Grace,

Yet again you fail to directly respond to a post but go off a tangent to claim all kinds of things.

If you ever raised arguments with me about the nature of scientific inquiry and consensus and the necessity for global modelling in place of experimental proof (which I doubt but cannot be bothered looking for because the effort would be wasted when you move arguments again) I would say...

(a) scientific inquiry is a regimented process which produces results which must be replicable if they are to be valid. (Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature failed this miserably and despite legal requirements he has failed to reveal full methodology and data.)

(b) consensus has no valid place in Science because Science is not determined by majority decision, only by the provable correctness of theories

(c) computer modelling is great when all factors are known with high precision and trusted algorithms can be created. It is therefore fine for many relatively simple situations but fails miserably in more complex situations. Climatology remains one of those complex situations. Climate models contain parameterizations to attempt to quantify the unknown, artificial boundaries to prevent run-away conditions, gross assumptions, missing factors (Hadley Cell circulation, solar emissions, wind, cloud etc.). For example, the CSIRO's models regular predict rainfall about 50% of that which was observed.

For your information, I am currently writing a paper (and will probably write another very shortly) for publication in peer-reviewed journals. It's not that I consider the peer-review process has much credibility - the task of doing a proper review of every statement is no longer realistic - but others appear to believe it has credibility.

That's all your statements I will respond to for now. There's no point when you won't answer questions (as evidenced from previous exchanges) and when you will inevitably try to move the goal posts again.

Snowman - let us know when you are published in a peer-reviewed science journal and I will be interested to read your contribution to the debate.

In the meantime, you might try reading a bit about the nature of scientific consensus, here's some suggestions: Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations", and just for fun, Paul Feyerabend "Against Method".

See you later alligator.

Grace,

It seems we agree:

1. Kyoto will not stop climate change and is mostly about posturing and politics, and

2. Consensus has a role in science. For example, Thomas Khun in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains how the scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs.

Now a couple of questions:

1. Doesn't Khun's work also emphasises the importance of dissident and minority views for the advancement of science - and the development of new paradigms/ways of looking at things that could get us closer to some ultimate truths? So wouldn't Khun be particularly sympathetic to the climate skeptics - including Snowman?

2. Also, does Khun works, and the work of the others you quote, give any indication whether the right or left of politics is better at science?

Cheers

Jennifer - please don't put words into my mouth and read my post above again. I did not say that Kyoto is "mostly about posturing and politics", but I do understand why you wish that to be so, as the IPA does a lot of such posturing and not much science in its opposition to Kyoto.

It is not clear what you mean by "received beliefs" in science. Assuming you are referring to the current scientific consensus that global warming is occuring, with which you apparently concur, then do you regard yourself as operating only on a "received belief"?

The reason I suggested that Snowman might read Kuhn is precisely because it lends some sympathy to his role as the lonely dissenter. But I don't think you or Snowman are on the cusp of scientific revolution, if that's what you mean.

As to your question about whether these works "give any indication whether the right or left of politics is better at science", with all due respect, that is a very silly question. However, there is plenty of evidence that politics, whether left or right, manipulates science to its own ends.

At present, in the global warming debate, it would appear that the most forceful political manipulation is coming from the right, given that the right holds government in the USA and Australia. As an example, the following is a quote from Des Griffin's essay published on OLO on Jan 31 2005:

"Early 2004 the Union of Concerned Scientists said, 'When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the [Bush] administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions'....Last September The Observer revealed that White House officials had help from [the Competitive Enterprise Institute] in undermining government scientists' research into climate change. Research warning that the impact of global warming is serious was edited or removed: Scientists producing work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue, were attacked. CEI was instrumental in having Bush reverse his campaign pledge to reduce carbon emissions....

Hi Jennifer I’d be very interested to have you in a debate with some of the scientists that you are so fond dismissing either concerning the Murray or on Global warming.
Is this a case like in the 1920’s with eugenics that you are right and whole scientific disciplines have a bad case of institutional or ideological bias or are you- given you contradict a whole swath of mainstream respected science and scientists- the one with a severe case of confirmation bias?
You have to laugh though that within the same week Michael Duffy had you on Counterpoint, Phillip Adams has those self same Murray River scientists you contradict on LateLine.
How about we get you and some of those scientists together for a debate either topic concerning bias in science or how the Murray River is Ok and getting better?

Jennifer, Grace, et. al.,

To say Kyoto will not effectively address climate change is to say trying to crawl will not effectively run a marathon. You’ve got a point, but there’s an inherent hierarchy that supersedes your point. Unless, of course, you’ve got a recipe for a ‘marathon running’ pill, suitable for toddlers.

Your points:
1. There has never been a period in the earth's history when climate was constant?
-Yep, if you examine a certain scale (10,000 years)
2. Global temperature is influenced by more than atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
-Yep
3. Data from ice-cores and sediment cores indicated that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. The warm cycles - also known as interglacial warm periods - tend to last about 10,000 years?
-Yep

Accepting points 1-3:
1. The idea that we can stop climate change by signing Kyoto is nonsense.
-Nup, see above

2. It would be useful to put effort into planning for the next ice age as well as working out what to do about reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels - and the two are not mutually exclusive.
-Nup, at issue is deleterious impacts upon ecologies and societies. Anthropocentric climate change, by its relative rapid occurrence, will hurt us (and we can do something about it). The next ice age, by its relatively slow coming, does not present the same threat.

Kyoto has been about negotiating an agreement between all nations to address climate change. As every nation is looking out for its own citizens as a priority, this process has entailed politics. Competition, war, power differences make it pretty difficult for the world to agree on altruistic action. Kyoto, and developments made at annual meetings since, is as far as we’ve got.

Dissident and minority views have a place in science; dominant paradigms can be stifling and at times oppressive. This is why we have a system of review by peers via empirical validation, to verify people’s contributions.

All opinions are not equal. However everyone should have the right to express their opinion. To separate the noise, the misguided, the mischievous, the deceitful, the parrots, the ill-informed from that which adds to human knowledge, we have peer review and editors.

There are about 6 billion opinions on climate, I take as news only what I read in (or is properly reported from) peer reviewed journals.

Hacks masquerade as skeptics all the time, most particularly columnists and academics that stray from their actual area of expertise, lobbyists just doing their job and crazy people. A real skeptic though publishes counter theories and criticisms in the journals recognised for their integrity. They have something to contribute and they want it to share their discovery with their peers. They build their case with elements that everybody agrees upon. They sometimes change the world.

Here's my thesis: I don't think a conservative approach to addressing climate change has a snowball's chance in hell of working.