Anthony,

You seem to see things in very black-and-white terms: either the scientists are entirely right, or they're 'hopelessly incompetent', or they're lying. We'll deal with the latter first: I regard it as a fiction. The notion that entire field of climatology is part of some lefty conspiracy to de-industrialise the west (or whatever these conspiracy theory nutters believe) is an extraordinary claim with sod all evidence to support it.

Which, as far as you're concerned, leaves hopelessly incompetent or completely correct. The former seems highly improbable; surely they can't all be buffoons. But the latter is even less probable; they are almost certainly wrong. All scientific knowledge is provisional; it changes constantly. There's a great quote from a speech made by Lord Kelvin in 1900, only a few years before Einstein massively altered our understanding of physics with the theory of special relativity: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

It irks me when I see letters in my morning paper trotting out the beloved hippy cliché "the science is settled". No it bloody isn't, and if it is, it's not really science - it's just dogma in a labcoat. The policy may be settled (obviously, policy must be based on current scientific knowledge and logically cannot be based on as yet to be developed theories), but the science never can be. And so climatologists are not completely correct - but it's doubtful that they're completely wrong, either. They're somewhere in between - in that middle ground you seem to dislike. And for the record, they can be completely competent and still be wrong. Science is funny like that.

Hi Acolyte Riza,
No, I wasn't saying that scientists are hopelessly incompetent, at least that wasn't my intent.
What I was doing was quoting the deniers assertions all through these comments that this is the case. it's their way of explaining away how 98 out of every 100 climate scientists say that teh science is settled.
But, like I keep on saying, I'll patiently wait for the argument and history to come to me.
See, here's the thing. No matter how much we yell at each other, sooner or later reality will assert itself. (I would argue that it already is).
And, of course, that's precisely what I'm worried about.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

"Both Tom Tiddler and Anthony have demonstrated what I said in my first post. The warmists have nothing but fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy. When challenged to rationally defend their belief, they either go silent, or come back with another welter and tangle of the same fallacies."

Ummm, Peter ... Tom Tiddler is in fact the author (Tim Curtin) of this article.

Going by your own fallacies, you (like he) are a legend in your own mind.

Anthony,

What did I just say in my last post about science never being settled? And yet you go on to spout nonsense like this: "98 out of every 100 climate scientists say that teh science is settled". Bollocks. You may lack even an elementary understanding of scientific methodology and the philosophy of science, but climatologists are (thankfully) not so poorly educated. That's why you won't find the scientists uttering such rubbish, only halfwits claiming to speak for the scientists like Greenpeace, politicians and yourself. But I'd really appreciate it, and I'm sure they would too, if you'd stop putting erroneous words into their mouths.

You might find climatologists saying that that the policy implications are settled. It's possible that you've accidentally conflated the two, but take it from somebody who knows a little bit about scientific methodology: this is not the same thing as saying the science is settled.

And if, as you claim, that 98% of climatologists do say the science is settled, the logical implication is not that the science actually is settled and climatological theories stand alone in the field of science as perfectly formulated theories, watertight and unassailable. The logical implication is that that 98% of the climatologists simply do not understand the nature of their job. Which I suppose would make them incompetent. But as I said above, I don't think this is the case - I think they're being misrepresented by the sort of jackasses who wouldn't recognise the scientific method if it jumped up and bit them on the arse, and who would do well to educate themselves before uttering foolish statements.

Hi Acolyte Rizla,
Wow, you managed to be quite insulting.
I don't mean to criticize, but is that really necessary?
Millions of people agree with you and millions agree with me.
Your reply prompted me to go back over these comments, and I noticed an interesting thing.
The rude responses are all from those who oppose the notion of global warming. Comments supporting global warming are not at all insulting.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Anyway, as I've said before, you may be right and I may be wrong. I can make room for both possibilities. In fact, I hope you are right and we all have nothiing to worry about.
But I have to point out, making insulting assumptions about me, e.g. my level of scientific understanding, doesn't really help your case.
Probably prejudices it if anything.
Cheers,
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve

These are the concluding remarks of The Royal Society’s ‘Climate Change – a summary of the science’.

>> There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected.

Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.

Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area. <<

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

Obviously, both 'alarmists' and 'naysayers' alike have taken “the science is settled” meme out of context to suit their own ideological agenda. Science is never settled and it is certainly not absolute. That is why I find it extraordinary that 'naysayers' (e.g. US Republicans and Tea Party adherents) want to pull the plug that will further refine the certainties (and uncertainties) or drive the world to more sustainable energy use.