Just about everything we could do to address AGW we would also need to do to address our terribly unsustainable lifestyles.

Perhaps if the powers that be saw fit to promote it all in a different way we might see lot more success.

For example, all efforts to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewable energy sources, along with all efforts to improve energe-use efficiency and stabilise or reduce the ever-increasing demand, would just fit right into the great sustainability picture.

We don't even need to be talking about climate change at all in order to have COMPELLING reasons for doing all of this stuff!

While Golis bases his argument on the truism that “Models are only as good as the information supplied and the assumptions made”, he does not investigate, question or describe the climate model he disagrees with in any form.

His enthymeme that:
1.Models are only as good as the information supplied and the assumptions made
2.(The information supplied to the climate model is flawed)
3.The results of the model are flawed
fails, because it does not support its major suppressed premise with any evidence.

Surely as someone who has used modelling within their own professional practice, indeed, basing his professional practice on a psychological profiling model (http://www.emotionalintelligencecourse.com/increase-your-eq), can see the benefits of professional climatologists using a framework to assess the state of the world’s climate?

If Golis’ issue is not with the idea of modelling per se, but with the quality of information that is used by the model he must provide evidence as to why and how this information is flawed.

Unless he does so, he contributes nothing to the debate.

Curmudgeon,

Quite an outrageous statement you make" "as has been pointed out many times now, a consensus and the agreement of experts counts for precisely nothing."

Are you serious? If that is your considered view even when it comes to experts with professional qualifications, belonging to professional bodies, dealing with mulitple lines of supporting evidence and the consensus is widespread across the globe, and you think that counts for precisely nothing then debating anything with you is clearly a waste of time.

Hi Sarnian,

"water spouts and tornadoes (will) hit weekly... Also he (the writer) will find himself surfing under the bridge, past the peaks of the good old opry house sticking up through the water."

That's marvellous stuff. I hadn't included water spouts and tornados. Do you mind if I nick that and use it as a quote?

Also, Mr Windy are you out there? Can I use your quote about introducing a bacterial agent in to the water or air that sterilises people? That's rolled gold.

Rich2
yes, quite serious. This is well known, and I'm shocked its the first time you've sighted this point. Those who study the use of experts, as experts, have range of studies to cite showing that experts are no better than layman when it comes to forecasting. I would modify that by saying that the forecasting is better if they are using a theory with an established track record. Note that I'm talking about FORECASTS on complex systems, not theories.

Canadian journalist Dan Gardner has a book out now Future Babble, which exhaustively discusses this point, with more references to refereed material than you will want.

djwadm
You make a good point about the models, the trouble is the original climate models were intended simply as aids for research. They are far too complex to have any useful forecasting ability. Among other difficulties, for example, modellers have to make heaps of different runs using different starting conditions to end up with some sort of forecast. The resulting curve is actually a compilation of different model runs. The results should never have been admitted into the policy debate.

Curmudgeon,

You are being deliberately obtuse and muddling up all kinds of different "experts" and types of forecasts.

I am aware of studies that show for example that "experts" are usually no better that the standard "it will be the same as last time" forecast when it comes to the economy or the share market. It is ridiculous though to extrapolate those findings to scientific experts that develop and prove theories to explain things that happen in the real world, for example the link between smoking and cancer, the link between aerosols and the hole in the ozone layer, the link between unscrubbed coal fired power emissions and acid rain.

Taking your line of thinking to a logical conclusion you would discount to zero any expert's opinion on anything. Presumably you and your family dont bother with medical practitioners since their researched views on what is causing a problem or how to cure an illness count for nothing. Bizarre.