Based on history, it generally takes around 40 years for a new scientific proven idea to fan out, become digested and become accepted by the general community.

Ditto climate science.

15 years ago half the scientific community were undecided or 'sceptical' on climate science. Now almost no serious scientists working in the area have any doubts. The ratio would be 500 to 1.

Scientists are generally extremely conservative. Yhey simply hate the thought of spouting emotional argument not pinned down by hard facts. The fact that these naturally sceptical people are convinced convinces me.

It will take maybe another 20 years for the phenomenon to become accepted by the community at large. The 'sceptics' are no longer in the serious scientific community, they are just ordinary folk who don't like hearing the news, using crude street science to back up their fears.

One problem: if the news is as Al Gore is telling it , then there ain't 20 years to wait sitting on our hands.

To cater for these situations then there is that other accepted scientific pathway - the Precautionary Principle. So long as there is a prima facia case that human induced climate change is real, then we should take appropriate action to ward off the worst eventualities.

Or at least not go digging the grave deeper whilst we wait for absolute proof.

I believe gecko has identified the key point in this discussion. It is not really about the science 'fact' as such because resolving that arguement could take many years because of the need for absolute proof (which is fine in a nice theoretical discussion of quatum mechanics!).

In this case though, it is a bit like driving your car across a flooded creek. You can plow on because no one has 'proved' there is a problem, or you can take a precautionary action while you investigate further. It might cost you some time (GDP growth in this case) but the consequences of not checking are pretty dire!

I imagine there must be a lot of people in this discussion group who have almost drowned their cars!

Gecko and Bruce,

Sorry to use up my daily comment allowance in two goes within 5 minutes, but nonsense.

You say "Take precautionary action?"

How do we do that when we do not know whether to take precaution against a warming or a cooling planet over the next few decades?

In fact, given (i) that most empirical computer models, and work on
solar variation, suggest that we are entering a cooling phase (and
remember that there has been no warming since 1998); and (ii) that
the hazards of sharp cooling exceed those of mild warming, then the
most effective precautionary action to take is any measures that
encourage mild warming.

Increasing the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere does
precisely that (and note the adjective "mild"). The obvious
conclusion is that there is no need to interfere with current carbon-
based energy and economic activities, and that the best precaution
that we can take is (i) to continue with our present activities, and (ii) consider how we might create additional mild warming - if necessary - when, eventually, fossil fuels become scarce enough that they are replaced by other (perhaps non-greenhouse-emission-creating) sources. And that time is still a very long way off.

Cathy

Cathy,

Please be prepared to repeat all that to the many thousands of people who are now already suffering from demographic changes to disease regimes, such as malaria.

Please be prepared to repeat it to the Australian farmers who are sufferring the wrost drought in decades and no end in sight.

Please be preared to repeat it, open faced, to the millions of our planetary citizens who are destined to suffer immensely from changed weather regimes that are already affecting.

Cathy if you are really certain about your hypothesis, be prepared to take your share of the guilt as you did your bit to prevent remedial action being taken.

It is very easy to be glib about historic climate changes in eons gone by, as a justification for non action, but go to where the people are being affected, go to New Orleans, go to Bangladesh, the growing deserts of African Sahara and tell them all's fine, no need for change.

Take a reality check in 20 years time Cathy. Then look back. I will forgive your mistake, but many would not.

Walter and Perseus, I am an engineer no climate scientist. I can read the CEI article and understand much of it. But I am not in a postition to do a peer review. In a departure from normal scientific papers even the author distances himself from its contents by crediting two interns for writing it in a footnote. At the same time the Royal Society, the premier scientific institute in the UK, which had members like Newton, claims it is deliberate misinformation.

Then we have an article attacking Al Gore his zinc mine and shares in an oil company. The article is written by an institute that has the republican top as its key members. It doesn't mention what activities the oil company is involved in. Many oil companies have clean energy programs.

It seems that every day we have reports of more unusual weather and climate events. Like today we get a report that the artic has melted to the extend that we can sail a ship to the north pole.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/scientists-shocked-by-arctic-melt/2006/09/21/1158431791746.html

As far as I understand the climate models are simplified and tweaked regularly to match current observations. Unlike many scientific applications we don't have a box full of lab-earths on which we can experiment so there is perhaps more uncertaintity than in some other branches of science.

The fact is that GW has been highly politicised with much deliberate misinformation and I believe that it is appropriate for lay people to read the press through a political filter. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Sadly it feels very similar to the tobacco causes lung cancer denials from the 70s and 80s.

No one is saying we should immedeatly abadon mining, fossile fuels and adopt a greenie life style. We should just stop putting large quantities of green house gasses in the atmosphere.

Gee Bob,

I hope you are right. But who pays the price if you are wrong? Probably not you, but the children who will inherit this planet from you.

Your type of science, denying the reality of climate change is very much a minority, and it is a diminishing class. Perhaps you will be the last one, standing up to your armpits in water, saying it aint so.

I hope you are right. But it's high stakes poker. And we lose our planet if you're wrong. You'd hate to have spent an entire lifetime working to deceive people about something that could kill them. Much like those in the tobacco industry. Oops I've just become Al Gore.