The problem with climate change science is that it is bloody difficult. As a layman, I have followed a number of blog discussions amongst scientists about the validity of the science and I could not tell for the life of me what they were talking about.

The layperson really has no hope of fully understanding the science, which is why we have bodies like the IPCC and people like Pilmer to do the heavy lifting for us.

Unfortunately, nothing can be done about climate change unless Joe Public gets on board, so we have a situation where we all take the IPCC conclusions as an article faith, and work from there to cut emissions.

We really don't have any choice but to rely on the "consensus" position of the scientific community. I just hope the scientific community gets it right.

It may be time for all those posting on this subject to take a few deep breaths and contemplate this little bit of wisdom from Thomas Colvin,boat designer,builder and voyager.

(1)If anything can go wrong,it will go wrong.

(2)When left to themselves things always go from bad to worse.

(3)If there is a possibility of several things going wrong,the one that will go wrong is the one that will do the most damage.

(4)Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

(5)Mother nature is a bitch

(6)If everything seems to be going well,you have obviously overlooked something.

Hence,Colvin's Law of the Six Ps - Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance,Possibly.

The Global warming junket is wholly attributed to one Mr Albert Gore – back in the eighties when he became Vice President – The paper trail is very thick and abundant.
It was made clear then that if you do not agree with the recommendations and the Conclusions set before them, and provides adequate summarisation and equations that suit that conclusion- : Then you were made redundant and or defunded.

It is a notion that has existed in Academia for about 50 years, and it sharply relates to the structure of scientific revolution – Revolution is the Bullet word here.

David stove answers the question – and how it has become the Sociology study of Science – and Not Deductive notions of study and findings.
“Essay Replicated Here-“

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/139/

And if anyone has some spare time , and to read the following Guttenberg Reproduction of a book in the late 18th century ;, to illustrate what I have indicated how corrupt the Academic and Political Circle has become;- It is a extencive lesson in Geophysics and Geology you will not forget in a hurry ;- The search for the Lost island of Atlantis is a side marker , Note and understand the Geophysics involved and recounted-
They only had books and notes – we have Computers and servers – Why have we become so dumb?
Enjoy;

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4032

O'toole's commentary on Murphy's law:
MURPHY WAS AN OPTIMIST!

This is all rather simple Plimer has worked with creationist and new agers for years he knows as well as anybody that there is one born every minute. Writing a book rather than say a paper for a science journal is a sure fire way of knowing that he is in it for the money and more likely for him the notoriety. Plimer has a history of trying to get his name into the press, what do they call it, relevance depredation. Quite apart from what this supposedly neutral reviewer say there has been plenty of dissenting voices in the scientific journals, the fact is the evidence is on the side of the AGM’ers. Get over it Plimer has turned into his own nightmare. He is telling the rest of us that the science community is involved in a giant hoax to secure funding or world domination, that scientist cannot be trusted, now where have we heard that before. All the author has done with this book is make a bit of money, got his face on the tell one last time, and joined the ranks of the creationist, flat Earthers, AIDS or holocaust deniers that live on the fringe of science and society.

Thanks Bushbasher,

Here are some links to perspectives on the debate and the publishing event. Should anyone wonder about my position, I tend toward Science Magazine (published by AAAS) for the majority of my evidence , analysis and policy information on global warming.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/20/plimers-heaven-and-earth-a-conservative-coup/
Very funny, especially the end paragraphs about Peirs Ackerman, who is also very entertaining on "Insiders", every Sunday morning.

http://novakeo.com/?p=3931
provides an entry to the reviews and rebuttals of the Tenured Dr Plimer's latest opus, written by folks who are not so consumed by monomania that they need a periscope to view the world from the depths of their own back passages; or who are at least able to stay mainly on topic in what they consider to be a science-based debate.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/environmentclimate/
"Breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy", which is OK if you have enough sense not to confuse science policy with scientific evidence-gathering