Interesting article, but there are so many climate theories it's hard to know who to follow.

http://www.mesaazcpa.com

This is a spoof, isn't it?

Put it simply for you. Gravity, relativity and evolution aren't going to fleece us of our hard earned cash on a lie.

Gravity, relativity and evolution are based on facts and figures, climate change is based on figures of convenience and hacked computer programmes.

Simple enough for you?

Give up its over refer to climategate

I personally feel it has a lot more to do with solar activity than CO2. I don't think that makes me a sceptic [sic], denier or conspiracy theorist - but maybe just sane.

It's ironic that you've chosen gravity and general relativity as two of your examples.

For more than 200 years, people believed Newton's theory of gravity - that two objects attract each other in proportion to their masses divided by the square of their distance. It was mathematically elegant and correctly predicted almost everything. It's still taught in schools today. When the orbit of Mercury didn't quite match its predicted path, most scientists assumed that the data was being badly measured.

Unfortunately, the theory of gravity wasn't actually true. Einstein's Field Equations, the mathematical lynchpin of general relativity, showed that as objects approach relativistic speeds then Newton's equations are insufficient.

The EFEs correctly predicted the perihelion precession of Mercury, but scientists weren't totally happy with all the predictions of general relativity until they could be fully tested in the 1960s, nearly 50 years later. In fact, time dilation experiments were still ongoing in the 1990s - all to try and prove Einstein right.

All that said, and there have been quantum theorists for the last 100 years who aren't happy with any of this relativity stuff at all because things don't seem to behave as they should at the quantum level. This is why people are still looking for a Grand Unified Theory, which will presumably replace both the theory of gravity *and* the theory of relativity.

Worst blog ever.

There is evidence for gravity - lots - for relatavistic theory - lots - and evidence for evolution - lots - although all that evidence also fits ID. I like that theory, it's fun. But all AGW has is this double secret dataset that we now learn is composed wholly of "corrected" data, the originals having being accidentally thrown out by a Mrs Smith, a cleaning lady, in 1980. And *apart* from that, all we have are models. Mehdi, I build models - and let me tell you, computer models *cannot* predict the future. A good model - a fabulous model - will just about match the present. After a couple of tweaks.

AGW is garbage.

Oh dear me - another hilarious article from the NS

Will you be forecasting next week's Lottery numbers as well? Can't wait.

Still my favourite article is this one - prescient as ever

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

And the best quote from it is "...That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready..."

Unseen

It is not about guilty or innocent, or who has the best lawyer - science doesn't work like that. It is about weight of evidence, probabilities.

There is vast robust literature giving weight to AGW. It would only take one robust paper to overturn it all, this has not been done. Given the importance and the ramifications to the planet, there is much research being conducted (particularly in attribution studies and climate sensitivity).

Nothing, nada, zero, zilch has come out of any of these counter-theories to AGW. Therefore, it would be prudent to tread very carefully in an experiment that humanity has not done before, we have one test-tube, after all.

Besides, we will have to learn to adapt to a warmer and wetter world (as we are seeing in our life-times), and to live and grow in a more sustainable way. Why take the risk?

David,

Once again, I believe in AGW. The mechanism is extremely plausible, and the data looks pretty good. Given the consequences of being wrong vs the consequences of being right, it's sensible to act to limit the human impact on the environment.

But AGW is not proven. This isn't hard experimental science - like physics or physical chemistry. It is more like a lot of medical science: the best theory based on our current understanding of the data. Like medical science, our data is actually very poor, the system we're modelling is impossibly complex, and some of our recent observations don't fit the theory particularly well.

Now if this actually *was* hard science, then all of that would be a problem for the theory, like the Mercury perihelion problem.

But it is precisely because the model is so sketchy that scientists aren't that troubled by - eg - a few recent years of cooling. Some short-term cooling isn't a major challenge, because they know that the model is incomplete anyway and the overall trend is rising temperatures. Just like someone dying after the Swine Flu vaccine doesn't mean we should stop vaccinating.

The point is that climate science is far from the cold absolutes of the purer mathematical /experimental sciences. Additionally, climate science (unlike medical science) can't rigorously test theories through clinical trials. Instead, it necessarily relies mainly on historical data, with all the statistical and epistemological problems that brings.

Part of the problem is well-intentioned scientists have failed to communicate this to the wider world. If AGW is presented as a simple absolute, then when there's a bit of cooling it suddenly looks like the whole thing is a lie. If it is instead presented as the dominant trend in a complex system then it actually becomes more robust.

