SPQR

Your last post is so weak I've wondered whether I should respond.

For the edification of others I will.

The non-existence of water on the moon was never regarded as an "inalienable truth" whatever that may mean. Peak scientific bodies did not publish position papers saying "No water on the moon."

In the 1960s, some scientists started speculating about the possibility of finding water on the moon. There was no consensus one way or the other, merely scepticism.

However there was enough curiosity about the possibility to try and detect it. Water was finally detected in 2009.

Note:

--While most scientists were sceptical almost everyone agreed it was worthwhile looking. The discovery of lunar water was not an accident. It was found through carefully designed observation.

--The matter was settled by professional scientists, not by "loonies" with websites.

Similarly for ice on Mercury. No one was going to be carted off to a "looney" bin for speculating about the possibility. The attitude was very much one of let's try and find out. Again, the matter was settled by professional scientists.

The situation with AGW is different. We have physical theory combined with a growing body of evidence. Many professional scientific bodies have felt compelled to make a stand in the face of persistent denialism.

Scepticism does not mean ignoring the evidence, twisting it or cherry picking to suit your own predilections. Nor does it mean that amateurs can do better than professionals. Experts can be sceptical of "expert" opinion.

Poirot,

"Chortle" is the only adequate response to "125 plus scientists"

Curmudgeon,

OK here's one for you. In his testimony before the US Senate in 1988 James Hansen forecast more extreme heatwaves. He even named four cities that he thought would be worst hit. By 2011 he had scored 2.5 out of 4.

Most economists would sell their grandmothers into slavery for a 62.5% batting average.

This graphic from The Economist tells part of the story.

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120811_STC780.png

The sites I've recommended deal with the science as a whole, not with specific forecasts. However see also my previous post.

stevenlmeyer, could you explain that graphic please - its way outside my comfort zone. The horizontal and vertical axes represent?

I was going to put in extra question marks to emphasise my confusion but I was told in rude red words "There is no need for that many question marks. Remove them to continue." What ill-mannered pedant wrote that bit of software, I wonder, slamming the door on an extra question mark but letting through all sorts of other written oddities.

The main game here is the usual capitalist scam of transferring the costs of the externalities of production, criminality and incompetence onto the taxpayers by denying that any problem exists, it's an old technique that has usually saved shareholders billions. Once the smart money is aggregated in 'renewable' industries, most climate change "scepticism" will disappear, unfortunately the taxpayers will still be left with the bill.

stevenmeyer,

"Most economists would sell their grandmothers into slavery for a 62.5% batting average"
Or any percentage > 0

Steven,

Thanks for putting up that skeptical science "skeptics vs realists" link....I was just about to post it when I noticed you'd already done so.

As once savvy poster often said on this forum, "The trick is to distinguish natural variability (noise) from the anthropogenic causes (signal) - [and]we can...."

csteele,

Just as a matter of interest, we in the South West had a typical "winter" event last week in the form of two days of major wind and storm.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/11/29/3643917.htm?site=southwestwa

Strange days indeed.

The only real world evidence that I have read that shows a relationship between CO2 and global atmospheric temperature is that CO2 levels follow global average temperatures by several hundred years.

The only 'one to one' relationship I have seen regarding climate, is between solar activity and global temperature.

Rachel Carson was a purveyor of 'junk science' and could be said to have rivalled Pol Pot and Mao with the number of deaths her perverted science was responsible for.

'Hindsight', ain't it wonderful.

How to save us from climate-change doomsayers ?
Ignore them & do your own thing. Even if they're 100% right there's still nothing we can do now to change the change that's underway.
Nature has got time, she isn't one bit worried. It's the silly humans who first destroy everything & then start panicking when it's too late.
We have had several so-called Civilisations over the past several thousand years and, just like they did then we are doing now.
A Tax to stop Evolution ? What a brilliant idea !