Incidently, AEMO has now found that the SA premier was lying when he said that the windmills were not responsible for the blackout: they damn well were.

Just by way of clarification, there were in fact two 'studies' that came up with the 97% number. The first was the survey ttbn refers to where ~10000 were surveyed, ~3000 replied and then a mere 79 considered. ( If they used to full 3000 replies they would have got a much lower number than 97%).

The questions asked were:
1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
2. "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Most sceptical scientists would answer yes to these questions which is why the questions have been called flawed and why many of the 10000 didn't take part.

The other survey was a subjective analysis of 10000 or so articles published on global warming. This is the Cook study and has been comprehensively debunked. On one reading the results of this showed that less than 1% of articles explicitly endorsed the consensus view.

Hi mhaze,
Science rarely "explicitly endorses" anything. The scientific model is to try to falsify, not to confirm. If a series of properly rigorous scientific studies fail to show that a a particular interpretation is false, it is taken as a "paradigm", which can be reasonably assumed to be sound until something comes along that disproves it.

In some cases there are several ways to interpret results, in which case the scientific effort is made to try to narrow things down.

At no point does a scientist suggest that anything is settled, simply that the balance of probabilities falls one way or another.

I'm of the view that the earth's systems are too large and complex to be fully understood with current models, which is the view of virtually everybody who has any understanding of complex systems. However, some facts are not in dispute, so it makes sense to take a "worst case" interpretation until we know more.

Of course, for those might only have a few years left to live, or have a vested interest, short-term interest might predominate.

Think of the couple having sex in their car: if they happen to knock the handbrake off and the car starts rolling, the short-term reward of finishing the job might take precedence over stopping the car from rolling backwards over a cliff, although the afterglow might be spectacularly short-lived...

Craig,

When I used the term "explicitly endorsed" it was because the Cook paper also used that exact terminology.

"At no point does a scientist suggest that anything is settled"

So all those people, including the IPCC, who've been telling us that the science is settled aren't really scientists? Good to know.

Addressing your car bonking analogy....when the car rolls back maybe , rather than over a cliff, it'll end up in a daisy strewn meadow which might enhance the moment of ecstasy. Given that either result is a long way into the future, maybe they could continue to screw while occasionally checking the status of the car's movements and only engage in coitus interruptus if the cliff comes into distant view.

The really silly thing is they talk about consensus, which has nothing to do with science. Another thing is that many of the Left believe that scientists are not like we mere mortals, that they are incapable of lying, cheating, and defrauding for the own financial benefit. Some of the home truths that have come out about the climate scam should have disabused them of that idea, but that doesn't seem to have happened, and the rort continues.

I haven't read the report you refer to, mhaze, but I would be extremely surprised if any scientist anywhere has used the expression "the science is settled" with respect to some interpretation of evidence. The science may well be "settled" in terms of definitive facts, however. There is no dispute that CO2 absorbs near IR; there is no dispute that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere; there is no dispute that various streams of evidence point to an increase in CO2 dating from the widespread use of fossil fuels; there is no dispute that burning coal and oil causes CO2 to form.

Those are examples of things that are settled. There are lots of other things that are settled, however, the response of the earth's systems to the various stimuli is not yet settled and therefore the long-term impacts are not yet fully understood, which is another way of saying "not settled".

As for the couple in the car, if they are certain that there is nothing nasty that can happen if the car rolls away, then by all means they should let the fun continue. However, if they rely on landing in a pleasant meadow by chance without having made certain of where they're going, they'd best have a good insurance policy.

When was the last time you set out for somewhere new without having had a good look at the map?