Liam, Saturday, 5 May 2007 10:57 AM: "...consider also who funds Institute for(of) Public Affairs & (The) Lavoisier Group..."
Well go on, Who?

ANSWER : Mobil/Exxon

Admiral

"ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

See http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

That's just one company, I bet all the others are doing the same, as are all the fossil fuel industries.

It does not matter because our Government are spending the same amount of money on solar energy research as they are on upgrading the immigration depts computer system.

Perseus says "For the record, 98% of IT experts were absolutely convinced of the certainty of Y2K." Yes Perseus, Y2K or the year 2000, did happen (about 7 years ago). As a computer programmer I worked on this change. We knew there would be problems if changes were not made to important system. That was fact and undeniable.

There was no uncertainty from us and no panic. We just succeeded in making changes to prevent a problem, so you didn't notice anything. Sound familiar to this discussion?

I'll bet those old pcs you mentioned are not supporting any important infrastructure or business.

I'm guessing you're in the same age bracket as J Howard. You're stuck in the 1950's. The past is in your head, and the future is in our hands.

Touche Foob! Well said.....my sentiments exactly!

Enter the 21st century, Perseus!

ChrisC

I note that you are still peddling the lie that clouds are well covered in the GCM's when in fact the IPCC's own documents state that the Level Of Scientific Understanding, LOSU, of clouds is very poor. So I guess when the GCM's put this LOSU into their models that are themselves looking forward 100 years, then the result must be even poorer ie complete nonsense. What was that about GIBO, Garbage In B/s Out.

Response to your comments

Rojo:

1. I suppose, but I think you miss my point. A statement such as:

All Xs are Ys at some time in the past;
X is observed;
therefore
X is Y,

is known in maths as an inductive statement. They need to be tested and proved. Many studies have attempted to present natural variability as the cause of global warming, and have not provided evidence. AGW is, at present, the only scientifically viable hypothesis that explains current observations.

2. Climate models are known as Boundary Value Problems (BVPs). You give them a bunch of starting data (say, the temperature, humidity, aerosols etc… in 1900 at a bunch of points on Earth) and set them lose to crunch the numbers. They spit back at you the results. Using these models, we’re able to reconstruct the temperature from 1900 to present, the response of the climate to Pinatubo, the 8.2kYr event etc… a priori. The models are based primarily on physics, chemistry etc… Although there is some statistical models involved, these are few compared to physical models (in most cases they’re simplified physical models). See chapter 8, section 8.1.3.1 of the FAR WG1 report (www.ipcc.ch) for a discussion of this (warning, it’s a pretty big PDF)

Models are not perfect. You’re right, clouds are the highest source of uncertainty, but even taking this uncertainty into account, we get useful numbers. Uncertainty doesn’t imply uselessness. To quote the IPCC:

“There is considerable evidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change”.

3. You have interpreted these data correctly. But remember, CO2 traps heat. Less solar insolation reaches Mars, more reaches Venus. Hence, the absolute response of temperature to CO2 will be less on Mars, greater on Venus.

Reynard:

For one, your appeal for us to accept your arguments due to a PhD is known as an “appeal to authority”. The beauty of science is that an undergrad can critique a professor. What is important is the argument. I find your arguments lacking.