One of the interesting phenomena of our times is the parallel between euroscepticism and what the warmists choose to call "global warming denial": those that are antagonistic towards the European Union also tend to disbelieve the hype on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

On the other side of the divide, there is also a close relationship between europhilia and belief in AGW, the EU having enthusiastically embraced the dogma of the warmist religion, not least because of the opportunities it affords to pursue the integrationalist agenda.

View full article here

In the course of my life I tend to steer well clear of biblical homilies as they are not applicable to my life, however, in the matter of Hansen, he being a true believer, he will understand the significance of John 11-50

http://bible.cc/john/11-50.htm

Amen to that, brother.

How should we do him? Fried or boiled? Or just nail his head to the floor?

Presumably any correspondence between believing the hype about AGW and being a supporter of the EU is simply because those of a statist disposition will tend to believe state propaganda, whatever it may be.
There is, of course, a distinct difference between hype and serious research into the climate, but I should point out that I am biased due to working on a climate research project (as well as being an EU-sceptic).

That's interesting, Knirrir.

So how does the wind blow with you? Can we take it you're an AGW sceptic? Or at least holding judgement off?

My doctorate is not in physics and I know too little about the science to make to be sure myself, but in this case I tend to trust what my colleagues have to say on the matter and to not believe anything I might hear from politicians. In general I'd agree with Tim Worstall that scientists are probably right, but should stick to the science and leave the policy to economists. Our climate models indicate that there will be a small temperature increase over the next century, although the fact that climate models show this is by no means proof. Having said that, the fact that many people don't like climate models doesn't show that they are worthless.

It may interest readers that some people who advise on policy (not that I know many) are very disappointed there there is little or no free-market answer to how to deal with AGW (if it is indeed happening); everything seems to have been left to statists, greens and socialists. The typical answer from the "right" is that it's not worth worrying about because it's all a Marxist lie - but what if the scientists are right? They do tend to know more about science than anyone else.

1. As is war too important to be left to the generals, science is too important to be left to scientists.

2. Anyone who maintains that "the science is settled" is not a scientist. Therefore, most AGW advocates, even those who claim scientific qualifications, are not scientists. They are religious zealots.

3. Religion, as far as is possible, should be kept out of science ... and politics.

4. The purpose of science is to provide data, information and explanations, not to determine policy.

5. In any event, we are not dealing with science here - we are dealing with "uncertainty". This is primarily a political domain which, in a democracy, concerns (or should concern) everyone.

6. When scientists start claiming primacy in the political domain, they should be reminded of their places and put firmly back in their boxes.

7. How can you tell whether the (real) scientists are right? Which scientists? And what weight do you accord to different shades of scientific opinion?

8. What if the (most voluble) "scientists" are wrong?

Ross McKittrick has proposed a variable carbon tax that kicks in only to the extent tropical troposphere temperatures actually rise, i.e. only if the warmists are right. See also a more recent article by him.

There is extensive discussion of McKittrick's ideas on Climate Audit.

It's a nice sounding sound-bite, but considerably flawed. In the case of war one should leave the fighting of battles to generals but the decision as to whether to fight and when to seek peace to the politicians. In the case of science, let the scientists do the research, which will determine the "facts", and let the economists (for example) deal with how we are to act based on those facts.



Whenever scientists say that something is settled it means that all the evidence we have points towards a particular conclusion. It is still possible that more data could come along to change this.



I couldn't agree more.



Again, I agree. That is exactly what we are doing.
Of course, it is very convenient for the political class if there is a perception that policy is driven by scientists. Then, if we have the good fortune to be proven wrong, we can be shown to not only be incompetent but also wicked and thus deflect the blame.



Your first sentence makes no sense. It is rather difficult to say that something is 100% certain, and scientists are well aware of this.



I'm not sure to what you are referring here.



By the usual method - keep researching and checking their findings.


[/quote]

Then a mechanism exists to prove them wrong, sooner or later (see the answer to 7).

N.B. I am not receiving e-mail notifications on this thread (I found it hard enough to register) and so I am not likely to be able to respond in a hurry. Assuming, of course, that I actually want to.

Thanks, I'll take a look when I have a moment.

It makes perfect sense - rather it seems you are not aware of the issue ... read this. It is not a matter of there being uncertainty - it is how you manage it. And massaging the data to reduce the level of uncertainty, ignoring it or pretending it does not exist are not acceptable options.

Hi K, unfortunately scientists need grants, which they get by saying what the people who give grants want to hear.
The hypothesis that CO2 drives the Earth's temperature is simply wrong as the ice-cores prove. Atmospheric CO2 lags global temperature by a few hundred years, not once (because we all know that correlation does not prove causation don't we) but repeatedly through seven (? ) Ice Ages.

This proves that effin about with CO2 will have NO effect on Global temperature,
and unless someone offers me an huffin' great grant that opinion is non-negotiable.

Climate models attempt to simulate a complex chaotic process using simplistic assumptions and data that can only be called patchy, which is why error bars are so whimsical in climate science. Unfortunately mathematical modelling is actually just reiteration over many cycles which plays havoc with the error bars of the input data.

I could draw a cartoon of the Queen, in my cartoon she wins the Olympic 100m. How much credibility do you give my prediction that the Queen will win the Olympic 100m? How can you trust a simplistic, reiterative model of of an intrinsically chaotic system that is being fed with patchy presumed data any further than the cartoon?

Yep, spot on, Richard. Especially as we now have evidence that GISS are, in some cases, simply making the figures up.

http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/07/purv ... e-way.html

Knirirr, Sandy is right about her whimsical cartoon of the Queen.

Computer programs have a nasty habit of showing what the programmer WANTS them to show. Even something as simplistic and straightforeward as an accounting program is biased by the programmer. For instance, how and when money amounts are rounded up or down to the nearest dollar (or pound or euro) amount can make the difference in producing a huge hunk of funding for the firm when those stray bits of change are rounded to advantage. A change amount of 32 cents rounded down to the nearest dollar is insignificant to individual accounts, but when spread across 100,000 accounts, adds up to $3,200, or a new laser printer for the office.

So starting at that point, knowing that something as obvious as an accounting program can be and usually IS biased by the programmer, you can safely arrive at the basic logic that something as complex as a climate model, with so many unanswered questions hanging fire, is almost certainly biased. SOMEONE assigned values to the variables in the program, and most of those variables are NOT fixed across the entire scientific world.

So let us not be surprised when a climate model shows exactly what its creator wants it to show.

At this point in time, climate models are just pictures illustrating what the programmer wants to say. And absolutely nothing more.

Computer models are good and useful things if you can validate the model and if you accept that there are limitations.

E.g. you can use models of transistors and other circuit elements and use them in programs which let you connect them in circuits and model the results. However, transistors are variable in their parameters and real circuits have problems like stray capacitance and inductance, thermal effects and so on, so while the models are useful and save time, no one would pretend that they told the absolute truth and if you built the circuit, it would always work as the model said.

Climate models are very much more complicated, as the system is chaotic with multiple inputs and feedbacks which are not well understood, for instance, long-term thermal oscillations in the oceans. The fact that they didn't predict the recent cooling trend shows that they need considerably more work.

Using a circuit simulation as a useful tool with accepted limitations and with limited consequences, if it turns out to be wrong, is one thing. Using very much more ambitious simulations, modeling something immensely more complicated and spending trillions on what they say, is quite another.