Michael Kile falls into the same trap is the climate change believers; he is much too certain. The whole problem is one of uncertainty. Can we be sure enough of AGW to take the actions needed to reduce emissions? That’s the real question. And uncertainty has to be the focus.

Yes, the state of climate modelling science is uncertain. Even the IPCC itself can only project broad ranges (with best estimates too) for temperature rises by 2100, from 0.3 to 6.4 degrees C, depending on the emissions scenario being modelled. Who knows, the actual temperature might just come in at the lower end, with nothing to worry about.

Weather is not climate and real climate scientists caution us not to cite weather events as evidence of anything (though the politics must make it a hard temptation to resist).

Surely the temperature record since 1998 must inject some doubts in the minds of the believers. Dismissing concerns, as the CSIRO-BOM report does, with statements like “the world’s 13 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 15 years”, is just spin. If global warming had completely stopped for the last 12 years or so, then the last decade would still be the warmest in that record.

And what is the point of a biennial 'state of the climate' report when we all know that almost nothing about climate statistics can have changed since the previous report?

OK, let’s accept the uncertain state of climate science. Here’s the real problem. Action to reduce emissions is claimed to be a kind of ‘no regrets’ strategy, something any sensible person would wish to do anyway. But it isn’t, or at least it may not be. Despite incessant claims to the contrary from green lobbies we don’t really know whether the technology mooted to reduce emissions enough can do the job. And we don’t really know whether the costs to living standards will be acceptable, especially for the poorest economies.

These are all legitimate matters for debate. Caution is the watchword, certainty is a trap.

So true Michale.

I have noticed that all these "climate scientists" are very good at explaining why their last prediction proved wrong.

Now if I do that I'm accused of rationalising, & told I'm a fool.

Rest my case.

Sorry Michael. Fingers must be becoming dyslexic.

The author Ignores the"precautionary principle" which recognized that uncertainty as the key factor .Tombee is right. These are all legitimate matters for debate

I am sure that the forum's in previous discussions of climate change, the ratpack of anti science deniers will deny the factor of uncertainty. Just like like the clowns in Japan who built nuclear power stations within the tsunami floodplain and on of the most dangerous earthquake Zones on this planet.

PEST

the ratpack will also point out, with some truth, that the precautionary principle was exploded long ago as a reason for action. By their nature precautions are usually small things one can do to reduce or cover known risks, such as not going into certain areas of suburbia at night, or taking out death or permanent dsablement insurance.

The problem with taking precautions with climate change is that the risks were never really known and the more extreme scenarios - the major risks - can now be ruled out. But also all but a handful of economists found that economically the cost of reducing emissions now, was not going to add up to the cost of damage avoided in the future. The only two exceptions were major government reports (in UK and Aus) saying what the government paymasters wanted to hear..

As far as human-induced climate change is concerned, the precautionary principle has been dead some time..

I would not get to excited with a non event.
The oceans are warming.
The polar ice melt is accelerating.
With the warmer oceans it's stores of co2 are being given up.
Weather patterns are being compromised.
No one knows enough for any sort of modeling.
NASA is studying, with several satellites.
The difference between incoming solar, and ambient temp; is found to be stored in the oceans.