Big mal,
Who is Steve McIntyre what are his qualifications experience etc?
The abstract is dated and leaves doubts about methodology. But then again this proves my point that there will always be doubt in scientific conclusions.

Now you read my site the two main people are profs of Climate and have a peer reviewed paper in Nature. A peer review publications search shows that these two have higher standing academic standing in the topic of Climatology. What does this ultimately show ? Your guess is as good as mine. I’m claim to particular expertise in Climatology or Modelling theory over than I’ve cut code in business modelling.

If you read the site you will find other climatologists discussing this issue and they agree their are problems but make the same point I did.

I understand the perception that if the modelling is deficient therefore AGW is too. To me the issue isn’t tat cut and dried.
All I was saying was that GY's argument seemed to be:

Seemed to be linking all modelling in one big bucket which is misleading.
• Making Lehman’s failure due to primarily to modelling failure therefore AWG modelling failures are the same cause and effect which isn’t true. Modelling is but one minor aspect in the conclusion i.e. AGW
• ‘Throwing the baby out with the bath water’. There is far more to AGW than questionable modelling results.
• Seemed to be pushing the commonly held fallacy that science is cut and dried an if it's not then it's trash.
As to me believing in AWG I admit I do with reservations BUT I don’t believe the sceptic/denialists modis opperandi of wait until the science is bullet proof is sensible/prudent. There are also other pragmatic interwoven issues that add to my disquiet to ’business as usual’ attitude.
If you have better insights i.e. Skills in climatology I welcome your comments.

It is beyond me how AGW believers constantly label people who want to see scientific proof as skeptic/deniars.Most true scientists are skeptics.The scientific community itself is divided on the influence of CO2.There is no real dispute about the fact we are causing some climate change,it is a matter of degree and what is really causing it.

Penny Wong just the other day bagged a new Australian concept of capturing carbon and said that she would not be financing on the grounds of it being unproven science.If Ms Wong truely believed in the influence of Co2 why did she not at least investigate an Aust concept?

This is exactly what AGW in relation to carbon is,unproven science;yet Penny Wong is willing to destroy an economy on the basis of her own flawed argument.Stupendously illogical.Are the lunatics running the asylum?

RobP
My understanding is that chaotic systems can be pridictive if 1) the exact value of every factor is know at the exact moment the model is started and 2) and the formulae is know precicely for every single factor at the exact moment the the model is started. 3) Every step of the model must be run because each step relies on the step before. Other may (and probably do) know more about choas than I do. Theoretically modelling may be possible for weather and economy in the future but at this time it is not practical. When I am talking about economic modelling I am not talking about interest rate and future value equations that sometimes get passed of as 'modeling'
Forget the dogma and false assertions. We do not know what the outcome will be. See my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8341 if you are interested in my full arguement.
Basically we do not know but we have choices. Doing nothing is a choice and so is doing something. This is democracy at work? We have choices, we make them, that is what we do. At the moment the vote seems to be going the way of cleaning up the planet. If cleaning up the planet is 'wrong' we will never know. If doing nothing is wrong we will know, but it will be too late.

Penny Wong assured us two years ago that " the science is settled". Dear me. Boethius.

bushbasher: I don't enjoy stating the irony, but your "neither here nor there" response smacks of flippant dismissal or even "denial".

I do not re-send those quotes merely to muddy the waters with some polarization of common garden "scientific debate". Those quotes amount to DISSENT, whether we call it political, professional or academic dissent, it is a case of professional, experienced scientists claiming to recognize falsehoods and fraud on a large scale. It is not some hand-wringing dispute about whether the models really work, or whether the ice-core samples and meteorological balloons have been studied properly, etc. The quotes represent open DISSENT and, despite their courage and integrity, those who made these quotes have been accorded relatively little recognition, publicity and authority in the public, policy, and budgetary contexts.

Young's article does not, by my reading, depict such a generalized community of scientists at all; point out the quotes for me if you still disagree there.

You cannot deal with these cases of stern, open and unambiguous dissent - for which my above quotes are but mere samples - except by making inevitably politicized claims about the self-interest or vested interests behind those quoted. Of course, any such claims must involve allegations of unethical or corrupt conduct, reinforcing this debate's overwhelmingly political context.

Therefore, your generalized assertions about "scientists" and some presumed consensus around AGW have very little credibility in the face of such clear professional and/or political dissent.

mil-observer, if you so, so little enjoy to state the irony (?), it might be best to wait for occasions when there is irony to state. i neither dismissed nor denied your quotes. one of them, to the extent i could, i expressed agreement with. your quotes were just no help to young.

"You cannot deal with these cases of stern, open and unambiguous dissent - for which my above quotes are but mere samples - except by making inevitably politicized claims about the self-interest or vested interests behind those quoted."

huh. i thought i did exactly that. saying that i respect the majority of denial scientists wasn't enough of a clue? if there are claims of falsehood, i'm willing to have the scientists fight it out.

but you cannot cavalierly join "fraud" and "falsehood". you cannot equate academic dissent with a charge of fraud.

i know of no evidence of fraud, and more importantly i know of no evidence that any particular case of fraud delegitimizes the whole field. two of your quotes suggest nothing of the sort. i have no idea what le blanc-smith is charging, or what is his evidence for that charge.