Mac “As far as I understand Don Aitkin is qualified in poltical science not physical science.”

That does not disqualify him from holding and expressing an opinion.

I certainly see the need for greater scrutiny (due diligence) of the supposed results of climate modeling processes, if we are to be dragged down a path of “economic de-construction” as a consequence of trying to achieve what might be a myth.

Whilst I am not a “scientist” I believe such a shortcoming does not deny me right to hold an opinion.

That said I am happy to talk to the matter of “climate models” not because I know a whole lot about climate but I do know a lot about computer models and computer modeling, having worked in the business of corporate modeling for the past 20 years.

I fully concur with Dons view to climate models.

GIGO

“To repeat, models are models; they are highly simplified versions of reality, and cannot provide evidence of anything.”

I have made similar comments on other threads previously.

I note particularly

“One recent example, showing a truly catastrophic climate outcome in 20 years' time, was based on the assumption that the central global warming hypothesis is correct.”

I have seen similar errors occur time and again due to inappropriate assumptions of significance of a single variable, relative to the whole.

We are being asked to place credence in sub-science which has an extremely short practical history.

We are all aware of the science of economics, something which has been around for a couple of centuries and the absence of a global economics model.

Ever wondered why?

Too hard

Too many variables

But this is the important one

Uncertainty to the nature and significance of inter-variable relationships

Climate science is no different except for one thing, even less is understood about climate science than is understood about economics

So who in their right mind would place any credence in climate models and

If there is no credence in the models, why are people pretending to tell us that we need to change anything?

The denialists continue to amaze me. Not that they deny climate change, nor that they argue the science - after all the science of complex systems is always disputable and vexed. What amazes me how infrequently I hear them say - I don't believe in climate change, but I know that there is a substantial number of scientists and a large body of evidence that suggest that climate change is occurring and something needs to be done. Faced even with that calculation - ie admitting the possibility that climate change is real - should lead to the conclusion that we need to act not argue. We need to take steps to protect our life support systems not wait and see. What's even more extraordinary is that these changes should have happened anyway - we should be reducing our consumption, moving to renewable sources of energy, eliminating our delusions that we live on a planet of infinite resources that we can consume and dispose of at will. The kind of changes that climate change demands are good and necessary even if climate change is proved wrong.

Col Rouge,

Where did I say that Aitkin wasn't entitled to express an opinion? Ill-informed opinion is, however, a waste of space. Does Aitkin have the appropriate qualifications?

it's just so cute when children play "scientist".

Its interesting to contrast the full paper from Don Aitkin versus the cut down version that appeared here on OLO. The cut down version lost a lot in the editing. Kudos to OLO for providing a link to the full version.

mac, "Don Aitkin is qualified in political science ... irrelevant qualifications". Fair enough. But was nice so to read an article that was honest about that. To read as article that effectively said "I am a layman who has spent some time looking at the evidence, and this is what I see", and whats more to see it said it without any of the shrill rancour found in other articles here on OLO was a breath of fresh air.

KeithB, "2007 was at a solar minimum and a La Nina year and 1998 was a solar max and an El Nino year". That temperatures hadn't risen in the past 10 years was one of the major underpinning's of Don's paper, and its nice to see an explanation of why it might be so.

Q&A, "Many governments, business and religious leaders do [believe in AGW] ... are they all that irrational or stupid as you imply?". Please don't let yourself be dragged into this line of argument. Elsewhere you appeal to the importance of scientific method as basis for evaluating things. These words do the exact opposite. Besides, Don's qualifications are in political science, so I would expect him to comment on the politics behind all this, and I put some weight on those words.

rstuart

Don is a political scientist.

However, political science is not oceanography, atmospheric physics, paleogeochemistry, whatever.

The real issues in dealing with 'climate change' are not so much the science, but politics, economics and social ideology.

To really solve the *global* problems of the world, people have to respect each other's POV and work together. This is difficult for many people with fundamentalist views, Right or Left.

So they use things like political and social ideology to justify inaction. This attitude must be overcome if we are to move on.