Col Rouge,
As someone who has both IT and Business with dual majors qualifications and a lengthy career in management of same I agree with the IT axiom “Garbage In Garbage Out” (GIGO). However experience has taught me that this can be an over simplification of an issue.

In areas as complex as the Economy and the Weather it is almost impossible to create retrospective Model as you suggest because the circumstances and conditions at play then are both different and unknown. i.e. if science didn’t know about it they couldn’t measure it. The ADITIONAL unknowns (not collected at the time) would require a less accurate result. There are published examples where current models are credible.

Computer modelling of this type is best for indications, probable outcomes. Current thinking is that they’re results can be better than 80%. Not perfect, but good enough to be considered for PART of the equation. Much of this work has been peer reviewed and largely accepted under the above limitations.

I also agree with the more Scientific principle of a conclusions reflecting complete information. The perceived flaw in Climate change ‘nay sayers’ approach is they tend to run hard on ‘discrediting’ bits of the evidence as a tactic rather than compete appreciation for what the weight of ALL the evidence indicates. This is often agenda or bias driven. If someone dares point out the obvious scientific failings or scientific credibility of a nay sayers the response is injured pride and/or a patronizing attack.

I have challenged the ‘nay sayers’ to put up an alternative Scientifically accepted model that addresses ALL the know evidence. Thus far the challenge is unanswered. I would suggest both sides be more realistic,less aggressive and more factual about defending their OPINION.

FTR: I don’t claim any authority on the subject I advocate harm minimization.

BTW There there are other models out there.

Examinator “As someone who has both IT and Business with dual majors qualifications”

Me too

“ and a lengthy career in management

Me too

“I agree with the IT axiom “Garbage In Garbage Out” (GIGO). “

Me too

“However experience has taught me that this can be an over simplification of an issue.”

We have a 350 word limit here

So if you agree with me, why not say so in one word, rather than stretch it out over several paragraphs?

Examinator says .."I have challenged the ‘nay sayers’ to put up an alternative Scientifically accepted model that addresses ALL the know evidence."

The AGW hypothesis seeks to hide/distort/ignore/minimise/disprove at every opportunity natural climate change by trying to oh so zealously slot human CO2 emissions into the data. In their zeal too, it is AGWers that deny human CO2 release as good for people by enhancing the biosphere/environment.

As the proposer of this anthropocentric hypothesis it is not the non-AGWers' task to prove a negative by offering "anything new" because it is the AGWers that are required to constructively/positively prove it correct. This they haven't done in twenty years along with tens of billions in funding. I might suggest that they are never going to find proof for what is a paradox. This is pretty simple stuff to comprehend because that is how science works and quite naive of you, Examinator, to ignore.

Scientists can be just as venal or fool themselves as anyone else in the community, especially when chasing funding, but the simple fact remains that scientists survive professionally by determining causality else they cease to be scientists.

Col Rouge

No I don't agree with you! I agree with some of your premises but not your methodology, conclusion or the overtones of delivery. I took the time to explain what I meant your interpretation that we agree isn't based on what I said.
In essence, I said CONTEXT is the key when dealing with cumulative and nuanced (scientific) data, right or wrong determinations miss the point as do one word answers. THIS IS NOT A MANAGEMENT ISSUE IT IS A SCIENCE ONE.
I don't accept that business' confrontatious, expedient, minimalist, short-term perspective is valid in this log-term issue. Nor do I believe that Business' profits is our primary concern.

Ian Castles wrote: "I was formerly the Head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and am an elected member of the International Statistical Institute. As such I subscribe to the Institute’s Declaration of Professional Ethics, which holds that ‘A principle of all scientific work is that it should be open to scrutiny, assessment and possible validation by fellow scientists’. It urges particular attention to this principle when using computer software packages for analysis."

As a PhD-qualified former scientist I fully agree with that declaration. But I extend that to say that the proper place for scientists to report that scrutiny, assessment and validation (or not) is in the relevant peer-reviewed journals, in this case the journals of climate/atmospheric science.

When scientists opt for popular media instead of taking on their peer scientists, it warrants suspicion of their conviction, motives and the veracity of their results. Pons and Fleischmann and their the ill-fated cold fusion research results are a good example.

You should extend the argument further again, Sams. The proper place for 11 Australian scientists to have reported the findings of the first study of its kind in Australia was a peer-reviewed journal.

Unfortunately, their employing organisations chose to accept funding for the research from a Government which was in urgent need of some policy-based evidence (evidence-based policy being out of favour). They were therefore obliged to publish their research as an official report.

On 7 July the Minister for Agriculture said in a radio interview that 'to think that something that's only been happening every 20 to 25 years happening every year or two … is frightening.' He explained that 'The brief that I gave them [the scientists] was simply: "These droughts have been occurring every 20 to 25 years, can you tell us how often it's going to happen into the future?" They looked at the data, they did the scientific projections, and these are the answers' (http://www.maff.gov.au/transcripts/transcripts/july_2008/csiro-bom-climate-report).

It's too bad that many farmers were distressed at 'the answers' and made their feelings known to (for example) the NSW Farmers Federation, which received many calls from members 'who were extremely agitated, confused and upset about the reports of drought every second year in future' (see 'Farmers unhappy at CSIRO's 'alarmism'' at http://www.inquit.com/ ).

What happened to the Government's responsibility to exercise due diligence? The Minister acknowledged that they'd decided on increased funding for R&D for agriculture 'today' (7 July) 'in the light of the information WE RECEIVED YESTERDAY' ( http://www.maff.gov.au/transcripts/transcripts/july_2008/climate-change, emphasis added).

Your statement that 'When scientists opt for popular media instead of taking on their peer scientists, it warrants suspicion of their conviction, motives and the veracity of their results' reads as if the target of your criticism might be David Stockwell.

In my opinion, it is the CSIRO/BoM authors who deserve criticism. They knew the Government would trumpet their findings in the media but chose not to subject them to basic statistical tests and not to seek review comments from outside CSIRO/BoM. They now owe David Stockwell a response to his serious critique.