UK Government Chief Scientific Advisor - fundamental uncertainty in climate science

Why leave out the Wegman report which comes to no such conclusion? In addition, the NAS report is internally contradictory. See Climate Audit, McIntyre's blog for a full explication of these panels and their conclusions.

More recent events have forced revisions of Mann's 1998/99 work, so the point is really moot.

 

like a new global warming "peer review"...in a hiking mag?

 

Does this paragraph make sense to anyone ?
The Prof says science is only 90% certain,but we should all fly in planes with a 10% chance of landing safely, because inaction is bad?
What the hell is saying?He makes no sense.
Anyway,who is going to board a plane with less than 99.99999% chance of landing safely?
But civilization should transfer a large portion of its wealth to control a greenhouse gas which scientists are not certain about the effects of?
We should board the plane without certainty of landing?
Great.
Fix the plane ,then fly.



''Professor Beddington said that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction: “Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of landing?â€"

 

So a few mistakes were made. None of this changes the FACT that AGW is real, dangerous, and worse than we suspected! Just ask any one of the scientists in the consensus -or ask the mainstream media in the USA or the head of the EPA or Obama, etc.

(Icarus, the above is sarcasm.)

Now, as to why AGW,sadly, will require a wooden stake, a silver bullet or the death of a generation to finally kill:
William M. Briggs, Statistician Why Global Warming Won’t Go Away: Inertia

...how often do you hear of a scientist changing his mind? We all remember the words of Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.â€
The NGOs who currently bask in the warming will not go gentle into that good night. They will not suffer their funding to be cut off. Look for them to increase the frequency of their missives. Negative adjective use in their ads will rise by 42% a year. Tempers will flare, even as the sun does not (who doesn’t love a bad pun?).
Politicians, always the quickest to discern the zeitgeist and sniff out trends, while they might deemphasize “climate change†will shift their rhetoric to “environmental justice.â€
In five words, global warming is big business. It is too big to fail.

 

good stuff thanks for the post!

 

Another brilliant article from Marc Sheppard

IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks

American Thinker- Print Article

I don't expect those in the 'true believers' camp on AGW to actually read this and follow his links to various corresponding articles from around the globe. But, those of you who utilize critical thinking might enjoy it.

and for those interested in the "peer review" issue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

 

Re: Another brilliant article from Marc Sheppard

From the AT link:

...Back in 1989, future Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group 2 (WG2) lead author Stephen Schneider disclosed several tricks of the trade to Discover magazine:

To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.

​

And according to MIT's Richard Lindzen's 2001 Senate subcommittee testimony, that's precisely what he witnessed as a Third Assessment Report (TAR) lead author. Among the atmospheric physicist's revelations was the fact that contributing TAR scientists -- already facing the threat of disappearing grant funds and derision as industry stooges -- were also met with ad hominem attacks from IPCC "coordinators" if they refused to tone down criticism of faulty climate models or otherwise questioned AGW dogma. I suppose that's one way to achieve the "consensus" the IPCC loudly boasts of...

Reality is a hard pill to swallow for those who need it most. We still see threads here where the AGW believers seriously discuss the need for global governance (blithely ignorant of the threat this poses) to solve non-existant problems - and they are supported in their delusion by this site's powers that be. In short, they won't read the linked article and a moderator will be along shortly to close this thread because it 'insults' some specially protected members with the truth.