Thank you Ian on a well argued article. I wish politicians would start taking notice of people like you rather than just blindly believing the IPCC.

Speaking of blindly following, Sams in a previous post mentioned the Institution of Engineers Australia as a supporting body to the notion of global warming. As a fully paid up member of that group, I can advise other readers that the "support" is by no means by popular vote or peer review amongst the members, rather, the support has been unilaterly forced upon us by the management team. (Sound familiar? IPCC maybe?).

In the Institutions magazine, there are starting to be more letters to the editor requesting a more balanced approach to reporting on the science behind global warming, but the Hanson-esque type managment don't want a bar of it - they are signed-up, life member believers!!

I often wonder how many other learned institutions that "support" AGW have been railroaded by a management that does not represent the views of its members? - or have based their opinions solely on the IPCC reports, in which large cracks are forming almost every day?

Andrew S,

Thank you for your comment. Please see my post on the 'Poor countries' media must tackle climate change' article (OLO, 24 September).

Thanks Ian. I read the post you mentioned. "Sams" must be running out of ideas!

To give you an idea of the stance the Institution of Engineers are taking, here is a link to a media statement from the Institution.

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=582952C5-DB22-FEAC-FF46-2C59513EFC92&siteName=ieaust

The media statement basically says that the science of AGW is settled, Ross Garnaut is correct, so lets just get stuck into making Australia a low carbon economy (Which would be quite good for us engineers anyway - so there could be some vested interest there!)

However, Ross Garnauts report relies heavily on the IPCC report(s), which in turn, is based on inaccurate computer models and the whole report is looking dodgier every day.

What annoys me though (apart from having no say in the media release) is that as engineers, we are generally sceptical by nature and are always questioning and requiring proof for understanding and believing a concept, yet we seem to have rolled over completely on this matter!

If I produced a computer model that beared no resemblance to reality, (such as the IPCC models), I'd lose my job, or worse still, go to jail if an item I designed, based on a computer model, caused financial loss or in the worst case, injured or killed someone. Yet our friends at the IPCC can cause countries, such as ourselves, to risk our economy and completely change the way we live, over computer models that have not even predicted the downward trend in temperatures over the last 10 years. This really calls into question their scorching predications over the next century.

Keep up the good work. I think one day, there are going to be some very red faces! (And it won't be from high temperatures!)

Andrew S: "The media statement basically says that the science of AGW is settled"

Thanks for the link, but why chose to reinterpret the statement when you could have more easily just quoted from it:

"There is no more time for further debate about the remaining scientific uncertainties about climate change for formulating policy objectives."

To reinterpret that statement as "the science is settled" is dishonest.

Here is more:

"The overwhelming scientific observations and research that have established climate change as real and highly dangerous for generations to come is the catalyst for effective mitigation policies."

"Climate change will not wait for the convenience of policy makers, and the longer Australia and the world wait before implementing decisive action, the more difficult the problem becomes and the more difficult will be the action necessary."

Thanks for your comments, Sams, however, I feel you may be nit-picking.

The entire media release never once questions the validity of AGW, or calls for more research into whether AGW is a real problem, before we commit to completely changing our economy. IEAust have simply fallen into line behind Garnaut. As a minimum, I would expect such a scientific body to at least question the AGW science before throwing their full support behind Garnaut. (Remember, Garnaut is an economist, not a climate scientists).

I agree that the word "settled" is not expressly stated in the media release. However, neither are the words "need more proof", or "need for debate", or similar such statements. It seems their position is "settled" to me.

If this misled other readers, I appologise. I was certainly not trying to be dishonest.

Sams, the Institution of Engineers Australia base their support for AGW on the Garnaut Report, which in turn is based on the IPCC report. To include IEAust in your cut and paste list of "scientific" bodies that support AGW can also be construed as dishonest, since there is no climate reasearch or peer reviews done by IEAust. IEAust have simply joined the conga-line.

Also, if you don't believe that the IEAust are whole heartedly behind AGW (as you post suggests), then they definitely should not be on your list of supporters.

Either way, I suggest you remove IEAUST from your list before you cut and paste it in future. They are certainly not climate scientists and they are clearly followers, not leaders.

(It mightn't be a bad exercise for you to go through the other scientific bodies in your list to see how they arrive at their support - I bet the acronym IPCC comes up a lot).

Regards.

I don't know why you list engineering institutes and the Langley Centre anyway, Sams. I thought you only cared about "climate" scientists who publish in "peer" reviewed climate science journals. Some inconsistency there, I think.