Crikey- from "numerical climate prediction is a load of crap" to "it's a global plot by the Americans".

Sure it's not the Jews?

"Mark Lawson has been a journalist for nearly 25 years in trade publications, suburban and regional Victorian newspapers, and The Australian Financial Review. He has freelanced for various other publications over the years."
i.e. it's like asking the tea lady when it comes to science. There are lots of great websites out there written by people who know what they are talking about. The fact is being anti science is the new black for conservatives. Hell you even have senators in the US claiming the Earth is flat. http://www.fixedearth.com/ Maybe the author can jump on that band wagon to.

Christ, still the fossil fuel fools just keep coming.

Mr Lawson might have set out to make a reasonable point about uncertainty (a danger that doesn't stop his tribe encouraging us to bet superannuation on the stockmarket), but his shockjock tone is straight out of NewsCorp. Emotive/inflammatory words in just first few para's include: functionaries, screaming, blame, severely embarrassed, embarrassment, last minute scare stories.

If Lawson wanted to avoid polarised debate he would have stuck to the science - unfortunately he doesn't know any, he's just been passed a little of the open and accountable debate that is the best thing about science. For economics journo's admission of error is probably a terrifying idea, but its not new in science.

If sincerely concerned about uncertainty in modelling and impact on mitigation Lawson might have done an ounce of independant research and turned up http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/product/URW_Report_v2.pdf
a 146pg report on a 3day IPCC workshop on exactly that theme. Theres even a very little ammunition for his view in there, but he'd rather rant than read (must be destined for Liberal leadership role).

Then theres the plain lies: '..that part of the known increase in global mean temperatures in the past century or so is due to human activities. Quite so, although we did not need elaborate computer models - or intense scientific debate - to work that out, as this article will show.'

Historical revisionism is a very necesary craft for all slaves of realpolitic - now that anthropogenic global warming is irrefutable (except to senile millionaire miners), it was never in dispute! Lawson and like have simply fallen back to the next defensive line, that there is so much uncertainty that no action can be taken. Which is another way of saying their paymasters haven't found a way to make it pay yet, but i'm sure Mr Lawson will let us know when they have. (i'm not claiming ExxonMobil or the Institute for Public Affairs are paying Mr Lawson directly but the news editors who buy his verbiage are acutely atuned to the v.similar orientation of their advertisers).

Perseus: "I can state with absolute certainty, to Bennie and all the other planet plodders who claim the IPCC is the fount of wisdom etc, that the IPCC conducted no consultation with the forest industry or the entire field of related experts when they devised their rules for accounting for carbon from wood sources. Absolutely zilch."

HOW are you CERTAIN, Perseus? Or has the rhetoric gone to your head, again? The IPCC references i found include many forest industry related journals
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/techrepI/forest.html
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/156.htm
but then i don't have your godlike view of the world and all its inhabitants lol

Liam,

From http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/meeting/URW/product/URW_Report_v2.pdf

"Two broad classes of uncertainty are “statistical” uncertainty associated with parameter or
observational values that are not known precisely, and “structural” uncertainty where important
relationships between variables or their functional form may not have been identifi ed correctly.
Assessing structural uncertainty is generally more difficult and can normally only be done to a
limited extent through comparison of models with observations or with one another. In general
there has been a demonstrable tendency for structural uncertainty to be overlooked by expert
groups."

Structural uncertainty covers the possibility (some woud say probablility) that the models are missing important variables or that relationships between variables in the model do not accurately reflect real world relationships. It is really impossible to put any meaningful figure on the 'structural' uncertainty because it reflects all that we dont yet know about the world. The 'spin' in this article is to 'suggest' that structural uncertainty is manageable when it is not.

I am not surprised to hear critics casting doubt on climate change science, even the weather forcast is often unreliable. However, looking at the "big picture", since estimates of anthropogenic carbon emissions have been calculated together with the measured effects on global climate, to this extent the message is clear.

Accuracy of forward estimates leading to global catastrophe are less certain as well as the time scale but scientists are naturally cautious and when asked the question, consensus may well have fallen on the the side of not frightening the horses. If this were the case then sea levels may still be set to rise well above their "official" ninety year estimate.

The little known part of the carbon cycle locked away for millenia in clathrates may now prove decisive in determining how quickly and how much are planet heats up. If the Siberian permafrost thaws to create vast new freshwater lakes an unstoppable feedback loop will have been created, releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere which will effectively seal our fate.

Methane is a twenty time more powerful GHG than CO2.

It will be impossible to calculate the extent to which mankinds activities will have contributed to this catastrophe even after the event, so it would be prudent to take action now even though it be already too late. If decisive action were taken sooner rather than later we may have a chance to make good the damage we have already caused. Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights!

Don't be blindsided by silly notions of carbon sequestration or carbon credit schemes. These are just another political stunts so that we can continue to sit on our hands and fiddle while Rome burns.