Yes Bob, and the Sun orbits the Earth and evolution is a myth.

The validity of GCMs in accurately predicting climate is dubious, admittedly.

But does this negate the science that suggests that human emissions are contributing? Or does it just call into question the severity of the problem?

If the science that claims we are adding to the cause is sound, then surely it makes sense to begin to make moves at lessening that contribution. Any real, long term solution to this must be compatible with capitalism and rule of law - as anyone of sound mind can clearly see it can't be left up to business and individuals to address the problem. In light of that, legislation and a carbon tax seem like viable long term, structural changes to our system which will ensure future contributions are kept as low as possible - so we don't get 10 or 20 or 30 years down the track and realise it's too late to 'turn on a dime'.

Yes, Bob Carter - someone should tell John Howard, and Kevin Rudd, about these new revelations - that apparently we don't need to worry about carbon emissions and global warming any more.
In that case - well, it still wouldn't hurt to have renewable energy sources - as they are becoming ever less costly - and the fuel (sun, wind, wave, heat in rocks -) is free.And, we can still save money by energy efficiencies.

And in that case, neither Australia, nor any other country needs nuclear power. Yet - I have an awful suspicion that our noble political leaders don't really care about saving the world from global warming.

So - I guess they'll keep this discovery a secret, and go right on helping their corporate backers to make billions out of uranium and receiving international nuclear wastes - to dump on aboriginal land.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

and 'concerned activists' like chrism will go on shrugging her verbal shoulders and saying "nothing to be done."

Kenny

U certainly nearly go the second part right. Evolution might not be a myth but it is a hopelessly discreditted scientific theory.

So the sum total of the professor's argument is that predicting the weather is not easy, often inaccurate and varies?

"Prediction" of climate change has to do with trends. If I "predict" that the weather is going to get warmer over the next month yet give inaccurate predictions that doesn't mean that the trend is incorrect.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth's comments are quite accurate. Modelled climate change works on "all other factors being equal". They cannot, and should not, try to account for variables such as changes in human behaviour. They can only operate with "if x goes on then y is the likely result". Anything else would simply not be good science.

It still surprises me that people who conduct scientific research on their day-to-day lives often appear not to know what constitutes the scientific method and therefore how to interpret scientific data. Perhaps the old criticism of "glorified bean counters", in some cases, is not inaccurate.