Odo

"Then why is the uncertainty never admitted, this is the first I have seen from anyone on the AGW believer side that there is doubt about the measurements - usually they are defended feriously. That's what concerns a lot of skeptics, the lack of openness and the defence to the death in the face of what many of us see is reality."

Uncertainty is ALWAYS admitted, at least in the scientific papers that are published in reputable journals and in the IPCC reports. Surely, you must have seen error bars or confidence levels in such papers and reports?

Yes, results are defended "ferociously" until they can be shown to be in error - that is how science works. Indeed, there is much "debate" in the scientific community about attribution and climate sensitivity, but the results are very robust in favour of AGW, believe it or not.

Odo, there is a lot of "openness" - you are just not looking in the right places. The blogosphere and main stream media op-eds is rife for opinions, but that is all they are. If you (or anyone) don't like the IPCC methods of reporting the technical papers, please ... suggest a better way of collating and disseminating the findings of the 1000's of published and peer reviewed scientific papers.

Q&A I could have been more specific there - I meant, no one admits uncertainty or doubt on these forums, all we get are in your face accusations of stupidity for not "believing" the consensus, and insults for not siging up to group think.

"Surely thousand of scientists support this so it must be true", type statements. Needless to say to you that of those thousands of paper, many are by the same author and many are not research into climate change, but to effects, such as the recent paper here on OLO, "'Evergreen agriculture' wins for climate and hunger".

Most of the posters seem not to understand as you do, that all the papers they refer to are caveated with doubt, uncertainty and error, but they still thrash skeptics about the head with them.

Which leaves many of us - skeptical, not just of the science but of the motives of the thrashers, (as is Chris Monckton.)

A better way to addres the community of non climate scientists, yes - when you see errors in newspaper articles or posts on forums like this, it is your duty if you are a scientist in this field to correct ALL misconceptions, not just the ones you feel don't help your particular case.

A better way to deseminate information, no, I struggle in my own narrow little field to stay abreast. I do think the climate science field is in trouble though, regardless of what you and Geoff say or do, the perception is out there now that your field is not completely upright - rightly or wrongly, you guys have been overly clever and have hitched your wagon to the IPCC, if they come under doubt, so do you - pity that it is.

Those of you on this thread who live in Brisbane might like to go to this debate http://brisinst.org.au/event-details.php?event_id=625 on the 29th Jan. It features Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer, Barry Brook and Graham Redfearn.

At $130 a head it is expensive, but you might get your chance to have a shot at both Plimer and Monckton. Or those on the other side might like to take aim at Brook or Redfearn.

Q & A says
"If you (or anyone) don't like the IPCC methods of reporting the technical papers, please ... suggest a better way of collating and disseminating the findings of the 1000's of published and peer reviewed scientific papers."

Thats not hard at all old son,try these ten only suggestions for improving the IPCC process:

1. All those involved are required to sign a Declaration of Interests Document, as is standard practice elsewhere. This would apply to all;
• Members of the IPCC Board, including the Chairman.
• Lead authors and contributors.

2. No one is to be involved in any matter, or subject of discussion and evaluation, where a conflict or potential conflict may arise. They would be required to leave the room, and not be involved by any other means.

3. No assessment/discussion of any selected Peer Reviewed paper (by any Journal) may be undertaken and adjudicated upon, when any of the authors involved are present.

4. Any paper that has been rejected for further considerations as part of the IPCC assessment process should be identified, and the reason for rejection published.

5. Dissenting reports are permitted.

6. A new Board of the IPCC be created, and a new Chairman selected/appointed.

7. The HQ office and support facilities are relocated to another country, not in Europe.

8. Support staff to be turned over, with at least 30% of new appointments made.

9. SPM to be written after the Technical Evaluations have been completed, and signed off by all senior scientists involved.

10. Scientists who have received money in the last 10 years from any oil or coal company are to be precluded.Similarly greeny NGOs are to be completely excluded from the process.

There, that should solve every ones problems. Whats the betting that the outcome and advice is totally different.

If no changes whatever are made, then the next assesment is doomed before it starts by having zero credibility.

Feel free to add your own.

Would Q&A or Keith Davies care to explain how CO2 acts as an amplifier? Now we know how a catalyst in chemical reaction enhances their union,but no one it seems can explain the exact mechanism by which CO2 does this magical trick.How does it excite all the other atmospheric molecules to retain heat energy?

Perhaps CO2 is the sexiest gas on the planet.It not only gets the humans excited but has the rest of atmosphere on heat as well. Jennifer Marohasy's T shirt "I Love CO2" may be a prelude of bigger things to come.

I think Arjay's questions are important, since they question the basic science. (Arjay, have you used Google Advanced Scholar? A very basic explanation is here
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html--and I don't mean to insult you by suggesting you start there.)

Bushbunny, you remark about the earth being colder without CO2 relies on exactly the science that Arjay wants to know about. Can you help him--and me?

Geoff Davies, could you use your access to scientific data bases to point us to the science, which I understand has been well-established for many decades, concerning the greenhouse effect--I don't mean the statistical stuff supporting views about recent warming, but the old material about the way the earth is kept warm?
Thank you.