Q n A said Science does not work in absolutes (although we can get damn well close).

I guess that is why Mathematics is regarded as Pure Science?

Yes, naivey daviy. Your bottom line is not very deep. CO2 apparently equals unclean. Only if your breath is bad. The worst that can happen from socialist enviro policies is too horrible to imagine.

Q&A: "Too many people want to curb research into climate change..."

Who?

"A lot of effort is being made to debunk AGW...because IF it is wrong, we can save a lot of money and a lot of anguish."

And perhaps a lot of lives and unnecessary suffering.

"But just wishing it were not true doesn't make it so."

Wow, really? And, sorry, wishing or denying? Denial is something deeper than just wishing it were not so. A clear example of the misuse and agenda-driven misappropriation of the term. I, for one, am not just wishing, but following the debate that fundamentalists try to tell us is over.

"Unfortunately, the more research that is being done, the more robust previous findings have become."

Not from the evidence I see. Shouldn't the temp have risen by about 0.3 degrees in the last decade? Oh right, La Nina, which was apparently overlooked previously by the climate forecasters?!

cont...

...cont

Q&A: "Also unfortunately, some people want absolute 100% certainty before they will act or acknowledge we (humanity) have a problem. Following their arcane logic, nothing will ever get done and progress will never be made."

Actually, it is those who comprehend the uncertainties of decision making who are likely to make the most educated and properly risk-assessed decisions, which always involve costs and benefits. They also have to bear the responsibility of mistakes, something the climate industry has shown great unwillingness to do.

"Obama will be investing in more effort to understand the science because the ramifications of not knowing, doing nothing, denying action, or sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the very real risks of climate change (national/international instability; food, water and energy resource stress; environmental and ecological degradation, etc) are far too high."

President elect to the rescue! I would say the risks of inappropriate responses to climate scare mongering are similar to those described. It is fundamentalists who stick their heads in the sand, and deny contrary evidence.

"Remember, scientists will get more kudos (and funding dollars) if they can knock AGW out of the water - a fact the 'deny-n-delay' brigade don't seem to comprehend, let alone understand"

So what you predict will happen is now "fact". Very telling.

oh, and the d-n-d brigade thing, nice catchphrase. How many times you used it now? Aye carumba!

Enjoy your carbon-neutral Xmas puddings which I saw on the news tonight. What a shame we don't have supercomputers that can predict the rise in mumbo-jumbo over the coming century.

Col Rouge,

Yep.

The resident moron is back to his old tricks of attacking those people he dislikes without bothering to express an opinion of his own. As usual, he is the one who is unable to understand the simple, written word. He still insists on "denialist", for example.

Yes, there is lots of uncertainty...
We *might* be headed for an ice age except for GW, and it *might* flip us into a state resembling Venus...ie. Runaway Greenhouse.
The uncertainty goes both ways: Scientists can only release results that are conservative, so the more radical scenarios are not releasable until the data can be said to back them up. Recent events in Greenland, Antarctica and most glaciers have supported and thus made publishable the more extreme, and more worrying predictions.
Of more concern still is the Methane levels: Static until recently, they are now surging in response the the Arctic tundra thawing. This "tipping point", having past will take the situation completely out of human control.
As a political pessimist I believe we have to deal with climate change. It is probably too late to stop it.
Folks, if you wait for science to get serious enough for politicians to take notice you are *way* too late! Forget mitigation: we are not scrambling for profit. (How sad we are.)

Fungo, I gree with you when you say;

“Actually, it is those who comprehend the uncertainties of decision making who are likely to make the most educated and properly risk-assessed decisions, which always involve costs and benefits. They also have to bear the responsibility of mistakes”

BINGO! ... Welcome to the UNFCCC and the IPCC process!

I disagree vehemently when you continue ... “something the climate industry has shown great unwillingness to do.”

"Climate change industry"? Can you please be more erudite?

Are you talking industries that Andrew Bolt, Bob Carter, David Evans, 'denialist' blog-sites, etc are investing in?

Or the industries involved with renewable energy, agricultural resources, food producers, etc ... "actually", any business with a capacity to be innovative and forward thinking?