Unseen

Understanding and knowledge of the physics and chemistry of the enhanced greenhouse effect is well established. They are not soft sciences (cf: political science, psychology, etc).

Maths is not a science. It is a tool that scientists use to describe certain processes. Moreover, in science, there is no absolute 100% proof that so many so called 'sceptics' want or need before they take risk management action. In other words, science is not like maths where you can prove 1 + 1 = 2. We can say we are 90 - 95% confident that a certain outcome will occur, we will never say we are 100% sure. Again, it will only take one very robust piece of evidence to overturn AGW - this has not been presented (yet) but they should keep trying.

The models are extremely complex, but their predictive capacity is getting better, particularly with access to more advanced technology and computing power. For example, when the AR5 comes out, we will have better resolution to define regional trends in climate - good for business and strategic planning, don't you think?

However, and this is important, AGW does not rest on computer modelling. We need computers to do the arithmetic, to do the sums on the data that we already have, and have already observed.

I agree with much of what you have to say, and you are right - scientists need to communicate their findings to the general population better. However, political ideology and religious dogma hijack the 'scientific debate', which contrary to what many people may think, is very robust, within the scientific community.

Interestingly, when the so called 'sceptics' are asked how the 'science' can be communicated better, they can't proffer anything better than the IPCC's process (right or left wing think-tanks, media shock-jocks or the popular press and blogosphere, are not options, imho).

The so called 'sceptics' certainly can't suggest a more robust process than the scientific method as documented in reputable published journals, nor can they offer anything better than the world wide web of Science academies and institutions, all of which say that AGW is real and that policy makers, captains of industry and 'joe-six-packs' should be taking seriously.

Wow, quite shocking. You don't go into details of AGW theories. Instead you put us in the same pool with Holocaust deniers etc etc. So, AGW is 100% proved??? You have to acknowledge at least that there's trouble in the science camp with regard to peer-review, data collection and causality to name a few. This article of yours presents no arguments, just bla bla bla...

Mehdi - AGW is similar to the Koran.

IPCC 1: TAX
The Infidels creating global warming shalt pay the Jizya/Carbon tax, wherever
ye find them.

Regardless of your opinion on AGW (or even Global Warming itself), it should be fairly obvious that we are currently experiencing global climate change. Here in the UK, over the past few decades the quantity and longetivity of snow has declined, whereas the intensity of storms has increased (nowadays, almost every year a community somewhere in the UK suffers 'unprecedented' flooding).

So rather than worrying excessively over the potential causes of this, surely it's better to plan for the future and devise adaptation strategies for whatever the future may hold?

For a start, energy efficiency and increased usage of renewables reduces our usage of non-renewable energy sources - so that they last longer before heading beyond peak productivity (and therefore start becoming more expensive to extract) - and may reduce the demand for new power stations full stop. The population of this country is still growing, so presumably its energy demands are too. And new power stations tend to have a high NIMBY factor - fossil fuel, nuclear and wind alike are often detested by the local community - and with several existing nuclear plants likely to be decommissioned within the next decade, the thorny problem of how to replace their generating capacity won't go away any time soon.

Then, especially in the light of recent events, money should be targeted at flood-prone areas to upgrade their storm sewer network - in particular installing non-return valves on both arms wherever storm and waste sewers meet, so if the storm sewers are filled above capacity, they don't dump the excess water into the waste sewers and overload them.

I believe that the reality is somewhere between the two...both sides are a bit extreme. But glad to hear that China appears to be getting on board.
http://www.taxlawyer101.com

The reason gravity and calculus and all the other non-controversial "theories" don't attract cranks and other deniers is because they don't stipulate that the strongly held political prejudices of these people are actually wrong and delusional.

Evolution only attracts controversy because it makes the case that God doesn't have to exist (although the two are compatible), which offends many people because they strongly believe that a god-like being created the earth and don't like being told that they could be wrong.

Likewise, Climate change wouldn't be half as much an issue if it didn't mean there are political consequences. Climate change means that there are logically more taxes and government regulations on the way, which to some people (such as the deregulating, tax-cutting ex-chancellor Nigel Lawson) is anathema.

The reason these supposedly "scientific" critiques are raised is not because they actually have any scientific merit or basis in reality, but because they allow the biased and ignorant a shield of supposed rationality and reason. In actual fact, it's just their prejudices and emotions driving it.