For all the arm-chair scientists out there or those that would criticise the scientific method or the IPCC review process - let's have your ideas.

Come up with a better system to disseminate the science other than in popular magazines, shock-jock media spots or the blogosphere.

On the whole I agree with Dr. Davies. Like all human institutions the scientific enterprise is imperfect. However science has built in quality control mechanisms that make it a more reliable source of information than anything else we have.

As Einstein put it:

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

With that in mind let's define the global warming proposition or GWP.

"Human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing changes to climate that will have catastrophic consequences."

Question 1:

Has the GWP been proved beyond all reasonable doubt? Is it as solid as the second law of thermodynamics?

Plainly "no" as the IPCC acknowledges.

Question 2:

Does the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE point to the truth of the GWP?

ABSOLUTELY!

The usual critics here should bear that in mind. Looking at the evidence AS A WHOLE few can doubt that it MOSTLY supports the GWP.

Question 3:

Should we wait until the GWP has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt before committing trillions of dollars (literally) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Sadly the only way to prove the GWP beyond doubt is to run the experiment and see what happens. If we had a few planets to spare, that's what we'd do.

Question 4:

Does that mean we have to commit trillions of dollars DESPITE THE UNCERTAINTY?

YES!

In the real world we ALWAYS have to make important decisions under uncertainty.

In my 40 years in business I have NEVER had the luxury of being able to make an important decision where I had perfect knowledge.

Decisions about the GWP are no different.

Once again I need to ask critics to bear this in mind.

DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY IS THE NORM IN THE REAL WORLD.

Why pay any attention to much that is said anyway? Its all talk and 99% is rubbish.
Its a battle field in the media these days and there are thousands of bullets being fired by two sides.
One is Hollywood and the other are the scientists.
And both merge in the mind as being one after a while.
Its too much for the mind to look at.
The Holy Bible has the accurate viewpoint in everything ...this being confirmed by the Holy Spirit to Christs believers.
If mankind chops it all down, pumps it all up, shoots or fishes out evrything that moves, pollutes the air with foul fumes...and does nothiung to stop it....the planet is dead!
The scientists are become as vacant as stars and starlets.

A somewhat idealistic view of the scientific process.

Where to start...most of the peer reviewed science in climate change science is done by a small cadre of scientists, all linked to one another.

Most scientific papers are read by an average of approximately 6 people...including the reviewers.

Very few science papers attempt to challenge or invalidate a previous paper, as there is little kudos for confirming a previous scientists work.

Observational data in climate change is a joke. Poorly maintained equipment, badly flawed proxies and short periods of observations mean that most of the raw data is considered worthless. Almost every basic temperature measurement has been 'adjusted', often by many times the observed temperature anomaly. Coincidentally, most of the adjustments add to the current periods and take away from the past, creating a warming trend out of adjustments, not raw data. The satellite data is much more reliable as 'data', but exists for a too short time period, and doesn't cover the globe (so other adjustments must be made to get a 'global' temperature)

Computer models that do not factor in major natural contributors to climate are not useful, and do not match observed reality (and also use the badly adjusted data as their basis)...Rubbish in, rubbish out.

As for the ad hominim about links to exxon, perhaps the author should also look into the links that existed between James Hansen and Enron (another energy company that saw massive profit opportunities in the global warming hoax)

Thank you, stevenlmeyer, for you lucid comment.

In response to the Y2K threat the world invested 31 trillion dollars, the largest investment in any one enterprise in human history. Even now we don't know how real the threat was, but, thankfully, decision-makers had the prescience to know what may happen if nothing was done.

The curious notion that we should not act without absolute proof is just the latest straw being clutched by those in a state of climate denial.

I ask them, in reply: "If your doctor gives you a prognosis that you at extreme risk of dieing from heart failure unless you change your exercise and eating habits, what do you do?

1) Accuse him of scaremongering?

2) Tell him you won't act until he gives you absolute proof?

3) Take his advice seriously and act on it?

I know what I would do!

Geoff says "The most dramatic sign is a sudden acceleration of the rate of shrinkage of Arctic sea ice" to promote his perceptions of dramatic acceleration, of tipping points, chain reactions, of toppling of big dominos etc which is the language of alarmism based on this papal decree from the Goracle and an AGWer with diminished integrity, Hansen. This example by Geoff is hysteria-based and once again an example of "scientists" proclaiming something they know nothing about but then claiming it as proof of humans causing global warming.

When scientists (and i presume Geoff is one) opportunistically use such a short time frame of data to rely on, they should not make statements about hysterical arctic icemelts without some historical context. The fact that the ice is reforming at a record pace again as it did following the 1904 and 1944 major icemelts then there is no reason to assume it won't stay frozen for another 30 or 40 years. It is AGWers that, in trying to be the weathermaker, will either ignore or attempt to rewrite climate history. When political organisations like the IPCC attempt to cool the past and heat the present with their outcome based hockeystick strategies they deserve no respect.

We also need to be very careful with correlations. e.g. Tombstones are nearly always found near a dead body therefore one may conclude that tombstones are a leading cause of death. ........ Likewise a higher atmospheric CO2 is similarly linked to alarmist global warming stories where in fact there is no evidence of proof just incriminating evidence.