convert those emissions into carbon concentrations in the atmosphere over time, and a third set for climate.

As none of this immense effort has yet produced reliable forecasts that have been properly verified (not peer reviewed) on a seasonal, annual or decadal level, there is some reluctance to accept either forecsts over many decades or the underlying theory. When scientists can point to a reliable, replicable forecasting track record, then they can demand we have a carbon tax.

You appear, Curm, to live in a very sheltered environment, if you are unaware of the denialist strand which asserts that the world is cooling. "No one has ever disputed this (warming)" you say. But some eg the geologist Carter, assert that it has cooled since 1998, some assert more generally that "it's cooling" and argue that warming would be better. Both ignore the empirical evidence, and indeed are characteristically unable to present any evidence of their own.

As for computer models: modellers spend their working days trying to improve their models and the verification of their models. It's a cheap shot, which doesn't carry much weight.

Nicco

The supposed cooling was always very slight. Basically temperatures have been on a plateau for a decade and more with dips and peaks, mainly due to el ninos and la ninas. In the last few months they have been pulled right down by the ruling la nina. Before that they were up due to an El Nino.

But in essence nothing has happened for a decade and more, a point with which the other writers you cite would agree.. Even the warmers would agree but dismiss this lack of action by saying that other factors are holding back temperatures, although they never say what factors..

What is cooling is the issue itself. People are switching off in part because simply nothing is happening.

Even if the fantasy that Ben paints is true Australia would be an absolute mug to tax carbon while others like the US have rejected it. Ben fails to mention anywhere by how much the carbon tax would reduce world temperatures if at all. He says that carbon price is économic reform'. Only those who believe in fairytales believe this is an economic reform. This is an ideological tax that will not lower consumption and cripple the economy rather than reform it. The GST reform was put to the people before implementing it. This deceitful Government said the opposite going into the election which shows how unsellable this con is. In fact our current PM advised the wounded ex PM not to go ahead with it. I hope they do go ahead because it will be their downfall. Ben's position of 'çarbon evangelist'sorry consultant gives it away.