SoS,

You said
1. Mark derides the models uncertainty: “temperature forecasts range from 1.1C to 6.4C over 100 years. Right!” Is this dishonest or hasn’t he read the summary? The 1.1 figure is for the scenario where we’re all greenies, the 6.4 figure is when we all behave like Exxon, Mark. The fault isn’t with the models but with knowing how people like Mark will behave.

I think you have entirely missed the point. You assume a reality which the models represent. The models might or might not be an accurate representation of that reality. The problem is this... mathematical models are often very good at simulations (producing plausible, realistic looking results) but that does not make them good at prediction/forecasting in the real world. ie they're great at driving games like sim-whatever but they arent worth a pinch of poop for deciding which shares to buy OR what el-nino is going to do next year.

wb, I have re-read what Mark wrote and I may have been a tad hard on him, but I still think he is slanting the argument.

I don’t think that the models represent reality. I think they only represent those aspects of the earth system which climate scientists feel they can validly model by mathematical equations (with error ranges). For instance, in the latest report sea level rises over the century have been reduced because the old equations based upon melting of icecaps seem no longer valid in the light of recent evidence of breakup in Greenland. The fact that many scientists suspect that sea rises will in fact be greater has not been included because hunches cannot be quantitatively projected.

To me the models are useful tools to be continually tested against reality. Having tried in my feeble way to sort through in my mind multiple factors like convection, evaporation, winds, relative humidity, etc I realise how quickly the human mind boggles. Even with quite simple systems it seems to me that a computer program can be instructive and better guide than intuition. It seems implicit in Mark's and your comments that human intuition is a better guide than the predictions of a computer. Unfortunately I think that the climate system is beyond our brains.
.
Mark apparently thinks it is bizarre that they are used, but I cannot see how in a climate of having to convince politicians, they could be ignored. Are you suggesting scientists should give just the pollies their hunches instead?

I don't think scientists seriously think that people will use their 100 year projections. 100 years is only given because that is the approximate residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore that time scale is forced on us if we are to see the scope of the problem.

SoS

I guess what the models do tell us is that global warming is a plausible scenario given things we know are happening like increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Burning fossils fuels IS certainly polluting the atmosphere. We dont need a PhD to work that out.
I, for one, am in favour of reducing the amount of fossil fuels we are burning for all sorts of reasons including global warming considerations. I am also in favour of stopping land clearing and even restoring forests because that seems just plain good common sense.
What I am not in favour of is setting our country on a course of economic self destruction unnecessarily. Anything Australia does is essentially symbolic anyway because our total contribution to the problem, though high on a per capita basis, is negligible in the overall scheme of things so the potential for messing up our economy without making one scrap of difference is pretty high

Mark Lawson provides no useful information demonstrates his bias in every sentence. He uses words like "screaming", "embarrasment", "bitterly", "gritted teeth", "absurd", "farce", "theatre" to attack scientists.

To give an example, Lawson says the IPCC adopted a graph as "dogma". Of course this is wrong.

Lawson says "IPCC is apparently of the belief that they know all they need to know about climate change". This is complelely wrong.

Without justification, Lawson paints a picture of scientists being dogmatic, stupid and self-serving. This is because a climate sceptic must fall upon misinformation and lies to make an argument. This has been the case in every article published in OLO.

David. Your comments are really not helpful if you wish to convey any useful information.

In the context used, the words to which you refer were appropriate.

Perhaps Mark Lawson should not imply that the scientists are misleading, or reticent with the truth, when it is obvious that it is the IPCC which is seeking to mislead, despite having good science to inform them.

With the scientific information available to the IPCC committee, it is in a position to disclose that

1 There has been no warming of the globe since 1998.

2 It is highly unlikely that greenhouse gases cause global warming.

3 CO2 has a negligible effect, if any, on global warming.

Yet it persists in prevarication, and misleading statements, in its summary, which is not prepared by scientists, but by spin merchants from 150 countries, most of which have the sole aim of advancing their own country’s interests to the detriment of the developed world, by attempting to advance the myth of global warming.

Do some research David.

Nick Lanelaw: You have used words very nicely and very polite way to defend a callous attack on the scientific community. Then you agree with me that Mark Lawson should not "not imply that the scientists are misleading, or reticent with the truth."

If my comments are so unhelpful, why are you agreeing with me? If you agree with me, why do you suggest that the IPCC is a conspiracy of titanic proportions? That’s called hypocrisy.

As for the rest of your comments please read this publication by the Australian Government:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/qa/pubs/science-qa.pdf

It is designed for beginners like yourself. It refutes all your points and the claims made by Mark Lawson.