Wb, give me a break. It is my way of speaking to say I “believe” the sun will rise tomorrow. I don’t put religious significance onto that word.

I could with more justice accuse you of religious thinking in your trying to “prove” the models wrong if they get one figure wrong. I would say that your test of the models is illogical. It is based upon perfectionistic, ie religious-type thinking. The logical way to assess their relevance is not whether the models are inaccurate but whether they are less inaccurate than the alternatives. The only alternative I know of is human judgement, ie hunches based upon experience. For many logical reasons, which I have tried to explain, I think or “believe” or estimate or assess or opine (or whatever you like) that the models will be more accurate and, importantly, more transparent, than relying upon human judgment.

For instance, Richard is upset with Tim Flannery over his talk of flooding buildings. Being a forgiving soul (oops, I really haven’t a religious bone in my body) I assume that he has come to that judgment on sound intuition.
(I respect his judgment because I suspect he knows more about the theory than me although I have been studying it part time for a couple of years now. I put in the effort for the very reason that I very much hoped it was not true. Unfortunately my due diligence informs me its highly likely true no matter how inconvenient to me and everyone else.)

I doubt whether scientists would produce a model that yielded such a result because the intellectual process of fashioning it using mathematics, etc precludes the sort of thinking that Flannery has used. Flannery may well be right in his judgment for all I know, and I don’t even know the context of his remark, so I will not pass judgment on it

SoS

Having degrees in both Theology and Pure Mathematics I've a fair idea of the difference between Religion and Science and sorry to be blunt about it but you dont appear to be very knowledgable on either subject. You need, for starters, basic courses in epistomolgy and logic.

But... have it your way...
You think, believe, estimate, assess, opine etc etc that the models are accurate....

Even YOU stop short of saying that you KNOW the models are 'more accurate' and that is the point. The models are indeed very impressive... but they are obviously flawed since their a posteriori 'predictions' for known values havent been 'accurate'.

When I say that the GCMs are flawed I am not necessarily 'denying' global warming. Again you have jumped to this conclusion irrationally. The greenhouse effect is a well established process and its application to the atmosphere appears to be quite valid. It is, however, just one factor among... who knows how many others.

In fact, I regard this issue as important otherwise this thread would not interest me at all. It would be well if everyone concerned themselves with the subject and found in the good science reason enough to modify their behaviour so as to reduce their consumption of energy, water, etc and consider the implications of all forms of pollution.

We have good reason to be concerned about global warming but realistically we cant expect governments, business etc to turn themselves inside out overnight without COMPELLING evidence of the type that good science can produce. As yet the evidence is not sufficiently compelling (though you obviously believe that it is) to justify radical mitigation measures. It is, however, compelling enough to justify significant investment in further work in climate studies and sufficient to alert people to the need to be more responsible environmentally. Inthe right environment good pursuasive science could provide the knowledge that will help us to anticipate pending disaster and respond appropriately. The science might never be done ifthe potential investors are put off by scaremongering doomsayers. Their efforts are likely tobe counterproductive.

SoS, the ground on which you stand is getting shakier by the comment.

Where do I start? You have doubt over “human judgment, ie. hunches based upon experience” but respect Flannery for coming to his “judgment” on something called “sound intuition”. Perhaps you could clarify the difference. You trust your reliable firm, the IPCC, yet Flannery disagrees with its (upper level) sea rise projections to the tune of something like 5000%. Yet if another expert (Flannery is a paleontologist, Lindzen, eg, a meteorologist), questions the figures at all (0.4 vs 06 degrees), they are a misleading denialist.

I agree largely with waterboy. “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Einstein. Or how about Huxley – “The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

You say my list of experts is an "example of what you accuse me of doing”. I have scanned my comments and can’t find any such accusation. Can you direct me to it?

You refer to the partisanship of the list. Indeed, it is the politicization of climate science that is a cause of much concern. It would be wonderful if these experts were included in Dewi’s “inclusive” IPCC, but as disagreeing is not respected in its circle, they are on the outer. Is it any wonder then that 'alternative publications' are made up prominently of ‘skeptics’. (Although Dr Pauchari was a witness to the Lords Committee, a generosity he seems less willing to afford those who question the IPCC.) Your logic is again circular. The ‘skeptics’ are wrong because they are on the outer, they are on the outer because they are wrong.

