bigmal. I appreciate where you are coming from.
We are living in a cynical time.
Some GW "fanatics" are indeed turning this into a war and in war time there are profits to be made. Some have jumped on the GW bandwagon because it's trendy or the next "green" thing, some just for the business.
Don't think for a minute that it is *all* hype and BS though. Having read about climate science for many years and having an interest before it hit the spotlight I am finding that the level of BS about the facts, from both sides quite alarming.
Rather than approaching the truth, this political style ambit arguing is useless when it comes to complex real world issues. It is the tactics of power, not truth.
I don't like science and scientists being vilified because of what others do with their work, or due to gross ignorance of the actual science. At the moment a genuinely interested spectator would probably be forced to choose a "side" based on political alignment, because the public discussion is so far away from the real issues.
If there is real data and real science out there to be heard, it should not be drowned out by opinions of amateurs.
Plenty of time to argue about what to do, but first we need to see what is happening.
Reminds me of the story of a ship that ran aground because the lookouts were fighting over the telescope. We can be petty when we are safe. (Yes I know politics is child-level behavior. we can dream)

All this argument about the science. I would like to make a few comments and ask the scientists participating in this debate for their response.
Richard P Feynman said to a group of students in one of his published lectures that just because something wasn't scientific doesn't mean it is not true, only that it is not scientific.
Science, as I understand it, involves discovery by vigorous investigation by following certain rules. In the strictest sense it is the testing of a hypothesis against a null hypothesis to determine a degree of probability. Having done that the scientist has done his/her duty and it is then open to everyone to discuss the findings. The scientist is the detective, not the judge and jury.
Scientifically all things are probabilities until an event becomes actual. With the scientific evidence availably my view is that there is a global warming problem. But that is not a certainty. I trust that the scientist on both sides have done the best they can (but being a scientist is no guarantee of being free of bias).
One of the problems is that the weather pattern and the economy are chaotic systems and that means for practical purposes unpredictable at our level of understanding. For the scientist this is very difficult because not only does modelling fail but past data can be deceptive.
If you take a passage of weather patterns from part of the data it seems to indicate one thing, but take another passage of data and it indicates something else. Nobody knows for certain what it all means.
As an example for a short time recently the ocean currents stopped flowing. That is cause for real alarm if it is a trend but it may have been a one off event.
Scientists are the detective, not the judge and jury. We are placing too much pressure on scientists to play God and saviour, and negating our own responsibility to make the best choices we can from often confusing information.
As a final comment may I suggest cognitive dissonance as a substitute for denial?

Utter rubbish Graham. What more can I say? Were Lehman Bros' models - if indeed they really relied on models - pier reviewed? Were these models the same ones used by umpteen other institutions that have now gone to the wall or have had to be bailed out? Are you an economist, a scientist engaged in a field relative to the climate change debate or both? Are you neither of these? What is your motif for your campaign against the now well recognized body of evidence in support of climate change?

You are right Graham.

Physicists and mathematicians truely are a weird bunch.

My son who has a degree in applied science, mathematics and a few of his mates I were enjoying an evening of tv together. During one program a joke was told.

'Physics student: Did you hear about the farmer whose chickens wouldn't lay eggs. He employed a physicist to report.

Maths student: What happened?

Physics student: The physicist reported the chickens layed eggs but they needed to be spherical and kept in a vaccum.

Besides the actors my son was the only one to laugh.

I laughed at his reaction. He said it was a very funny joke but he was surprised I had laughed so hard at it.

I explained the reason for my laughter and he explained the joke. That took 30 very interesting minutes ... I still don't know why it was funny.

That I took as typical of physicists and Mathematicians? Why would anybody trust them?

Kulu “What is your motif for your campaign against the now well recognized body of evidence in support of climate change?”

Would that be a similar “body of evidence”

to the “body of evidence” which was used to describe a certain group of executives as

“the smartest men on the room”

A decade ago?

Nothing is certain about climate change, least of all the modeling.

History would suggest “climate” is in a constant state of “flux” (change)

But the causes for such change are non-specific and speculative

Keith I understood your sons joke… very good… doubtless he also has something to say about bumble-bees

It's funny that you mention bumblebees Col, because that old stupidity about them not being supposed to be able to fly started with a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Weird.