Fickle Pickle says - "The climate change models say things like 'If carbon dioxide levels increase by x% then it is likely that temperatures will rise by y degrees and will continue to rise'."

Fickle Pickle then develops the argument further with - "The prudent person may come to the conclusion that it is highly likely that it will make a difference detrimental to his or her wellbeing."

Prudence may be an admirable quality, but it does not assure solid science.

The prudent fool may come to such a conclusion, because the fool is gullible in believing things beyond the fool's own life experiences and knowledge. However, the prudently wise will question the parameters and make value judgments based on personal prudent experience and established evidence.

Prudence alone is no guarantee of sound judgment.

The prudently wise will ask questions like -

Where is the evidence that increasing 'x' causes increases in 'y'?
How does such a physical/meteorological mechanism work?
Could it be that it works the other way around, an increase in 'y' causes an increase in 'x'?
Where is all the evidence for all of this?

In answer, presently, the only real evidence available to the prudently wise is a smidgen of gathering science that suggests that the IPCC modeling is completely wrong.

The prudently wise will proceed with caution and continue to question the data.

A point of clarification: Fickle Pickle, Sunday, 28 June 2009 7:14:43 AM incorrectly identifies me, Ian READ, the author of this article, with Ian REED, presumably a climate modeller. Fickle Pickle states that he/she too is a modeller. Fickle, I think you have missed the point of my article that deals, in part, about the accuracy of inputs into models, and that outputs may be used as data, especially in the SRES models.

You also suggest prudence regarding your advocacy for a reduction in GHG emissions even without positive proof of its effect. Perhaps you could answer this: given that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a fraction of the annual natural CO2 emissions, that anthropogenic CO2 behaves exactly the same way as naturally emitted CO2 in the atmosphere in terms of ‘greenhouse effect’, that both natural and anthropogenic CO2 are reabsorbed within a 3 to 12 year time period (this time frame is supported by about 90% of all the peer-reviewed literature) and that, in part, anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed locally by vegetation, then this raises questions about how effective globally or locally applied emissions trading schemes (ETS) will be in reducing current and future anthropogenic CO2 levels equivalent to a proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 levels emitted in the year 2000 (or 1990, as is sometimes quoted).

During the author’s research the greatest reduction he could find, assuming a globally applied ETS, was the indeterminate ‘several’ ppm of total atmospheric CO2, in other words, a reduction from the current (at the time of writing) 387ppm to, approximately, 380ppm. Given that an ETS is designed to only reduce anthropogenic CO2 and not the 50% to over 90% (depending on the reference) of natural CO2 outgassed from oceans or transpired by plants then what difference will an ETS make?

My apologies to the other Ian. To the author of this article Ian Read I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of the models. I am arguing that we know that burning fossil fuels puts "stuff" into the atmosphere. We know that if we put "stuff" into the atmosphere then it will have an effect. It may be benign or it may be detrimental to our overall well being.

What I am proposing is that if we have alternative ways of generating energy that does not put "stuff" into the atmosphere then it is prudent to use the alternative way and not get into arguments about the rights or wrongs of a particular climate model.

We can generate energy in ways that have a lower impact on the atmosphere. We can do it in ways that will increase our overall economic wealth and so the prudent and economic rational approach is to go that route as quickly as we can.

People think that doing something about burning fossil fuels is going to impose an unacceptable economic burden. I am saying that we can stop burning fossil fuels and at the same time increase our economic well being by increasing our overall wealth. If this is the case then let us stop using the rights or wrongs of climate models as an excuse for inaction.

I think I have twigged why politicians are so hell bent on emmission
control and reducing CO2.
They have been told the models predict the dangerous warming of the planet.
That feeds directly into their previous experience with economic models.
Therefore the AGW proponents must be right as their experience with
economic models has been quite reasonable.

Their understanding is faulty, even though a computer modeling total
non expert like me can see the near impossibility of predicting the
temperature range in 50 to 100 years.
The politicians are univerally out of touch with reality.

Fickle Pickle; it will be much cheaper to pay for mitigation as it
happens if AGW is real.
I wonder if it will be possible to sue for the return of taxes when
AGW is proved to be false, hmmm.