The reports are on the economics of CC, because the ‘scientific’ projections produced incorporate economic scenarios.

The assumptions you (and others) have made about me are similar to those expressed by waterboy, to the extent that even when I have essentially agreed with a statement, it can’t be comprehended.

Your extended and dubious smoke alarm metaphor is beginning to sound like a phobic obsession.

"It would be wonderful if these experts were included in Dewi’s “inclusive” IPCC, but as disagreeing is not respected in its circle, they are on the outer. Is it any wonder then that 'alternative publications' are made up prominently of ‘skeptics’... The ‘skeptics’ are wrong because they are on the outer, they are on the outer because they are wrong." -- Richard Castles

Yes, this is very concerning. And it was not my intention to state categorically that the IPCC is inclusive - but it does look to me like it involves a very large distribution of scientists.

Waterboy can wax theological about science having nothing to do with belief, but in the real world the non-climatologists have to believe one side or the other. I don't mean blind belief, but even the best climatologist in the world hasn't run *all* the experiments personally.

All I can say is that the "GW skeptics" have often seemed *to me* to be more partisan than skeptical. More intent on disrupting scientific research than suggesting alternative models. Models for complex chaotic systems are likely to always have flaws, but we *must* use the best model we have, or improve upon it. The stakes are high enough to absolutely demand it.

However, the "GW skeptics" often conclude (as happened in the article and many times in the comments) that our knowledge is flawed, so we should ignore what it indicates as being *likely* and go on with our lives. Often with a focus on some minor statistical anomaly at the expense of the big picture, and with a suggestion that that "wasted" grant money should be cut off. This is just as hysterical as the worst excesses of the AGW camp, and it is *this* sort of non-science that inevitably damages the credibility of any responsible skeptics out there.

One must remember the golden rule with a climate sceptic: They have to either lie or misrepresent in order to make their arguments.

We have already noted the Canberra debacle, which was the central plank of misinformation in Richard Castle's article. The BOM says that 2006 was Canberra's hottest year on record and Castle has done everything to avoid discussing this.

Remember to keep the golden rule foremost in your mind. It is necessary for climate sceptics to misinform, and proven every article on OLO.

Now we have a list of "eminent scientists" posted by Castles (14Mar2007 6:16PM) who were "witnesses" and the resulting report "expressed serious concerns" and that "Looks like a lot of expertise and experience to ignore. Given that this is is an argument denying climate change, it follows that there must be a trick, lie or misinformation in the argument. Just find the trick.

It is pretty obvious really. The Stern Report was able to directly reference the real expertise, rather than through the report. For example, first on the list, Prof Dennis Anderson, played a major role in the Stern Review. Look up his report from here: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/358/853. Second on list Prof Terry Barker's Stern Submission is here: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/F72/C6/climatechange_imp_1.pdf

By including climate sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg later in the list, Castles avoids telling a fib outright. The misinformation is in suggesting this is a list of experts ignored by the Stern Report or critical of the IPCC. In fact, the real experts are part of the scientific consensus.

Proving once again how climate sceptics use misinformation to argue their cases. Remember its the golden rule.

I don't know how to read what you say David;
Your interpretations are totally void of Heuristic value ; and you display a continuous insistence to work off the typical Proletariat idiotic model.
The Philosophical Model you work from is garbage’ as was the Stern report.
Continued delusional state of consciousness is not healthy for an individual, or indeed the collective. Regardless of your motives.

Total politicized philosophical Hypotheses of conjured up nonsense algorithm and deliberate bug infected programs; then reinvented heuristic value that you claim (Just use the Computer Virus model if you do not comprehend what I say) - but of course, that is an oxymoron. There is no scientific value to you rants or heuristic value, it is invented propaganda based on selective Ignorance- and Intellectual programmed Ignorance.
Hmmmmmmmmm,

Question is David.
Why?