for rstuart: My test about balance is whether or not the three issues that concern me are discussed at any length. Wikipedia does say, in passing, that the earth seems to have been warming for the past 150 years, does not pay much attention to whether or not such warming is unprecedented, and does not deal at all well with the problem of the link between CO2 concentrations and increased temperature, I do not regard its treatment as balanced. Again and again, the entry on global warming talks about 'consensus'. I have argued that we have to look past consensus, firstly because it is not factually sound, and secondly because consensus is irrelevant. I accept in a practical sense we often do take notice of consensus, but in this case my central issues compel me to go past it.

I know that in other areas of Wikipedia there have been concerns about the capacity of people to edit their own biographies and entries with which they have an interest (this is one of the cost of Wikipedia's undoubted benefits). I thought the Solomon piece was a good illustration of some of the processes at work. But it is not at all central to my point.

We will certainly know about GW when the nukes come out against Israel. The clock is ticking.

Aitkin is a mere tool in Graham Young's let's-bully-the-ABC denialist toolkit.
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/graham-young-vs-robyn-williams-and.html

pelican, "even the scientists cannot agree".

Within the scientists who publish peer reviewed studies on study climate change there is complete agreement. It is not just a consensus, its 100% unanimous agreement, without a single dissenter. This has now been confirmed by two studies, one peer reviewed and one not.

It's only once you move outside the circle of people who have spent their lifetimes studying climate that you begin to see disagreement. Moving outside that circle also means you are hearing to the opinions of "climate layman". Some of them have spent their life times studying other fields of science, but I don't view that as particularly relevant.

The climate scientists could be, to the man, wrong. In that case it won't be called "climate science" for a generation or so, instead it will be called the "climate joke" and the people who study it will be ridiculed. If the current weather continues for a decade or so that will be the outcome. But until that point is reached I can't see any reasonable course of action but to accept what they say.

So I am believer and Don is an agnostic. Despite that my view on what should be done isn't too different to Don's, primarily because of all the other environmental pressures we face. The one step I would take is a ban on building more coal fired power plants.

Don, I accept your view on the political processes behind the current consensus. Partially by the reasoning above - you are an expert in the field, and partially because it appeals to my common sense. However, your example was poor. It is very popular to accuse Wikipedia of bias, but in my experience the reverse is true. In fact to the extent that settling on "the truth" is a political process, I would of though Wikipedia's method of doing it was one of the better processes available. Its looks better than the IPCC process, for example. This is your area - are there any studies saying one way or the other?

SURE, Plerdsus.

Forecasting 1 week and 1 century is not the same thing. We know it'll get colder in Australia over the next month or two 'cos it's winter. We know enough to forecast long-range, though not with precision.

Common sense tells us more people = more demand on resources. If CO2 increase was not an inevitable part of this there's nothing to worry about. However, it is.

I'm pretty sure governments worldwide would sooner choose not to consider the implications, whether policy- or tax-wise, given the choice. Carbon tax seeme the only measure 'the market' understands.

When we're told it's a moral issue, it's up to you how you respond. Churches must be full of rats.

True, China & India are problematic. Still, no excuse to sit on our hands.

Ceasing immigration won't reduce CO2 emissions.

Where is the temperature falling, and is it connected to the disappearing glaciers?

rstuart, brilliant posts. thank-you.

don, i have attempted a couple of times to read your article. each time i have quit in disgust. i don't give a damn about your summary of AGW. in that regard, you're simply another amateur. you're entitled to your opinion, i simply don't care what it is.

but your clumsy references to scientific history give me no confidence that you understand the nature of scientific truth or the scientific method. and i think your flippant and unsubstantiated slandering of the scientific community is disgraceful.

there's a modern fad, where critics of science think that a few references to feyerabend and popper make them philosophers of science. and they think that the obvious truth that science is a human endeavour, and thus science and scientists are prone to poor behaviour and error, gives them license to a snide skepticism on any particular scientific question. it's cheap and it's dumb.

as per davies, i am an academic. i have worked with scientists, including climate scientists. i do not put them on a pedestal. but i see them and their community as fundamentally one of intellectual integrity, in no way resembling the cartoon community in your article.