Computer modelling cannot possibly be accurate because we don't know all the variables which affect climate or how they interact.At best it is an educated guess.We could not get the world economy right knowing full well the effect of too much credit.We rely on so called economic experts who are often wrong,yet see scientific experts as being the word of God and thus infallible.There is a real disconnect here between logic and reality,which many stubbornly refuse to see.

RobP and Arjay
Are you saying in your posts that modelling is useless for chaotic systems (I hope that I got that summary right)? If it is what you are saying I agee.
Beyond that is the best we can do is to make a subjective assesmsnt of the risk of doing nothing as apposed to doing something?
What we do know is that every little thing we do will have an effect on the outcome even if we do not know what that outcome will be. At least lets understand that whatever guess we make it is a guess and keep mindless dogma out of it.

Graham… I hold a similarly skeptical view of computer modeling as you and have given voice to my skepticism repeatedly on this site, much to the annoyance of the AGW zealots.

I base my skepticism not on any paucity of experience but, similar to yourself, on the experience of three decades of working, still currently, with computer models (most currently my major client still does not understand when I tell them it takes a while to “shake-down” and shake-out” the anomalies and miss-assumptions and errors in the multi-entity business model I am putting together for them) and I work in an environment which has modeled for centuries (Accounting) the affairs of commercial undertakings.
GIGO remains the issue: a bad projection of future “Sales” activity translates to a garbage cash forecast.
And

Like you say - “As a result, we in the West are caught up in an environmental bubble economy where everyone is spruiking climate change.”

“How much will it cost to clean-up the AGW modelling mess in the world?”

Less, if sanity prevails and we steer a course which addresses the root problem, “population explosion” instead of dancing around pruning the limbs of personal liberty and individual choice.

Taswegians ‘cause and effect’ offers an interesting perspective, want to think more on that

I think what could be another contributor (I suspect it is multi-causal)

The exploding growth in superannuation / 411 funds desperately looking for investment returns, the “real business world” not being able to satisfy the demand, leading to the spin-merchants inventing what amounts to little more than a ponzi scheme to mop up that spare cash –

now is that not what Bernard Madoff was doing?

Breakfast awaits will return later….

Having returned from breakfast and read the rest of the responses may I humbly compliment you all for your skeptical insight.

Not slight intended in not referring to every one of them
Daveiy “That is all the modelling that can be done. In both cases the extent of the problem is unknowable so it all comes back to a subjective assessment of risk.”

Absolutely agree

Curmudgeon “Yet we are basing major government policy on these models
without nailing down that basic point.”

Spot on

And

“Financial models have been shown to be wrong frequently by circumstances. the real surprise is that many professionals were surprised.”

Agree at one level, disagree at another,

it depends on how well the modeler and the professionals understands what is being modelled.

Imho, based on my direct experience, most bankers have little understanding of accounting and most CEOs, whilst being able to eloquently address concerns over EBIT, still grapple with the simplest of balance sheets.

Boethius’s early warnings of the dangers beckoning anyone thinking of dealing in any carbon credits futures market .

Mil-observers valuable highlighting of eminent scientific detractors of AGW and their scientific opinions

Rob P and Arjay both identifying the short comings of modeling anything, the selective limitation of variables when no real significance or interrelationship has been thoroughly assessed.

So fella’s where to from here..

And to add to what Graham is asking (how much will it cost to clean up the AGW mess)

How do we re-route the train off the tracks of AGW, without overturning it completely ?

Have been researching CC for over a year now and still can't make much sense out of the debate. Seems to be more common sense in this forum than all the rest put together, good stuff. A wise old mentor I once knew said to me when trying to break out of circular and emotive debates, "follow the money!"

In relation to the ETS, What is it? what does it do? Who uses it? What are the benefits?

What is it? It is a legislative framework for charging carbon emitters for the privalidge.

What does it do? It transfers funds from carbon emitters to the government.

Who uses it? Governments.

What are the benfits? More money goes into general revenue for possible distribution to approved recipients.

Conclusion; if it looks like a tax and smells like a tax, it probably is a tax.

"Are you saying in your posts that modelling is useless for chaotic systems (I hope that I got that summary right)? If it is what you are saying I agee.

Beyond that is the best we can do is to make a subjective assesmsnt of the risk of doing nothing as apposed to doing something?"

Daviy,

You could accurately model a chaotic system, but only if you knew what the "equation" was that governed the system's behaviour. This is the bit we don't know, because our experience and knowledge just isn't good enough. So, it's very easy for experts to do their modelling based on the wrong model as Col rightly points out. (The great thing about peer review, is that if a prominent scientist does get it wrong, the whole scientific field will know about it and learn from the error.)

Beyond that, the best thing I think humans can do is to look carefully and objectively at the observed data (not the derivatives as they could already be contaminated by incorrect assumptions) and look for trends, anomalies and indicators etc that might be pointing to important links and relationships between variables.

The term "risk assessment" is bandied around a bit too much for me. It's what people say when they are only positioning themselves. It's no substitution for the real work that needs to be done.

Once a promising way forward has been found, there have to be some bold moves taken. For example, Louis Pasteur took a big risk in treating a rabies patient with a vaccine. If he had failed, his whole career and works would have come down, but if he had nothing the patient would have died like all the others before.

So, at some point, a leader has to take the reins (and the risks) and have a go at fixing the problem.